Money no object

twoblacklines said:
Ok :)

One : D3X + 17-35mm F2.8

Two : D3X + 17-35mm F2.8 + 70-200mm F2.8

Then again D3s for sport and D3X for landscape.

It got me thinking earlier, the 1dmk4 AF motor is much better than the D3s, but the D3s iso is far better than the 1dmk4, both in the way you select your iso and the iso performance. So what if you were a war correspondent ? Combat photography..high iso needed for low light, but super fast af needed for combat action... what has best of both ?
Click to expand...

d3s isnt very far ahead iso wise (half a stop). The problem is with the canon you can use it to 5000. Nikon 6400. After that it's just a mush. (cleaner mush on nikon)

Remember also canon has a 1.3x crop and higher res. So when down scaled it gets closer still!
 
robmiller said:
Three lenses isn't exactly forcing people to be choosy! You should have said one, two at the most.

If I'm having one:

D700
Nikon 24mm f/1.4 AF-S

...two:
D700
Nikon 24mm f/1.4 AF-S
Nikon 85mm f/1.4

...three:
D700
Nikon 24mm f/1.4 AF-S
Nikon 85mm f/1.4
Nikon 14-24mm

I never really shoot longer than the equivalent of 85mm on a 35mm body, I like wide angle, I like low light, I like good build quality but not in a full-size body. That setup is absolute perfection for me (or would be with the updated 85mm f/1.4 that's been coming "soon" for years now). Actually if we're being picky I'd probably trade the 24mm f/1.4 for an AF-S 35mm f/1.4, but that doesn't exist so I'll deign to make do with this :)
Click to expand...



35 1.4 will come "soon". And there is a very good older 35 1.4 MF and a 28 1.4

Patents been around years now, like the 24 1.4 patent was a precursor to the release of the lens. Likewise with the 85 1.4

Nikon might try to be quick. Sigma have an 85 1.4 that they are proud of.

End of July should see new cameras and 2-3 lenses.




thinking about primes I reelaise I would really like some 1.8 primes of Pro Quality. I mean the 24 and 85 1.4 are real nice.But the price premium is rather larger. I don't really need absolute depth of focus or maximal light. A 1.8 prime that is superbly sharp corner to corner from 1.8-2.0 with less vignetting, smaller and lighter and cheaper.
You see this with the 85 1.8, if anything it is sharper and has less vignetting than the 1.4. Thus I would love updated 24, 35 and 85 1.8 AF-S. I would also love a 20 2.0. Fast primes that are decently sharper than the pro zooms.
 
1Ds3 (4 if it's out when I win the lottery :D)
200L f/2 IS or 85L f/1.2 II (probably the 85 for indoor portraits)
100-400L IS
16-35L f/2.8 II

Strange I know - but I would want to shoot wide, long or portrait - standard range doesn't get used, if it were 4 lenses, I'd change the 100-400 for the 400 2.8L IS and a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.
 
twoblacklines said:
It got me thinking earlier, the 1dmk4 AF motor is much better than the D3s, but the D3s iso is far better than the 1dmk4, both in the way you select your iso and the iso performance. So what if you were a war correspondent ? Combat photography..high iso needed for low light, but super fast af needed for combat action... what has best of both ?
Click to expand...

If you are your likely using AF-S lenses so the AF motor is irrelevant? I don't actually own any non AF-S lenses any more. You also gain something back as the AF system is arguably better accordingly to most people.

But to be honest the answer is usually you use whatever your agency gives you these days...
 
D.P. said:
14-24 is not really that specialised. 14mm is wide yes, but not much more than 10mm on Nikon DX which I use a lot. Maybe you don't need 2.8, and maybe the lens is big heavy and expensive, etc. The point is From 14 to 24mm the Nikon 14-24 is sharper from corner to corner than basicaly any other lens in existence. Sharperns than the best Nikon, Canon, Zeisse, Leicia primes in the range. It makes the Canon 16-35 look like a consumer toy zoom.
IF you want he best 20mm lens for 35mm film the Nikon 14-24 is the best tool. If you want the best 18mm lens for 35mm film the Nikon 14-24 is the best tool. If you want the best 16mm lens for 35mm film the Nikon 14-24 is the best tool. If you want the best 14mm lens for 35mm film the Nikon 14-24 is the best tool. etc.


Filters smilters. On Digitsl there are very few filters you really need. And You can now buy adapaters to put filtrs on the 14-24. Things like Circ Pol don't make much sense at 14mm anyway.
Click to expand...

Well each to their own but I disagree, at 20mm or 16mm the new 16-35 is as good by most reports (yeah it's slower but if you care about sharpness you aren't shooting wide open anyway), the 14mm isn't worth it for a less useful range for most people and the inability to take the filters which every other professional Nikon lens can, personally I want the option of ND grads at least for any lens I might shoot landscape with (and I like having a blue/gold polarizer option too) and the ones I can use on 77mm threads (virtually every Nikon pro lens) are useless, I don't want to buy and carry the extras.

Basically, it's a hassle of a lens for limited benefit over the alternatives, you need a good reason to want it and that, in my view, makes it specialised...
 
The thing with filters - i would be really worried about scratching the front element on a 14-24...
 
twoblacklines said:
The thing with filters - i would be really worried about scratching the front element on a 14-24...
Click to expand...

Mmm, it's been pointed out before that front element glass is usually pretty tough and if you buy decent filters (I use Nikon 77mm NC filters) for 3 or 4 lenses then you've spent as much on protection as you would replacing a front element in the event you break it.

The jury is out so to speak, I have them and use them on all my lenses but for the 14-24 the filter issue is not being able to use my existing ND grads etc rather than protection...
 
bigredshark said:
If you are your likely using AF-S lenses so the AF motor is irrelevant? I don't actually own any non AF-S lenses any more. You also gain something back as the AF system is arguably better accordingly to most people.

But to be honest the answer is usually you use whatever your agency gives you these days...
Click to expand...

Not talking AF motor. Canon don't have AF motors. They are talking speed & accuracy. The camera is responsible for the focus, providing the lens has decent AF speed it's down to the camera.

AF wise (aside from one or two reports) the 1DIV has the Nikon beaten in terms of AF.

It's the ISO the nikon wins - by about 2/3rds of a stop.

bigredshark said:
Mmm, it's been pointed out before that front element glass is usually pretty tough and if you buy decent filters (I use Nikon 77mm NC filters) for 3 or 4 lenses then you've spent as much on protection as you would replacing a front element in the event you break it.

The jury is out so to speak, I have them and use them on all my lenses but for the 14-24 the filter issue is not being able to use my existing ND grads etc rather than protection...
Click to expand...


I never use filters - with the exeption of at gravel rallies I use a cheap(£40) hoya 77mm UV for the wide angle. But at a rally I don't protect my telephoto. They just annoy me.
 
Last edited:
p0ss3s3d said:
Not talking AF motor. Canon don't have AF motors. They are talking speed & accuracy. The camera is responsible for the focus, providing the lens has decent AF speed it's down to the camera.

AF wise (aside from one or two reports) the 1DIV has the Nikon beaten in terms of AF.

It's the ISO the nikon wins - by about 2/3rds of a stop.
Click to expand...

I haven't personally used the 1DIV, but I know in my experience the Nikon clearly beat the 1DIII when it came to AF (as incidentally did the D700, having the same AF module as the D3/D3x), the most in depth reports I've read (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10048-10484) suggest it's probably a tie now. The AF systems are fundamentally different at the end of the day.
 
bigredshark said:
I haven't personally used the 1DIV, but I know in my experience the Nikon clearly beat the 1DIII when it came to AF (as incidentally did the D700, having the same AF module as the D3/D3x), the most in depth reports I've read (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10048-10484) suggest it's probably a tie now. The AF systems are fundamentally different at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

Rob G is about as reliable as Ken Rockwell!! ;)

The 1DII was better AF wise than the III. :rolleyes: I don't think canon ever really sorted out the performance of the III. I got the chance to use a IV at the weekend. :D:D:D:D

My hit rate with the mkII was about 80%. I used the IV and took three bursts 13 and 17 shots repspectivley. 27 perfect. 3 OOF. 90%? Thats getting better and better.

Like you say different systems. To be fair, I think both cameras ought to hover around the 80-90% mark. [Using a 300mm f/2.8 @ 2.8 BTW :D]
 
p0ss3s3d said:
RMy hit rate with the mkII was about 80%. I used the IV and took three bursts 13 and 17 shots repspectivley. 27 perfect. 3 OOF. 90%? Thats getting better and better.

Like you say different systems. To be fair, I think both cameras ought to hover around the 80-90% mark. [Using a 300mm f/2.8 @ 2.8 BTW :D]
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot better certainly, one of the interesting points raised is that when the Nikon AF misses it tends not to miss by much, whereas the Canon tends to be a long way out - not sure how true you found that?

I'm curious what Nikon come up with next myself, the CAM3500 is getting on a bit now really, it'd be nice to see it upgraded to more cross type points like the 1DIV has while still keeping the sensitivity up.

The truth is both are easily good enough for virtually everything you throw at them these days. Now hopefully Canon see fit to throw the same AF system into the 5DIII when it turns up...
 
Whilst I would love to just get a nice high res MF back, maybe the new Hassleblad H4D system, if it was the only camera I could buy to use for anything, I think the best all round camera at the moment is the D3X. It's not P65+ IQ, or even P30, but it's a far more well rounded camera for shooting a variety of subjects. Lenses I guess would have to be 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. I'd love to have my Canon 35 1.4L and 135 f/2L in the mix but again, if you can only choose 3 lenses I'd be going for versatility over out and out IQ.
 
bigredshark said:
Sounds a lot better certainly, one of the interesting points raised is that when the Nikon AF misses it tends not to miss by much, whereas the Canon tends to be a long way out - not sure how true you found that?
Click to expand...


Sounds about right. It seems the nikon shots are perhaps off more often but only by a foot or so. (Printable in newspapers perhaps).

The canon shots I took - it seemed like three or so foot out. But less often.

So it's a real comprimise. In the end like you say, they are both good enough for a 90%+ hit rate. It just depends what the agency supplies I suppose!

bigredshark said:
The truth is both are easily good enough for virtually everything you throw at them these days. Now hopefully Canon see fit to throw the same AF system into the 5DIII when it turns up...
Click to expand...

Indeed. TBH a 5DIII wouldn't interest me. The two 1DII's I carry now are fine, but I want to upgrade one to a 1DMKIII for the ISO benefit.
 
For me it has to be a Nikon D3X with the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5G, Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G and the 24mm f/1.4 for low-light (I tend to shoot around that length)

With a fair amount of 64Gb CF cards, SB900 and R1C1 and the Nikon Remote Control shutter release.
 
Last edited:
I'd get that as opposed to anything else as it's a full-frame super wide zoom, all the alternatives I sound were the 10-20 f/4.5 (which iirc is for a crop sensor) or going the Prime route (which would end up as the 8mm fisheye which wouldn't look amazing, or the 15mm, which isn't wide enough)

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom