ilkka_nissila

<p>Lulu James.</p><div></div>

<p>Fatoumata Diawara on Saturday at Pori Jazz.</p><div></div>

<p>I checked DXO's tests of the D7100 and D5300 and dynamic range at ISO 100 is slightly better in the D5300 but at higher ISO settings (200 and up) the DR is better in the D7100 so the D7100 files should behave better when shadows are lifted (apart from ISO 100). Clearly Sony has no monopoly in sensor technology; Nikon seems to get good performance in their cameras irrespective of sensor manufacturer and yet Sony in their own cameras often have worse performance than Nikon using supposedly the same sensor base ... I think Nikon's own engineering and design has a considerable role in the image quality that they achieve in their cameras. I find the D7100's image quality excellent for a DX camera; although the tonal quality and detail isn't quite as rich as with D800 it is very, very good and the NEF files are easy to edit with good results. If anything the D800 has problems with pattern noise at ISO 6400 in the blue channel this becomes evident when shooting in warm artificial light and colour correcting the result; a lot of shadow noise appears with grid like pattern. It will be interesting to see if this problem has been solved in the D810 or if I need to get a 16MP Nikon to solve the problem. (In daylight and the bluish light of twilight the D800 is ok at ISO 6400 but it is for me much more common that I need ISO 6400 in artificial light than natural light).</p>

<p>Ok true, but what is nice is that saving changes doesn't take a long time as it can take in NX2. I suppose you could make a copy of the NEF file under a different name and keep different edits associated with the two different files.</p> <p>One thing that is a bit annoying with NX-D is that it doesn't seem to offer the option of storing the TIFF in the directory of the original NEF file, rather the directory that is used is in the preferences and I must always go change it on a case by case basis to keep the files together.</p>

<p>I have AF assist light turned off normally so I don't have a lot of experience with this, but I suspect the issue could be that when you have a CLS flash connected via TTL cord on the hot shoe, the camera may assume the flash or the cord (SC-29) will emit the assist light, and the on-camera assist light is not needed. Just a guess. The SC-28 doesn't have the light on the part that goes on the hot shoe but the SC-29 does. Does the SB-800 show the assist light active?</p> <p>Another possibility is that to get AF assist light to function, single shot autofocus mode (AF-S) must be on; I recall it doesn't function in AF-C mode.</p>

<p><em>Also, when just browsing and playing around with the setting it always keep the changes, you can't choose between Discard or Save the changes as VNX2 has. I don't like because I can damage a good work or get lost.</em><br> <br> The NEF files are not modified by the edits so in principle you shouldn't lose the original (the delete key does place the file in the recycle bin and doesn't ask confirmation by default). Adjustments that you make to the image are just instructions stored elsewhere and you can cancel them by selecting Adjust / Restore to get back to your original image converted using default settings.<br> <br> <em>The crop function is really weird using 5:4, 6:6, and so aspect ratio</em></p> <p> <br> It is a bit weird but it seems to obey my will after some struggles. Capture NX2 had one of the best crop functions in any image editor I knew about until Photoshop finally caught up with it.<br> </p>

<p>NX-D seems to open the file quickly for viewing and editing (faster than NX2) but transfer to Photoshop takes about 2-3 times as long as with NX2. It seems likely that I will be using NX-D as a browser for new image directories that I make; also for initial grading of shots, deleting most of the bad ones and making the first adjustments (picture control, white balance, tone curve). Then I'll run a batch process to convert the remaining NEF files into jpg or tiff and let the computer churn it out while I do something else. I can then continue editing the converted image files with PS to make regional adjustments and retouching etc. and finally make prints either directly or through LR as a batch process (LR makes it easier to put multiple images on one page). I guess I am not afraid of a complicated workflow. ;-) I prefer NX-D to using View NX2 + Capture NX2 as there are fewer steps to work through, though it is regrettable that in the first release version adjustments in old edited files are not obeyed. I think this is something Nikon is working on but did not finalize in time for the D810 release date.</p> <p>I like NX-D so far, to me it is a cleaner program than NX2 and doesn't hi-jack the computer as NX2 does in a way (on my Windows 7 system) by overlaying its tool windows on top of other software which I'm trying to use. I like the fact that browsing and making the main adjustments to NEF files is now quicker. I hope that they can make the transfer to PS faster.</p>

<p><em>Many people just lost a bunch of money on CNX. Another 'elegant' way to get rid of customers and having them ripped off.</em></p> <p>Many people over the years have requested Nikon to give their raw conversion software for free. I think it is a good thing that this happened though I have a license of NX2 and use it (and will continue to do so on older, edited files). </p> <p><em>This statement alows nikon to nose around on your system wherever and whenever they like to,</em></p> <p>Well this isn't likely, and pretty much all software nowadays do some checking and reporting of the system you're using them on, and this includes the operating system. </p>

<p><em>a 50mm lens on a DX camera at f/4 with the subject 20 ft away will have a total depth of field of 8.04 ft. A FX camera with a 75mm lens at f/4 and a subject 20 ft away will have a depth of field of 5.22 ft. Clearly the DX camera has the advantage of a significantly greater depth of field.</em></p> <p>If it is desired, the FX user can stop down to match the depth of field of the DX setup, and keep the same shutter speed by increasing ISO to compensate. In the typical case the image quality degradation due to increasing ISO is similar to the losses experienced by using a reduced size sensor (assuming a perfect lens). So in practice the FX user can get the same depth of field as the DX user without losing more image quality than would have been lost by switching to the smaller format camera. However, in the opposite end of the depth of field spectrum, FX does have advantages since at some point shorter lenses cease to be available in faster apertures and the significance of aberrations on the image quality from the DX sensor image is increased by the 1.5x magnification factor if the goal is to make a print of the same size. There aberrations are especially prominent at wide apertures on short lenses. However, a landscape photographer is in most cases likely to use mid to small apertures, except when working with long lenses where vibrations can force the use of a wider aperture. The D810's electronic first curtain shutter could prove useful in such cases; it will be interesting to see its impact in field use.</p>

<p>I looked up stuff about the electronic first curtain shutter. So far I only found that it is activated using a custom setting and works with M-UP mode (only) so you basically use a cable release to trigger it. I wonder if there would be a way to set it up to work with exposure delay mode, and how the electronic shutter behaves in LV mode. There is a new Qc mode, is that taking advantage of the electronic shutter to make quieter operation, or is it something else? Does Qc work in live view or out of it?</p>

<p><em>Nikon always seems to be dropping support for older cameras with their software</em></p> <p>Could you give some examples?</p>

<p><em>If that qualifies as "influential," then photography isn't going anywhere.</em></p> <p>I agree.</p> <p><em>There seems to be an idea that if one becomes successful they must have wronged society or destroyed the purity of the art</em></p> <p>The argument is not against success, but pushing gear beyond what is actually needed to do good work, and also against the premise that having (mostly other photographers) following you in social media equates social influence and is all that photographers can hope to achieve.</p> <p>Real social influence is out there in the world, and there <em>are</em> photographers who reach it and make an impact. I'm not saying <em>none </em>of the people on the list have had social influence; some are real photographers with meaningful work. Just that the selection as a whole is not based on social influence on the world, but something else, something that is in line with the goals of the Eyefi company (which sells wireless connectivity products; I wonder how these are related to photographers posting content on social media ...;-)).</p> <p>Instead of first world problems such as how to improve the lighting in your portraits, there are photographers who are concerned about social issues in the world, such as (social and economic) inequality, war, abuse (of people and power), etc. and are trying to change that or at least make people aware of the issues. There are also photographers who focus on the bright side of life and human achievements and have influence by motivating people to carry on.</p>

<p><em>Nikon seems to refuse to send these lenses with the ability to control tilt/shift independently (Canon is better in this regard). </em><br /> <br /> Canon has independent movement axis for tilt and shift in their 17mm TS-E and 24mm TS-E II lenses, but not on the 45mm or the 90mm. <br /> <br /> <em>I need this lens to be able to tilt AND shift simultaneously. Can it do that? </em></p> <p><br /> Yes, but the direction of the tilt and shift are by default in orthogonal (90 degree angle from each other), so you can't tilt and shift in the same direction, in the default configuration. The lens can be adjusted to work in a different way in service but then the tilt and shift axis are then parallel. By the way the Novoflex bellows I mentioned is parallel movements only. I have never found this to be a problem; I take advantage of what movements are available and obviously don't use movements that don't exist. <br /> <br /> <em>what kind of aperture control </em></p> <p><br /> It is more flexible in aperture control than the usual G Nikkors. You can adjust the absolute aperture on the lens aperture ring, or when the lens aperture ring is set to minimum aperture, the body sub-command dial is used to set the effective aperture (which takes into account extension). The aperture is fully automatic on D3 and newer higher end DSLRs but if you use an older camera (such as the F5), the aperture is closed and opened using a button on the lens itself. </p>

<p><em>1. Physical compatibility with my D800. By 'physical' I mean the flash protrusion. I just couldn't find any definitive info on that. Does the D800 body limit the movements in any way and if yes, how bad is it?</em><br /> <br /> The 45mm and 85mm PC-E are perfectly compatible with the D800. Only the 24 PC-E has minor issues which most people aren't bothered by, either.<br /> <br /> <em>2. Optical compatibility. 36MP is no joke.</em><br /> <br /> 36MP makes every lens resolve more detail than that same lens resolves on a lower resolution sensor. The 85 PC-E is not a particularly high contrast lens but it does make very sharp images, when the tilt and focus have been carefully adjusted.<br /> <br /> <em>3. Ghosting..</em><br /> <br /> Well, I have used this lens for many years and never made an image with a visible ghost using it.<br /> <br /> <em>Good rear element coating that knows how to handle sensor-to-glass-to-sensor reflections is a major time-saver in post-processing. </em><br /> <br /> All lens element-to-air surfaces are multicoated; the nano-coating is only applied on specific surfaces where it is seen to improve the results significantly. It is not applied on external surfaces of the lens.<br /> <br /> <em>4. Electronic compatibility</em><br /> <br /> It is fully compatible obviously. Metering with the mirror down (optical viewfinder in use) is affected by the tilt and shift so you cannot rely on metering to be accurate after movements have been applied. However, the live view image and histogram should display the correct exposure (when the exposure simulation mode is on; press ok to toggle between autogain and exposure simulation modes).<br /> <br /> <em>5. Durability.</em><br /> <br /> It is very rugged and durable, but of course it is not a good idea to willfully play football with it. There is no play (or drift) in the focusing ring in mine (it is quite firm) and each movement is accompanied by a lock to prevent drift in the tilt or shift. Do use the locks.<br /><br /> <em>6. Tube extensions and teleconverters.</em><br /> <br /> I don't think this is a good idea, but to be honest I haven't tried them with this lens. Since the movements affect the position of the rear element, some of the light may be blocked by the baffles in the extension tubes (if any), and the optical formula of the teleconverter may not work optimally either. If you zero the tilt and shift, you may have better success. As you approach 1:1 to handle a given angle between sensor plane and subject plane, you needquite a lot of tilt, and the tilt is restricted to 8.5 degrees if I remember correctly; at 1:1 (if you get there) you have to have the subject almost parallel to the sensor plane. Finally I find the lens to have optimal sharpness at mid magnifications, not at 1:2; application of tilt will mean the outer parts of the image circle will be used for image formation (they are a bit less sharp than the center); further increasing the magnification will likely make the optical quality of the lens seem insufficient. In light of these considerations, Nikon was wise to limit the lens to 1:2. At 1:1 if you want to shoot at significant angle to the subject and tilt to compensate, you need a bellows with considerable freedoms of movement and a corresponding large image circle lens. I would use the 85mm PC-E within its normal range of focus distances and magnifications. (At 1:1 you can use e.g. Novoflex castbal bellows with an appropriate lens and adapters). Novoflex sell a preassembled Schneider Kreuznach Apo Digitar 90mm f/4.5 for the bellows if you are interested in an alternative to the 85 PC-E. I don't have that lens however, so I can't comment on its optical quality. I do know that the PC-E Nikkors are much more practical to use in the field than the bellows, which is pretty good for studio work.</p>

<p>Even if the light is on a stand, the distance between the light and the (active) subject may vary from moment to moment, if the subject is e.g. a child running around, or an athlete performing. In such circumstances TTL can be invaluable. And if the situation is outdoors, it may demand greater flash energy (and faster recycle times) than what is given by a speedlight.</p>

<p><em>I don't remember anyone asking [...]</em></p> <p>Kodak's downfall has been discussed many times. I don't think it was feasible for a chemistry-based photography business to turn into a semiconductor-based photography business successfully, especially if the management is reluctant to accept what is going on. The Nikon Df has been discussed to ad nauseum. Nikon has historically made some products which are strongly desired by a small group of customers but not by the majority; the products are expensive because it is necessary in light of a small production. From what I have seen the Df is a well regarded among some highly experienced photographers and Nikon noted it was also selling well among young people who had not used this kind of a user interface. It doesn't take anything away from the existing offerings with a more "modern" user interface; it is offered <em>in addition</em> to them. Earlier cameras in this line include the FM3A (which was made quite late with digital cameras already in use). Suffice it to say, there are people who really like this type of user interface. It is funny as this is an instance where Nikon has gotten a lot of criticism for actually listening to their customers' requests. When you have many customers not everyone is going to like the same thing.</p> <p>I believe Sony's electronics business will definitely recover from this recession. They have developed many state of the art technologies and while others seem to have in many cases been able to produce them for less money (e.g. Samsung outsold Sony flat screen TV's at least at first it was because they were able to do it much cheaper, but they've got also more premium products now; the same seems to be true of Samsung vs. Apple in smartphones). Sometimes it is not the technology pioneer that will become the market leader. Sony has developed extraordinary sensors used in several brands' camera equipment. It is a success in itself. Whether it produces enough profit for shareholders is another matter. In my opinion the expectation of infinite growth is unrealistic (and environmentally unsustainable) and people should expect that sometimes production needs to be scaled down to match demand. That is not the same thing as failure if the products meet the remaining customers' expectations.</p> <p>With regards to Sony's role in making cameras themselves, I am constantly surprised that they introduce new types of interchangeable lens cameras without feeling the need to support them properly with a lineup of native autofocus lenses. Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Canon, Nikon do seem to understand the need for lenses. Also I am a little concerned about Sony's attitude to service (I had a bad experience in the past, though it was with their laptop, not a camera; the Sony AV/camera equipment that I have has worked flawlessly).</p>

<p>I would prefer to do this kind of shoot outdoors in the shade of a building which acts as a backdrop as well. This way you don't have to fight the sun or provide fill light, if it is a sunny day. On a cloudy day the light may be a bit less lively, but it should be soft enough again without it being mandatory to add light. But if you want to, you can of course add some flash light to add a sparkle to the eyes, it is just easier to start with good natural lighting on the subjects as a starting point.</p> <p>If you cannot find shade (on a sunny day) then things can be highly problematic. The subjects will squint their eyes and there will be high lighting contrast, and any flash light that you may add has a difficult time coping with the sun, at least if it is soft light you want to add. If you add a big reflector, the subjects will squint even more. With a smaller group, an arrangement indoors would probably work (the walls will provide the necessary shielding from sun), with some bounced flash light to provide soft frontal lighting to add to the window light that comes in on sunny days. But with a group of 30+ the interior would have to be quite spacious.</p> <p>I think setting up two lights with umbrellas etc. with necessary protection from wind (sand bags for the stands), triggers etc. it will get very complicated and the result is by no means a guaranteed success. So I would try to work with natural light in as far as possible, and add flash as an extra touch but don't rely on it alone to provide good lighting.</p>

<p>On my computer, opening up a 36MP NEF (lossless compressed, about 45MB file) with ACR into PS CC takes 3 seconds. The time to open up a 200MB TIFF from HD into PS CC is 1.5 seconds. Thus the disk read time of the NEFis a small fraction of the time it takes to convert it from a raw image into an RGB image in memory. What the small NEF should do is considerably reduce the time it takes to calculate the RGB image (since the dimensions are cut in half) whereas the file size does not significantly contribute to the total time of opening up a NEF file into RAM on my computer.</p> <p>This, I believe is the motivation of the small NEF implementation.</p>

<p>My guess is that if you set TTL -3.0 on one group, the system evaluates which parts of the scene are primarily affected by light from that flash, and assumes that you want those parts of the scene to be rendered dark (three stops under mid gray!). Other areas influenced by other lights will be exposed normally, or as instructed. If there are multiple flashes illuminating the same area of the picture then it must make some kind of compromise exposure of those areas. If in your scenario, both a group A set to TTL+0.0 and pop-up flash set to TTL-3.0 are lighting the foreground then it would become 1.5 stops underexposed by default.</p> <p>Anyway, it seems that your problem was solved.</p>

<p>I don't use CLS outside, so I wouldn't know what compensation to use (it uses light to communicate which basically means it is not really suitable for outdoor use since if the daylight overwhelms the optical control signal it can't see it properly, and outdoors there are normally no suitable reflecting surfaces to carry the signal from the commander to the flash). I use Elinchrom Quadras outside, they come with their own proprietary radio control system and the flash energy range (something like 6Ws to 400Ws) is more suitable to balance with daylight. It doesn't do TTL but the output is adjustable from the radio controller on the camera. So I don't have to go to the flash itself (in this case the battery pack) to make adjustments. Before, I would use speedlight + umbrella for outdoor portraits but I would often need to increase the number of flashes to 2-3 before it would give adequate light and even then the recycle times were long on a bright day (and modifiers available for small flash are too small to provide really soft light IMO). I would trigger the speedlights with a skyport which in this case is a simple radio trigger. But then if I wanted to adjust the total flash energy I would have to make the adjustment to each of the flashes (on a tri-flash behind a single umbrella), so it's awkward and time consuming especially if the flashes are positioned way up there such as might be needed for a large group shot. With a TTL capable radio trigger and three receivers I could have controlled the triplet of flashes from the camera whether it is in TTL or manual mode (and grouped together only one setting needs to be adjusted, not three). But I considered it not a good investment in this case since the flashes were running too hot anyway, it made much more sense to get a proper flash designed for outdoor use, which I did.</p> <p>I normally use CLS indoors e.g. when photographing a child playing around in the room, there is some window light swiping through the room, and I provide fill light with a TTL speedlight with umbrella on a stand typically in a corner of the room diagonally opposite to the window, where it is out of the way. I've tried manual flash for this, but TTL has been more consistent in this situation as the distance between the subject and the flash can vary quite a lot. Typically my flash compensation is +-1/3 stop, if there are large black or white areas in the frame then a bit more may be needed. Used in this way, with one TTL remote, CLS very rarely gives me any surprises. If I need to add another light, I set it on manual (multiple independent groups with TTL doesn't work well in my experience) but CLS still gives the advantage over the simple radio triggers that the output is adjustable from the SU-800 panel instead of climbing the stand or taking the flash down to make adjustments. But CLS has limited domain of application obviously. Advanced (CLS compatible) radio triggers would solve the distance issue and the too much ambient light issue, but it would do nothing to increase the flash energy of the speedlight to be more in range with bright daylight.</p> <p>Another application where radio TTL would be nice: I recently photographed a group of people sailing. It was a bright day with few clouds so a lot of the time fill light would have been useful, especially for some portraits against a sunset in the horizon. To provide some fill, a speedlight with TTL radio would have been nice, I could have set it to bounce the light from one of the white surfaces on the boat so that it is softer light. I could have asked someone to hold the flash while I hold onto the boat and shoot. TTL would make it easier to work quickly as situations change and also there is the matter of trying to stay on the boat if they're going against the wind. ;-) Manual trigger would be possible to use but unnecessarily time consuming and distracting from the main issues in photography, the content, etc. Also if the person holding the flash is not keeping it exactly steady the light provided would vary and I would always have to go the flash to make adjustments instead of doing it on the camera. If I'm lying on deck I don't want to have to do that.</p> <p>There are many other scenarios where TTL remote flash is useful. But of course everyone is free to choose the tools they find to work best for their own applications; I know many like manual flash. I just think it's very primitive to have to go to the flash itself to make the adjustments. What if the remote flash is far away, on the other side of a restaurant dining room at a wedding; on a tall pole? Without an advanced trigger that lets you make adjustments remotely, you would need to take it down to make changes. And even if you set the flashes correctly in the beginning, ambient light from the windows can change during the day and force adjustment in all the flashes used at the venue.</p> <p>Another thing that CLS (and radio-CLS) provides is the ability to sync at high speeds and therefore use fast apertures. Today I was shooting a portrait where the subject was standing in some tall vegetation / flower field and I needed to provide fill light on the face. With the Elinchrom flash, I was not able to make a correct exposure at an aperture larger than about f/4. This is because the trigger doesn't support high speed sync, something that the newer more advanced radio triggers do. True, I would have needed a second Quadra to provide enough light to compensate for the light loss (there are larger units that could be used to compensate) but still the fact of the matter is that with modern triggers and a battery powered flash with suitable maximum flash energy and a long flash duration, you can use high speed sync and open up the aperture to blur backgrounds more, e.g. for full body shots. With conventional triggers you cannot use large apertures in bright daylight. So arguing that simple radio triggers you can do everything that needs to be done is not convincing. There are many situations where the advanced triggering helps and provides more options to how flash can be used.</p> <p>I haven't used the B1 so I can't speak for it, but Joe McNally seems to be using one in China (mentioned in his blog) and seems happy with it. My concern with this flash is that all of the 3kg weight is in the flash unit itself, so the stand has to manage a very top heavy configuration. This is why I like the Quadra, the flash head itself is lighter than a speedlight (but 400Ws). They're a bit less expensive than the B1, too, but provide a bit less functionality. I am not suggesting the B1 is not a great flash - it may well be, just that for most of my needs I prefer the flash head to be lightweight.</p>

<p>The coatings are improved, which will probably do nothing to reduce the vignetting in the viewfinder but flare may be reduced and clarity improved. Although I initially didn't get excited about the Df viewfinder now I feel it is better (than the one in the D800/D800E; D810 remains to be seen); my short empirical study suggests I can focus more reproducibly using it and the image I see is very evenly lit whereas it is hard for me to see D800 viewfinder edges without vignetting in outer areas when I wear glasses (D3/D4 viewfinder no such problems). Of course I will check out the D810 viewfinder to see what kind of improvement there is; I am always happy to see them work on it at least. It is just sometimes a little odd that they don't put all the best features in one camera. As with lenses there is of course a degree of subjective assessment and it depends on glasses and facial shape as well, which one you end up preferring.</p> <p>Yes, the SU-800 takes some space, it is, however, much smaller and much lighter than the SB-700 or SB-910, and it offers a control panel which is nicer to use than having to go deep into the menus of the camera. Above all since the signal is IR transmitted the subject posing and looking towards the camera will not be lit by it visibly, or closing their eyes because of it, and I've always found it to be a pleasure to use ( the range is better also, but somewhat directional). Radio TTL controller units can be quite big also when they have a proper control panel. The latest Yongnuo TTL triggers cost about 80% less than Pocketwizard and they seem to be popular now. Notice also that initially Canon's radio system was more expensive than Nikon's SU-800+SB-910, now they are the same price or a little bit cheaper, so clearly the cost is not the main issue with implementation of it, but something else. "Not invented here" syndrome perhaps.</p> <p>If I'm completely honest I would like to see the flash and camera manufacturers collaborate on a standard that includes advanced wireless triggering. That way, even if some manufacturer develops a new system, it would be compatible with everything; I don't think anyone makes a radio TTL compatible triggering system for mirrorless cameras yet. The chaos of everyone developing their own incompatible systems has continued long enough.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The 45mm and 85mm PC-E work without limitations on the D800, and to my knowledge with all the E capable cameras (those without electronic aperture control the aperture is closed and opened from a button, e.g. on an F5). The 24mm PC-E has some limitations on some cameras, but e.g. on the D800 it can do a full shift up, just not in all diagonal directions. I find it mildly annoying to use on this camera, but it's possible to use it. On cameras without pop-up flash, it runs freely, but if you transfer the lens from e.g. D3, D4, or Df it may be left in a rotational position which the D800 doesn't allow, and it can be quite hard to fix if you don't happen to have the other camera (which is fully compatible with the lens) at hand to help move it into one of the positions where it can be mounted on a camera like the D800.</p> <p>I also think the pop-up flash should not exist in this type of camera, since it doesn't produce acceptable quality of light, and it is about the worst commander imaginable, spilling some light on the foreground of the image (even when it is set to M--, the sync flash is always there during the exposure), the ability to trigger remotes is limited in range, its use delays the exposure and after only a few shots it seems to need cooling down (the camera won't fire). Finally it tends to trigger eye closure reflex in the subjects. The SU-800 works much better as a CLS commander, less delay, more reliable, no eye closures caused by the trigger signal (since it's mostly IR). I think I would pay 500€ extra for a D810 with the pop-up removed and perhaps the Df viewfinder put in place of the current one. Many people now use radio triggering anyway, so I am not sure how many people <em>really</em> think using the pop up as a commander is a splendid idea. </p> <p>Instead of the pop-up, I would like to see an integrated or accessory radio control system for flashes (with integrated receivers) it would be much better than the current solution that mostly only works well in small, white rooms. If Nikon figures out how to integrate GPS/WiFi without compromising the strength of the body and maintain interference free operation of the rest of the camera, and have good reception and coverage, in that same place could be the flash control transmitter. On the other hand it is possible that an integrated trigger would not have the same kind of coverage as external devices can have (up to hundreds of meters in some cases). I don't have any real problem with the current system, as I use CLS (SU-800, SB-910 and SB-700) in small, white rooms where it works well, and elsewhere I trigger my flashes with the Elinchrom Skyport system, which has a really small trigger and lets me adjust the flash energy of Elinchrom flashes remotely (they have an integrated receiver). But time moves on and more and more people buy third party radio transmitters with CLS-like capabilities (including fast sync speeds, flash output energy control, and TTL) instead of using optical CLS, so what is the purpose of having redundant systems, the other which is preferred requiring the use of additional components on both the camera, and on the flash (one or both could be integrated IMO). These additional components are highly inconvenient in my opinion and in some cases people have reported imperfect operation due to the manufacturers having to reverse engineer the signaling protocol used by CLS (and some cameras are a little different in their timing of the signals, leading to incompatibilities with reverse engineered products). Some photographers feel it is too late for Nikon to integrate it now that the third party triggers work fairly well and are in widespread use, but I would still like to see them make "radio-CLS". Canon did introduce a flash (with built in radio receiver) and radio transmitter two years ago and I believe it has been well received.</p> <p>Returning to the topic of the PC-E Nikkors, I find them optically very good; the 24mm PC-E could be improved in so that it had less vignetting and a larger circle of coverage and less field curvature at longer distances, but as long as the photographer is aware of the field curvature and carefully focuses the lens with live view, checking the focus across the frame, results are quite good. The newer Canon TS-E 24mm Mk II has a better reputation optically and has more freedoms of movements, so an update would be very welcome, of course, but I don't think it's the highest priority for Nikon (it would be of interest to me, but these are among the smallest volume lenses that Nikon makes). A 17mm PC-E would be also nice to have though I mostly find the 14-24 to work nicely for me for interiors instead. I don't find fault in the 45mm PC-E or the 85 PC-E though the latter is slightly lower contrast and less vivid in colours than the other two (as it is not ED). This may be intentional as ED tends to produce colours that are a little too vivid for natural skin in portraits (notice that none of Nikon's purpose made portrait lenses is ED; these include all three FX 85mm primes, both DC Nikkors, and the 58mm f/1.4). Alternative rendition is offered in the 60mm, 85mm (DX) and 105mm AF-S Micro-Nikkors all of which are in fact ED. Different recipes for different applications, I suppose.</p>

Don, basically all lenses produce better results on the D800(E) and the D810 than on lower resolution camera (at low to intermediate ISO, and if detail is concerned also high ISO). But sometimes people zoom in to 100% and see problems and do not see that they would constitute negligible part of the final print, and so there is sometimes an impression that the 36 MP sensor is "more demanding". When evaluated in prints of equal size (two different cameras, the same lens and settings) the opposite is found: the quality from the 36 MP sensor is superior or equal, with any lens. Several lenses that disappointed me on 12MP FX now produce very good image quality with the 24 and 36 MP FX cameras (in the print or final application). So here there is nothing to worry about. Nikon doesn't design their lenses to win test chart contests but for subjective, pleasing overall image quality including careful design of aberrations to make pleasing results to the human eye and brain. For copying test charts or flat text, do choose one of those top lenses from DXO's list. I find only low correlation with real world findings and preferences of photographers. I have some of the top ranking lenses and wle they're sharp, of these only the 200/2II actually passes the test that I like the images from it. I have e.g.the 135mm f/2 apo sonnar and I thoroughly dislike the double lines it produced in out of focus areas of some f/2 shots that I made recently. None of my fast Nikkor primes produce such ugly results in similar context. I also find the Zeiss cold and technical, and lacking the kind of emotional quality that many Nikkors produce. But indeed the 135/2 Zeiss is extremely sharp, and it doesn't always produce poor out of focus rendering; t is just that that's not enough for me to quality as a lens that I want to pick up. I want a lens that gives a bit of magic to the image; a signature of its own. Of course, the Zeiss is a manual focus lens which limits its usefulness for the photography of moving subjects at f/2 or even f/2.8. I'm actually very eager to see Nikon's update of the 135/2 to AF-S. I have similar issues with the out of focus rendering of the 50/2 Makro Planar, again an extremely sharp lens, but at mid distances I find these double lines in out of focus backgrounds. Not so with the superb AF-S 60mm Micro-Nikkor, one of my very favorite lenses. Perhaps one of these days I have time to make and post a comparison to illustrate why mostly the Zeiss lenses mostly just sit in my closet while the Nikkors go with me everywhere. There are exceptions, of course, and sometimes I do use the Zeiss lenses for some landscape or macro subjects, but with recent Nikon primes, and also the 14-24/2.8, my impression of the results has been very positive and I use the Nikkors mostly now.

<p><em>Launching a 24MP camera that approaches the frame rate and buffer size of the big cameras is tough - I'm sure they'd lose sales. </em><br /> <em><br /></em>Many D4/D4s users buy it because it focuses consistently and produces a practical file size and gives (more) consistently high quality images in low light as well. A high density DX sensor is the least likely to focus consistently at high fps rates because it requires much higher precision from the AF system (and a DX user would more often have to shoot wide open since they can't go with as high ISO, leading to very tight focusing tolerances). This is probably one of the reasons why Nikon went with FX for the action body. It is easier to get to work well. I know several professional photographers who experimented with 24MP and 36MP at first but were put off by the inconsistency of the results and then they bought the D4 and are happy. Some buy it for the high fps, but many buy it for other reasons entirely.</p> <p><em>Yes, you lose some DoF control and low light support, but only a stop or so - and you can buy some very fast lenses for the price difference between a D7100 and a D4s. Besides, the 200 f/2 is cheaper than the 300 f/2.8, and the 400 f/2.8 is cheaper than the 600 f/4.</em><br /> <br /> Actually at current B&H prices, the 200/2 is slightly more expensive than the 300/2.8, and the 400/2.8 FL is considerably more expensive than the 600/4 though the 600mm may get a price hike when it is reintroduced with fluorite.</p>

<p>Dieter, I understand the cost is always a factor. If you get the D7100, in situations where you need rapid bursts in close succession, try JPG FINE instead of NEF. That is one way to solve the buffer problem for now.</p>