Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: New member first post

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Smile New member first post

    Hi all

    Guy said to get in there and post so here I am, posting. I'm around on several forums both Nikon and Leica. I've been lurking here for a bit and now I've signed up. I once bought an M6 from Jack years ago.

    So anyhow I picked up my D3 on 12/1. So far I love it. Only 2.5 years ago all I had was a D70. I surprised myself and a few others when I bought that being pretty adamant that all I needed was TX and a scanner and that was as digital as I needed to be. That D70 quickly turned into a D2H after handling a D2 body. The D2H became a D2HS (sold yesterday). I bought a D200 3 months ago to shoot a cookbook I will most likely sell now that the book is done.

    I've been shooting since I was a kid, '68 I think it was. I did 22 years as a pro shooting everything from 35mm to 8x10. I've been with Nikon since '77 and Leica since '80.

    So anyway the D3 reminds of comparing 35mm to a larger format which is something I did alot. Let me explain that. I read other people thinking the D3 isn't as sharp as it could be or should be. Tonally it is smoother. I remember printing nice snappy images from my Leica M2, TX in Rodinal or HC110. Real snap in those images. I'd then print a larger format and at first glance they seemed softer than 35mm. After doing this it just came down to a smoother tonal gradation, nothing as abrupt as TX in Rodinal. Details were represented in a different way.

    So really the D3 is new stuff. It is nice to use primes again like back in the day. I'm really pleasantly surprised that I can manually focus again, that the Nikon primes are good out to the corners and in general I have no immediate rush to replace lenses. I'm not a zoom guy and I hope some nice new AFS lenses make it to market.

    The D3 will create some new PP procedures like sharpening. Needs it and takes it differently than the D200 or D2HS.

    I will post some images here soon once I figure out how.

    Neil

  2. #2
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: New member first post

    Neil very simple to do go over to the Image Gallery just look up right now as you view this just click that link than go to Regular member gallery and read the instructions to the link upload and your in. Have fun glad you are here
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  3. #3
    Subscriber Member kit laughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Two suitcases and the latest MBA
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New member first post

    Neils: that's it, exactly—smoother tonal graduations *give the impression* that more sharpening is needed, because of what we are used to seeing *on screen*.

    (sorry for all the emphasis!) I have not printed anything out of the D3 yet (the guy that does my printing came over yesterday with his own card and went home with some images that I just know he's going to print.)

    I will report back on any comments he makes; he prints 1Ds, IDs II, and 1D (Mk I and II, and IIn) files all the time, so I really value his perspectives on this. He did say that the handling of the D3 was "additive".

    More later.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New member first post

    Kit, I would be interested in his comments and results. I have no complaints about the final product which is the print. Over the holidays I shot almost everything at ISO 2000-3200. I did my familys Xmas photos with the SB800 at 200. I haven't printed any yet.

    The AF is also something that is different from the D2HS I used. Smaller closer but very sensitive focus areas. It just takes getting used to.

    Yesterday i got the 3D gizmo working. A friends little girl in a yellow raincoat wandered off to the left of the frame while I was trying 3D and the focus marks followed her coat. It was of course the on yellow coat in the frame. My only other try at 3D didn't work at all as all of the players on the team had the same jersey and the sensor was clueless as who to track.

    So I continue to learn this new tool.

    Neil

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: New member first post

    Neils

    I understand that you are not a zoom guy but the new 14-24 is as good a wide as I have ever seen. This lens is absolutely tack sharp out to the corners and is f 2.8 at all focal lengths which is great. Maybe your photo dealer has one you could try.

    Have fun and give us some posts when you can.

    Woody Spedden

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New member first post

    Woody

    The size of these zooms just gets me. I used to own a 17-35 but I just couldn't stand the size or the impression it must make when you use it. It was good but too big. People assume it must be a long lens and get put off. You're already in close because of course it is wide.

    The new zooms are just as big. A nice little 20, 24 or 35 while maybe not as good optically just isn't imposing. Also my personal vision is leaning more towards 50s and 85s. Jobs are a different story though.

    I'd really like to try some Zeiss lenses at some point but I know I just don't focus an SLR as well as I used to. The D3 may be another story though. But again those lenses aren't all that small either.

    Neil

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: New member first post

    For people shooting Neil, I agree with you. For the person being shot, looking down the barrel of the 14-24 would be pretty intimidating. I am primarily a landscape shooter so that is no issue for me. I am mostly concerned about Image Quality and both the older 17-35 and now the 14-24 are just wonderful tools. The 24-70 I find is also quite a step up in quality from the older 28-70 although both the 17-35 and 28-70 still hold their own.

    Again though for people shooting I prefer the stealth and low intimidation factor of the M8. The D3, even with a small prime attached, speaks "Pro." Hard to be inconspicuous with that combo. I have a neat little Voightlander 40 2.0 asph for my D300 which is pretty stealthy I must admit. The little CV acquits itself well, especially considering it costs only $349! Amazing what the folks there are accomplishing with the Zeiss stuff, the Voightlander branded stuff etc.

    Woody Spedden

  8. #8
    Subscriber Member Jonathon Delacour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: New member first post

    Quote Originally Posted by woodyspedden View Post
    For people shooting Neil, I agree with you. For the person being shot, looking down the barrel of the 14-24 would be pretty intimidating. I am primarily a landscape shooter so that is no issue for me. I am mostly concerned about Image Quality and both the older 17-35 and now the 14-24 are just wonderful tools. The 24-70 I find is also quite a step up in quality from the older 28-70 although both the 17-35 and 28-70 still hold their own.

    Again though for people shooting I prefer the stealth and low intimidation factor of the M8. The D3, even with a small prime attached, speaks "Pro." Hard to be inconspicuous with that combo. I have a neat little Voightlander 40 2.0 asph for my D300 which is pretty stealthy I must admit. The little CV acquits itself well, especially considering it costs only $349! Amazing what the folks there are accomplishing with the Zeiss stuff, the Voightlander branded stuff etc.
    I'm on the brink of buying a D300 and have been debating whether to get the 14-24 or the 17-35. In the 35mm DSLR Full Frame Selection thread, Kit Laughlin wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by kit laughlin View Post
    Well, I have had the D3 and the 14–24/2.8 for over a week now. You will need to work on your grip strength as I mentioned above, if you plan on walking around with this combo...

    The 14–24/2.8, apart from being nose heavy (think Distagon 21/2.8, only bigger) produces sharp images edge to edge, at ƒ2.8. Distortion is well controlled. This will be the only lens I will use for interiors, and I have a project coming up next year to document one architect's work—the last ten year's worth.
    Although I agree with Neils that people can be intimidated by large lenses, my experience is that putting the camera on a tripod pretty much alleviates that anxiety. Since I'm primarily interested in shooting still lifes and environmental portraits, working on a tripod is fine for these subjects.

    Handling both the 14-24 and the 17-35 on a D300 in my local store, I felt that that weight, bulk, and "nose-heaviness" of the 14-24 made it better suited to hand-holding. Imagining the D300 + 14-24 on a tripod, I couldn't help picturing it toppling forward (I also wondered what ball-head would reliably support this combination).

    I very much liked the feel of the 17-35 handheld and this lens seems to be almost universally well regarded. So, because I don't need to go really wide, I'm leaning towards the 17-35 -- to which I'd add the Zeiss 50/2 Makro-Planar, the new CV 40/2 and 58/1.4 lenses, plus a 20 and/or 28 AI-S Nikkor (for stealth mode). Any comments on this kit would be much appreciated...

  9. #9
    Subscriber Member kit laughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Two suitcases and the latest MBA
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New member first post

    Jon, have we met before, on a workshop?

    Re. 14–24/2.8 on the D300: honestly, I feel that in some ways that's a waste. The 27–70, OTOH, is not; the crop factor makes this perfect for portraits.

    I have not used the 17–35, but plenty here have, and no doubt they will comment. I can comment on the Zeiss ZF Macro-Planar: fantastic.

    I have the 20/2.8 Nikkor, too, and the CA seems to be completely absent on the D300—I have read that the camera "processes this out" but I can't see how it does that if you shoot Raw, which is all I shoot.

    The D300, if gripless, is definitely a possible stealth-mode cam. The D3 is not.

  10. #10
    Subscriber Member kit laughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Two suitcases and the latest MBA
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New member first post

    These typos are killing me. I meant "24–70" above...

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: New member first post

    Quote Originally Posted by kit laughlin View Post
    These typos are killing me. I meant "24–70" above...
    I still have and often use the 17-35 in situations where I could damage the bulbous front element of the 14-24 or where the weight and balance of the 14-24 handheld could be an issue. The latter point mostly affects the D300 shooters because using the same lens on the D3 vastly improves the balance.

    The 17-35 is one of Nikons best and most enduring zooms and its flare performance puts it in a class of its own.

    Woody

  12. #12
    Subscriber Member Jonathon Delacour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: New member first post

    Kit and Woody,

    Thanks for the feedback -- happily, what you've said totally corroborates the choices I made. I realized that the 14-24 would be a great lens for the D3 but (as Kit said) wasted and (as Woody said) unbalanced on the D300. So I went with the 17-35. To which I've added 20/2.8D AF, 28/2.8 and 28/2 AI-S Nikkors, a Distagon 28/2 ZF, Voigtländer 40/2 Ultron and 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar, and 85/2 and 105/2.8 AI-S Nikkors. An embarrassment of riches (though most of them were relatively inexpensive). A 100/2 Makro-Planar is next on the list.

    Kit, is your 20/2.8 a manual or auto-focus Nikkor? I don't seem to have had any difficulty focusing the 28mm lenses but I went for the AF 20/2.8 because I was concerned about being able to manually focus such a wide lens on the D300.

    Quote Originally Posted by kit laughlin View Post
    Jon, have we met before, on a workshop?
    Indeed we have. The next time you're in Sydney, or I'm in Canberra, it would be great to catch up.

  13. #13
    Subscriber Member kit laughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Two suitcases and the latest MBA
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New member first post

    Hello Jon,

    My 20/2.8 is the AF-D model. Probably, it is my favourite lens on the D300. As well (and don't laugh) the 18–70/3/5–4.5 that was the kit lens on the D70 (and is cheap in feel and mostly plastic) performs wonderfully on this camera—and only weighs grams (and can be bought for $200!). A perfect walk-around combo.

    As well, a number of reviewers have noted that the D300 seems to overcome CA on some wides (it is not clear whether is this is true for Raw files; if so, would suggest that the Expeed processor is recognising some lenses and applying a correction). If anyone has information on this aspect, I'd like to know.

    It will be great to catch up, too. Cheers, KL

  14. #14
    Subscriber Member Jonathon Delacour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: New member first post

    Quote Originally Posted by kit laughlin View Post
    My 20/2.8 is the AF-D model. Probably, it is my favourite lens on the D300. As well (and don't laugh) the 18–70/3/5–4.5 that was the kit lens on the D70 (and is cheap in feel and mostly plastic) performs wonderfully on this camera—and only weighs grams (and can be bought for $200!). A perfect walk-around combo.
    My 20/2.8 AF-D is currently in transit. Now I can't wait to see how it performs. I'm not laughing about the 18-70 (I suspect we're on pretty much the same wavelength regarding lenses and, clearly, you've had way more experience evaluating different lenses on a range of systems than I have). What strikes me as interesting is that the 18-70 costs AU$587 from Digital Camera Warehouse in Australia and AU$211-220 from eBay sellers in Hong Kong. I just can't figure this out -- what are Australian sellers providing that is worth a 167% markup? Even though I'd resolved not to buy any DX lenses, I think I'll probably take your advice on this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by kit laughlin View Post
    As well, a number of reviewers have noted that the D300 seems to overcome CA on some wides (it is not clear whether is this is true for Raw files; if so, would suggest that the Expeed processor is recognising some lenses and applying a correction). If anyone has information on this aspect, I'd like to know.
    Would it be true to say that if the CA can be overcome by in-camera processing of the JPEGs, that it could also be overcome in post-processing of the Raw files?

    Quote Originally Posted by kit laughlin View Post
    It will be great to catch up, too. Cheers, KL
    You bet. I'll PM you when I'm next expecting to be in Canberra.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •