Recent content by Jamougha

The trouble with comparing images at 100% from cameras with different numbers of megapixels is that it's effectively comparing different magnifications. Still the S5 does well. The D700 is sick. :)

Canon have the 400D and the 450D. The 450D is better than the D60 but also more expensive. The D80 has a better autofocus system, a built in motor to allow autofocus with some older lenses and better ergonomics.

How about this? 100% crop from an image at 6400 iso and pushed just a tad so it's a decent torture test.

I'm evaluating DxO at the moment and it's the first piece of software to impress me enough that I might pay money for it. However that's not for the noise removal. Possibly I need to learn the settings a bit better but so far it has just turned noise into artifacts that can't be removed with...

It's not compatible, it's not a real macro and from what I've seen it's not any good. :) Like flash, in that price range I would get the Nikon 55-200mm VR. I have that both that and the 70-300 VR, and unless I'm expecting wildlife I often pack the much lighter 55-200. The 70-300 is the better...

My most used f-stop is 1.4. :) f/1.4 and 6400 ISO gets you shots that genuinely couldn't have been taken a few years ago. I used to think that people were talking rubbish about primes making you a better photographer. Then I noticed that I seemed to get more shots that I liked if I wend out...

Nope, currently Nikon has more market share than Canon. A few years ago this wasn't true though. AFAICT, the main reason the Nikon glass is more expensive is that, even after tripling production in the last three years, they still can't keep up with demand, and so there's no incentive to cut...

Nope, most of the Nikon glass in now ED. Even the cheapo 55-200mm VR.

Buy the sigma. Nikon will make an AF-S 35mm f/1.4 eventually but when they do it will be very expensive. Possibly around a thousand euros and maybe much more. And there's no guarantee that it will happen in the next two years.

Yup, whatever set of legs you get really. Plus some arca-swiss type quick release plates. It gets expensive really fast.

Probably worth getting carbon fibre legs then. Velbon is quite a bit cheaper than Gitzo and pretty decent. However if you're going to end up buying longer lenses in the future you may be better off buying a top of the line gitzo now.

Is it going to stay in a studio or are you going to be walking around with it?

Well two lenses fit, the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. According to the reviews I've seen the tamron is better as well as cheaper.

Images shot from raw are sharper. Not a whole lot, but the best algorithms for converting the bayer matrix data into pixel data are cpu intensive and can't run on a camera. Raw files contain a lot more data, which can give superior results if you do postprocessing of any kind. Changing...

Well I'm sure the 14-24 is optically far superior to the 10-20, and I completely agree that if you want the highest image quality on a limited budget then the D60 plus pro Nikkors is the way to go. However if I had the 14-24 along with the 10-20 then I think that the 10-20 would see a lot more...