jay_moynihan
-
Posts
83 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by jay_moynihan
-
-
<p>I have / us both.<br>
The build quality and customization ability, button controls, and ability to use my AI lenses are for me the strong points of my D200's. I have one D200 body that i leave set up menu-wise for HDR @ iso 100 with a cable release & tripod quick release.<br>
The D60 is a competent little camera. Intentionally crippled by the maker (lens limitations, no auto exposure bracketing etc) but it is small and light. You can turn off alot of the annoying stuff and customize it via the menu. Nice travel size. I use it only in in Aperture Priority or manual, so cannot comment on the other modes. The small-light-use-instead-of-a-point & shoot is why i got mine.<br>
No experience with any of the newer bodies.</p>
-
<p>I do not know the actual causality of the CA in either of the lenses discussed above. But i have read a number of reviews of each, and full size samples. I am fond of "normal" perspective lenses, and use DX format, so it is of interest to me. If the CA in the new Nikon is not as good as the Sigma, that is pretty bad, given the amount in the Sigma.<br>
If it is similar to lateral CA, the problem for an image is not only the obvious discoloration on edge areas. It would also mean less resolution where the CA appears (since the error is different wave lengths not focusing at the same point). I do not know myself if in camera or post processing CA correction addresses that, or merely cures the apparent color error.<br>
I use a couple of the older ones (35mm f/2 AF & AF/D Nikkors), so i do not have the CA problem, relatively speaking.</p>
-
<p>re: the 35mm AF-D will not autofocus on the D40, D40X, or D60...<br>
This could be a significant problem for some, perhaps for those who have only used autofocus cameras.<br>
Being "an old timer", i spent most of my photographic life without autofocus, so the use of the 35mm AF-D on one of the crippled bodies is not difficult, and acheiving accurate focus simply by eye is not difficult. The lense also has a decent focusing ring.<br>
Now, manually focusing on Nikon's DSLRs (and i assume other brands) is not as good as on the old non- AF film bodies, due to the lower quality view finder and screens. But i was pleased to find i could still focus by eye.</p>
-
<p>I use a 35mm f/2 AF D a lot. Love it. Am not doing the the new f/1.8 due to the CA excess, which for me is a killer, (CA also results in lower resolution where it appears, so even if removed in PP, etc). You can compare both at <a href="http://www.photozone.de">www.photozone.de</a> .<br>
The older 35mm is generally considered the second best 35mm for Nikon digital bodies, as far as IQ goes. The Zeiss (Cosina) 35mm f/2 ZF is #1 (it is 2.5x the cost, and manual focus).<br>
Funny thing for me, is that my 35mm f/2 AF D was my least favorite 35mm on my Nikon film bodies. On those, I preferred the 35mm f/1.4 AIs, and even the old 35mm f/2.8 AIs. But on a digital body, the F2 is sharp, contrastly, and the lowest CA of any nikkors i have put on my DSLR bodies.</p>
-
<p>There are tests of both (on a DX body), at <a href="http://www.photozone.de">www.photozone.de</a> <br>
"Sharpness":<br>
Each lense wide open: the new one better across field as opposed to center.<br>
As you close down the aperture, the older one gets better. and is pretty consistently high in center and across field.<br>
CA<br>
New one, very poor, and (this is unusual) increases as you close down the aperture. The old one is very low wide open, and even that decreses as you close the apeture down.<br>
Build quality: the older one of course ( but that is generally true of older nikkors).<br>
I assume the focus on the new one is quieter, and quicker. The older one does not AF on the D40/40x/60. And of course, the new one AF's on the D40/40x/d60.<br>
My only personal experience is with the older one. Use it on a D200 & a D60. I was interested in the new one for my little D60, (i am a fan of "normal" lense primes), but the CA for me killed the desire. Where CA appears, it diminishes resolution in those areas, even if you can remove the obnoxious coloration in PP.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Being a user of the 35mm f/2 AF D, I was interested in this lense. The copies of the 35mm f/2 i have have performed very well for me, (d200 bodies, and a d60). i opened the review/test for each in two windows side-by-side.<br />My take away was:<br />The newer one appears to have higher resolution across its field, wide open, and stopped down one or two stops. Equal or less in the center.<br />Resolution in the older one increases across the field and center as you stop down, and remains pretty consistent.<br />New one has significantly more CA, and it increases as you stop down (unusual in Nikkors, usually the opposite).<br />So i will be passing on this one. The added ability to AF on the d60 body is not for me at least, enough of an inducement. And, while i can "correct" CA in Lightroom (the D60/D200 does not have in-body CA correction) it is still something to correct in PP. And where it appears in the image, it reduces resolution in that area, in addition to the color error.<br />My current 35mm's also stay good (diffraction-wise) down to f/13 (excellent) to f/16 (good).<br />I shoot smaller aperture alot, (so clean and CA free in that range is important).<br />But if you do not mind the CA, or shoot jpegs with a D300, or like to do B&W at wide apetures, this is a cool lense.</p>
-
<p>"The D200 isn't all that different from the D300. Also, the D200 is a MUCH better companion to a D700 than a D80 is. The D200 and D700 share; batteries, CF cards, ergonomics/controls, and the menus are pretty similar too.<br /><br />If I were you (trust me, I wish I could afford a D700) I would keep my D200 and ditch my D80."<br>
Geez, that was almost exactly what i was going to type. I agree. The D200 is the one to keep, if the decision is that or the D80. I might add, the D200 has the lense compatability with the D700, a similar ais input into the menu, and it is commonly held that the metering on the D200 is very consistent (compared to the D80).</p>
-
<p>Interesting thread. I am just a few years into digital photography, but started doing photography longer agto than i care to count. I have never even held an f100. Before digital, my Nikon bodies where F, F2, and the FM line. Still have them, and they are used, but less and less. Used a variety of film formates, darkroom, yadda, yadda. But for what it is worth, i will tell some of my own experience.<br>
How a camera "feels" and operates is an important factor. I really like that part of my SLR's and have grown to feel the same re my D200's. Are they as durable as my older F series and FM's? No. But Nikon has not made body more durable than my 200's since the F3. Those days left when they went auto focus, and adv. computerized metering.<br>
When i first started doing digital, it did take awhile to learn the post processing end. When i started doing that, my 35mm film use dropped to next to nil. I still do some 120 film for formalist B & W landscape, at times.</p>
-
<p>I use the 18-70mm on a D200, mostly for landscape.<br>
The site has tests of many nikon lenses.</p>
-
<p>I have 2 TLR's. One is the Yashicamat-124g, the other is a Rolleiflex with the F/3.5 Tessar.<br>
One of them normally goes out with a dslr, along with a handheld spotmeter if i am intending to do landscapes. Use it for "formalistic" black & white.<br>
Still fun, and useful.</p>
-
<p>Favorite is a difficult term when it comes to lenses for interchangable lense cameras.<br>
Probably the Tessar on my Rolleiflex TLR.<br>
Most used on my DSLR's (DX), Nikkor 35mm f/2 AF D.<br>
Most used on my SLR (film), 20mm f/2.8 AI-s Nikkor.</p>
-
<p>Hi,<br>
I have just gotten Photomatix and have tried it. I am using a D200 set to 5 frames with a 1 stop (1 EV)separation, continuous low-speed setting, and using a remote release, tripod. Using Photomatix with Lightroom.<br>
I am most interested in a "natural" appearance, as opposed to the "CGI"/cartoon look, (not that that may not have its place).<br>
I have two questions.<br>
1. Is the 1 ev spread on the exposure the best for this, or would 2/3 etc. be better? Will be experimenting but interested in the experience of others.<br>
2. Is there a way to "store" different AEB and EV settings in different "Banks"?</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
-
<p>I have seen the price quoted at $2000 USD.<br>
If so, i will not be getting one. Being an oldster, i would love a digital rangefinder. And this one can take excellent glass by Voightlander (Cosina, which also makes the RD1/RD1x for Epson), and Leica.<br>
Sigh.</p>
-
<p>16-85mm test:<br>
<p>18-70mm test:<br>
-
<p>I marked this thread for posts to be sent to me email. But it is beginning to read like the film vs digital junk at DPReview. Does anyone know how to "unmark" a thread? Thanks</p>
-
<p>Have both.<br>
Both work on my D200/D60/film bodies.</p>
-
<p>I am a bit hazy on this, but the "color" in the Color Skopar might refer to coatings in the past.<br>
Voightlander used to (and still does it with one lense I think) do a "color" version and a b&w version. The color has multi-coatings on air to glass surfaces. The Skopar without the word color had one surface or none coated. Some folks like the non-color version for B&W film use. (This was re their rangefinder lenses, for their rangfinders, Leicas, RD1, etc).<br>
I do not know if this has any relevance to their lenses for the Nikon mount though, (just a historical note :)</p>
-
<p>My limited experience with scans.<br>
I am interested in buying a scanner. But i have alot of 35mm slides and some negatives (b&w), and 120 and 4x5 in b&w and color (transparency). For me it is a hard pick, since i cannot currently afford the Cool Scan route (which appears best for the 35mm), and comparisons I have seen re the better flatbeds are not encouraging.<br>
I have had mail-order scanning done, specifically the place Ken Rockwell likes (cannot remember name (35mm Velvia, and 120 b&w), and Cooper's Imaging (120 B&W) . Neither were drum, but both offer different file size options, and (i think) both offer scans in JPEG and TIFF.<br>
The files i have recieved back are in the 15-20 mb range (if jpeg). My experiece is to get 'em back in TIFF. I was not impressed by the Rockwell favored place, exspecially the Velvia scans.<br>
The 120 B&W, exspecially the ones from Cooper's are very nice. As far as detail and tonality, they are noticably better than my B&W from my DX cameras. In a 8x10ish print of the same scene by the two cameras (D200 & Yashica-mat 124g), the quality difference is noticable to a "non-photographer" viewing them (at least in my experience with other people). Higher accutance, higher detail, smoother tonality, etc.<br>
I regularily carry one of my TLR's (the Yashicamat or a Rolleiflex) with me for formalist B&W landscape, along with a D200 (mostly for color), if out to "do" landscape.<br>
One caveat re scans. When i get it into Lightroom, the first thing i do is review the entire image at 100% to check/remove dust, micro threads, etc. I have yet to pick am image to work on, then print, that did not need some spotting, to use the old term.</p>
-
<p>I do not have either of the lens you ask about. I am using the Nikkor (35mm f/2 AF D). My copies are very sharp ( across the field, area of edge softening very small, low to zero CA, good tonality). That on D60/D200's as to my experience.<br /><br />But i have read a couple of comparisons of the two you are curious about. BTW: both are reviewed (as is the nikon model) at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests</a><br>
Anyway, the Zeiss has higher resolution measures, but the difference seems to be mostly noticable as you move to the edges, not so much the center. Both seem to be very good, as is the Nikon, but the Zeiss does have the edge. <br />Oh, yeah, the Zeiss is "contrasty" i have read. I mention that since not all like or want that. I like that though. Sigh, it is a spendy little puppy:)</p>
-
<p>I would doubt there will be a medium format digital back/camera that will generally affordable to amateurs.<br>
The reason for my brash prediction is as follows.<br />Given the interests of younger folks in the area of imaging, the future "amateur " trend will probably be towards digital video, with high-quality still capability. Market/economics-wise, that will push the affordability of large sensor still imaging devices even farther away, despite tech advances/cost drops, etc. <br /><br />For example, Nikon recently said that 80% plus of their DSLR market was D40/40x/60/80/90. As youth affinity for video deepens, and they move up the age demographic, even the standard DSLR will become even more of a niche product in the future.</p>
-
<p>"(Verichrome Pan? I'm still looking for a film that grabs me like VP did)"<br>
Yes, a marvelous film. Talk about lattitude/dynamic range. Sigh............</p>
-
<p>I used to use FM/FM2's with primes for street/reportage/documentary.<br>
I always carried an "incident light" handheld meter. (these are still available new). When the light hitting the back of your head is the same as that hitting your subject, you meter over your shoulder, backwards, with the incident meter. Once you get the hang of it, it is really fast. If used in those conditions, it is like metering a grey card.<br>
Here is an example of a modern, current production one (tht is also a flash meter)<br /><a href="http://www.sekonic.com/products/Sekonic%20L-308S%20FLASHMATE.asp">http://www.sekonic.com/products/Sekonic%20L-308S%20FLASHMATE.asp</a> They go for around $170 new, USD. There are also a variety of incident meters available on the used market.<br>
Still use one on occassion, even with digital.<br>
Here is a relevant thread:<br>
-
<p>Have had one for years. Had it converted to AI so i could use it on a D200.<br />My experience with my copy:<br /><br />On DX, it is equiv. (in 35mm) of 82mm.<br>
My copy exposed about 1/2 of a stop darker than other AI lenses on my D200 for some reason. That could be just my copy.<br>
Very high IQ, low CA. Excellent. Sharp, with "soft" tonalities and high contrast.<br>
If i someday get a D700, it will probably live on that body.</p>
-
<p>"Sorry but for both you and the youg Lady, the D60 is not your main body but a complement...It is obvious the mainstay of D40/D60 camera bodies owners buy this camera as their only one and ARE amateurs."<br>
<br />Hmmm.<br />I am an amateur. I use D200's and a D60, for digital capture.<br />The young lady in my example is a working artist (or as said now days, a "professional" artist). She has one digital camera, a D60.<br>
<br />"I perfectly understand someone already having a D200 (excellent body by the way) and - I suppose - a bunch of DX lenses to go with it (all perfectly suitable for use with a D60)..."<br>
<br />I have 2 DX lenses. The 18-70mm (intentionally purchased) and the 18-55mm VR (came with the D60. I use older nikkors, about a dozen AIS primes and a couple AF-D primes.<br />I guess the point i am trying to make is one cannot really judge the the quality level of the photography by the financial standing of the photographer, nor the person's choice in equipment.<br />I would agree on the point though, of preferring Nikon to produce lenses that cover FF, so they could be used with either. But that is simply because I still on occasion use my Nikon film bodies, and may someday, if the price gets low enough etc., get a FF DSLR.<br />Yet I can understand the value of the 35mm DX. The lense that is nearly always on my D60, is a 35mm f/2 AF D, even though it does not AF on it.<br />What i do not like about Nikon's production "strategy", is the intentional crippling of the "low end" DLSR bodies, as to lenses. "Back in the day", a person starting out, could buy an FM and use any Nikkor.</p>
Camera Weight
in Nikon
Posted
<p>In Rowell's book "Mountain Light" he provides the extensive tech, compositional, and other detail for each picture. Good book, kind of like a mini-workshop. This book includes most of his best known images, and is from his primarily manual focus & Kodachrome days.<br>
Anyway, when doing the mountain thing, (during that time) he normally used the first Nikkormat bodies, then for years the FM/FM2 bodies. Wide primes, an 85mm or so, and the 75-150mm E series zoom.</p>