The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[GTRacer]

Don't get so hung up on the little niggles your lens has, you have a great bit of kit as it is so put it through its paces.

[fureshi]

i wouldn't worry so much about the CA either unless you really enjoy pixel peeping and look at your pictures at 100% crop. i've had the tamron 17-50mm without motor for over a year now and it's been my main lens on the D50 and i'm still planning on using it as my main lens on the D300. can't say that i've had any problems with CA but then i don't look for it either. composition is probably more important than the little niggles.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by milkpowder

Why is the background (and actually most of the picture) so hazy?

Because it probably was hazy.............................
Am I missing something here?

If you don't like haze, try a UV/Haze filter.

[milkpowder]

Not as hazy as that

I'll try a UV filter, but I was under the impression that all digital cameras already have some sort of UV filtering. Nevertheless, I'm still trying to come to terms with the whole "filters" business. It seems that Hoya are a popular brand? My dad's lens came with a 'free' Hoya UV filter.

GTRacer & fureshi: Oh I wasn't complaining at all and didn't intend to sound like so... I am actually very satisfied by the results so far. I never ever look at pictures at 100% anyway. Because my screens are no bigger than 1680x1050, I usually resize to around that size at which point CA is near impossible to see.

I am intrigued by the Tamron 17-50, but will probably get a nice fast prime and/or a macro first for taking flower pictures. The new Nikkor 60mm was impressive: fast AF, very close minimum focus distance and as far as I could tell very sharp too.

Has anyone used the Sigma 50/2.8 macro. The build quality is terrific but its autofocus pretty lack luster: lots of searching before focus lock when focussing at distance (even when set to focus only on distant objects). Maybe macro lens are like this...

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by milkpowder

Not as hazy as that I'll try a UV filter

That isn't UV. That is moisture in the air. The reason you don't see it when you view the scene in person is because your eyeballs have a MUCH wider dynamic range than your camera. Eyes adjust for things like that.

The haze in the background is what creates the feeling of depth in your picture, and it frames the one point perspective you've got going there, making the silhouettes of the trunks stand out. It's a good thing, not a bad one.

See ya
Steve

[M0T0XGUY]

Speaking of little niggles, have any 80-200 users noticed a rather severe drop in center quality towards the 200 end of the range? Between 80mm and 135mm, resolution and contrast are fantastic and leave little to be desired - but past that point, resolution across the frame seems to drop dramatically, and there's an eerie ghosting effect in out of focus areas. It's not necessarily a deal-breaker, since the problems usually arise at 75% or greater magnification, but I am slightly curious considering the lens' reputation for being prime-sharp.

I'll try and get some sample shots up soon to demonstrate the issue.

[Arainach]

I haven't used that lens, but it's quite common for zoom lenses to be better at one end or the other. And stuff at 75% resolution is crazy big, so I wouldn't worry about it.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by Arainach

I haven't used that lens, but it's quite common for zoom lenses to be better at one end or the other. And stuff at 75% resolution is crazy big, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Yeah, I guess it's fine anyway.

[milkpowder]

It was sunny today... no more haze! The camera loves good light and takes rather vibrant photos. Here are some of the better ones, straight off the camera Mildy processed ones are thumbnail-ed.

Statue on George Street, Edinburgh

processed:

Upwards at the Balmoral Hotel, Edinburgh

processed:

Looking through some leaves into the azalea garden. I get really confused looking at this photo because I try and figure out the different layers (there are at least 5).



Random tree near where I live

processed:

Tree, branches & leaves (?!)

processed (the stock photo already looked quite nice, so here we go):

Small caterpillar on my jeans

processed:

Street lamp

processed:

My little experiment... which ended with me covered in a myriad of different bugs...

[M0T0XGUY]

The gorgeous weather here in Westchester absolutely begs me to put the 80-200 through its paces - so I have.

Check out some of these samples and tell me what you think.

[Uploaded to Photobucket]

[Uploaded to Imageshack]






The last one was obviously processed, but the rest are straight-out-of camera.

EDIT: Does anyone know if Photobucket somehow changes the upload quality when using their bulk uploader? These shots above are nowhere near as sharp as the JPEG's sitting on my computer, and it seems as if overall the resolution has significantly decreased. I'm going to try another site - Imageshack - and compare the results to Photobucket.

EDIT: Perhaps it has to do with the disproportional resizing imposed by Photobucket? I just realized that the 800X600 setting doesn't actually maintain the correct aspect ratio of the original photo, whereas the 894X600 dimensions of the Imageshack photo remain in proportion. It's a small difference, but a difference nonetheless.