D800, Discussion, Questions, and Answers

123457

Comments

  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    Hii all..

    I am from India and one of my friend is come from US. So, I was thinking of getting a new lens from my D800 from US. Is it a good idea?!! I mean as Nikon lens don't have international warranty.

    If yes, then how is AF-S NIKKOR24-120mm f/4G ED VR on D800? the 24-70mm f/2.8 is way out of my budget :(

    Thank you.
    Hi Prathap, Nikon world-wide will honor warranty on lenses purchased in the USA as long as you keep the receipt and warranty card. Read more about it here at the Nikon USA site.

    I haven't used the 24-120mm f/4 to be able to comment I'm afraid. Seems like a solid lens from the reviews.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    Seems the new Sigma 35 f1.4 is a better (at least sharper) lens than the Nikon or Zeiss equivalent for about half the price - that is if DxOMark comparative testing is to be believed. I hope it is true. Better for less cost is always nice to find.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    I have seen about two dozen Sigma 35mm 1.4 reviews and all say it is sharp as can be. Most say the Nikon "draws" the images nicer (read-more of a moody lens) as it was intended.

    24-120mm f/4 - if you go to the lens rental links on pg6 I posted it includes some tests done with the 24-120mm f/4. It is a great lens for sure.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • PrathapPrathap Posts: 9Member
    @Ade.. thank you very much for your reply.
    @TaoTeJared.. thank you. will check it out.

  • itsnotmeyouknowitsnotmeyouknow Posts: 481Member
    edited March 2013
    Is it just me, or does anyone else find it rather disappointing that people are calling for science in photography?

    Of course it is down what is pleasing to your eye. I find the obsession with MTF charts boring to ninth degree. What is it that lenses were made to do in relation to a camera?

    Shoot pictures, of course! Is sharpness the ideal? Bokeh? Resolution?

    I have been to a few of Cartier-Bresson photo exhibitions. Shock! Horror! Some shots were not completely sharp! How unscientific. Yet he captures something with a style that is unmistakeable.

    If I wanted to be a lab technician I would have paid more attention to my science teachers. I couldn't give a flying fig about the science. I want to see what works. Not just for me but for others too. Photography isn't a science, it's an art. It doesn't need deconstruction. It is a form of communication, and the best form is the kind that has an expression of its own. If it all conformed to scientific examination, it would all look the same and there would be no individual styles.

    I have the Zeiss 35 f/2 and I love it. I don't use it nearly often enough as my 24 - 70 is mostly on my D800. That's more out of convenience because I am usually hauling a Pentax 645D plus a very heavy Pentax 25 f/4 plus a few other 645 lenses and Nikkors too.

    Manual focussing forces me to slow down and consider more. That can only be a good thing. I am working hard on my photography and am striving to improve both at taking photos and processing the results. Have I got my own style yet? I don't know. But I sure as heck won't develop one by getting scientific.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    edited March 2013
    No one is calling for more science in photograph. No one is saying photography should be reduced to science and emotion eliminated. The issue was simple: which are the sharpest lenses on a D800 (for whatever that is worth to a particular person). And the debate was also simple: can the numerical rankings of DxOMark be trusted as an accurate differentiation between lenses as to their relative sharpness on the D800 sensor (or generalized to a ranking of overall quality)? Are the DxOMark (or other) lens testing protocols valid? Note the main NR bog just trumpeted the Sigma 35mm f1.4 as "a new benchmark for optical excellence." On what basis? Those allegedly "highly invalid" DxOMark test scores, of course! Now if DxOMark testing and lens ranking is no more than an outhouse full to the ceiling why is the main blog presenting it as something important? It would be interesting to see if you liked that Sigma 35mm f1.4 as much as or more than or less than your Zeiss 35mm F2. If you could shoot both for a while back to back I would be interested in your opinion of them.

    There are other "scientific issues" we debate daily. What is the camera with the cleanest high ISO? D4 or D3s? Is the noise at ISO 3200 too great to use on X,Y or Z camera. ISO 6400 on the D800 can be used up to what print size: 4x6 or 5x7 or 8x10? Etc. These are matters of both judgment and scientific testing. If you try to test any of these issues and do not perform your tests in a scientifically accurate and repeatable way you are not able to make comparisons between cameras or ISO's on the same camera based upon the images you shot. Of course, personal preference is involved. For example, some people may find more noise acceptable than other people.

    Zeiss lenses just did not fare as well on the DxOMark tests as I had expected them to so it seemed reasonable to to me to inquire as to whether or not they are really worth that extra money. I stated the proposition in the negative of "no difference" as a working hypothesis to see if it can be falsified. Most posted efforts to falsify the working hypothesis have been highly subjective. Some say they like the color produced by the Zeiss lens but surely color is easily adjusted on post processing these days. Some say they have better bokeh or "micro contrast" or some other such thing. Perhaps, but I have not seen any such proof in side by side photos or measurements. Perhaps some people are just prejudiced because they spent the "big bucks" and want to "see" some greatness that really isn't there. It is normal human nature to rationalize in an effort to validate our choices. Perhaps there is an obvious visual difference which can be seen but not measured. This is just a discussion after all for anyone who is interested in it. No one is calling for the removal of emotion or any other changes in photography in general.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    What we have on NRF is a wide range of photographers, folks interested in photography, post processors, wannabes, and lurkers. Everyone's opinion is valid. Some are geeks, some are beatniks, some are business folks, and some are bus drivers. And we do have a few photographers on the forum.

    If f/stops and ISO are only your neighbor's concern, that is OK. If f/stop and ISO are your obsession, that is fine as well. We appreciate all the folks on NRF.
    Msmoto, mod
  • blandbland Posts: 812Member
    Everyone's opinion is valid. Some are geeks, some are beatniks, some are business folks, and some are bus drivers.
    ....... and a redneck! :)

    imo......cameras & lenes are no different than guns, motorcycles, horses and the such, in you get what you pay for over 95% of the time.

    If a sigma or tamron lens is 1/2 the price of a Nikkor or Zeiss, you can bet the farm there's a reason for it and it has nothing to do with being it's equal.

    The Ken Rockwells and the likes I can do without. Seeing actual photos that a lens shot and hearing from the owners of the quality of the built, speed and etc, is far more worth then someone posting test results for ad sells. jmo

  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Holly cow I'm actually going to agree with donaldejose on something in this thread!

    @itsnotmeyouknow - the current discussion has been on particular reviewers scientific methods and the stated results are suppose to help obtain something better. What you have brought up is valid for judging/reviewing images, but doesn't pertain to the current debate as no one was suggesting good images had to be technically perfect. That is a good subject for a topic though - maybe a new thread?

    Hey Redneck - all I want to know is where you plan on mounting your camera body on that horse? :))
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • blandbland Posts: 812Member

    Hey Redneck - all I want to know is where you plan on mounting your camera body on that horse? :))
    That's what my GoPro Hero 3 is for! B-)
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    edited March 2013
    Some people have both more guns and cameras than they shoot on a regular basis!

    Some people enjoy different cameras as much as they enjoy different guns.

    Some people do value science and scientific inquiry. One of the standard methods of science is the "null" hypothesis. You state the opposite of what you think may be true or of what you hope to find.

    For example, you think you have invented a pill that cures some cancers so you say X pill has no effect on cancer survival rates. You state the negative. Then you try to prove no effect occurs among a large group of people taking the pill and if you cannot do so and must admit that X pill does increase cancer survival rates you have a finding which is not the result of the researcher's bias or wishful thinking. Repeat the test many times by many different researchers and if they all find the same positive effect then that effect is scientifically true. This is how good science is done to eliminate as much as possible the researcher's opinion or bias.

    Another example, you think Leica lenses are superior so you state the null hypothesis that they are not and see if you or anyone else can disprove that null hypothesis with more than bias, emotion or vague unverifiable opinion (like "I took the pill and I feel much better now" unverifiable opinion when you know that person really took a placebo pill, not the real medicine, and is just reporting the subjective "placebo effect").

    I suggest this will knock the D800e off the peak of DxOMark sensor tests when they test it. Something new to lust after? http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/03/19/check-out-these-gorgeous-sample-shots-captured-in-iceland-with-phase-ones-n
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • roombarobotroombarobot Posts: 201Member
    I am a scientist by training. That has formed much of the way I think and the way I look at the world. I also love photography. I love the art of it and the science of it. I enjoy thinking through the physics/optics of a lens and exposure. I very much enjoyed the chemistry of developing film and printing pictures. I also love the art of photography. It is my main artistic hobby. I do a bit of woodworking, but photography is my main art outlet.

    Among many aspects of a shot, I appreciate a sharp image. When I moved to the D800E I am even more interested in sharpness, or at least the ability to shoot a razor sharp image if I want to in that situation. I also have always loved bokeh, lack of sharpness. I evaluate my lens purchases on both ends of this spectrum and on many other criteria/spectra as well.

    I want to have some scientifically accurate measures of cameras and lenses to help me inform my purchases. I don't know if DXOMark is it, however. I can say that it did play a factor in me moving from Canon to Nikon a while back. Researching the lower Canon line it seemed that they were using the same warmed-over 3+ year old 18 Mpix sensor in all of their bodies up to the 7D. That didn't seem right to me and the sensor test results from DXOMark corroborated my feeling that Canon was stagnant in their technology. I wish there was an objective sharpness measure that I could fold into my decision making when I am researching lenses. Perhaps DXOMark is one measurement to use.
  • PrathapPrathap Posts: 9Member
    I think i will go with 24-120mm f4..
    my friend stays in Seattle WA. so can anyone let me know which is the best (reliable) store (online or offline) to buy the lens?

    Thank you.
  • blandbland Posts: 812Member
    @Msmoto ....... that's really impressive quality!
  • PrathapPrathap Posts: 9Member
    thank you Msmoto.. the pic is really nice..

    so any suggestion for a good place to buy 24-120 lens in Seattle??
    else reliable online store is also fine.
  • adamzadamz Posts: 842Moderator
    edited March 2013
    as for the online store Prathap get it from either bhphoto.com or adorama.com
    Post edited by adamz on
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    B & H and Adorama are both first class operations.
    Msmoto, mod
  • roombarobotroombarobot Posts: 201Member
    I got mine from Adorama, as it had a decent filter kit included. Amazon is also a good option. Enjoy!

  • PrathapPrathap Posts: 9Member
    Hi..
    I was trying to order 24-120 and noticed one thing..
    when I tried ordering it from amazon.com, it was charging nearly $90+ as Tax. whereas when I tried in adorama.com, no tax was added!!

    Any idea why?!!
  • roombarobotroombarobot Posts: 201Member

    That's odd. What state are you in, Prathap?

    Either way, Adorama has the 24-120mm with a 3 filter Tiffen kit for the same price, so it seems like a better deal there.
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    Hi Prathap,

    US taxation laws are complex, but generally a state sales tax must be charged when the merchant has a substantial physical presence in that state (this is called a tax "nexus" or connection).

    Adorama only charges sales tax for the NY/NJ area because that's where they have substantial presence from a tax perspective.

    Amazon, however, has tax nexus to many more states. Amazon's corporate headquarters just happens to be located in Seattle, Washington (where presumably you're hoping to ship to.) Amazon also has warehouses, customer service centers and subsidiaries in many other states. In addition, Amazon has relationships with affiliates in almost every state, some with tax implications. At present Amazon charges sales tax for orders shipped to nine states.

    Between online merchants, it pays to compare total costs including tax, shipping, rebates, etc.
  • fishguyfishguy Posts: 23Member
    I have a question about my D800. Today, while removing a memory card, the camera door would not close fully. I worked at it (trying not to force it) and a little rubber piece dropped on my desk. It is about 10mm by 2mm and has three nubs at one end. The camera door now closes fine, but I saw where the little rubber piece came from - it seems to be some sort of bumper for the door. I put it back into place. Funny thing - I recognized this piece because I found one on my desk after working on my previous D800 (which I returned). So at least I have a spare!

    My question is: This will likely fall off again as some point. Is it a critical item? Some engineer figured it was.....

    Thanks,

    ~fishguy
  • roombarobotroombarobot Posts: 201Member

    It is probably part of the weather sealing, right?
  • fishguyfishguy Posts: 23Member
    roombarobot:

    Thanks - It does not appear to be part of the weather-sealing. There is a complete ring of sealing under the door. From what I can tell, it is supposed to be a bumper or a cushion for in case you push back too hard opening the door. I found an discussion about this thing falling off other D800s - nobody is certain what it is for, and the door seems to work fine without it in place.
    I did discover how it fell off: If I don't place my thumb carefully when sliding the door open, the friction lifts the little rubber piece up and then the next time the door is opened, it falls out.

    I may just tack it back in place with a drop of crazy glue.....
Sign In or Register to comment.