david_mcmullen

<blockquote> <p>Ray Butler:<br /> ... there is nothing in image formation theory which backs up this idea of more "stretched" wide angle images being a property of using smaller formats. ... It could be that the cheaper lenses made for smaller format cameras & camera-phones tend to have designs with worse geometrical distortion; but that is not to say that equally distortion-free lenses cannot be made for both small and large formats.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks Ray for chiming in on this. Intuitively what you say makes sense to me. I don't see why a distortion-free optical design could not be scaled to a small sensor. I think it is simply expensive and therefore less likely the smaller the sensor is. On the other hand, I could imagine that the geometry differences related to the <em>shorter flange distance of a mirrorless camera</em> design might affect the difficulty of optically correcting for distortion...<br /> Dave</p>

<p>Can someone explain this phrase in bold within a quote from Thom Hogan today regarding some difference between the implementation of a medium format sensor vs. smaller formats?</p> <blockquote> <p>The low volume of medium format sensor production, coupled with <em><strong>the need to stitch the sensor in place on the fab, coupled with the extra wasted space on the expensive silicon wafer,</strong></em> all means that medium format sensors are just not going to be big sellers in the casual photography world any time that I can imagine.</p> </blockquote> <p>The quote appeared in <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/its-about-the-sensor-again.html">this blog post</a>. Thank you.</p> <p>Dave</p>

<p>I think the strength of Alexander's argument is the <em>value proposition</em> when you consider the cost of the new Fuji system will be 2 or 3 times the cost of a similar full frame system. That is an excellent point.</p> <p>However, setting aside the cost, I have to say that overall I find the new Fuji system beautifully designed and much more appealing to me than any currently available full frame system. For one thing, personally I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio for most of my photography; with 3:2, I often end up cropping out part of the length anyway. So for me, that increases the resolution gain over full frame from 1.7X to closer to 2X. Secondly, the side-by-side comparison showing that the GFX 50S is very similar to a Nikon D810 is really compelling, especially when you look at the lens mount view showing the sensors: The Fuji just looks obviously so much more efficient (toward the end of <a href=" video</a>). The absence of an optical viewfinder does not bother me; I prefer the advantages of a high quality EVF and the swiveling/tilting design looks great. Finally, for a long time, I have been interested in the best wide angle landscape lenses for full frame or APS-C systems. I want the highest quality possible with low distortion, sharp into the corners, less field curvature, and the ability to use the Lee filter system. Of course we will have to wait to see how the Fuji lenses test out, but I really like the look of the 32-64mm and 23mm lenses, both of which would take filters very nicely (77mm & 82mm respectively). What Alexander says about the larger formats handling wide angle distortion better simply makes me even more attracted to the new Fuji format compared to full frame.<br> Dave</p>

<p>Yesterday an owner of the new lens reported on the Nikon Rumors forum as follows. Take this for what it's worth--i.e., a report from one individual, not an official announcement from Nikon--but it does sound like this came from an official Nikon representative of some sort:</p> <blockquote> <p>Just talked to the Nikon guy, ... He confirmed [the VR issue is] only a matter of firmware and no mechanical parts involved. ... they expect this firmware [update to be available] in [approximately] 2 weeks ... He also said, it's difficult to find the cause of this failure, it doens't happen with all lenses, only at certain apertures and under certain circumstances.</p> </blockquote> <p>I tried to post the link so you can read it yourself, but photo.net advised me to please not post rumors that are full of nonsense. I understand but as far as I'm concerned, Nikon gives us no choice but to speculate until they finally make an official announcement. Hopefully this report is true and it is a relatively minor issue, easily fixed.<br> <br /> Dave</p>

<p>Fair enough. I really prefer to be positive and I don't want to be perceived as a whiner. So let me try to say something positive: It is true that Nikon USA has a very good on-line customer service tracking system, and they do try to answer and close out every inquiry with an official record. I can look up a complete history of my inquiries and the status, etc. </p> <p>For the most part, the reports about this so called "VR issue" with the new 300mm f/4E lens indicate it is not a major problem. I am rather impressed by the early reports, overall.</p> <p>I can appreciate that it is very difficult to develop a brand-new product with new technology that is completely free from every possible defect, and I think it's too early to make a final judgment on how big a defect this is, or indeed whether it is a legitimate defect at all.</p> <p>Dave</p>

<p>I can totally relate to what Dan is describing. When you call Nikon USA, you are a <em>number.</em> It is very difficult to speak to anyone who really knows anything.</p> <p>Shun: I still think there is some common ground where we agree, but I'm going to quit trying to find it. I resent your implication that I'm a "whiner." I'm relatively new on this forum and I can tell you are not. I don't feel particularly welcome.</p> <p>Dave</p>

<p>Shun Cheung wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1808866" rel="nofollow">David McMullen</a>, most likely you do. About two years ago (April 2013), this person on DPReview posted links to a bunch of Thom Hogan's incorrect Nikon D400 predictions, dating all the way back to 2008 or so (a year after the D300 introduction in 2007): <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51256976" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51256976</a><br /> Since that DPReview post, Hogan has continued to make quite a few similarly incorrect D400 predictions. Apparently that is what you have been reading.<br /> And Canon is already giving a $100 rebate to the 7D Mark II: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081808-REG/canon_9128b002_eos_7d_mark_ii.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a></p> </blockquote> <p>Shun,<br /> I don't think Thom Hogan is alone in missing on predictions that a D400 would appear (that's a pretty big club!), but that is beside the point. I know he writes mostly <em>opinion,</em> but personally I find a lot of what he writes resonates with me as very practical and sound, for example he often preaches that people should really learn or prove the limitations of their current gear before making a decision to get something "better." He encourages me to take an honest look at what is truly limiting my photography, is it my gear or my skill or my post processing, etc.<br /> <br /> Getting back to the topic of this thread, I get frustrated with Nikon's "distance" from us as customers, just Like Dan who said above, "I have extremely low expectations from NikonUSA, so nobody will call, and I certainly can't call them." I think I agree with you when you suggested that in this day and age, Nikon needs to make clear announcements and not just remain silent, trying to keep the whole situation a total secret and hope that customers will understand and reach the right conclusion. I appreciate that technology in today's gear is complex, but I want more direct and honest updates from Nikon.<br /> <br /> Dave</p>

<p>Ilkka Nissila:<br /> I did not say nor intend to suggest that Nikon should start "one-on-one chatlines between customers and product designers." When I talked about Nikon needing to be more in touch with loyal customers, I was thinking about a number of things, including not keeping us in the dark about product delays, but more generally simply listening and paying attention to the problems or needs of real photographers who actually use the gear. One obvious example is a pro DX camera, a successor to the D300s. That's a tired topic and I don't want yet another thread to get sidetracked on that. I only bring it up because I will admit that my disgruntled regard for Nikon these days is certainly partly due to the fact that I am one of the minority of Nikon users who has wished for a D400 for a long time; we are confounded by Nikon's stubborn refusal to acknowledge any legitimate place for such a camera.<br /> <br /> Maybe I read too much of Thom Hogan, and I should certainly give him credit because maybe I plagiarized this whole notion from him; he said it much better than I in this piece yesterday:<br /> http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/camera-makers-dont-really.html<br /> <br /> Dave</p>

<p>Joseph,<br /> Regarding your statement, "I'm assuming tests/reviews may reveal some image improvement" [D7200 vs. D7100]. Nikon didn't really emphasize the sensor on the D7200 as a new feature. I think any improvement in still images will be very subtle. I will try to post some comments here eventually, but it will be a while. The AF system is supposed to be noticeably better in <em>low light,</em> but my best photos are usually in bright light where I'm not testing the limits of high ISO performance, etc. As I said above, I hope to possibly notice a slight improvement for birds in flight due to AF / buffer improvements. So yes, for my photography I'm expecting most of the small D7200 advantage to come from the new processor and AF system, not the new sensor. But maybe I'll be surprised. The D7100 is a pretty good bargain at this point for most people.<br /> Dave</p>

<p>I understand the Osborne Effect. I could be wrong but it seems like Nikon is even more secretive than their competitors when it comes to divulging anything. For example both the D7200 and D750 were almost not leaked at all until <em>days</em> before they were announced. But really I'm talking about much more than that. IMHO, Nikon could do a much better job simply maintaining better contact with loyal customers. Understanding and listening to customers is an <em>investment</em> that can help create a competitive advantage. Maybe because most of Nikon's revenue comes from selling cheap consumer cameras, mostly to people who buy 1 camera with a kit lens, or maybe 1 extra lens at the most, maybe those are the only customers they care about.<br /> Dave</p>

<p>I thought I read that some people who received early copies of the lens have not reported ANY issue with VR at ~1/160 shutter speed, even when they try hard to make the problem happen. This suggests to me that the problem <em>can</em> be fixed, as long as they can figure out why some lenses show the problem and some don't...<br /> I've also seen some rather encouraging results from the few people who have the lens.<br /> So I'm hopeful.<br /> <br /> But I also think Nikon needs to be more forthcoming about the problem at this point. If they are not ready to make any meaningful announcement, fine. But any idiot can tell something is delaying the delivery of this product. So they should just come out and admit it. I'm tired of Nikon's general posture of <em>total secrecy</em> about everything. To me Nikon seems out of touch with their customers; I get the idea they could care less about our needs as photographers or our desire for even vague hints about their "road map." It seems the<em> only</em> communication we get from Nikon is at the time a product is announced OR subsequently when they are finally forced to explain a problem. I don't need them to answer every whine. Just be a little more <em>present.</em><br /> Dave</p>

<p>I received my D7200 today. I pre-ordered one mostly because I really wanted a second DX body to use with my D7100, so I have a back up on big trips and also so I can have 2 cameras ready to go with different lenses mounted. And I was not ready to get an FX body (yet). I shoot mostly birds these days.<br /> <br /> Externally, the D7200 is an identical twin to my D7100, so it will be very easy switching back and forth. My RRS L-bracket fits prefectly on either body. I don't expect the image quality to be significantly different for the most part, and that too is nice in a way, since I won't feel compelled to constantly try to use the "better" body; they both can deliver the same quality. Occasionally the deeper buffer in combination with a slightly better AF system on the D7200 may help me for birds in flight, etc. So I'll probably try to always use the D7200 for BIF. But I always say the biggest thing limiting me is not the capability of my gear, but my own skill how often I can get out and USE the gear.<br /> Dave</p>

<p>Jean,<br /> One more thing to consider is that your D5300 does not have the capability for fine-tuning the autofocus. If you invest in a better and more expensive telephoto lens, you might find that even if you do everything perfect as far as your technique and settings, the autofocus is slightly off... i.e., you may discover that your images consistently show sharper focus on the branches <em>in front</em> of the intended bird target ("front focus" error) or <em>behind</em> the bird ("back focus" error). Better cameras allow you to fine tune or adjust the camera's focus for this... It may or may not be an issue for you, but just keep it in mind. If you do have an issue, upgrading to a D7100 might be the least expensive option. The D7200 also allows AF fine tuning, but of course it would cost a lot more.<br /> Dave<br> PS. If you Google for "How to Quickly Test Your DSLR for Autofocus Issues" you will find a useful method posted by Nasim Mansurov on Photography Life DOT com.</p>

<p>I'm late to this discussion, and mostly new to the photo.net forum. Olympus delayed the first shipping date for the 40-150, but the early reports and image samples are quite promising. Robin Wong posted some nice looking images in his review here:<br> <a href="http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2014/10/olympus-mzuiko-40-150mm-f28-pro-lens.html">http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2014/10/olympus-mzuiko-40-150mm-f28-pro-lens.html</a><br> I know Robin is an Olympus employee, but the sample images and 100% crops look pretty good indeed... Aparently the sharpness is pretty close to the Olympus 75mm f/1.8, which is pretty universally praised as a superbly sharp lens.<br> Regarding Eric's statement that the Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 may be just as good optically with more reach at only $500,... Some sources are claiming that the new 40-150 compares well to some of the older legendary Olympus 4/3 telephoto *<em>prime*</em> lenses. B&H is now showing the 50-200 lens for $1200... if it really was available for $500 a month ago, that was probably a bargain.<br> I'm an Olympus E-M1 shooter but I also use a Nikon DSLR with long lenses for wild bird photography. I'm not sure I would use the new 40-150mm enough to make it worth it. I will be very interested in the future Olympus 300mm f/2.8 pro lens, and how it compares to my Nikon 300mm f/4, especially the continuous autofocus for birds in flight.<br> Dave</p>