- Messages
- 1,817
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's OK people, Ken Rockwell says the only lens you need for the D800 is the 28-300mm.
Haha, Ken Rockwell.
Haha, Ken Rockwell.
It will be very interesting to see the reviews when they start to appear.
Which reviews do you look to for honest opinion?
Which reviews?
Which reviews do you look to for honest opinion? If you think any magazine or major website is going to say anything other than "OMFG please kiss my bottom Mr Nikon" then you are sadly mistaken.
Equally, few early adopters are going to say "I was so stupid to spunk the cash on this" - thats true of every big ticket item, reluctance to look stupid always seems to drown out anyone with an honest opinion.
No, it will be over a year before you hear anything like the real truth, but I can't imagine its going to deviate much from the current view...
Feel free to come back and quote me 12 months from now ;-)
Ah see, you've not quoted the whole sentence.
"So buy the D800E (with its higher perceived res), deliberately incur some diffraction by shooting at f/13/14 (if needed) will eliminate any potential moire and give greater Dof."
As in, buy the D800 & stay under f/9 to stop diffraction creeping in or buy the D800E (mildly sharper due to modified OLPF) and shoot at f/11 for greater DoF and if any slight diffraction does creep in it will hold back moire. Forgive me, it was kinda rhetorical really, I was thinking aloud due to some headspin on the whole D800 thing . We'll see when peoples start shooting with the darned thing.
Actually, I didn't just mean kissing Nikon's backside, any vendor is the same. People who get review kit don't say bad things about it, well not unless they don't intend on getting more or having any advertising...
If you haven't seen this before then you haven't worked inside the press!
Ah, thanks Scott - I understand what you were saying now (am also in a headspin over the whole 800 thing! ).
Btw - what ND are you using for your seascapes?
Not true in my case, i bought one of the very first MKIV's and said it was a pile of crap from day oneWhich reviews?
Equally, few early adopters are going to say "I was so stupid to spunk the cash on this" - thats true of every big ticket item, reluctance to look stupid always seems to drown out anyone with an honest opinion.
Not true in my case, i bought one of the very first MKIV's and said it was a pile of crap from day one
That looks pretty good to me - I'd argue the 24-120 VR and its CA is the worst thing about those shots LOL! And even that is not so bad unless you start to pixel peep.
That looks pretty good to me - I'd argue the 24-120 VR and its CA is the worst thing about those shots LOL! And even that is not so bad unless you start to pixel peep.
I thought that the current Nikon bodies removed the CA in camera?
never heard of that...
In camera lateral CA removal, certainly on the D300, D700 and D3
which menu is that ??
I think it's automatic - so not in the menus.
I can't find any mention of the word 'chromatic' in the D300, D700 or D3 manuals so it must be permanently on.
Capture NX2 has two controls in two different editing sections - Auto Lateral Color Aberration (on/off) and Lateral Color Aberration (Red-Cyan & Blue-Yellow sliders).
I think that it is automatically applied to .jpeg and raw images, it can only be turned off on the raw images using Capture NX2, it is permanent with the .jpegs
I think you're right.
Perhaps cos they dont want to admit their lenses 'may' have chromatic aberration? If the camera deals with it anyway, it's not a problem.
What is strange is they do not make much fuss about this feature in their brochures, I found it almost by accident as a throw away comment.
That is quite interesting, but the link they got it from has some interesting comparision shots too:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
I just checked out a D300S vs a D800 on their still life sample...
I'd say if you downsampled the D800 to the same res as the D300S it might *just* have the edge.
The curious thing with this test is that it shows that a D300S is capable of really acceptable large sized images at ISO1600 and ISO3200... this is more to do with the lighting of the seen and the exposure times than anything else.
I have had enough gash, noisy images from my D300 but am just having a eureka moment about exposure that probably is a lot of the answer.... I wonder how many other high ISO fans are also moaning about it because they also haven't clicked what the trick is to keep it down....
The curious thing with this test is that it shows that a D300S is capable of really acceptable large sized images at ISO1600 and ISO3200... this is more to do with the lighting of the seen and the exposure times than anything else.
I have had enough gash, noisy images from my D300 but am just having a eureka moment about exposure that probably is a lot of the answer.... I wonder how many other high ISO fans are also moaning about it because they also haven't clicked what the trick is to keep it down....
..just like everyone managed for 150 years before the invention of the D3...
So? (bear with me, I'm not being rude)That's because those "high iso" shots they shot are completely meaningless for real world high-iso shooting.
Would you ever shoot at 1/1250 and 6400 ISO? ...No!
I don't understand the point. Sure, real world situations require 6400 when the light is low, but does that matter when comparing the sensor's ability?That's a very well lit test shot, its not a person in a dark room where you have to go up to 6400 ISO just to get a shutter speed that isn't all blury and shakey. If something wasn't moving you would be able use a tripod and so keep the ISO low...just like everyone managed for 150 years before the invention of the D3...
If we were to set-up controlled lighting and take 1 shot at iso 6400, 1/2000 sec and 2nd shot at iso 6400, 1/100 (with lighting levels to match), would the quality at the end be different? I guess you're suggesting they will be different, so have you got any links to such a test? (and if you have, then I guess you're right and I've learnt something).
Thank you. I didn't see anything there to suggests that the amount of light prevents these high iso shots from representing what a camera can do. OOF areas are more of an issue, and you have to take that into account.This subject was raised by StewartR a while back and debated at great length, various theories were put forward as to why it should and should not be the case, rather than hijack this thread have a read HERE
Just because we managed for 150 years does not mean that we should ignore the advantages provided by new technology, I have used a high ISO setting to achieve a high shutter speed when I wanted it, because I have the technology to allow me to do so, and can think of no reason that I should not have done so.
I do not think that we should be constrained by what we could do with old film cameras, you need to understand and embrace the modern technology and use it to your advantage.
So? (bear with me, I'm not being rude)
I don't understand the point. Sure, real world situations require 6400 when the light is low, but does that matter when comparing the sensor's ability?
If we were to set-up controlled lighting and take 1 shot at iso 6400, 1/2000 sec and 2nd shot at iso 6400, 1/100 (with lighting levels to match), would the quality at the end be different? I guess you're suggesting they will be different, so have you got any links to such a test? (and if you have, then I guess you're right and I've learnt something).