Agreed. After careful testing, I find the D90 to run a I would expect from the DXO site data. I still have to check out the dynamic range capabilities. However, I noticed immediately that my defaults for the Shadow/Highlight tool are too aggressive for this body, and in many cases where it is called for with the D80, none is necessary with the D90. What I do want to accomplish is a check on the dynamic range change with ISO changes.
I also added two lenses, one prime, Nikon 50mm f 1.8 another a shorter zoom range Tamron 28 to 75mm f2.8, which I chose because of the results indicated in SLRGear. My objective here is excellent sharpness, CA, vignetting and distortion figures over the focal length range. The downside of the Tamron seems to be that the combination here tends to go on a hunting expedition when auto focusing. I set up a test, and at f8, I could not see any sharpness differences, but at f2.8 I could. I tried different lenses at the store, they all do it.
For critical work, I can see to focus with the F90, but it is a drag. OTOH, setting the focal point with respect to desired DOF has always been the job of the photographer, and depending on autofocus to do that has been a negative for me, no matter the camera's capability. Why I can't have a screen like a split image is beyond me. The manual focus indicator does help, though.
From a qualitative pov, I am finding less need to go the stitched route to excellence in images, but at the same time, the stitched images are smoother due to the low values in distortion and a more consistent exposure from frame to frame when shooting.
I still expect to do the stitched version for the big landscapes, but everything else seems just fine as a single shot.
I probably will add a macro sometime down the line, perhaps the Nikon 85mm prime.I am less sure here because i don't do macros, so I don't know where to land so far as the basic F/L is concerned. The longer versions seem the better route as one can be physically further from the object, but DOF is to be considered as well. So, any suggestions here?
The cinematography capabilities are the most novel part of the D90, and boy, am I bad at that! :D
This is a test. This is only a Test. If there were an actual.....
So, there is more than one way to get a specific smiley. That I didn't know.
back to lenses for a moment. I'm getting nervous about the Tamron. I started the camera this morning, it didn't focus. Ooops! The lens is on manual. Set it to AF. Damn. Still didn't focus. Camera's is on Auto, Check. Flip from AF to MF and back again on the D90 and it runs.
The rest of the system is home so I can't tey different lenses or the D80 with this lens, but if this continues, it goes back and I wait until I can spring for a different zoom. Or go all prime.
Ann, that is a consideration after I cover the range this one does. It's important because the vast majority of my stitching focal lengths fall there.
Certainly tamron is a mixed bag. I am aware of the problem with the flex circuit cable they have had in the past. But the optical performance is of the best in it's range, so for $400, I can tolerate an occasional replacement! The shot I did in the fog a couple of days ago rivals a contact print from an 8x10 neg!
I have been running back and forth this morning on the AF/MF problem, and I cannot replicate it, so it may have been an operator problem.
I do agree that, if the problem results in reducing my output because of such fussiness, the lens goes. I can cover that range with the 18 to 135, albiet with barrel distortion, CA and vignetting to have to compensate.
No way. Why should a new body be any different than an old? Errors in connections are as possible with lenses of the same brand as third party, and would instantly be apparent the first time you use it.
In fact, the only problem I ever had with connectivity between the body and lens was a Nikon lens. It had some sort of crud on a contact. A bit of cleaning and all is well.
> Why should a new body be any different than an old?
Because it was just paid for.
I guess my main concern was a 3rd party not abiding to the correct pin layout and causing damage to the body.
I had it in my mind there is a reason why the lenses are cheaper. I guess I am a bit paranoid.
Regardless of brand IMO a new body will likely have tighter tolerances than one with 100k pix and lots of lens changeouts on it; same for lenses. However those small differences in tolerances at the lens connection point do not appear to be significant to operation.
What may be an issue with 3rd party lenses is full conformance with camera vendors' future electronic capabilities. Not that damage would be likely, rather that certain future features might not be available.
E.g. almost all Nikon lenses will attach to the latest D3x, but at various vintages certain features are unavailable. With tech evolving so quickly and the camera manufacturers very proprietary and very secretive about future plans third party lenses are probably less future proof.
>with two different bodies, 4 lenses, 2 nikon, 2 third party, I have some interesting image profiles with which to work
My apologies in advance if I'm misconstruing that part of your post, but in ACR, you are presented only with the particular profiles that are specific to the camera that generated the image you are opening at any given moment. In other words, the profiles built for camera model A will not be available for camera model B.
I don't mean that kind of profile, Ramon. You are correct about that. Profile in this instance does not involve ACR or PS.
The profile to which I am referring is probably better termed a transfer function, that is, the kind of function which is what you get with film. As you know, each film has it's particular look. But in digital, these values are much more closely matched; nevertheless, when taking the entire system in perspective, you will find more subtle (no Velvia unless you drag the Vibrance slider way over!) variations, and these are fixed. So, I can decide that a particular combination of camera and lens will deliver the look I want. One is crisp and rather wide in tonal range, the other delivers a more dense look, richer, in my view anyway.
These differences are not great, but they start the process rolling in a particular direction.
I got the idea from the way the multiple camera profiles I can get from the D80 in ACR: Vivid, Standard camera etc.
So< I took a second look at what each body can deliver, and I believe that the D80 will still have a role to play.
I called it a profile, but really, it isn't a profile existing as software modifying data, but rather, a look which I memorize and use when shooting by simple selection of hardware.
Hope this all makes sense! :-)
Some differences are far enough apart that one is considered inferior in some way. I would rather try to make use of those differences.
Cutting to the chase, think of it as similar to changing film types, except here you also see that type of difference changing lens brands as well, and, I'll bet, from one class of lenses to another in the same brand.
It's similar to having extra backs on the Hasselblad, but with more complexity. Changing backs is far simpler than changing cameras! It may turn out to be more trouble than it's worth, and if my SO and I are out together, she will be using one or the other anyway.
It's somewhat a justification for keeping the D80, but with some clarity as to what and why.
I haven't checked b&w differences yet, and that would be another consideration.
Sometimes, things get more complex before they get simpler again.
Black and white in raw images? There's no such thing. The in-camera setting for b&w is just a flag that tells the raw converter to demosaic the raw file and immediately desaturate the colors upon conversion.
No, no no, Ramon. I'm using the B&W converter in Photoshop. There is actually a converter in ACR and you can manipulate the b&w with the color sliders available when you select "Convert to Grayscale"/"Grayscale Mix". but I prefer to use the conversion in Photoshop.
I am not referring at all to ACR or RAW when I speak of profiles, Ramon, just as profiles for the printer is not in ACR. I speak of profile in a generic term, not an ACR only term.
Look at it this way. If you shoot the same scene with both cameras in quick succession and open in PS after first running ACR in the default mode for each camera, the images look different. If I were OCD, I would shoot everything in all the combos possible (not gonna happen!) but I can have some variation available.
It's that difference that intrigues me, Ramon, at least in the immediate future. Maybe I won't go there in the long run, but I try everything.
When I taught photography, the students were worried about mistakes in the darkroom. I told them the only true mistake was to do the fixer first. All other variations were simple data points, and that an under or over developed neg with respect to the Time/Temp specified was not necessarily a mistake. Some one might actually prefer the out of spec version. You look and make choices.
If you could see my files on film choice/development, your eyes would roll way back! :D
This simply carries on my pov concerning technique. Mistakes are rare, data points rule!
Anyway, the profile here is in my head, so to speak. I memorize the look with respect to the equipment and choose, not unlike Chopin having two pianos.