In the meantime, a few samples have been posted on various sites which show the raw conversion engine of the camera/s (not necessarily the JPEG compression stage, as always seems to be assumed) has been radically revised. Sony call this ‘enhanced BIONZ’ and I think there’s a clue to how it has been enhanced in the relationship of Sony Europe and DxO Labs, the French company which specialises in in-camera process analysis and development.

It is revealed that in some European countries, the new Alpha 850 will be sold with DxO Optics Pro Elite bundled for raw processing. The difference made by DxO Optics Pro software to the output from high ISO images, in particular, is considerable. The Alpha raw format has been plagued by Adobe Camera Raw‘s terrible performance from day one, despite the compelling ease of use which makes owners return to using this flawed utility – including me. The in-camera JPEGs and Sony Image Data Converter results have come a close second to ACR for poor detail/sharpness/noise handling though no-one doubts the excellence of their matched colour reproduction.

DxO is also very unsatisfactory software in many ways. It has the most obtuse browser design, which is incapable of handling simple directory heirarchy in a single pane (something Lightroom, Aperture and the operating system GUIs of Mac and Windows alike do much better). It will not display thumbnails from a list view, forcing the user to jump from folder to folder looking at disorganised lightbox-style thumbnail icons of files, or to know exactly what photos are hiding behind all of the hundreds of sequential filenames for their raws. Here is where Bridge scores, you can navigate to a folder and view a choice of preview or file listings all of which allow you to select images by actually seeing them. DxO, even when used as a Photoshop plug-in, presumes you know in advance which folder and files you want to add to your ‘project’.

But DxO is worth the tedium and frustration because of the quality of raw conversion. Even this is slow, and some things just don’t work well – using the Photoshop plug-in merely opens the entire DxO Optics Pro package anyway, but forces it to pass image data to Photoshop in 16-bit TIFF form with all EXIF metadata stripped out. To make the JPEGs for this article, DxO had to be used separately. I would have preferred the quality of a 16-bit TIFF transfer later saved to JPEG, but it was important to retain the EXIF data.

Here, anyway, are some results of a quick comparison based on the first test image I showed in September 2008, when Firmware v4 was issued for the Alpha 700:

Clicking on this image will open the FULL SIZE 12 megapixel, Level 10 saved, sRGB JPEG – the same applies to the further samples. Click to open full size in a separate window, then use your magnifier cursor to view at 100%.

This is the ACR 5.5RC version, no sharpening, default values but Black Point set to 3, Luminance 25, Chroma 50 NR.

This is the DxO Optics Pro Elite 5.3.5 conversion at automatic default settings. This includes Lens Softness compensation (capture sharpening), DxO Lighting (adaptive local gamma compensation), Luminance NR 54 and Chroma NR 50. Like ACR, DxO Optics Pro uses two NR sliders scaled 0 to 100.

This conversion removes the DxO Lighting, the sharpening, and the heavy Luminance NR which is reduced to 25. Dead pixel removal is enabled, as this removes some ugly black pixel specks which appear in the default conversion.

Conclusion and quick view of 100 per cent clip samples (1000 x 700 pixels) from ACR and Optics Pro: see next page.

The Lightroom 2.3 update also provides support for eight additional languages including Dutch, Italian, Portuguese (Brazilian), Spanish, Swedish, Korean, Chinese (simplified) and Chinese (traditional). Additionally, it addresses several issues including a solution to a memory leak that affected some customers of the Lightroom 2.2 release.

Lightroom has received tremendous support from the photography community, and companies have released plug-ins that further extend Lightroom 2’s capabilities. Today, Nik software announced that its Viveza plug-in for colour refinement and light control is now compatible with Lightroom 2, and Photomatix recently updated its Lightroom HDR plug-in to work smoothly with Lightroom 2. To discover more plug-ins compatible with Lightroom 2 visit the Lightroom Exchange home page: http://www.adobe.com.

Pricing and Availability

The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2.3 update is available as a free download for existing Lightroom 2 customers and the Photoshop Camera Raw 5.3 plug-in is available as a free download for existing customers of Photoshop CS4, Photoshop Elements 7, Premiere Elements 7 and Photoshop Elements 6 for Mac. Both updates can be downloaded at www.adobe.com/downloads/updates/.

So I obtained a Tamron 10-24mm to test. The only problem is that Tamron in the UK (Intro2020) has a new policy that all review lenses will only be available in Nikon mount. I found their 70-200mm f/2.8 so hesitant in focusing on the D3X that I did manage to obtain a sample in Canon mount, which I tested on the 50D. But this was a special case because I felt the lens simply did not agree well with the Nikon AF system. Indeed, it proved far more positive and faster on the Canon.

It’s very hard to request a loan body to test a rival maker’s independent lens (indeed, very presumptuous as well!). Therefore, in February I purchased a Nikon-fit body of the most unlikely type – a vintage 2001 Kodak DSC760C, only 6 megapixels but probably the bext 6 megapixels around, with no anti-aliasing filter and a 1.3X factor. I also had a Fuji FinePix S5 Pro to hand, but there’s no way the Fuji could compare with the older Kodak for checking lens performance – it’s just too soft in rendering.

The Tamron did not AF on the Kodak, despite the old DSLR being supposedly compatible with its in-lens motor system. It did on the Fuji. When testing it using MF with focus confirmation on the Kodak, I discovered that a huge range of distances were ‘in focus’ according to the AF sensor.

So, what is the lens really like?

Aim it at a wall, at 10mm, and you will get to see exactly why it gets bad reviews. This ‘test chart’ would be two by three metres, and most tests are done even closer. Full aperture shows how those corners just disappear from the MTF chart:

With my sample pictures here, you can click the image to open a larger version. But even at this small size you can see the sudden death of illumination on the S5 Pro, combined with serious loss of flat-plane sharpness. This lens seems to be made for those mini-sensors you find in Canon cameras, 1.6X instead of 1.5X like the big boys over at Sony and Nikon (and Pentax and Samsung). I’ve marked the exact Canon sensor coverage – you can see how much you lose of the 10mm view, and how the soft corners are eliminated. Tamron should have issued this lens in Canon fit only for testing, they would have got much better reviews!

But, still working wide open, still working at 10mm, a subject with a very different distribution of depth in focus creates a slightly more favourable result:

The cap-shape curved plane of the lens focus has suited the way the pillars are closer than the distant aisle. You can also get some idea from this of the distortion (barrel, simple) at 10mm. It’s certainly there, but it is also very simple to correct, unlike the complex moustache-wave type distortions often found in ultrawide zooms. Fuji’s extended dynamic range helps with my favourite difficult subject, one which allows me to get nice looking pictures even in the depth of a poor winter season. Click this and you get a full sizer, albeit rather heavily compressed.

What I found in practice was that angled perspectives, with the ground close to the lens and receding into the distance, favoured extra sharpness with the Tamron’s curved field in the foreground but could produce some bad blur and aberration in the corresponding distant opposite corners. It’s a ) shaped focus field, for sure, and if you learn how to use it, it’s not so bad.

Fitted to the 1.3X Kodak camera I discovered it almost covered the large sensor size. The superb colours given by the Kodak were a pleasure to work with, as was the non-anti-aliased image. I picked up two of these cameras (one high speed 720X and one ‘high res’ 760C) for a modest outlay thinking they would be of little use, but the 760 proves very usable indeed:

This file needed extra compression to get down to my 2MB attachment limit! It’s so detailed. It is a crop, mainly cutting off the long edges, down from the 1.3X sensor but you are actually seeing more height than a 1.5X sensor – so it goes beyond the official coverage of the lens. At f/11, the curved field has helped bring the foreground into better focus, and left the branches at the top slightly rough. Again, like most of my shots, it’s at 10mm – which is frankly the main reason why I ever buy such a lens. I do not need the range from 16mm to 24mm, all my other ‘standard zoom’ lenses for this format cover from 16mm to 18mm at their wide end.

This is the dilemma. Tamron has gone for specification, not utility. The lens has fewer elements in fewer groups than the 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 but it’s almost a stop faster and it is a 2.4X zoom not a 1.63X zoom, and it goes wider at the wide end. It is barely any larger, same 77mm thread, even takes exactly the same lens hood – physically it is nearly identical in size and weight to the 17-35mm f/2.8-3.5 full frame design.

In the process, they have definitely lost quality in terms of even coverage and illumination. The 11-18mm is probably not quite as sharp centrally, but beats the 10-24mm in every other respect. Maybe the simple distortion of the 10-24mm at 10mm is a superior feature. Here, you can see it clearly again:

This subject also helped me work out the CA settings – minus 30 Red/Cyan and +30 Yellow/Blue in ACR/Lightroom at 10mm.

The lens is unusual in focusing extremely close (the focus field then resembles a bowl in front of the lens!) and in having a huge exit pupil and rear element size:

I’ve seen 50mm f/2 lenses with smaller rear glass than this design!

Where Tamron has misjudged is in increasing focal length range, rather than aperture. A maximum of f/3.5 is not much use as it does not actually brighten focusing screen views much, and does not enable f/2.8 AF sensors to function. Tokina’s 11-16mm f/2.8 constant aperture zoom, which I have tried on Nikon D90 with excellent results, focuses with far greater accuracy because (depending on the camera body) it switches on the double-precision f/2.8 sensor/s. This does not apply to Nikon as none of their DSLRs incorporate f/2.8 capable sensors, all are f/5.6 limited. Canon use f/5.6 sensors with the addition of f/2.8 capable sensors in some bodies, Sony use f/7.1 sensors with central f/2.8 sensors in the A700 and A900.

Just to show you, for the sake of it, how much depth of field a 10mm lens has at f/11 (which this lens demands as a working aperture, if you want to lose the soft dark corners) here is a series of shots taken using the Kodak DCS760C, all of which fell within the range of ‘focus confirmed’ by the camera:

This is at ‘beyond infinity’ – note the moirés on the clock, caused by having no AA filter. It is a 100% clip from the six megapixel file, not bad for 2001!

Here’s 3 feet/1 metre (the focus scale is not very precise!).

This is 2 feet. I mislabelled these pix because on seeing them, I was sure the distances were metres – surely the depth of field could not be THAT great, given the common focusing errors with ultrawides? But no – I had been adjusting the setting in FEET not metres…

We are now at 1.5ft and the focus confirm light (on a Nikon F5 based body) is still saying all is well, and that is at an effective f/5.6, let alone the f/11 actual shooting aperture. Nikon bodies do not generally have f/2.8 sensors and use f/5.6 for all AF points.

Finally, with the lens focused on 1 foot, we get the AF/manual focus confirm light to go off! Now I had worse focus than this on my Dynax 7D with my first 11-18mm Tamron, which gives me some idea just how badly calibrated the camera was before I adjusted its focus screws.

Message – if your ultrawide or wide shots do not look sharp at f/11, your camera does have an FF/BF error physically. I would never have thought I could focus all the way from infinity+ to 18 inches and still get acceptably sharp results at this resolution (which is more like 4 megapixels than 6 relative to the 1.5X format).

For reference, also showing the entire field of view on the 1.3X sensor with the petal lens hood in place, here is the overall view. I cleaned the Kodak’s sensor after taking these shots:

What conclusion, if any, do I have about the Tamron 10-24mm? First, I have a Sony 11-18mm and as far as this test goes, I’m sure it is better and I would not swap it. Secondly, f/3.5-4.5 is no benefit for AF and not much benefit for viewing – but f/2.8 would have been a real advance. Thirdly, my own uses for such lenses are more technical than creative, to record very wide architectural shots and interiors, therefore sharpness corner to corner counts most of all.

The 10-24mm Tamron is almost a photojournalistic lens. Where the subject is centred, and the corners do not matter, it produces an image like an old Summar f/2 or a 1960s Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 wide open. It has a look which could be exploited.

Should Sony issue a version? At their peril! There are reasons why this lens has been reviewed unfavourably. In fact it is very sharp centrally, has an amazing range, great close focus, simple distortions in place of dirty ones and would be wonderful on the Olympus 4/3rds format. It even manages to nearly cover 1.3X when stopped well down, to f/11 or f/16.

My recommendation must be to prefer the Sony or Tamron 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 despite the loss of maximum aperture. At least the wide open setting is fully usable on these lenses, and by f/11, they are in a different class to the 10-24mm technically.

Brave attempt, but not what was needed.

- David Kilpatrick FBIPP Hon FMPA

Here is how Getty’s page for potential contributors to the library lists acceptable DSLRs:

“Our panel of in-house experts has reviewed the latest digital equipment to help provide guidelines on what we consider to be acceptable images for submission to Getty Images. You can click on the links below to find out how some of these cameras performed.

“At present, the following cameras are recommended and approved for submissions to Getty Images. This list is updated regularly with results from our digital testing team.

Canon EOS:
5D Mk 1/2; 30D; 40D; 1D Mk 1/2/3; 1D Mk2n; 1DS Mk 1/2/3
Nikon:
D2X; D2Xs; D3; D3X; D90; D200; D300; D700
Leica: M8; M8.2
Olympus: E3
Pentax: K20D
Sony: A900

“All medium format backs (i.e. Phase One and Leaf) produce sufficiently high quality images to fall within Getty Images’ standard submission requirements.”

This is followed on the Getty page by links to their own reviews of cameras, but the Alpha 900 is not yet reviewed.

The situation remains unsatisfactory, as the Alpha 700 and Alpha 350 are both superior for stock photography work to the Nikon D200, D2X, D2Xs and D90; superior to the Canon 1D Mk1 and 2, 30D and 40D, 1Ds Mk 1, Leica M8/M8.2 and Olympus E-3.

The A700 and A350 are equal to the 12 megapixel models 5D Mk1, D300, D3 and D700 in the most typical situations for Getty’s preferred type of stock imagery (model released, shot in ideal conditions with lighting or good natural light). Certainly if the Olympus E-3 and Pentax K20D can make it into this list, the Alpha 700 and Alpha 350 should be there. Why do I say the Alpha 350? Simple enough – despite its practical limitations in studio conditions (small viewfinder, inability to use Live View with modelling lights, poor connectivity to studio flash) it can at ISO 100-200 yield a larger, more detailed image than the Alpha 700 with a particularly good ‘look’ in terms of colour and tonality.

Getty would actually find it of more use to test and recommend lenses. All three systems – Canon, Nikon and Sony – include some lenses which really are not up to the demands of professional stock shooting. It is not easy to guess which those lenses are, either – or to guess which older secondhand lenses may prove perfectly matched to today’s high resolution full frame.

There is one exception, and that is the Sony Alpha range. Buy Sony CZ or G-series full frame lenses and you are guaranteed the kind of performance Getty would want. That can not be said of Canon’s L branding (the L series includes models like the 24-105mm f/4 IS, essentially a consumer grade lens), and within the Nikon range it is not possible to identify from the model name which may be the best choices. Looking for ED and IF but avoiding VR is a useful way to start out.

Olympus and Pentax, like Sony, have a clear way of designating their high performance lenses – Getty when advising the E-3 should add to this ‘with Olympus Zuiko Top Pro series lenses’. I’ve used some of the Top Pro glass, some of the Pro glass and some of the standard range and buying Top Pro does not just mean getting very fast maximum apertures, it also means performance comparable to CZ/G.

And what’s that about digital backs? Does it include the still-available-used 6 megapixel versions from a few years ago, or the rather flaky early 16-22 megapixel models? I’ve seen some dreadful results from older digital backs, compared to even a £250 A200. I have also seen some great results but it’s a change which has happened mainly in the last three years.

But it’s all redundant anyway, when what counts is the image, not the camera. Having a list of approved cameras is just a way of preventing annoying requests for contributor information or contract-seeking by the rank mass of amateurs (sorry, that should have been ‘the massed ranks of amateurs’, no offence intended!). The camera list is a barrier to wannabees, not a serious attempt to filter content according to imagined technical quality.

And I guess the Sony Alpha 700 and 350, having no competition at their price-points for the specification or performance, will never make it that list just the same way the Nikon D80 (generally better than the D200) or Canon 400D (dull, but still better than a 30D and very much equal to a 40D) ever will.

- David Kilpatrick

Alamy must be able to predict the future. One of the recent changes they made was to allow searches for images over 70MB size. Neatly, both the Sony Alpha 900 and Nikon D3X just fall at the last hurdle and come in about 500KB short!

Their 69.x megabyte, 24.x megapixel images – x because there is a tiny difference in final bytecount – are however the closest thing to medium format digital you can currently buy in a 35mm-compatible SLR system. The Alpha 900 is also the lowest cost current full-frame DSLR you can buy now that the Canon 5D mark 1 has been discontinued. Depending on where you live the 900, the Nikon D700 and the Canon 5D MkII jostle weekly for a price advantage but they are basically all at the same price-point.

Sigma’s new 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM for Sony – a lens on a massive scale even on the Alpha 900

This has caused a revival of interest in the 50mm standard lens, and in so-called ‘prime’ lenses generally. Prime is a misuse of an optical term, but you can’t avoid it now and it’s neater than writing ‘fixed focal length’ every time. We now talk casually about prime lenses opposed to zoom lenses, and that is not the correct term as many modern zooms are actually varifocals, meaning they need a focusing adjustment if you change the focal length, which a true zoom does not.

So, let’s just say prime for fixed focal length and zoom for anything with a variable focal length, and forget the pedantry. Almost any well-made prime, even of a simple construction, can give better contrast, resolution, even illumination and straight geometry than a zoom. When you move up to 24 megapixels and full frame, lenses like 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.7, 85mm f/1.8 or 135mm f/2.8 get very interesting. They are small, light and focus accurately with a bright viewfinder image. To buy a zoom which matches their typical quality, at any given focal length, may cost three times as much or more.

Here, I will be showing at the end of this article links to an entire series of studio tests at full 24 megapixel size, which first allow comparison of the Nikon D3X and the Alpha 900 for this type of ISO 100 work, and secondly compare results at full aperture and f/8 from three very different lenses: the 1985 designed classic Minolta 50mm f/1.4 AF, the 2008 designed Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4 G, and the 2008 radical rethink of what a 50mm f/1.4 should be, Sigma’s flasgship prime.

But first, a review of the Sigma – a lens intended to be a true ‘prime’, a first among equals. It’s certainly a first. No maker has ever built a 50mm standard with a 65mm diameter front element and a 77mm filter thread, weighing over 500g and costing almost £500.

The Sigma concept

Here is that 1985-ish Minolta next to the new Sigma. Despite appearances, they were indeed separated at birth. Both are basically the same type of Gauss design, the Sigma using just 8 elements in 6 groups. The difference is that in front of the iris, the design is progressively scaled up to improve illumination at the edges of the field, a critical issue with digital sensors.

This is what a light-table view of the old Minolta design looks like viewed at an angle equal to the corner of the frame, with the aperture held wide open.

This is what a similar view through the Sigma looks like. You can realise why from this outfield angle the Sigma is putting far more light on to the silicon, and indeed, when comparison photos are taken of a plain sky using both lenses wide open, the difference in field illumination is clear:

The Sigma is top, the Minolta bottom. During the period of testing this kit, I also had the Nikkor AF-S G, and it’s very similar to the Minolta, not the Sigma, in size and in full aperture vignetting.

This is not the end of the story. The Sigma is also made (like the Nikon) to have almost zero aperture related focus shift. This is a complex issue, which affects AF and manual focusing accuracy. Most AF sensor arrays will ‘see’ the lens at between f/2.8 (centre sensors on Alpha 900, for example) and f/7.1 (outer sensors on the 900) with f/5.6 being very typical (Nikon MultiCAM 3500, most Canon sensors except for central). Most focusing screens ‘see’ the lens around f/4.5, as do metering systems, which is why the vignetting issues don’t affect metering (the field is evenly illuminated by the time you stop down to f/4.5 with all such lenses).

With most lenses, including the old Minolta, the plane of exact focus shifts between f/1.4 and f/8. Cameras equipped with f/2.8 AF sensors will provide a better compromise, but full aperture may not be focused precisely as intended (stopping down masks the effect of shift, even when it happens). With the new lenses like the Sigma and Nikon, there is hardly any shift so they focus very accurately for shots all all apertures, both via AF and manually on-screen.

Here’s a shot at f/2 on the Sigma, 1/30th hand held at ISO 400 on the Alpha 900. One stop down is always a good idea, even with the excellent performance of this lens. The pub sign shows how well it focuses and how sharp it is:

Testing the Sigma at full aperture on a distant subject with the Alpha 900, here are some results:

This is the centre of the frame – trust me, at 24 megapixels 100% and without any sharpening, this is state of the art for a 50mm f/1.4 used wide open. The corners of the frame, all photographed in turn right into the extreme corner as the 100% finder of the Alpha 900 allows this, show both the slight darkening and the slight softening present:

Click the image for a 100% view of this composite.

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens to use for its bokeh – which is best between f/1.4 and f/2.8, here shown at f/2.2:

The iris is nine-blade, which keeps things pretty tidy even when stopped down, but the design itself does produce an amount of colour bokeh and can produce some colour fringes, so processing carefully from raw files is the best way to handle its output.

Finally, this expensive lens comes with a good petal hood and a case. I will not show examples here, but be warned of one phenomenon – the view through the lens at f/1.4 when the sun is just out of the frame can be perfect, no flare. Then your final picture at f/8 is totally obscured by flare! You must check each shot in these conditions, as the stopped-down aperture blades clearly create the flare which is entirely absent in a wide open lens for viewing.

Do you need this? Would the current latest Sony – a revision of the Minolta design – be better? Well, I am not rushing to buy the Sigma. My tiny Minolta is good enough – soft at f/1.4, but sharper with every 1/3 or 1/2 stop step it is closed down, fantastic by f/2.8, and although it seems prone to focus errors on the Alpha 700 it’s proving accurate on the 900.

But if I wanted to use f/1.4 for a high proportion of shots, I would get the Sigma. It has HSM focusing and it’s every bit as good as Sony SSM, working perfectly with smooth manual focus over-ride and very fine adjustments in virtual silence. It is also built like a tank and the two (new) samples I tested on Nikon and Sony were equally good.

The studio tests

On to the final part, the studio tests of the various 50mm lenses and of the two 24 megapixel bodies. What I show here is a fraction of the many tests done, and raw processing exports produced using a whole range of raw converters and different parameters. The ‘native’ results of the Nikon and Sony look so different you would believe they were different sensors, but by careful alignment of the default settings in Adobe Camera Raw 5.3 it was possible to see they are clearly identical or very similar. Nikon treats exposure calibration differently, and I believe they pay Sony for the best test-selected sensors from the production. I don’t think they add a magic pizza topping. Everything in the difference between the A900 and D3X, including the price, points to selection of the absolute pick of the sensor crop after fabrication.

That is perfectly possible, it happens already in most fields of similar production, every sensor has to be tested anyway (each one has a different calibration table) and with the D3X, you get a premium quality imager for £6,000 where Sony give you a standard quality for £2,000.

Here is the basic set-up used for the test shots, and the first shot, on the Sigma at f/8 using the Sony:

To view the full size image (‘original’ size) go to:

http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/109053091

It is very large – over 15MB of Level 12 JPEG data – so be prepared for a long wait unless you have fast broadband. The image can be viewed or downloaded. Full caption details are provided on pBase.

This is the first image in a series of ten. They include two examples where the Sony and Nikon are set to totally flat, linear output to show with accuracy the dynamic range (these will look dull and desaturated to the eye, but are a bit closer to the Bayer value contrasts than a normal raw conversion – sure, nothing like as dark and dull as a literal Bayer readout looks!).

They also include full aperture results from all four lenses tested (two Sigma 50s, Minolta and Nikkor), and f/8 results as above. The small differences in framing you will see are partly due to the true focal length of the lenses varying – the Sigma is around 48.5mm, the Nikon is around 52mm – and their different methods of focusing, internal or whole lens. Also, the D3X is a different shape of body and the tripod column had to be raised to place the A900 in the same position. Differences in focus are down to the way the AF worked and how the locked manual focus held. In all cases the intended focus point was the label/wool right hand edge of the pastel multicoloured ball of wool.

To view the sequence, just click NEXT after each one. Tip: to compare images, after they have been cached/loaded, you can click PREVIOUS/NEXT and your browser will flip between them rapidly.

The Sigma lens, though it focuses down to 45cm, is not at its best with close-up subjects and the other two conventional 50mms render fine detail rather better across the frame for this setup. Also, when focused close enough for test charts, the Sigma distortion appears to be around -2% but when used at infinity it’s very low – more like -1%, not worth bothering with correction. Here is an uncorrected typical medium close shot:

I draw no conclusions about the cameras, or lenses, and will let you decide. But as someone who shoots 90% of everything at ISO 100-200 (200 is a bad light setting, 400 is dusk!) I’m in no way unhappy with the Alpha 900. It has, also, so many overriding user-interface, ergonomic, size, weight and cost advantages that every time I process a batch of shots from it and remember the cost of the D3X I can’t help sitting there with a big smile on my face!

- David Kilpatrick FBIPP Hon FMPA

This is a DX Nikkor, which means that it only covers the DX (APS-C) small sensor format. The lens in flesh makes that very clear:

It’s an interesting move, and price, but basically it’s a ‘standard lens’ for DX and not the impossible dream of a perfectly priced, perfectly specified 35mm semi-wide angle for full frame…

Nikon press information follows.

RRP: £199.99 / €243.00

Sales start date: 6th March 2009

Nikon UK is pleased to announce a brand new wide aperture DX NIKKOR lens, the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G. The lens has a fast maximum aperture of f/1.8 for a bright viewfinder experience, and beautiful background blur with shallow depth of field. It also incorporates NIKKOR’s ultra-compact ring type Silent Wave Motor (SWM) for quiet accurate focus operation even with cameras without built-in motors such as the Nikon D40 and Nikon D60.

“This lens is an excellent creative option in addition to the kit lenses many customers purchase with their cameras,” says Ludovic Drean, Product Manager at Nikon Europe. He adds: “We expect that many customers, particularly photography students, will find this lens an affordable choice for expanding their photographic system”.

AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G

With a compact, lightweight design, the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G provides the high reproduction capability and picture quality for which NIKKOR lenses are renowned, at an affordable price. The ring type SWM offers quiet AF operation. Although all lens groups shift during focusing, the front element and filter mount do not rotate and the barrel length does not change, which is useful when using filter mounted SB-R200 Wireless Remote Speedlight units.

The AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G optical design allows a different look and feel to images taken with zoom lenses, and its dimensions are ideal for discrete snapshots and landscape shooting with a picture angle that approximates that of the human eye. With its rounded seven-blade diaphragm opening, out-of-focus elements appear more natural. When mounted on a DX-format SLR, the picture angle is the 35mm equivalent focal length of 50mm.

The AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G has two focus modes, M/A (manual override autofocus) and M (manual focus). The M/A mode enables instant manual switching during AF operation. The lens also features a rubber seal to minimise moisture ingression around the mount and can focus down to 0.3 meters (0.98 ft).

Official press information:

Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 2.3 and Photoshop Camera Raw 5.3 Release Candidates, both available immediately for download from Adobe Labs at http://labs.adobe.com. The ‘release candidate’ label indicates that this update is well tested but would benefit from additional community testing before it is distributed automatically to all customers. The Lightroom and Camera Raw teams would like the community to help verify the quality of this update through normal usage as this will ensure that the application is tested on a wide variety of hardware and software configurations not available internally at Adobe.

Both release candidates provide additional raw file support for the Nikon D3X and Olympus E-30 cameras. In addition,the Lightroom 2.3 Release Candidate provides a solution to a memory leak that affected some customers of the Lightroom 2.2 release.

Adobe is also pleased to announce the availability of Lightroom in eight new languages, including Dutch, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Korean, Chinese (simplified) and Chinese (traditional). The Lightroom 2.3 Release Candidate available on Adobe Labs includes these additional languages, and Adobe greatly appreciates any feedback the community can provide the Lightroom team.

Most dedicated tilt lenses are also shift lenses. The PC-E Nikkor and TS-E Canon designs have a rising or cross front for architectural correction, and a tilt action for Scheimpflug plane of focus adjustment. Both come from the factory with the axes of these movements crossed, which is not how they are best used in real life. When ordering a Nikon lens, you can ask to have it modified so the tilt is in the same direction as the shift. One type, the Hartblei Super Rotator series, allows tilt and shift to be freely aligned to each other and the whole to be rotated relative to the image area.

Here is an acutely-angled studio view without tilt, taken on the Nikon DX3 with 45mm PC-E Nikkor f2.8 lens, shown above, at f11:

If you click to open full size 24 megapixel image and view it at 100%, you’ll quickly see that the zone of truly sharp focus is minimal. The Elinchrom BXRi flash units used are at minimum power, and it would be possible to get down to f22 or f32 with no problems, but the sharpness of detail would suffer and unwanted details in other zones of the image would be rendered as sharp as the subject plane.

Here is the same image taken with maximum tilt of 8 degrees, and a near-optimum aperture of f11:

But how would the owner of a Sony Alpha 900 cope with this problem? The system has no tilt-shift lenses at all, and no-one makes independent 24-28/45-50/85-90mm (the usual range) perspective control designs in the Alpha mount.

The answer, though not a complete solution, is to buy a Ukrainian tilt adaptor by ARAX or a similar supplier, and a Pentacon fit lens. Here is a vintage 50mm f4 CZ Jena Flektogon lens mounted on an ARAX tilt adaptor to the Alpha 900:

This lens certainly has the sharpness needed, but it is an early non-multicoated version (costing £100 s/h) and I may after trying it go for a later MkII black knurled grip multicoated design, as this lens does create a sensor reflection you can just see in the resulting image:

You will see it more easily in the full size file, just click to open; it is a patch to the right of the instrument’s nut (the instrument is a Canarian timple, a Canary Island relative of the ukulele). The overall focus is slightly different, despite a similar 8 degree tilt, as judging the focus and tilt angle on the focusing screens of these DSLRs is next to impossible for reasons we explain in this article.

A truly wide set of focus points with manual focus confirmation, selectable, or the use of Live View (not provided on the Alpha 900) could make fine tuning focus and tilt less of a hit and miss visual operation. Even so, study the images; the Pentacon lens has much lower contrast and warmer colour, and its lack of a lens shade probably allowed it to pick up too much light from the directly facing 60cm Elinchrom soft box. But it’s pretty sharp where the focus plane lies.

Outdoors, a fox had got some of our chickens, and made a very neat job of dining on chicken breast. I decided to test both the lenses at f8, an even better aperture for theoretical performance. If you don’t like such graphic documentary photography, abandon ship now, but it’s well worth studying these full size to see just how sharp the Pentacon rig is (the total cost was £240 including the tilt adaptor, compared to just under £1,000 for the Nikon lens).

Here’s the Nikon result, which did appear to be sharp right to the wings on-screen, but turns out to be a little closer focused:

This was at the minimum height of my Slik tripod, so the Sony result with the slightly longer 50mm lens is a tighter crop. It was interesting to note that the PC-E Nikkor, when tilted, darkens significantly to one end of the frame and the focus zone shifts along with image position, calling for tripod head adjustments. The ARAX tilt with 50mm Pentacon causes no image position shift or main focus point shift, or indeed any darkening. To get equal ‘centre field’ imaging from the Nikon, the factory modification to allow shift in the same direction is needed. Then you can restore the optical axis to aim at the centre of the sensor.

Here is the Sony result at f8:

The Sony needed 1/4 second exposure, compared to the Nikon’s 1/8, but as my other tests so far have shown, the Nikon is about 1/3rd stop faster in true ISO speed when set to the same nominal ISO 100. The Pentacon lens displayed fairly unequal divisions between f-stops anyway, and probably has a light transmission inferior to the Nikkor.

All these images are in-camera JPEGs, so not the theoretical optimum. The Sony has been criticised for poor in-camera JPEGs, but this mainly applies to high ISO results. I think that at ISO 100 there’s nothing to choose between the JPEGs, but the Nikon files are slightly larger indicating they are of higher quality and with more detail. I have resaved all files here to Level 10 CS4 quality for pBase storage.

While a 50mm lens is pretty good for general and studio work with tilt, both longer and shorter options are desirable. Nikon and Canon both offer them. Longer Pentacon lenses can be fitted to the ARAX tilt adaptor, and I have one Kiev ARSAT 80mm f2.8 which is nothing like as good as the Pentacon. Nothing shorter than the Pentacon is available except the Arsenal factory 45mm f3.5 (much inferior) and 30mm fisheye (an interesting idea); several longer lenses including 120mm and 150mm can be found from both the old Pentacon line-up and the later Kiev designs. I also have an ARAX type shift adaptor, but in practice you rarely need a medium or long focal length with shift, the optimum is probably a 24-28mm, and no optic exists which I can fit into the adaptor.

The only conclusions drawn here are that Sony needs to match Nikon and Canon, and make dedicated TS/PC lenses for the Alpha system; that the Ukrainian adaptor works pretty well, for any popular SLR mount including Nikon and Canon; that Live View with magnified local focusing could really transform tilt-lens adjustment accuracy; and that some older medium format lenses can definitely deliver on full frame DSLR.

And the chickens need to caged, as they now are of course, until we catch that fox!

- David Kilpatrick FBIPP Hon FMPA

First, the test shot:

This was carefully devised to replace a two-dimensional colour checker target with some 3D objects and to provide two different levels of light – the strong backlight and gentle fill-in. The backlight is strong enough to take the reflection to near whitepoint off the ceramic tiles, but the reflections off the jelly beans provide the real ‘clipping point’ specular highlight. The shadow area is murky enough to show up poor contrast in shadows.

The exposure was carefully set at ISO 200 (checking that there was not a substantial shift between ISO 100 and 200 on the Nikon, as it is supposedly ISO 100 native where the A900 is 200 native). The histogram on the A900 was adjusted using the light level and exposure factorial adjustments to be unclipped at the highlight end, and just clipped in a single channel at the black point end:

The Nikon was adjusted to get as close as possible to this, which actually required about 1/3rd stop less exposure for any given nominal ISO rating. It was not possible to prevent the Nikon image clipping on a straight raw conversion (red just clips at the highlight end, and all three channels clip at the shadow end):

However, it’s as close as repeated tests could bring the set-up given the potential for variation between the cameras and the two lenses used (Minolta 100mm f2.8 Macro AF, Nikon 105mm f2.8 AF-S VR Micro Nikkor). You will note that the Nikon histogram shows the warmer balance given by this camera’s Tungsten preset, relative to the neutral given by the A900 Tungsten preset. The lights used were 150W modelling lamps on full power with single scrim softboxes.

If the Nikon was given exactly the same exposure as the Sony (0.8s at f16, ISO 200) then the histogram was clipped at both ends:

In most ways this does look a better result – midtones are brighter, the whole picture comes to life. If the Sony is allowed to clip at the highlight end by increasing exposure it is similarly enhanced in the midtones. But the object here is not to create the best still life shot, it’s to show some conditions where tone curves and noise levels can be compared.

The software

I used Iridient RAW Developer 1.8.1 for Mac OSX, because this software would process both the raw filetypes and also happens to produce a very fine but distinct noise pattern, based on the dcraw conversion from Dave Coffin. In this respect it resembles Bibble rather than Adobe Camera Raw. Iridient assigns completely different blackpoints and tone curves to the two cameras. These curves are a good match for the Standard in-camera JPEG. The Alpha 900 seems to have much darker midtones despite having a tone curve which does much more to lift these midtones, indicating that the Bayer raw file is written with a much flatter (more linear) A-to-D transfer function applied in the camera. Nikon’s raw file, if RAW Developer’s deep capture tuning controls are to be believed, has brightness value much closer to a processed deBayered RGB image.

Since completing the test on December 18th, Iridient has (December 18th later on!) released 1.8.2 which greatly brightens the Nikon tone curve, lifting it even further than the Sony Alpha 900 originally was, and flattens the upper midtone end of the Sony Alpha curve while dropping the shadow low bit values right down. The result is almost a clear f-stop of apparent speed gain for the Nikon and a histogram which no longer even resembles the Alpha. The 1.8.1 conversions were fairly matched, the new conversions are not. At this stage I am not replacing the files with new versions.

I will leave further investigation of that key difference to experts. Let’s just say that attempting to further lift the Sony tone curve to match the Nikon ‘mean tone value’ increases the noise levels. Since the Nikon is clearly already holding a clear advantage in noise levels this is no help to the Sony.

Here is what a flat (linear response) conversion from the A900 looks like – the Blackpoint in RAW Developer is set to 78 by default for this camera, and has been lowered to 0 – this makes the darkest tone look grey as well as tinted:

Nikon’s default black point is 0. This is unusual – it’s the Sony raw file which is normal. Testing various other raw file types, black points well over 100 are common, in some Canon raw files (they look pastel pink when viewed this way). But the flat Nikon file looks almost ready to eat without further cooking:

What this shows (I think) is that the Nikon image is using more of the available bits (RAW Developer uses a 0-255 scale for adjusting black and white input points, but of course the source files are 12-bit for Sony and 14-bit for Nikon). Less tonal transformation has to be done by the raw processing software, and less noise will be added in the process. Comments from raw file experts are welcome, especially an explanation of why most raw file formats do not use the low values at all but Nikon does.

Disclaimer: Iridient continues to refine default camera processes for each file-type. My processing using this software happened at a very early stage (this release for example won’t handle Canon EOS 5D MkII files, so it was surprising to find the D3X supported with good looking results). Since RAW Developer allows full control over the raw conversion input, camera profiling and related functions the defaults used are one possibility out of thousands. In-camera JPEGs do look better, and so do adjusted raw conversions.

My intention here has been to remove adjustments and show as ‘flat’ a matched result as possible, without the extreme of showing the raw files as they appear above.

The ISO range tests – pBase file series

For each ISO setting, I have clipped a 5 megapixel area out of the image, with the focus point set on the pink jelly bean between the two white beans. Do not try to judge sharpness from this test, that was not the purpose and capture sharpening has been disabled (so has capture NR).

The first image in the A900 series is at ISO 100:

To view this at 100 per cent scale, click the image or the first link below. Each ISO step then follows with a direct link to a full size file. Please note that ISO 100, as a ‘non native’ reduced ISO rating, has less dynamic range and this results in a brighter highlight level; the remaining shots in the series are more closely matched to the Nikon example below:

ISO 100 A900

ISO 200 A900

ISO 400 A900

ISO 800 A900

ISO 1600 A900

ISO 3200 A900

ISO 6400 A900

You can also go to the first image pBase directly and then click NEXT to view each subsequent image. Please remember – if you see small variations in density, that is a result of how the ISO setting and the identically controlled exposure (Aperture priority auto, matrix metering, viewfinder eyepiece closed, 2 second self timer) interacted. The test is not made invalid by density variations; these are additional information about how the camera performed. If they were to be corrected in processing, that would invalidate the comparison.

The Nikon series starts at ISO 50, a similarly non-native reduced setting called L1.0 by Nikon (they won’t even give it an official EI rating). Like the Sony ISO 100, this displays highlight and shadow clipping, but the loss of dynamic range is better controlled on the Nikon, and it is close to the ISO 200+ results:

Remember, no WB adjustment has been made in processing. This is a result of the Nikon Tungsten preset compared to the Sony Tungsten preset, and the JPEGs show the same difference.

Here is the Nikon series, starting with the ISO 50 example above:

ISO 50 D3X

ISO 100 D3X

ISO 200 D3X

ISO 400 D3X

ISO 800 D3X

ISO 1600 D3X

ISO 3200 D3X

ISO 6400 D3X

And, again, you can go to the first image on pBase and click NEXT to move through the series. A very good way to compare these images is to download them all and open them in Photoshop CS4 as a set of tabbed files in one window, to the same size 100 per cent view and absolute position. Click each tab in turn and you will see the precise changes in noise, colour and density almost like an animation. It is not possible to line the Sony images up with Nikon, because the differences in the 100mm and 105mm lenses and the camera body depth required a tripod height and distance change.

Conclusions?

The purpose of this article is not to trash the Alpha 900′s performance, though some will see it that way and insist that some alternative processing method would work miracles with the 900. There is some truth in that; the A900 files may work better with a completely different de-Bayer strategy, and so for that matter may the Nikon files. I know that both cameras are usable to their maximum ISO with excellent results in appropriate conditions. The purpose of the article is to shown how they are placed on the starting-grid before any raw conversion or post processing is applied.

It obvious that Nikon’s internal processing strategy pays dividends and that £5,500 does buy a superior ‘image-sensor plus onboard processing’ performance, compared to £2,000 (make those £4,800 and £1,600 at current street prices, time of writing!).

The obvious question to Sony must be – why can’t you manage the same, or at least come a little closer? They might reply that an extra half stop or stop in dynamic range, with its highlight and shadow recovery potential, matters more than the finesse of grainlike noise patterns. And they might be right. Until we have D3X raw file processing with a number of utilities including Adobe Camera Raw (the champion for dynamic range recovery, and the worst for mushing this fine crisp noise into something far coarser and softer) we’ll have to wait and see.

I can just tell you I’m happy with my Alpha 900 and even if I had the money to spare, I would not swap the smaller lighter body, better viewfinder, inbuilt SSS stabilization and slicker interface for the D3X. D700X in future? Maybe, but even then the SSS with the wide range of lenses I use could be the deal-breaker.

Your own choice may be different, and if you are reading this as a Nikon owner, I hope an Alpha 900 sized and priced body does appear in due course for you with this same excellent 24 megapixel performance.

- David Kilpatrick FBIPP Hon FMPA

All images are from uncompressed raw files at the maximum bit depth selectable (if a choice exists), at ISO 100, using ‘Standard’ picture look default as defined by each maker. NR and all other similar controls are turned off, and sharpening is set to the minimum or disabled in every case.

Alpha 900 with 100mm Minolta macro (click image for full size file). Minus -0.35 stops exposure correction needed in IDC2 raw conversion to fairly match the exposure set using the Canon, below.

Canon EOS 5D MkII with 100mm Canon EF macro (click image for full size). Uncorrected raw exposure in raw conversion via DPP.

This image has been added on December 16th, it was taken a week after the others; the lighting and position have been replicated (the lights were left undisturbed but the viola was played, so had to be positioned by matching a print from the Canon. The Nikon DX3 was fitted with a 105mm f/2.8 Nikon AF-S VR Macro lens, at f/11; the ISO 80 (Lo-0.3) setting was used with Capture NX2 shadow and highlight adjustments for a fair match to the in-camera JPEG and the other results. Click image for full size.

The point of focus, using the centre focus sensor for each camera, was the end of the fingerboard. Actual focus showed variations between repeated shots with all three cameras, tripod-mounted and working with two Elinchrom BXRi 500 flash heads. The exposure was set for the Canon and adjusted to be perfect at f/11. However, the Sony JPEGs indicated slight overexposure and the Nikon ones even more; -0.35 exposure compensation was used when processing the Sony files, and -0.65 for the Nikon. For comparison, a Nikon shot taken at the ISO 50 setting, with no exposure adjustment, is included.

Alpha 900 with 28-105mm RS Minolta lens at 105mm (identical tripod position). Throughout this test, I noticed that the Sony could almost have been used with a polarizer, relative to the Canon. For some reason, the Sony suppresses specular reflections and reveals more colour in the wood and fabric. It is not just an exposure and contrast difference (and of course, it was not used with a pol). All cameras were set to Daylight WB, but their definitions of this differ. The Sony and Nikon both have a relatively warm colour, the Canon is very neutral.

Canon EOS 5D MkII with 24-105mm IS L lens at 105mm. Again, not as tight as a true 100mm macro – and both the macros do use internal focusing, so it’s not a matter of real lens extension versus internal focus fakery. Or not entirely to do with that!

Nikon D3X with 24-120mm VR Nikkor at 102mm (composed by eye, tripod moved to allow for thickness of camera grip-base design). Uncorrected conversion (required around -0.65EV to match the Canon brightness) in Capture NX2. See ISO 50 version which follows.

Nikon DX3 uncorrected ISO 50 exposure (a little darker than the Canon ‘correct’ original setup). Nikon does not claim an exact EI 50 for this setting, it is just marked as -1 on the ISO range. The flash is repeatable to 1/10th stop, and with experience of using other lenses on the cameras, the general confirmation would be that the Canon is around 1/3rd stop ‘denser’ in typical raw and JPEG results than the Sony, and the Nikon about 1/3rd stop ‘brighter’. Since the Sony has a very much flatter tonal curve rolling off the highlights (preserving highlight detail) this can not be converted to ‘ISO ratings’, but has practical implications, and each camera should be tested for calibration with a studio flashmeter for use in this environment.

The lens choices

The Sony used a Minolta 100mm f2.8 AF (1986) and a 28-105mm RS f/3.5-4.5 (1993). At 105mm, this lens still did not crop as tight as the macro at 100mm. The Canon used a Canon 100mm f2.8 EF macro and a 24-105mm f/4 IS L. Again, even at 105mm, this lens was not matched at all to the 100mm view. The Nikon, with no macro available, was tested using just the 24-120mm VR f/3.5-5.6. This was matched visually to the 100mm crop, and the focal length reported was 102mm. My lens choices were dictated partly by what was available for loan review from Canon and Nikon, and what lenses I have decided to keep for my Alpha 900. The 28-105mm RS Minolta lens may come as a surprise, but has replaced the 24-105mm D Minolta in my 900 outfit; it’s just a much better lens all round desite being about a decade older.

Focus and depth

f/11 is inadequate, with files of this size, to secure enough depth of field for 100 per cent viewing. But f/16 and f/22 (etc) reduced sharpness greatly by diffraction, and some tests at f/8 gave much better sharpness – with so little depth of field they would be unacceptable. So f/11 was selected as the best compromise, showing d-o-f, bokeh, minor focus errors, and being an aperture at which all the lenses used should be up to the demands of the sensors. All three cameras offer lens specific focus adjustment; it did not prove possible to improve consistency on this subject by using the micro adjustments. The A900 was consistently the most accurate in focusing as targeted. All three cameras had the centre AF sensor only active, in single shot mode.

This test shot highlights the need for tilt lenses (or tilt-shift) in the studio with high pixel count full frame DSLRs. Ideally, the shot would be taken at f/5.6 or f/8 with a high quality 90mm Tilt-Shift tilted to align the plane of focus perfectly so every part of the viola from tailpiece to headstock was sharp. Nikon and Canon both offer exactly such a lens; Sony does not. I have a tilt adaptor (ARAX, from Kiev) and two lenses – 50mm Pentacon and 80mm ARSAT – to fit this. These are no substitute for a good range of Zeiss 24mm, 45mm and 90mm TS lenses to fit Sony Alpha!

In practice, you can stop down to f/22 if you want. Though diffraction effects reduce sharpness, it can be restored by careful use of raw conversion capture-stage sharpening to a level which betters any scan from rollfilm. Diffraction sharpness loss is not the death of a decent digital image, it is just another factor like differential focus blur; you can trade it off against depth of field. Do not limit your technique armoury by refusing to use apertures smaller than the supposed diffraction limit!

The image above is one of my first shots taken with the Alpha 900 – at f/22 on the 17-35mm Minolta D lens. Some strong detail recovery sharpening has been used in ACR when processing the raw file. It’s not perfect but proved to me I could rely on my existing 17-35mm and use the same gamut of depth of field techniques I once used on film.

The software

On an iMac 24″ 2.16GHz running OSX 10.5.5, the Sony IDC2 software was fastest for viewing and most stable (used in conjunction with its companion lightbox app). I had not rated it highly beforehand, and was surprised by the improvement over older versions. Nikon was stable and very fast to save files, but slow to view and to build 100% views for checking focus. Canon’s DPP proved unstable, exit-crashing when asked to handle more than 1000 previews (517 files, raw+JPEG) but OK when prefs were changed to show raws only.

All three programs were relatively tedious and slow in use compared to Lightroom or ACR. Canon appeared to apply a more subtle sharpening and a very steep midtone curve. Sony’s sharpening was coarse and when set to its minimum (not zero) did not seem to aid fine detail recovery (checking these files in ACR revealed better detail, but the Canon files were also improved by ACR). Nikon’s files could not be checked yet using ACR, not supported at the time of this test.

Despite the speed of IDC2, I felt it did the images no favours. Minus 100 sharpening does not prevent fairly ugly coarse sharpening appearing in the shot, and I am told that IDC2 recognises whatever in-camera sharpness was set, and uses this as the very minimum. Since part of this test involved using the defaults of the cameras (Standard picture setting, and no adjustments to contrast, saturation, sharpness etc) plus zero optional processing (NR, DRO, D-Lighting, Lens Shading compensation etc) IDC2 has slightly skewed the view of the raw files.

Why this test?

I had been using the Canon 5D MkII for magazine reviews for two weeks, and the Nikon D3X arrived on the day the 5D departed (again, for a magazine test report). It was necessary to set up something for a planned article comparing the three cameras. Like most of my tests, it is practically based, not a test-chart exercise. I set up and light a subject as if I was taking it for real, and use the camera as I would expect to. I then see what I get.

Update Dec 16: Nikon is sending me a 105mm VR Macro Nikkor, and I will update the shot (need to set it up again as close to this as possible). While I am not happy with the overall performance of the 24-120mm VR on the D3X, I am satisfied that at f/11 in this studio conditions it is not degrading the D3X result, relative to the zoom lenses tested on the other two cameras, but a Nikon macro lens shot is missing and this will be addressed.

All I can tell you for sure is that any one of these cameras will do this job perfectly and the differences you see are insignificant in an A2 reproduction, whether from my Epson 3800 (seen) or in litho print (unlikely to happen!).

- David Kilpatrick