rconey

Waiting......

Dog...., thanks for the link. I will dig in when I have time. I have been in that dialog box before and could not work out how to save my preferences. In the past there was a simple check box in a pulldown of an ACR panel to "Save Preferences" or something to that effect. A few versions back it got more complicated, which is when this question arose.

As above. When I think about it, I blow the image up to 100% over a dark area, turn the slider sown to zero, and then put back whatever noise reduction is needed. At base iso that is commonly zero, and usually less than 15. I am guessing that less manipulation of the data is better.

Hmm, thanks. I've found that Adobe ACR now sets a default color noise reduction of 25, far higher than most images need when shot at base iso. I sometimes forget to reset it, and am trying to decide how much I care about that.

Without getting too technical (It's a long time since my college physics) what is the tradeoff in resolution as we apply increasing color noise reduction in an image. If it's as simple as "increasing noise reduction reduces resolution linearly", then say so. Thanks.

OK, it's been said above but I will amplify. I see radial waves spreading out from the child, like a rock into water. The peaks of the waves cause variations in color, all natural and part of the image. It looks good to me as is.

Still paddling along with the Canon i9900. eight inks, including green. Replaced one printer head about 3 years ago. It's about 15 years old, I think.

I move my auto focus function off the shutter button, to the AF-ON button. Then I focus and re-compose the frame before taking the image. With that process I don't recall wanting the focus point locked. Different strokes.....

Zeiss 135 f2.0 is nice if you don't mind manual focus. Heavy.

Hello. The metering is accurate with the FTZ and Ai lenses but the aperture is not recorded in the metadata. A little annoying when looking back at images, but exposure is fine.

I went D700 to D800. Big improvement, although the D700 was very good. In 2018 I went from D800 to D850. It is nowhere near the incremental improvement of D700 to D800. It did give more pixels that are just as good (thanks to Thom Hogan for that statement). so more resolution, but in hindsight I could have stayed with the D800. It would still be a great camera for my landscape purposes today.

The move to a Z7 was strictly to reduce weight for backpacking/hiking. The IQ to me is the same as the D850, in a smaller package. The FTZ adapter is I think about 9oz, so that weight has to be factored in. I do not find the length of the adapter to be a problem say with the 70-200 f4 AFS VR zoom I still have. On a trip in Zion a few weeks ago I backpacked in with only the 14-24 f2.8 and the 24-70 f2.8 and did not miss the longer focal lengths. Didn't need the adapter.

It's been a while. Wasn't a sale point that highlight recovery was good with the D700? Then, expose more to the right would make sense. It seems like sensor technology advance since has been in shadow recovery. Maybe that is some of the exposure difference. Again, the answer is to get to know your camera. Look at the histogram.

I moved from D850 to Z7. The weight saving is significant, and the IQ is pretty much identical. Add in in body image stabilization for my old manual lenses (through FTZ adapter) and it has been a real plus. I did go to the Z 24-70 f2.8, for more weight saving. It has been a good switch.

I had a D700 until 2012. When I look at those files shot at base iso they are some of the lowest shadow noise files I have. It still surprises me.

Too funny. Much appreciated.

It no longer surprises me that different nikon cameras give different exposures. I have used nikon since the film days; back then I always exposure bracketed good shots for the slide film I used. I think around the D700 some exposure control was allocated to the focus spot. That means that on a tripod, if you move the exposure spot (don't even refocus) from a dark area of the frame to a bright area (using matrix metering) you will get a different exposure. The amount of priority given to the focus point seems to have increased in the newer DSLRs.

Add to that the variance in exposure with manual focus lenses. It can be quite maddening until you get used to looking at the histogram and adjusting exposure as you go. I recently changed from a D850 to a Z7, and am delighted with the histogram in the viewfinder option. Maybe I could have done this with the D850 but didn't. With the Z7 I can dial exposure compensation while looking through the viewfinder. The additional level horizon tool in the view finder really lets me dial in what I want.

Obviously, as you use your camera you learn how it exposes and adjust accordingly.

The 14-24 f2.8 Z mount is a very good lens. The f4 version (14-30?) is reported to be good also. Oh, I see you reference that option. Sorry.

Rule book..... spectrophotometer?

I think precise and accurate measure is possible, but I'm not that good at carrying my gray card or color calibrating my camera. So far so good.

Late to the party because of a backpacking trip to Zion NP (again! Can't get enough), but something I've thought about in landscape work. I argue that when I get home after a week out, I don't really remember what the exact color balance was. How red or orange was the rock? By necessity, I adjust to what is pleasing to me. It is probably close to "real", but unless I took the print back to the spot on a similarly lighted day I can't pretend to say it is absolutely accurate.

I have the 400 f5.6 ED AI and the TC-301. It is very good, but not very hand holdable. Needs a pretty bright day or stable subjects as well. High iso on all the newer cameras makes it easier. Moonshots at 800 mm are fun.

On a Nikon Z7 I enlarge in the viewfinder, using the central focus point on the subject. Then focus, usually not needing the focus peaking color prompt. Then zoom back out to full frame view. Then recompose the image with the subject where I want it. Unless it is a wide open, fast lens this gives the subject in focus.

 

For static objects, it should be possible to move the focus point, zoom in, focus critically, and then take the picture without zooming back out. That still won't give precise image edge placement but is not too bad.

Was it Nikon Capture NX2 that was discontinued somewhat abruptly 5-10 years ago? I really liked that program and used it a lot. It was sad to see it go. To confuse me, when I search that program now, I see download sites by Nikon and others.

Who is developing this new Nikon software, and do we know it will stick around?

 

Ahh, those are archived pages. It went out when the D3, D3x and D700 were around.

Always Room for More..........

Hand held 1/800th sec at f8, iso 2500. Crop from the first image I put up.

Tripod 1/10th second, f8, iso 64, and 3 second shutter delay. You have to be careful not to have too long a shutter time or the moon's motion will blur things.

Well, that was easy. Today I pulled out the tripod for a moon shot. 800mm. I am able to turn off auto iso, and IBIS, and use live view on the tripod as opposed to using autoiso for hand held. That means iso 64 on tripod, but iso 2500 hand held. So, for me 200-300 mm lenses go on a tripod unless very bright light, even with IBIS.