24mp, 35mm sensor - just fooling about

[jonoslack]

Hi There
Well, I did crack, there was a little 'okay' weather today, so I spent an hour fooling with familiar subjects.
I bought two lenses to get me going:
Zeiss 24-70 f2.8
this is a beautiful lens - just what one would expect from zeiss, even the petal lens hood is gorgeous, with a flock inside, metal, with a slick bayonet to connect to the camera
Sony 70-300 f4 - f5.6 G
This is a relatively inexpensive lens, but its improved build quality and silent focusing reflects the fact that it's more expensive than it's Nikon equivalent.

I'm still considering my 'ultra-wide' position.

Anyway, I had some fun taking 100% crops from files.
Everything was shot raw, converted to .dng and imported to Aperture.

zeiss 24-70 f8 1/60th 70mm

sony 70-300G f5.6 1/250th 150mm

sony 70-300G f5.6 1/500th 300mm

sony 70-300G f7.1 1/1160th 135mm

Zeiss 24-70 f3.2 1/30th 45mm

All shot at ISO 200

 

[jonoslack]

Here is another pair

Zeiss 24-70 f4.5 1/125th 70mm

 

[Robert Campbell]

Looks good - I'm glad you cracked:clap::clap:

 

[jonoslack]

Looks good - I'm glad you cracked:clap::clap:

It's always fun to be a victim (at least it's cheaper than MF)

 

[Robert Campbell]

It's always fun to be a victim (at least it's cheaper than MF)

Don't worry, Jono, we have until next summer to work on you for that! :ROTFL::ROTFL:

 

[Robert Campbell]

More seriously, I have a Canon 5D, and am interested to see how the 5DII works out. If I didn't have the Canon lenses, I might find the choice between a D700, the Sony and a 5DII very difficult - but I don't want to start off from new again - retirement = penury.

 

[Jonathon Delacour]

Jono, congratulations on the new camera! The 100% crops look great and the two lenses appear to be more than a match for their Nikon equivalents. Are the ergonomics of the D900 significantly different to those of the D3/D700?

 

[jonoslack]

More seriously, I have a Canon 5D, and am interested to see how the 5DII works out. If I didn't have the Canon lenses, I might find the choice between a D700, the Sony and a 5DII very difficult - but I don't want to start off from new again - retirement = penury.

HI Bertie
I did consider the 5DII, but I really didn't want to have to deal with the Canon wide angles. Still, I do understand the problem

 

[jonoslack]

Jono, congratulations on the new camera! The 100% crops look great and the two lenses appear to be more than a match for their Nikon equivalents. Are the ergonomics of the D900 significantly different to those of the D3/D700?

HI Jonathon
Thank you - I think the crops look good too - whether the 24-70 is as good as the Nikon is a moot point, but the 70-300 ssm seems to be a great lens, mind you, it's more expensive than the Nikon equivalent, but it seems to be really sharp, and oozes quality.

As for the ergonomics - I've only spent a few hours with it (300 pictures maybe) and I REALLY like it - it's much simpler than the D3/D700 (and not so configurable), but it's lovely to use - I already know where all the buttons are, things fall to hand easily.
Hmm. you'd like negatives - the shutter is quite loud ("KER . . . PLUNK") but it's low frequency, and rather pleasant.
The grip is designed for bigger hands than mine, but it's still comfortable.

To be honest it's rather a delight, it also looks a great deal nicer than it's pictures, especially with larger lenses attached, which make the pentaprism less surprised looking.

Does that help?

Still, your decision is simple - would you rather:
a) excellent high ISO
b) excellent resolution with a weak aa filter

 

[Robert Campbell]

I did consider the 5DII, but I really didn't want to have to deal with the Canon wide angles.

I keep hearing this; but since I now have the varifocals, the corners of everything are soft but I still get upset by wonky horizons .

 

[jonoslack]

I keep hearing this; but since I now have the varifocals, the corners of everything are soft but I still get upset by wonky horizons .

Hi there
It's probably just prejudice on my part . . . . the trouble is my tendency to do landscapes with BIG skies and just a sliver of land . . if the corners of that land are soft it doesn't look to good!

 

[Jonathon Delacour]

Still, your decision is simple - would you rather:
a) excellent high ISO
b) excellent resolution with a weak aa filter

I'd frame the decision a little differently. My questions would be:

1. What lenses are available for Camera X that best match your shooting style?
2. Would you rather have:
a) excellent high ISO; or
b) excellent resolution with a weak aa filter?

And the answers:

1. For full-frame, I rarely have a need for anything wider than 28mm or longer than 90mm plus I do have a strong preference for fast primes. I didn't buy a Nikkor 24-70 (too wide and not long enough) so I'd be unlikely to purchase the Zeiss 24-70. I did buy a Nikkor 17-35 to use on my D300 because on a DX sensor its range includes the 28mm and 40mm focal lengths I like. I'd be much less likely to use it on a full-frame camera, therefore that reduces the appeal of the Zeiss 16-35. So the only Zeiss ZA lens that would be useful to me is the 85/1.4. Whereas for a full-frame Nikon camera I have an almost perfect selection of Zeiss, Nikkor, and Voigtlander primes between 28mm and 90mm. All I need is a Nikkor 85/1.4 and I'm good.

2. Naturally, I'd prefer excellent high ISO and excellent resolution with a weak aa filter -- an 18-megapixel clean high ISO camera would be ideal. But I doubt that will happen. So, given the lens choices, I'm probably best off picking up a D700 and hoping that Nikon release a 24-megapixel D800 sooner rather than later.

In a fascinating DPReview thread about Nikon's next full-frame models, Thom Hogan makes some cogent observations about Nikon's current positioning as a 12-megapixel company:

The highest end of your product line is a positioning statement (as is the lowest). Right now Nikon's positioning is "we're a 12mp company." Give or take 2mp that applies from the P6000 through to the D3 now. The two companies Nikon needs to worry about, Canon and Sony, have made a different statement.

I would judge Nikon to be very weak at the low end (Coolpix and consumer DSLR) right now, and non-existent at the high-end (high megapixel count DSLR). That's the two ends of their positioning statement at the moment.
​

and what Nikon needs to do to alter that positioning:

...serious shooters--exactly the kind that Nikon has catered to and who've been at the heart of Nikon's up/down cycles for both film and digital--are currently asking for more than 12mp in FX. They'll be asking for more than 12mp in DX sometime in the next 12 months. To fully satisfy those shooters, Nikon would need:

Mar 09: D3x (18mp or higher FX), no higher than US$4999
May 09: D800 (18mp or higher FX in D700 body), no higher than US$2999
Aug 09: D400 (14-16mp DX in D300 body with video), no higher than US$1799

Then, of course, there's the missing lenses, but don't get me started on that ;~)
​

As much as some other forum members are excited about the rumored Nikon MX format camera, I regard it -- as does Thom Hogan -- as a potential disaster if Nikon sees the MX camera as a replacement for the D3x/D800 models.

So I kind of feel as though I'm stuck. The Sony A900 has neither the lenses I want nor the high ISO performance. And while the Canon 5D Mark II may well have excellent high resolution and high ISO, it lacks the lenses I want, its AF is (according to the usual unreliable sources) inferior to what I'm used to with the D300 and, in any case, (like you, Jono) I have an instinctive (albeit childish) aversion to the Canon behemoth.

Does that help?

Absolutely! Even though I might be feeling stuck, you've really helped me to clarify what is of most importance. Many thanks...

 

[jonoslack]

HI Jonathan
Good points all . . . . BUT
The nikon primes have nasty bokeh, and the Zeiss primes are not auto-focus (lovely though they are). I reckon that if you want quality lenses and manual focus . . . . then you'd better use an M8, the lenses are sooo much better.

On the other hand there are lots and lots of excellent minolta fixed focal length auto focus primes - and Minolta have cared about bokeh since their relationship with Leica.

Minolta fit prime lenses

Historical perspective on Minolta lens design philosophy

Enjoy

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

HI Jonathan
Good points all . . . . BUT
The nikon primes have nasty bokeh,

Bit of a generalisation there, Jono. My 85mm F1.4 has superb bokeh. Others vary.

Its easy to forget Sony is really Minolta. Pity they could not revive that name on the front of the camera.

Quentin

 

[jonoslack]

Bit of a generalisation there, Jono. My 85mm F1.4 has superb bokeh. Others vary.

Its easy to forget Sony is really Minolta. Pity they could not revive that name on the front of the camera.

Quentin

I apologise - it certainly was a generalisation (and that certainly is an exception), but the 50 mm lenses are pretty nasty (especially the f1.4), but as far as I can see most of the wider lenses are to be left alone.