Maybe he meant ISO 6400... These pics are downsized.

edit: nvm we can see the exif.

nikonmonster said:
the 35mm dx was on the camera at nikon booth, not my lens.

They put it on the camera themselves?!

What kind of dimwitted ninepins were running that booth?!

i have shots with the 70-200 vrII but its in raw, i dont have the software at work to convert it.
i ll post it when i get home.
and thank you for the welcoming me.
the 35mm dx was on the camera at nikon booth, not my lens.

Meh, my D90 looks better at ISO 640. Why use a $5200 FX camera with a $200 DX lens? It's like buying a sports car and putting low rolling resistant tires on it. You have all this power but it can't be harnessed because the thing required to use it is not up to the same quality as the camera/car.

Yeah the real test will be at the extreme ISO's. Push it to high levels and let's see what it can do.

On another note, the shots look nice either way. They look clean and smooth.

Welcome to the forum, monster. Was this in DX crop mode? The thing I notice is there's almost no light falloff in the corners, which I would expect from the 35 1.8 on a FF sensor. Did I mention I'm jealous? Thanks.

Nobody cares about ISO 640! We like the big numbers! ;^)

Looks perfectly clean to me—did you take any more at higher ISOs? But why were you using a DX lens?

Thanks for the examples oh and welcome to the forum :^)

i took these today with d3s at iso 640 with 35mm dx 1.8 lens.
what do you guys think at iso 640?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2675/4104387350_610f016139_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2548/4103626477_ac39f99808_b.jpg