elliot1

<p>I use pre-moistened swabs designed specifically for sensor cleaning and find they work really well.</p>

<p>New items can arrive DOA or have an issue crop up in a short time - they are not immune to problems. How much savings is there?</p> <p>Keep in mind that when it comes to lenses, new Nikon USA lenses have a 5 year warranty. </p>

<p>Flower closeup</p><div></div>

<p>NY</p><div></div>

<p>Lady Liberty</p><div></div>

<p>I don't know of any camera from any manufacturer that will produce noise fee high ISO files. BUT, after post processing, you can get totally noise free images with exceptional detail from just about any recent DSLR body, DX or FX - noise reduction software is not like it used to be and in general eliminates noise without reducing detail. FX files, especially from the higher end recently produced bodies such as the D4 series, D8xx series, D6xx series and likely the D7500. I get noise fee, high detail high ISO images from my old D3 and other 'lesser' bodies I own. And if you are not making large prints (larger than 8 x 10 for example), downsampling contributes to improve image quality even more.</p> <p>You can easily make noise free images with great detail from you D600.</p>

<p>Something else to consider... <em>The D7000 has only 9 cross-type AF points </em>which would be the most accurate and are most useful for low light low contrast objects. When not using one of those cross type AF points or trying to AF on a low contrast area of your subject, you can experience inaccurate AF. I am not saying you do not have a front or back focus issue, just that you may just want to use a more contrasty subject to test your camera/lens out with to help you determine if you have an issue.</p> <p> </p>

<p><em>"at 1600 ISO the D610 & D810 have inferior Dynamic Range to the D4"</em><br> <em> </em><br> While this is true according to posted test results, in reality, it would be extremely difficult to see the difference after post processing RAW files (and possibly even with out-of-the-camera JPGs.</p>

<p>The combination of shooting RAW, getting the exposure right and state-of-the-art image processing software pretty much eliminates noise from the equation from higher ISO images with pretty much any body at this point (except for perhaps extreme ISO settings. Print size is also be a factor. Huge prints will expose more noise properties while smaller prints tend to suppress noise due to down sampling. </p> <p>Noise free ISO 6400 images with very good detail and color is easy to obtain with just about any of Nikon's recent bodies, especially but not limited to full frame.</p>

<p>the sentence above should had read" Nikon's 70-200mm is <strong>3 1/2 lbs</strong>"</p>

<p>I found some interesting photos of the lens mounted to a m43 body to put the lens' size into perspective:</p> <p>http://www.fourthirds-user.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13840</p> <p>It is still a lot smaller/ligher than similar focal length/size/aperture/glass quality options for other systems. For examle, Nikon's 70-200mm is 3 1/2 and obviously a lot larger. Of course, the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 weighs in at well under 1lb.</p> <p>The expected high IQ may outweigh the weight issue for some. The TC option, if IQ holds up, will also be quite beneficial.</p> <p>And it does include the hood!</p>

<p>This discussion peaked my curiosity as to how other Nikon lenses compare at DXO with regard to sharpness (all using the D800 body). I check some that I own/use and others that are generally highly rated. Here is a small selection of lenses I checked:</p> <p><strong>Pro Zoom lenses:</strong><br> Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED: 28 </p> <strong>Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED:28</strong> <p>Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II: 29<br> Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II: 25<br> <br> <strong>Primes</strong>:<br> Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G: 28<br> Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G: 40<br> Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G: 40<br> Nikkor AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED: 32<br> Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G: 31<br> Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4G: 33<br> <br> Nikon lenses in general (non consumer zooms/primes) rate very high with regard to sharpness. I think my copy of the 24-70mm is just not the best sample.<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> </p>

<p>$645 is more economical than any other replacement option. If you are fully satisfied with the D700, why not get it fixed!</p> <p>Just curious, how many actuations does your camera have?</p>

<p>Keep in mind too that the 'number' DXO provides related to sharpness is a <em>"combination averaged over its entire focal length and aperture ranges." </em> and that some prime lenses that are know to be excellent with regard to sharpness score just a bit higher, meaning the score given for the 24-70mm is pretty high to start with.</p>

<p>DXO numbers should just be used as a guide and in general, small differences are typically not visible when doing side=by-side testing.<br> And, as Michael recommended, <em>"</em><em>Go out and shoot the lens and see how it works for you."</em> I fully agree. </p>

<p>Ilkka, thanks for spotting the error in the image I posted (I just used DXO's default results) and and here is a better comparison per your link:<br /> http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/AF-S-Nikkor-24-70mm-f-2.8G-ED-on-Nikon-D800-versus-Canon-EF-24-70mm-F28L-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-EF24-70mm-f-2.8L-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___175_792_886_795_165_795</p> <p><br />Interestingly the Nikon lens rates higher than the original Canon L lens as far as sharpness goes (of course the cameras to not have the same megapixels but the differences would be small, if any and in fact, the scores are pretty much the same for the lens on either the D800 or D600), but, in my subjective opinion the Canon 24-70 L (original version) was noticeable sharper on my 5D than the 24-70mm is on my D3. I had never done side-by-side comparisons and only had the two systems at the same time for a very short period of time. Again, the 24-70mm is an excellent lens. I just never felt it was as sharp as it could/should be - I even send mine in to Nikon to have it checked.</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>Ilkka, thanks for spotting the error in the image I posted and and here is a better comparison per your link:<br> FWIW, my subjective opinion is that the Canon 24-70 L (original version) was noticeable sharper on my 5D than the 24-70mm is on my D3. I had never done side-by-side comparisons and only had the two systems at the same time for a very short period of time. Again, the 24-70mm is an excellent lens.</p>

<p>DXO comparison</p><div></div>

<p>I have owned the lens for a long time and it is certainly sharp enough but I have never felt it was as sharp as I would have liked it, and certainly not as sharp as what I was used to (I had been using Canon's 24-70mm with a 5D and was extremely pleased with it).</p> <p>I think the DXO numbers are right but the lens is certainly sharp enough, an excellent lens and the lens of choice for Nikon event photographers.</p>

<p>Have you tried the lens on a different body?</p>

<p>If you other lenses are working, there is likely an issue with the new lens and you should get it exchanged for another one.</p>

<p>Your reflection was around the fender (rear wheel I believe), August 29th POTW, Wheel photo.</p>

<p>This photo was inspired from one that Sanford posted recently of a car which has his reflection in it.</p><div></div>

<p>Bug...</p><div></div>

<p>Testing a new (to me) lens with a beautiful sunrise.</p><div></div>