tom_freda

<p>

<p>Kelley,<br>

I'm a former photo journalist from the film days. I usually shot with 2 Nikon bodies; one with Tri-X rated at 800, the other with Tri-X rated at 200 (both developed in Rodinal 1:100). Excessive cropping in editing was common, even expected. Despite that, the quality was always excellent and complaints were only when something was out-of-focus. Today, although I don't to news work anymore, I use D2X and other Nikon bodies in my personal and pro work. I've done many comparisons and my images with the D2X far exceed the quality that I got with film at low ISO and usually exceeds but mostly equals what I got at 800.<br>

There’s no doubt that digital, in general, is the likely successor to film in most situations. However, the problem I see nowadays is that photographers' expectations have gone through the roof in some respect; in particular; high ISO image quality. Photographers aren't satisfied unless their camera is capable of shooting noise-free images by candle-light. If that's your thing, then fine. But in my opinion, few situations in newspaper photo journalism require ISO shooting beyond 1600, and the D2X is more than capable of producing excellent results for newsprint, even at that range.<br>

In further defense of the D2X; due to its pixel density, Nikon and other manufactures have done nothing to improve on the acuity of the D2x at low ISO. It's all been slight improvements in dynamic range (indiscernible to 99 percent of people) and lower noise at ridiculously high ISO.<br>

These days, I personally rarely shoot over 200, with 90 percent at 100. My clients seldom need files bigger than 12" at the longest side. Again, I've done the comparisons, and at ISO 100 (where there's zero noise), nothing exceeds the D2X IQ. That includes the D300. And yes, that also includes the 21 and 25 MP full-frame cameras, which lose their advantage because those files require downsizing and that costs in acuity compared to the native D2X files.<br>

If anyone doubts this claim, all one has to do is do a few Google searches to find it well supported by archived tests that showed that D2X image quality rivaled the 16MP full-frame Canon EOS 1DS MkII ... and tons of those are still being used today by newspaper photographers.<br>

Going back to film cameras; for those of us old enough to remember, pro film bodies lasted for years and years. My first F2s bought in 1977 served me well until I replaced them with F3s in 1993 ... that's 16 years of continuous use! How many people keep their pro DSLRs more than 3-4 years? Very few. One has to ask: who is benefiting from that kind of turnover - that converts desirable high tech equipment worth thousands of dollars to near obsolescence in such a short a time? Answer: Not the consumer, that's for sure. It's the manufacturers who have hit the mother lode by preying on photographers' insecurities and convincing us that what we bought just a few years or even months ago is not up to snuff any more. We’re being conned by the camera makers. If it wasn't true, we'd be seeing more cameras with interchangeable or upgradeable sensors. Plain and simple.<br>

Bottom line? Use the camera that suits your needs and use your own practical judgment in that decision. Don't let the camera makers, or even other photographers who've fallen hook, line and sinker for their consumerist marketing scheme, convince you otherwise.<br>

And best advice of all: Take advantage of all those photographers who are dumping their perfectly fine D2X bodies. Good ones are going for about $1000, a fifth of what they sold for just 3 years ago.</p>

</p>

<p>> Picture 1 = 1/60 f4<br /> > Picture 2 = 1/60 f4<br /> > Picture 3 = 1/20 f9<br>

I think this is pretty much the problem. As mentioned by others, camera shake and DOF are most likely the culprit. I have a 10-20 myself and, if used within its limitations, it's an incredibly sharp lens. The limitations? As one would with all but the most expensive pro-grade glass, stick to f/8 - f/11 if optimal image sharpness is the priority and only shoot wider in rare emergencies.<br>

Having worked in retail many years ago, I also found that a surprising number of people end up with unsharp images due to camera shake. Technique can improve upon this but until it's mastered, I always recommended that 1/125 be the minimum speed when shooting handheld. From looking at the examples, the softness seems to be universal right across the frame rather than on different planes so I'm putting my money on this as the main problem.<br>

So, the key to getting tack-sharp images is to stick to 1/125 or above and a couple of stops down from max. To do this, you have to: a) shoot in brighter light, b) use a tripod, or c) set the camera at a higher sensitivity setting. If you're still experiencing problems after that, the next step is to check for front or back-focusing in your camera body by comparing with other lenses or testing the body.<br>

If all that checks out OK, then blame the lens. But remember, all lenses, even the best, are prone to being off just a bit in focusing from body to body. That's why many newer pro-level models have a menu setting to adjust focus for each lens in your bag.</p>

<p>Why spend thousands on on a state-of-the-art DSLR and optics, then skimp on the output? That's like buying the best audio system and speakers just to listen to 128bps MP3s. Unless you shoot for a newspaper or are doing family snapshots, the smart solution is to shoot raw, learn how to use Photoshop and ACR and batch process to JPG if you need them.<br>

You really don't know what you're missing. Every JPG shooter I know who learned how to properly convert a raw in ACR has never gone back to JPG only.</p>

<p> </p>

"The 18-70 DX vignets in its entire range."

I have that lens as well as the Sigma 10-20mm and tested both. In case anyone is wondering, the 10-20mm has serious vignetting the full range as well.

Has anyone seen a list of DX or APS-C lenses that will work without vignetting on FX film bodies? It would be quite handy to have and refer to when checking out used lenses.