If somebody from Nikon was be more reasonable, the standard ISO range would end at 25 600, and there would be two extended options, ISO 51 200 and 102 400.
RonHendriks: Iso 1.6 miljion is bullsh*t.
I would argue that ISO 400 000 is already pretty bulls.. pretty bad.
I wish there were more pictures in the reasonable high ISO range (3200-16000).
These types of shots simply CANNOT be backfocused!!! Edit - now I see that the author already commented about it.
This shot looks good only when it is really small. In normal conditions the misfocus in really painfully visible.
BTW the reason why we have large inconvenioent DSLR cameras is to avoid these kinds of technical errors. These cameras are quick and offer significant controll over the photo creation.
By chance I have the same camera. Its center point in quite large and it is not always easy to preciselly define the right place we want to focus on with it. There are ways around it.
I am really frustrated that you ruined this shot!!!
VivaLasVegas: This glass is longer, heavier compared to EF counterpart, with so much more glass elements only to have a so-so mtf chart, this is not good. What.....the collar cost $$$, I knew it, that five step VR designation was a way to price gouge the consumers.
My dear Viva, it has much better MTF chart that Canon. You probably forgot that Nikon publishes only wide opened lines, while canon publishes wide opened and f8 lines in the same graph, what can become confusing for sipler minds... :D
....and 7 months later, where is the in depth review???
Wow, what a Lassie! What is Her name?
Am I really the only one who does not like the head cut in half?
It is very obvious that you added different sky. The editing job is very poor. You you be better off if you left it original state and did nothing to it.