james_scholz

<p>Fisheye lenses are obviously different from more conventional lenses that are designed to render straight lines straight, but taking that in consideration they can perform quite well. I have used my 16 less then my other lenses but when I want that special look it does a good job. Mine gives good center performance at most all f stops but the edges are best at f8. A few years ago I shot an Italian Cathedral interior with the lens on my 24 meg D3x and later an 8x12 foot print was made for the lobby of a local business. I have received a number of compliments on the image and based on that would not hesitate to recommend the lens.</p>

<p>I shoot architecture for a living. I used the Nikon 14-24 for several years but kept having flair problems and somewhat soft corners. After having to reshoot an interior job with lots of windows at night to deal with the flair I bit the bullet and bought the Zeiss 15. After processing the first job I never looked back, the Zeiss was that good. Now the Nikon sits on the shelf as a backup if necessary.</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

I have been shooting my two Nikon D810's along side my older D800e for he past month, and have made approximately 100 20x30 inch prints from the new cameras. I always shoot RAW and 14 bit lossless compressed files and process all of them in Photoshop. Comparing the prints from the new cameras with ones from the D800e as far as high ISO performance goes I see no difference in the prints. Maybe someone could see some noise differences at 100% but once you make a print they seem the same to me. I have shot everything from weddings to Alaskan wildlife and am quite happy with noise and grain from either.</p>

<p>However there are a lot of improvements in the D810 that really help me to make a living from photography. So much so I am thinking of selling off my older cameras.</p>

<p>A lot of my work is for architectural firms so I shoot wide angle and pc lenses. Having a sharp live view is huge toward getting my Nikon 12-24 and My Zeiss 15mm in precise focus. Some say these lenses do not preform well, but I find that when the image doesn't look right it is always sloppy focus on my part. The same for my pc lenses. The split screen is just frosting on the cake.</p>

<p>Electronic front shutter is another sharpness wizard. I did test my 400 2.8 and my 200-400 with that enabled and without and there is a very noticable difference. Just lock those long lenses down tight on a sturdy tripod and be prepared to see detail you never knew was there.</p>

<p>ISO 64 can make all the difference in wedding shots outdoors with flash fill. You can use 1 f stop wider lens settings and fade out those ugly background details. Also the detail you can pull out of the shadows while still keeping the wedding gown from blowing out is amazing.</p>

<p>The quiet shutter does not make the chruch reverbrate with camera noise during the ceremony as well.</p>

<p>I am sure there are other features of the new camera that are more important to others but these are the ones that immediately come to mind for my work.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My pack is the Redwing P2. In it I carry my metal field camera and large focus cloth in the bottom compartment, and two large lenses in the top compartment. I could fit 3 lenses if they were a bit smaller. In the back compartment I can carry 4 film holders, and in a side compartment I have my compendium bellows, focus loupe, etc. With that amount of gear and a sturdy tripod I am good to go most anywhere my 70 old legs will take me, and they have taken me to a lot of beautiful remote places.</p>

<p>Over the years I have carried my Toyo 8x10 field camera in a variety of large backpacks, but about 5 years ago purchased a Kelty redwing from photobackpacker.com and could not have been happier. The fit, protection, and comfort of that pack is the best ever. If I needed another I would order it tomorrow.</p>

<p>In your User's Manual page 294 explains it. under D5, File number sequence. You need to set it to "OFF".</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

I actually enjoy shooting a fast 50 on my D800e and do so regularly, so when the new Nikon 58 1.4 came out about a month ago I took my own 50 1.4 to the camera store, along with my solid tripod and cable release and they let me set up a test shoot from about 15 feet and do a series with both lenses. I then made 20x30 inch prints and compared side by side. Wide open the new one put the old one to shame. Much higher contrast, sharper, etc. But, by 5.6 and f8 the curvature of field on the new lens produced softer edges then the older one. <br>

Last weekend I rented the Otus from Lens Rentals and shot for three days, again with sturdy tripod, mirror lock up, etc. The Otus is simply a superior lens, probably the best I have ever experienced, and the thin line of exquisite sharpness at 1.4 contrasted with the creamy out of focus areas is something you have to see to appreciate.<br>

Now the Sigma. Maybe great sharpness with auto focus as well? I look forward to the testing as soon as it is out.</p>

<p>Lloyd Chambers has a lot to say about this lens on his blog. He has been testing one for some time so his real world experience is worth checking out.</p>

<p>The Schneider Super-Symmar 210 XL will fit on 8x10 and provide lots of movement, but it will set you back a pretty penny even used. It is a great lens however and will allow photos on this format that no other can match.</p>

<p>I shoot architecture for a living and so sharp photos are a given. I have tested my zooms, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 against my primes, 28 1.8, 24pc, 45pc, 85 1.4G, 85pc, and 200 f2. In the center at 5.6 they are all plenty sharp, but the 200 blows everything else away. It is the edges where the difference is quite evident. The primes win every time.</p>

<p>But, I always shoot from a very sturdy tripod, mirror lock up, cable release, and focus in live view about half way from the center of the image. Hand holding in a grab shot mode and they all look pretty much the same, except for the VC in the 70-200, where the vibration control gives it an edge.</p>

<p>At close distance I have had good luck with the 1.4, but my 2.0EIII does not produce results I can live with at any distance on the 200-400. The same extender seems to do a pretty good job on my 70-200 VR II.</p>

<p>With a pc lens tilted or shifted the light meter in the camera will not be accurate. Look at your histogram on the back of the camera and make sure your exposure is correct. The histogram should be as far to the right as you can get it with no clipped highlights. This will ensure you are getting all the information you can in your RAW exposure. It is normal to have to adjust the shutter speeds up or down for correct exposure using these lenses.</p>

<p>I have owned the 28 1.8G for about a year now and use it often in my commercial shooting with both the D800E and D3X. I find it produces sharp clear images, and I especially like what the edges of the image look like at 5.6 or 8.</p>

<p>I also owned the Sigma 35 1.4 for a short time. While I liked the images my copy of the lens would not focus consistently on my D800E so I returned it, and have yet to try another copy.</p>

<p>I shoot architecture for a living so I use the 24 pc with my D800E almost daily. The lens can produce wonderful images but it leaves almost no room for focus errors. I have found that using a Hoodman loup and live view to be very helpful toward achieving proper focus out doors. With this combination I find it is important to check focus about half way from the center to the edges. After taking the picture a final check of the actual image is a good idea, and if anything is off you can fix it then.</p>

<p>I own and shoot with both the Nikon and Tamron 24-70 lenses. My experience is that on a tripod I prefer the Nikon because the edges of the images seem a little better in terms of sharpness and edge darkening. But given event shooting like weddings, etc., or just walking around, I grab the Tamron every time for its VC. I come back with way more keepers in low light then I ever could with the Nikon. I did not think the difference would be that dramatic when I first bought it 8 months ago ( because the Nikon was 6 weeks in Nikon Repair), but the more I shot with it the more I liked the results.</p>

<p>Ellery, people make equipment decisions based on different parameters as the above responses illustrate. For some it is money, for some convenience, etc. I get the feeling from your post you are at the point of making a decision more on what is best rather then what is good enough. When I am at that point I rent the equipment for a couple days from LensRentals and try it out using my shooting style. For me this has been much more informative then reading reviews on line or talking to friends who might have used the equipment but differently then I might.</p>

 

<p>Almost 90% of my shooting is on a sturdy tripod. I love the dynamic range and sharpness of my D800E, and it is my first choice for almost any application. That being said I took it to Italy last spring for a 2 week commercial shoot and on the second day it received a bump that my D3X would consider a love tap and the D800E was out of commission for the rest of the trip. Fortunately I had the D3X along and it served me faithfully with high res images for the rest of the trip. As a commercial landscape and architectural shooter I really value the additional security a sturdier camera affords and will be first in line for a D4X should one appear.</p>

<p>You might want to check out Lloyd Chamber's site, diglloyd.com for some observations on the D7100.</p>

<p>Thanks for the information, Elliot. I have been wondering how the D4x, 56 meg would perform when it is released. It looks like a great studio, architectural and landscape camera, but not so much for low light. I will need to keep my D800E for that.</p>

<p>I shoot my D800E almost daily with wide angle lenses. My most used is the 24 pc, followed by the 14-24 zoom, the 28 1.8 prime, and finally the 24-70 zoom. They all are used with a very sturdy tripod, mirror up, and cable release, and all produce great results, with the prime being best in the corners.<br>

My experience with these and some older wide angles is that with careful technique the D800E makes the most of what they can provide. For most photographers the discipline of using a solid tripod is far more important then the lens selection, and the ability now to easily stitch multiple images can often render what might have been soft corners from lesser lenses a moot point.</p>

<p>I shoot architecture for a living and so sharp images are very important to me and my clients. When I moved from DX to the 12 mpx FX D3 and the 14-24 zoom there was an improvement When I moved to the D3X there was a lot of improvement. When I moved to the D800e there was night and day improvement. If you want sharp images the D800e makes all lenses look better, and the really good lenses shine like never before. </p>

<p>I regularly shoot the D800e with my 400 AIS and the results are outstanding. Wide open at 2.8 things are a little soft but by f4 and especially f5.6 that combination of lens and camera really rock.</p>

<p>I used the Nikor M 300 for some time on 8x10 but found the extreme corners a little soft at infinity, so I also acquired a Nikor W 300 for its larger covering power. Both are coated lenses and very sharp at closer distances but the W is a little sharper in the corners at infinity and allows for more movements. Because the M is a process design it may be a little better at close ups, but I never made a direct side by side comparison in that area.</p>

<p>For the past 2 months I have been shooting with the Tamron 24-70 VC as well as my older Nikon 24-70 for event photography on my D3 and D800. In my experience I get a larger number of sharp usable images with the Tamron VC, hands down. As a professional it simply puts more money in the pocket.</p>

<p>James Scholz</p>

<p>Dear Andrew, I have been there and done that. <br>

When I began professionally shooting architecture I bought a Schneider 47mm XL for tight interiors. It just covers 4x5. I also shot a 65mm Fuji, 75 Schneider XL, 90mm Nikkor F8, Schneider 110 XL, etc. Carefully handled they all produced good results, with the 90 and 110 being the sharpest. The problem is physics, the wider the lens the more the light has to be bent, and the greater the correction and manufacturing precision required.<br>

Then I moved to 8x10, and using the 110 XL as a super wide angle the quality blew me away. Now we were talking about 80 square inches of film as opposed to about 20 in 4x5, and that makes a really dramatic difference. I have 40x50 inch prints in which you can bury your nose and see every little detail.<br>

Now most of my work for clients is done with a Nikon D800E with a similar set of lenses to yours, but also all the PCs. The architectural clients are happy with the results, but when I want to really see the detail I shoot the Nikon with a vertical and horizontal panning head from Really Right Stuff and stitch the images in Photoshop. The results can be every bit as dramatic as 8x10 film, and a lot easier in terms of time and effort. I have not thrown the 8x10 away as there are still images that work better in one capture, but I do not find myself using it nearly as much these days.<br>

The 4x5 gets all most no use today because while the quality of a single capture can exceed the Nikon single capture it does not offer near the quality jump of good stitching or 8x10.<br>

Looking back to my film days I wish I had skipped 4x5 and started with 8x10.<br>

Jim Scholz</p>