d_ponce

<p>@ Eric -- ha ha. Sure, the D810 (and my D3s) have great high ISO capability, but truth be told - I rarely use it. When I tested the Nikkor's VR it was at 400 ISO. The challenge that I presume you are up against is the movement of your subjects, and not the lack of light or ability of your camera. Congrats on the win!<br> I'm with you, Rodeo - the Tamron mechanism is smooth with no stiffness or slop - and I will have to say that the Nikon is actually stiffer -- now that you mention it. I also prefer Tamron's placement of the zoom ring. In the Tamron it is wide and easy to grasp; the Nikon's is narrower and located near the body of the camera, which when you are trying to make a quick adjustment can present a slight delay in your action -- I'm sure I'll get used to it, but ergonomically, I found the Tamron to be a much more natural-placement. <br> @Jose: not sure, just yet -- the proof, for me, will be after I photograph an all-day event later in the week. I've done it with Tamron since May and have been more than pleased with the results and never felt it was lacking in any way. It will mean taking both lenses, but I do want to ensure that the Nikon is as good as the Tamron (wow, I never thought those words would come out of my head!) <br> @douglas: 'bitingly sharp and excellent contrast' -- that actually is the best way to describe the images from this lens. </p>

<p>Hi! Many of you are power contributors so you may remember my post a few months back (something like 'Nikon 24-70 VR finally!'). As some of you pointed out then, there was a delay with the first shipment at the time, but it did come in about a week ago - a few months after the original order was placed. My post was actually more about my long wait for Nikon to develop a VR version of this lens and I waited years for it to happen; saw lots of posts saying "this year" but that was years ago, so (as an event photographer) I finally gave up waiting and bought the Tamron -- but did not expect much, considering what they were like during the film days; but I figured it would tide me over until Nikon got its act together. :-) What I received in the Tamron earlier this year was nothing short of amazing; for about half the price of the current Nikon model! Needless to say, when the announcement was made about the Nikon release, I was excited to see the difference between them. Knowing I would probably sell the Tamron (only because I am a 'purist'), because how could it possibly be better than the Nikon (lol!). <br> I also mentioned in that post that I would report back on my side by side 'testing' on a D810 -- but prefaced it by noting that I am not a 'tester' by any means and do not get into the minutia when comparing lenses (as mentioned - leave that to those that care :-); to me, if the area that I focused is tack sharp and there are no obvious distortions (very minor ones are eliminated with a click of 'lens correction' in PS), then I am satisfied. The Tamron has been an amazing lens for my applications and I have yet to ever think, "I wish I had a Nikon" when capturing a critical shot. It is an incredible lens! (no, I do not work for Tamron :-).<br> Ok -- so the first few trials that I put a lens through is distortion -- I don't use anything fancy, just my garage wall with horizontal siding and a window with some mullions to ensure no obvious vertical distortion, like pin cushioning, etc. The Tamron was initially fine in this regard at all lengths but I still re-tested it in the same light as the Nikon (of course, some 'distortion' at 24mm -- but that is expected at semi-wide angle). The most obvious difference in this test was that, since I usually stop a lens down by 1/3 stop because I prefer a slightly more contrasty image, the Tamron shows this as an ideal exposure while the Nikon showed it as under-exposed; setting the needle to 'perfect' exposure for the Nikon was much better. I put them both through the lens' ranges and most f-stops, then looked at the resulting images at 100% magnification. Truth be told, although there was a slight variation in tonality - I could not tell the difference between them -- although I would have to say it is possible that the Nikon might even be a hair softer at the focus point (but I would have to look at the images in a much more critical mindset -- which I never do because unless there is a glaring difference, once printed and ready to sell, it would be impossible to discern if it is a great image) -- to me if I can see fine-details, such as every blemish, mold spot, crack in the paint of my aging garage in fine detail -- the lens passes. I know the Tamron sees things that even the human eye at the same distance can not see (and many things on humans that you'd rather not know about :-) -- well, not just the Tamron; all of my images from the D810 no matter the lens, have this ability. So as long as it does this, I'm a happy camper. The Nikon did fine.<br> My next test was in the VR -- again, I could not really see any improvement in the Nikon vs. the Tamron - I could take a sharp image with no support at about a 1/10 of second, about a 1/5 of a second if I leaned my shoulder against a wall with the Nikon. I get similar results with the Tamron. My only complaint, and I may have Nikon check it out because this happened on another Nikon that I purchased and returned: is the VR even working. The images are sharp, so I presume it is -- but with the Tamron and my 70-200 2.8 I can actually see the image 'lock' into place and usually can hear the motor. With this Nikkor, I hear something but rarely see the 'lock-in' through the view-finder. <br> Next I went out in the field and took some scenics -- I purposely did not note which were taken with which lens, but did run them through their paces to some extent. I was hoping when I got back to the computer I would see some that looked good and some that looked great and I could tell the difference between the two. No such luck -- there were some that weren't so good (even though most were taken on a tripod as I normally do for a scenic and a timer release) and that happens some time, and some were great. But both lenses had that anomaly. If I didn't know better I would say Nikon made the Tamron lens (or visa versa - lol!). But of course, that is not possible. I truly could not tell the difference between the images at 100% magnification -- and had to read the image properties just to find out which lens was which. This may not be the case if I scrutinize with a eagle eye, but at first review on a NEC IPS monitor, I could not see the difference between the two lenses.<br> I guess, in summary, I'm disappointed. I've liked the Tamron in all regards, but was hoping to be beyond wow'ed by the Nikon considering the price difference and level of commitment Nikon has to the imaging world. Don't get me wrong, it's a fine lens -- but, at this point (I'll update after I use it on assignment later in the week -- which will test the autofocus, etc) it is on par to the Tamron. Seriously, Nikon, it's one thing competing with Canon -- but Tamron is on your heels as well. <br> </p>

<p>Looks like Shun was right on the money -- my 24-70 came in today! I'm going to do some 'side-by-side' testing on the D810 - comparing it to the Tamron (which, you may recall, I am very pleased with) -- I'm curious to see the results, but keeping in mind, my testing is strictly what looks good on my screen at 100% magnification -- nothing fancy; if it's tack sharp where focused, without distortion, I'm satisfied (leave the micro analysis to those that care :-). <br> So far, out of the box, they both feel about the same weight -- and, compressed, the Nikon is definitely a longer lens. But interestingly, the extension is just the opposite of each other: the Nikon is fully extended at the 24mm spot, while the Tamron is fully extending at the 70mm end -- where they are both about the same length. Good luck to any of you others that took the plunge! :-)</p>

<p>@Dieter, I could not find the English version of your article and of the sites that I checked where you can pre-order, they still are showing the Aug 27th date (B&H states they will contact me if the item will be delayed but have not heard from them yet) -- but if what you have shared is correct, I am glad Nikon has found out about the problem before they released it and decided to correct it before it was issued, pro-actively. Thanks, Nikon! So much better than asking everyone to send it back for repair -- so maybe I'll keep my Tamron a bit longer. lol!! thanks for the info!</p>

<p>@ Shun: Yes, it is very convenient that the thread size is the same :-) (thank you Nikon! :-) Sorry I missed the "long thread" -- did a search but it did not come up - sorry for the duplicate, guys.<br> @Ilkka: I wish that were the case -- Nikon included. I have purchased a bad 'copy' in the past, but always buy from a reputable Nikon dealer so returns have been stress-free -- and have had the dealer quite surprised at the poor quality as well -- but everyone has bad days sometime :-)<br> @Chuck: I do have a lot of primes and zooms - all at least 2.8 fixed -- but thanks for the suggestion!<br> If some are thinking that the Tamron may have some issues compared to a Nikkor, then I am very excited about getting the Nikon! -- I'm not a 'tester' and do not test beyond how good my image comes out as expected and, to be honest, I am beyond impressed with the quality of the Tamron. I admit, I don't do a lot of difficult tracking, so it's hard to say how it compares in that regard. I had purchased a Tamron or two, many years ago, and did not get much - so was reluctant to even bite the bullet for this one, in the hopes that the rumors that Nikon was "right there" with their model -- but this one rivals all of my Nikkor lenses (to my untested naked eye for the kind of images that I take :-). I can honestly say, I have never taken a critical shot with it and thought "I wish this was a Nikon..." Funny, but I'll miss it. Who knows, maybe I'll keep it for those times I want to travel light -- unless they are getting good money on eBay. :-) I can be bought. :-) thanks for your comments, guys! </p>

<p>Finally, the 'coming this year' rumors that I have seen posted for the past 3 years have come true. I waited and waited -- and could wait no longer -- and bought the Tamron of the same model a few months back. This is a great lens -- but am excited to see how the Nikon is, at almost twice the price. Will it be twice as good -- lol! :-) good luck to all you other Nikonians that have been chomping at the bit. :-)</p>

<p>Although I only use my 70-200 in FX mode (with 2 FX bodies) I have never found a sweet spot or any area where I felt it needed to be compensated. It is a fine lens, and I use it for a lot of subjects in many lighting conditions. And yes, that VR can get some great shots compared to regular hand-held -- 3 stops? never tested it, but I would not be surprised. I'm with Shun, however -- that is one heavy lens and getting tack sharp with VR with too slow of a shutter speed probably isn't possible; but you will be amazed at what you can get, even with the weight. Nikon does know how about ergonomics -- I have used this lens on a D3s for years -- and even though I'm not body builder and not a spring chicken, I have no problem using it all day without a tripod. My only concern was that you said the previous owner was not thrilled with it -- that would be a red flag for me. Not all lenses are 'made equal' -- I have purchased some expensive glass that was obviously 'made on a Monday' - that was promptly returned. :-) I don't think you should ever have to 'compensate' when purchasing a high-end lens/camera is my take. good luck -- and have fun!<br> Diane</p>

<p>Jill, I'm with Shun on the deal -- be sure you are getting a camera with a USA Nikon warrantee -- and that it is not a grey market camera, or warranted in the US by the store. Had that happen one time many years ago -- amazing the flat-out lies that some retailers will tell you. If you are shopping online, it will state "USA" on a reputable site. You will receive a small yellow (white copy underneath) form with your camera's serial number on it -- without that, you have been sold a grey market camera -- there is no guarantee that you will get the quality of a similar USA-model D810 -- and that would be a costly mistake. Good luck!</p>

<p>Of course the great thing about Nikon is that their 'good glass' has been good for quite awhile. I'm still using a few lenses purchased in the mid 90s all-film-days (105mm 2.8; 20mm 2.8) on my 2 DSLRs -- all I can say is, the images are amazing. The tack-sharp details are almost too much (there are some things that are best not known about - especially when photographing people :-). Now that Rodeo mentions it, I will try out a 'less expensive' Nikkor zoom lens on the D810 and see what he is referring to; I haven't used the lens in years after I got the 2.8 version of the similar focal length, due to its light limitations; had not thought about the possibility of seeing a difference in quality as well -- but now he has me curious -- and it may be a good time to consider selling it if I won't be using it. Thx!<br> Good luck with your new 'toy', Jill -- I know you are going to love it! </p>

<p>Jill - I'm not sure if the D810 is "worth" the extra $ compared to your other choices, but I can say that it is an incredible camera! I bought the D810 a few months back as a 2nd body to my D3s. But after I had it for a little while, I realized that this was going to be my go-to camera, and not the other way around! Prior, I had not thought anything could 'replace' my D3s. Huge files were my biggest concern prior to buying the D810 -- since I did not intend to make huge prints, I did not see the need for the file size (75mb for one raw image) -- but since it was advertised as having the ability to shoot 'small' raw, I decided to spring for it. It did not take long before I dismissed the 'small' file and just shot as I normally do - straight raw, usually with a small jpg copy -- and even they are huge! If you do decide on the D810, you will not be disappointed! </p>

<p>Santosh, I'm totally with you on this one. I carry (almost) everything that I own in two bags -- and have not experienced what the other two posts indicated - damage (the lenses are also in their own soft pouch) or mold -- perhaps they live in a moist environment?). My reason for this is convenience. When I am going out into the field or on an assignment, it is as easy as grabbing the two bags and my tripod and putting them in the car. [For most assignments I carry: 2 FX DSLRs; 70-210mm 2.8; 105mm 2.8; 50mm; 20mm; 2 flashes; numerous filters; extra batteries and memory cards; along with a few other accessories that I like to have handy] Once on site I make my decision: what will I possibly need for this situation; how far away from the car will I be; is there any hiking involved; will I need to change lens frequently? If the car is very close-by I put the camera around my neck and put what I will most likely need in a fanny pack. If I am any more than a minute from my car, I put all that I think I will need in a Lowepro Flipside 300 (I love that camera bag -- and that is coming from someone who never really liked camera bags in the past -- it is so comfortable, ever after hiking for hours with all my gear). I do not use anything that has a tripod holder -- I use an OpTech tripod strap for over-the-shoulder handling - much easier than wrestling with a tripod holder. To me, convenience is key -- since I started doing it this way (storing everything I own in two bags, and simply tossing them in the car when needed) I have never had the "I wish I had brought 'that' with me" or "now I have to go all the way back to my car to get "that" -- and it has been, on more than one occasion, the difference between bringing home a great image vs a good one! Good luck and have fun! </p>

<p>I'm with Wouter on this -- the settings in your camera are crucial. I shoot raw, but then often convert to jpg (or sometimes have the camera create both): save the raw file to my back-up but use the jpg for ease of viewing in PS prior to post of the raw; saving refresh time and space on my computer until I am ready to process specific files. <br> Although I agree with Wouter, and usually set my jpg's up for 'no compression' (and under some situations, use this non-compressed file as the basis for post-processing -- the results look fine from my 12mp camera) I have found even compressed jpgs next to an NEF file do not look any different from each other (yes, I know they are world's apart -- but, visually on the screen, they both look fine). Not knowing how your menu is set up with your J2, but I would presume Nikon uses its typical menu with most of its cameras: "Shooting Menu" (camera icon) - scroll around to the JPEG settings; choose "uncompressed" or "quality/not size". With 10mp, you should get some nice images from an uncompressed/minimally compressed jpg. good luck -- have fun!</p>

<p>Thank you, Andrew - I was not able to retrieve the video (I will try again from time to time; maybe there are server issues), but thank you for the text. Although old, as you mention, I do believe it will (start to) add to my understanding of color space/management. I admit, when I saw all those 'graphs' in my NEC users guide, my eyes kind of glazed over. :-) -- maybe it's time to re-visit that manual as well. Thank you!<br> Diane</p>

<p>Hi Mike -- are these instructions for a Mac? When I get to the Working Spaces section and expand the RGB drop down list (sRGB IEC61966-2.1 is listed in that section), looking at the Monitor RGB row, what is on that line is just "Monitor RGB - Abode RGB (1998)" and groups of other lists (with the sRGB with a checkmark - I certainly do not want that as my default, do I?). Within the group that has the sRGB checked there are also options for Adobe RGB (1998), Apple RGB, ColorMatch RGB and ProPhoto RGB. Then under that group is a long list of other "profiles" I believe -- that presumably have been installed during each addition of hardware, since an old printer is listed there, all my Nikon RGBs, and this NEC monitor. That row does have a the model and serial number, and also a date - but it appears recent: 2014-08-25 (the last time that I calibrated the monitor?), as well as a few other numbers: 19-43 D65 2.20. <br> It appears that I probably have a lot of research to do; more than what can be supplied in this thread -- maybe call up NEC for technical support -- to fully understand how to, when, and why I would change settings. I do appreciate all of your input - as I have found out I'm probably "not in Kansas anymore" :-) - and my lack of saturation in other monitors may just be a product of my lack of knowledge regarding this monitor - and not being aware that I have to do more than just 'plug and play' it. Thank you, all -- so very much - for your time and patience!<br> Diane</p>

<p>Does someone know of a helpful link (YouTube, or whatever) on how to set up my monitor/getting the correct profiles, etc.? Based on this discussion, I do believe I have only just touched the surface on setting it up correctly. Also based on this discussion, I did take a look at my system preferences and it appears I may have only the Adobe RGB (1998) profile installed (yet there appears to be an extensive list available?) -- which may be part of the problem? Again, I do not remember installing any specific profiles when I set up the monitor, since I do believe I only thought I had to install things like paper profiles once I hooked up the 3880. During setup I do not remember being prompted for anything specific -- just installing from the installation disk. So any "NEC setup for dummies" would be greatly appreciated, since clearly I should be starting from 'square one'! :-) Thanks! </p>

<p>@Andrew -- you're right! The color space in the cameras are set at Adobe RGB - it was PS that mentions just RGB in the color mode section, which led me astray. The color profile in PS is Adobe RGB (1998). And now all this talk about my NEC must have scared it half to death -- it refuses to turn on (LOL!)</p>

<p>Thank you for all of your comments. I admit, I'm a bit overwhelmed. I am still in the beginning stages of understanding profiles/color management/printing, so some of this is very new to me and will take me awhile to discern what I have and what I need. Please do continue this thread with your thoughts. If I do not reply/comment quickly it is only because I am trying to digest it all -- but will continue to read each and every one of your comments -- you haven't 'lost the original poster'! :-)<br> But to answer one question -- no, I have used the SpectraSensor Pro strictly as a monitor calibrator -- I have not added/changed any profiles so far. <br> I do know that the original images are RGB (not sRGB) - and confirmed that is what I have set my cameras to take. Please know that I would not want to hobble, or downgrade my monitor to 'accommodate the masses'. I am looking to print high-end images from this set-up and want to have my monitor set-up that -- between the profiles and settings -- I will, indeed, have a WYSIWYG from the monitor to printer. But I am also hoping that what I have on my web-site gives at least a good representation of what the potential buyer would expect to receive. Although I am fairly certain that this can be done, since I see many photographer's websites with excellent images with nice tonality and saturation - as seen from my 'typical-consumer level-non-calibrated-non-profiled' Toshiba Win7 Satellite laptop -- I am also aware that I will not see the same quality side by side between the NEC and the laptop (which is why I bought the NEC/Mac :-) -- since there is no way the graphics card in my laptop could support producing fine-art prints. :-) <br> So, again, please give me a little time to digest all of your suggestions and I will try to see how I have set-up my system, as per your recommendations. And again, thank you, all!<br> Diane</p>

<p>Thanks, all! <br> @ Ellis -- no, my friend does not have PS/calibrated monitor/profiles etc (typical Dell flat-screen - nothing fancy)-- which is why I wanted him to give his opinion, after seeing it on my "typical" Toshiba laptop -- both of which would be probably what the average viewer of my website would be using.<br> You also asked about how my monitor was calibrated -- I have it set to 'Photo Editing' -- is there a better setting (keeping in mind that fine-art printing is my ultimate objective for this monitor/computer/printer setup). So once I get the images looking good on typical monitors, I will be hooking up the printer with color management/paper profiles, etc. <br> @Bill/Wouter: I converted the jpg to sRGB, in the Save for Web selection menu in PS -- and brought it back into my laptop -- comparing it to what I brought in the other day, I saw no difference. Did I miss a step? <br> Thank you all for your great advice! </p>

<p>Not sure if this is the correct category for this – but I hope the right people see this post and have some thoughts for me…because, at this point, I’m baffled as to what to do!<br> I saved up my pennies over the years and invested in the best monitor/computer/printer within my budget that would be used 99% of the time for my photography work (and potential business somewhere down the road) – the monitor being an NEC Multisync PA241W, including SpectraSensor Pro calibrator. Recently, I decided to start working on post-processing some of my images to start putting them on a website I’ve been working on. <br> The other night I ran a ‘practice’ image (high res jpg) through my CS6 – and, based on what I saw on my NEC monitor – it had rich tones and nice colors. I wanted to show it to friend to see what he thought of the before/after image. Well, I sent a copy to my Windows laptop (the computer hooked up to the NEC is a Mac) and the first thing I noticed was that the colors were dull and muted on the laptop. I sent it off to the friend and he said the same thing about the colors. <br> I feel I am caught in a dilemma – I am aware that no two monitors are alike, but how does one work around this situation? Not knowing how an image will look on other computers is a challenge unto itself, but more of a challenge is not knowing how to create an image in post so that it will look pleasing to a potential client when, most likely, they will be viewing it on a ‘typical’ monitor/laptop screen? Based on what I saw on the NEC, it evoked quality and the resulting print (if offered for sale) would, most likely, be very nice as well. But if the potential client sees what I saw on my laptop, I doubt he/she would be lingering on my site for too long! </p> <p>Your ideas are greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>very cool -- thanks, George. This should make me a happy camper with my new toy. :-)<br> Diane</p>

<p>@ George -- it does not work with my CS6, for sure, but I had not heard of an ACR Release Candidate -- is that a plug-in for CS? The Adobe staff member on their forum said he tested the D810 files with his LR4 and had no issues (don't know - I don't use LR).<br> I guess the miniscule information just will take some getting used to -- the D3s and most film Nikon's of the past that I owned, always had a 'dedicated' vertical space for checking the exposure in manual mode. Perhaps Nikon's bean-counters determined that it saved them a few cents without the side bar -- but then again, could be just me and my old eyes. :-) thanks! </p>

<p>@ Don -- thanks! the screen in the viewfinder is actually quite sharp and I can see it well; even better than the D3s, actually; the D3s has yellow digits, while the D810 are white, and nice and crisp -- which is going to help with my dilemma. <br> But it sure would have been nice to put the meter along the vertical edge - how much trouble would that be??<br> @Andrew - lol! :-) Thanks -- I figured as much. :-( <br> Oh well, I will just have to get used to it. I ran the camera through a "test roll" today, side by side against the D3s -- and it's a really nice camera. I'll adapt to the miniscule exposure meter. :-) I do quite a bit of tripod photography, so once I have the image composed, I'll hit the info button for the on-screen view. I think the D810 will make a nice companion camera -- but not until Adobe figures out how to get CS6/Bridge to read the RAW files -- that was a bummer. According to the Adobe site, LR is supposed to be ok -- but I prefer CS6 so I guess that is another animal (one would think they would focus on their more expensive product first?) <br> I was hesitant to get the D810 because of the file size - see no need for such huge files; so I'm anxious to test out the various NEF sizes to see how much is really 'lost' with the "small NEF" -- but even the small NEF appears to be 30MB, about the same as a Fine JPG, as far as I can tell. wow.<br> Thanks, again!</p>

<p>Ok -- so my new D810 just comes in the other day, so I start going through the settings to tweak them to what I am used to with my 'main' body (D3s) and, so far, all the things that are important to me with the D3s seem to be comparable in the D810-- cool. That is, until I look through the view-finder! I only shoot in manual mode -- always have; always will -- but the exposure indicator (see item #21 in the Viewfinder Display section of the user's manual) in the D810 is about the size of a pinhead! Nikon has got to be kidding, right? It appears Nikon decided to cram everything possible in that tiny little bar! Of course I could use the top panel or the info panel for a larger view -- but that seems tedious, and when you spot meter (as I almost always do) I'm not sure it is even feasible, unless the subject is quite stationary and I'm shooting from a tripod. It will definitely add extra steps. :-( Does anyone know if the exposure indicator can be customized? Thanks!</p>