 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006D200 on Full-Frame Nikkor lenses; follow-up
So for those interested, I had asked this January on this NG about loss of resolution when using a full-frame lens on a smaller detector (essentially you are cropping out resolution). Anyway, I bit the dust and ended up getting a D200 with SB800. Very satisfied. No banding problems. The portrait setting produces color which most approaches what I was used to with my F4s SB24 and Fuji NPS. I had a D50 for 10 days (still delaying and praying on a full-frame Nikon digital camera) but wasn`t happy with the color so swapped it in for the D200. I have tried my 20-35 f2.8 and 105 f2.8 so far and have not noticed appreciable loss of resolution although I am sure there must be some loss. It is just not noticeable so far. At the same price as my old F4s, and from what I can see on these 2 lenses, and considering adjustments for inflation, it is worth the purchase. It has rejuvinated my interest in photography. If there are any sitting on the fence on this camera, I would like to encourage you to take the risk. I can`t wait to try it on my 600 f4. Will keep you posted. Tien Would not the perceived performance of full frame lenses in most instances seem to improve with the small dSLR sensor which is concentrated more in the sweet spot of the image circle? Rather than using settings like "portrait" and, I presume, jpeg image processing I would recommend, if you have not already done so, learning about RAW images and post camera processing. You can gain far more control over the final image and learn to imitate any film emulsion characteristic you admire. In fact there are plug-ins for Photoshop that promise to recreate the look of particular films. >Would not the perceived performance of full frame lenses in most instances >seem to improve with the small dSLR sensor which is concentrated more in the >sweet spot of the image circle? Not necessarily. Since you are using a smaller crop of the focal plane, in order to get your full image, you have to spread everything 1.5x or 1.6x as wide, which means resolution decreases, CA gets wider, etc, relative to image size. It really depends on how fast the quality falls off in the 35mm corners, compared to the APS corners. In the center, you will always get the spread and loss with the crop (although, if the refcording medium is the main limit of resolution, you may not see the loss).  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Would not the perceived performance of full frame lenses in most instances > seem to improve with the small dSLR sensor which is concentrated more in the > sweet spot of the image circle? As another person mentioned, the improvement would really be found if at all, at the edges. If the drop off in resolution was worse than 0.67x (i.e.1/ 1.5) centre resolution at the edges, then you might see some improvement at the edges. The centre will always be less sharp (assuming the film was outperforming the lens at the centre and that max resolution of the film and sensor in terms of lpm are the same). > Rather than using settings like "portrait" and, I presume, jpeg image > processing I would recommend, if you have not already done so, learning > about RAW images and post camera processing. Yah, just that the Nikon RAW image software is another 100 bucks (and I was pissed-off it wasn't included) and I don't have ADOBE PHOTOSHOP (atleast not the professional variations) either. I have to get the Nikon Capture 4 software sometime anyway and maybe try to get by with my other MS Digital Image 2006 manipulation software. Tien According to Tien Dao <tiendao@funnyface.com>: [ ... ] > > Rather than using settings like "portrait" and, I presume, jpeg image > > processing I would recommend, if you have not already done so, learning [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pissed-off it wasn't included) and I don't have ADOBE PHOTOSHOP (atleast not > the professional variations) either. You want something free which does it? Look at dcraw. The version which I downloaded, compiled, and installed on April 13th of this year works with the D200. I know because I took an empty CF card to the photo shop (Penn Camera, if anyone cares) and took a couple of shots on it in RAW mode with their demo camera. I then brought the CF card home, loaded the images into my computer, and verified that it decodes the RAW images without problems. That happens to be version 8.13, if you care, but if you don't yet have dcraw, what you download will be at least that new. To download it (for free -- and no registration required), visit: http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin and follow the links to the program. I download the source, but I believe that he has links to other sites where someone has compiled it for Windows. Click on the linux link, and scroll down to the FAQ section at the bottom of the page, where there are links to the Windows versions. And -- for another free program which should be as good as Photoshop for you, check into "The GIMP" (GNU Image Manipulation Program). Again -- it was written for unix variants, and ported to Windows by others. > I have to get the Nikon Capture 4 > software sometime anyway and maybe try to get by with my other MS Digital > Image 2006 manipulation software. Try "dcraw" and "The GIMP" and you should be fine. Good Luck, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- Excellent advice. Thanks! Tien > According to Tien Dao <tiendao@funnyface.com>: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html > --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >Yah, just that the Nikon RAW image software is another 100 bucks (and I was >pissed-off it wasn't included) and I don't have ADOBE PHOTOSHOP (atleast not >the professional variations) either. I have to get the Nikon Capture 4 >software sometime anyway and maybe try to get by with my other MS Digital >Image 2006 manipulation software. The latest version of Pixmantec's Raw Shooter Essentials works just fine http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp -- Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: >>Yah, just that the Nikon RAW image software is another 100 bucks (and I was >>pissed-off it wasn't included) and I don't have ADOBE PHOTOSHOP (atleast not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The latest version of Pixmantec's Raw Shooter Essentials works just fine > http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp Yes, RSE is pretty good and the basic version is free. It's fast & convenient though I'm not at all sure about the quality of the results. Nikon Capture is probably optimized for their data but that program just makes me mad, it's slow, awkward, etc. Photoshop Elements is probably the best option, I just like PS for workflow but if you don't process large numbers of shots maybe you could tolerate Capture. DCRAW is an interesting option but is command line so impractical with no visual feedback, no sliders & tedious abstruse documentation. I'm just delaying getting a full $600 version of CS2 after forking over for the D200 so I'm using free RSE for the moment. According to Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>: [ ... ] > DCRAW is an > interesting option but is command line so impractical with no visual > feedback, no sliders & tedious abstruse documentation. If you want a graphics front end, it is available with "the GIMP" (using a plugin which can be downloaded with the source for dcraw), or one of the number of other programs which have been built around dcraw's algorithm's as image processing tools or as frontends to other tools. I run dcraw from a shell script for which I determined which options I wanted most of the time, and just process (in batch mode) to a format which I then process using "the GIMP". Some of these days, I will compile my own copy of "The GIMP, and have the right libs on hand to link it with the plugin which runs dcraw. > I'm just delaying > getting a full $600 version of CS2 after forking over for the D200 so > I'm using free RSE for the moment. I can understand being "camera poor". :-) Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > Yah, just that the Nikon RAW image software is another 100 bucks (and I was > pissed-off it wasn't included) and I don't have ADOBE PHOTOSHOP (atleast not > the professional variations) either. I have to get the Nikon Capture 4 > software sometime anyway and maybe try to get by with my other MS Digital > Image 2006 manipulation software. Photoshop Elements also uses the RAW conversion plug-ins. If you want to go extra whacky, you could use Adobe DNG converter, then load those into Photoshop Elements. > Anyway, I bit the dust I don't think that's quite what you meant... SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Yah, biting the bullet may have been better, but it is a reflection of my emotional resignation and acceptance of the sub-full-frame sensor. :(( Everything is a compromise. This is just one of the sweeter ones, was my real point. BTW, I just tried this on my Nikkor 600 f4 AF and it is OK. I think there is a bit of loss of resolution overall. This lens was pretty good on film and didn`t have much resolution fall off from centre (then again, it didn`t have all that much resolution to begin with, say compared to a 105 mm f2.8 micro. I could get in easily 10 frames at high fire rates with (RAW+Fine-jpg) suggesting it has a pretty fast bus and buffer. Tien > > Anyway, I bit the dust > > I don't think that's quite what you meant... >> Anyway, I bit the dust > >I don't think that's quite what you meant... You know: Bits, sensors, dust ;-) -espen Signaturehttp://www.seland.org/ Espen Stranger Seland a écrit : > You know: Bits, sensors, dust ;-) Well, as luck would have it, while checking for banding, I have discovered atleast 3 visible dead pixels creating a "+" artefact. Nikon says it will take anywhere from 5 hrs to 1 day to remap the sensor. :(( Tien |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.