bigwolf40 wrote:
What you are saying about MT is true but what he is saying about this lens is what he has heard or read about from other people. He himself has not tried the lens so he can't give a proper review and he never said that he used the lens himself and this does make a big difference. I have a HD 27 inch monitor and the photos I've seen look pretty darn sharp to me and when they are a touch soft I found them to have noise and with that removed they look good...Rich
Have you tried BIF (bird-in-flight) with AI servo AF? This operation mode is where people complained about the Tamron 150-60o AF with Canon 7D. If you search this topics from March on, you will find these issues/comments (this is what MT said about well documented issues). Comments from Canon users in Late May and early June indicating the firmware update has resolved this issue.
I canceled my pre-order in March (Nikon mount) and will wait for a while to learn more about the experience from Nikon users.
taylorzacre wrote:
The 7100 is definitely an upgrade. The 90 has been a Nikon workhorse for years, but in pretty much every head to head comparison the 7100 wins. Both have a DX format, so if you are really wanting to upgrade, have you considered the 610 with a full frame sensor. Now the only thing that makes the 7100 more attractive is the price.
I upgraded my D90 to a D600 (now D610) early this year and is very happy with the change.
Frapha wrote:
I believe it only locks at the 18mm setting.
I had one on my D90 and yes, it only locks at 18 mm setting. A little disappointment.
mldavis2 wrote:
These rants never cease, so there is credibility on both sides.
I had both in my lab based on the hardware that came with each lab instrument. Most of our equipment (GC's, FTIR's, NMR's, OCP-IES, etc.) came with PCs. Our DNA stuff was MAC based. We spent more money on the Apple computers per machine than we ever did with the PC's, and none of them were "high end" examples of their respective arts.
I build my own machines for desktop use. It allows me to select the very best components, and it's far cheaper than a boxed machine. I don't know of anyone who has built a MAC. There is no advantage in speed or software or price. Never had an issue with screen calibration, parts failure, operating system or malware/virus intrusion.
If you're a boxed computer artist, buy a MAC if you can afford one but don't expect to work on it, update it or add much in the way of memory or graphics.
These rants never cease, so there is credibility o... (
show quote)
Usually I do not want to get into Window PC versus MAC argument. Each one has its own advantages and dis advantages. I was managing (retired now) an Analytical lab for a major chemical company and I am not aware any NMR instrument using Windows. Major NMR instrument company (Bruker, Varian (now Agilent) uses UNIX system not Windows ( MAC OS is also based on UNIX system. In the 90's SCIEX (Mass spectrometer company) uses MAC and all users love it. It took them a couple of years to have a Windows software to be functioning close to MAC. The main reason SCIEX has to change to Windows is due to the pressure of users want to be able to integrate their instruments on their corporation network system ( most if not all corporation like Windows on their network - not MAC). Market share does not indicate superiority. GM sold more chevy than Lexus, BMW and MB. Need me to say more.
A couple of years ago, a reviewer commented that the fastest machine running Windows is a MAC.
I am using both Windows PC ( also build several systems) and IMAC at home and also running some Windows programs on MAC using visualization software without any degrade in performance. It is harder to upgrade IMAC but I just add an internal SSD without any difficulty last month for my 5 year old IMAC.
As I said before, Windows and MAC computer both has its advantages and disadvantages. The decision is down to individual personal preferences.
Tatertot13 wrote:
How do you check the shutter count on the Nikon D90?
Thank you. Michelle
If you have Photoshop, go to the file info-advanced-under schema, the imagenumber is the shutter count.
You can also upload your latest photo to "www.nikonshuttercount.com" to get the shutter count of that photo.
LFingar wrote:
Out of curiosity I just checked my Canon 6D. Turning live view on and off makes no difference in the numbering of photos and I suspect it makes no difference in the actual shutter count, but I can't verify that.
Are you looking at the picture file # or actual the shutter count?
My picture file# only increase by one but the shutter count (using Photoshop) has been increased by two due to the mirror up/down.
norman1312 wrote:
So, even if you switch live view on and don't actually record anything, the count goes up?
I decided to test the shutter count with My D600. I took a picture then switch to live view then switch off without taking any picture. After that I took another picture.
The shutter count for the second picture is increased by two. This indicates that flip mirror up and mirror back down increase shutter count by one even without taking any pictures.
I think your D90 behaves the same.
norman1312 wrote:
No, this isn't another post asking how you get the shutter count for your camera.
Back in the (bad) old days, we were encouraged (every so often) to fire the shutter of your SLR at each of your shutter speeds.
I'm not sure how you could work out the shutter count then.
However, in the DSLR days, that is clearly unnecessary (unless someone tells me otherwise) so I would have expected that the shutter count should match the numbering of the latest shot.
On my D90 it doesn't. It's about 60 higher.
Any suggestions why this should be?
No, this isn't another post asking how you get the... (
show quote)
The actual shutter counts will be higher than your photo counts. Every time you switch to live view or mirror up, the shutter count will be increased.
Erik_H wrote:
The shutter is not the only moving part when you take a picture, the mirror has to move up and out of the way as well.
You are right, every time you use "live view" it adds the count.
Accelerator wrote:
It is an exif data count from the card used to test the camera and some of these cards may have been in 20 cameras before yours thus having a high count. Nikon supplies documentation stating when the shutter was replaced. Record your count from when you get it back. Some come back with 1000 clicks and I have read of some saying 15,000 paper work is key. A factory new shutter will not fix any wear and tear on the rest of the camera or any of the equipment you did not send them so as stated above resetting to zero would be dishonest. I wish mine had come back saying 1070 but alas it did not. It does however work very well and I will probably wear it out not sell it.
It is an exif data count from the card used to tes... (
show quote)
I am looking at the exif data from the pictures I took. I did not send any SD card with my D600. After got my D600 back, my first picture showed image number around 1070 from Photoshop under "file info","advanced", "Schema", aux:image number. I thought this is the shutter count. It was over 7000 before I send my D600 in for service.
Izza1967 wrote:
Not really a fair comparison, after all cameras only really have the shutter as a movable part.
I thought the shutter was being replaced, hence I would expect a zero shutter count.
Is the shutter count zero when you receive a new camera and if so does that mean it hasn't been tested at all?
I had over 7000 count when I sent mine in for current Nikon advisory services, although I have no excessive dust issue (bought mine in August, 2013 and was told by B&H that Nikon replaced all D600 shutter mechanism in their inventory). After returned with a new shutter, the count was only 1070. After read all the thread, I have no idea what was going on. May someone closer to Nikon services can find out for us once for all.
jerryc41 wrote:
Okay, so using that info, and looking at the chart below, is this correct?
The best lens in each category:
Score: F/2.8
Sharpness: F/4
Transmission: 28-300mm
Distortion: F/2.8
Vignetting: 28-300mm
Chromatic: F/2.8
Not quite the way you see it. Overall score is the most important factor. I am not fully understand the transmission yet. But with the overall score of 17, I rule out the 28-300 completely. For Vignetting the lower (absolute #) the better therefore, 28-300 is the worst, not the best ( dropped more light). I bought my 70-200 f/4 based on this. it is comparable to the f2.8 but is over $1000 cheaper.
lone ranger wrote:
I just ordered it, to use with my nikon 105 2.8 macro and my Nikon 70-200 VR 1 lens, anyone else one this item?
According to the Nikon site. AF is not possible for any Teleconverters for AF-S 105 mm f/2.8 lens. No limitations on 70-200 mm f/2.8.
I use the 1.7 on 300 mm F4 for the reach and the pictures are OK.
jerryc41 wrote:
DxO should offer some explanation for them.
Hi Jerry:
I decided to dig into the DxOMark Lens scores once for all.
You are right, the lens score is associated with the camera tested. Therefore you should make sure the right camera is selected.
For DxOmark Score, the higher number the better and is specific for a given focal length/aperture combination.
oldtigger is right, I will not buy any lens if the score is bellow 20. Good zoom lens is in the upper 20s and most prime is in the 30s.
The lens metric score is a little complicated. They are averaged over the wide range of focal length.
Sharpness: The higher number the better. It is expressed in PMpix. Differences below 1 P-Mpix are not noticeable.
Distortion: The value 0 is the perfect case; 1% is high. A value of 0.2% corresponds to a noticeable distortion.
Vignetting: Vignetting is expressed in Exposure Value (EV).No vegetating at all (0 EV) is perfect Very wide aperture lenses are likely to show more vignetting (more than 2 EV). Variations below 1/3 EV are barely noticeable.
Chromatic Aberration: Chr. Abberration are expressed in micrometers (um). The perfect value is 0; a value of 30 is very high. A value of 5 um is noticeable and represents about 1 pixel for most cameras.
Transmission: Numbers obtained by measure the T-stop at the largest possible aperture then averaging over the whole range of focal length. T-stop has indirect impact on the image, since it will usually change autoexposure behavior. A lower transmission can result in longer exposure time or higher ISO. Variation below 10% will not be noticeable.
The above explanations are directly quoted from DxOmark web site.