georges_pelpel

<p>Moose Peterson had a comment on his blog yesterday regarding the shutter noise of the D750.<br> In his words: "... but the shutter when you fire the camera sounds like an old carousel projector with a slide jammed in the gate. It just isn’t sexy sounding."<br> This might be an issue for you in the delivery room. The D810 on the other hand has probably of one of the quietest DSLR shutter.<br> Regarding the 36 mp, they can be helpful if you crop a lot. I assume you work in tight corners and that finding the optimal shooting position might not always be easy.<br> As others have mentioned a fast lens would be a great help. I would choose a fast (1.4 or 1.8) lens over the convenience of a zoom. First because it would help AF, and second because it would allow me to throw the scatter of a busy environment out of focus.</p>

<p>Camera came back today exactly 8 days after it was shipped to Nikon LA from SF area (2 day transit each way). So excluding transit time and a weekend, Nikon had my camera for 2 days only. Not bad at all!</p>

<p>Adobe has posted beta versions of the new ACR profiles that address the D810 posterization problems when using Camera Landscape, Camera Vivid, Camera Monochrome, and Camera Standard. They also have betas for the other profiles:<br /> <a href="http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/camera-standard-profile-displays-posterized.html">http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/camera-standard-profile-displays-posterized.html</a></p> <p>I tested the new profiles, they are much better.</p>

<p>First you have to make sure your lens(es) is(are) compatible. The new converter only work with the most recent lenses.<br> My Nikon AF-S 500mm f/4 II, for instance, is not compatible, nor is my Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4. A real bummer if you ask me and a blunder from Nikon.</p>

<p>Lovely shot!</p>

<p>Get a used D3100 or D3200 with the kit lens (18-70mm) or a 18-105mm. Small, light, easy to use, great image quality.<br> PM me if you are interested in a like new D3100 with kit lens (less than 1800 actuations). My wife doesn't use it anymore, she prefers to use her iPhone.</p>

<p>So moire is not, I should have said posterization.</p>

<p>Adobe has just posted updates for Lightroom, Camera Raw, and DNG Converter that support the D810.<br /> http://www.adobe.com/downloads/updates.html</p> <p>All is not rosy though as some camera profiles introduce huge amounts of Moire (or at least what I think is moire).<br /> The problem happens with the following profiles: standard, landscape, monochrome, and vivid. All other profiles such as Adobe Standard, neutral, portrait, and flat are perfectly ok.<br> Nikon Capture NX-D doesn't have this problem.<br> <br /> Check the upper part of the image below:<br /> <img src="http://logisoftinc.com/photos/2014/test.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>Reminds me of the year I shot my best images of Death Valley sand dunes.<br> There was a huge fire in the Sequoia National Forest west of DV. I woke up in the middle of the night in the tent as the air was very smoky. At sunrise on the Stovepipe Wells dunes the sky was hazy and looked very uninteresting to the eye. But Fuji Velvia made magic out of it. The soft light had a magical effect that I have never seen again there.</p>

<p>For action shots (street, animals...) you don't want to have to change lens to often as the best action is guaranteed to happen when you are switching lenses. So I would go with one or 2 zooms max. If you always shoot at f/16 or smaller you don't have to worry about corner sharpness wide open.<br> But first you should ask yourself why you shoot as these settings. Do you want everything in focus?<br> 1) As Shun mentioned you start getting diffraction when lenses are stopped to their smallest aperture. So you loose sharpness. The sharpest setting are usually around f/8, f/11.<br> 2) Action shots are about focusing on the action so isolating the main subject (the action) is often preferable and the most effective way is to use the lens wide open or close to it. That's why pros pay so much money on the big lenses, to get fast lenses (wide apertures). By choosing such an aperture you render the background out of focus thus reducing distractions from the action itself.</p> <p>As per lens selection I have been very impressed by my last acquisition, the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G. I have owned all the iterations of its faster cousin (F/2.8) but was enticed by the weight and size reduction of the smaller lens. So far it has proved sensational.<br> On the wide end the AF-S16-35mm f/4G is great. But you could also go with a prime lens such as the AF-S 28mm f/1.8G or the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G. I have the former, it's really good. These 2 primes would be great for street photography.</p>

<p>Most of the reviews so far are poorly made or from the pre-production units. The Adobe Camera Raw software is not optimized yet so most reviews are from jpegs.</p> <p>Here are a few reviews you can start making a judgment from:<br> http://photography[REMOVE]life.com/nikon-d810-wedding-photography#more-78104<br> http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/07/29/nikon-d810-vs-d800e-to-upgrade-or-not/<br> http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-d810-initial-impressi.html</p> <p>The consensus so far is that the 64 ISO provides a wider dynamic range then the D800/D800E at 100 ISO and probably half a stop improvement in high ISO performance. But this can be upped a notch with the proper RAW file conversion. As of now the best RAW conversion are from Nikon Capture NX-D or after converting the file to DNG using the Adobe DNG Converter.</p> <p>From my own little test I find the high ISO noise to be easier to get rid of than from the D800 files. (6400 ISO treated images are actually very good). I cannot tell you why.</p> <p>I was very satisfied with the D800 images so I didn't expect much improvement aside from the sharpness increase due to the AA filter removal. For D800E the sharpness difference might not be much to brag about but for D800 owners it's visible. If I can get a full stop high ISO improvement once the correct RAW converters are released I will be very happy. Aside from image quality the other 'little' upgrades are very welcomed especially the AF accuracy and the larger/faster buffer.</p>

<p>Another push for wide angles...<br> 3 years ago I hiked to the top of Mt. Whitney with a D300, a Nikon AF-S 12-24mm f/4, a Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, and a tripod. The 17-55 was used on 90% of the shots but the 12-24 came in handy at Trail Crest. I wanted to show the big drops on each sides of the trail and 12mm (DX sensor) was barely enough. I am glad I had the lens with me. Yes, I could have stitched a couple shots to make a panorama from the other lens but was too tired at this point to be creative ;-)</p> <p><img src="http://logisoftinc.com/lightexplorer/images/Places/California/Mt.%20Whitney,%20CA/images/PL-CA-Mt.%20Whitney-33.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>As primes you have the choice between the Nikon AF 14mm f/2.8D (670 g), the Nikon AF 18mm f/2.8D (376 g), and the Nikon AF 20mm f/2.8D (270 g).<br> The 18mm and 20mm have equivalent image quality, the 14mm is a bit softer wide open. As you will shoot landscape all have good sharpness once stopped down. I had all of these at one point, the 20mm during the film era (it was my favorite) and the other two recently. I found the 14mm too heavy for hiking and kept the 18mm.<br> I have been planning a Sierra hike in the last couple of months and went another direction. I sold the 18mm and got the Nikon AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G (385 g) which receives excellent reviews.<br> I decided to keep the AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G home and hike with the AF-S 18-35mm, the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G, and the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G. I may also include the AF-S 28mm 1.8G for night photography. I think this kit will provide great flexibility.</p>

<p>@D<br> Here are the link:<br> http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/cameraraw8-6-cc.html?PID=3006718<br> http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/07/camera-raw-8-4-rc-and-dng-converter-8-4-rc-now-available-on-adobe-labs.html?PID=3006718</p> <p>A Release Candidate is like a beta version close to the actual official release. This one allows you to open D810 files in CS6 but it doesn't seem ready to take full advantage of the camera sensor enhancements yet. At least it is a start.</p> <p>As per LR, there is no direct import of the D810 files yet but you can use the new DNG Converter also available to first convert the D810 files to DNG format and then open these new files from LR.</p>

<p>@D<br> I think it's the reverse, CS6 is currently able to open D810 files while LR is not. At least that's the way it is on my computer. This obviously is after installing the new ACR Release Candidate.</p> <p>As to the viewfinder you had me confused for a while as the D810 exposure indicator is the same as the D800 and the previous Nikon bodies I had in the past. I have never used either the D3 or D4 so I wasn't aware they had a vertical panel. I also mainly shoot in Manual mode the D810 small horizontal indicator has never been an issue to work with. I never use the back or top LCD panels to check the indicator.</p>

<p>I agree to Thom Hogan's first impressions. I would add my thoughts regarding the new grip.</p> <p>I had never been annoyed by the D800 grip but definitely appreciate the D810 enhancements. Yes, the front grip is more pronounced and that will help users with long fingers but to me the most important changes are in the back. The thumb rest (bump between thumb pad and battery door) is much more pronounced which helps in stabilizing the camera when shooting and also in holding the camera by its grip while walking. The area where the thumb rests (thumb pad) is also wider and less cramped than on the D800. They did that by sculpting out the button platform around the multi-selector. The textured material on the battery door also helps having a much firmer and comfortable grip on the camera while shooting, at least to my hands.</p> <p>Other physical difference when using an L-Plate. It use a Kirk but that might also apply to the RRS. As noted by Thom it is not possible to open the top or bottom connector covers as their respective top or bottom is blocked by the plate. On the other hand the central cover is easier to open (it was very inconvenient to almost impossible to open the big cover on the D800) but it cannot be fully opened as its hinge is also blocked by the plate (I guess the new covers are longer as well). Thankfully the cover is made of soft rubber and bends easily thus allowing the USB cable to be plugged in, so using a CamRanger is actually a bit easier than before without having to slide the plate to the side. I guess Kirk and RRS will have to produce a slightly modified L-Plate for the D810 (bottom is identical between the two cameras).<br /> The CamRanger, by the way, works even if it warns that the camera is not supported.</p> <p>Waiting impatiently for a final Abobe Camera RAW. Auto WB is very good so far. Viewfinder is very clear, processing is faster, Live View interface and controls are much better. A great camera definitely got better, and not by adding simple gimmicks, these are actual improvements.</p>

<p><<you must select from a bunch of bad choices>><br> An option that solves a problem cannot be bad.<br> <br> <<Shouldn't take a genius to immediately notice that putting a filter in front of this thing is not practical.>><br> Shouldn't take a genius to immediately realize someone will eventually find a solution to the problem.<br> <br> Nobody claimed the Nikon 14-24mm f.2.8 was intended to be used with filters but many of us see benefits in these filter options and are very thankful for their inventors.</p> <p>Perfection is not part of this world, compromise is what makes it move forward.</p>

<p>I used to hold my filters up against the lens too but it doesn't work with the 14-24mm. There's too much stray light coming from the sides and creating unwanted flare. The bulbous front lens and the scalloped fixed shade of the 14-24mm prevent filters to be close enough unless you have a filter mount such as the Wonderpana. Even with it holding the lens is cumbersome due to the size of the filters and the propensity to scratch them while holding them against the metal mount.</p>

<p>When I switched to FX I dreamt about the Nikon 14-24mm for a long time but finally chose the Nikon 16-35mm because of the filter issue. I mainly shoot landscapes and love ultra wide angle lenses. The latter lens is great but the lure of the former was too big and I upgraded to it a few months ago.</p> <p>I also lucked on a used Wonderpana used filter kit and got the whole set of graduated NDs, Polar, and 4 stop ND for the price of a basic kit. I had looked at other brands but none had all the options available and were more expensive. I however bought a 10 stop ND filter from Hitech that fits in the Wonderpana brackets.</p> <p>First off, I should have bought the 14-24mm from the start, it is that good. But it has its weaknesses, the main one being flare. You have to be very careful if you have any side light. The lenses controls flare from front lights very well but those coming from the sides can be a problem, remember the front lens is a bulb.</p> <p>Wonderpana do the rescue. Except when shooting journalism style shots the filter mount stays on the lens all the time. Yes, it's big and yes, it's a pain to find a space in the bag, but it acts as a great sun shade protecting the bulb from side rays (and from bumps). So just for that the Wonderpana kit is worth its purchase if you shoot landscape.<br> The filters are big and require a big bag especially the graduated NDs (7" x 9"). I found some velvet sleeve from korea on ebay that perfectly fit them, that helps as they only come with a thin plastic film. The filter quality is ok, I didn't find any image deterioration when using them.</p> <p>Polarizer: You obviously cannot use it at full strength if the sky is part of your image but it works fine for controlling reflections when water is involved. It does however vignette at 14mm when focusing on close subjects (closer to 0.8m, can be easily corrected in Photoshop, gone above 16mm), no vignetting close to infinity. You cannot stack 2 filters without vignetting at 14mm for sure.</p> <p>4-stop ND: Has not tried it yet.</p> <p>Graduated NDs: Not much difference between the soft edge filters and the hard edge versions. I would stick to the hard edge ones. Colors are neutral, didn't notice any color shift. Harder to scratch than my Singh-Rays but the huge size makes them more delicate to use.</p> <p>Graduated NDs Holder: The Wonderpana system includes brackets called 66 holders. They come with screws that you use to tighten the filters in place, make sure to use them as the filters are heavy and tend to easily slide away. The screws can be used to lock Hitech square filters that are a tiny bit narrower and a lot thinner, it barely works but it does and that widens you choice of filters.</p> <p>Mount: Wonderpana is available is various versions. Make sure to get the newer 'FreeArc' system that allows it to freely rotate, a nice feature to have when using graduated NDs. I have the older mount that requires changing the brackets position (3 screws per bracket) if the split is not horizontal, that is a pain.</p> <p>From my first shoot with the Wonderpana system (2 stacked graduated NDs) at 14mm.<br> <img src="http://logisoftinc.com/photos/2014/ACF-Lillies%20of%20Doud%20Creek-Georges%20Pelpel.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Did you have the hood mounted backwards around the lens? I found them to be quite good protectors when a lens is dropped as they absorb the impact.</p>

<p>If you shoot portrait you also have to consider depth of field.<br> A 50mm lens will have a smaller field of view on a DX camera than on a full frame body as it will be a 75mm equivalent but it will have the same depth of field.<br> So the same lens has a 50mm f/1.4 lens DOF on an FX and still a 50mm f/1.4 DOF on a DX camera. If you are looking to achieve shallower depth of field on DX you need to choose an actually longer lens.<br> For portraiture 85mm is a favorite on full frame systems. Using a 50mm f/1.4 on a DX will provide you with the same focal but you will get a wider DOF than the FX combo provides.</p> <p>With long lenses DX has some advantages as you can reach smaller field of view (longer focal) with a lot lens weight. A 300mm f/4 used on a DX is like a 450mm f/4 on FX with a weight reduction of probably 60 to 70%, that's huge. It will also provide you with a little bit more DOF at the same aperture.</p> <p>The reverse is true with wide lenses where the advantage goes to the FX format.</p> <p>So to answer your question, yes you can have a 100% FX lens system that will cover all situations.</p>

<p>I am not a videographer but from what I understand 4K is the new standard TV manufacturers are pushing to the market. After 3D didn't fly with the public, 4K is the new hope to sell new TV sets. It obviously has advantages (4096 pixels wide compared to 1920 with the HD system) but processing 4 times more pixels tasks hardware. Resolution is not the only criteria in video, frame rate is equally if not more important as that's what makes a video smooth and pleasant to watch. <br> In the end the public will decide. Isn't HD already plenty resolution for the average consumer?<br> I think 4K will be definitively advantageous with very large TV sets or projection screens. But content availability will be key so it will take a few years to take over.<br> The D810 has a maximum frame rate of 60 fps at 1080p resolution. At 4K resolution the rate would be 15 fps, way too low for smooth video results. So may be the next generation with at least a twice as fast processor might have 4K.</p>

<p>A couple night shots of two very different subjects taken a week apart. Both with D800 and Nikon AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8</p> <p>Milky Way over Crater Lake, Oregon: 2 exposures both at 15mm, f/2.8 (30 sec @ 1600 ISO for sky, 6 min @ 400 ISO for foreground)<br /> <img src="http://logisoftinc.com/photos/2014/Heavens%20over%20Crater%20Lake~©%202014%20Georges%20Pelpel.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Alameda County Fair, Pleasanton, California: 24mm, 0.4 sec, f/11 @ 1250 ISO<br /> <img src="http://logisoftinc.com/photos/2014/It's%20Fairtastic!!!~©%202014%20Georges%20Pelpel.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>The above is as compared to the D800, of course.</p>

<p>From what I read on other sites the D810 should be a worthy upgrade for anybody shooting action.<br> The 1 fps bump is nice but much nicer is the doubling of the buffer size and the increase of active AF points to 11 at f/8.</p>