[OverlordXenu]

I know this thread is more about digital cameras, but I was wondering...Does anyone here have/use Nikon's high-end film scanner? I ask because I'm planning on getting a 6x7 medium format camera, and 99megapixels is just insane. Is it really the best film scanner under $5,000?

 

[dj_mocok]

Yay took this picture today!

 

[dj_mocok]

Maybe I should just go back to writing the Tokina lens review.

PS: Overlord, can't help you there since I don't shoot film. Ask people from Photo.net, there are many film users there.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 50mm at F/2.8 isn't that fast, especially when no flashes are allowed during the ceremony. Professionals can use all the help they can get!

If you're running into shutter speeds where you can't hand-hold at 50 f/2.8, you're running as much or more of a risk of subject motion blur than hand motion blur, and VR can't help subject motion.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you're running into shutter speeds where you can't hand-hold at 50 f/2.8, you're running as much or more of a risk of subject motion blur than hand motion blur, and VR can't help subject motion.

During most of the ceremony (aside from the bride entering and the couple exiting) things are pretty slow paced, so IS/VR comes in handy.
I do know what you mean though.

The biggest complaints I've heard from the nikon 24-70 from wedding photographers is the lack of VR and the size of it.
If nikon could add VR to their 24-70, that might make a lot of wedding photographers reconsider their canon's, which is an area nikon would like to take back (wedding photographers).

Well, we'll see if this rumor turns into fruition.

 

[lan]

Sometimes you don't want to stop motion and you want to be stopped down. VR is still useful there.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif The effect is growing on me . I have to say the effect doesn't quite work in its favour (IMO) in every situation. This one's from the Chinese photography forum: It's a fantastic shot, but the flowers are just a tad too punctuated. I don't like it when the background draws too much attention from the subject itself. This one, however, is just superb!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am not sure how to explain this, it's like explaining a sound. But you notice how in some pictures the little leaves sort of gelled together tidily? That one I really like and I will never able to do that with my lens. It's just a little thing I know but it's a lot of difference for me. The bokeh is painting like. Milk: Of course I know bokeh is background/object/distance dependent - and focal length dependent too - too many variables, but some lenses just produce different characteristics altogether due to difference in lens design/quality. Let's use these for example: Picture 3 (Kinoptik)

I have been shotting with my Nikon 80-200 AI for a while now, and there has been something unique about the bokeh compared to all my other lenses.
It reminded me of this post, and how the Kinoptik has a unique bokeh.

Well, I'm finding the 80-200 AI to have a very similar bokeh, where it 'swirls' the out of focus items very similar to the bokeh I'm seeing in the shots from the kinoptik.

Example (though not too pronounced):

I don't think the 'paint brush' effect is on this lens, but the swirly background bokeh sure is.

I've been taking a few more and the effect is more noticeable, but I haven't edited them and posted them up yet. I'll come back and post a few more if I get them finished anytime soon. Let me see if I can pick a good one.

 

[Poohblah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I know this thread is more about digital cameras, but I was wondering...Does anyone here have/use Nikon's high-end film scanner? I ask because I'm planning on getting a 6x7 medium format camera, and 99megapixels is just insane. Is it really the best film scanner under $5,000?

if you're shooting medium format and don't plan on making insanely large prints from the scanned files, then a flatbed scanner with negative carriers will do the job perfectly fine. epson makes some good ones for around $400 +/-.

i don't think nikon's coolscans even accept anything large than 35mm, i might be mistaken though.

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have been shotting with my Nikon 80-200 AI for a while now, and there has been something unique about the bokeh compared to all my other lenses. It reminded me of this post, and how the Kinoptik has a unique bokeh. Well, I'm finding the 80-200 AI to have a very similar bokeh, where it 'swirls' the out of focus items very similar to the bokeh I'm seeing in the shots from the kinoptik. Example (though not too pronounced): I don't think the 'paint brush' effect is on this lens, but the swirly background bokeh sure is. I've been taking a few more and the effect is more noticeable, but I haven't edited them and posted them up yet. I'll come back and post a few more if I get them finished anytime soon. Let me see if I can pick a good one.

That's a very pleasing bokeh!! So you got a 80-200 AI?! Nice

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Right from the rumor mill, we may be seeing a revised nikon mid range zoom incorporating VR at WPPI 2009. Wouldn't that be nice? It sure would for people photographers in low light!

Isn't that just the one that will come bundled with the D90, aka 18-105VR f/3.5-5.6? If it performs as well as a 18-55 or 18-70, and has the build quality which either matches or supercedes the latter, I'm mildly interested. The extra range sure would be useful.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's a very pleasing bokeh!! So you got a 80-200 AI?! Nice

Yup. It's an interesting little lens. I'm still trying to get a nice example of what I'm seeing through the viewfinder, but I'm finding it hard.

Quote:

Isn't that just the one that will come bundled with the D90, aka 18-105VR f/3.5-5.6? If it performs as well as a 18-55 or 18-70, and has the build quality which either matches or supercedes the latter, I'm mildly interested. The extra range sure would be useful.

the 18-105VR will be similar to the 18-200VR. That is Nikon's mid priced type of lens. Not budget, but not professional.

What I was thinking about is their 24-70mm F/2.8. The F/2.8 is really needed, especially since it is constant throughout the whole focal range. It's got less range than the 18-105VR will have, but the optical performance is nikon's professional style. Essentially prime quality with the benefit of a zoom range.

Sadly, the Canon and Nikon 24-70mm do not have IS/VR, ... yet.

I've shot events with my 60mm F/2.8, and sadly even at ISO 1600 I really could have used the help of VR.

You're right though, the 18-105VR will be interesting. I wonder if it will be DX (I assume so)?

 

[OverlordXenu]

Which 80-200mm do you have? The f/4.5 version?

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Which 80-200mm do you have? The f/4.5 version?

yup, F/4.5n.

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif the 18-105VR will be similar to the 18-200VR. That is Nikon's mid priced type of lens. Not budget, but not professional.

I'm not impressed by the 18-200VR. It is well built and the VR is very helpful, but the optical performance can be disappointing. It's simply not sharp enough at the long end.

Quote:

What I was thinking about is their 24-70mm F/2.8. The F/2.8 is really needed, especially since it is constant throughout the whole focal range. It's got less range than the 18-105VR will have, but the optical performance is nikon's professional style. Essentially prime quality with the benefit of a zoom range. Sadly, the Canon and Nikon 24-70mm do not have IS/VR, ... yet. I've shot events with my 60mm F/2.8, and sadly even at ISO 1600 I really could have used the help of VR.

Agreed. VR would be very useful, even at F/2.8. I had another go using my friend's 24-70 and 70-200VR. Even indoors with moderate lighting, I was thoroughly surprised to see that not even F/2.8 was enough for shooting at low ISOs.

Quote:

You're right though, the 18-105VR will be interesting. I wonder if it will be DX (I assume so)?

I would think so too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif yup, F/4.5n.

I went to a second camera store yesterday and saw a F/3.5. Maybe you should give that one a try too?

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Agreed. VR would be very useful, even at F/2.8. I had another go using my friend's 24-70 and 70-200VR. Even indoors with moderate lighting, I was thoroughly surprised to see that not even F/2.8 was enough for shooting at low ISOs.

This has always been the case; optics doesn't change simply because you're using a sensor. One of the biggest benefits of the switch to digital is that you can change your ISO on the go and that higher ISOs are usable. Bump the ISO up to 400/800 and there should be no issue whatsoever.

 

[lan]

Yeah if you're only at ISO 200 or 400, you should bump up. But really you should just use Auto-ISO and program your minimum shutter speed to avoid motion shake. Now if you're already at 1600, it's another story. In that case, VR would help your motion shake, or use a faster lens which might not work if you wanted more depth of field, or just take an image quality hit and go for 3200.