glen_t

<p>Interesting contribution, Mihai.</p>

<p>After much thought, I ended up purchasing almost the identical lens--an AI'd Nikkor 85/1.8 H. Indeed, many have praised this lens.</p>

<p>Yes, I am comparing the AF 85 to the MF 85 AI, or even earlier or AI'd versions. Many seem to ignore these old MF lenses and just go right to the AF versions. Having shot film for about ten or so years, mostly with Nikon gear but with other systems, too, I do not assume that the newer version is better or preferable.</p>

<p>Of course, the build quality of a Nippon Kogaku or early Nikkor simply destroys that of the newer plastic wonderlens. The vast majority of my shots are taken with MF Nikkor or Nippon Kogaku lenses. I have only one AF Nikkor. I like having a DOF scale on a lens. This is another thing that most contemporary lenses lack. If one knows how to use it, a DOF scale can be extremely helpful. I do not claim to be a prize-wining photographer, but I gather some would be surprised if I told them that such and such shot was taken with a 40+ year old dinosaur of a lens. Additionally, these lenses make good photography affordable and accessible for those who are not rich.</p>

<p>The term "NPK" stands for "Nippon Kogaku." It is what Nikkor lenses were called before they were called Nikkor.</p>

<p>Very good points here--thanks. I am favoring the 85/2 AIS, as it seems it can be had for under $300. Most of what I do is done via manual focusing. However, the AF on the 1.8 may come in handy on occasion.</p>

<p>The 85 is about the only "hole" in my NPK/Nikkor lineup. A used 85/1.8 AI costs the same as a new 85/1.8 D ($450). I currently use two Nikon D200s. Which is the better choice? I have heard good things about the 85/2 AI, too.</p>

<p>Interesting comments, Rodeo Joe. Yes, Auto ISO had been set to "off." The quirk you mention in regard to your D700 is rather surprising, considering it is a very expensive camera. Actually, I have owned many Nikon bodies (mostly film), and they are sometimes quirky. In this last scenario, I was very tempted to go with a Canon or a Pentax. The EOS 7D and K-5 are top-notch bodies--both of which can be had for less than a D300s. It is my Nikkor MF lenses that keeps me with Nikon. I like having a real DOF scale on a lens, too. With Canon EOS, it is all plastic AF stuff. Pentax K-mount lenses would meet my needs, but I have owned many K-mount bodies, and I do not think I liked any of them. </p>

<p>Good thought in terms of white balance, but that is definitely not the cause. I looked at very similar shots taken with my other D200--with auto WB--and the exposure is correct throughout the series of shots. Also, I have seen WB changes, and this looks clearly different. It is clearly a case of underexposure, not a WB shift. After further tests with the other camera, I have determined that the camera is the problem. I have returned the camera.<br /> <br /> What a strange problem. In about ten years of shooting, I have never observed this type of issue.<br /> <br /> Now the question is: what do I replace this D200 with? I have one D200 that works properly and takes, in my opinion, great photos--tack sharp, nice color, detailed. I admit, the D300s tempts me, but it is so expensive. I paid only $450 for my D200. A nice used D300s is about $1,000, and even then, I am beginning to tire of used cameras...too many problems over the years. At least with a D200, though, I risk only $450 (used).<br /> <br />Amateur cameras with the latest and greatest sensors, such as the D5100, do not interest me. I do not shoot without a battery grip, and I like more a professional build and ergonomic layout. Again, I use Nikkor MF lenses almost exclusively.<br /> <br /> I welcome your suggestions.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I tested a couple of lenses, and I do not notice anything amiss with DOF preview. Thus, it appears to stop down correctly. I will shoot some trains later with my other D200 and compare. I will update later today. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I, thank you for the replies, and I, too, am fascinated by this. Just to be clear, I shoot in manual mode--i.e. I am making all of the exposure settings. I am not shooting on P, A, or S here (and usually do not anyway). That is what is making this difficult to solve. The respondent that mentioned the proximity of the train in relation to lighting makes an interesting point. However, I note that it is the entire frame that gets about 0.67 EV darker in the first shot in a series. That is, the train is darker, but so is the sky and the rest of the scene. Should not the scene remain constant, as it was set on manual (in the one case, for example, f/5.6 at 1/640th)? Also, the first and second shots are .27 of a second apart. The train does fill the frame more, as it is moving, but should the lighting of the whole scene change with things set on "M"?</p>

<p>To complicate things further, I just shot a couple of series of my daughter sleeping. They were at much lower shutter speeds, but again I used manual exposure. I did not notice the "first shot darker" phenomenon at all. I will take Shun's advice and check DOF preview operation. I will continue to update on what I see. I welcome any comments or thoughts, as I am nearing the end of my return/exchange period on the camera. Thus, I need to figure this one out.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I found a fifth instance: I saw the problem in some shots taken with my 55/2.8 AI. Thus, it does seem that we may have a D200 issue here. I say "seem" only because I notice this only when taking train shots. I tested two of the lenses in question this evening in my backyard. Neither showed the problem. Does an approaching train somehow "scare" my manual lenses?? In my tests, I used a tripod and cable release, just as in the train shots. I had been thinking that there may be something wrong with the MC-30 10-pin connection. This is very strange...</p>

<p>That is the first thing I thought of: a sticky aperture diaphragm. I am not sure what you mean by "manual," as they are aperture indexing lenses (i.e. they stop down at the time of exposure). The reason I doubted this being the culprit is because it is observable with four different lenses. Could four lenses be showing this problem at the same time? I considered this unlikely. I have one AF lens, a 50/1.8D. I will test with that.</p>

<p>Thanks...<br>

I shoot RAW, and just checked the metadata in Capture NX2 for my most recent string of four. The data listed is the same for all four shots: ISO 320, 1/640th, F/5.6, Auto WB, as I had expected. The only difference is in the times, the first and second shots separated by .27, the second and third by .14, and the third and fourth by .26 of a second.</p>

 

<p>Correction: I was just going through my files (to double check), and did notice one occurrence of this "first shot dark" pattern with my NPK 105/2.5.</p>

<p>After about ten years of shooting 35mm film, I recently "went digital," buying a pair of Nikon D200s, both in nice shape. I mostly use non-AI (converted), AI, and AIS lenses with it. I notice that when I have some of my older lenses on one of the D200s, on the continuous high setting, the first shot will be noticeably darker--about 0.5 to 0.67 EV. The rest, usually three or four more shots, all fired in succession, will be perfectly exposed. I shoot in manual mode. I have noticed this behavior with these lenses: the 50/2 AI, the 50/2 NPK (converted), the 200/4 NPK (factory converted). I have not noticed it with my 105/2.5 NPK (converted). The shots, otherwise, look fine--tack sharp and very nice. Though, I think the 200/4 NPK may be showing its age, as its focus looks to be off. Again, the two 50mm lenses take nice photos.<br>

I do not have exposure comp. on, and even then it would compensate on the whole series of shots taken, not just one. They are outdoor shots, and the sun seemed to be constant in all cases. The pattern seems to be consistent--first shot darker, the next fine. What is going on here? I welcome your comments.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Great advice here...<br>

To clarify, yes, while I currently shoot jpeg (fine), I intend to shoot RAW. I have had the camera (the D200) only about a week. <br>

Thus, I gather I will keep the NX2, as it sounds like a good tool for RAW. While on the subject, here is a very basic question: if I shoot RAW, do I need to do any type of special processing within NX2? I ask because I had heard in the past that shooting RAW can be cumbersome (or time consuming). Also, I gather that if I want to send my RAW files somewhere for printing, I would just save them as jpg before sending them? Ritzpix has been recommended to me, and they accept jpg files. I do not believe they take RAW or NEF files.</p>

<p>I have been a film photographer (amateur) for about the past nine years. I just recently "went digital," as for the last few years I have been unhappy with the unpredictable results I would sometimes see in processing (using a pro lab). Thus, I have been using my Nikon D200 for the past week or so, and am liking the results. I tend to be rather careful with my shots. I had been using iPhoto to upload my pictures, but am now using Image Capture, as some of the shots looked noisy in iPhoto. I have not seen this after changing to Image Capture. I have a 30-day trail disk for Capture NX, and have been comparing my results. In most things, I have not seen much of a difference between Image Capture and NX. I tend to be one who has neither the time nor desire to do much "doctoring" of my images. In any case, I got a decent deal, and ordered the full version of Capture NX2. It has yet to ship. Will I need this software? I notice that the file size increases when I load into NX. Thus, is there necessarily more resolution there--even if I leave the image untouched? I welcome your comments.</p>