One has to set up an account and log in to see that. Can you summarize?Thom Hogan's list of worthy lenses
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses-2.html
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
One has to set up an account and log in to see that. Can you summarize?Thom Hogan's list of worthy lenses
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses-2.html
Boring. He's far to focused on sharpness. Lenses are more than that.One has to set up an account and log in to see that. Can you summarize?
I didn't need any account but here's the textOne has to set up an account and log in to see that. Can you summarize?
Jack, I'm curious what your thoughts are on the 105mm 1.4 E on the D810?Okay, I could read it now -- must have been some other site weirdness earlier. I agree Jorgen, sort of a "meh" report.
End of day, I can find faults with every lens I own on the D810 -- meaning none of them hold up to 36MP from edge to edge. However, most are more than adequate enough to make excellent images -- even including my lowly 24-120 zoom
I have not shot it yet JD, so at present have nothing to offer. From some reviews, it may however be the one exception to my comment above -- but I remain suspect even it would hold full 36MP in the corners.Jack, I'm curious what your thoughts are on the 105mm 1.4 E on the D810?
That's a great image Jack! It would make a great B/W too. Thanks for the input. VR really is impressive. I have the option to purchase a new 85mm 1.4G for $1275 or a used 70-200 f/2.8 VRII for $1300. I need a portrait lens and usually shoot only primes. This will be on a D810, which I think is quite amazing and the 85mm might give me more utility.I have not shot it yet JD, so at present have nothing to offer. From some reviews, it may however be the one exception to my comment above -- but I remain suspect even it would hold full 36MP in the corners.
To further support my comment above about lens performance, I made this image with my worst performing lens, the lowly 24-120. It was further handheld at 1/8th sec, but with it's VR on, and at 24mm and f8 IIRC. The only caveat is it was made with the older D800 non-E, but still 36MP body. Anyway, it prints beautifully at 20"x30" (even if you stick your nose in the print and look for warts ) and is very well received. My point here is it really begs the question as to how important is "perfect" lens performance? I think not so much as most of us place on it
Thank you JD -- I actually did a mono version, but this original capture is so muted I think it works a bit better in some respectsThat's a great image Jack! It would make a great B/W too.
My .02 on those choices. I've owned the 80-200 VR and it was excellent. But it was also a relative beast and it didn't have any particular "mojo" at the short end for portraits; though it was pretty nice after about 150mm. By contrast on the 85/1.4G, I struggled when I sold my 105 DC and very nearly kept it as my main portrait and sold off that 85. But in the end, it was just enough "looser" compositionally that it worked better for my portrait style. That 85 --or at least my copy-- is optically awesome for portraits, hold nice juice to f4 or f5.6 and is incredibly sharp centrally even wide open. Only nit is you will absolutely need to run blur in post for any woman you photograph over about 30 years old Here is one area the 105DC absolutely shined. Anyway, as re the 80-200, I "replaced" it with the f4 VR model, equally sharp but of course a stop slower and half the weight, and still no real juice so I never use it. Finally, my replacement for the "long end" portrait telephoto is the Sigma 150mm Macro --- it does double duty as a macro and tight portrait lens, yet is significantly smaller than the Sigma 180 macro or the 80-200 f2.8 zooms. All FWIW...I have the option to purchase a new 85mm 1.4G for $1275 or a used 70-200 f/2.8 VRII for $1300. I need a portrait lens and usually shoot only primes. This will be on a D810, which I think is quite amazing and the 85mm might give me more utility.
The 70-200 2.8 VRII was my fav lens when I was going wedding/engagement stuff....the extra reach of the tele came in super handy, as was the ability to go wider than 85mm sometimes. YMMV but I don’t think you can wrong with either.That's a great image Jack! It would make a great B/W too. Thanks for the input. VR really is impressive. I have the option to purchase a new 85mm 1.4G for $1275 or a used 70-200 f/2.8 VRII for $1300. I need a portrait lens and usually shoot only primes. This will be on a D810, which I think is quite amazing and the 85mm might give me more utility.
For my style, the D810 is sharper than the D850. My Z7 was sharper than my Z6. The physical dimensions of the pixels of the D810 vs D850, (36 vs 45 mp) favor the the larger photo sites for sharpness and allow more light to captured with cleaner images too. The BSI of the D850 might mitigate this difference, but I still think the D810 is one of the best sensors ever put in a camera. More pixels means very dense array that is more susceptible to bad technique. The Z6 has the OLPF, so won't be a sharp, but imo, it wasn't a dramatic difference either unless you crop. 24 mp is the most forgiving of bad technique and usually results in cleaner higher ISO pics. The Nikon Z is hands down the best mirrorless for MF lenses and especially Leica M lenses because of the thin stack of the sensor. The Z7 has AF points across the entire frame, so no more recomposing shots. I wouldn't pixel peep too much because all these cameras are capable of producing images that are probably beyond most photographers skill set. Get good lenses instead. There's incredible deals right now for the D810, D850 and also the Z's. The US models come with a free FTZ adapter and low actuation, D810's go for $1300. If comparing all these as per your comment, nothing is really equal when the Z's have 5 stop IBIS, no mirror slap and electronic shutter up to 1/2000th. Why not use it? Also, turn off IBIS if shooting above 1/1000th for better results. I've shot the Z7 at 1/15th while handholding and using the viewfinder. Something you can't really do with the DSLR's.I had a decent play with the Z6 and there are some definite improvements, especially in the obvious manual focusing department (focus peaking and the ability to zoom in at the touch of a button); ergonomics are great, AF is very swift, focusing point spread means framing is no longer limited by the centralized focus point; VR works etc. However, the files lack a certain level of acuity. Coming from a Df, with its 16MP, when I first opened them they looked rather mushy in comparison, despite a higher pixel count. The noise reduction on the files is very heavy as well. I found a post online by Michael Clarke (Equipment Review: Nikon Z6 » Michael Clark Photography), commenting on the same image characteristic, where Adobe’s DNG converter renders the files very soft when opened in PhotoShop’s RAW editor. The person actually commented saying that at first glance they fought the camera was broken, which was my thought exactly. He did suggest some raw sharpening settings that did improve the overall look. Still, it is interesting as it really struck me, I’ve never noticed it past cameras, the Df or my ricoh GR. I am keeping medium format out of this comparison, naturally.
I am not sure if this is a characteristic of newer sensors but I had heard a similar comment re d810 vs d850, where d850’s Raw files look less sharp but are still sharper than Z7’s raw files, also commented on by the Northrup duo, and visible in dpreview RAW comparison samples (especially in the green feathers and leaves section). A fellow photographer, who had switched from a d810 to d850, also mentioned that in an email while commenting on the files. D850 had greater colour accuracy, according to him, but somewhat softer appearance in comparison to D810’s files. Anyway, while it is not easily quantifiable, but having now seen it myself, I understand exactly what they were all referring to. We’re talking all things being equal, electronic shutter, mirror lock up, IBIS off, tripods etc.
Would a Z7 be better? A fellow forum member, in a recent post, provided some Z7 vs Hasselblad files samples and, the Z7 files definitely share the same characteristic of Z6’s rendering, despite having no AA filter so I am not entirely sure whether a Z7 would solve this aspect entirely. The overall look is very similar.
Has anyone else noticed this?
Sharpness is a relative trait and not simply a function of resolution, but also micro --or in this case-- inter-pixilary contrast. High MP sensors require a deft hand in post processing to bring out that inter-pixel contrast and make them sing. IMHO this is where C1 has an edge over LR...My D810 is sharper than the D850.
The D810/D850 are really capable cameras, especially, when deploying EFCS. Obviously, with the D810, you must use MU, but it works good for landscapes. I think Nikon's evolution to all mirrorless is inevitable, especially with the S lens design. For me I decided that IBIS is a feature I could really benefit from and use all my MF lenses with great success. The upcoming firmware from the Z should address most AF issues too.Thanks jdphoto,
Oh yes, the benefits are there absolutely but like I said, the softness almost took me by surprise. I used to own a d810 as well and that looked mushy compared to my merrills (different technologies) but yet I let go of the merrills ultimately as they were terrible for rendering skin. Sharpness is not everything for me. I could splash out for the Z7; I remember struggling with the d810's 36MP for handholdability without blur; having now used Z6, I think the Z7 would mitigate the handholdability limitation with a high megapixel DSLR.