morty_black

<p>The Sigma 12-24 for Nikon actually works awesome on the D700 (yes, in full frame mode).</p>

<p>Thanks for the link! Biggest change is in the reds - they now are red instead of orange. I've seen this in many examples where other fellas have calibrated the same way. Will check this out further.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

Has someone here made a profile for the 5D (original) in DNG Profile Editor from a ColorChecker chart? If so, would it be possible to have a look at the profile? Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Frederick, thanks for the info and results! Good stuff. I really, really want to like my D200, in fact I love the colors and files WHEN IN FOCUS, but it sure has issues. It's often hit or miss - and I wouldn't dare to use it for any critical work. Absolutely no way. I've also thought of the KatzEye, but it ain't exactly cheap. But if it'll make the D200 trustworthy, I might give it a shot. Also very interesting about the adjustments. Those I'll experiment with. Thanks again.</p>

<p>My 70-200 f/4 IS on a 5D gives awesome sharpness.</p>

<p>My AF-D 50mm f/1.4 is VERY sharp and focuses quickly - both on a D90 and a D200. Tested it on a D700, and not surprisingly it was even sharper. A great lens - and great value I think. Don't know about the 50mm f/1.8 though.</p>

<p>Thanks, Dan. I'll look into it.</p>

<p>Well, I learned a lesson. Always view at 100 % before asking ;-) When viewing at 50 %, the CR2 in DPP is a lot sharper than the tiff in CS3. At 100 % they are identical.</p>

<p>Hmm. I converted a CR2 file (with DPP) to 1) a 16-bit tiff and 2) jpg highest quality. Opened the two files in CS3. They are absolutely identical (and still lossier than the CR2 in DPP). Is this right?</p>

<p>I've been noticing lately that there's a quality loss when I convert my CR2 files to 16-bit Tiffs (transfer to Photoshop) in DPP. Colorwise the two files are identical as far as I can tell, but there's a noticable loss in sharpness and definition in the Tiff file. I thought the conversion was supposed to be absolutely lossless.<br>

When converting Nikon NEF files to 16-bit Tiff (in Capture NX2) and opening them in CS3, they are absolutely identical - no quality loss.<br>

I could very well be without this quality loss. Have anybody any suggestions? Please don't reply about ACR, LR etc. I find the DPP conversion to be the highest quality. Too bad the quality ain't transferred to CS3.<br>

Morty</p>

<p>I'll see what I can do later.</p>

<p>Update:<br>

Well, the answer to converting RGB to HSL values was right in front of me in PSE. Just enter the RGB value under Edit -> Specify... and you have the HSL in lower right corner. I remapped 5D's RGB colors of DPReview's color chart to those of the D700 in Vivid mode and saved it as a new Picture Style. Turned out ok except for blotchy blue skies. My guess is that the color adjustments somehow don't fetch all nueances of the blue sky. Well, I guses I'm "stuck" with converting in DPP and adjusting individual hue/saturation in CS3. Generally gives great results, so it's not a big deal.</p>

<p >Hi,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I got myself a almost new 5D a while ago. I find the image quality generally to be awesome. However, I’m having some issues with how the 5D renders some particular colors. Dark blue, almost purple, are rendered as a light, washed-out blue. Totally off. The Landscape Picture Style (PS) is getting closer, but still off. A normal green color was rendered as a light, washed-out turquoise. Only PS getting close was Portrait. I’ve been checking and adjusting WB and exposure – same results. All shot with 70-200 f/4 IS. RAW of course.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I’ve been playing around with the Picture Style Editor (PSE) a bit. What I want to do is to map the 5D’s color checker card RGB values (in Standard PS) to those of the Nikon D700. All these RGB values can be found online. However, PSE only allows editing colors in the HSL mode. I find this mode a PITA to work with. I’ve been testing various online RGB to HSL converters, but the HSL values given don’t fit in the PSE – because H, S and L move simultaneously.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Does anyone have any suggestions for how I can make a better color profile using PSE? Converters that give correct HSL values? Available .pf2 files?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks in advance!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >PS: I’ve used ACR a bit with various DNG Profiles. Works pretty good. But there’s something about DPP’s details which I find just superior to ACR.</p>

 

<p>The D90 is in my opininon a marvellous camera. I've used D70, D80, D200, D300 and also a Canon 5D. Right now I have the latter together with the D90. The D90 just feels great in your hands. It's light, nimble, quiet, easy to use, and still it delivers the same great IQ as the D300. I'd say the D90 is as good as a beginners camera as any. And as you get better, the D90 will not let you down.</p>

<p>Mike, I'd also be interested in the differences in image quality between the D90 and D700 - especially on low iso.</p>

<p>If it's the AF-D 80-200 two-ring, I'd be sure to test it for backfoucsing issues before you buy it. My lens was exceptionally sharp - when in focus - but I had the backfocusing issue which was very annoying. It shows when you autofocus on something close and at around 200mm zoom. It's a know issue for the two-ring version. Some have it - others don't.</p>

<p>My D200 performed absolutely flawless during 3 extremely cold days (-15 to -25 celsius) up in arctic Svalbard, Norway. My battery held up well for about 200 shots before we returned back to the hotel in the evenings. Always had my spare battery close to my body. In fact, I was quite amazed by how flawless it performed. Everything worked beautifully. Awesome camera body.</p>

<p>Off topic: I've been testing the two AF-S 80-200s back and forth. At all apertures except 2.8, there's a full stop difference between the two! Everything is identical in the setup. No filter, same lens hood, same M exposure. Adjusting in NX2 to match, it's more or less a full stop's difference. What on earth is going on here? I might start a new thread on that one.</p>

<p>I had the AF-D 80-200 and it also backfocused strongly when you reached 200mm and had close focal distances. I found out later, that this is actually noted in the Nikon Owner's Manual on the lens compatibility pages (D200, D300, D700). However, when in focus, I found this lens incredible sharp. All this was on my D200.<br>

<br />I got rid of the AF-D, and bought a AF-S 80-200 used. No more backfocus issues. However, I don't find it as sharp as the AF-D. I've tried two of them, and they performe the same. There's nothing wrong with the autofocus - it doesn't get better with manual. At 200mm, the lens kind of draws a double image. Much more so than the AF-D.</p>

<p>I find this kind of confusing. I don't really want to take the plunge and get the 70-200.</p>

I had the two-ring version which back-focused strongly on close focal distances @ 200 mm (on a D200). Might be a good idea to check this out if you can.

Actually, it seems like Nikon Europe has discontinued this lens. It's not in their current lineup any longer.

Benjamin, I have a D200 and the same lens as you, and experience the same annoying backfocusing at ~200 mm. Especially on close focusing distances. It seems to do ok on longer focusing distances. I find this extremely disappointing and I can't believe such a otherwise great lens actually has such a flaw.

 

Does anyone know if this lens performes "as it should" on the D700 or D3? What about the latest version (AF-S, is it)?