bjorncarlen1

<blockquote>

<p>Steven Keirstead wrote: At night the coma makes small light sources that are away from the center of the image look like 3 pointed caltrops at f/2.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I finally got my sample of the CV 40/2 SL-II. It's really well built, like others have pointed out before. I like the fact that the green manual focus dot on my D600 suddenly got reliable. With my AiS lenses it's not. Can it be because of the cpu chip? <br>

Steven, I think I found out what you mean by the caltrops. My example is shot in daylight, though. Is this what you mean - the somewhat triangular shaped pair of magenta colored artifacts near the lower border of the image.<br>

<img src="/photo/17388592" alt="" /></p>

I react to all the secrets around this. At first Nikon wouldn't even tell me what they had replaced in my camera. It was just

a "spare part". Finally, when I managed to find out it was the shutter plate unit, they said it's nothing to do with the dust

problem. Other measures were taken to stop the dust.

I mean, if I leave my car for repair, they won't just tell me "necessary measures were taken". No, the wind shield was

broken so we replaced it, and we changed the gear box as well.

It's my camera. I paid for it. I have the right to know what's being done with it.

It's a good thing that Nikon fixed my camera, but something's rotten in the state of Denmark.

I like my D600 a lot, but it definitely had the dust/oil issue. After about 1600 shutter actuations I sent it in for the second

time for cleaning. Nikon had to wait for a few weeks to get me a new shutter plate unit, and to "take necessary measures

to prevent dust from entering". Now it seems okay.

It's not FUD, or what you call it. I know of several people here who had the same experience. Nikon handled it well in the

end, but I don't like their attempts to ignoring the problem or diminishing it. I continue to use Nikon gear, but their brand

got a severe blow IMO.

<p>I'd love to see some samples of those 3 pointed caltrops, though.</p>

<p>Ok. I get it. Thank you, John!</p>

<p>Steven Keirstad wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At night the coma makes small light sources that are away from the center of the image look like 3 pointed caltrops at f/2. It’s more useable at f/2.8-f/11 if you want a higher definition image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have two images here which may show similar light effects like the ones you mean. First is a shot by my 24/2.8 Ai on D600 @f5.6 1/60 ISO1600.<br /> <img src="/photo/17141752" alt="" /><br /> Then there's the 50/1.8 AiS, earlier version @f8 1/40 ISO3200, also on a D600.<br /> <img src="/photo/17141754" alt="" /><br>

Is that approximately what you're talking about in the case of the Ultron 40/2?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>An advantage is that with a pancake the width of the camera + lens is pretty well the same as the width of the camera body alone. This is a great advantage if you want to put the camera in a briefcase as there is a lack of the large awkward protuberance. The weight issue is not significant. A 40mm focal length is a great compromise between the 50 and 35 too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 to that.</p>

Thanks for your response, all of you!

I read the photozone.de review, but I'm not all that convinced. The test is based on use on an aps-c sensor, not full frame.

The issues about bokeh makes me think once or twice. Maybe I should follow the advice to get a 50/1.8 AiS, the later

model. I have the earlier type as well as the stellar 35/1.4 AiS, but i find them both too protruding for the purpose I have in

mind. What about the series E, is it as unobtrusive as the later AiS one?

Perhaps I'll wait until I find a good used, hopefully affordable, 45/2.8P somewhere. Think I'll have a look at the X20 first,

though.

<p>Hi everyone!<br>

I'm considering buying a new Voigtländer 40/2. The reason being I want something very portable to carry with me daily on my D600. <br>

An alternative would be to get a new compact camera, like the Fujifilm x-20, which would cost about the same.<br>

What say you? Am I wrong to refrain from autofocus and zooming possibilities, in favor of the first class sensor of the D600? Or is there any other option out there, I mean some other pancake like glass with about the same focal length, that you would prefer to the Ultron? I know about the Nikkor 45/2.8 P, but it's very hard to find here.<br>

Thanks for your advice.</p>

<p>Sorry, "shutter plate unit", that's what Nikon replaced in my camera. That's the shutter, right?</p>

They did. We'll see if it helped.

I got my d600 back from Nikon Sweden yesterday. That was my second cleaning after about 1600 actuations in all. This

time it took them longer to fix the camera, because they had to wait for delivery of a spare part. That spare part is

a new "shutter release plate", it turned out after some research of mine. This new shutter had nothing to do with with

the dust on my sensor, I was told. When checking my camera the had discovered incorrect readings from the shutter, and

therefore replaced it. In the eyes of Nikon Sweden there exists no oil problem. They never had a d600 returned with oil on

the sensor, believe it or not. Dust yes, but oil or lubricant no. They say the D600 is a consumer type camera, and

enthusiasts tend to examine these things more carefully than pros, thus the big fuzz around this camera.

Well, to me this sounds like total BS, and does not strengthen the credibility of the Nikon brand by any means. What do

you guys think?

<p>I had my sensor cleaned after 800 actuations. Afterwards, after just a few shots, I could see dirt again. I'll wait for a while until I visit Nikon again for a second, free cleaning. Then we'll see. Maybe my shop will give me a new sample if two cleanings aren't enough.<br>

Apart from that I'm happy with the IQ. The sound of the shutter is quiet, which i love, and I think is pointed out far to little in the discussions about this camera. I could wish for better AF sensitivity in low light, though.</p>

I recently had my D200 corrected due to a back focus issue. Focus had to be altered by about 50 micrometers. Furthermore, my view finder had to be corrected as well. I've put in a Katz-Eye Optibrite and the split prism indicated focus in the wrong place.

As if this weren't enough, the exposure meter had to be calibrated as well. Although I'm using a Katz-Eye, the camera was over exposing by 2/3 of a step.

The conclusion of this: don't expect your brand new D200 to be perfect from the factory. Have it checked.

I sent back the Spyder2 to where I bought it. After a month of waiting and four phone calls to Switzerland I finally got my money back.

Instead I bought an Eye-one display 2, which I'm using now. Suddenly the colours look right.

Serge, I have disabled the Adobe Gamma, which by the way gives me far better results than the Spyder2. And, yes, the correct profiles are applied.

I'm on a PC. Do you think the problem is software related rather than a hardware issue?

Yes, William, I'm doing it all by the book. This bump in my learning curve has basically taught me not to trust Spyder2. Secondly not to buy stuff online but in the local photo store, where I'd probably get my money back.

I�m using Spyder2 from ColorVision to calibrate my CRT-display, hp

72.

The calibrations result in a magenta cast equivalent to 6 steps in

the green channel.

My judgement is based on a number of test prints, with no color

corrections applied, made by a professional lab. Furthermore colors

in InternetExplorer look strange, especially skin tones.

When I ask the manufacturer ColorVision about this, they reply:

�if your monitor is calibrated with the Spyder2 to a target of Gamma

2.2

and 6500 Kelvin and you look on your prints (by using a norm light

with

the same color temperature) then you should match the colors between

them.�

 

I find it strange, though, that I should have to view my prints

using a special lamp. If you ask me prints should normally be viewed

in daylight.

Any thougts on the subject? Or any similar experiences with Spyder2?