ilkka_nissila

<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>

<p>Why does it matter so much that Nikon specifically make this type of a camera? If you want a specific tool that is not offered by a particular brand, and one that is offered by another, just buy what you need and get your images. It's about the pictures, not the brand of camera or other such trivia.</p> <p>One manufacturer can not always make the ideal combination of features for everyone at the same time; they have to focus and choose what they can make. In a healthy market, customers in turn choose freely from the available products the one that fits their needs best.</p>

<p>It is individual people who are responsible for customer service and camera repair, not some abstract company. If you treat those people with respect and politely, you usually get the same in return.</p>

<p><em>Nikon didn't offer start offering fixes for the D600 until China banned import of the model.</em></p> <p>This is not correct. They were fixing them or trying to fix them quietly all along, and they issued two annoucements regarding the problem before the third one where they basically gave indefinite warranty to the D600 shutter, which may mean a lot of abuse since effectively the D600 is now a camera that will be guaranteed to function as long as Nikon as a company exists. Of course when they give the customer a D610 in replacement, at that point the customer can't refer to the infinite warranty any more. The public statements were very carefully worded because they didn't want to be subject to abuse, and as a result people interpreted it as they are not admitting the problem but that wasn't it. </p> <p>It is true, that in some regions, some customers were treated badly regarding this problem; Nikon is a large company and a proud one, and it takes time to get the word through. In many places Nikon addressed the issue promptly and without hesitation (I know personally some people who were given early service to it and the problem went away). There is no easy solution to this kind of issue.</p> <p>I've had nothing but the best service from Nikon, including free repair of a damaged camera and AF recalibration after I had dropped it on hard floor (it wasn't even under warranty, but they didn't charge for the fix). For many years they gave me free CLA's etc. so it's hard to relate to the bad experiences some have reported online.</p>

<p><em>I simply think people are waiting for availability to jump over it</em></p> <p>Precisely. Life is short, quickly let's make some photographs.<br> <em> </em><br> <em>the 24-70 doesn`t appear in the lens` chapter;</em></p> <p>I'm sure those four lenses are just examples of the Nikkor lineup that they want to promote, not some exhaustive list. There is limited space, everyone knows Nikon's best selling 24-70 so it doesn't need additional coverage.</p> <p><em>"holy trinity"</em></p> <p>They're just tools, nothing "holy" about them.</p>

<p><em>Nikon has a track record of quality control problems in early production runs.</em></p> <p>In 2012, yes, one year after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and flooding in Thailand. But apart from those products that came immediately after those events, I haven't heard of, or experienced significant quality control issues in the D4s, D7100, D610, or Df (which are newer products). Nor in the earlier D3X, D3s, D3, D700, D300s, D300, for that matter. It is strange to me how people think that factories and cities can be flooded into the ocean, tens of thousands of people can be lost, but to the customer on another continent, manufacturing must go on just as before, no glitches please, and don't make any excess inventory nor have shortages, and do reduce prices while you're fixing what's left of your country.</p>

<p><em>But let's be honest: if they'd ask money for NX-D, even if only something like $39/€39... you'd save up and get PS Elements, Lightroom or CaptureOne Express instead, no?</em></p> <p>I think we all need a general-purpose photo editor in addition to a browser and raw converters for the cameras we use. I don't think any version of Nikon's software replaces a generic photo editor such as Photoshop. In any case I want to use Nikon's raw converter so I would pay what they ask for it. However, of course it is good that it is now going to be free. I hope they can maintain good quality of the software.</p> <p>I agree that NX2 has excellent black and white conversions and if NX-D won't support that then it is a problem for me, likely I will have to purchase some plugin since I haven't really been happy with the Black and white conversion and channel mixer to such a degree that I've liked NX2's black and white converter. But perhaps it is a question of finding the right settings. Anyway, I have some friends who use Nik plugins for black and white effects and those have been quite nice. I just don't know if they have been axed in the Google acquisition deal also or whether they will continue to be available in the future.</p>

<p>The D4s, Df and D610 still have AA filters.</p>

<p>Right, but NX-D will probably be the better software by then. At least its latest beta behaved very well and didn't hi-jack the windows user interface like NX2 often does (when I switch from NX2 to other software, such as Photoshop CC, quite often NX2 leaves its toolbar and edit list windows on top of the software that I'm actively using. To get rid of those windows I have to switch back to NX2, wait 10-20 seconds for it to appear as active window, then minimize NX2, and return to the other software, which now displays normally). These kinds of performance problems and user interface programming issues have always plagued NX2, so in that sense I'm glad Nikon is moving on NX-D seems to have quite an elegant way of bridging the browsing, raw editing and conversion to TIFF whereas with NX2 there was a long delay before the file was properly displayed after selection, whereas NX-D seems to be doing it in the background so it's more seamless. Also many people seem to prefer that the original raw files are left untouched and edits are stored separately. For me as long as it can be read and original settings restored it doesn't matter much either way.</p> <p>Local adjustments are available in other software, such as Photoshop (which I need to use anyway, for retouching, colour correction, sharpening etc.); I just prefer to use Nikon software for the raw conversion. I liked control points and used them occasionally, but I can understand why they won't be supported in the new software (since they were a Nik creation, and Google bought Nik). Sometimes good stuff is lost in corporate acquisitions. I hope that the simpler NX-D will have a reasonably bug-free career.</p> <p>Wouter, did you try the latest beta? I know the first one was rough, but I didn't run into any problems with the second (preferring it to NX2). If you do find bugs in it, do send Nikon a note as they seem to address problems rapidly at this stage.</p>

<p><em>I swear I'm going to stick my 200 f/2 on it and challenge them to change the AF mode or (pre-BIOS update) ISO while holding it (and hopefully explain to Nikon HQ why there's a genuine problem with their design philosophy, especially on a camera they're promoting as "better with big lenses").</em></p> <p>The ISO control was already addressed (you can use the movie button for this function) for the D800(E). If you need to access AF mode selector while hand-holding a 200/2, kneel down a bit, and lower the lens so that the hood is supported by your thigh(s), then let go of the left hand and adjust the AF area. Put the hand back under the lens, lift it and raise yourself. You're ready to shoot again. This takes a few seconds and it never came across to me as "difficult", but then I rarely adjust these settings. With most larger lenses you use a tripod or monopod to hold the lens and can freely access all the controls of the camera. With shorter / lighter lenses you just take the left hand and adjust the control and are ready to go again. The 200/2 just happens to fall in between those categories in that it's hand-holdable but heavy, but then probably fewer than 0.1% of D800(E)/D810 users are ever likely to use one.</p> <p>Personally I think it is a good thing that controls are spread around for both hands so that both hands have something to do and the buttons can better utilize the available space on the camera, rather than concentrated on one spot (in my opinion the shutter button area is already crowded). I would feel quite uncomfortable if all the controls had to be adjusted with the right hand. I don't even want to imagine what left-handed people would think of such an arrangement.</p> <p><em>if "small raw" is still uncompressed, I'm not as pleased as I would have been.</em></p> <p>Uncompressed NEF files open and are saved faster on some computers (assuming here the file isn't read from or written to a slow network drive) and post-processing time is the issue when using the 36MP camera for events, not so much storage space; cards are cheap, time is precious.</p> <p><em>Live View - Image Area Can be selected while in Live View for stills.....not quite sure what that means either!!</em></p> <p>It refers to DX/1.2/FX crop modes.</p> <p><em>it took us a while to work out what it meant there...</em></p> <p>The information regarding the movie mode auto ISO in manual mode was given in the D4s announcement on Nikon's web pages and a google search also gave the answer immediately. I don't know why people cannot start by reading the announcement.</p> <p><em>it's been nice to know that I wasn't going to scratch the LCD if I shove the camera in the bag and a cable happens to fall behind it.</em></p> <p>I've never managed to leave a permanent mark on any of my digital camera LCDs (after nearly 400k exposures) although I've always taken out and discarded the protector of those cameras that came with one. Camera bags have soft inner dividers to avoid equipment causing damage to each other. I find the LCD protectors reduce the clarity of the image on the screen (even when new and clean, a situation which won't last a day) and may also slightly increase the distance between my eye and the viewfinder.</p> <p>One feature the impact of which will be interesting to see is the electronic first curtain shutter. At least for continuous light macro work it should have a visible impact, as well as when using long, relatively lightweight lenses on static subjects such as landscape details at slowish speeds. The D4s also has this feature, but that camera is less likely to be used for this kind of applications and it's jpg only.</p> <p>Since the MB-D12 is shared between D800, D800E, and D810, the base plate should be of the same shape, so most existing D800(E) L brackets should fit, but it's good to check before buying.</p>

<p>I use moderately high ISO in the classroom when documenting lectures and dissertations. This is something like ISO 2000. I could use lower ISO if I used f/2 or f/1.4 primes but the 70-200mm range is convenient so it leads to high ISO. When the room lights are off and the projector is on, if I want to capture the face of the speaker, I may have to go ISO 4000-6400. In evening parties at restaurants following the dissertations, I frequently have to use ISO 6400 with an f/1.4 lens to get acceptable shutter speed for available light, usually black and white images. I could use flash but it would be very distracting; I prefer to capture people's expressions without making them explicitly aware that I'm photographing them at that very moment (if I used flash they would start looking around and posing for the camera which would change the look of the pictures). There are some caves where the walls are dark and lighting comes from above, and the lighting doesn't look flattering in that case, and so flash use must be considered, but I try to limit it and even when I'm using flash I still want the background to be lit by available light so usually the ISO is still at least 1600 for those shots.</p> <p>For weddings I find ISO 6400 is often needed in dark churches during the ceremony, especially if I'm to capture some expressions in the guest rows. In some brighter lit churches ISO 1600 may be enough. In the evening reception sometimes the light gets so weak that I am at ISO 6400, f/1.4, 1/30s. Again same thing about flash: it could be used but the subject behaviour would change. In Finland most weddings tend to be in the summer, where there is enough natural light to shoot outdoors with even up to 11pm, but at that hour the exposure can be maybe f/2.8, 1/200s, ISO 6400 so it is approaching difficult levels, but the light can be very soft and beautiful, and there isn't really any point in using flash due to the beautiful character of the natural light. If the reception continues further in the night then it becomes again useful to use flash since the existing light can be so dim, but usually the couple and the guests are leaving around this time. If the wedding continues indoors after the window light dims then I am usually able to work with the room lighting that is there, going with a black and white rendering, but the possibility of remote flashes can be considered. The problem with this has been for me that there is usually very little space to set up stands and with modern cameras and lenses I've been able to get good results even just using the existing light. But this assumes the character of the light indoors is at least decent (white or near-white walls do help). For me the kind of flashy lighting that some photographers use with multiple remotes and direct flash just doesn't feel right, these shots fail to capture the mood and character of the people, so even though the image quality at ISO 6400 is not as good as it might be at lower ISO and flash, I still usually prefer to go with the available light.</p> <p>I also shoot some indoor concerts where the lighting is dim and ISO 6400 is needed with f/2.8 lenses. In the winter it is so dark that evening concerts even outdoors are in artificial light and there I might get away with ISO 1600, if I'm using f/2 lenses and if the stage lighting is meant for television. But in clubs ISO 3200-6400 becomes often needed. The twilight is around 3pm in the winter so if there is some event outdoors on the street, it can also require the use of very high ISO.<br> <br />Finally I like to photograph people in the street, and in summer evenings the subtle light in the Nordic countries can make for some beautiful images but to stop the movement often moderately high ISO can be needed (1600-3200 at around 9-10pm; higher for 11pm). </p> <p>Quite many applications for high ISO in other words, though I have never used 12800-25600 as I find my cameras get too noisy and fast lenses have allowed me to capture what I've needed to capture at ISO 6400 or lower. </p>

<p>The 14-24 is excellent for this type of work.</p>

<p>Complex lenses with many elements (like the 24-70) have typically lower transmission than simpler lenses with only a few elements (due to reflection etc.) at a given f-stop. There is also the matter of vignetting (darkening of the image towards corners) which can be different in different optical designs. The nominal maximum aperture of a lens may be rounded to the nearest 1/3rd stop value. Finally the aperture selected by the camera may also be slightly off (due to finite accuracy of control of the aperture mechanism). These factors together contribute to the effect you see.</p>

<p>I don't have time to repost high resolution crops but here are some examples using some of the lenses mentioned.</p> <p>105 DC at f/2:<br /> /> <p>These are with the 85/1.4D at f/1.8:</p> <p> /> <p>85/1.4D at f/2.8:</p> <p> <p>85/1.4G at f/1.4:</p> <p> <p>70-200/2.8G II at f/2.8:</p> <p> <p>105 VR:</p> <p> <p>135 DC:</p> <p> /> /> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/3564014010/sizes/o/<br /> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/7109862465/sizes/o/</p> <p>Which lens you choose and which you end up liking, is up to individual taste.</p> <p>Personally it is my opinion that good images of people at events are mostly made at relatively close proximity to the subject and these images better communicate the feeling of being in the midst of the action to the viewer, also the subjects appear more three-dimensional as the perspective is stronger. If the photographer is close to two subjects in conversation with each other, using a wide angle the camera sees more of the faces of the subjects communicating with each other in the photos rather than a side view or only one face as with a tele. Using a long lens in crowded venues is difficult as there may be people moving across the path of the light. However in the ceremony you must obey the rules of the place and stay in areas that you discuss with the officiant beforehand. This may mean you have to use a tele to get some close-ups, and the f/2.8 telezoom is very practical for this situation, so it is a lens worth having. However, even here it is often the wider view that tells the story better if one image needs to tell it, and tele shots often discriminate one person to get a better view of another. In the street, as you can see above, I often use medium telephoto lenses to simplify backgrounds. </p>

<p>The 105 DC is an excellent lens for portraits and people photography, but with recent autofocus systems it can be tricky to focus it. Personally I love the results it gives when the shot is in focus.</p>

<p>The 85/1.4D is an excellent lens for portraits and people photography, it is definitely worth considering for the look of the images and also its sharpness and colour. AF-S versions of the 85mm focus more precisely than the AF(-D), so if you intend to shoot a lot with the lens wide open it's worth purchasing an AF-S (either f/1.8 or f/1.4).</p> <p>The VR 105 would allow you to get tight close-ups of details at weddings and also serve as a short tele for portraits. It is good as a general purpose travel lens as well. If you use lighting for your portraits and so don't need the f/1.4 or f/1.8 as dearly in weddings, then the VR 105 would be my first choice on your list, given your applications as stated. If you do like to photograph portraits in available light then choose one of the 85mm's. By the way I've frequently combined the 24-70 with the 85mm simply because the 24-70 is great for environmental portraits (too short for head and shoulders) and the 85mm is about right for head and shoulders, or requires less cropping to finalize the framing, and the 85mm's I've used were clearly sharper as well (at distances typical for portraits). For head and shoulders AF-S is especially useful as it lets one focus through eyeglasses more easily whereas the AF D would hunt a bit and be attracted to the frame of the glasses whereas it was simply easier to get the eye just in focus with the AF-S. However, this is a specific situation where it helps. It also supports easier switching between manual and autofocus if you use AF-ON to activate AF ( instead of pressing AF-ON, you just turn the focus ring, without having to switch between A/M).</p> <p>An f/2.8 telezoom is useful for speeches and capturing family and guest reactions during the ceremony, but I find it too long for most restaurants where evening parties are usually held. It depends on the geometry of the location of course. It is a very useful lens to have but would not be at the top of my list in regards to the OP's situation. Also its close focus distance is quite long and performance at close focus is not the best so the 85mm's and VR 105 clearly have an edge for tight head and shoulders shots, not to mention that the f/2.8 telezooms can be quite intimidating.</p>

<p>Dan, I'm only trying to help. You made a statement which is incorrect and yet you underlined it with the words "by every imaginable standard" i.e. basically you said that there can be no other way of thinking about it yet everyone who has had formal education in the matter would likely disagree with you. To clarify the matter I wrote about the established use of the word "resolution" in imaging to help avoid future errors and misunderstandings. I'm fully aware that many photographers often equate pixel count and resolution (they are related, of course, just not linearly). When making quantitative comparisons, it's best to resort to correct use of physical quantities since otherwise the communication will easily be misunderstood by others.</p> <p>In practice the difference between VR 70-300 at 300mm on a 12MP DX vs. 24MP DX camera is not as large as the difference in pixel counts of the two sensors might suggest. Resolution of the imaging system does not increase linearly by increasing the resolution of one component (the sensor) alone, especially if the other component (the lens) is not very good. With a better lens (such as an AF-S 300mm prime), the effect of increasing the sensor resolution on the total system resolution would be more pronounced.</p>

<p>No one who actually knows something about future products is allowed to say, they're under non-disclosure agreements.</p> <p>I got the D7100 a little while ago as in one year its price had fallen from 1200€ to 900€. If a new, substantially improved model comes out, it will most likely be more expensive as well. The only "flaw" I can find with the D7100 is its small buffer. From what I understand, the D7100 has sold very well and without any doubt there will be a new model along the same concept. When that happens, and whether it really solves the buffer issue remains to be seen. Nikon has been very protective of the D4(s) market recently, making every less expensive model feature significant omissions that the high fps action shooter is likely to notice and be annoyed by (occasionally). However, if you accept the D7100's buffer limitation and shoot at a more measured pace, it is a great, well designed camera that is excellent value in my opinion.</p>

<p><em>A camera with 24 megapixels has twices as many pixels as a camera with 12 MP. You have doubled the number of number of pixels in the image rectangle. That is most definitely twice the resolution by every imaginable standard.</em></p> <p>That's not how resolution is defined in imaging science. It is a linear measure, x line pairs (or cycles) per mm for example, or in the case of sensors another definition is line pairs (cycles) per image height. It corresponds the highest spatial frequency which can just be detected. Another definition of resolution (one that is common in medical imaging) is the resolution is the shortest distance between two objects in the image which can be reliably seen as separate entities. In any of these definitions resolution is a linear, not area measure.</p> <p>I recommend the OP to consider the AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D, which is a very high quality lens and not unreasonably expensive. I think it would contribute more to the image quality than the move from 12MP DX to 24MP DX, though the latter can't hurt and the newer cameras have other advantages, such as in autofocus (especially in the D7100 which has Nikon's state of the art AF system). However, the total cost of the purchases does go up. And it is possible that within a few years there will be a new VR version of the 300/4, but in my experience with high resolution camera bodies, VR isn't all that useful (the use of a fast shutter speed and/or tripod are more effective in countering blur, as VR has limited precision and can be unpredictable).</p>