steve_bingham

<p>You really should test it! A simple method is a newspaper on your garage door. Be very careful you are at <strong>90 degrees from the door. Brick walls are fine, but being exactly 90 degrees is vital.</strong></p>

<p>I have this lens. I suspect it is the VR mechanism. Mine makes very little if any noise.</p>

<p>To shoot - or display? If the price is right buying seems prudent unless you expect to use it. Then test it.</p>

<p>I have used both and used both on the Sony a7II. I see no reason what so ever to add Capture One to my arsenal. ACR has dozens (plural) of adjustments - most of which can be saved for later use.</p>

<p>I finally got around to testing the Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4 at 16mm. I wasn't expecting much, but I was pleasently surprised! Really surprised. It is very sharp there too. At 100% it looked better than any 16mm results I have seen. The glare was almost non-existant and the VR was excellent at 1/6 a second, hand held. (that's only 2 stops but as much as I will probably use) For a 1 pound lens I am very impressed. It's interesting that the Czech site I visited said the same thing. Use the translate button, upper right on Explorer. Be sure to read the entire article.<br>

<a href="http://www.makofoto.cz/nikon/objektivy/nik_16_80f2_8_4/Nikkor_16_80f2_8-4.htm" target="_blank">http://www.makofoto.cz/nikon/objektivy/nik_16_80f2_8_4/Nikkor_16_80f2_8-4.htm</a></p>

<p>Here are my results. I was using an ISO 12233 chart and an older Edmunds Scientific chart. Both were 2' x 3'.<br>

<b>Still testing</b>. However, this lens, so far, <b>is nothing but amazing</b>. I would say it might be one of <b>the best DX lens Nikon has made to date - at least at the long end.</b> At 10' the 80mm covers 2' x 3'. Some very slight pincushion distortion. <b>Very slight</b>. Easily corrected when ACR comes out with this particular lens correction data. There was a little CA in the corners, but <b>ACR took care of it all</b>. The resolution was stunning - right into the corners. From f5.6 to f11 it is almost impossible to separate center resolution from corner resolution. Even wide open at f4 the resolution was excellent. The sweet spot at 80mm? F5.6 and f11 . . . just as you would expect.<br>

I would rate resolution right up there with my Sony/Zeiss 55 f1.8 and the new Sony 90mm macro - maybe better! (yes, I had both and tested them both)<br>

Now I need to test 16mm and then distance landscapes. Quality control on my sample was excellent. The resolution was perfectly concentric - at least perfect enough that I couldn't determine a difference in my sample. Expensive? You bet! But, finally the DX gets some new pro glass! Best of all, we get a <b>very useable range zoom that only weight 1 pound</b>. And all this with VR and <b>4 elements</b> of ED glass</p>

<p>I shoot DX and have the Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4. Why? Both the D7200 and lens weigh approx. 2.5 pounds together. Nice carry around size. Now compare that with a D750 and the Nikon 24-120 . . . 3.21 pounds. Which would you rather carry around for 2-3 hrs? DX has its place. Discounting kit prices, that also makes the <strong>DX $1020 less expensive</strong>. 3/4 pound lighter and $1027 less expensive. Yes, and I print <strong>all</strong> my own stuff at 16" x 24" on 17" x 25" paper (for gallery display). Very sharp prints.<br>

I used to have the D800 and a bag full of pro 2.8 glass. <strong>Man was that bag heavy!!!!!</strong> To each his own, and reason enough for Nikon to continue with DX. <br>

Now back to the 16-80 lens. When time permits, hopefully Wednesday, I will shoot my ISO 12233 chart as well as some distant scenes at various f stops and flare situations. Let's hope it's as good as advertised! :^)</p>

<p>Maybe crop to 60% this length? <strong>King Air and the gorgeous sunset/mountain peak</strong>. Do you need help? How big is the plane file alone? How big a pano do you want? Is the resolution there? I am willing to help, but I need more info. I would forget about making a triptych. </p>

<p>Like Jeff suggested, that's what PS was designed to do. Even older versions of PS, which can be purchased cheaply, will easily do this. I see this on ebay. He has sold 357 items with 100% so a return would be easy if the registration doesn't work<br>

. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Adobe-Photoshop-CS3-for-Windows-/151479478265?pt=US_Image_Video_Audio_Software&hash=item2344e167f9</p>

<p>Well, wait. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Exactly what did you mean by "When I run DNG Converter, I always reduce the size of the file . . . "</p>

<p>Yes it did happen in Windows 7. It is pretty much impossible to reduce a <strong>raw file</strong> - it is what it is. When you convert it you can convert it to an 8 bit jpg, or an 8 bit or 16 bit tiff.<br /> When you shoot a photo, you can shoot it in 12 bit or 14 bit raw with a lot of cameras.<br>

However, if you are talking about a viewable raw thumbnail, that is a different matter with some software unable to do this.</p>

<p>Your pigment inks should be completely dry in 24 hrs if your area has average humidity. No further care is necessary for the next 60+ years in an average living room and your prints don't ever get direct sunlight. If you want to be doubly sure, spray with a UV protecting varnish or cover with UV protecting glass.</p>

<p>At 3-5 mm they certainly are visible to the naked eye. I suspect they might not be on the sensor. Do you see these in live view? If so, you have limited the smudges to the sensor or the lens. Some lenses can produce anomalies, especially at close-up ranges.</p>

 

<p><strong>You use what you brought with you.</strong> Is more FPS better? Of course. Can you get by with less? Of course. It really depends on your needs and skill level. Why not 4k video at 80 fps? I think the OP mentioned high school sports - in which case many excellent cameras are available. High FPS is certainly valuable, but so is handling, DR, and high ISO capabilities. Just for grins here are the D7100 FPS specs:</p>

<table width="500" border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="4" align="center">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td bgcolor="#e2e2e2" width="30%">

 

<p><strong>Continuous H mode<br /> RAW (14-bit, lossless compressed)</strong></p>

 

</td>

<td bgcolor="#eeeeee" width="30%">

0.19 second (5.26 frames per second);<br />5 frames total;<br />2 seconds to clear

</td>

<td bgcolor="#eeeeee" width="40%">

 

<p>Time per shot, averaged over 5 frame buffer. Slows to an average of 0.49 seconds (2.05 fps) when buffer is full.</p>

 

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>John - lucky you! 135/2 APO Zeiss</p>

<p>Opinions - and needs will vary. I use the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS because the optical stabilization enables me to use slower shutter speeds. It pretty much stays on my camera but I have 3 other lenses I love. My main criteria is all-around sharpness.</p>

<p> . . . they have Geoffrey . . . only they call it Photoshop. :) Seriously, that's why some pros (myself) love it. LR was invented for a different reason - although a ton of photographers use it for photo editing.</p>

<p>LR uses a converter identical to Photoshop PROVIDING you are using an equal version as the sliders, etc are slightly different as you update. But ACR and LR, as used, are simply converters. Once it is converted to a tiff or jpg it can be manipulated to your hearts content in your version of Photoshop. If you have PS CS6 there is a "temporary" version of ACR available that handles your camera. (ACR 8.7)</p>

<p>Sigh. I shot sports for a living many years ago (San Diego State University and the San Diego Union). <strong>We learned to anticipate action!</strong> I am puzzled why a D7100 would cause a problem. In football you usually have one great moment . . . and then you wait around for the next. Ditto for most other sports. :) Am I missing something? 4-5 fps will almost always cover most situations. You shoot 300-400 shots and use 2-3 . . . if the editor likes you. Just an opinion.</p>

<p>I can't see the images in flicker. I get "bad, bad panda" message. I will check layer. Sorry.</p>

<p>Very interesting comments by Michael Chang and Bob Atkins - two people who I greatly respect. As I was very early in Phillip's project, it saddens me to even think of losing these two great voices - <strong>and many others.</strong> Will I hang around? You bet. Photography is undergoing a huge transformation at this time - everyone is a photographer and few care about magnificent 2' x 3' prints. I do, and will continue to support photo.net - regardless of structure.</p>

<p>Pretty clear, Ellis . . . and pretty basic too. :)</p>

<p>Why not use masking? On this image it would be pretty easy. Might I suggest Topaz ReMask 4 or Vertus Fluid Mask 3 (my usual preference). You can use the Polygonal lasso tool for the tricky areas (use it like you were stitching) or the magnetic lasso tool (careful - this takes practice). Here is my tutorial where I mask single hairs.<br>

<a href="http://dustylens.com/masking_tutorial.htm">http://dustylens.com/masking_tutorial.htm</a> Then you can open the shadows on the selected area and change the background to any color.</p>

<p>I guess we would need to see the original - or at least the troublesome part.</p>

<p>I have used the 85mm f1.8 for dozens of shots. I never have had any focusing problems. I use a single focus point, half depress the shutter, and recompose. Old fashioned but old habits are hard to break - and it works. :) The Nikon D610 has many focus modes and some can absolutely lead to missed focus.</p>