andreas_manessinger

<p>As far as I know, Nikon argued with the sensor cleaning mechanism. They used the reverse argument for explaining why the D3X has no sensor cleaning, but I may have read that on bythom.com.</p>

<p>From a usage point of view, I really love the 100% in the D300. Many of my images have lines running into corners. Viewfinder coverage makes no difference as long as a line runs into the corner at 45 degrees, because then it will cross the viewfinder corner, regardless of coverage, as long as the uncovererd part is equal vertically and horizontally.</p>

<p>Now imagine a line coming in at 20 degrees. Here the guesswork begins. I can remember having taken some shots three, four, five times when still on the D200, and I know what a revelation it was to get to (almost) 100% coverage.</p>

<p>Of course you can always do some cropping or bend it in Photoshop, but I very much like to do it in-camera. See lots of examples <a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/">on my blog</a> .</p>

<p>I still use the D300, I still ponder the D700, because for much of my street work, especially in winter, the high ISO advantage would be nice. There are two reasons that still hold me back: </p>

<p>One is of course money. I would have to use the D700 as a second body (would I really use them both?) or otherwise would have to buy a lot of very expensive glass. At the moment I am comfortably covered from an equivalent of 15mm to 450mm, while with the D700 as single body, I would have to solve the wide angle problem (we know the solution, we know its price), and at the long end, 300mm would be back at 300.</p>

<p>100% coverage is the second reason to stick to the D300. Maybe it's only my shooting style, but for me it means a lot.</p>

<p>Judge for yourself what is important for you. Do you care about corners? Do you come from a film SLR and would abhor the thought of a smaller viewfinder with total coverage?</p>

<p>Do you like to focus manually? Manual focusing is better on the D700 for two reasons: the larger viewfinder image makes visual judgment easier and the electronic focus indicator shows not only one LED for "in focus", but shows direction as well.</p>

<p>Do you need a cheap telephoto solution? The Nikon 70-300 VR does not solve the bird problem, but it's still an excellent and cheap way to go to an effective focal length of 450mm. And you can even carry it around :)</p>

<p>Wide-angle is often quoted as the big advantage of FX, but honestly, it has long been solved on the DX format as well. A Sigma 10-20 will give you excellent wide-angle coverage, or if you prefer Nikkors, the 12-24 will get you almost as wide, for literally a fraction of the money. On the other hand, if you go FX, wanting to keep up with DX on the long end costs a small fortune. Show me an easily affordable lens with more than 400mm, stabilization and full-frame coverage :)</p>

<p>Now the sensor. Yes, the D700 has the maybe best sensor on the market, yes, it gives you an advantage of maybe 2 stops. If you need that depends very much on what you shoot and how you do it. I know a lot of people who shoot landscapes almost exclusively, and given the choice to go from base ISO to, say ISO 400, they would always chose to use a tripod.</p>

<p>How do you use a camera? High ISO street photography or tripod? If you are a tripod guy, the marvelous sensor is wasted on you, and so is much of your money.</p>

<p>You see, there is a lot more to be considered than viewfinder coverage only, but viewfinder coverage is not to be dismissed either :)</p>

<p>As long as you have some seconds of planning left, pre-focusing helps. What also helps, even with moving subjects, is to focus while shooting a high-speed burst. Only forget about stealth. At one time I almost took down a bicycle rider with the sound of my machine gun :)</p>

<p>No need to hate the lens cap. The first thing I always do when I get a new Sigma lens, is replacing the completely unacceptable front cap with a Nikon :)</p>

<p>It's funny btw, Canon uses very similar caps that can also not used with the Lens hood attached. Nikon, Tokina, Zeiss and I believe Sony make acceptable lens caps, but the Nikon are really among the best.</p>

<p>Sigma back caps are trash as well, because they fit in only one position. So far I haven't replaced them though.</p>

<p>As to the image, yes, nice sharpness and probably how you expect to use the lens in low light.</p>

<p>Much fun with your new toy and happy holidays</p>

<p>A lens is a tool. You use it for a certain job, and if it does the job, then it is the right lens.</p>

<p>Some would say the Sigma 20/1.8 is unusable at f1.8, but exactly that's how I use it most often. With its minimum focusing distance of an inch from the front element, with its extremely smooth bokeh wide open, it is a perfect wide-angle macro, opening up a world of surreal effects. In that case I could not worry less about its factual weaknesses, i.e. vignetting and soft corners. Why should I, when I don't expect more than maybe 5% of the image area in focus?</p>

<p>The same applies here. I love the Sigma 50/1.4 for its smooth bokeh and for the rendering of out-of-focus highlights. Most of the shots that I take with it are at f1.4, and I never shoot test charts. Other than that, this lens is a very competent performer, critically sharp from maybe f2.8 all the way to f13, I am quite satisfied with its focus performance and there is nothing at all that I would complain of.</p>

<p>If it's ganerally better than the Nikkor AF-S 50/1.4G, I really don't know. For my work seemingly yes, considering the bokeh shots that I've seen so far from the Nikkor. But that's only I and my tastes and needs. Ymmv.</p>

<p>The first samples at <a title="Imaging Resource D3X sample images" href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3X/D3XA7.HTM" title="Imaging Resource D3X sample images">The Imaging Resource</a> only confirm my suspicion that Nikon plays very safe this time. Have a look at ISO 3200. I know, high ISO under good light and with short shutter speed is not the same as under bad light with longer shutter speed, but still, ISO 3200 is exceptionally clean. Not as clean as on the D3 at pixel level, but very good indeed. Use their <a title="Imaging Resource Comparometer" href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM" title="Imaging Resource Comparometer">Comparometer</a> and see for yourself.<br>

I'd say, on pixel level, it's better than a D300 and worse than a D3, but a D3 image upsampled to 24 megapixel would not look much different from what the D3X has at ISO 3200. Comparing to the Canon 5DmkII, I see the Canon being slightly cleaner, but much less acute. Obviously default sharpening is higher on the D3X. In my eyes this one goes to the D3X.<br>

It's really a shame Nikon did such a bad job on marketing. In reality the D3X seems to be a hell of a camera. Due to its price it's still completely out of consideration for me, but if someone really needs the resolution and can generate the income from such a beast, I don't feel it's grossly overpriced. Overpriced yes, grossly no.</p>

<p>Simon,<br>

I have Capture NX2 and don't really use it any more. The one thing that made me like it, the default conversion that is exactly like what the camera does, is now available for PS/PSE/LR as well, you'll only have to install the <a title="DNG camera profiles" href="http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles" title="DNG camera profiles">DNG camera profiles</a> . This does not mean that NX is a bad program, to the contrary, but I like to do things that need the processing power of Photoshop, thus NX is a tad redundant for me.<br>

Photoshop CS3 is my workhorse, but whenever I need precise RAW conversion or when I have shot at very high ISO, I do the conversion in DxO 5.3. If you're interested, I've written a series of <a title="DxO 5.3 review" href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/DxO%20Review" title="DxO 5.3 review">blog posts about DxO</a> . See if that's something for you.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot. It's my habit to stick to a new lens for quite some time, trying to use and abuse it in any way imaginable. Of all my lenses, the Sigma 50/1.4 was one of the bigger successes.<br>

Btw: I always see it compared to the Sigma 30/1.4, and this really does not do it justice. I own and like the 30/1.4 as well, but it is simply not in this league, at least not as regards bokeh. As much as I like the 30/1.4 wide open, stopped down to f4 its rendering of point light sources near the edges of the frame is bizarre.<br>

Anyway. Both are among my favorite lenses.</p>

<p>May I call it "stunning" in an internet forum after two and a half months of usage?<br>

It is a stunning lens, if for nothing else, then at least for its bokeh, and in that regard it beats the new AF-S 50/1.4 G to an extent that it is almost ridiculous. And: the bokeh is pleasant not only wide open, but also stopped down, which is where many other lenses fail.<br>

If size and weight matter, well, the Sigma is big and heavy, and it's quite expensive as well, more so than the new Nikkor, though still much cheaper than the Zeiss ZF.<br>

If you are not specifically after bokeh and shooting at f1.4, the Nikkor 50/1.8 is a fine alternative, much lighter and cheaper, although I like how the Sigma balances on the D300.</p>

<ul>

<li><a title="my blog posts" href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/Sigma%2050%2F1.4" title="my blog posts">My blog posts</a> using the Sigma 50/1.4 </li>

<li>The <a title="Flickr Sigma 50/1.4 pool" href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/664291@N24/pool/" title="Flickr Sigma 50/1.4 pool">Flickr</a> Sigma 50/1.4 pool</li>

</ul>

<p>Josh, I don't have this particular lens, for my D300 the focal lengths are not really tempting.<br>

Otoh, Ronald's generalization can't be left unanswered.<br>

It's nonsense. I have some Nikkor lenses and some Sigma, and my experience with the Sigma is, that they work as a charm. I shoot a lot with primes, and I consider the Sigma 70/2.8 Macro and especially the new Sigma 50/1.4 absolutely stellar lenses. They easily beat every Nikkor in the same price range. Wide open the Nikkor 85/1.8 shows substantial purple fringing, so do other older Nikkor designs. Not so the Sigma 70/2.8. It's fantastic.<br>

And the new Sigma 50/1.4? It's easily the best 50 that you can buy at the moment, with a bokeh that is unrivaled. I really had to laugh when I saw the first images from the new Nikkor AF-S 50/1.4G. The Sigma so easily outclasses that lens, it's ridiculous. The Sigma is slightly more expensive though and bigger and heavier as well.<br>

Again, this won't answer your question, but it should make clear that Sigma is a very respectable manufacturer now, and that they can produce to the highest standards.<br>

It is true though, that I had to give back two of my Sigma lenses, both older designs. The 28/1.8 had weird focus problems, I have given it back and bought the Nikkor 85/1.8 instead. Don't ask, I was bored and simply wanted a new toy that's not too expensive.<br>

The other lens that I gave back, was my first copy of the Sigma 20/1.8. It had a strong backfocus, and at that time I still had the D200 and thus no AF correction. Today I would probably keep it, dial in -15 and be done with it.<br>

In both cases the local dealer took them back without complaint. It is simply no issue. Thus: buy your lenses at a local dealer that will let you try them. Use a <a title="focus test chart" href="http://focustestchart.com/chart.html" title="focus test chart">focus test chart </a> for near focus and test far focus out of the shop by focusing at somewhere far down the street. Always do your focus tests at the widest aperture. Do that regardless of lens manufacturer.<br>

See my <a title="Images made with Nikon cameras and Nikkor and Sigma lenses" href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/2008/12/lens-index.html" title="Images made with Nikon cameras and Nikkor and Sigma lenses">lens index</a> for images taken with various Nikkor and Sigma lenses.</p>

<p>OK, the "broad answer" is YES, they work. All lenses have sample variations, maybe Sigma more than Nikon, but as long as you buy at your local dealer, you should be OK. I have never had a problem getting a lens replaced immediately.<br>

Having said that: I have some Sigma lenses that don't report correctly to the D300 AF correction. It's only that: the lenses work correctly, the EXIF data is correct, but for example my Sigma 150/2.8 and my Sigma 10-10 both show up as my 30/1.4 in the AF correction. I suppose this is a fault on Nikon's part.<br>

The D90 does not have AF correction anyway, thus I urge you to test all lenses (Sigma, Nikkor, whatever) at the shop and only take one that correctly focuses on your camera. Frontfocus and backfocus happen, maybe more often with Sigma, but they happen with Nikkor as well.<br>

If you ever plan to sell your lenses, Nikkor lenses seem to hold their value just fine, whereas third-party lenses don't. If you plan to "use them up", this is a non-issue. Of course the prestige value of Nikkor is higher, at least as long as you stick to the pro lenses :)<br>

I use six Nikkor lenses and six Sigma lenses regularly, three others at times. If you're interested, have a look at my <a title="Images made with Nikon cameras and Nikkor and Sigma lenses" href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/2008/12/lens-index.html" title="Images made with Nikon cameras and Nikkor and Sigma lenses">lens index</a> and judge yourself if Sigma lenses "work" on Nikon cameras.</p>

<p>Funny, huh? So now you have been recommended about every piece of noise reduction software on the planet, and that suggests to me, that the differences in NR quality between all those state of the art programs are minor.<br>

Differences exist in the way they integrate with Photoshop and how that affects your workflow. What I point out in my <a title="DxO 5.3 review" href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/DxO%20Review" title="DxO 5.3 review">blog posts</a> is, that Dxo - to come back to the original topic - lacks in the integration department, but otoh is much more than a NR software, and that where they reduce noise, they do it in a way that can only a software do, that is also a RAW converter, i.e. before de-mosaicing. Still, differences are small and you will mostly see them when during post-processing you violently push your images to their limits.<br>

Trying to differentiate their product, software companies alwasy try to suggest an added value. Nik's DFine 2.0 is such a product. You get their very convenient UPoint technology, and that's really a clever way to select where to apply NR and where not, but please remember, there is nothing wrong with copy-merging to a new layer, applying NR with, say Noise Ninja, and then using a mask. Edge masks can be used for that, you can select colors and use that as a mask, and you can always paint in your mask. It's not even really harder to do, it's only something you have to think about.<br>

Having said all that, I really would think about what you yorself are willing to use of DxO. Does it fit your RAW workflow? Would you use it for more than NR? Do you have a supported camera and supported lenses? If not, it's an overkill. There are much cheaper NR programs that are about as good as DxO. If, on the other side, you frequently use high ISO, are willing to sacrifice speed for quality, print large, etc, then it's an excellect choice. Only don't expect wonders. After all, there is nothing better than a well-exposed image :)</p>

<p>I have both and both have their strengths. Noise Ninja is obviously better integrated into Photoshop, DxO normally produces slightly better results. At the moment I use DxO most of the time, many times not for its noise reduction, but for all those other things that it can do: lens correction and excellent RAW conversion.<br>

On my blog I have a <a title="series of entries" href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/DxO%20Review" title="series of entries">series of entries</a> about DxO, that together make up kind of a review. You may especially be interested in <a title="this one" href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/2008/10/743-this-is-test.html" title="this one">this one</a> , where I compare DxO and Noise Ninja.</p>

<p>At 18mm on a D50 you don't need to worry about vignetting with the thicker and cheaper filter. One normal filter does not vignette, two of the thinner Pro 1 stacked do. As regards glass and coating, I think they are equal.<br /> <br /> I happen to have some Hoya filters and don't like their coating. It's hard to properly clean. I have very good experiences with B&W though. In general they are a tad more expensive, and  if you buy one of their slim line filters, you need to be aware that your normal lens cap won't fit while it's mounted, but again, at 18mm you get away with the normal sized filters, and they don't have this problem.</p>

It's not the economy. It's the Canon 5DmkII. Here in Austria the D700 is currently priced at €1975 and the new 5D, though still for preorder, is targeted at €2399, though it is listed as low as €2215.

 

Well, I suppose that at this price point the 5DmkII will inevitably push the D700 even lower. Consider: almost equal high ISO (at least Canon says so) and almost double the pixels, and that for a premium of only €250? The Canon won't rise, thus the D700 must fall.

 

I'm still waiting for the right time to get me a D700, and I guess after the holidays it will reach a low that will hold for quite some time.

Not exactly an answer to your original question, but have you considered the new Sigma 50/1.4? That's one hell of a lens, albeit not cheap and a tad big.

<p>

See images taken with it <a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/Sigma%2050%2F1.4">on my blog</a>

<p>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx">This review</a> reports inconsistent AF

accuracy on a Canon 50D, but I have no problem at all on my Nikon D300. Otoh, there were many reports of AF problems with the earliest samples on

Canon cameras. Note that this lens was released for Canon first.

<a href="http://virtualentity.blogspot.com/2008/11/tamron-10-24-35-45-vs-compared-to-sigma.html">VirtualEntity</a> has a comparison with the Sigma

10-20.

<p>

He explicitly states, that he tests a hand-selected Sigma 10-20 against the only Tamron 10-24 in whole Slovenia, but even then it does not look like the

Tamron could be much of a killer lens. At least with these particular specimen, the Sigma wins by a considerable margin.

LV (Hand Held) uses your first click to raise the mirror and do contrast autofocus. Only the next click produces an actual exposure. Most of the time you hear a double click, once for focus, once for the exposure. It's a mess.

 

I suppose it works best when you set the camera to activate AF with AF-On only, and not by half pressing the shutter release. Try that, it should work. You could program that to a separate shooting bank and name that "Live View".

Well, if a 50/1.4, then it has to be the Sigma. A bit big, a bit heavy, a bit expensive, but excellent quality and a

bokeh that's so far unmatched. I can't imagine that the new Nikon will be any better.

 

Another excellent portrait lens is the Sigma 70/2.8 Macro. It's extremely sharp, usable wide open, without any

apparent defects.

 

I own and love both.

Well, I suppose any full frame camera should beat the D300 in high ISO. Nothing unexpected here. And the

Samsung GX20? Well, I've just taken a look at the downloadable DNG files of the Pentax K20D (essentially the

same camera) and run them through DxO Optics Pro 5.3. Wow! That's a difference from the K20D's JPEG output or

from what Adobe Camera RAW can get out of it! This suggests to me that the Samsung sensor used in this camera

is much better than the software chain built into the camera. When they really evaluate DSLR sensors, well, I guess

there is nothing wrong with Samsung's and I gladly accept that their 14 mpx (not 24!!) are about on par with the 12 of

my D300.

<p>

On the other hand, what does this tell about the camera? How it handles, how it feels, how it wears? The Online

Photographer just recently pointed to our <a

target="_blank" href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/11/i-feel-

vindicat.html">obsession with numbers</a>, and, frankly, having held a Pentax K20D in my hands, I would not think

for even a split-second to change cameras. The Pentax is a respectable camera with a nice feature set, but you

really can't compare it to the professional quality of the Nikon. No way.

If you need one lens, then this is it. I have one, I like it, though it's not a stunning performer at any focal length, but

its versatility is enormous. Tamron has a stabilized 18-270, but it's f6.3 at much of the long end, and I suppose the

compromises will have to have been worse, especially given the price.

 

A fine two lens combination for big reach would also be the Nikon 16-85 VR plus the Nikon 70-300 VR. I own only the

latter, and for that I can vouch.

Purely from the specs, the 5D II seems to be more or less on par at high ISO, I guess in practice it will be slightly

worse, but not much. Everything else that I've heard of, with the one exception of resolution, seems inferior to me.

Think of what the the D300/D700 are: the most professional semi-pro cameras Nikon ever made.

 

The D200 was far superior to the Canon 20/30D in everything but the sensor. With the D300 Nikon remedied that.

The D700 is basically the same camera. You trade in the 100% viewfinder and you get FX and insane ISO instead,

but both are maybe more pro than a D2X ever was.

 

If you already had lots of Canon L glass (and you need damn fine glass to make use of 21 mpx), I'd say go for it,

even if you don't print bigger than 13x19. In your situation I can't imagine any reason to change. Why should you?

Nikon will have the same early next year, rumour has a launch date of December, 1st for "something big". Whatever

Nikon throws at us, you'd probably still be better off buying their newest pro cam than dumping your glass and

buying everything anew from Canon.

 

On the other hand: for 8x10 you need neither.

Adobe Camera RAW automatically tries to eliminate dead pixels and does a decent job at it. DxO 5.3 does it in the

"High ISO" preset automatically, otherwise you have to activate it. It is a checkbox on the "DxO noise" tab, hidden

under "More options". Activate it and DxO does an excellent job. There seems to be no way to make this default,

though.

<p>

Well, now that I think of it, you may be able to use the preset editor to set it in the default preset. And then, maybe

not. There may be a reason why the presets that come with the program display a lock.

<p>

Capture NX/NX2 don't eliminate hot pixels, at least not that I know. I have already searched for it, but maybe it's

hidden somewhere. I don't use it that much any more since I've installed the <a href="http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/

index.php/DNG_Profiles">DNG camera profiles</a> in Photoshop. Using them, I get default output that very closely

matches the JPGs from the camera.

It all depends upon what you do. I have set one of my shooting banks to "ISO 6400 B&W", i.e. ISO fixed to 6400, JPEG output set to B&W (the NEF is still raw, thus shooting NEF+JPEG I can still get color), and the results are very satisfying. It's a funny game: forget about ISO and noise, shoot action at night, the result is a slightly grainy (less than high-speed film) but pleasing B&W image. See <a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/2008/09/712-straight-no-chaser.html">here</a> for an example. This is not bad. Not bad at all :)

What I see at the Imaging Resource is not higher resolution, that's more aggressive sharpening. Look at the images

at ISO 3200 and ISO 6400. I don't have a D90, but I suppose that images converted by the same RAW converter with

the same settings will be identical.

Some people seem to dislike 50mm on DX for general work, I don't. I also have not waited for the AF-S 50/1.4G, but instead have bought the Sigma 50/1.4, which is a fantastic lens with incredible bokeh, and I can't see the Nikkor possibly being any better. We'll see.

 

I also have the Sigma 30/1.4 and the Nikon 50/1.8. Both can't compete when it comes to bokeh, but both are very competent lenses otherwise. Around f4, out of focus highlights near the edge of the frame become triangular on the Sigma 30/1.4, and the Nikon 50/1.8 generally has a slightly harsher bokeh.

 

In general, almost all fast primes produce pleasing bokeh wide open. Why not? At maximum aperture they all are no more than tubes with a lens, i.e. the aperture is round. It's slightly stopped down, where it gets interesting.

 

Finally it all depends on what you want to shoot. If you want to shoot in good light, wide open and at close focus, all three lenses produce stunning results. At low light stopped down, at night out on the streets, I would prefer the Sigma 50/1.4. That's exactly the case where you frequently have point lights near the edges.