The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[Edwood]

Very nice. But I need AF. I'm just not fast enough manual focusing for a fast moving target (read, 1 yr old daughter)

Otherwise, I'd have stuck with Pentax and their Limited Prime Lenses. Loved their primes. Their bodies, no so much.

-Ed

[The Monkey]

Originally Posted by Edwood

Anyone want to buy my Nikon AF-S 18-200mm VR lens?

-Ed

Do you like that lens, Ed?

[Edwood]

Originally Posted by The Monkey

Do you like that lens, Ed?

Love it, very fast and accurate AF, excellent for outdoors shooting, but I shoot mostly indoors in low light, so it's too slow for me. I need at least f/2.8, and I mostly shoot f/2 with primes.

That I just love the corner to corner sharpness of primes, and the ability to have a very nice bokeh with the more wide open apetures.

But of course that means I'll have to carry around a lot of lenses. As handy as it is to carry only one lens (the 18-200mm VR), I don't really take my D80 around with me everywhere I go.

-Ed

[stuartr]

One thing you will find shooting primes is that you do not necessarily need tons of different focal lengths. I shoot a lot of film, 90% of it on manual focus, prime lens-based systems like Leica M or medium format cameras. Using the Leica M, I generally shoot with a 2 or 3 lens kit...a 35/1.4, 75/1.4...if I need another lens, it is something between 18-25mm. To be honest, I also shoot with just a 35/1.4...you can do a lot with it, making something look wide, or close. Primes are very versatile if it is a good lens of a moderate focal length...the rest you can do with your feet and on the strength of your composition.
For example, these are all 35mm shots:

[Edwood]

Great, photos, Stuart.

It's a shame that pretty most companies like Nikon have abandoned primes.

-Ed

[stuartr]

Thanks Ed. Actually, looking at that last one, it was probably with a 25mm, not a 35mm...too much wide angle-ishness in the corners. It is a shame that prime lenses are not as popular with the manufacturers these days...they are usually smaller, lighter, faster and better in every way than the zooms. Not always, but often. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate zooms -- I use the 24-70 on the D3 and it is great, but coming from primes, f/2.8 is SLOW, there is also much more distortion than with good primes. And it is very large and heavy. But for quick reaction, events, and times when it is not possible to change lenses, it can't be beat.

[Tuarreg]

Stuart

I am intrigued with the Leica mystic and was wondering how you would compare the M8 with current crop of top DSLRs like the Nikon D3 strictly in terms of image quality, as opposed to functionality.

Thanks

Tuarreg

[stuartr]

Tuarreg -- I have not really had the D3 for that long, so I cannot give you a complete comparison, but I would say that at base ISO, the image quality is relative to the lens you are using, rather than the camera. The difference between 10mp 1.3 crop and 12mp full frame is not really significant in terms of resolution, but it does make a big difference in noise. I find that at ISO 160 (the M8's base) and 320, the M8 will generally take equal or better images to the D3. at 640 and above, the D3 is way ahead. The D3 at 3200 is probably close to the M8 at 640.

All that said, in terms of use in normal lighting conditions, it is the lenses that determine the image quality, and 90% of the Leica lenses are better than the Nikon lenses. This is what you are paying for in the M8 -- the ability to use the Leica lenses. If you could bolt Leica lenses on the D3 (even the Leica R lenses), then it would be a different story.

But for the most part, Leica primes are way ahead of the Nikon lenses. The exceptions would be the 14-24 and the 24-70, but even here, the Leica lenses are ahead -- particularly in speed, performance wide open, lack of distortion and size.

For me, the D3 is about getting the job done. It does this unbelievably well. Point it at something, press a button, and you will get a good photo. It is not the sort of thing I carry around with me unless I have a specific reason to...the M8 and a single lens is a lightweight, small kit that can slip in a small bag or even a trench coat pocket if you have a small enough lens. The D3 (or the 1DsMkIII) is a tool for getting work done. It is brilliant at it. I am not saying it can't do "fine art" or street photography or whatever else -- it is just not something you can have with you all the time without a particular reason -- unless you are a masochist. It's like walking around with a KGSS strapped to your back and Omega II's in order to listen to your iPod. The M8 is more like RS-1's unamped into it. They are different -- both are excellent, but in different ways.

[Tuarreg]

I understand the advantages of not drawing attention to the camera, from being able to catch more candid shots to safety from theft. The less attention the camera draws on itself the better. This brings me to the Sigma DP1 which I was interested in it for its diminutive size and its intriguing Fovean sensors that some say rival images of the M8 for a fraction of the price. I seriously doubt it, but it seems to be causing a stir. Further down the line in IQ would be the Leica dLux 3 which is also very interesting.

Check out Jim Radcliffe's Leica dlux3 and Sigma dp1 galleries: Leica D-Lux 3 Photography by Jim Radcliffe which just shows you that in the hands of a skilled photographer, anything is possible!

Enjoy!

Tuarreg

[milkpowder]

Originally Posted by Tuarreg

Check out Jim Radcliffe's Leica dlux3 and Sigma dp1 galleries: Leica D-Lux 3 Photography by Jim Radcliffe which just shows you that in the hands of a skilled photographer, anything is possible!

Enjoy!

Tuarreg

Wow! Just wow! I have the el-cheapo Panasonic version of the DLux-3 and I didn't even think photos of such quality were even possible. If he had said those pictures were taken with a Leica M8 or Nikon D3, I would've still believed him.