[Shizelbs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif That would be me. I had the money to go for D200, but since I could just get D80 + a good lens with the money from D200, I opted for D80 and didn't regret it a bit. I'm using my brother's D200 regularly and don't find anything I feel more than my D80 apart from bigger more sturdy feel and metering on MF lenses. Actually battery life wise, I think D80 is better than D200. Noise performance of D80 is also much better too.

I appreciate the comments. As of right now, I am leaning towards the 80 due to its excellent performance relative to the 200, and I figure I can take the money not spent on the 200 and put it towards nice accessories and a good lens or two. I've got the money for either, but I'd still like to spend smart.

 

[dj_mocok]

I am actually quite surprise you didn't ask me this so called "metering problem with D80", lol.

With price difference between D80 and D200, you can get something nice like 85mm 1.8 and still have a bit more maybe for an SD card.

 

[mb3k]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am actually quite surprise you didn't ask me this so called "metering problem with D80", lol. With price difference between D80 and D200, you can get something nice like 85mm 1.8 and still have a bit more maybe for an SD card.

Hehe, the "metering problem" is just a case of laziness.
I actually notice that some of my outdoor shots are overexposed with the D80, but I don't have another DSLR to actually know if it's the D80 or not... so my easy solution is to step down the exposure level usually -0.3EV to -1.0EV.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cotdt /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll be getting that Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM lens soon. The newest samples are supposed to have that auto-focusing problem resolved. From what I've seen, it is much sharper than the Nikkor 35mm f/2 at all aperatures (time to eBay mine), and takes wonderful pics at the widest f/1.4 setting. Expect an update on my impressions of this lens.

Definitely post impressions and sample pics.

-Ed

 

[kin0kin]

yup, i've also seen some comparison pictures, the sigma is sharper. I've sold my 50mm since it doesnt work that great in low light without flash. 30mm seems to be the better length. The only catch about sigma 30mm is that it's not a FF lens, and there is also the paint peeling problem. But the optics are stellar.

 

[dj_mocok]

There's currently a noct on eBay Australia in case someone seriously wanna buy it. Mind you the zero feedback though. But he said he'll do local pick-up, so maybe you can arrange pick-up or ask your friend/relative to do it for you. I would opt for pick-up since it's a 0 feedback.

Currently the price is just a tad more than Grado RS1. C'mon guys you know you want it, hehe..

 

[skyline889]

I have a question that has been bothering me for a while. After having the chance to own both Nikon and Canon DSLRs now, I'm wondering if the Nikon sensors offer better image saturation and sharpness straight off the sensor? While JPEGs are pretty similar, I've noticed that while shooting in RAW the pics I get off my D50 seem to be slightly more saturated and more to my liking tonally than ones shot in CR2 with the 20D I used to own. The second half, is probably moreso the doing of the lens than the sensor but I also noticed that I could get near tack sharp images without any kind of PP with my D50 whereas with the 20D I needed to do quite a bit of PP to get the same results. So what do you guys think? Am I just imagining things or do Nikon CCDs offer better color saturation than the Canon CMOS sensors? I really prefer not to do a whole lot of PP so this would probably be the deciding factor of me going back to Nikon or trying to stick with Canon.

P.S.-I really like both Canon and Nikon systems so please don't turn this into a Canon/Nikon flame. Thanks for the help!

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a question that has been bothering me for a while. After having the chance to own both Nikon and Canon DSLRs now, I'm wondering if the Nikon sensors offer better image saturation and sharpness straight off the sensor? While JPEGs are pretty similar, I've noticed that while shooting in RAW the pics I get off my D50 seem to be slightly more saturated and more to my liking tonally than ones shot in CR2 with the 20D I used to own. The second half, is probably moreso the doing of the lens than the sensor but I also noticed that I could get near tack sharp images without any kind of PP with my D50 whereas with the 20D I needed to do quite a bit of PP to get the same results. So what do you guys think? Am I just imagining things or do Nikon CCDs offer better color saturation than the Canon CMOS sensors? I really prefer not to do a whole lot of PP so this would probably be the deciding factor of me going back to Nikon or trying to stick with Canon. P.S.-I really like both Canon and Nikon systems so please don't turn this into a Canon/Nikon flame. Thanks for the help!

Keep in mind that image saturation and sharpness can also be due to internal camera processing as well. A RAW file is just that, raw data directly from the sensor. Photoshop will interpret the RAW file differently than the camera itself.

Improving contrast can also be done with lenses. The better the lense, the better the contrast and color as well. Prime lenses do this better than most.

-Ed

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif After having the chance to own both Nikon and Canon DSLRs now, I'm wondering if the Nikon sensors offer better image saturation and sharpness straight off the sensor? While JPEGs are pretty similar, I've noticed that while shooting in RAW the pics I get off my D50 seem to be slightly more saturated and more to my liking tonally than ones shot in CR2 with the 20D I used to own. ......

I've found that the sensor has least to do with chroma. I believe that the most important feature that the sensor brings to the table is capturing luminosity. While it does have separate sensors for each chroma color, the image that you see is one that's been through an A/D conversion and processed into an image format. Invariably color hues change. The big benefit of RAW is that it's keeping the full tonal range that the sensor captured: for all purposes, a 8bpc image has all the hue you would ever need.

As to why your Nikon specifically had more saturation then your Canon: I would think it also has to do a lot with the program you used to open them. Does the RAW utility keep the camera defaults, or default to something else?
The fact that you say Jpegs are comparable with both leads me to believe it's more software related then camera related.

 

[smeggy]

I think Nikons do saturate more by default from what I've seen though some Canons are sharper than many Nikons (usually said to be due to better per-pixel sharpness with the Canon CMOS sensor). These differences should show up more in jpg as they are fully processed in-cam.

If you use Nikons own Capture NX, these in-cam settings should be mimiced as the info is embedded in the NEF format. Running either Nikon or Canon raw files through Pshop should look pretty similar to each other I'd imagine but not having both I wouldn't swear to it.

 

[dan1son]

The wife just bought me a Nikon D40 for my birthday. That's the first big gift she bought without my input and also the best, although she did talk to my dad who is a part-time pro photographer.

I'm still learning all of the photography stuff... picked up a few used books, and borrowed a couple others. Looks like this could be another expensive and fun hobby.

Can't wait to pick up that 70-300 AF-S VR lense I keep stalking...

 

[dj_mocok]

I'm thinking to get a new lens for myself for Christmas. I think I have decided on getting Tokina 12-24mm f/4. I was initially going to get Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, but then super wide angle will be a new style for me and I'm quite sure it'll be good fun. Anyone ever uses Tokina 12-24mm?

I've read some comparisons of super wide angle lenses, and I think from all those, Tokina offers the best value for money (plus I think it's the best built too).

 

[mbriant]

I have a Nikon mount version of the Tokina 12 - 24. I usually buy only Nikon Lenses, but since I rarely shoot ultra-wide (I mostly prefer longish telephotos), after doing some research I came to the same conclusions as you. It compares well ( if not better ) in many areas against it's competition, it's well made, and it's considerably less money than the Nikon version.

As mentioned, I've hardly used it, so I can't really comment on sharpness, distortion, saturation, etc. from personal use yet.

I think I used it with fill flash for this shot:

 

[dj_mocok]

Mbriant, thanks for the picture. Do you have any other indoor pictures at f/4 preferably the ones taken without flash? This is one of the things that I don't like about ultra wide, f/4 is very slow for flashless indoor. That means to use this lens I have to use ISO800 to ISO1000.

Does it accurately meter with your camera? Or anything you don't like about it?

PS: I'm open for donation for any hardly-getting-used lenses.

 

[mbriant]

I'm afraid I don't. Like I said, I've hardly used it at all, and I'd rarely attempt shooting anything handheld indoors at anything less than f2.8, which of course would rule out this f4 lens. I don't know what camera you're using, but my D2h's are quite noisy at high ISO settings, so unless it was the only possible way I could get a mustn't miss shot, I wouldn't bother even trying at anything over ISO 800. Even 800 is disappointingly noisy IMO. Then again, at the extreme wide end, this lens would be more forgiving of camera movement than the teles I normally use, so perhaps I should give some indoor low light f4 shooting a try at a slower shutter speed.