glenncadman

<p>As an ex F5 owner the switch to the lighter F610 has been good, but once you attach add some pro-glass a L arca tripod mount and potentially a flash it's still a weighty kit. My kit today weighed in at 2.3KG :)<br /><br />In OZ the price of a well used ex pro wedding camera ( but not abused) D800 with 36K shutters is around $1750 (US$1350) and used D700 around half of that $850 ( US$630), low shutter use amatuer cameras can command a 10% premium At those prices a lot of camera for the money. For more landscape style photography the D800(E) would be probably suit a F5 type buyer particularly the older glass you will have. Mind you as mentioned when the new Sony 42MP sensors make there way into the next crop of top end nikons ( eg a D850 and the D5) prices of these older bodies will drop by 1/2 again, but such is life for real time image computers.<br /><br />As for all this nonsense about the AF on a D610 being so-so, teamed with the new lenses rather than the mechanical AF (screwdriver), I think it is fantastic in comparison to 20 years ago. Yes maybe the D750 is a bit better and yes a Canon D is better still, but stepping back a moment; a D610 with new electronic AF lens , relative the F5 with a screwdriver AF the D610 AF is noticeably better. What is average however is a D610 ( and no doubt a D750, D7xxx etc ) driving the old "legacy" screwdriver AF lenses. So from my point of view AF of a D610 is excellent, just there is a new crop that may be marginally better if I tried them.</p>

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

<p>No polarizer on the lens, I kept the lens in manual focus mode. I used the vignetting tool for lens profile and there was an improvement. But now I see the changes in exposure between frames has created darker and lighter patches <br />So next time I will do a test image/reference image, then set to fully manual mode and keep everything consistent and of course a wish for good light!<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>I think I didnt pan at regular intervals so the stitches are not regular either. It was just a test, the light wasnt what I was hoping for yesterday. So probably I should stop down from F2.8 to F4 or 5.6?<br /><br />Example image is here</p><div></div>

<p>Using a Nikon 300mm F2.8 and Lightroom to stitch a panorama together, however there is darker exposure bars around edges of each frame. How do I fix this do I need lens correction? <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18044766-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="151" /></p><div></div>

<p>OK imagine the engineering gloves are off, but no magic physics, light waves/photos are defracted and optical laws must be obeyed, what would be the "ultimate" FX (35mm) sensor be? ie. the engineering end point as far as MP , ISO and dynamic range, above which would serve no advantage in incremental improvements? <br /><br />He who cannot be named in this forum (Ken RockW) has a mouse rollover comparison between detailed the 5DRS and 5D MIII images and unless it is a fabrication ( or more kindly "fictional" comparison) it does seem that there is a noticeable improvement between the resolution of images of a 5DR (50MP) and the 22MP. </p>

<p>Here is the thing I get confused, all things being equal , a sensor with even more pixels will be at worst no benefit, how could they be result in a deleterious soft image relative to a fewer pixel sensor?. Imagine a hypothetical "35mm" FX 250MP (18000x 12000) sensor in which clearly pixel size is so small diffraction will occur, how can the imagines is produces on my 14-24mm F2.8 be "softer" than a 25MP sensor as I have in my D610? I can accept an argument that with diffraction all those pixels may not render a sharper imagine, but I cannot possibly think that having 250MP would result in an overall softer image once RAW software developing crunches the file. The new samsung galaxy 6 has a 16MP camera, the sensor must be tiny relative to a FX sensor, if the galaxy 6 sensor with the same pixel density was expanded up to FX size it would have to be a 100MP sensor. I cannot imagine that such a supersized Galaxy6 sensor, all things being equal is going to give a worse image than a 24MP sensor.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It is hard to explain creaminess with examples from a computer monitor, what I am meaning is the seamless "creamlike" tonality you see in the normally professionally printed photography at exhibitions etc, normally from medium or large format film cameras. I dont think it is only a lens factor, more a factor of the media/sensor that receives those nicely aligned photons. <br /> Of course anyone can argue that difference that doesn't make a difference is not a difference: if there is no visible difference between photographic outcomes in selecting a 50MP sensor over a 24MP sensor then why bother? But of course reality is that there will be a difference with more pixels, the ability to crop/zoom, extract fine details etc that make me want a 50MP sensor over a 24MP sensor (all things else being equal). <br /><br />The "compute" factor however I don't think is such an issue, disk is phenomenally cheap a 50MP image is going to consume around 50MB, 2TB disk sells for US$80 or US$160 for two so you have a backup, around 40,000 images or 1cent each. My laptop has 8000MB of RAM and 4 CPU cores, more than memory more then enough to process a single image or even to blend a panorama, as would any computer produced in this decade and likely to be owned by a person who buys a top end camera system..<br /> Processing 4K at 60f/sec however is the desktop challenge.</p>

<p>All things being equal wouldn't we would all choose a camera with more pixels than less? If there was a D610 with 50MP or a D610 with 24MP at the same price with the same everything else I would have gone with the 50MP version. However if there was a D610 with 24MP with better dynamic range and 16 bit color vs a 50MP with 12 bit color and normal dynamic range, I would choose the 24MP version.<br>

Maybe the market for future cameras will split into the a hypothetical Nikon D900 "Art" and the D900 "Sport". The art series , slow, but increased HDR, 16 bit color with real creaminess, optimized for best quality portraits and landscapes printed to paper vs a sport optimized (mirrorless) for high speed shooting ( 32fs in 8K), AF capture and files optimized for online jpeg conversion ( 8 bit color) . It will be interesting the if the next D5 vs the D800 successor shows this dichotomy of photographic outcomes. That being said no company is going to willingly tool up two very expensive production lines just to fabricate two sensor types if they can possibly avoid it. </p>

<p>I second Michael B, what is missing is better HDR and improved creaminess, even broader ISO without degradation, yes it is technologically more difficult, than just having more smaller pixels; maybe 3 orders of magnitude between resolving a bright sky and the bark of a dark tree in the same shot very hard to capture the full range and tones. i was of the understanding that 35mm velvia resolution was more or less equivalent to a 50MP camera with 16bit color. The new <a href="http://www.colbybrownphotography.com/sony-officially-announces-the-a7rii-full-frame-42mp-mirrorless-camera/">42MP Sony alpha 7R </a>would appear to be moving towards both bigger and better, a very attractive camera, one would expect Sony not to waste the huge investment in tooling up for such a sensor and we should await what Nikon can do with it.<br>

"I will finally be able to take good photos when I get my hands on the next generation of gear"....<em>Ansel Adams (or not)</em></p>

<p>Not sure why my edits didnt display, but i made export smaller. </p><div></div>

<p>The ice cracks are the star of the picture, light reflection leading to background clock tower</p><div></div>

<p>I was captivated by <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1062164">Radu Carps</a> beautiful <a href="/photo/17848013&size=lg">image here</a> , I was wondering how this was done? the petals transform into translucent vapor trails? <br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>Whilst being as far from as a working professional sports photographer as you can get, the 300mm really doesn't cut it as far as moving subjects AF with the D610. My old F5 could drive a screwdriver AF to very well particularly focus subject tracking. But the ameteur D610 does it . s . l . o . w . and couldn't even track a car coming down my street, maybe I haven't yet understood the new cameras "newfangled" expeed 3 auto focus tracking options correct, so I will give it another go.<br>

Anyway for static shots, focus and recompose on a tripod, optically however the 300mm is still as good at it gets particularly nice bokeh (at least on in my budget anyway). Practical considerations however are another matter, the 300mm stays at home because it is simply too big and heavy unless I was going somewhere local where I would specifically planning just to use it. It certainly wouldn't be coming with me with on an OS trip as carry-on. So from that point of view the 150-600 would get more regular and practical use.<br /><br />That being said for AUD$100 a used 3rd party teleconverter will not be a huge burden and about right for the probable frequency of use.</p>

 

<p>Just to bring a 10 year old thread to life. I also have the same ED AF Nikkor 300 F2.8 and would like a teleconverter ideally a 2X but 1.X would also be OK. My new camera body is a D610 and think the old glass of the 300mm ED is still as good as it gets. Has anything changed in the last decade, would I still need to get a used/ebay tamron or kenko TC? It would appear the new AF-S teleconverters such as the TC-17EII are not compatible at all. <br /><br />Naturally I could just sell the beautiful beast and trade down to a lighter consumer grade Tamron plastic fantastic VR 150-600mm zoom, but this is a waste IMHO, just for the infrequent desire to get a bit longer shots.</p>

<p>I think the point is that it depends on the purpose of the gear. If you will be going somewhere the express purpose of photography, to capture that 1 special image for your wall, then you can take a bag of gear or even a trolley bag along makes sense. "<strong>If</strong> it is more than 500 feet from the <strong>car, it is not photogenic</strong>". <br>

If you are on a OS trip and photography is just part of the experience, then you have to be selective in what kit you bring, lightness and flexibility really comes into account. I had a F5 and the big 80-200 f2.8 zooms and even the 300mm F2.8 and they are just too big to travel with, particularly if you are with your family. From what I have seen of pro wedding photographers, yes prime 1.4 lenses are very much in use but they are attached to a number camera bodies as are the F2.8 zooms and a 70-200 F2.8 is great for indoor use. As a guest of a wedding I just not going to attend with 3 cameras around my neck, but if I had the talent, and my job was photography that would be different. I am sure the pro would feel he/she has done a physically hard days work photographing an event.<br>

I guess the Andy's cherry blossoms are done at F5.6, but I would like to know the length of the lens to make sense of it</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I was looking at the same problem a few weeks ago, I had an F5 and a number of "pro" Nikon lens from the AF-D days.<br /><br />I ended up with a new D610 on special for approx US$1100 in Oz Nikon was given a cash back discount. I didn't think the step up to a D750 was worth the extra $500 for the only feature that mattered to me, that being the better autofocus system. The other option was a used D4 or D3X, but in OZ most are professionally used with high shutter counts albeit with plenty of life in them yet.<br>

Personally the D610 so far has been great, the old Nikon glass as clear as ever, though the autofocus takes about twice as long as the 18 year old F5 with much more hunting. Now I just need to wish for some photographic talent, all pictures so far have not done the camera justice. Maybe I will over time get some AFS VR glass. <br /><br />The D610 is light weight so if you lets say buy a 28-300 then when you travel light you can just take that lens and a monopod without turning your family holiday into a photographic equipment expedition. With the rest of the budget just get stuck in with the prime lenses, they will retain value long term so even if you find after a year you are not using one you can resell on the used market without suffering a big loss, dont forget a on/off camera flash pair a carbon tripod and an arca swiss monoball.<br /><br /> </p>

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

<p>I saw used ex pro D3 with an almost 350,000 shutter count for AUD$1950 (US$1520), looked good condition , but decided not to go down that path. I ended up buying a new D610 for AUD$1465 (US$1140). I must admit there seemed quite a difference in the quality feel of the semi pro D810 or real deal D4 (or even my F5) and the D610. However I just had to calm down and consider that I make my living talking IT, not image creation. <br /><br />BTW Can anyone recommend a good (doesnt have to be Nikon branded) macro lens ? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi lets just say I am not all that keen to "refresh" my stock of pro level F2.8 glass, maybe they are not that expensive now, but the sell price on the used market vs the buy price of VR equivalents would cost most of a small car. They are from a golden time of IT when I got paid for weekends and overtime, so I saved my overtime money and purchased a lens every so often as a little treat, the Nikon F5 was a long cutover and the 300mm F2.8 was from an particularly nasty few months. I am also in Australia so there is not really abundant stock on the used market.<br /><br /><br /> Those days are long dead, the work is just as hard, but no more overtime money and a I have now a pair of expensive teenage daughters, so believe me a D610 is a luxury.</p>

<p>The D3 idea does have merit, something I didn't consider.</p>

<p>I do ( or more correctly; did) a lot of nature photography; slow Velvia with tripods, monoballs , not much interest in the high speed sports side of the art. Cropping of images is important though today with computerization/digitization the ease of cropping is light years away from the limits of 35mm images. <br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>I have a old Nikon F5 and a collection of quality older non VR, Nikon 2.8 ED zooms and an 300mm ED F2.8 prime. To make the best of this old but good glass would the FX format be the best path forward eg (D610) or is DX good enough eg (D7100)? </p>

<p><em>Yep I am sure this questions has been asked before, but missed the answer.</em></p><div></div>