Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: A Japanese headfier's monologue (Sasaki)
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
uppis, just buy the 85mm 1.8 if the 1.4 is out of your league. It's still an extraordinary lens, regardless of price compared to 85mm 1.4.
After some reading and seeing some pictures, thats probably what I'm going to do. And 85 1.4 is little too much right now, right after D300, which maybe didn't turn out the best investment for a while. No that its a bad camera, no, not at all, its absolutely great. I just think I could have buy few nice lenses for the price and work with D50. Its really not that much worse compared to D300, D50 mostly just feels like a toy after D300 and the screen looks so tiny..
But hey, does anybody know why newer lenses (AFS VR as far as I've seen) have ten pins, when bodies have just eight?
If, let us say, the theoretical limit of the DX sensor size is 16Mpixels.
Where are you getting 16 megapixels as the theoretical limit of the DX sensor? A few years ago, the limit was 6 megapixels. There's no reason to believe that a few years from now, it'll be 24 or 32 megapixels. Digital cameras are getting to the point where they have resolution to spare for most people's purposes. The main advantage of modern sensors is high ISO performance, not pixel count. Besides, Nikon has traditionally moved very slowly with abandoning formats entirely. Their lenses from the 80s still work the same on cameras today. DX lenses will continue to work just the same on full frame cameras regardless of whether there are new DX bodies coming out. Even so, I doubt that Nikon will stop making DX cameras entirely. There is an advantage to maintaining a difference between consumer and pro lines. And DX lenses are cheaper to design and build than full frame ones.
For most internet usage, crop sensors are fine. For large prints though, or for instances when you want the best picture quality, a 35mm size sensor or larger is helpful.
I printed an 18 x 24 poster off a 3 megapixel shot from an Olympus 3030 and it was razor sharp. How big a print are you talking about?
Sometimes I wonder if too much is never enough for some folks. I remember shooting ASA 800 on my old F2 and getting grain up the wazoo even at 8x10. The high ISO performance of my D200 is stunning, and I can print huge and it still looks great. Not to mention the fact that the automation on my D200 kicks ass compared to the manual everything of the F2. That frees me up to think creatively and focus on finessing the fine adjustments instead of going through a laundry list of steps with each and every shot.
Where are you getting 16 megapixels as the theoretical limit of the DX sensor? A few years ago, the limit was 6 megapixels. There's no reason to believe that a few years from now, it'll be 24 or 32 megapixels. Digital cameras are getting to the point where they have resolution to spare for most people's purposes. The main advantage of modern sensors is high ISO performance, not pixel count. Besides, Nikon has traditionally moved very slowly with abandoning formats entirely. Their lenses from the 80s still work the same on cameras today. DX lenses will continue to work just the same on full frame cameras regardless of whether there are new DX bodies coming out. Even so, I doubt that Nikon will stop making DX cameras entirely. There is an advantage to maintaining a difference between consumer and pro lines. And DX lenses are cheaper to design and build than full frame ones.
Headphoneus Supremus Landscape-Photo-Fi Organizer for Can Jam '09
Originally Posted by Towert7
The 85mm F/1.8 is a great lens, ESPECIALLY for the price!
Do you find the large minimum focusing distance to be a problem? In that same price range you can get the Tamron 90 macro or Sigma 105 macro, which of course are quite a bit bigger, and lose 1.3 steps of light. Every time I look at that 85, the idea of being limited to a yard from my subject seems like it would be an annoyance. Heck, I'm often wishing my 180 could get closer than its' five foot limit. I guess the 35 F2 has spoiled me a bit!
Do you find the large minimum focusing distance to be a problem? In that same price range you can get the Tamron 90 macro or Sigma 105 macro, which of course are quite a bit bigger, and lose 1.3 steps of light. Every time I look at that 85, the idea of being limited to a yard from my subject seems like it would be an annoyance. Heck, I'm often wishing my 180 could get closer than its' five foot limit. I guess the 35 F2 has spoiled me a bit!
Most of the time I'm using my 85mm for people shots, and so I'm well beyond the minimum focusing distance. For times when I take pictures of my cat, I sometimes have to move back a little. I recently took a few pictures of some cherry blossoms and found the minimum focusing distance unacceptable. It most certainly is not a macro lens.
So "long exposure NR" was on. I didn't get a manual with my D50, so I don't know of any other way to turn it on/off. In camera adjustments were on normal, then I customized it to my liking and snapped this, with long exposure NR off:
100% crop:
Still no color noise, just grain which doesn't bother me. It's my friends birthday tomorrow, so I'll be able to test its lowlight abilities at BJs. Then Thursday Calvin Harris is playing over here and I'm gonna sneak my camera under my jacket lol.
__________________ Home Rig: Samsung DVD-HD841--> Little Dot Micro Tube --> Grado SR-225 Portable Rig: Black Jailbroken iPhone 3G 16gb--> Translucent Black HearYourself AE1s head-fi feedback ebay feedback
To be honest, I think the D50 is damn good when it comes to ISO noise and grain. I don't even need to bother with any sort of NR so far with ISO 1600.
One of the first shots I took with it after I traded for it. Had that been with a prior D70s or D2H, I would have had to run some sort of NR and then lose some sharpness and color. I don't mind fixing CA in CS2. It would be nice to have it in camera though.
The viewfinder does suck compared to when I used a D2H, and of course an FX sensor would be nice.
uppis, just buy the 85mm 1.8 if the 1.4 is out of your league. It's still an extraordinary lens, regardless of price compared to 85mm 1.4.
BTW, anyoen have any broken or dismantled lenses lying around? I want to make a lens bracelet like the one that was on gizmodo.
Not bad but it's web sized and 1/160 shutter. Try again with an exposure around 1/30
nineohtoo, you still have color NR is CS2 set to 25, that's why you're not seeing noise and just grain. It's a default for Camera Raw, along with brightness, contrast, black levels, and sharpening, so I always zero everything out and then work from there.
I'm thinking about buying a telephoto lens and I'm torn between the 70-200mm 2.8VR and the 80-200mm 2.8. Do you guys think it's worth the extra $600-$700 for the VR?
