18-135 ken rockwell

Ed_arizona said:

Next He will define the meaning of life !!

Click to expand...

42 isn't it?
--
Jim R.
Dinna Touch!



http://www.dinnatouch.net

I´ve looked at the grey saab image and the hot pixels seems more to be pollen or some other grit since it´s in different shapes and luminocity in numerous places on the windscreen and also on the roof (a bit fainter though).

I should say that I have no experience in what hot pixels "should" look like..

Right or wrong?, you tell me

D

Every time a new camera is released, there is a wave of mass hysteria. With the D70 it was backfocus, closely followed by moiré. With the D200 it was banding. So far, the top two contenders for the D80 seem to be CA and hot pixels.

My last camera developed a hot pixel after a year or so, which was annoying. I saw some hot pixels in some high-ISO shots I took with my D70 last Christmas, but I don't think I've seen one since. I think you're likely to encounter them with any digital camera.

Vandyu said:

I keep reading about hot pixels. Of all the
problems/features/default settings that might confound me, it is
the pixel problem that has kept me from buying the D80 so far. If
it just takes a few in camera settings to get D50-like pictures
without having to make these adjustments for every shot and I don't
have to post process every shot to brighten it up, then the D80 is
for me. But, I don't want to have a camera with bad pixels. I don't
recall seeing this problem posted over and over on various forums
with the D70/s, D200 or D50.

Did I miss previous discussions about bad pixels on other Nikon
models or has the company rushed the product out without doing a
final QC review of each camera?

Click to expand...

Those don't look like hot pixels to me. Plus it was shot at ISO 100 and 1/500 (if I remember correctly). In any case, low ISO and high shutter speed where you wouldn't expect hot pixels.

Take a look in Ken's D80 review and click on the link under ISO 1600. It's the shot of the menu and wine glasses. This is at 1/25 sec and high ISO, so if Ken's example of a D80 had hot pixels I would imagine it would show up here. I couldn't find any after several minutes of looking, and I gave particular attention to the same relative position as the grey Saab photo.

My D80 example had HORRIBLE hot pixels which were visible even at ISO 100 1/10 sec and at ISO 800 1/500 sec. In other words, clusters of hot pixels were easily visible at normal shooting ISOs and shutter speeds. I set it back to Ritz yesterday and they will have a new one at my door this afternoon.

I exchanged it because I believe I simply had a bad example, not that this hot pixel thing is a real problem with the D80.

Much of what I read concerning hot pixels goes something like, "I tested my new D80 at ISO 3200 and noticed one hot pixel at exposures in excess of 2 minutes. Should I send it back? By the way, what does a hot pixel look like?"

Or someone complaining of hot pixels puts up a picture showing a problem with dust on the sensor. Give me a break please.

I'll be quite happy with my replacement D80 if it makes images that look as free of hot pixels as Ken's high ISO menu shot.

Bob
--

Goldeneye said:

I don't get it. Whenever this guy writes a 500 word review of some
piece of equipment, it's like a major event in the photography
community.

Why?!

Nick
--

Click to expand...

If you wrote one, I'd read it. Until you do, what's your problem with his? Besides, I don't think anyone treats it like it was "major event". Just another useful piece of information.

I agree--there's no contradiction here. What's the problem?

They are definitely not dust spots. If you zoom in, you'll notice that they look like "+"

Think about it. Each time you complain about Rockwell, someone answers your complaint. That is a minimum total of 3 posts for Rockwell. 1 is the original 2 is your complaint and 3 is the counter complaint. If you didn't complain then there would only be one. Google is partly set up to see how many times a word gets a hit. You are just helping your arch enemy by complaining about him.
Don't be stupid and help Rockwell if you don't like him.
As the late Any Warhol said, "I don't read the reviews I just weigh them."

That's how the internet works- and advertising, too. The more something is in your face - good or bad - the more you remember it.

Leave the guy alone. If you have a complaint about contradictions, go ahead and point out the contradictions. That will put the the Rock in his place (sort of).

The person who said that there is are contradictions in the review would have been simpler to say what they are. Instead people are going to ask "What contradictions" Then you will have to say what they were. That is a minimum of 2 extra posts. That only helps the guy you hate.

Use some intelligence and say what you have to say to prevent helping his fame on the internet.

Guy Moscoso

spelling error

I'm stupid

dubeagle said:

They are definitely not dust spots. If you zoom in, you'll notice
that they look like "+"

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I'll download the picture and take another look. If Ken's D80 has hot pixels I wonder why they don't seem to show up with his high ISO slow shutter speed shots?

Have you taken a look at the menu with wine glasses? The link is in the D80 review under ISO 1600.

Bob
--

... quite a few hooks and pointers here and there to expand on one's personal research.

--
Regards, David Chin
(D.7.0. & C.P.4.5.0.0.)

Nikon D80 Links:
http://www.nikond80links.com
http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/nikon_d80_sneak_pictures

Links to all my other sites:
http://www.flickr.com/people/davidchinphoto

totally with his advice on this one.

I usually look for the flaws in his advice...because it is usually easy to find.

Credit given where credt due....I dont hate Ken...just usually disagree with him.

Roman
--

Photoshop is like bondo. Use it to smooth out and polish your work, not to compensate for your lack of body work skills.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

The distortion on the 17-55 at 17 is pretty minimal. Find me a lens with no distortion and the price tag will be around $5k I would bet.

Economy_rice said:

sigh so many nikon zooms are bad at 18mm. only the 18-55 and 17-55
seem reasonable and they both distort at 18mm anyway.

Click to expand...

--

Greens too yellow? Blacks going magenta? check out this thread: http://www.mastersphoto.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79
Gallery: http://www.mastersphoto.net/copper
D70 and photo discussion
D70 custom tone curves @ http://forum.mastersphoto.net

I think he is just lying actually.

"Good News: Real anytime instant manual focus override. Just move the focus ring!"

Isn't this lens a AF-S like the 18-55mm or the 55-200mm which doesn't have anytime override. To manual focus you have to switch to M mode only on the lense?

Who cares? I have nothing against Rockwell. He does his thing, it doesn't affect me. Sometimes I find his stuff interesting. I don't care how many hits he gets.

"Isn't this lens a AF-S like the 18-55mm or the 55-200mm which doesn't have anytime override. To manual focus you have to switch to M mode only on the lense?"

You can focus this lens manually even if it's in "A" mode. I don't know how this compares to the 18-55 & 18-70.

I agree with Mr. Rockwell's conclusions regarding this lens: it's very sharp and contrasty at all focal lengths, has vignetting when wide open at both ends of the zoom range, suffers from CA in certain situations and has significant distortion.

Nikon made some reasonable tradeoffs to make a sharp lens in this price & zoom range, but I think the lens represents excellent value. I'm still rather floored that for $300 I can take sharp photos from the 35mm equivalent of 28-200mm and never have to change the lens.

-jp

Actually, Ken Rockwell doesn't take himself seriously at all--a lot of people think he does, but nearly his entire site is completely tongue in cheek. It still rubs a lot of people the wrong way though.

yeah I'm quite relieved this lens has those strengths - that makes it arguably the best kit lens on offer today, especially for those who stick to correctable focal lengths and use software to correct distortion.

I was considering the 18-200VR myself, but thanks to this level of performance, I think I'll get a 17-55 down the line.



sorry about the jpeg artifacts but the veins are very clear even on 100% crops on default image settings.

Laurence,

Even though my post got attached to yours, I wasn't responding to your message, sorry.

Later,
Guy Moscoco

Laurence60 said:

Who cares? I have nothing against Rockwell. He does his thing, it
doesn't affect me. Sometimes I find his stuff interesting. I
don't care how many hits he gets.

Click to expand...