Nikon D3X - errr..mm

[Javelin]

I think the VR mechanism has 'corrected' my slight panning action as if it was camera shake, resulting in some odd double imaging effects on the unfocused subject

I can only go by what he said

[David Kilpatrick]

Different sort of panning, of course I did not mean for a moment that I was executing a follow-through action pan. Just meant the camera may have been moved in the general direction of keeping the subjects framed.

The 24-120mm does not use the right sort of VR for panning. It's got the old original type, no idea why for a relatively recent lens. The 16-85mm DX equivalent has intelligent VR which can cope with deliberate camera movements. So does the 24-70mm. This is just one of many disadvantages of the 24-120mm I was not aware of.

David

[01af]

Today, Mike Johnston has published a new article on his blog, comparing his impressions from the Sony A900, Nikon D3 & D700, and Canon EOS 5D Mk II (however, no D3X). See here:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... kon-v.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His bottom line: He likes the A900 and the D700 best, both for different reasons. He does not like the EOS 5D Mk II so much because it's too much of 'jack of all trades, master of none'---which however might be considered also a strength, depending on your point of view. Anyway, he feels the Canon produces a 'digital look' more than the others do.

-- Olaf

[David Kilpatrick]

It only detects a sweep type pan. That is, it detects continuous movement in that axis and stops trying to compensate, but first you need continuous movement at a certain velocity, like someone using a gimbal or a pan head or twisting from the waist.

I have no real doubt from using the VR 24-120mm that its VR is the worst I have used, in-body or in-lens. That includes the original first ever IS lens, the Canon 75-300mm. I should have suspected this from the first test shots I took, where two out of three were just not stabilised as I would expect. Bear in mind that the D3X has a very sweet mirror-shutter action and the sheer mass of the body also makes for stability. I don't intend to post dozens of lousy pictures to show why I know this. The sites you quote just repeat Nikon information or common knowledge.

David

[Javelin]

Right and is advocating a pan head and tripod (A wimberly in fact) instead of VR for panning shots..

Dave Black on panning....erhmm he's a Nikon shooter.


-Sonolta

[bossel]

I have grown sick and tired of listening to Nikon rookies bash the Nikon system. This forum is a Sony fanboy forum and not much more than that!

C ya then - and don't let the door hit your back on the way out

[David Kilpatrick]

No-one is bashing the Nikon system. Do you believe that all VR or IS lenses are equal, and that VR/IS design in lenses causes no known problems? I've used lots of them, and they are all different. They behave differently to the eye, they vary greatly in stabilisation effect, they have different startup and lockdown behaviours; some introduce off-centre vignetting or sharpness loss depending on the state of the IS group at the time of shooting. The greatest differences between these lenses can be found in standard zoom, superzoom, or wide zoom types (not that there are many - it's particularly difficult to design an IS ultra wide). The lenses used by sports shooters, long fast teles and tele zooms, are the easiest to equip with IS and least prone to any optical problems.

Also, at most sporting events the shutter speeds used should be fast enough to ensure IS/VR is not a determining factor. High ISO really matters. Stabilisation may even be turned off entirely by those who use tripods (and many do, supporting two or three cameras in front of them). The 0.5s-1s delay which happens when you 'wake up' a stabilised lens by focusing (shutter first pressure) can be critical for action work, it's not safe to compose or fire until the lens is locked into stabilised mode.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Rockwell also quotes Nikon's MTF charts for the lens, but fails to notice that according the Nikon, it's much better at the tele end than the wide end! He points to the falloff in the wide MTF chart as evidence of the (pretty bad) sharpness loss to the edges at 24mm, but does not support his opinion about the tele end being soft by quoting the other MTF chart. Perhaps because it shows the exact opposite?

If Nikon's chart is correct, the lens should be not only much sharper (both 10 and 30 frequencies have a higher transfer contrast shown) than the wide end, but also more even in coverage. Nikon UK suspect I may have a poor example of the lens, or that something's gone wrong with it. But - Rockwell and a number of dPreviewers all say the lens really sucks at 120mm.

The bottom line is that Nikon decided to include this lens in their (US) D700 kits, and may have suffered as a result. Canon has just decided to bundle their 24-105mm L with the 5D MkII, in the UK and almost certainly worldwide. While it is better than the Nikon 24-120mm, I still think it's not a good lens, and this is an error of judgment. It is so deeply 'bundled' that the entire instruction manual refers to the 24-105mm, and includes a section on the lens itself - pages 21, 31 etc. The manual is clearly written for a kit including that lens.

We all have criticised Minolta/Sony for the little 18-70mm cheapie lens, but I think it outperforms these (in context). I am not sure the Sony 24-105mm ex-Minolta outperforms them though. I'd rate it better than the Nikon, worse than the Canon. It's definitely not a lens they should be selling with the A900, but many dealers are. As has already been said, it's a pity Sony did not get the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 design under their own badge. I guess it would have competed with the CZ 24-70mm and that would be bad marketing.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Don - I can't reply to a bunch of non sequiturs. Typical.

David

[Javelin]

I didn't bash anybody. I aksed a question which when you replied seemed to confirm that VR isnt for panning (at least Nikons version) and here, you've done it again "he did not even need VR" hello! there must be a reason these pros prefer to leave VR off for panned shots?

Don't take things as bashing when we find something we didn't know about another camera and automatically compare to what we have. the site is photoclubALPHA .. um hello. nobody here is saying Nikon is trash or anything. Nikon has a new camera. we happen to have a competent review as part of the forums and i'm as curious as anyone else on what an 8k camera body gets me.

Right and is advocating a pan head and tripod (A wimberly in fact) instead of VR for panning shots..
-Sonolta

Get a clue! The guy uses a tripod when he can....if you were a professional you would too! Gosh...stop brand bashing and grow up for a minute! You people must realize Sony is not the king of everything!

Check out the Dave Black hand held pan 600mm at 1/60...he did not even need VR. First pick on the page.

http://www.daveblackphotography.com/wor ... hutter.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-Sonolta

[InTheSky]

Sonolta you are on FIRE ! i like that .

I think we are just afraid of seeing people telling that Sony is this and that, and a lot of people are dreaming that one day there will be Sony everywhere telling that is the best camera . But like every empire, there is a start and a end. I was loving Minolta for not being the top, by this way they will not be the worse too i think you understand what I'm trying to say.

Even with and old 200mm 2.8 Soligor you can produce very good photo (yes "photo").

On other hand, I'm agree with something ... as customer, we should have what we pay for ... and for a 8k camera, this is OK to invest time to check if this is OK or NOT. I really don't know the price of this Nikon lens (I'm not an expert in Nikon gear ), but if this lens is equivalent in price or the other brand ... it should deliver the merchandise , if not, that is not fair for customer.

Regards,

Frank

[InTheSky]

I don't remember on what exact number of magazine this was ... and on what article (i think this was on the D700 review or the D3) that they went to the conclusion that Nikon was not ready to go in the higher mega pixel considering there actual line up of lenses. Having invest to much of designing and covering the DX format for the past ~5-6 years ... they are not ready to jump in the high mega pixels word.

And now with your finding of reflection with old lens ... I'm thinking that who have invest in incredible gear of Nikon and want shot with them in manual focus will have resolution ans sharpness but blur by a ghost effect ...

Frank

[pakodominguez]

I don't remember on what exact number of magazine this was ... and on what article (i think this was on the D700 review or the D3) that they went to the conclusion that Nikon was not ready to go in the higher mega pixel considering there actual line up of lenses. Having invest to much of designing and covering the DX format for the past ~5-6 years ... they are not ready to jump in the high mega pixels word.

There is no reason a good 50mm Ais (the 1.8 or the 2.8 micro) won't work perfectly on the D3X. Same goes for other good old primes and good quality zooms: a 80-200 2.8 Ais or a first generation of AF will perform sans souci. We have the same situation with Minolta lenses: you have good ones, some unexpected good, and lots of lemons...

[InTheSky]

yes for that i know, there is a lot of doggie-doo of Minolta lens, i have bought and tried to much that i don't remember. But... for lens that cost a little bit more, or G lens there is really good one. I will say that the G lens that does not impress me and i have sold was the 28-70G ... but probably the 7D and the none full frame was not there to show me what the lens was able to do. Actually, I'm staying with the lens I'm considering good of Minolta for my need, and i have max 10 of them. (even the 80-200 2.8 was really not good an i have sold it too, for the weight and size vs the aperture). In fact I'm shooting 95% with prime lens now. the 5 % is reserved for my 18-200mm on A700.