The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[Dimitris]

If you want to do macros and you go with the D200 I would recommend the old Nikkor 55mm f3.5. Its one of the best Nikkor macros ever made and they sell for around $60 shipped and paypaled! Check out some reviews and you will see what I mean. You can also get the PK-13 extension tube for around $20 for 1-1 magnification. The good thing with the manual Nikkors is that they are available everywhere and for really cheap! I have 6 and the total budget was under $1000 and they are all in excellent condition! Drop me a PM if you want me to show you where to get them.

Originally Posted by philodox

That Nikon 18-200 VR really does seem like the perfect all-rounder/starter lense. I confess that I did gravitate to that 50mm based mainly on the Zeiss name, but also because of its focal length. Not sure if I've been reading biased opinions, but everything I've read so far seems to say that Sigma has some serious reliability issues with its lenses. I'll keep that Nikkor 50mm in mind as well. I thought the fisheye would be fun for some artsy shots from my balcony or the rooftop patio, but I guess I could do similar stuff with an ultrawide lense. I have a high interest in doing macro shots, and that manual Zeiss lense just looks pretty. Would I be able to do decent macro shots using the Nikon 18-200 VR in a pinch?

The D90 is nice, but I'm not sure I'd be able to find a used one as cheap as the D200. A better sensor is all well and good, but I'm not looking to chase megapixels. The D90 can do video, which is cool, but I'd imagine I would miss out on some of the 'pro' features of the D200?

[dj_mocok]

Just giving you guys a chance to own this beauty - Nikon 105mm Ais f/1.8 in mint condition. Looking at the pretty much brand new new state of this pretty lens made me almost buy it. If I didn't have a similar range lens, I'd be all over it.

It's really worth bidding it if you appreciate classic lenses.

[BigSurSpoon]

Wow, that looks like a beautiful lens. Too bad I can't afford it right now...

[milkpowder]

Originally Posted by Towert7

I have my camera settings on custom, but I bet they are close to vivid.
Contrast +1 (out of a max of +2), and Saturation + (as high as it goes).
It's a 3 year old D50, so my + Saturation is tame compared to what you can get out of a D3/D300/D90, etc.
I also have sharpening up as high as it goes.

The colours on the D300 can be quite crazy. Ken Rockwell likes to use vivid + additional saturation!

Here are some rough and ready test shots of mine with the 18-70DX:








D2XMode1 looks very nice. I could probably add +1 saturation to the picture. The reds in Vivid and D2XMode3 look blown.

[Towert7]

Standard and Mode 1 are very similar, especially since the white balance between them is off. Standard has a fair amount of yellow added in, so it makes the reds seem more saturated. I think if the WB was equal in both, they would be VERY similar.
Neutral is also similar.
I think my preference is for standard (assuming the WB issue is a fluke due to the Auto WB). If standard is actually changing the WB vs. mode 1, then I would pick mode 1.

I haven't seen the items in real life, but just for a guess I would say my D50 is setup to produce images like Neutral.

So yes, neutral or standard seem nice.

[lan]

I have different settings for each lens. That's the wonder of D300. I don't really shoot JPEG but have been dabbling in it (by shooting RAW+JPEG) lately so I can get a somewhat better JPEG preview. Sometimes I need to get people images pretty fast and I can't post process many images super fast.

[bigshot]

Have you noticed a quality difference in the jpegs vs the raw? In particular in the HDR and high ISO noise reduction. Supposedly, those two features of the D300 aren't available in raw.

Thanks
Steve

[shigzeo]

lossy compression from the sensor and lossless from the sensor are very unlike audio where we really say we can hear a difference and most cannot. raw and jpeg offer from a distance still, very visually different images. often the jpeg looks a bit more vibrant though as it loses tones in compression and retains the most bright ones only.

raw however has all the dark details that jpeg throws away and fine lines of colour that hide between every shade. it is quite stunning actually. but i shoot jpeg mostly.

[lan]

I don't think you can compare RAW and JPEG since you cannot make them with exactly the same settings. There are also some cameras which make nicer JPEGs than others. While you could say you could see more in the RAW, I'm not sure that would translate in print.

As for the JPEGs from the D300, I think they are fine. With all those setting, it takes a while to get things the way you really like but once I've done it, I have no complaints on the JPEGs so far.

A pro monitor and color calibration goes a long way and is more important. I once tried a print experiment of JPEG vs PNG, 8bit vs 16bit, various noise reductions, various sharpening settings, and various resolutions. On 4x6s it doesn't matter that much. I usually print at 2MP 8bit PNG.

[Towert7]

The pentax K10D was one camera that had the default settings set to UGLY!!!!!!!!!!!! Switch it to raw, and instantly you would get much better results.

Other cameras though, the differences seem small (if any at all).

It is very funny for me to hear people say "shotting in .jpg you have to have the settings set right".

It's what, 4 settings? It takes 2 seconds.
WB, ISO, aperture, exposure compensation (if needed). Done.
If you use Auto ISO, it's even less.

I shudder at the thought of people taking pictures without first setting these 3-4 settings for the appropriate lighting conditions.