Nikkor AIS lenses and the new line-up of FF cameras

[f6cvalkyrie]

Hi !

I own a nice line-up of Nikkor AIS lenses (from 20 to 500mm) that I use today on a Panasonic GH2 through some adapters.

But I'm looking now at the new D800 and (budget permitting) D4 as possible "sensor carriers"

What do you think, will these new cameras outresolve the lenses ?
And what about focusing MF lenses on these cameras ?

TIA for your opinions !

C U
Rafael

 

[Godfrey]

Hi !

I own a nice line-up of Nikkor AIS lenses (from 20 to 500mm) that I use today on a Panasonic GH2 through some adapters.

But I'm looking now at the new D800 and (budget permitting) D4 as possible "sensor carriers"

What do you think, will these new cameras outresolve the lenses ?
And what about focusing MF lenses on these cameras ?

The Nikkor AI-S series lenses are superb lenses ... like any system of lenses, some are better than others, of course, but most are exceptionally good performers. I've used a number of them on various digital bodies (E-1, E-5, G1, GXR) with superb results. My photographer friend at Stanford U uses a number of them on Nikon D700 and D3x bodies with similarly superb results.

I've never had any problem with manual focusing given a camera with a good focusing system. Nikon's full frame SLR cameras all have excellent reflex focusing systems.

Whether the D800 out-resolves them or not ... well, it's similar to using them on a Nikon film body with Agfa APX25 or Kodak Technical Pan film. The recording medium in both cases out-resolves most lenses so you can see lens defects more clearly. But what does that matter? Expressive photography isn't constrained by technical analysis of lens defects. Sometimes the defects add to the aesthetic appeal of the image.

Which lenses do you have? I have the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-S, pre-AI Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8, and Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4 ED-IF AI-S at present. All are stunning performers. I will likely pick up once more a couple of my other favorites ... 28/2, 105/2.5 and 20/3.5 ... as I've just acquired another couple of Nikon bodies again. (I seem to be accreting Nikon film camera bodies lately, three of them were just given to me.)

 

[f6cvalkyrie]

Thanks for your reply, Godfrey.
This is more or less the line-up :

Nikkor 20/3.5 24/2.0 35/2.0 28-45/4.5 50/1.4 Micro55/2.8 Micro105/2.8 105/2.5 75-150/3.5SE 180/2.8ED Micro200/4.0IF 50-300/4.5 300/2.8IF-ED Reflex500/8 TC-300
Bellows PB4

Several decades of lens gathering

Other consideration : noise
D800 36MP on a FF sensor
GH2 18MP on a half-sized sensor
This means similar pixel density and pixel dimensions.
Does that imply similar high ISO performance ???

C U,
Rafael

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Remember that the pixels of the GH2 that you use already are smaller than those of the D800. Lenses that can resolve enough for the GH2 shouldn't have problems with the D800. Corners may not be as sharp obviously, but that will be the same with any FX format camera.

 

[f6cvalkyrie]

the pixels of the GH2 that you use already are smaller than those of the D800

OK, I just checked, the sensor size of the GH2 is not 1/2 but only 1/4 of the size of a FF sensor. So pixels of FF are twice as big as those living on a GH2.
Hence, much better high ISO performance !

+1 point for the new Nikon FF solution

My wife is going to love you, Jorgen !!

C U,
Rafael

 

[Vivek]

But I'm looking now at the new D800 and (budget permitting) D4 as possible "sensor carriers"

What do you think, will these new cameras outresolve the lenses ?

The D800 will out resolve all the lenses in your list (possibly the 300/2.8 would be adequate).

The D4 is a different story. Even there corners will be a problem with many of those lenses.

 

[Godfrey]

Thanks for your reply, Godfrey.
This is more or less the line-up :

Nikkor 20/3.5 24/2.0 35/2.0 28-45/4.5 50/1.4 Micro55/2.8 Micro105/2.8 105/2.5 75-150/3.5SE 180/2.8ED Micro200/4.0IF 50-300/4.5 300/2.8IF-ED Reflex500/8 TC-300
Bellows PB4

Several decades of lens gathering

Other consideration : noise
D800 36MP on a FF sensor
GH2 18MP on a half-sized sensor
This means similar pixel density and pixel dimensions.
Does that imply similar high ISO performance ???

I've had all of those, with the exception of the 300/2.8, over the years. Worked with Nikon film gear from 1969 to 2001, I always liked their lenses. I've had a bunch of other lenses in the past decade too, just recently was repopulated with a few again. Amazing how we keep turning around and around in this equipment dance.

The GH2 sensor dimensions are 13x17.3 mm = ~ 225 sq mm
The D800 sensor ... 24x36 mm = ~864 sq mm

Technically 3.84:1 sensor area, double the pixel resolution, so photosite area should be about double what the GH2 has. If all else were equal, I'd say about a 1EV gain in sensitivity on that basis. But "all else" is never exactly equal.

Personally, I don't fuss over such technical trivia. I'm sure the D800 will be a delightful camera regardless, and sensitive enough for any practical needs. I'm uninterested in it myself other than from a technological curiosity as I've moved away from the SLR camera as my choice of photographic tool. I also can't really imagine what I'd need 36 Mpixel images for. Seems way over the top for the photography I do. 18Mpixel is also way out there, frankly.

But more power to 'em. ;-)

 

[f6cvalkyrie]

I've had all of those, with the exception of the 300/2.8, over the years. Worked with Nikon film gear from 1969 to 2001, I always liked their lenses. I've had a bunch of other lenses in the past decade too, just recently was repopulated with a few again. Amazing how we keep turning around and around in this equipment dance.

The GH2 sensor dimensions are 13x17.3 mm = ~ 225 sq mm
The D800 sensor ... 24x36 mm = ~864 sq mm

Technically 3.84:1 sensor area, double the pixel resolution, so photosite area should be about double what the GH2 has. If all else were equal, I'd say about a 1EV gain in sensitivity on that basis. But "all else" is never exactly equal.

Personally, I don't fuss over such technical trivia. I'm sure the D800 will be a delightful camera regardless, and sensitive enough for any practical needs. I'm uninterested in it myself other than from a technological curiosity as I've moved away from the SLR camera as my choice of photographic tool. I also can't really imagine what I'd need 36 Mpixel images for. Seems way over the top for the photography I do. 18Mpixel is also way out there, frankly.

But more power to 'em. ;-)

Thanks, Godfrey !

The 300/2.8 is one hell of a lens, combined with the TC -300 is has 600mm of focal length, which corresponds to the FOV of a 1200mm FF on my GH2.
Great stuff for birding !

I'll wait a little to read more circumstantial reviews of the D800, but if it's confirmed that the ISO gain is only one stop for equivalent noise, than, I'm sorry, the D800 at +2kEuro is not going to be for me !

Have a nice day/evening/night
Rafael

 

[f6cvalkyrie]

The D800 will out resolve all the lenses in your list (possibly the 300/2.8 would be adequate).

The D4 is a different story. Even there corners will be a problem with many of those lenses.

Strange, Vivek, I read somewhere else (ClubSNAP) that the Micro 55/2.8 was the highest resolving lens Nikon ever produced !

I agree however on corner sharpness. We micro4/3 shooters with FF glass are really spoiled, since we get so used to see only the sweet spot of the lenses

Have a nice evening,
Rafael

 

[Godfrey]

The 300/2.8 is one hell of a lens, combined with the TC -300 is has 600mm of focal length, which corresponds to the FOV of a 1200mm FF on my GH2.
Great stuff for birding !

I've not used it for birding, but the Micro-Nikkor 200 fitted with TC300 makes an astonishingly good 1:1 Macro lens with 800mm EFL on the E-1, or 600mm EFL on the GXR.

I always wanted to try one of Nikon's 400mm lenses, but I need such long glass so infrequently that I've never gotten around to buying one. Perhaps I should come up with a project and rent one for the fun of it.

 

[f6cvalkyrie]

the Micro-Nikkor 200 fitted with TC300 makes an astonishingly good 1:1 Macro lens with 800mm EFL on the E-1, or 600mm EFL on the GXR.

I use it quite frequently for shooting insects, Godfrey.
This is an example :

You can keep a maximum of distance, and so you don't scare the insect away !

C U
Rafael

 

[Vivek]

Strange, Vivek, I read somewhere else (ClubSNAP) that the Micro 55/2.8 was the highest resolving lens Nikon ever produced !

I agree however on corner sharpness. We micro4/3 shooters with FF glass are really spoiled, since we get so used to see only the sweet spot of the lenses

Have a nice evening,
Rafael

Rafael,

There is a tendency among Nikon manual focus worshippers to elevate the 55 Micronikkor to levels beyond imagination. Have you seen the discussions about the various 55/3.5 versions and which one is better? There must be a million of them around.

FWIW, take a look: Uli-san's Cool Collection from Beautiful Germany Vol. 3

The Nikon info sheet shown in one of the pictures gives the resolution figures for all the micronikkors (the 55/3.5 being the highest for the lens in an F mount at that time- much better than the 105/4). The resolution gets better for 70/5 and even better than that for the 150/5.6.

Many of the modern Nikkors are better than these.

 

[mdarnton]

The Online Photographer: Myths About Megapixels (...And, Does the D800 Have Too Many?)

 

[Antonio Chagin]

Hi I have a comment I would like to make and hope is not out of line here. I have a Nikkor 200mm AIS with adapter to my canon 5DmkII. I don't know if this lens has a bad reputation but used on my camera it gives me very low contrast and slightly soft images. Maybe someone can clear this up because I have had the intention of getting others to do video but this made me hold..