Help me out, what to keep, what to sell.

[Adam-T]

High ISOs in RAW to match the D3 (only 6Mp though) and so flexible and light .. getting another D3 is a good move but don't sacrifice that cheeky little camera..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist



P880 E1 - The Colourmeisters

 

[Daves602]

Swapping picture control between bodies is a huge plus for me. The D2x will only read other D2x files in regard to pre white balance. 2 bodies at one game and having to adjust the final results is a bit of a drag. Most clients don't see it, but a few do.

The news you bring re the 14-24 is a breathe of fresh air. Image quality is everything to me and if the 14-24 is on par with the clarity, sharpness and so forth as my 85 f/1.4, then it is a given that I will buy it and also the 24-70. Your opinion is one that is obviously well thought out, unlike mine, which emanates from my fingers to the keyboard without a final check from my brain. lol
--
Warm regards, Dave.

 

[anotherMike]

Thanks Dave, but I don't know if my posts are thought out - I do have a tendency to hit the 'enter' key a bit too quick when I'm hacked off at an idiotic post

Good point about keeping the files from two cameras looking alike for clients - I don't have that issue so much, but it is a good thing to consider.

As for the 14-24 - this is going to sound crazy, but it's in a league that is even beyond the 85/1.4 in terms of clarity - it seriously is a contender for the best lens I own, and remember, I own the 200/2 AFS, so that might tell you how I feel about it.

I think if you picked one up you'd be extremely happy unless you shoot lightbulb factories or dust storms....

-m

 

[Daves602]

Are you for real that there is a sharper lens than the 85 f/1.4????? Man o man, I have to own the 14-24!
--
Warm regards, Dave.

 

[Muntz]

Oooh, the 50/1.4 is not mainly for speed. Its main strengths are its
creamy bokeh and paper thin depth of field.

50/1.4 is definitely not my idea of "creamy" bokeh. You're definitely
right about the thin dof, though.

You don't think the bokeh's anything special?

Bokehman disagrees

http://bokehman.blogspot.com/

But all kidding aside, I don't have the lens, but I've seen pics from it and though the bokeh might not be as nice as the 85mm f1.4, it still looked pretty darn nice.,

 

[Muntz]

Well for one I'd keep the 50/1.4 as it works well on the D3.

If I purchased the 24-70, the 50 would be all but obsolete given the
ISO capacity of the D3.

Oooh, the 50/1.4 is not mainly for speed. Its main strengths are its
creamy bokeh and paper thin depth of field. The 24-70, though it's an
awesome lens, I doubt can touch it in those regards.

Yes, I agree with what you say. The thing is that I am keeping my 85
f/1.4 for those creamy shots. I find that the 50 f/1.4 not being AF-S
is left in my bag for sports action. The 24-70 on a D3 will be far
more useful to me being a sports shooter. 50 f/1.4 will be very
usable for someone with a D3 who would otherwise have had a D2Hs with
a 30mm f/1.4 sigma.

Pretty damn good points.

 

[gonzalu]

High ISOs in RAW to match the D3

It is not close to the D3

I only said to get rid of it rather than the other stuff if you must get rid of somehting. Or put it to use as a IR camera (www.lifepixel.com)

Here is an ISO 1600 D50 sample from digitalreview.ca

http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/Cans_large.jpg

and here is an ISO 3200 from a D3

http://press.nikonusa.com/images/D3/Corrado_Baseball_Bats_ISO3200.jpg

You be the judge...
--
Manny
http://www.pbase.com/gonzalu/
http://www.mannyphoto.com/
FCAS Member - http://manny.org/FCAS

 

[gonzalu]

Beer is a nice option, but never a lens enhancer, quite the
oppopsite, lol.

Hahahaha... ain't that the truth. Or you can look at it a different way... if you are undecided about the purchase of a $9,000 400mm f/2.8 AF-S II VR, beer can help the decision go as follows:

".... ahhh, what the heck, here is my Master Card..."

LOL
--
Manny
http://www.pbase.com/gonzalu/
http://www.mannyphoto.com/
FCAS Member - http://manny.org/FCAS

 

[surfworx]

Hey Davo,

I have 4 pocket wizards I'd be reluctant, but willing to swap for your 400/2.8 - pocket wizards with your extra bodies will give you far more creative options than the heavy 400. Heck, I'll even throw in the uber expensive 10 pin motor drive cord.

I'm wondering what the Sigma 120-300/2.8 is like, I kind of figured it would be slow focussing, how is it managing with the D3?
--
Derrick

 

[surfworx]

Young Davo,

I have an 85/1.4 which agreed, is super sharp - one thing I wish is it had an AF-S motor. As a result, I'd argue the 200/2 VR is Nikon's sharpest, fastest offering.

--
Derrick

 

[Daves602]

The 120-300 is not in the same league as my 400. It is however, a very good lens and close to as sharp as the 300 f/2.8 nikon. The focus is by HSM and pretty quick. the convenience of 120-300 f/2.8 is excellent for field sports, but you need to reaquire focus if you zoom during shooting as it is a vafrifocus lens, not a true zoom. This has never been an issue for me and hasn't let me down. I spent 2 years shooting cricket with the 120-300 and it is alos pretty reasonable with the 1.4 sigma tc.
--
Warm regards, Dave.

 

[Daves602]

If you are interested, the auction starts at 8.00pm tonight. This is not an advertisement. It is just a heads up.
--
Warm regards, Dave.

 

[OJReddaway]

Another thing I noticed from a fairly brief comparison at ECS of the two lenses is that at 17mm the 17~35 can distort in the corners; funnily this is more obvious with people e.g. heads aren't drawn properly. If you get someone's head in exactly the wrong place you get a real "cone-head" effect!!

We've also seen this on an F5 with film.

It does seem to be very dependent on the angle that the lens makes with the subject, or how vertical the camera is, if you're careful you can minimise it.

The 14~24 doesn't seem to exhibit the same behaviour to the same degree.

Please bear in mind that these were fairly quick grab-shots rather than carefully setup shots. The lens that did best for accurate architectural drawing was my old MF 15mm f3.5.

Cheers,

Oliver

 

[Adam-T]

It is not close to the D3

it's close in RAW with Capture One - the D50's JPG engine was better than the D70 but still pretty Naff

Here's a 100% Crop from the D40 at ISO3200 in Capture one (1600 Pushed a stop) same CCD as the D50



--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist



P880 E1 - The Colourmeisters

 

[Adam-T]

A lot of cash tied in a DX lens when you'll be running two FF bodies mainly

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist



P880 E1 - The Colourmeisters

 

[Daves602]

--
Warm regards, Dave.

 

[Raul]

I think the D2x is on par with or better than the D300 from what I
have seen. Do you own the D300?

Yes and I have mixed feelings bout it. I still feel more comfortable with the D200 since I have not had the time to get on friendly terms with the D300 and cannot trust it for the use I will give it. No good raw converter yet for the 300 and who knows when. Most of the time I shoot low iso so.. no big deal at all.

The D2x, for me, it the best companion of the D3 (for several reasons and I still use it more than the 3. I sort of master the D2x and since job dictates I have to work first and get the photos. No doubt the D3 kicks a.. but yet pending. Again the raw converter plays a big part for me on this. (I got trapped in her arms.. sorry that is a song... I got trapped by RML and here waiting for it to support the new cameras.)

Owning the 17-35 is a big plus in the deciscion, no outlay for a new
lens.

It appears that the 14-24 really SHINES. Yesterday I almost fell for it had it my little hands and... and... I resisted. The lens is big and heavy. The hood is integrated. the glass (dome) protudes from the lens considerably (not past the hood) (beauuutiful lens). As I see it: a very delicated from element very exposed to anything. Main consideration, I do not need that great monster for the D3 (too wide) and the good idea of using it in the D200 and D300, being great, does not convince me to invest in the lens.

Beer is a nice option, but never a lens enhancer, quite the
oppopsite, lol.

You are very strange Dave, indeed, or a child. (jijijiji) With that amount of money I have beer as to keep me running quite a while. Do you think I will ever care how the photos turn out to be?

With very kind regards

Raul

 

[DPFranz]

I wouldn't sell the D50. Great for social...bars, public places, especially when I'm drinking, and don't want to protect my gear like the Hope Diamond. Though now my lowly D2x isn't such a huge $ thingy anymore. Still, your D50 is an excellent casual camera for photographers that don't want to give up the control of an slr. I love my old D70 for just this purpose! Though I may convert it to IR. I noticed, however, that you don't own a nice fast semi-wide to wide prime..I highly recommend the 35 f/2 as a walkaround nightime lens. My snapshot setup is my D70 with that lens mounted, and nothing else. Very nice simple social camera setup.

To get back to your question...I'd keep the things you are "definitely keeping", and sell all the other stuff (except the D50). Though you'll cry at what you'll get for the D1h and D2x.

If I migrate to 35mm frame from my D2x, here is what I'd want (though I will hesitate/cry a little if I have to sell my 17-35 2.8 to do it, especially since I think one of the new zooms has no filter threads, or rotating front, or both...can't remember which):

D3 (actually, think I'll wait for higher res before jumping)
14-24 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8 VR
widest FX fisheye from Nikon...16 2.8? (to replace my 10.5 2.8 DX)

Primes: 20, 28, 35, 50 hopefully f/1.4?...some don't exist, but I think they're coming soon.
Macro lens: 200 f/4, or that zooming one that Bjorn, Thom, et al like.

The above kit would do everything I need.

Personally, I don't have a big enough interest in wildlife, sports, or racing to warrant owning that beautiful 400 2.8. Thats a lot of dough. You may be able to get all of what I suggested above if you sell it, too.

This may be the first of the D3 firesales that will happen as people
reasses their kit.
I need a bit of help making my mind up.
Things I will definately keep.
D3
400 f/2.8
70-200
85 f/1.4
60 f/2.8 macro
Things I may sell, what should go and what should stay in your opinion.
D2x
D50
D1h
120-300 f/2.8
10-20 dx
50 f/1.4
17-55 f/2.8 dx
Here is a twist, what should I buy to replace, hopefully without
coughing up any more money?
14-24
24-70
second D3

--
Warm regards, Dave.

--
Dana Paul Franz
[email protected]
http://dfranz.smugmug.com
'They . . . asked me:
'How do you make your pictures?' I was puzzled . . .
I said, 'I don't know, it's not important.' -Henri Cartier-Bresson

 

[CM PHoto]

D2x is dropping in price like a stone. That would fund a 14-24mm and leave yourself about $500 (or a little less)

If you sold the 17-55mm and replaced it with the 24-70, you would nned to cough up $600-$700.

Between those two, close to even.

The rest will not cover another D3, maybe $3k worth.

--
That's a really nice pen. You must be a great writer.

 

[gonzalu]

the camera... the sensor is a pakcage deal, not just the unit. I do not think the D40 and D50 shared the same electornics... certainly the firmware is generations ahead of the D50

Not that the D50 was a bad camera.

Also, I do not think C1 is that great either.. don;t like the colors it puts out and the UI is a horror (to me)
--
Manny
http://www.pbase.com/gonzalu/
http://www.mannyphoto.com/
FCAS Member - http://manny.org/FCAS