dmitry_kiyatkin

<p>No dust on sensor really. A couple of small specs, but nothing that bother me Nic. I do not know if what I mean shows up on monitor well. </p>

<p>Hi, I am a little puzzled by something and I need help. I used to use D300 to photograph scale models. I use a small set of studio lights and 60mm lens. never had a any troubles. I use a D700 for my other photography. I want to sell the D300 and use the D700 for the model as well. I tried my setup today and am getting funny results. Feel like the bottom of the frame is darker than the top. This can be seen as I change the orientation on the camera. I shoot at 1/250 at f29. Camera to light is connected with a synch cord. <br>

Here is a pic in regular orientation:<br>

<img src="http://www.ww2models.com/ebay/rightsideup.JPG" alt="" /><br>

Here is one with camera in portrait:<br>

<img src="http://www.ww2models.com/ebay/sideways.jpg" alt="" /><br>

And finally upsidedown:<br>

<img src="http://www.ww2models.com/ebay/upsidedown.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Any ideas??? I use the D700 extensively for regular photography and never noticed any uneven tones in the frame.<br>

Thanks, Dmitry</p>

On my D700 24mm f2.8 AF-D work and looks OK. It is not the best, but very usable. The 24-70mm f/2.8 looks better, but at what SIZE. 28mm and 20mm AF-D are about as good as the 24mm. I think the 35mm is somehow a little better. Still fior me the 24-70 beats them all. Maybe the Nano coating helps?

 

I do somehow think that 24mm on film camera seemed better.

 

I wish they would update the wides primes. I do not care about the f-stop, I just want a small rel fast wide angle with a little better IQ.

I use this combo all the time. I must say that image quality of 24mm is worse to me than the 35mm or 50mm, but really

quite alright for my purposes. It seems same as 28mm and 20mm as far as IQ. The 24-70 is sharper as well, but so huge.

It is about the same to me as 17-35mm that I use as well. The 24mm seems to be sharper t closer distances and less

sharp closer to infinity. At 2.8 it gives nice results as well. All that being said, I love the lens and the results never bother

me at all. The small size and lack of alternatives have to be considered strongly. HTH, Dmitry

I think this is very well done. Good variety of shots and focal lengths. Thanks for sharing.

I think Sharpie is not the best idea. I imagine some sort of enamel pain carefully applied may hide some of this, but if you

are planning to sell it I would just leave it alone and explain to the buyer how exactly this was caused.

It is a very sharp lens and the pictures just look nice from both my D300 and D700. The cost is an issue, but it is pretty resellable, at least in the near future. The size is A REAL BEAR. It is bulky, hard to hold and heavy. If I shot weddings and had a D300, I would by all means stick with the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. It is sharp enough and the size and weight are ideal. Cost ideal too. For a D3/D700, 24-70 makes more sense, but still only when IQ is very important at 2.8 and weight is not an issue. Definately handle one before you fork over the cash... Dmitry

Bought one from Sammy's in LA yesterday

Toan, The Nikon 17-35mm work well on my D700. Although if I venture out with 1 body, I would rather have the 24-70mm. 17-35mm is also very heavy and large. Not a good casual travel or walking lens (at least in daylight). Nikon's 24-70mm is awesome, but be aware that it is also VERY LARGE and HEAVY. Not really a travel/walk about lens either for most people. If I were you, I would try the 24-85mm AFS lens and keep your 35-70mm for those dark moments. A cheap small 24mm f/2.8 AF-D could also be a good combo with the 35-70mm. If you must have a 2.8 zoom, I think Tamron 28-70mm is a good choice - light, good IQ, not so great built, but OK for most people's uses. I never had that particular Sigma lens, but the other's I've owned made me not want to buy another (not so with tamron though).

HTH, Dmitry

Erich, Shun is correct. You can no longer do that like you could with D300. I use the mac Image Capture App. It works

well. Dmitry

John, see here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmitrykiyatkin/sets/72157606638548373/

I think all there are taken with that lens.

14-24mm is just a different lens. Pure IQ is better, but is it more usable? No in my opinion. EMail me off line if you have

any questions.

HTH, Dmitry

Hi John, I use that combo now. It's OK. My 17-35mm is not terribly sharp, I guess. Some CA at large apertures.

For my style of shooting, I probably will do better with 24-70mm. From my limited use of that newer lens, IQ

is much much better. HTH, Dmitry

PS: Here is a pic from a couple of days ago.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmitrykiyatkin/2748185556/" title="_DSC0694 by dmitrykiyatkin, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3197/2748185556_0d286c8661_b.jpg" width="1024" height="681"

alt="_DSC0694" /></a>

I suspect that if Nikon really updates their wide primes with AF-S and larger aperture, they will cost closer to $2000 (at

least for 24mm and 35mm). Maybe the 50mm will be cheaper, but the wides have to cost higher than canon's alternatives.

At that price, it will be a tough decision.

 

I use the AF-D 24mm and 35mm on D300 and now D700 and I am happy with the results. I am not too picky, but to me

they seem better than 17-35mm as far as IQ.

 

I do not think that you will go wrong by getting a nice used 24mm for < $200 on EBay. If you don't like it, sell it back.

I had the same thing appear several months ago. I did not know what it was, I sent it in and they cleaned it off. I do not

think it is oil though.

Hello, about a year ago I was pretty shot on funds and needed a couple of studio strobes with soft boxes, stands. I bought 2 Afterglow

Nealite Series Dynaphos strobes - huge orange things! Came with softboxes, stands, the works from about $200 on EBay. They were

new. They worked for what I needed them for and then one stopped firing. Modelling light works, but the flash does not go off. Any idea

what I should do? Do there things get repaired and is it worth the money? Does anyone sell a replacement unit? I am in Baltimore BTW.

Thanks.

We are are so far away from "TMax 3200" days. I shot 100's of rolls of that stuff in college. There was really no color

alternative at all then. I am very impressed with the images. Have not tried it out myself yet. Thanks for posting.

Thanks guys, I think I have my answer without really asking a direct question. Dmitry

Thanks guys. I am really asking, if shooting handheld, in the dark, with a wide angle lens and an F5 is better than the

same lens and F100. At shutter speeds 1/8-1/30, which setup is likely to yield more "keepers." Tripods is not an option for

this exercise as is a VR lens as Nikon has not yet given us a fast wide VR lens.

I read on the KR site that F100 has some kind of problem with mirror shake that makes it less usable for slow

shutter speeds. Is this true? Is it really less appropriate for shooting, say at f/8 sec than an F5? Is this true only

for hand held use but not for tripod mounted use?

Not sure yet, but compared to D300, D3 is somewhat better made - more solid. For 95% people that should not matter but

for some people it will.

If the IQ is OK, it would be a good lens to have actually. Heard not best things about it, but never used myself.

The kit is advertised for $3600. Camera alone for $3000. Lens alone for sale now at around $510. Same lens, as far was I can tell. Why

is the kit more expensive? Any ideas?

Could be a light leak when they were getting the leader out in the lab. When I take film to my local drug store place, the

people there are so inexperienced and uncaring that I often get these type of damage on the early frames. To get the

leader out, takes some skill and care, and I think it is easy to mess it up.

Yes, that is how it sounds normally.

At least for FX, I would go for 17-35, 50mm, and 70/80-200. Of course this assumes having 2 FX cameras and that is a

costly proposition!