JakeQ

<blockquote>

<p>One advantage of Nikon's own software is that it honours some in-camera settings (like Picture Controls) that other converters ignore.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to forget Active D-Lighting (ADL). Though NXD is quite annoying to use and slow, I still prefer it´s output over Lightroom´s conversions. The colors are just there immediately and need no tweaking. I also use Capture One and find it to be on par with NXD. Of course LR has the best user interface and browsing files is easier than in the above mentioned converters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was wondering what lenses are your favourites to use? (...)<br>

If I had one I would put the 45P on (...)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I usually have the Voigtlander Ultron 40/2 mounted on it. Very good combo. Actually I bought the Df especially for that lens ;-)</p>

<p>Some of the newer MM lenses with C/Y mount can be easily converted to fit Nikon mount. The conversion is fully reversible. Just google for "Leitax".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've also got a 50 f1.4 G lens.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The 85/1.4 AF-S has pretty much the same AF accuracy and AF speed as the 50/1.4 AF-S. So if you are satisfied with the 50mm AF-S you`ll like the 85mm version, too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> so why not add more usless features,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D800 will have face detection, which is completely useless for my kind of photography. I wish they had added butt detection instead.</p>

<p>Sell the boat and buy a Leica M9-P with a couple of lenses instead. They will fit nicely in a Pelican case (even a smaller one) and you will save a whole lot of money on postcards ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is a DX mode with crop factor 1.5, I believe.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I`m not much of a believer. But according to the specs on the Nikon website besides FX the camera has three crop options: 1.2x, DX and 5x4. The latter I will use a lot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> It's also extremely versatile for whole body portraits, half body shots, groups, etc. I would just use the tele primes for tight head shots which the 24-70 can't really do (on FX).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 36 MP sensor with its 1.2x cropping option adds even more versatility to this and other lenses. It makes the 24-70 a very nice portraiture lens. I really like the 24-70 zoom but have always wished it had an additional 10-15mm at the longer end for casual portraiture. With the 1.2x crop you still have about 25 MP and 84/2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>1. you expect SLR-class autofocus<br />2. you expect to use the optical finder without understanding parallax error<br />3. you want a zoom or interchangeable lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>4. you prefer to develop raw files in Capture NX2 ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to find out if anyone on this site has used a Fuji x100 camera and what do you think about the image quality compared to the dx300s or the d700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use an X-100 and used to have a D700 (D3s now). Never have used the D300s. The image quality of the X-100 is very good. Pictures look sharper than pictures taken with the D700. Colors are different though and the over-all look of the pics is more...well...digital. The biggest prints I`ve made from shots taken with the Fuji are 30x40 centimeters. No complaints.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />and as an engineer I can not remember of any other company that makes products so well made, precise and reliable, and made to last more than a lifetime.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Leitz Wetzlar? Carl Zeiss? Alpa? Franke & Heidecke? Just a few. And far more interesting for collectors. The church of the red dot especially. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But look. I live in Norway. and everything here is REALLY expensive. The lenses cost almost the double here then they do in USA.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well. Unless you are planning to smuggle those lenses home on some whaler you`ll probably have to pay customs and VAT in Norway.</p>

 

<p>I have used both. The Micro-Nikkor with VR is a very versatile lens. It`s quite good for macro work but doesn`t really excel in this field. The AF is fast and reliable and the bokeh is very nice. It`s pretty much an allrounder more than a dedicated macro. The DC lens is the better lens for portraiture and at least one stop faster (the VR is not really 2.8), but AF is slower and not as reliable as the VR`s. I sold the VR and kept the DC as I needed a portraiture lens more than a macro lens, but for your kind of work the VR would be the better choice I guess.<br /> (Another thing: For portraiture I use Softar filters a lot and for some strange reason the VR lens gives lousy results with softars. Plus you won`t be able to find an original Zeiss Softar in 62mm.)</p>

<blockquote>I wish to get 5X or more magnification.</blockquote>

<p>There is no way to get acceptable image quality at 5x magnification from a zoom that is designed for photographing your family at the beach or your daughter`s prom. You better start looking for other solutions (like T2 tubes and a decent enlarger lens).</p>

<blockquote>One lens solution? For travel use.</blockquote>

<p>The perfect one-lens-solution is a 40mm prime. My personal travel combo is a film or smaller FX body and the very compact Voigtlander 40mm and 90mm lenses. One on the camera, the other fits in any pocket. The 50/1.8 AI-S is very compact, too.</p>

<blockquote>I've been mulling over upgrading to the D7000 for about a month.</blockquote>

<p>So it`s not really about the "uncle Al incident" but you just want to buy yourself a fine new camera. That`s perfectly normal. Just do it.</p>

<blockquote>I've spent 3 nights reading and researching</blockquote>

<p>Waste of time. You could have been reading the manual of your new camera already ;-)</p>

<blockquote>I've heard excellent reports of the Tamron, but have personally used none of them..;-(</blockquote>

<p>The Tamron is sharp and very well made but I found its color rendition to be quite different from my Nikkors. Somewhat yellowish.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>mainly, forgive me, because I changed over to Nikon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can use the lens with any camera of course. It has a standard RMS thread and adapters to 39mm (for bellows) and other sizes are easily available. I use mine on FD, EF and 39mm bellows. It`s a great (and cheap compared to Zeisses RMS) lens. I wouldn`t sell it if I were you.</p>

<p>DON`T expose the lens to UV rays to get rid of the yellow tinge! You don`t want to get rid of it. For black&white it`s priceless. You have all the advantages of a light yellow filter without the two extra glass/air surfaces and interferences. I never use the lens for slides though. Get a newer FD(n) 35/2 for that purpose!<br>

In my opinion the 35/2 concave chrome nose is one of the two best FD lenses (the other being the FDn 85/1.2).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was looking for the broadest range of views on a wide angle lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>:-) For tele lenses a narrower range of views would have been sufficient then?</p>

<p>17mm for landscapes is fun:<br>

<img src="http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n121/LimaZuluTango/claywaterlogdrop.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Macro work (...) does not benefit as much from features which make the T90 a good camera for action shooting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well. The ability to use multiple flashes (300TL) with TTL or the ring lite ML3 with TTL is VERY useful for macro work.</p>

<p>I own all 3 lenses (the Tokina being my latest acquisition) and I would go with the 85 L. It has the best bokeh of the three in my opinion. The Sonnar is maybe a bit sharper and has the best colour rendition. The Tokina I use for macro exclusively.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Didn't you guys learn your lesson in Vietnam?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think they did: Always use the proper case!</p>