csuzor

I have read so many different opinions on dynamic range, that I want

to ask the question straight: Who has done, and where can we read,

tests on dynamic range of the popular dSLRs?

 

I imagine that the top end of dynamic range is fairly straight

forward, because that is basically when the captor for that color is

saturated... but on the low end, if a captor can store energy

equivalent to just a few photons hitting it, and the sense amp can

record that level as significantly different than the background

noise level, then very low levels of light could still produce

reasonable detail. So the low end would be very difficult to

quantify, because it is the level of light where noise drowns out the

actual image being recorded. And that would depend on temperature and

physics...

 

Can I conclude that wide dynamic range actually is dependent on low

levels of noise?

When I saw the announcement for this lens, I immediately sold my 24-120VR, whose "raison d'etre" no longer exists. For a DX camera, this is a winner if MTF charts are anything to go by. I did buy a 28-80/2.8 instead for portraits (I need the shallow DOF), and I will use primes for critical photos (landscapes, architecture).

 

What I am saying is, this lens looks good if that suits your shooting style, but it doesnt replace faster zooms or primes.

Humm, what is the advantage of the f1.2 if you already have the f1.4? Or do you already know the bokeh will be better? I am sure they are both soft wide open... please enlighten me.

Nico, you're right, we've all missed that one: greater dynamic range! That has to be something we would all upgrade for, no more blown highlights or lost details. Currently around 5 f-stops, we could all use 10 f-stops or more, and then use PS to reduce that to a more typical range. It'll be tough for the designers of sensors, but that is their real challenge, not 20+ mp in a DX size.

Here's a couple of ideas:

 

LCD image preview: Why not have the LCD actually display the image as it will be taken, instead of the just the viewfinder? A simple 250k sensor to match the LCD, that comes reasonably close the capability of the actual sensor, picking up the same image as the viewfinder with a partially reflective mirror (or switchable between viewfinder and LCD)? I sometimes have to shoot in odd angles, and looking into the viewfinder can be troublesome, and tiring on the eyes... I like the switchable LCD/viewfinder on my video camera, dSLRs should have it as well.

 

Is the D2X really weather-proof? I like to sail, but I wouldn't take my D2H out in bad conditions... anyone use their camera in the rain??

 

Obviously, 24x36 sensor, but that is up for debate.

 

Viewfinder could be bigger? Or is that impossible with a DX sensor?

 

Finally, my favorite: eye controlled AF spot. My old Canon had it, and it was fantastic. You could actually follow a subject and maintain focus, or change subject, without having to work magic with your thumb like the Nikon. Give me 30 or so AF spots, and eye-control, that would be awesome.

 

Now, back to reality.

It should work fine... maybe something difficult about the subject? Can you post the over-exposed photo?

There are a lot of people waiting for the 18-200... If you can't wait, the 24-120VR is fine, quite good from f8. Since you seem to need that "mid-range" zoom most, the 24-120VR might be the best best... If you also need wider, the 12-24 is good, and if you need longer, 70-200VR or AFS300/4. That's 3 lenses, low total cost, and you may find the 24-120 might spends most of its time on your camera.

I couldnt understand why those real-life photos were so soft @f2.8, when the test shots of the bookshelf were reasonable when compared the 50/1.8...

 

I found the problem: I have been using AF-C and Focus Priority with Dynamic Area AF, not Single Area AF, and with moving kids, I believe the AF sensor locked on moving arms or toys or brother / sister, rather than the selected AF spot! I'll switch to Single Area AF and move the camera to follow the focus point.

 

When the AF spot is good, the lens is soft at f2.8 but usable if necessary (with a little more sharpening in PS), and sharpness is OK by f4, and great at f5.6. Quite similar to Shun's photos with his 28-70/2.8.

 

I think I can rest easy now, get some sleep, and just enjoy this lens. As they say, the problem is sometimes behind the viewfinder. But I'll keep the prime handy for really critical landscape shots or indoor "no-flash" shots.

 

Anyone have good experiences with the current 35/2 at wide apertures? As good as the 50/1.8?

OK, back to shooting bookshelves with a tripod! I adjusted a big book for focus, and 2 other books 1in back and 1in front, to check for focus plane error. Good news is, no focal plane error, the center book is always sharpest.

 

Tokina 28-80/2.8 vs Nikon 50/1.8: @f1.8, 50 slightly better than 28-80 @f2.8. @f2.8, 50 much better than 28-80. @f4, 50 slightly better than 28-80. @f5.6 or f8, equivalent

 

28-80/2.8 vs 70-210/4-5.6: @f2.8, 28-80 very soft. @f4, 70-210 much better than 28-80. @f5.6 or f8, slight resolution advantage to 28-80

 

Thanks to Shun, he emailed some photos from the Nikon 28-70/2.8: f5.6 is better than f4 which is better than f2.8. The difference may not be as great as with my tokina, but I expected better from the Nikon. The f2.8 shot was so soft, we both thought it may be a focus issue... then again, maybe not!

 

Anybody want to convince us that their zoom at f2.8 is as sharp as it should be, on digital? Chris? David?

 

Otherwise, I will just stick to the Tokina and use it @f4+, and go to a prime when I need more light (or use my sb800). A rather dissapointing conclusion.

 

Thanks guys. Christophe Suzor

Thanks guys... I know the images need some work if I want to print them. My normal minimum workflow with CS2 is: NEF conversion with exposure adjust but no sharpen 16bit aRGB, levels, curves if needed, hue/sat, noise reduction, sharpen, convert to sRGB and send to online print shop.

 

I wanted to post these images at 100% with nothing done, because these are tough conditions: low light outdoors (no flash), aperture wide open. But if the image is not reasonably sharp to start with, the final print (if I got that far) is nothing to show off.

 

The focus point is the eye area, d2h vertical with off-center focus point (I only use the cross AF points) on the eyes. I have 3 of these same shots, AF-C mode, and they are all identical, so I believe the focus plane is correct.

 

Do I understand that you all believe I should not be expecting better performance from a zoom wide open? I have to use it @f4 or use primes? Would a film or FF really be better (isn't this a lens limitation)?

and at f4<div></div>

You may have seen my other post on the tokina 28-80, and I am very

dissapointed with the performance @ f2.8. I bought this lens to get

shallow DOF, replacing a 24-120VR, but my shots at f2.8 are so soft I

consider them unusable. So I am ready to go back to Nikon, but I read

that @ f2.8 all zooms are soft... but how soft? As soft as the

Tokina?? See the pictures, direct conversion from NEF, 0 sharpening.

My 50/1.8 @f2.8 is only a little sharper, just usable.

 

I also read that the 17-55 is better than the 28-70 @ f2.8, but I

don't need the 18-24 range (I have the 12-24) and I really need the

50-70 (or more) range (portraits). Should I give up the 55-70 range

and get the 17-55 (currently D2H, no plans to go back to film)

 

I'd like someone to tell me, the 28-70 will be much sharper @f2.8

than these photos show, that the sharpness difference between f4 or

f5.6 and f2.8 is not that much. This tokina makes me feel I have a

softener filter on @ f2.8 !

 

Thanks for any advice.<div></div>

Update on the 28-80/2.8. I took a couple hundred shots today around town with it, and a few critical shots to compare it with the AF50/1.8D.

 

You really have to want CA to make it happen, by shooting a dark object against a bright sky, at wide aperture, otherwise there is none.

 

For sharpness, the 28-80 out-resolves my D2H at f5.6 or f8 every time, and is at least as sharp as the 50/1.8 from f4. At f2.8 the 50/1.8 is a little sharper, but not at f2 or f1.8. It is always easy to spot the 28-80 f2.8 shot at 100% magnification on LCD screen, but you need 400% magnification to spot the f4 shot relative to the f5.6 or f8, or to find any differences between the 2 lens. If you upsize the f4 shot by 400% in PS with Bicubic Smoother, the f4 shot at 100% becomes far superior to the f8 shot at 400% (what I am saying is that the lens is not limiting the resolution, the D2H 4mp sensor is the limiting factor).

 

I have some shots with the sun, and flare is remarkably well controlled. Better than I am used to with 18-70 or 24-120VR.

 

I am a little confused about low light areas, the 28-80 seems to bring more detail from the low light areas, as if they weren't as dark as with the 50/1.8... it is less contrasty. Is that good or bad?

 

Now, D2H and 50/1.8 are not the best tools for a real evaluation of the 28-80/2.8, but the 28-80/2.8 is clearly a reasonable choice until I can save for the D2X. I was ready to return it if the tests today were bad, but I'll be keeping mine a while longer. Until Nikon releases a AFS VR f2.8 in this zoom range!

 

If anyone still has doubts, email me for pictures.

 

Roberto, the Sigma 28-70 is worse from what I have read http://www.tawbaware.com/sigma_tokina_test1.htm . I guess what we are seeing is a manufacturing QA issue, maybe you came across a bad series, or another manufacturing site.

Hmm, Roberto, interesting. My 28-80 is a little soft wide open, much less than my 50/1.8 wide open, and by f4 it is as good as the 50/1.8 in sharpness, but less contrasty and better bokeh. I've had it just a few days, and done mostly portraits, so I haven't seen the problems you mention. I bought it with the recommendations I saw here http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=236 but I am a little worried now, I'll be doing some more critical shooting and comparisons this weekend. What is your preferred lens in this range? (is the Nikon 28-70/2.8 up to your standards, or primes only?)

These are great lens! If anyone is still hesitating over these focal

length ranges, thinking the Nikon is over-priced, look to Tokina. The

12-24/4 is well known, at least equal to the Nikon. The 28-80/2.8 is

also excellent, sharpness increases from OK at f2.8 to excellent at

f5.6 (like all lens?). Bokeh is also excellent. IF AF is fast on D2H

(as fast as an AF-S lens), but probably slower on Dnn. One Touch

Focus Clutch is nice, it's a different approach but works well

(beware older Focus clutch mechanism, not as easy to use). And both

are half the price of the Nikon.

This one is ideal for only a d70 and 18-70, Lowepro.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001XE0PC/sr=1-23/qid=1130915958/ref=sr_1_23/103-9760634-5627036?%5F

Based on what we know, which would you choose? Or more precisely, who

feels that 1x D2X is better than 2x D200 (or better than 1x D200 and

a nice new lens)?

 

Apart from the obvious upgrade philosophy (have a D1/D2H then upgrade

to D2X, or have a D100/D50/D70 then upgrade to D200) based on "look

and feel", what else is there?

 

Is the AF Multi-CAM 2000 expected to be much better than the 1000?

 

Will the SB800 preflash cause blink-eyes on the D200? Will the flash

exposure be as precise as with the D2 series?

 

Does the D200 viewfinder seem smaller to peep through (despite its

reasonable spec)?

 

Will it shoot NEF and high-qual JPEG simultaenously? Is that a deal

breaker?

 

Will the weight and size advantage be significant enough? (advantage

disappears with MB-D200)

 

AI aperture ring??

 

 

My question is serious, I have the D2H and am saving for the D2X, but

the time to save just got halved with the D200, potentially.

 

 

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/NikonD200/Images/sidebyside01.jpg

 

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/NikonD200/Images/sidebyside02.jpg

Shooting a scene with sky in matrix mode does produce some changing brightness of the sky, as clouds move in and out... but in manual mode, my d2h shows no difference in sky tones.

 

Are you sure your workflow does not try to re-adjust the levels for every shot (like in RAW conversion)? The camera will record what it thinks should be the better exposure, and the raw converter will use this to adjust each shot, unless you fix exposure to 0.

 

As for switching to Canon, if you really want to, do it, but not for this reason. The problem is not the camera. And I'll offer $1100 for yours.

Assuming you are using d70 or d50, use the Fv-lock function. Press the AE-lock button to fire the pre-flash, and when ready press the shutter release to shoot the main flash. You can keep the Fv (Flash value) locked, and shoot again without the pre-flash, or press the AE-lock button again to release the Fv-lock.

 

The D2 series do not have a noticeable pre-flash.

Basic advice: with the D70, leave auto-iso ON and set to 1/125 (or 1/60 if you have a VR lens). Use "A" mode, and select F5.6 outdoors, F4 indoors, until you know why you need something else. Use AF-C mode, and always make sure one of the focus points is on the spot of interest. Avoid the builtin flash as much as possible.

 

Then take 1000 photos, and look at them closely, you'll begin to understand what you need to do next.

After a closer look, its all about megapixels.

 

Downsizing a D2X image to 4mp, produces a much better image than a native D2H photo (that is a surprise to me, but it makes sense now from these images)

 

Noise is not better on the D2X, maybe even worse, but since images can be downsized, noise can be reduced, whereas upsizing a D2H image produces terrible noise.

 

There are comments about better color saturation on D2H, which surprises me because I find saturation needs to be boosted on mine (and others have called D2H color sat very mild)... but that's a simple tweak in PS anyway.

 

My conclusion: D2H OK when upsizing is not necessary, but I need to save for the D2X too!

Thanks for the discussions, and the link, very interesting. I didn't mean to start a war, I have a d2h and I like it.

 

In many cases the author on the above link, downsized the D2X images to compare to D2H, I would have been tempted to upsize the D2H images... but he does provide some examples that can I can upsize myself.

 

I'll need to look closely, but it seems the megapixel resolution shows a clear advantage to d2x if cropped and magnified, and the noise shows an advantage to d2h (at uneven magnifications)... Could it be that a d2h portrait would be better than a d2x portrait, if cropping is not necessary? For architecture or landscape, though, pixel advantage is a big plus.

I've searched everywhere, but cannot find any images posted to

compare D2H (or D2Hs) to D2X...

 

I am sometimes looking to crop some photos, but reducing a 4mp shot

to 1 or 2mp, makes it unprintable at the size I want. I always

upscale to 6mp or more during raw conversion.

 

I've also read that the D2H is very noisy, sure enough I use noise

reduction almost all the time.

 

Are these good reasons to save for the D2X? I am sure some of you

have made a couple of test shots of real scenes, comparing the 2

cameras... can you post them somewhere?

 

Thanks, Christophe

For those using online print shops, do you send them sRGB jpegs? Do you calibrate your images with their ICC profiles?

 

The shops in france have not been able to answer my questions, whether they expect embedded sRGB, or no profile (and default to sRGB or something else), or whether they can handle the adobeRGB I use. They haven't got any ICC profiles either. I tried the 3 biggest online shops, including the default Adobe Photoshop print online shop, and they haven't got a clue what my questions mean!

Yes, "a capable camera with a less than spectacular service record". A big step-up from other lesser nikons, the D2H is worth the failure risk for all but the most demanding professional, who probably has 2 bodies anyway.

 

Now, going on holidays for 1 week, with only 1 d2h, I feel a little nervous about this risk... enough to get a 2nd?