Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here) - Page 3

post #31 of 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by fureshi View Post
lenses will last a long time with care. i'd rather have a better picture than to worry about scratching my lens. besides, as long as you have a hood in place, it'll also provide some protection. also, from what i understand camera shops push filters on their customers as they make a good profit margin from the filter.
Reminds me of how the "salespeople" at Best Buy tell me everytime I buy a DVD Player that I'll "need to buy better cables, the ones that come with it are garbage!" Monster Cables is such an awful company, the markup has to be completely insane.

An HDMI cable IS worth it though.
post #32 of 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by dj_mocok View Post
I've been thinking it's because of it's not "wet" enough that's why it didn't clear that well.
That could be as well. Adorama has tons of the MicroDear, which is also widely available in Japan. I can send one to you as well.

I do not recommend the use of any solutions, since you never know what they are doing to your lens's coating.

Here's the lens cleaning method I've used for 30 years:
1) First clean the outer face of the filter
2) blow the excess dust off using a Dust Off
2) breathe on the filter
3) quickly and gently wipe in a circular motion with microfiber cloth #1
4) remove filter
5) clean the inside face of the filter
6) blow the excess dust off using a Dust Off
7) breathe on the filter
8) quickly and gently wipe in a circular motion with microfiber cloth #2
9) clean the lens
10) blow the excess dust off using a Dust Off
11) breathe on the lens
12) quickly and gently wipe in a circular motion (light arc strokes) with microfiber cloth #2
13) clean the inside of the lens cap with microfiber cloth #3
14) clean the camera body with microfiber cloth #3
post #33 of 5785

Lens Compatibility

Quote:
Originally Posted by perplex View Post
I accidently ordered a 50mm AI instead of AF. Has anyone used the AI on D50/D70 manual focus? Maybe I can return it .
Nope, it won't meter; see below and get the AI-P pancake lens!
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplex View Post
Has anyone ever used the 50mm f1.4 AI? is it just as sharp as the AF version?
I have owned it over 20 years ago with a F3HP; it was extremely sharp.


There seem to be some confusion about older lens compatibility on newer DSLRs. In general, any lens with a CPU will meter on the Nikon DSLRs D50, D70, D80, D100. AF, D, AI-P, DX all have CPUs will meter:


The D200, D2h, D2x add spot and center weighted metering, as well as the ability to enter lens info for EXIF data for non-CPU lenses.

Also, Here is the DSLR Summary Chart. Good luck and keep buying those CPU lenses!
post #34 of 5785
Let's see...I'm really stretching for nice things to say about Nikon here... just kidding.

Although I'm a Canon shooter, Nikon offers a lot of things I wish Canon had. First, Nikon's flash systems are light years ahead of Canon's (no pun), and the Nikon wireless macro twinflash thing is a macro shooter's dream! Also, Nikon offers the 105mm macro with VR - something us macro shooters have been wishing for for the longest time. Finally, Nikon's budget cams always have much better build than Canon's...anyone who has ever side-by-sided a D70 and a Rebel XT know what I'm talking about.
post #35 of 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrvile View Post
Let's see...I'm really stretching for nice things to say about Nikon here... just kidding.

Although I'm a Canon shooter, Nikon offers a lot of things I wish Canon had. First, Nikon's flash systems are light years ahead of Canon's (no pun), and the Nikon wireless macro twinflash thing is a macro shooter's dream! Also, Nikon offers the 105mm macro with VR - something us macro shooters have been wishing for for the longest time. Finally, Nikon's budget cams always have much better build than Canon's...anyone who has ever side-by-sided a D70 and a Rebel XT know what I'm talking about.
This is actually one of very few times I've seen a Canon shooter complement the Nikon line - all good points. In return, I do need to point out that Canon actually has a very capable technology with IS (image stabilized) lenses when compared with Nikon's Vibration Reduction. Canon has also been doing a very good job on the some of their DSLRsof removing noise from their CMOS sensors.
post #36 of 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevesurf View Post
This is actually one of very few times I've seen a Canon shooter complement the Nikon line - all good points. In return, I do need to point out that Canon actually has a very capable technology with IS (image stabilized) lenses when compared with Nikon's Vibration Reduction. Canon has also been doing a very good job on the some of their DSLRsof removing noise from their CMOS sensors.
Whew, now that wasn't so hard was it. Let's be friends
post #37 of 5785
Thread Starter 
Quote:
breathe on the lens
Is it really safe to do this? Do you think the fog created from our breath might introduce oil or something?
I never dared to breath onto the lens for that reason.

Quote:
Has anyone ever used the 50mm f1.4 AI? is it just as sharp as the AF version?
I have the AI-S version. But in general (unless you get a dud copy, but as far as I remember, I never heard anyone got a dud copy of 50mm 1.4 before), 50mm 1.4 is a sharper lens compared to 50mm 1.8

From my own experience, the 1.4 within the range of f/1.4 to at least f/5.6 is sharper compared to 50mm 1.8 (and maybe a bit more contrast)
Some people said that from half the aperture onwards until it's fully stopped down, the 1.8 is sharper, but I very rarely shoot large apertures.

But whatever version is, if you don't mind spending a bit more, 1.4 is worth it.

Okay, since I'm not at work today and got nothing to do, I did a quick sample test for you. I'm not really a brick or chart shooter, and don't really like to do sample tests, but here goes: (I know the result will be more accurate if I shoot text or chart, but I prefer apples )

All shots done with tripod (duh!), focusing was on the little red apple picture on the sticker. No apples were harmed during the shot (well at least not yet).
I didn't touch anything but had to resize them and did "save for web" so they won't take so much space.


















And this is the 100% crop of the focus area. Again, might not be as obvious as charts, but apples are good for you. (probably the difference is a bit more obvious if I didn't compress the file)








You can see from the picture, even at 1.4, it still gives you enough sharpness. What I notice more if you increase the aperture a notch (F/2), the contrast increases quite a lot.

But if you really wanna "bring up" what 1.4 can do, you won't worry so much about extra sharpness or additional contrast.
I personally think the key potential of 1.4 is the ability to create a "dreamy" feeling in a picture, not to shoot charts or apples.
Well, I can actually make dreamy apple shots but I'm too lazy at the moment.
post #38 of 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by dj_mocok View Post
Is it really safe to do this? Do you think the fog created from our breath might introduce oil or something?
I never dared to breath onto the lens for that reason.
Not to worry, unless of course you've still got some remnants of Colavita Extra Virgin Olive Oil around! No, seriously, from, Ken Rockwell:
Quote:
The best way to clean a lens is not to get it dirty. I use a prophylactic filter on my lenses all the time, usually an 81A warming or UV. I clean the filters and rarely need to clean the lenses.

Avoid cleaning lenses. You can wear off the coatings and scratch the glass. Be gentle and clean as infrequently as you can. This isn't lunch, which should be done early and often. Cleaning lenses is like doing chores or working towards professional advancement: don't do today what you can put off until tomorrow!

To clean a lens or filter I prefer to breathe on it to coat the lens with a thin fog of pure distilled water. I then wipe it gently with a clean dry soft cotton T-shirt. If I'm out in the field I use a part of my shirt I think is clean, but only if I have a really dirty lens. This cleans off most things that fall on my lenses. I find T-shirts are softer, more absorbent and leave less lint than the special lens paper I used to buy. I'm serious: I photograph outdoors, not in a lab.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dj_mocok View Post
I personally think the key potential of 1.4 is the ability to create a "dreamy" feeling in a picture, not to shoot charts or apples.
Well, I can actually make dreamy apple shots but I'm too lazy at the moment.
Nice comparisons; these need to go into the lens test glossary at Nikonians!

BTW, as a follow up on the Lens Compatibility for D200 users, here is a section taken from a highly recommended Thom Hogan "Complete Guide to the D200," a must have!
post #39 of 5785
If possible, I highly recommend a dSLR AND a Point and Shoot for virtually everybody -- they're different tools appropriate for different contexts. That being said, I'd shoot with a dSLR whenever possible, and certainly for treasured moments. The picture quality is just so much higher, and it doesn't have to cost an arm and leg to obtain it. Just get a D40 or a D80 and shoot away!
post #40 of 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by electrathecat View Post
Just get a D40 or a D80 and shoot away!
Well said. A little piece of trivia...

Did you know that slides may be scanned and produce 5782 x 3762 pixels @ 16 bit color? Compare that with the amazing images many of us get with the 10MP sensor having 3872 x 2592 @ 12 bit color. Now, of course, we are not considering film's grain, which detracts from its ability to resolve. Technically, film wins; the visual reality is that D200 or D80 sensor can resolve images equally as well as film, with the possible exception of Kodachrome 25, which is now discontinued. It will be interesting to see if the rebirth of RVP (Velvia) matches K25.
post #41 of 5785
Thread Starter 

I Did the filter/no filter test

Might as well do it since I got my tripod setup and all that. I've been curious about it, guess it's better to see it for myself. Well, the short answer is, yes. It does make a difference.
I don't really see difference in sharpness like I've read somewhere, but more contrast can give this perception of more sharpness, so maybe that's why they said it decreases sharpness.

I did several tests with different conditions, and the results were consistent, when the filter removed, the image showed a slight contrast increase.

This first set is wide open indoor ISO 800



And this is when the filter is removed:






Second set, same ISO (different aperture):




Without filter:





Last one, this is from the back of my apartment, the main brick unit is, dunno, maybe 80m away? Set at f/5.6 focus to infinity, ISO 100.



Without filter:





I tried to look at the off centre, distant image, and it still shows difference in contrast. This is the crop:




But then, all this difference can only be noticeable if you really look hard. So now I think I'm back to square one again, whether to remove the filter or not, lol.

Damn... enough pixel peeping today for me (or maybe forever). This is boring, lol. Time to shoot real pictures! (but the question is, filter or no filter? lol)

disclaimer: I do not support the practice of shooting brick walls or charts. But I do support portraits with nice bokeh.
post #42 of 5785
this is camera related but not necessarily nikon related so i hope you guys don't mind. maybe the fact that i love my d50 makes up for it? i've finally decided that i need a tripod. can anyone suggest one that isn't overly expensive but is light and sturdy so that it can be brought along for long hikes and won't be blown over by the wind?
post #43 of 5785
Thread Starter 
I don't have much experience with tripods, but the information you need to provide in general are such as: budget, weight preference, height preference, your lenses (eg. do you have very long, heavy lens), type of shooting (macro, or panoramic, or portrait, etc), do you need a removable plates, etc.

I got one of those Manfrottos 728B but now I feel like I wish I put more money and get a better one. It works and support my camera, lightweight yet sturdy, but it's not as good as the pro series, but they cost a fortune.
post #44 of 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by fureshi View Post
i've finally decided that i need a tripod.
isn't overly expensive
light and sturdy
brought along for long hikes
Check out these threads...
1
2
post #45 of 5785
dj_mocok

What font is that on the pictures?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)