dSLR thread

[snowhiker]

I'm probably going to picking up this lens as it seems to be way better than the price indicates.

Well I placed my order for the Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6E on the 29th of OCT. I wonder how long before it comes back in stock and ships.

Processing 9999 RAWs at the moment.

Any update on this DD? Very interested on how things turned out.

Well the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8E ED VR is back in stock at B&H Photo. $2400.

That's a huge chunk of change for a lens that reportedly not all that much better than the old f/2.8G lens.

We have some actual data from Roger Cicala of LensRentals.com now regarding the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8E vs Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8G. The "E" lens also compared to the Canon and Tamron versions.

Bottom line...The "E" version isn't quite as good as the old "G" version in the center but the middle and corner sharpness is MUCH improved. The "E" lens is even better than the Canon in the mid/corner regions!!!

Quote from Roger, "it become pretty clear Nikon has made a design choice with the new lens, and the design choice wasn't 'let's make it look great for the bench testers'. They've given up the absolute best center resolution in exchange for good resolution across the entire image field. So in the center 1/3 of the image, the old lens had better MTF results, but across the remainder of the field the newer lens is far superior. Not just that the resolution is better, but there is very little astigmatism, which the old lens had in spades."


Still................$2400 is a huge hunk of change, especially for me, so I'm looking at alternatives as this lens range would be used less than my 16-35mm. I wonder how the Sigma 24-105 f/4 ART lens compares? The Nikkor 24-120 f/4 is soft on the long end, and overall the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 isn't that much better, although it's a cheap alternative.

On second thought why buy a $500 TC when a used D7100 is only $600.

$500 here. Ends Nov 3.

 

[ddrueding]

Any update on this DD? Very interested on how things turned out.

Still working on it, having some image timing issues, image numbering issues, stability issues, just a mess. Of course, the time it takes to get through the workflow is also dampening my enthusiasm and slowing the learning curve.

Here's one, there are more on my YouTube channel:

[video]https://youtu.be/qdhoGy-Ao1Y[/video]

 

[snowhiker]

Still working on it...

Here's one, there are more on my YouTube channel:

[video]https://youtu.be/qdhoGy-Ao1Y[/video]

Looks good so far.

 

[LunarMist]

OK, some numbers, all in px/mm2.

Nikon D610: 28,041
Nikon D800, D810: 41,960
Nikon D7100: 65,466
Nikon D3, D70: 14,009
Nikon D300, D5000: 32,751

(Of those, just looking at the density numbers and ignoring anything else I might happen to know or not know about the cameras, I'd pick the D800/D810 for bird photography. To get the figures, I use the dimensions cited in the DPR review for the sensor size, then plug the specs into Quattro Pro. Yes, Quattro Pro. Welcome to the 20th Century. Come on in, the water is fine. Be with you in a minute, I just have to send a couple of faxes.)

For determining reach it is better to simply use the sensel pitch (µm) rather than areal density. For example a 400mm lens on a camera with a 4µm sensor will provide the same reach as a 600mm lens on a camera with a 6µm sensor. Of course the larger ~6µm sensor will theoretically capture 2.25x the amount of light which should provide for better high ISO and other IQ advantages.

 

[LunarMist]

This.

Much thanks. I already know Lunar is going to beat me over the head with a 200-500mm lens if I put a filter on it. And I agree with you 95%, but I am really clumsy, yes that clumsy, so I'll probably go without filter unless wind/rain are in the forecast, or I have too many "close calls." Plus the lens is only $1400 so any "good" filter will add a lot to the cost. A big HELL YES to always using the lens hood.

Thanks for the "reach" numbers.

I was only really considering a 1.4x TC if I went with the Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF lens. But the IQ of the 200-500mm f/5.6E is really outstanding for being a non-pro lens and only $1400. So that will be more than enough for my non-pro self. And if I pick up a crop body, such as the D7100/7200 I'll be more than set.

Still a bit too warm for walking around the dessert all day taking shots but should be cooler in a few weeks.

There is nothing wrong with using filters when necessary. Take them off in heavily backlit or nighttime conditions.
What do you need a long tele for in AZ?

 

[snowhiker]

There is nothing wrong with using filters when necessary. Take them off in heavily backlit or nighttime conditions.
What do you need a long tele for in AZ?

Still considering a filter for front element protection but a 95mm filter ain't cheap.

Going to try birding and wildlife shooting. Never thought I'd get into that, but have been thinking about it for a while and thought I'd give it a shot. Plus on my last northern-AZ/southern-UT trip saw a bunch of deer, a coyote, plenty of birds and a few squirrel that just don't show up with a 16-35mm lens.

I do need something in the 24-70mm or 35-105mm range as there was some landscape shots we took on that trip that could have benefited from a bit tighter cropping, but that's about it lens wise.

 

[LunarMist]

Still considering a filter for front element protection but a 95mm filter ain't cheap.

Going to try birding and wildlife shooting. Never thought I'd get into that, but have been thinking about it for a while and thought I'd give it a shot. Plus on my last northern-AZ/southern-UT trip saw a bunch of deer, a coyote, plenty of birds and a few squirrel that just don't show up with a 16-35mm lens.

I do need something in the 24-70mm or 35-105mm range as there was some landscape shots we took on that trip that could have benefited from a bit tighter cropping, but that's about it lens wise.

Don't forget the support. It's far more important than a clear filter most of the time. (I assume you don't shoot much from boats.)

 

[LunarMist]

You are putting the long lens on the DX body and the wide or normal zooms on the FX body, right? The 24-120 is OK for general use, though it's not nearly as good as the 24-70/2.8 non-VR. If you are only using the DX body, the 16-85 is quite good.

 

[snowhiker]

Don't forget the support. It's far more important than a clear filter most of the time. (I assume you don't shoot much from boats.)

No boats. I honestly can't remember the last time I've been on a boat. 12 years maybe? Thanks for the tip. Page bookmarked for further reference.

You are putting the long lens on the DX body and the wide or normal zooms on the FX body, right? The 24-120 is OK for general use, though it's not nearly as good as the 24-70/2.8 non-VR. If you are only using the DX body, the 16-85 is quite good.

I still only have the D610. FX. But yes, tele on DX and 16-35mm on FX body would be the plan. I was only thinking, not really seriously, about picking up a DX second body because I noticed cheap $500-600 prices on used D7100 and it would be better to pick up such a body to increase reach vs a 1.4x TC which is $500.

 

[LunarMist]

No boats. I honestly can't remember the last time I've been on a boat. 12 years maybe? Thanks for the tip. Page bookmarked for further reference.



I still only have the D610. FX. But yes, tele on DX and 16-35mm on FX body would be the plan. I was only thinking, not really seriously, about picking up a DX second body because I noticed cheap $500-600 prices on used D7100 and it would be better to pick up such a body to increase reach vs a 1.4x TC which is $500.

You should have a D7100 or D7200 for that lens. I would not recommend a TC.

 

[snowhiker]

You should have a D7100 or D7200 for that lens. I would not recommend a TC.

Exactly. Thank You for the confirmation.

Perhaps next year, and if I'm using the tele-zoom enough to justify the cost, I'll pick up a crop body. When I was considering the Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF lens I was thinking of using it with the 1.4x TC. But that lens/TC combo is nearly $1000 more expensive than the Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6E. And since the quality of the 200-500mm seems to be very high (especially @ only $1400) I decided that was the way to go.

If any further reach is needed a 7100/7200 would definitely be the way to go. Or maybe a miracle happens and Nikon releases the looooooooong awaited D400 with a 10 fps framing rate and a buffer to match to give a 7Dii a run for its money.

 

[snowhiker]

I was going to reply in the "photoshop witchcraft" thread, but thought it more appropriate to post my questions in the DSLR thread.....

Seems Photoshop is only available for rent. Do you have to rent Lightroom as well?

What is/are the best NOT-FOR-RENT application(s) to edit Nikon NEF (raw) files? Free is good, but I'm more than willing to buy what's needed. But if I do buy I don't want to rent the software. F-Adobe.

 

[LunarMist]

I was going to reply in the "photoshop witchcraft" thread, but thought it more appropriate to post my questions in the DSLR thread.....

Seems Photoshop is only available for rent. Do you have to rent Lightroom as well?

What is/are the best NOT-FOR-RENT application(s) to edit Nikon NEF (raw) files? Free is good, but I'm more than willing to buy what's needed. But if I do buy I don't want to rent the software. F-Adobe.

You can buy LR, but it still phones home sometimes. I use the free NX-D to convert NEFs to TIFF and then work on images in an older version of PS.

 

[mubs]

I'm surprised Nikon is giving away Capture NX-D. But why do you convert the RAW to TIFF and then use an older version of PS? Are the editing features of Capture NX-D too dumb / limited?

 

[LunarMist]

Nikon, Canon and Sony, etc. Have free programs for working with RAW files, but they are not complete packages with functionality approaching CS or even LR.

 

[snowhiker]

Well I placed my order for the Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6E on the 29th of OCT. I wonder how long before it comes back in stock and ships.

"We are pleased to inform you that the following order has been shipped."

"AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR Lens"


My new toy is on the way.....Back-ordered for only two weeks. I was expecting two MONTH.

 

[LunarMist]

Did you have the support ordered?

 

[snowhiker]

Did you have the support ordered?

Not yet. I'll order this weekend.

 

[Tea]

Nikon, Canon and Sony, etc. Have free programs for working with RAW files, but they are not complete packages with functionality approaching CS or even LR.

No. In fact, Canon's free raw converter is excellent. Many people use it as their first choice ahead of Lightroom, DXO, Caoture One, and Camera Raw. It's a plain-looking package and deceptively simple; you won't find lots of clever trick stuff in it, but it does the vital fundamentals very well indeed. (I mostly use Camera Raw myself, but switch to Canon's Digital Photo Professional any time I'm not happy with the way a picture is turning out in CR.)

Nikon's free one is crippled, which is a shame as the pay-for version of it looks attractive. (There is a lot to be said for a raw converter that uses control points, but it turns out that you can't buy it unless you have Nikon gear: it doesn't read Canon raw files. That's scummy! Fair enough in a free-with-camera program like DPP, but not in one you pay good money for.) Don't know what the S-company does.

 

[LunarMist]

No. In fact, Canon's free raw converter is excellent. Many people use it as their first choice ahead of Lightroom, DXO, Caoture One, and Camera Raw. It's a plain-looking package and deceptively simple; you won't find lots of clever trick stuff in it, but it does the vital fundamentals very well indeed. (I mostly use Camera Raw myself, but switch to Canon's Digital Photo Professional any time I'm not happy with the way a picture is turning out in CR.)

Nikon's free one is crippled, which is a shame as the pay-for version of it looks attractive. (There is a lot to be said for a raw converter that uses control points, but it turns out that you can't buy it unless you have Nikon gear: it doesn't read Canon raw files. That's scummy! Fair enough in a free-with-camera program like DPP, but not in one you pay good money for.) Don't know what the S-company does.

NX-D is fine for what it does. You may be thinking of something older when Nikon had a pay version (long gone). DPP is fine for basic conversion, but it does not support layers/masks or plugins like PS.
I use the DPP and NX-D to produce TIFF files and go from there in PS. It really depends on the type and extent of local adjustments one does in PP, such as differential sharpening, noise reduction, dodging and burning, etc. I do rather a lot on some images.

 

[Tea]

Yes Lunar, I am thinking of Nikon's pay-for raw converter, which was apparently pretty good at the time but cost quite a bit. I'm pleased to hear that they have stopped the reprehensible practice of requiring Nikon camera owners to ante up for something that is an essential part of the basic product. I haven't seen or even heard of NX-D, it must be fairly new.

I do the same sometimes - use DPP to produce the TIFF and then (if required) Photoshop to edit from there. More often I use Camera Raw and then PS. I tend to go to DPP as the first alternative when Camera Raw isn't giving me the result I want.

I never use Lightroom because the stupid UI provides no way to easily open a single file for editing, you have to buggerise about with huge, cumbersome libraries. I always use a fast, simple image viewer (PMView, but Irfan View or XNView or any of a score of others would do at a pinch) for basic image selection, and only develop the raws when (a) I want to use that particular image, and (b) I'm not happy with the JPG as-is out of camera as my base image for further processing. (Often, if I've got it right in-camera, all I want is to crop a bit and maybe dodge and burn a little. If I want to do more advanced things, it's usually time to resort to the raw file.)

 

[snowhiker]

A pic of my new monster: The Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6E ED VR



Sweet jesus it's big. It's 17" long fully extended to 500mm and with the lens shade installed. It's about 5 lbs. I'll post a few quick pics I took before work yesterday afternoon.

 

[mubs]

Awesome. Where did you buy it from? B&H shows it to be on pre-order.

 

[snowhiker]

Awesome. Where did you buy it from? B&H shows it to be on pre-order.

I "pre-ordered" from B&H and waited two weeks. B&H, Adorama, etc, get a batch, they fulfill all the pre-orders, then it goes on back order again. The lens is selling like crazy, and/or supply is reeeeeeeealy low.

I really think Nikon could have spend another $30 to add their "nano" coating and painted a gold ring on the lens and sell it for $500-1000 above it's current price.

 

[LunarMist]

I "pre-ordered" from B&H and waited two weeks. B&H, Adorama, etc, get a batch, they fulfill all the pre-orders, then it goes on back order again. The lens is selling like crazy, and/or supply is reeeeeeeealy low.

I really think Nikon could have spend another $30 to add their "nano" coating and painted a gold ring on the lens and sell it for $500-1000 above it's current price.

They should put in just one fluorite element and make it a $2K+ lens.

 

[mubs]

Snowhiker's activity here has stirred me from my photography hibernation.

Took the D700 and and the 35 mm f/2.0 lens out of the dry cabinet. The lens is crystal clear; the dry cabinet is doing its job for sure. Battery dead in the D700. My fault, I have not touched it for 2+ years. I had kept the two spare batteries in a zip-lock in the fridge because I'd read that doing so slows down self-discharge. The one from the fridge that I tried has about 75% charge left.

Decided to upgrade to the latest firmware, A1.04 - B1.03. Tried it, wouldn't do it claiming low battery. Guess it wants to see a fully charged one. I don't trust the dead one for the fw update, so once it's charged I'll charge the second one from the fridge and try it to see what gives.

Planning to use this camera / lens combo for a little family get together on the weekend about 250 miles away. Too lazy to take the 24-70 f/2.8 or the even bulkier 70-200 f/2.8. Besides, with the little 35 mm lens, I can use the pop-up flash. With the other lenses, I need to take the Speedlite along because the bigger / longer lenses cut into the the pop-up flash's light path and create a round dark spot at the bottom center of the pic.

To put the fw update files on the CF card, I pulled out the long unused SanDisk high-speed reader, only to realize it's Firewire 800. The Firewire 800 card I had bought years ago (UniBrain) never worked right in my PC, even causing a panic/crash once. Since my only other FW devices were the now Coug-ized WD external drives, I recently removed the UniBrain card from my PC, completely forgetting about the reader. Oh well, I'll need to buy a cheapie Transcend USB 3.0 reader. For now I still have my over-used USB 2.0 Dazzle reader which manages to do the job.

 

[snowhiker]

Snowhiker's activity here has stirred me from my photography hibernation.

Glad I could help. I was SLR-dormant for 20 YEARS!!! Enjoy the family get together.

 

[snowhiker]

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp Lunar. I need you.

The Nikon D610 "Playback display options" in the Playback menu specifically. When I go to "Playback display options" I see:

- Done
Basic photo info
- Focus point
Additional photo info
- None (image only)
- Highlights
- RGB histogram
- Shooting data
- Overview


Now no matter what I select above and click OK I see a bunch of text under image on LCD display. On bottom I see..."Folder name, file name, date, time, "FX", Fine, "L"6016x4016...and top right corner 1/511 (number of pics on card).

I simply want to display the pic ONLY. I have camera hooked to TV via HDMI cable and want to just scroll thru pics with NO metadata. I get image on TV ok but I can't figure out how to remove the metadata.

Is there some other option somewhere else on the camera over-ridding the playback display options? Wheres the obvious answer I'm missing.

Is this a bug in the D610 firmware? Firmware update maybe? Regardless, it's pissing me off.

MUCH THANKS in advance.

 

[LunarMist]

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp Lunar. I need you.

The Nikon D610 "Playback display options" in the Playback menu specifically. When I go to "Playback display options" I see:

- Done
Basic photo info
- Focus point
Additional photo info
- None (image only)
- Highlights
- RGB histogram
- Shooting data
- Overview


Now no matter what I select above and click OK I see a bunch of text under image on LCD display. On bottom I see..."Folder name, file name, date, time, "FX", Fine, "L"6016x4016...and top right corner 1/511 (number of pics on card).

I simply want to display the pic ONLY. I have camera hooked to TV via HDMI cable and want to just scroll thru pics with NO metadata. I get image on TV ok but I can't figure out how to remove the metadata.

Is there some other option somewhere else on the camera over-ridding the playback display options? Wheres the obvious answer I'm missing.

Is this a bug in the D610 firmware? Firmware update maybe? Regardless, it's pissing me off.

MUCH THANKS in advance.

The default choice would of course be NONE, but typically the view data is set at any time during review. While a image is being reviewed, does the Info button toggle between the various display types?

 

[ddrueding]

How lightfield cameras work.

 

[LunarMist]

Is that anything new or is it the same old low-res stuff?

 

[snowhiker]

The default choice would of course be NONE, but typically the view data is set at any time during review. While a image is being reviewed, does the Info button toggle between the various display types?

Pressing the "info" button, that is just below the live view button, while playing back the pics removes the pic you are viewing and just shows all the current camera settings.

Coming off an 11-hours shift I though I'd turn the camera on for a second and try again. I figured it out in 4 seconds. I was pulling my hair out 13.5 hours ago. I was pressing the "joystick" toggle right or left to view various pics, BUT, in you press UP or DOWN just once the display shows just the pic with NO meta-data. You can then resume pressing left or right to go to next pic.

Doooooooohhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

Just goes to show if you get "tunnel vision" on how things should/ought to work, you can miss the obvious.

Need sleep..........Thanks again.

 

[snowhiker]

A new awesome toy coming to the Canon world. Rumor blurb here.

Looks like Tamron and Sigma, with their 150-600mm and now Nikon with its 200-500mm f/5.6 lenses is taking some business away from Canon. Canon has the body for the entry level birders/wildlife folks, the 7Dii, but only the aging, but still very good, 400mm f/5.6, NO-IS, lens.

If the new lens is L-Glass, forget about it, it'll be $10-15k+ but if it's a "consumer" lens that is nearly the quality of the 100-400mm L then it will sell like hotcakes even at $2000+.

Now I'm jealous.

 

[LunarMist]

A new awesome toy coming to the Canon world. Rumor blurb here.

Looks like Tamron and Sigma, with their 150-600mm and now Nikon with its 200-500mm f/5.6 lenses is taking some business away from Canon. Canon has the body for the entry level birders/wildlife folks, the 7Dii, but only the aging, but still very good, 400mm f/5.6, NO-IS, lens.

If the new lens is L-Glass, forget about it, it'll be $10-15k+ but if it's a "consumer" lens that is nearly the quality of the 100-400mm L then it will sell like hotcakes even at $2000+.

Now I'm jealous.

A 600/5.6 has a large front end, the same as a 300/2.8. As a zoon it has more glass and should be longer and heavier.
You'll note from the patent diagram that the length of the 200-600 does not change during zooming.
I find it difficult to believe that it would be a cheap lens, though it may be less expensive than some other big teles.

 

[snowhiker]

I was looking at some used 28-70mm f/2.8D lenses here. I'm going to pick up a mid-zoom next, but not anytime in the immediate future. Just checking my options. Also thinking about the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 ART lens but not sure how it compares to the older Nikkor. I'd like something better than the Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 but don't want to spend $1700+ for the "G" or $2400 for the newer "E" Nikkor 24-70mm lens.

Anyways I looked up the 24-70mm f/2.8G at KEH for shits and giggles.

$1800 new - 4% ($72) rewards/gift card = $1730'ish @ B&H.

vs

$1700-1900 used? (for decent grades) @ KEH :scratch:

Used pricier than new? Am I missing something?

 

[LunarMist]

A Nexto ND2901 with a 2TB Same sung 850 Pro downloaded 701GB of cards on one charge!
That SSD sure is power efficient compared to the tlc and several other SSDs I've tested. It also did not throttle as the battery discharged.

 

[snowhiker]

Oh crap! Looks like the D5 won't shoot 15 fps after all. Now I have no reason to upgrade.

And I know this is true because:

1) I read it on the internet and

2) I have a link to a guys rumor blog who heard it from a friend who has a brother-in-law who has a 3rd cousin twice removed who works for a company that is in a business partnership with a company that is RIGHT NEXT DOOR to the Nikon headquarters in Japan. True Story!!!!!1111!!

/snark

 

[snowhiker]

Nikon's new "high-end" DX camera, D500 announced. Nikon web site link here.

- 20.9MP.
- 100 - 51,200 ISO, expandable to Hi 5 (equivalent to ISO 1,640,000)
- Expeed 5 processor.
- 153 AF points. 99 cross-type.
- 10 fps for up to 200 shots (14-bit lossless compressed RAW).
- 4k video.
- snapbridge.
- 2359k-dot touch-screen tilting LCD monitor.
- Suggested retail price (SRP) of $1,999.95
- The MB-D17-battery pack, available in March 2016, SRP of $449.95

Oh baby.

 

[LunarMist]

Less mp is odd, but i may get a D500 anyway.
Two kinds of D5 is nuts.

 

[snowhiker]

Less mp is odd, but i may get a D500 anyway.
Two kinds of D5 is nuts.

My guess is Nikon thought better "very-high" ISO performance is more important than a bit more mega-pixels.

It seems the D500 has nearly the same AF system as the D5. Need some test reports to see what the real differences may be.

And yes the D5 can be bought in either a dual CF or dual XQD memory card configurations. But I believe the memory card slots are in "removable modules" so you can convert a CF to XQD or vice-versa. Probably NOT user-swappable and requires a Nikon tech to swap modules, but it's good to know you can get the CF version and later upgrade to XQD.

Any way you look at it the D500 is, on paper at least, an awesome camera. And with the rebates and price reductions on the 7Dii ending and price for it going back up the D500 is the obvious choice......IF you don't already have a ton of Canon glass.