Nikon D800......

[Cagey75]

Sure. And I only exaggerate 150 times out of 100!!! I just seen the ol' 'reviews are all wrong' thing going on again. As I said, some of us don't have the luxury of getting a hands on with lenses. I often buy blind/going on reviews. The only time I've been let down was with that sigma, and I reckon I just got a bad copy.

The D600 interested me, but, I couldn't wait to shake off the smaller/lighter body tbh - good as the D90 was. I always missed my old D200. I like a chunkier cam, would love a full size like the D3s or D4 - but I know there would be times I'd rather have something lighter - I've a duffed back and it can be hard as is to hand hold for a few hours. I'm not a tripod fan, though I just bought a new one recently, I've not brought it out yet

 

[arclight]

D800 thread keeps slipping lads. I guess us D800 shooters prefer to get out and shoot than talk shop

I'd like to know what set up you're rockin' - as in, what preferred AF system, mode, do you push the ISO outdoors? say for birding/wildlife in general to get the shutter speeds up? I'm betting even those of you coming from a D3/s find it's a cruel beast for critical focusing?

I just got the 70-200 VR II and though I've not got to test it thoroughly yet, I know I'm going to be pushing that ISO a little more using it on this baby. No problem, really, as I think it's very capable up to 5000 if needed. A little clean up in post, no biggy.

I'm almost always in AF-S, I don't use the drive modes, rarely. One bang on shot, done, if I miss it ... well, wasn't meant to have it. I don't like to change set ups too much, as I'm terrible for switching them back. SO I steer clear of continuous modes, should I try them more?

Anyone shooting full on 14 bit lossless RAW? and why?

I always use AF-S with centre focus point with AF-ON being the exclusive focus control.
Had ISO above 3000 and am impressed - very impressed. I'll be pushing that up as the days darken.

Re 14 bit lossless RAW. No -12 bit lossless compressed, but a few days ago started experimenting with compressed RAW + JPEG Fine. The JPEGS straight out the camera are excellent.
Maybe this will be controversial, but I am not sure that I can see any difference between compressed and uncompressed RAW. Some writers say that a small amount of highlight detail gets lost. Others say the difference is miniscule.
If you can use compressed RAW it sure drops the file size. Be interested on folks thoughts on this.

 

[AshleyC]

ive got a d800 so i guess im allowed to post, if thats ok of course. Althogh i thought we were talking about a lens. Anyway.

that linked test shot



That was 1 button press in lightroom, standard workflow to apply camera profiles, had i bothered to spend 30 seconds more i could make it perfect. Im not slagging the tokina off, i had the 12-24 on my D300 and it was my faveourite lens. But you cant just come out with a blanket statement that the 16-35 is not a great lens. Thats just rubbish and theres plenty of evidence out there to back that up from real world users, not people who point lenses at walls.

 

[Laudrup]

The 16-35 f4 is not a great lens actually, and the D800 will show it's flaws all the more. I wasn't impressed with this lens at all, and there are enough decent lens reviews out there that seem to arrive at the same opinion.... except Ken Rockwell.. who is a tool (but we all know this).

To be honest, the only ultra wide I'd use with the D800 is the amazing 14-24 2.8. Big or not, it's the best.

The best 3rd party lens at this range I've used is the Tokina AF 16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro FX It's WAY better than the Nikkor 16-35.. and I mean WAY better. You need to stop it down to f4 or beyond or it's extreme edges are a bit soft, but centre is always sharp, and borders are sharp from 4f onwards. Very low distortion and low vignetting at the wide end (although there is some as is almost normal for UW)

I read in depth testing of the 16-35mm vs all the Nikon wide zooms and primes and it came out as a very strong performer.

 

[Cagey75]

I always use AF-S with centre focus point with AF-ON being the exclusive focus control.
Had ISO above 3000 and am impressed - very impressed. I'll be pushing that up as the days darken.

Re 14 bit lossless RAW. No -12 bit lossless compressed, but a few days ago started experimenting with compressed RAW + JPEG Fine. The JPEGS straight out the camera are excellent.
Maybe this will be controversial, but I am not sure that I can see any difference between compressed and uncompressed RAW. Some writers say that a small amount of highlight detail gets lost. Others say the difference is miniscule.
If you can use compressed RAW it sure drops the file size. Be interested on folks thoughts on this.

I'm with you on that. I tried 14 bit uncompressed vs 12 bit compressed, and apart from size - if you wanted to print a billboard maybe, you'd be hard pressed to spot the difference. I think only high end fashion studio shooters would have a need for 14 bit uncompressed.

 

[Pookeyhead]

That was 1 button press in lightroom, standard workflow to apply camera profiles, had i bothered to spend 30 seconds more i could make it perfect.

To test a lens you really need to be evaluating the untouched RAW files with no post processes applied whatsoever, surely. Hence the ones on photozone have no lens profiles applied, or CA corrected. What's the point of that on a lesn test?

Im not slagging the tokina off, i had the 12-24 on my D300 and it was my faveourite lens. But you cant just come out with a blanket statement that the 16-35 is not a great lens. Thats just rubbish and theres plenty of evidence out there to back that up from real world users, not people who point lenses at walls.

I can, and I did. Considering it's £900 it's a very disappointing lens indeed. The images speak for themselves. We can postulate as much as we want, but does that image I posted look like a £900 lens to you? Not me me it doesn't, and the images I took with mine did not warrant the £900 either.

Yep.. you can clean it up a great deal in LR, but is that really the point, and does being able to do make it a great lens? No.

I'd be interested to know how many of the people who disagree with both my statement, and the visual evidence presented are owners of this lens.

It's my policy to ignore user's reviews of lenses completely because they're often biased. If you present an example of how a certain lens has issues to those that own one, they will invariably dismiss your findings and go to great lengths to disprove you. I'm used to that, and I often ignore that too.

The proof of a lens is in the images it creates and that is an immutable fact that no amount of arguing (or post processing for that matter) can alter.

It's a perfectly acceptable lens, but one that's simply not worth £900.. and one that is certainly not a great lens.

 

[gramps]

I'm in the thumbs down to the 16-35 camp and I've made it known here before that I took two back and eventually settled on a 14-24.
Others have found the 16-35 to be excellent and if you look at the reviews there is the same sort of disagreement - in the end it's a combination of lens, camera and user.
What I would say to anyone contemplating the 16-35 (if you can find it) is make especially sure that you have a sharp copy because I am convinced there are good'uns and bad'uns.

 

[Gary Coyle]

What I would say to anyone contemplating the 16-35 (if you can find it) is make especially sure that you have a sharp copy because I am convinced there are good'uns and bad'uns.

Absobloodylutly agree 100% but some die hard slagger offers wont regardless.

 

[Pookeyhead]

The only undeniable way to test whether a lens is good or bad is to evaluate the images it produces before you but it. Doing anything else is clearly nonsensical if you think about it.

 

[redhed17]

I was browsing the net yesterday and happened upon a site saying that the Nikon D800 and D4 were not good enough video wise, for the EBU/BBC.

And it seemed that Nikon Australia jumped the gun in claiming that their cameras had passed the EBU tests. Oops. :nono:

I know a lot here don't have anything to do with video, and neither do I, but I find astonishing that with the number of pixels they have and the time they had to develop, relevant to this thread at least for the D800, that they didn't end up with a camera which is of s Pro level.

The D4 didn't fare much better. :shake: For the D4 especially, whose video functionality was trumpeted on release, the video on these cameras seem, for Pro broadcast level at least, to be an own goal. The emphasis for the D800 has been image quality for stills, but still, the video was supposed to be Pro level wasn't it? :shrug:

 

[bloomen]

The BBC camera thing is all down to codecs and processing rather than pixel count. It would probably take an extra dollop of engineering and development to get a dslr through the the testing and the market would be comparatively tiny.

 

[Gary Coyle]

The only undeniable way to test whether a lens is good or bad is to evaluate the images it produces before you but it. Doing anything else is clearly nonsensical if you think about it.

Yup, i'd agree with that, but the only option most of us have is to buy it online first then send it back under the DSR if it's no good.

My local friendly Jessops are immune to getting more than one lens out of the box.

 

[redhed17]

The BBC camera thing is all down to codecs and processing rather than pixel count. It would probably take an extra dollop of engineering and development to get a dslr through the the testing and the market would be comparatively tiny.

But if they were aiming for the Pro market then it looks like they have failed. :shrug: And given the time they had to see what Canon have been doing, then you would think they would got it right. It may be a small market, but it would grow for them, and those that did use the video at that level would be using the top quality lenses. :shrug:

 

[Laudrup]

A guy from BBC HD said:

On the D4:

The camera has very limited controls when in video mode, but has reasonable connectivity, allowing full resolution external monitoring and recording. Sound facilities are sparse, the internal microphone is adequate for note-taking or guide sound, and the microphone connector is a 3.5mm jack offering only un-balanced input.

However, even though the sensor has 16.8 million photo-sites, it achieves only about 1,355×764, only a little better than 1,280×720.

Noise levels are very low, and the camera could be acceptable with ISO settings up to 6,400. Coloured spatial aliasing is present, and is clearly visible even on the camera’s LCD display (921k pixels, about 1,176×784). In theory, meticulous control of the shooting style can minimise this, by using only motivated pans together with fairly short depth of field, such that detail out of the focused plane is always soft and therefore can never provoke aliasing. Exposure range is, potentially, as high as 13 stops, although this will be limited by the acceptability of the noise levels near black.

On the D800:

Video performance is not really acceptable at 1080p, much less so at 720p. Even though the sensor has 36.8 million photo-sites, it achieves only about 1,355×764, little better than 1,280×720.

There is no statement other than neither camera is acceptable for HD programmes for any of the UK broadcasters.

I forget the D800 even does video when I'm out so not a huge deal for me. It does sound like it lags behind Canon in this department.

 

[Cagey75]

Weird, because in any tests I've seen, side by side, the D800 was sharper than the 5DIII. Very noticeably.

But, like you, I forget about video on a dslr. I've used it ... twice, and nothing much, just testing. About 5 minutes each time.

I don't really care what the BBC say on it, because anyone who buys a dslr for the video can't be 100% serious about it. You would surely opt for a dedicated HD recorder if video is your thing.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Yup, i'd agree with that, but the only option most of us have is to buy it online first then send it back under the DSR if it's no good.

My local friendly Jessops are immune to getting more than one lens out of the box.

There are loads of sites that post up unmolested RAW files to have a bit of a pixel peeping session at. That's what I'd do. .

 

[gramps]

There are loads of sites that post up unmolested RAW files to have a bit of a pixel peeping session at. That's what I'd do. .

Sites that sell lenses that post up pics from the lens for you to look at?

 

[Gary Coyle]

edit

 

[Gary Coyle]

That doesnt tell me anything about the one i'd be buying from a shop.

 

[Cagey75]

Is the bad-copy percentage really that high that you'd be so worried about getting one?

 

[EspressoJunkie]

I don't really care what the BBC say on it, because anyone who buys a dslr for the video can't be 100% serious about it. You would surely opt for a dedicated HD recorder if video is your thing.

On the contrary there are plenty of people who buy a DSLR for the video. The video dept in my work have recently bought two 5dmkiii's which are their primary cameras, they also have a pro level dedicated Sony HD video camera, but they use the canons more.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Sites that sell lenses that post up pics from the lens for you to look at?

No, I mean review sites like DP review or Photozone. There always an unedited image available.

That doesn't tell me anything about the one i'd be buying from a shop.

I think you may be panicking over nothing here.

Is the bad-copy percentage really that high that you'd be so worried about getting one?

I work in a college, and I often borrow equipment. As an example, I have a 24-70 here numbered #13.. I think we have around 18 of them. If I need two bodies on the go I'll borrow a second from work and I just grab what's available. I've never noticed any variability in any of the lenses I've used.

Do you really think that Nikon's quality control is so bad that you actually get a visibly different lens than someone else's? Do you not think that would be something that would utterly destroys Nikon's reputation?

 

[gramps]

No, I mean review sites like DP review or Photozone. There always an unedited image available.



I think you may be panicking over nothing here.



I work in a college, and I often borrow equipment. As an example, I have a 24-70 here numbered #13.. I think we have around 18 of them. If I need two bodies on the go I'll borrow a second from work and I just grab what's available. I've never noticed any variability in any of the lenses I've used.

Do you really think that Nikon's quality control is so bad that you actually get a visibly different lens than someone else's? Do you not think that would be something that would utterly destroys Nikon's reputation?

Looking at reviews tells you next to nothing about the lens you will actually receive or how it will perform on your camera.
Variations in lenses are fact, some models/manufacturers more than others.

 

[Cagey75]

On the contrary there are plenty of people who buy a DSLR for the video. The video dept in my work have recently bought two 5dmkiii's which are their primary cameras, they also have a pro level dedicated Sony HD video camera, but they use the canons more.

I am aware a lot of people do use them for video, I just don't really get why when they have some great dedicated rigs for video out there now. I guess it's the lens choices? DOF ... can't see any other advantages.

Anyway, regardless, a dslr is a stills camera first and foremost. I see video as a bonus

 

[Cagey75]

Looking at reviews tells you next to nothing about the lens you will actually receive or how it will perform on your camera.
Variations in lenses are fact, some models/manufacturers more than others.

I've said itmany times, some of us don't have the luxury of getting a hands on with a lens until we actually buy. We have to go by something. Reading many reviews and using the scores/performance reports as an average is surely better than ignoring them altogether.

Do you never read reviews?

 

[gramps]

I've said itmany times, some of us don't have the luxury of getting a hands on with a lens until we actually buy. We have to go by something. Reading many reviews and using the scores/performance reports as an average is surely better than ignoring them altogether.

Do you never read reviews?

Of course but that isn't what was being discussed, the discussion was about the lens you end up with and the variations that can occur.
I read reviews on the 16-35 and listened to experiences from others but in the end the two I got went back for a 14-24.
I agree that if you can't get 'hands-on' then it's difficult - be careful which lens you go for I guess :shrug:

 

[Cagey75]

Price is a major factor too. I would personally save the extra for the 14-24 if I wanteda wide angle. But again, I would only be going on reviews.

 

[Laudrup]

The difficulty and expense of filters for landscape makes the 14-24mm a turn off. The Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 looks good, as does the new Zeiss 15mm f/2.8. The 16-35mm would definitely get a look in just for the filters and the VR is a nice bonus. It seems quite a hard lens to source too?

 

[gramps]

The difficulty and expense of filters for landscape makes the 14-24mm a turn off.

I agree, it's not ideal for filters, the Lee kit I bought for mine significantly added to the cost and at the time seemed to be the last one in the country!

 

[Gary Coyle]

The 16-35mm would definitely get a look in just for the filters and the VR is a nice bonus. It seems quite a hard lens to source too?

You'd think the secondhand market would be flooded with poor owners offloading them if it were as bad as some folk make out

 

[Pookeyhead]

Here's what I think:

Mr X buys Lens A.

Mr X's attention is drawn to a review of Lens A that is less than 100% flattering.

Mr X then refuses to accept this because Mr X's lens is obviously fantastic... it costs £900 didn't it?

Mr X is therefore convinced that Lens A has serious deviances in manufacturing tolerances because, after all, Mr X's is perfect and clearly not the same as the ones being tested by everyone else.

 

[PaulMW]

I have the 14-24 and the 16-35, but to be honest I have to admit to very little use of either of them so wouldn't like to make comparisons as yet.

I recently took a trip to the Canadian rockies and took the 14-24 as well as my 24-70 and 70-200, I have the Lee 150mm filter set for the 14-24 plus the adaptor that allows you to use the same 150mm filters on other lenses, however the big drawback to this is that you cannot use a polariser with the 150mm filter set as Lee don't make one. So if using for example the 24-70 I could either use my 150 ND grads OR I could use my circular polariser and could not use both at the same time. I found this to be a major disadvantage to the 150 filter system when using it with lenses other than the 14-24.

So options are to carry 2 different filter systems or to leave the 14-24 and take my 16-35.....

Next weekend I plan a trip to the Dorset coast, this time I am going to leave the 14-24 at home and take my 16-35 and my 100mm Lee system, so hopefully I will be in a better position to pass on my own experiences of the 16-35 then!

Back to topic, I have to say I find the D800 a fantastic camera for landscape use and am absolutely delighted with it

 

[Gary Coyle]

By name and by nature

 

[Pookeyhead]

Back to topic, I have to say I find the D800 a fantastic camera for landscape use and am absolutely delighted with it

Something we can all agree on

 

[Cagey75]

By name and by nature

Are you talking about me? Because I'm not really

 

[Moreorless]

We've been here before, and it still doesn't make sense. I just gave up trying.

Photozone, whether or not you like them, are usually spot one. They do actual testing. The random people you trust on a forum are usually hailing out of the expense they've paid. Even when they know in their heart's they're wrong. Seens so many bad lenses get praised over the years, not just on here. People clinging to hope it's like.

Reviewers are not the enemy, they are there to do a job, they don't test for the sake of it.

Thinking the reviewer may have a bad copy is just a bit ... lame tbh.

I thought on the 16-35 too, because I don't do many ultra wide shots and didn't want to spend so much on the 14-24. It wasn't Photozone alone that turned me off I can tell you. But a good mix of reviews. They cannot all have received a bad copy, and if so, then Nikon's rep must have sunken lower than Sigma on that one lens.


I do agree, Ken Rockwell is a fool, I don't ever even bother looking there. Not because he's wrong, but because he changes his mind on everything soon as a newer, bigger, more modern version pops up, suddenly all that he said was glorious is now crud ... he's a tit.

But please don't turn this thread into an anti-review thing like the last childish mess, people who go around bashing reviews like their word means more ... are just worse. Really. We don't all get to hold every lens ever. We have to trust in something. And I've seen far too many forumers over the years spew crap about lenses just because they own them. Solid ... my hole.

I do tend to trust reviews over "its good" or "its bad" type opinions on the net since as you say there solid foundation and normally(not Ken Rockwell) no bias involved.

Part of the problem I'v got with the 16-35mm and 17-35mm though is that reviews are rather thin on the ground with really only Photozone and DxO mark covering both in detail and coming up with conflicting opinions.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Part of the problem I'v got with the 16-35mm and 17-35mm though is that reviews are rather thin on the ground with really only Photozone and DxO mark covering both in detail and coming up with conflicting opinions.

I've been reading up on DXO's testing methodology. For a start, resolution... most people's biggest desirable quality in a lens, seems to be a score arrived at by averaging the lowest and highest across the focal range, but they then weight it across the field, so it seems they arrive at scores from the maximum resolution resulted from each focal length which will be an average of the resolutions obtained across the frame. There is no discreet resolution data for each part of the frame like photozone. Also.. their data is weighted according to criteria that they set themselves...!!!

The resolution score is computed as follows:
For each focal length and each f-number, we first normalize (scale on a 24x36mm sensor) the resolution measurement and then weight it throughout the field, tolerating less resolution in the corners than in the center.

Essentially a lens with weak corner performance and good centre performance will do better on this test than a test that just reports centre, border, edge figures separately and let's the viewer decide if that's important for themselves.

Despite this, the overall DxO rating is between poor and good for this lens, and the Photozone is rated average in their scoring summary. They seem to be more in agreement than you think.

You see why reading tests can be misleading? Looking at the images a lens produces is fool-proof however: You look at the images it produces, and see if they're acceptable to you or not.

 

[gramps]

Here's what I think:

Mr X buys Lens A.

Mr X's attention is drawn to a review of Lens A that is less than 100% flattering.

Mr X then refuses to accept this because Mr X's lens is obviously fantastic... it costs £900 didn't it?

Mr X is therefore convinced that Lens A has serious deviances in manufacturing tolerances because, after all, Mr X's is perfect and clearly not the same as the ones being tested by everyone else.

Why does Nikon equip some cameras with 'micro adjust'?

 

[Pookeyhead]

You mean AF adjust? That's to correct deviations in AF phase detection, but that's purely for AF accuracy, not to adjust for individual lens characteristics. CA, edge sharpness, contrast etc.. these are fixed things that are a product of the lens design.

 

[gramps]

But it demonstrates that there are variations with camera/lens combos specific to different users, hence why some may experience dissatisfaction with a lens whereas others may swear by its quality.
Just consider the wide ranging opinions on Sigma lenses for example ... that just couldn't happen without there being some justification.