andreas_manessinger

Actually, lateral CA is what I meant. The lens has longitudinal CA as well, just as almost every fast prime on the market, even rather much of it, that's not correctable, but it is not as nasty either and it goes away when you stop down to f4.

Yes, it's worth it. I've written a <a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/Nikon%2035%2F1.8%20Review">series of posts</a> on my blog (read in reverse order, i.e. bottom up) that together make for kind of a review.

<p>

In short: it's damn sharp, has much CA, but that's correctable in RAW, and recent Nikon cameras do it for JPEG automatically, not your D40X though. Thus I would not recommend the lens to a JPEG shooter without a D90 or D300. Barrel distortion is rather high, but using PTLens, you get rid of it if you need it. Bokeh is fine as well. Not as good as the new Sigma 50/1.4, but reasonably good and certainly much better than the Nikon AF 50/1.8D.

<p>

Even shorter: for that price, this lens is a bargain.

I've heard good things about the Sigmas (<a href="http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/">David Zeiser</a> uses Sigma fisheyes as well as a Nikon 16mm), but myself I have only used the Nikon 10.5/2.8. See for my own results <a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/Fisheye">on my blog</a>.

<p>

When you go for a fish, don't forget to look into the <a href="http://www.imagetrendsinc.com/products/prodpage_hemi.asp">Fisheye-Hemi</a> plugin for Photoshop. It makes yor fisheye useful in many situations when you normally would avoid it. There are some examples on my blog as well.

Depends on what you shoot and why. I suppose you are an amateur, because a professional who needs high-ISO performance (some do, some don't) would simply buy a D700 and be done with it.

<p>

Now to your question: yes, the D300 is better. For me it is much better. I do a lot of photography under conditions that I can't influence and that are frequently much less than ideal. I have a <a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/">daily photo blog</a> and I normally publish images that were shot at that day. Being an amateur with a day job, I frequently shoot in the dark, especially in winter. Under these circumstances a D700 would be even better for me, but at the same time it would make half of my lenses useless, raising the total sum for an upgrade to a level that I simply can't justify.

<p>

I have upgraded from the D200 to a D300 the day it became available, and it was a spectacular difference. High-ISO performance is better (at least a stop), but it is nowhere near that of a D3/D700 or even D3X. For my application it is acceptable though.

<p>

For me the most important differences are high-ISO (I use up to 3200 in color and 6400 in B&W, see <a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/High%20ISO">some high-ISO examples</a>), much faster scrolling on the rear LCD, much better resolution of the LCD, AF fine tuning and the 100% viewfinder.

<p>

Thus: for me the updgrade was justified, I got what I wanted and then some. Only you can judge how much better the D300 is for you and how much money you'd like to pay for that.

Pretty impressive.

 

Actually I don't care about CA. That's easily correctable. NX2 does it automatically just like my D300 does, and in ACR it's just a flip of two sliders. What I care about are bokeh and contrast wide open, and they seem absolutely OK here.

 

I should have mine in a few days :)

A friend of mine uses a K20D and she struggles with two things: High-ISO noise is about where Nikon was with the D200 (which is not bad, but not fantastic either, and the general availability of lenses is poor. You can't just go into the next shop and expect them to have the lens you want.

 

Image quality gets much better if you use RAW (she does not), and I strongly suppose that DxO Optics Pro does a better job than Adobe Camera RAW for conversion.

 

My subjective impression is, that the camera has almost all of the features of a D200/D300, but it feels cheaper. It does not feel like a professional tool. In fact, compared to the D300, it feels a lot like a D70. But of course there is the big plus of in-body image stabilization!

 

Anyway. I wouldn't get one if I shot JPEG only. Their JPEG engine is sub-par. The RAW files are pretty OK and the K20D even has a better DxOmark than the D300. If the availability of lenses is OK for you, there should be no problem. Just don't take a D300 into your hands first. You'd be spoiled :)

Interesting. I have an AF-D, and it has not terribly low contrast, but it's much worse than e.g. the Sigma 70/2.8 wide open. But again, this softness is not a problem, it's purple fringing.

 

In order to trigger it, I have to overexpose along hard contrast edges, and that wide open. Tree branches against sky is the classic, and another situation where I got it, was a portrait session on a bright day in open shade. The person wore a bright white shirt. Of course, that's very strong contrast, but not much different from the situation that you have at a wedding.

 

It may be due to sample variation, but I doubt it.

The 85/1.8 is not a very good lens. Yes, it is sharp, no, it does not distort, but it is low contrast when used wide open, and most of all it shows excessive purple fringing. CA is not a problem, you can easily fix it in post-processing, but purple fringing is impossible to get rid of without major surgery. The other problem is the minimum focusing distance. 85cm looks pretty old in that department.

<p>

Of course all these things don't matter at all if you use the lens for what it is intendeed, i.e. as a fast portrait lens that is much cheaper than the 85/1.4. Softness wide open is not a problem in portraits, it's rather welcome, and you wouldn't want to get nearer than 85cm anyway. Purple fringing is also no problem, because why would you shoot a portrait against bright light?

<p>

As a general purpose lens in that focal range I would get the Sigma 70/2.8 Macro. It's a fantastically sharp lens and it's a macro as well. I own both and I use the Sigma much more than the Nikon. See some of my images with the <a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/Sigma%2070%2F2.8%20Macro">Sigma 70/2.8</a> and with the <a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/Nikon%2085%2F1.8">Nikon 85/1.8</a> on my blog.

Most flourescent lights have an incomplete, non-contiguous spectrum. That means not only do the images have a cast (normally greenish), it is also impossible to completely correct. There is not much you can do about it but shooting RAW and trying to approximate. Or shoot JPEG with a fluorescent WB preset and live with what you get. None will be completely satisfying.

I think the problem goes deeper. There is no right or wrong. The camera does what its makers programmed it to do. These are algorithms, not truths. Yes, Nikon software shows you the RAW just like the camera produced the JPEGs, because Nikon software by default applies the same algorithms that they have built into the camera. But that is still not truth. It's only coherence.

 

A RAW file is just the plain data as it came from the sensor. Whatever you set your camera to do, even if you set it to B&W, the RAW file is always the same data. Lens, aperture, exposure time and sensor, these are the determinants. A RAW converter is a software that can read such RAW files and convert them into pictures. It may use similar algorithms and characteristics as the camera, but in no way is it bound to do so.

 

Basically RAW converters can be used to produce any kind of variation of the image, and some people try to stick to what the camera does, others try to work with that data to make the most of their image. It's up to you, but whatever you do, please remember, there is no right or wrong. The camera algorithms are not a little bit more right or true than the artist who optimises. It's just data that gets massaged intro form, either by a program or by a person. Of course there was some truth while you pressed the shutter release, but you yourself have an incomplete and idealizing memory of it, and nobody else has seen exactly what you have seen, so there's no way to tell if any variation exactly matches reality.

 

As to software: NX2 is slow but quite OK as long as you don't want to alter pixels in too radical ways. You can use it to adjust everything that you could adjust in-camera, things even have the same names. You really can think of it as a second chance to get your camera settings right or adjusted to the particular moment. There are even some mighty instruments for making local adjustments, but the built-in clone tool is not very sophisticated. And, yes, it is slow. Otoh, you can always export what you have as a TIF and work on it in a program like The GIMP. Or Photoshop Elements.

Any white-balance setting is a guess. It is an informed guess by you if you use one of the WB presets, and it is an algorithmic guess by the camera, when you set it to Auto-WB. The camera has no other chance but to evaluate the image.An image with mostly green (for example filtered forest light) will almost never look right on auto, and the same is true for some extreme types of incandescent light, even though the cameras of today are quite clever at guessing. You simply have to try what works under the conditions, probably dial in a correction, and repeat the shot.

 

Indoors conditions normally don't change a lot. Make a few test shots, set the camera to the WB setting that works best, and then keep it like that for the rest of the event. You should check sometimes in between, but chances are, that it will work well. The same is a good idea if you need consistent WB across a series.

 

As already said, your best strategy is of course to shoot RAW.

Certainly the D200, no question. You gain metering with old manual lenses, a much more robust build, weather sealing, speed and the possibility to program the center button to immediately zoom to 100%. Shoot, make one button press, and you see if it's critically sharp or not. It's a fantastic camera with a decidedly pro feeling.

 

Be sure to go to a shop and take one of each in your hands though. Compare a D90 if there's no D80 with a D200 or D300. Does not matter which, the feeling is the same. Ask yourself if you feel comfortable carrying the weight. That's about the only consideration. Everything else clearly speaks for the D200.

The problem are the harsh rings around out-of-focus point lights. The Sigma does not have them at all. The deeper problem is, that this is only a symptom that is obvious. Of course you get strange outlines on edges as well, it's only not so easily recognizable, especially when you don't know what the background really looks like.

 

If you avoid out-of-focus highlights (but it's not only real lights, it's rain drops, dew, etc as well), you'll still get a less smooth image on for instance out-of-focus vegetation, especially without foliage.

 

Of course all that is subjective and if Bahram likes the Nikon's bokeh better, well, it's a taste, nothing more, though in general, a "good" bokeh is more often associated with smoothness. It depends on your use, and if you can or want to work with the look artistically, even a "harsh" bokeh can be fine.

 

What I really should have said is, that both lenses are of a high optical quality, that the Sigma's is slightly higher (which is what you pay for and what you carry around in weight), and that there's probably nothing to expect from the Nikon if you have the Sigma. I might have been tempted the other way round (in reality I bought the Sigma because it was better than the old Nikon and the new was not available then), just because I work with shallow DOF regularly.

Hmm ... when I look at the review of the Nikon done by <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/413-nikkor_50_14g">Photozone.de</a> (see <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SHco">this thread</a>), I can't help but wonder why one should do that. I own the Sigma and its bokeh is second to none. What I see from the Nikon when shot wide open, that is just as bad as all the early shots were. In terms of bokeh the Sigma beats the Nikon by far. What exactly do you feel the Sigma is lacking??

I would always buy an autofocus lens. Even if you are used to focus manually, the viewfinder in a D60 is much smaller than that of the FM2, and at f1.4 the depth of field is extremely shallow, decreasing your in-focus rate even further. If, for any reason, you want to focus manually, you can do it with an AF lens as well, but you will always have autofocus for the cases when you need it.

 

This would rule out the Zeiss and the old Nikon AF-D 50/1.4. The Zeiss is manual only and the old Nikon does not autofocus on the D60. Thus you are left with the new Nikon AF-S 50/1.4 G and the new Sigma 50/1.4. Of these two I have only the Sigma. It's bigger, heavier and slightly more expensive than the Nikon. Many, including me, favor the Sigma for its outstanding bokeh, but your priorities may be different.

Photoshop is no suitable program to remove distortions, with its one-parameter approach it can only cope with the most simple of distortions. I use DxO Optics Pro for the lenses that it supports, and PTLens for all others. No problem, the Sigma 10-20 is supported by both, and the results are great.

Here are <a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/Sigma%2010-20">117 of mine</a>, made with the D200 and the D300 over the last 26 months.

<p>

It's a great lens, just put the lens cap aside and add an original Nikon 77mm cap. You should get it at any dealer. There's simply no reason to bother fiddling with Sigma caps, the worst in the industry. You may even consider changing the rear cap. It's not as bad, but it mounts in only one position.

Hilarious :)

300% is not a good size to judge the sharpness of a digital image. Even 100% is much nearer than you would ever see it in a print. 50% is a much better size. Or you just print it on a good photo printer. Good means roughly costing 500$ and up, having five or more inks and printing to at least A3 format. Epson, HP and Canon all have good printers from there up into the thousands of dollars. Otoh, if it looks good on screen at 50%, then it will most likely look good in a print.

<p>

As to the nature of digital images: you may want to have a look at some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem">theory</a> of about the representation of analog images in digital data. Don't be intimidated by the math, that's not the point. The point is, that with digital <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate">sampling</a>, blurring is necessary to stay below the Nyquist frequency, otherwize the process of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitizing">digitizing</a> would lead to horrendous artifacts. The image would look sharp, but you would see things that actually are not in the image at all.

<p>

For all practical reasons, 50% is enough to judge image sharpness, 100% is OK if you are curious. 200% may give you a clue about the quality of your RAW converter software, but anything above 100% is worthless for judging camera or lens quality.

Exchange it for another copy. On the D300/D700 and up I'd say "dial in -15 AF fine tuning and be happy with a perfect lens/camera combo", but on the D80 you have no other chance.

<p>

I would not keep it. It's the dealer's job to get you a lens that works with your camera. In general, it's a good idea to test FF/BF with your camera while you are at the shop. A <a href="http://www.dphotojournal.com/download-free-focus-test-chart/">focus test chart</a> will help. Focus on the center line from near and an angle of 45 degrees, then take the camera, go in front of the shop and focus on some shop sign far away. Both should be in perfect focus. If focus on the test chart is off, focus on infinity is likely off as well. Don't accept a lens that is off.

<p>

On the other hand, you seem to have bought your lens via mail order, right? Tough question. Sending it to Nikon will be as fast or faster than getting another copy from B&H. Still, I'd request at least another copy from them. If this is a frequent problem, then Nikon does a sloppy job, and B&H is in a much better position to complain to Nikon. You may be lucky and the next copy is OK, otherwise you can still go the Nikon route.

<p>

In general I would not shop lenses anywhere than at a dealer where you can try them with your camera. They may have higher prices, but you get what you pay for.

Of course there are things in the user interface that could be improved. Sure, we can store manual lenses and we can store AF corrections, but why so limited?? There is no need for these arbitrary limits. How much storage can it need to save lens data? That's ridiculous. And why can't I use a name to identify a manual lens? That's stupid.

 

The whole shooting bank system could be overhauled, shooting bank settings should really contain just everything that can be set, ideally the shooting mode, AE-mode and AF-mode as well. Of course that is in conflict with the fact that there are manual switches. I guess we can't have it both ways without confusing the hell out of new photographers. Still, ideally I would like to be able to set all those things in menus only, but savable in shooting banks, and maybe get some buttons for individual assignment, for example for bracketing. There would be more shooting banks and a dedicated button along with one of the wheels to select them. I would also see the current shooting bank in the viewfinder, and not only its letter, no, the whole name.

 

The socket for the 10-pin connector is hard to handle. With my fingers I'm more or less incapable to fasten the screw of the RC-30 cable release.

 

Directional focus indicators instead of just one LED would be fine.

 

Nikon will certainly increase sensor resolution, I guess they'll want to be on par with the Canon 50D, and I wouldn't mind more resolution as long as noise does not increase, and that without additional noise reduction in software.

 

Would I upgrade for any or all of that? Most certainly not. For me the only reason to upgrade would be less noise, and I suppose that's going to happen. I remember some technologies like "black silicon" being in the pipeline, and I guess we won't see an end to ISO improvement anytime soon. Current technology may be near its physical limits, but there will certainly be dramatic advances, though most probably not for the D400. I still expect a gain of about one stop for the D400.

 

What I'm not going to accept is losing the 100% viewfinder.

 

All in all I think the D300 is a fantastic camera and certainly the best DX camera Nikon ever built. It's as pro as it gets. It will need a hell of a camera to make me upgrade.

<p>I only know of <a href="http://virtualentity.blogspot.com/2008/11/tamron-10-24-35-45-vs-compared-to-sigma.html">this one</a> , and he admits having got a bad sample. Still, the Sigma is the obvious winner here. It would be extremely interesting to see another comparison.</p>

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>There are many artists who use diptychs, triptychs or other series, some almost exclusively, some at times. Examples by <a href="http://imagefiction.blogspot.com/">Ted Byrne</a> are <a href="http://imagefiction.blogspot.com/2008/01/um-unusual.html">here</a> , <a href="http://imagefiction.blogspot.com/2007/11/whos-artist-here.html">here</a> and <a href="http://imagefiction.blogspot.com/2007/11/reality-in-bucket.html">here</a> , all of <a href="http://billgotz.com/">Bill Gotz</a> ' recent work is in the form of triptychs, <a href="http://www.madmediastudios.com/">Julie Nixon</a> has made <a href="http://www.madmediastudios.com/archives/635">lots</a> <a href="http://www.madmediastudios.com/archives/635">of</a> <a href="http://www.madmediastudios.com/archives/489">diptychs</a> , and at least one of them contradicts our western tradition of reading left to right with a <a href="http://www.madmediastudios.com/archives/489">subtle reversal of time</a> .</p>

<p>There's more. Much more, and all these things make sense in a way. Series of images are great in making sense, because they convey much more information than a single image could. My friend Ted Byrne frequently refers people to Scott McCloud's "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Comics-Invisible-Scott-Mccloud/dp/006097625X">Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art</a> ", a comic about the sequential art of comics, a great book and extremely instructive not only regarding comics, but all the visual arts, including photography.</p>

<p>My perception is, that people generally accept sequences of images, exactly because we all are extremely familiar with comics. If at all, I'd expect resistance from some photography purists, you know, the same crowd that opposes digital photography, color photography, everything but cropping, cropping, dodging, burning, in other words: everything that makes a photography more than a plain copy of reality.</p>

<p>Personally I don't use that device. This is not because I'm not interested in the story-telling power of it, it's more that I mainly shoot for my <a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/">daily blog</a> , and blogging daily is a very unique challenge that forces you to change subjects all of the time. It's definitely something I want to explore though some time.</p>

<p>Frank, why so hostile?</p>

<p>No, it's definitely not nonsens. Yes, the D700 has the better sensor, but at base ISO, with proper exposure - pretty much to be expected when shooting landscapes from a tripod - there is simply not enough difference to rectify the difference in price, not only of the camera but much more of the lenses.</p>

<p>Ilkka, yes, you get access to movements (for quite a price), but, honestly, I have 12 lenses for my D300 by now, I shoot daily in the most different situations, and I can't say that I have missed tilt/shift lenses that much. And again: long glass on FX quickly gets very very expensive.</p>

<p>Of course, if money were of no concern, my dream system would consist of a D3X for utter quality, a D3 for speed and ISO and a D300 for the times when lenses can't be long enough. The problem is, it does matter. It matters for me, it matters for most people, and under these premises I absolutely stand to what I've said: "<em>Someone who mostly shoots from the tripod does not need a D700. It would be wasted money</em> ", probably modified by "<em>as long as he does not need T/S lenses</em> " :)</p>

<p>Peace, OK :-?</p>

<p>Do you know <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=782528">Mark Hobson</a> and his blog "<a href="http://landscapist.squarespace.com/">The Landscapist</a> "? He obviously used to hang around here, at least he has a <a href="../photos/canoe%20guide">portfolio</a> . All of his recent work is SQUARE!</p>

<p>If there is any proof necessary for the fact that there is no "given" proportion for photographic stills, then it's Mark's work, especially when you consider it in conjunction with that of his son Aaron, "<a href="http://aaronhobson.com/">The Cinemascapist</a> " :)</p>

<p>Both are remarkably successful in what they do, both deny the common formats.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I myself work mostly from what I see in the viewfinder. It's easy, it's direct, but it still makes sometimes sense to deviate. There is simply no hard rule. If it works, it's OK.</p>