dan_south

Are you using autofocus? Are you certain that your camera is focusing correctly? Try focusing in live view for comparison. I recently bought a very sharp lens. But before I did a micro fine tuning adjustment, it produced blurry images wide open.

If you only have a few hours, make the best of your main location. You probably won't have time to shoot a bunch of bridge and skyline shots. Just getting from one location to another will take time. Depending on the time of day, you could take a trip to the river's edge in Brooklyn or Jersey City to get some skyline shots, and if Brooklyn, a bridge or two. But I would recommend staying mostly in one main area and shooting whatever catches your eye - unless you have more time. Try any of the following: Central Park South, Times Square, Union Square, Greenwich Village, Chinatown, Battery Park/WTC/Wall St area.

Most tourists carry smaller lenses, but I have seen lots of 70-200s on the street over the years. I use mind frequently. It gets some looks, but mostly of curiosity. You'll blend in as part of the show. New York is fairly safe, but I'll offer these safety recommendations (which apply to almost any city). 1. Be aware of mentally unstable people and avoid them even if you need to dash away quickly. Keep your camera bag zipped and ready to go in case you need to relocate in a hurry. Sadly, there are quite a number of these folks running around. 2. Use common sense when photographing strangers. Retaliation can occur, as it did recently when a famous DJ was photographing people in Times Square. 3. Keep your bags fastened and be aware of the location of your phone and your wallet at all times. 4. If you are going to carry photo gear, avoid wearing expensive jewelry. 5. Be aware of pedestrian traffic flow and try not to block people.

To test autofocus accuracy, choose a non-moving subject (not a person). Take one shot with normal autofocus. Take a second in live up view, which uses a different type of autofocus. If the live view shot is sharper than the first shot, you have a focus problem. If neither a sharp, you have a vibration problem, possibly due to mirror slap.

<p>4k is approximately four times the resolution of 1080p HD (actually a little bit more than 4 times). </p> <p>4k is cutting edge, but HD is still a good medium. Who knows how much 4k people will really produce? It's probably quite taxing on computer hardware and storage.</p> <p>My personal opinion is that the D810 is designed to be more of a still camera than a video camera (despite Nikon's marketing). It doesn't capture 4k or raw video, while some less expensive cameras can do one or both. Redesigning the D810 to capture 4k probably would have delayed its release.</p> <p>If HD isn't enough resolution for your video projects, the D810 isn't your camera.</p>

<p>I'm sure that the pocket wizard flex ttl gear works well, but it's another expense, another battery, another piece of gear to take up space in the bag, and if you want to shoot with three lights, you would need four of them (at over $1000). </p> <p>The SU-800 is a single, small, lightweight (I can't believe that someone actually called the thing heavy) piece of gear that can control a large number of Nikon speed lights right out of the box. It communicates MUCH more effectively with remote speed lights than either the built in flash (disaster) or a flash head used as a master controller (directional issues).</p> <p>Flash heads in front of the camera, behind the camera, IR sensor facing the wrong side - it doesn't matter - the SU-800 triggers them anyway. I love mine. If you don't like yours, I'll be glad to take it off of your hands. </p>

<p>Question 1: Where did you focus? On this woman's face, or on something else? And did you recompose the shot after you focused?</p> <p>Question 2: Is your camera set to AF-S or AF-C? If you're in AF-C (Continuous auto focus), you might have focused on the woman, then moved, and the camera focused on something else, such as the window frame or the background.</p> <p>I'll wait for your answers before commenting further, but it looks to me like a focus problem rather than a camera movement problem.</p>

<p>Pretty much everything posted by Ilkka above matches my experience. The SU-800 is a highly useful tool. The built-in flash is a toy and does not belong on a camera of this calibre. </p> <p>A radio version of the SU-800 and SB-910 would be even better.</p>

<p>I'm sure that there are some nifty gizmos for fine tuning, but I use a page of printed text - typically from a magazine - taped flat to a wall. I compare Phase Detection autofocus at various Fine Tune settings to the results of Contrast Detection autofocus in Live View - which, when used properly, is extremely accurate. I've been using this approach for a couple of years with excellent results.</p> <p>Fine-tuning Suggestions:</p> <p>1. Make sure that you're setting the "Saved value" rather than the "Default" value on the autofocus fine tuning page for each lens.</p> <p>2. Make sure that you press "OK" after each value change, or the change won't be saved properly.</p> <p>3. Take are least three shots are each AF fine tune value (e.g. three shots at -5, etc.) and compare them. Phase Detection AF can give slightly different results from exposure to exposure, so it's best to average a group of them.</p> <p>4. Review the results on your computer using View NX (viewed at 100 percent), not on your camera's little LCD screen. The larger the monitor, the better.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Do you think it is worth upgrading from D800 to D810? (Didn't read every post).</p> </blockquote> <p>It all depends on your financial situation and your needs. The resolution and high ISO improvements have yet to be demonstrated. If you need a higher resolution LCD with split screen, potentially improved autofocus features, 60p movies, or if the new shutter and mirror would help stabilization issues that you have been having, and if the price isn't going to cause issues, then it's probably worth it.</p> <p>My D800E is about a year-and-a-half old. I can't imagine a project that I have on my RADAR that will fail if I don't replace my E with the D810. So, I don't feel as though I have to rush out and buy one from the first batch that rolls off of the assembly line.</p> <p>That said, I first bought a D800 because it was available. The D800E, in my opinion, offered better image quality. If the D810 offers a similar jump in sharpness and detail, it would definitely be worth it.</p> <blockquote> <p><br />D800/e autofocusing is crappy.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm not always happy with the D800's autofocus capabilities, but I wouldn't call them "crappy." If you use a D800 or a D800E for events or sports, the AF is probably going to cause you to miss some shots, but you'll catch a lot of shots, as well. However, compared to the 5D Mark III, the AF in the D800 series is less responsive and less reliable. </p> <p>On the other hand, the contrast detection autofocus in Live View on the D800 series is an absolute marvel of accuracy (for non-moving subjects). This is the D800 family's most important strengths, IMO.</p> <p>So, I wouldn't make blanket statements, positive or negative, about the D800's ability to autofocus accurately. Some features work better than others, that's true, but they all work to some degree. The improvements in the D810's AF have not been fully demonstrated in the hands of users yet. Maybe the D810 AF will be on par with the D4S and the 5DIII, but that's still an open question.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Brilliant, both the featured photo and the larger portfolio. This is a challenging style, i.e. to make the mundane look more interesting by making it look artfully mundane. (I hope that that description made sense.)</p> <p>I wouldn't even attempt this style. There's no way that I could pull it off. Erwitt mastered the approach. Bravo! And thanks for posting!</p>

<blockquote> <p>If you look at any of the 'Best Lenses' section in DxO, whether it be DX or FX, Nikon is pretty absent.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> If I recall correctly, two of the highest rated lenses on those lists are Nikon's 85mm 1.4G and 1.8G. <br> <br> That said, those lists are full of hype. I've tested some of those hot, must have lenses. I must own the best 24-70 f/2.8G and 70-200 f/2.8G VRII that Nikon ever manufactured, because the lenses that win those glorified popularity contests are no sharper than the venerable Nikon zooms of the last five years. <br> <br> Yes, I'll agree that the 70-200 VRI was a turkey for full frame - it was designed when Nikon was making DX cameras only - but that's a glaring exception.<br> <br> If you can't get sharp photos out of Nikon's f/2.8 zooms, G primes, and the PC-E trio, check your camera stability and focus accuracy. Because honey, it <em>ain't</em> the lenses.</p>

<blockquote> <p>As far as nikon's optics concerned, nikon has a lot to catch up.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Here's something to ponder. If Nikon released a 50 MP camera next year, and you used those same lenses, would the resolution improve? If you answered yes, then how can the lenses be the bottleneck?</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>I read Matt Klowskowski's blog and he doesn't use the graduated ND filter anymore because it only works if the horizon is level.</p> </blockquote> <p>Some people like layer multiple exposures in Photoshop. Some people prefer to use filters and/or lights in order to capture everything in a single exposure. Both methods are viable, but each has its limitations. If something in the frame is moving quickly - a bunch of horses running through a field, for instance - blending multiple files might not be possible. </p> <p>Graduated ND filters were critical important for my work with slide film. With digital capture I don't use them as often as I did with film, but they still solve many difficult exposure problems.</p> <p>The horizon does not need to be level or even a straight line. The attached photo used a graduated ND filter. The horizon is neither level nor linear. Graduated ND filters are powerful and flexible tools. </p> <div></div>

<p>Graduated:</p> <p>2-stop hard edge PLUS 3-stop hard edge, stackable for five stops when necessary. I've used up to seven stops, but the combination of a 2 and a 3-stop ND grad will give you a lot of options. </p> <p>(Sorry, I know that you said only one, but I think the combo is important.)</p> <p>Not Graduated (covers the full frame):</p> <p>10-stop for slowing water and for smoothing motion in daylight time lapse sequences.</p>

Full frame cameras are so inexpensive now (D610). Will people pay more than the price of a D7100 for a crop sensor body? Notice that while Nikon hasn't updated tHe D300s, Canon hasn't updated the 7D, either.

On top of all of the Beatles' brilliance as musicians and songwriters, they were some of the most visually interesting entertainers in history. The haircuts and suits, the album covers, the movies, the iconic photos and illustrations (Yellow Submarine) all added up to a delightfully enjoyable public image. The Beatles were the first multi media sensation. This photo contributes significantly to that legacy.

<p>I'm glad to hear that you're getting good support! Enjoy whatever interests you in the moment, and don't worry about anything else. We all change over time. Best wishes!</p>

Manufacturing complex systems is an enormously complex undertaking. The engineering community has invested a tremendous amount of thought, planning, money, research, and control systems in order to reduce defect ratios. And yet, defects still occur. Recent problems at Toyota and General Motors are prime examples. These problems were not caused by natural disasters. Nikon's initial quality issues with the D800 and D600 were notable not simply because they occurred, but because of Nikon's underwhelming response. I understand that consumers have a tendency to panic. If a defect is found in one D800, other buyers will wonder whether theirs is impacted as well. I don't blame Nikon for wanting to avoid a situation where camera owners would demand service (or replacement gear) due to suspicion of nonexistent defects. On the other hand, consumer confidence suffers when problems are left unaddressed. Nikon didn't offer start offering fixes for the D600 until China banned import of the model. Oops! Perhaps the earthquake did contribute in some way to the existence of the initial defect. The lack of adequate follow up is the bigger issue. I own a lot of Nikon gear. It's always been reliable. But any new product can introduce some new issue. Since I don't need a D810 immediately, I'm content to let the early adopters screen it for potential defects.

<p>Great photos! Thanks for sharing!!</p>

<p>The D810 looks like a very nice camera. The changes are more evolutionary than revolutionary - enhancements on an already good design - but that doesn't make them any less important.</p> <p>For instance, the electronic first curtain shutter would be very useful in stabilizing images in the "shutter danger zone" range of 1/4 to 1/60s. In some shooting situations (not all), one can use Mirror Lock Up or Live View to eliminate the same vibration, but neither of those options are available when shooting time lapse sequences with the intervalometer, for instance.</p> <p>It doesn't sound like a major innovation, but under the right circumstances, this one small feature could make a big difference in image/video quality.</p> <p><strong>OTHER FEATURES</strong></p> <ul> <li>No anti-aliasing filter on the sensor - time will tell if it improves image quality significantly over the D800E</li> <li>Increased frame rate - not important to me</li> <li>Longer battery life - I already carry plenty of batteries</li> <li>Better high-ISO performance - always welcome when it's needed</li> <li>Higher resolution LCD screen - that would be a welcome change for manual focusing tasks</li> <li>Group-type autofocus - D4s users rave about it, and I have no doubt that it will be useful, but it seems like a bit of a kludge. Why not elevate autofocus in general? Canon did it.</li> <li>Highlight priority metering and "flat" picture style - In the best case scenario, the histogram of a flattened JPEG might more accurately represent the contents of the raw file, but this has yet to be demonstrated.</li> </ul> <p><strong>CAVEAT EMPTOR</strong></p> <p>Nikon has a track record of quality control problems in early production runs. Remember the left autofocus point issue when the D800 was first shipped? Or the infamous "oil droplet" problem with the D600? I haven't decided whether I'll try the D810 - I'm still learning how to get the most out of my D800E - but if I do, I'll wait for Nikon to work the kinks out of their production process.</p> <p><strong>OPPORTUNITY COST</strong></p> <p>On the flip side, I could buy a Sony A7r and a nice lens for the price of a D810. Given that I already own the D800E, an impressive performer especially when I can work slowly on a tripod, a small, grab-and-go Sony with the same powerful sensor technology seems like an appealing option.</p> <p>Hmm... Decisions! Decisions!</p>

<blockquote> <p>moire is essentially a complete non-issue on the D800E.</p> </blockquote> <p>The D800E can exhibit moiré very easily. Photograph choppy (not still) water in direct sunlight. You'll see the effect. It's actually difficult to avoid.<br> I've also seen moiré in bricks in distant buildings - also lit by direct sunlight - but this isn't a problem as frequently.</p> <blockquote> <p>Removing the anti-alias filter is now standard on all Nikon DSLRs </p> </blockquote> <p>Not on the flagship D4 series.</p>

<p>I would vote for the 16-85. You can sell it if you switch to FX.</p>

<p>They're all very nice, but Churchill Scowling is my favorite due to the dramatic Rembrandt-like lighting.</p> <p>The lighting in the scowling print reminds me of the lighting that was popular in cinema at the time (e.g. Citizen Kane). I wonder if Karsh's portraiture was perhaps inspired by cinematography, or whether the cinematographers of the time lit their scenes in a manner popular with portrait photographers. Perhaps they inspired each other.</p>

<p>The USA has bays, rivers, lakes of all sizes, and lots of islands, not to mention the gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, the sun does not always set in the west. It varies from southwest in the winter to northwest in the summer. You can usually find some body of water with the correct alignment.</p> <p>Plus there's always the sunrise to consider.</p>