John Motts

That would be the mIIIInimum depth of field actually!

I've experimented with fine tuning and found it far better to leave it off. It simply screws up other aspects of the lens' performance. All my lenses perform at their best without fine tuning. Just...

Yes, that's probably about it. The D600 is still very new, the D800 is only just over a year old. I'd love a direct replacement/update for the D700 but I'd be amazed if it were to happen.

If you're not matching the output size then the comparison is a bit meaningless. The D600 file is bound to look better if you're viewing it at a smaller size than the D800 file (which you are if...

I think you are reading way too much into "assisting".  All that gear will just be intrusive and will get in the way. Assistants provide the assistance, not the gear. Forget the monolights and soft...

Sorry, but that's where you lost me.

You can get absolutely tack sharp results at 1.4. And I mean tack sharp - every eye lash razor sharp. I think the problem most people have is using it hand held with AF-S. This means that even the...

Yes, and it's very misleading.

No, the opposite. At 100% you aren't viewing the D600 files at such a big size as you are when viewing the D800 files.

This is absolutely correct. Would you compare two prints of completely different sizes?  Stop looking at 100% and do realistic comparisons at the same size.

It could well be motion blur. Motion blur is a physical thing so apart from the unlikely scenario that the firmware is reducing the shutter speed, it's impossible that firmware will cause motion...

No the sensors are completely different, not just different sizes.

It's difficult to compare two lenses on two very different cameras. Many of these differences will be down to the older 5D sensor with its lower resolution (assuming you mean the original 5D).

I appreciate that, but viewfinders are notorious for being slightly out.

We'll just have to agree to disagree that it's half a whisker then. My eyes tell me otherwise.

Absolutely not the case. At this level just "playing with images in Photoshop" doesn't come into it.

We may, just may, see a 58mm f/1.2. http://nikonrumors.com/2013/05/16/new-nikon-58mm-f1-2-lens-patent-2.aspx/ One day.

It's more likely to be the viewfinder itself which was slightly off, rather than your brain!

Motion blur is the blur caused by movement of the subject or the camera, rather than just poor focus. Presumably you mean that the subject isn't in focus rather than motion blur? If you really do...

I had the D for a couple of years and replaced it about a year ago with the G, mainly for its low light focussing ability. I've had a lot of use out of both. The D was superb and I loved it, but if...