More samples from the latest Nikon gear

I did not want to wait for the weekend to post this, so here are some more samples from the latest Nikon gear:

  • Bjorn Rorslett thoughts on the 85mm and 28-300mm lenses - quote1, quote2
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • The invisible man

    On B&W 85mm f/1.4 picture, the broken look weird.
    A 9 blades diaph should give better shapes for the out of focus.

    • The invisible man

      “Bokeh” ?
      Why does English have to be so difficult ?
      I don’t even know if “bokeh” it’s the right spelling, anyone ?
      I ‘ll ask Peter again to do French version of NR.

      • Bokeh is correct. Incidentally, of the few DPs I’ve discussed bokeh with, none were aware what that word meant until I used the word with them. My understanding is that it’s a word that’s more common in the photo world than the cinema world. Or maybe I’m just talking to the wrong DPs. 🙂

        • The invisible man

          @ Ron Adair
          Merci beaucoup !
          We don’t have a specific word for it in French, “flou artistique” or “flou d’arrière plan”.
          The “bokeh” was not very popular years ago because the lenses were not very fast, and the manual focusing is not perfect, so it was safier to use slower apertures.

          • THURO

            Bokeh comes from the Japanese word boke ぼけ which means blur. Salut du le Mexique.

            • ありがとうThuroさん。 You beat me to it.

              The Wiki explanation is incorrect in regards to pronunciation, however.

              “it is properly pronounced with bo as in bone and ke as in Kenneth, with equal stress on either syllable”

              The “ke” part is *not* like “Kenneth.” It’s more like the lady’s name “Kay.”

              The simplest way I can think to explain the pronunciation is to think of the word, “Okay” and just add a B to the front of it.

        • @Ron, cinema lenses all just seem to have wonderful bokeh. I think it’s only people that adapt 35mm lenses that become aware of things not looking good and find the name for it.

          @The invisible man: The shape of the blades only comes into play when you stop down. Wide open the iris blades don’t even show in most lenses.

          And I’m still shocked that it’s so mediocre wide open. And why are people arguing about this on the dpreview forum? It’s plain as day in the shots on

          • @Micah

            Man, I couldn’t agree more — cinema lenses are beautiful. I haven’t seen but MAYBE one that I haven’t absolutely fallen in love with at first sight. My favorite: Anamorphic. Can’t beat that sweet look in focus and beautiful bokeh when out.

            • ZoetMB

              Most DPs do not like to shoot in anamorphic, partially because of the limited lens choices and partially because anamorphic lenses are quite large.

              That’s why some films are shot in 3-perf Super35. They can use regular spherical lenses and then expand the image vertically in the lab to make it compatible with an anamorphic print.

              2-perf Techniscope is similar, but uses even less negative area.

              Both result in LOTS of grain. Spielberg’s Minority Report was shot in 3-perf Super 35 and IIRC, the grain is the size of golf balls.

            • Oh, I love nothing more (visually) than movies shot anamorphic, even if poorly shot. Something about the images that come off those lenses. I love the flares. And I LOVE the bokeh, especially when light sources are in the bg. I love rack focus on humans, how the distortion does funny things as they come into focus. I love human faces on anamorphic lenses.

              I’m an anamorphic junkie.

              Loved Minority Report. I didn’t personally mind the grain. But you’re right, there is a TON of grain.

          • (Of course, our $5k – $10k high end lens prices pale in comparison to the ~$30k starting point for good cine lenses) 🙁

      • Bokeh was originally a Japanese word ぼけ 😀

        • Interesting. Thanks, gnohz!

          • Worminator

            It means blurred… or stupid. 🙂

            • Really? Or is that a joke? Funny if true…

            • Hikikomori

              That is right.
              The pronounciation is the same but they are different words. “Bokeh” comes from a japanese word bokeru (暈ける) meaning “to be faded” or “to be blurred”.

              The word meaning “idiot / stupid” has a different kanji character, so it is a different word.

              The letter “h” is added to the end of “boke” so English people know to pronounce it correctly… bo-ke.

            • Godzirra

              Baka (ばか)= Stupid
              Boke (ぼけ) = Blur/Haze

              In “English” we write it Bokeh to reflect the sound of the word.

              Now if Americans could just pronounce Nikon right.
              It’s: ニコン Ni-Ko-N

              Not Nai-Kon.


            • Hikikomori

              Well, ‘baka’ is also ‘stupid’, but we are not talking about it.

              Actual ‘boke’ (惚け or 呆け) is also ‘stupid, idiot, fool or the funny man of manzai duo’.
              Baka is irrelevant to the boke/bokeh thing.

            • preston

              In all American tv commercials for Nikon, they pronounce it Nai-kon. So your issue should be with Nikon USA, not all Americans. We just repeat what we hear 🙂

            • Exactly. Those French, Italians, Brits, Africans, South Americans, Asians, and Slavs have it all wrong.

              It’s Nai-kon. I saw it on TV. 🙂

              Every time I hear Nee-kon, I cringe. Of course, it’s only how I was raised hearing/saying it. So, is Canon actually pronounced Kay-nun outside of the U.S.?

            • Hikikomori

              What’s with the long vovel?
              It is just Ni-kon. Say it like it is written without any weird pronounciation twisting. When will you people of U.S. learn? You should adopt the metrics too while you are at it, like the civilized world has already.


              Personally I usually pronounce Canon products as “colon products”.

  • Texasjoe

    Great wedding pics with the 85 1.4. Truly beautiful.

  • Ant

    Difficult to judge high-ISO performance of the D3100 with shrunken images like that. Or have I overlooked the full-sized files?

    • Its there, you overlooked. Its not bad either!

      • I would like to see these samples with NR turned OFF. Can’t get a real sense of what the image quality is at 14mp with images being NR processed.

        • fork()

          Wait…what? Does turning NikonRumors on and off make a difference in IQ? Confused…


    • Andy

      Yes you did miss the ORIGNAL size button -take a closer look

    • Artemk

      May be it’s just me, but with ISO 1600 it’s pretty noisy.

      • WoutK89

        considering its bottom of the line (D3100), I say its looking very usable

      • SA

        If it’s pretty noisy in this case ISO 1600 on D40 very noisy.

        • iamlucky13

          Yep. I’d honestly rate the ISO 3200 sample I’m looking at right now as good as my D40 at ISO 400, and that’s with over twice as many pixels.

          Sure, it’s easy to see the grain in the full-size, but with my 96 ppi monitor, I’m looking at the equivalent of a 30″ x 45″ print from 18 inches away.

          On the other hand, it has a slightly artificial look due to the noise reduction, which definitely counts for part of the apparent improvement over the D40.

          At some point DpReview will have side-by-side comparisons with the D5000. That will be the interesting test.

          • Worminator

            Airbrushed. Thats what they seem like to me. Gauzy, low contrast, wiped of any indication of texture.

            Clean with good edge definition, yes, but really not my cup of tea.

            Very similar to the K-x. Even with the noise reduction turned off they look like this, because some level of noise reduction is applied to the RAW data automatically.

            • Roger

              Pentax applies NR to raw indeed. I wouldnt judge D3100 just yet, not until I see the raw files for myself.

              Come to think of it, I never evaluate any camera and its image quality without having raw files. That’s something I strongly recommend to everyone. 🙂

            • Agreed. Until the raws are available to pick apart, especially side by side shots with another more well known sensor, then the samples offer little value.

    • Ant

      Thanks guys, I looked again and found the images. First impression is that it must be over a stop better than my D40x. The effect of the noise isn’t too unpleasant. With my camera at ISO1600 it looks like the contrast is exaggerated, here it looks more natural. My gut feeling is that it’s a thumbs up.

  • hah

    the 85 1.4 seems even better than the original. good news for everybody looking to upgrade.

  • Pellevin

    If the ISO of the new D90 is even better there will be no need to go FX for great ISO-performance that is for sure. But of course with DX cameras like this Nikons next FX must beat even D3s in the dark…

    • That’s the thing that I keep coming back to. High ISO performance. Despite what some have posted here, I do see a real need for even better low-light performance, and I’m expecting that Nikon will continue to push further in that realm. It’s their trademark now, like it or not. Of course, 25,000 IS incredible, and satisfactory for a huge population of shooters, both amateur and professional alike.

      I’ll put it this way:

      – I’ll be 0% surprised if Nikon announced a higher ISO in their next (D4) body
      – I’ll be 65% surprised if Nikon announces anything drastic for their D4 megapixel count, say, something over 16-18mp
      – I’ll be 90% surprised if the D4 has LOWER performance in high-ISO ranges (say a reduced ISO limit e.g. 51,200 max), and
      – I’ll be 100% thrilled if the D4 offers higher ISO AND higher MP count.

      • Broxibear

        “I’ll be 100% thrilled if the D4 offers higher ISO AND higher MP count.”

        I think it will, but be prepared for the price as it’ll be higher than the D3x which is currently £4700 ($7244).

        • Bobby

          I don’t think the D4 will go placed at the D3x price point, It will probably be around the $5000 mark as the D3s before it.

          • Agreed. It will be the same as the current D3s or darn close.

            • Global

              The D3x price was idiotic. Nikon lost a lot of money that could have been made off that one. Canon and Sony went the right way. Sorry Nikon but the D3x approach was just dumb, reputation with medium-format wannabes aside.

              D3s is more like it. And if the D800/D4 have about 18mp and D3s ISO it will be an amazing camera worthy of buying. But for 16mp or just D700 ISO, you might as well just buy a D700.

              16mp is a joke unless it has D3s ISOs — in which case its good, tempting to upgrade. 18mp with D700 ISOs — OK, but I wouldn’t upgrade for it. 24mp with D700 ISOs — good, tempting to upgrade.

              18mp with D3s ISOs — winner.

              D3x pricing needs to be phased out of Nikon’s existence. That was just a ridiculous loss of sales opportunities while Canons and Sony’s were selling like hot cakes.

            • I’d be interested in knowing how much revenue the D3x brought in compared to the D3/D700/D3s, also what the profit margins were on each. Did Nikon ever break out those details in their financial reports? Anyone who’s good with FCC filings care to dig around and see what can be gleaned? 🙂

              My point is, maybe Nikon only knows how well the D3x did earnings-wise for the company. I suppose we’ll know soon enough when they release the next “X” designated body based upon the price at which they decide to list it.

            • Sensor Size…

              Nikon isn’t listed on any of the US stock exchanges, so the more stringent US rules regarding financial statements do not apply.

              It does, however, need to comply with the rules of the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and those numbers are available on their website:

              And those US financial disclosure rules would be by the SEC not <FCC

            • Haha… Definitely a 3am post! Thanks, @Sensor Size 🙂

            • PHB

              Nikon may well have sold as many D3x bodies as they could make.

              That pricing says to me ‘limited production capacity’. Like several earlier x models, it was a camera for people who had to have that high resolution right then and there and could not wait to the next model upgrade.

              As for the MP issue, there is no reason that the D4 has to mean the end of the D3s. Nikon can easily sell a 24 MP/ISO 6400 D4 alongside a 12MP/ISO 12800 D3s. They have been selling two flagship cameras for two years now.

            • I too would expect Nikon to keep selling the D3s for some time after the next generation is released. It’s just too darn good of a camera to stop production, unless something else comes along that out specs the D3s in every way.

              You may well be right about the new D4 specs. Would Nikon really release a higher MP replacement for the D3s that was 1-2 stops LOWER in high ISO? I would think they’d catch hell for it.

              I guess the object of this discussion is to spaz out on all the possibilities of what may happen in the future, which is without a doubt great fun. I for one am very interested to see what ends up happening.

      • Bars


        High ISO performance is identical on DX and FX bodies. FX merely gives you the OPTION of using a lower ISO to capture the same image, and give up the same amount of DOF in doing so.

        If you need High ISO and high DOF, you’ll need to up the ISO setting on FX and you’ll end up with the SAME noise.

        • pete

          what utter nonsense. do you even know what iso is ?

          • Actually, he is correct, though it requires explanation. For same per-area sensor light gathering ability (which is sane assumption), the larger sensor only gains an option to have shallower depth of field with less noise, otherwise you can stop down aperture on larger sensor and get same noise and same depth of field as smaller gets (all for same shutter speed). In case you are not shutter limited, you can get even same DoF and less noise on larger sensor.

            Read some theory here:

            And here for practical example:
            (see other 3 posts too)

            • I think where he is wrong (or at least seems wrong to my own reasoning) is where he states that “High ISO performance is identical on DX and FX bodies.” To me, this statement sounds like he’s saying that ISO 2,000, for example, is identical between FX and DX sensors. Maybe I’m just misunderstanding his original intent, though I’m apparently not the only one.

              The whole “equivalence” argument is fine, but in real world shooting, I would guess more people are eager to open up, and reduce DOF. For the assumed minority who actually WANT higher DOF, (or for the rare moments when higher DOF is desired by the shallow DOF shooter), then sure, a DX sensor is welcome. For all the rest, the clear advantage is in FX. You can get one with the other, but not vice-versa, as the articles point out.

              I do agree with the second link’s conclusion that both DX and FX in the bag are valuable. I love having the 1.5x multiplication factor when slapping on the 200mm lens, but I also love having the super wide angle option with a “mere” 17mm lens.

        • Yeah, utter crap. I’d say there’s a good 1.5 to 3 stops difference in noise at 6400 between my d700 and d90. The D3s adds at least a stop to that.

          Unless you’re shooting jpegs that is. Nikon’s jpeg engine makes the spread even further at 6400.

        • Exactly the opposite. See Pete’s or Micah’s post for details. Focal length or aperture have nothing to do with the differences between FX and DX noise response.

          • Yeah and the oft quoted difference in DOF for equivalent focal lengths is actually negligible in real use. What varies more is the quality of lenses it takes to achieve a given focal length.

      • zzddrr

        Ron Adair – I liked the % ratings of from what you’d be surprised of. Let me continue your list

        – I’ll be 0% surprised if Nikon will release the D4 this year

        – I’ll be 100% surprised if D4 would come next year.

        My logic says that Nikon has to show something really big and fairly soon. The only item that is big is the D4.

        Oh, and I am 100% sure that the D4 will be 24mp and with the same or 1/2 step better iso.

        • @zzddrr

          100% sure? Where do you get your information?

          “My logic says that Nikon has to show something really big and fairly soon. The only item that is big is the D4.”

          This is very interesting to me. Keeping in mind that this is your logic (not Nikon’s) I’ll play along for a minute because you very well could be right. Check this out—looking at all the pixel size increases across like models, your logic is fairly sound. The only caveat here is that pixel miniaturization obviously hits certain limitations once the pixel gets small enough.

          Nikon D1: 2.74mp
          Nikon D1h: 2.74mp x0
          Nikon D1x: 5.4mp x1.97
          Nikon D2h: 4.1mp x1.5
          Nikon D2x: 12.4mp x2.3
          Nikon D3/D3s: 12.2mp x2.98
          Nikon D3x: 24.5mp x1.98

          This is where my very limited knowledge of light and electronics could be dead wrong. So please anyone that knows more, I beg you to correct me…

          Average wavelength of visible light is 550 nm. That’s roughly half a micron. Current high end sensors have about 5µm pixel pitch on the low end (10 times the size of a single photon’s wavelength?). Of course, that’s the WAVELENGTH of the light, and not the size of the photon, I think, and photons travel at how many miles per second, so I don’t really know what to do from here. Moving on: I understand that it’s mainly the heat from the electrical components that causes noise, thus deteriorating the image. If heat can be managed, and noise controlled, then smaller pixel bins – while catching fewer photons – can theoretically produce cleaner results than what could previously be achieved with larger pixel bins. Obviously, this is not an earth shattering discovery.

          Of course, then you get into issues of diffraction and vignetting (isn’t vignetting an effect of diffraction?), which obviously account for some limitations on getting to that 1/2-1µm pixel size. So, maybe with the right advances in tech we could expect a 2-3µm pixel pitch? The 7D is 4.3µm. The noise from that camera isn’t stellar either.

          Maybe you’re right. I can’t help but keep thinking that if Nikon was able to do what they did with the D3x (coming from the D2x) noise-wise, then the same could theoretically happen with the D3->D4 evolution. I’m also curious what would happen if Nikon put their D3s mojo into the D3x body, making a D3xs type body with the same level of noise improvements. My tests between the D3s and the D700 show that the D3s was underexposing images by about 1 stop compared to the D700, but also getting an extra stop to stop and a half of pure additional light gathering capability. That’d peg a D3xs at 12,800 ISO minimum, and 51,000 ISO on the high end. And with new tech, that could definitely put things at or over the current 102,000 ISO finish line. Now the question is: can we handle a new investment in hard drives, processors, and fatter internet pipes?

          • Roger

            Canon 7D has the best low light performance out of all APS-C sensors, so you’re wrong there.

            And not just there….

            • @Roger – I didn’t think I was making a comparison of the 7D to any other camera. Would you personally say that the 7D has stellar noise performance?

              It seems most of what you have to say here on NR is mature commentary, without resorting to insinuations and gibes. If there’s something I’ve said which you disagree with, I would welcome a reasoned response.

            • Nick Kahn

              @Roger: I don’t think the 7D has the best S/N in low light. At 18% reflectance (mid gray) it is very close to the D90 which is good, but at 0.1% and 1% reflectance, it is significantly worse. You can see this at DxOMark is you check the Full SNR tab and look at the Log plots – you can only see the Full SNR data for a single camera, whereas you can compare the 18% SNR for several cameras. The 7D is not bad though for S/N and DR given that it is higher res.

              @Ron Adair: The trend towards higher MP counts per unit area of the sensor could continue by decreasing pixel size below 5 micron, with no penalty in signal to noise since S/N is largely independent of pixel size (Source: Emil Martinec’s paper available online at Noise comes from several sources. The current problem, other than the issue of sensor resolution exceeding lens resolution discussed in an earlier post, is that in low light/high ISO situations, smaller pixels have lower S/N than bigger ones. I think this is due to the current state of the downstream electronics and if these are improved such that read noise drops significantly, then small pixel sensors could start to compete with large pixel sensors at higher ISOs (lower light levels). In good light and low ISO situations, small pixels have a very slight advantage in S/N and so a large size sensor could be populated with small pixels to gain increased resolution and S/N and IQ should not suffer. Currently, at higher ISOs, these sensors do show decreased performance barring noise reduction strategies (which wipe out fine detail). Down the road, a 48 MP 24×36 mm sensor could be seen if the electronics are improved to give lower noise or sensor technology changes such that efficiency is higher.

              Again though, resolution of a 24 MP sensor exceeds the resolution of many lenses and so higher MP counts on 24×36 mm sensors is not going to offer much if any in the way of resolution improvements if lenses cannot keep up. Larger sensors can of course have more MPs and give higher resolution using lower resolution lenses because the image does not need to be enlarged as much for a given presentation size and print resolution. The other advantage of larger sensors is that signal to noise is dependent on sensor size (not pixel size) because larger sensors (with larger areas) collect more light (Source: Emil Martinec again), so larger sensors should give higher S/N for given technology. The best path (not the cheapest path) towards higher resolution ultimately lies with larger, high MP sensors for a given sensor technology level. This is really no different than with film sizes. Of course, most people do not need much more resolution than what 35 mm digital can now provide, but for those that do and want to print very large, larger format, high MP sensors will of course outperform smaller sensors (for same technology), and partly because the lens resolution requirements are not as high. Exact same situation as for what exists/existed with film. Small formats will sell more though simply due to the overall market needs.


          • Sensor Size…

            Thermal noise is but one source of noise.

            Simple probability becomes increasingly important as photosite size decreases.

            I’m late for work, but I’ll explain why later today.

            • Looking forward to your input!

            • Sensor Size…

              Ok, back, gotta make this quick, we can talk more later…

              No photosite is perfect. For any given EV value a range of physical photon hits will be considered will be considered “equal”
              (made up numbers for illustration)
              6MP DX sensor, ISO X, P photons +-1 standard deviation = EV 0
              24MP DX sensor, ISO X, 1/4 P photons +- 1 standard deviation = EV 0

              So, and this is obvious and I’m not saying it to be insulting, as light well size goes down the physical number of photos which register as any given EV value go down.

              The AA filter and RGB filters are both believed to be under 1 stop of loss, so there is little practical room for improvements in them to be worth discussing.

              The problem is that as the pixel density goes up the bell curves not only approach each other, leading to ambiguity (thus “noise”) , but the left side of the bell curves also hit the big Zero at low EV values and higher ISOs.

              No matter how low your thermal noise, no matter how perfect your amplification, if there is ambiguity in the signal you can’t resolve it w/o multiple data points. Multiple data points could be multiple exposures (which we don’t want) or it could be using neighboring sites to resolve what is likely happening “next door”.

              This is a fine solution on its face, but only serves to make the photo sites less independent than they already are (since every final export pixel is already demosaiced from its neighbors) .

              Where am I going with this you rightfully ask, and as I said I’ll have to get back to you – I gotta run again and so I’m just dumping quickly. I’ll clean this up later. Likely tomorrow ‘ternoon.

        • ja

          well if thats the case then i’ll be waiting out for one of them (D4)
          but like you say wont see it until 2012?

        • Oh, yeah: add the predictions based solely on prior trends:

          Nikon D4: 24.8mp x2
          Nikon D4x: 50mp x2.04

          This seems far-fetched.

          • Roger

            There was a time when 12mp and ISO 6400 seemed far fetched too.

            • You are certainly right there. To clarify, I don’t mean I don’t welcome it or believe it will happen one day. But in this next iteration — 24mp D4? That seems steep. But hey, if Nikon can pull it off and remain the high-ISO champ, then kudos to them!

      • Landscape Photo

        What is the upper limit for ultra-high iso? What Nikon has managed is far enough, and becoming against mp increase. The only reason I need FX is the ability of higher resolution. I rarely need above iso 1600. That’s nonsense if Nikon soon becomes a 16mp company without having a D700-sized 20+mp offer, all for the sake of pleasing high-iso geeks.

        • You may only need ISO 1,600, but I would hazard to guess that many here (myself included) could find uses for a clean (I mean current 400 ISO clean) 12,800, 25,600, and yes, even 102,400. That would mean getting ISO up past the million mark. High ISO has given us more photo opportunities instead of simply offering more detail in our limited current opportunities. And unlike megapixels, high ISO doesn’t cost us anything in our workflow. Imagine shooting a real starry sky with zero or very limited noise. Or look at the ability we have today to film movies at night with available light only. Incredible.

          The MP race is phasing out somewhat and it’s due in large part to Nikon’s push for higher ISO, something that has proven an extremely valuable focus for them and photographers worldwide. High-ISO geeks are no different than high-mp geeks if you think about it. And yes, I am a geek for wanting 1,000,000+ ISO. 🙂

          • Landscape Photo

            As long as there is a 20+ mp D700-sized camera, I’m not against high-iso. I also sometimes photograph the sky, & noisy iso 6400 from D300 is very limiting.

            But, there must be a balance. Like anything above 24mp seems unnecessary due to lens resolution at corners, anything above D3s level finds use only at extreme applications.

            The sweet spot is about 18mp. With the recent innovation we have seen from DX sensor, I think a D3s-like 18mp FX seems possible today. Though I’d prefer D700-like 24mp FX an 18mp like above would sell better.

            If Nikon offered 3 different bodies at the same time priced similarly & all video enabled, it would likely preferred as below (among potential buyers):

            * D700s: 12mp, better than D3s: %20
            * D800: 18mp, about D3s: %50
            * D700x: 24mp, 1 stop elevated from D3x: %30

            As it’s not feasible if two bodies:

            * D700s: %40
            * D700x: %60

            If only one body:

            * D800: %80 of potential buyers will purchase (if priced reasonably)

            Nikon must decide whether to introduce one balanced, or multiple FX models soon. Later, an entry-level D500 may follow having the current D700 sensor on a D90-sized body with a new & tiny 28-105mm-like vario-aperture kit lens.

          • Discontinued

            @Ron & Landscape P.,

            I really like your comments on the ISO and MP subject and the fact that this “vs.”-discussion has become much more relaxed and reasonable.

            Professionally I am adjusted to what I grew up with, which means I have no probs handling low ISO (but this just down to doing studio work and/or using mono- and tripods). In other words personally I would like to see high ISO sacrificed rather than RES.

            BUT that’s just me and since I started doing some private shots as well (anywhere at any time) I started realizing gradually,each and every day more and more, that high ISO really opens up/has opened up entirely new opportunities.

            Just today I took a few pics indoors (big windows, daytime, grey sky) of my youngest son (an active baby of 8 month) with the 135 stopped down to 2.8 and got readings from 1/15 to 1/50 at ISO 1600, depending on where the little guy crawled and whether he faced walls or windows.

            The benefits of high ISO start to kick in much, much earlier than I previously realized. I was wishing for 1/250 instead. Well, I was up to 4 EVs of, “needing” ISO 25,600 and wishing for a D3S at HIGH NOON ! ! !

  • STRB

    Bokeh of the 85/1.4G looks like crap on Lindsay Silverman’s pics. In Cliff Mautner’s isn’t so bad, but the pictures are more processed and the backgrounds seem to be more plain.

    • I completely agree. I am surprised. I expected a much better bokeh in a 1700€ lens.

    • NRC

      Yeah, the background on “Planter and gazebo w 85mm f/1.4” is so horrible that it’s distracting.

    • Bobby

      I’ll still be waiting for direct comparisons between the two. I hope people will post the exact same shots taken with both the AF-D and AF-S lenses when people get their hands on them, then I’ll be able to decide which is better. Could the gazebo photo be stopped down quite a bit?

      • Global

        Exactly. I don’t think that you are comparing apples-to-apples yet. For one thing, most of the “creamy” 85 1.4 shots have been studio and not under the same conditions as the examples above. However, if it cuts down the orders waiting list, then by all means stay away from this lens. Based on the STUDIO portraits, I see the new 85 as equal to the old one.

        How did the old lens handle tree-light outside??!?!? Someone post examples of its outdoor use. (I’ve been skipping on the 85 for quite a while, thinking it was going to follow the 50mm.)

        • Roger

          Outdoors, the old 85 was not perfect but mostly very pleasing. For night time shots it’s much better than the Canon 85/1.2 for example, no clipped out of focus highlights like you get with the Canon.

          I can see that it’s a sharp lens, the new 85, but still undecided on it’s bokeh and cant say for certain how it compares to the old one. We really need head to head comparison of the old and new 85’s bokeh.

          • Where’s my…

            Owning the AF-D and looking at the samples from AF-S if they are real, the bokeh in AF-D is far better than that of the AF-S. Bright daylight however is not where the 85 f1.4 AF-D excels as Roger points out, so if that’s where you find yourself shooting most of the time I would go for e.g. the 105 f2 DC for great OOF rendering and less than surprising high contrast handling. The DC (defocus control) also makes it an infinitely fun lens to learn if you like experimenting with how the glass affects the look of the pictures.

        • STRB

          I don’t remember ever getting a bokeh so bad with the AF-D. Even outside with strong light, either wide open or stopped down. Sure it has its flaws, but bokeh definitely is not one of them.

        • StickingZoom

          vote +1

          As for the forum posts [NR] linked, they’re slaughtering each other over the bokeh.

  • Sam

    The D3100 ISO looks pretty good to me for an entry level camera. No, it’s not FX quality, but at 1600, it still looks perfectly usable (especially after running it through some noise reduction software).

    • Eduardo


    • Denko

      +1 and it seems to be a tad better than the a33 as well (though no direct comparison yet on )

      Nowhere close to D700… what a shocker! 😉 😀

      • Wait for a Nikon with the 16mp sensor. I expect amazing things after looking at the A55, which loses light to the pellicle mirror and still seems to have good high iso.

        • Denko

          Heavy speculation ahead:::

          Yes it will be better than that but I am still undecided in regards to the noise-profiling that needs to be done on the colors… these new sensors seem to have 2*G 1*B 1*R and 2 * light pixels (rather than 4*G) and because of that they need to extrapolate/randomize/dither the non colored sensor “pixels.” This makes straight lines like the black Nikon text against the yellow background not as sharp as it could be (the a55 is horrible in some places on the test site… and the algorithm they seem to be using is indeed more video like and heavy on “polygonization”.. much like the Lumix one that got released recently.) With better ISO this should not be an issue so I am not complaining too much yet… I need to see the raw NEF to be convinced that this is what I want or just bite the bullet and go FX and thus a bit heavy on the bling side (I don’t like walking around with too much gear especially if it looks expensive… draws unneeded attention.) Now if Nikon was doing realtime floyd-steinberg dithering with color it would definitely be more picture optimized… if the NEF is clean enough one can do it offline of the camera so it may not be an issue after all just a minor correction in PP.

        • Roger

          Loss of light = unacceptable. And to make things even worse, it has an EVF.

          There’s a reason why pellicle mirrors were discarded. Sony should concentrate on the NEX cameras. It’s the only thing they have that’s actually selling, I would think their users would appreciate some more lenses for NEX cameras, instead of more A-something cameras no one will buy anyway.

          • Agreed! The NEX is a good direction (lacking in lenses yet and wtf did they not keep sensor shift in body on the NEXs?!)

            I’m just waiting with baited breath for the first person to light his EVF sensor on fire shooting with the sun in the frame.

          • Roger

            And now I read about ghosting on the Sony pellicle. Ouch.

          • StickingZoom

            “Loss of light = unacceptable.”

            Slowly, slowly. Just think of it, the light loss according to dpreview is 1/3 EV to 1/2 EV. So basically the ISO range shifts 1/3 EV to 1/2 EV to smaller values, or with other words, if the base ISO of the Alpha 580 is 200 than that of the A55 is 150. Or at the upper ISO end, the noise level of the A580 at 12800 would be the same like with the A55 at ISO 9600. Not too much of a drama.

            So if AF speed and quiet operation are important the A55 is worth a look.

  • Broxibear

    As nice as the new 85mm is I can’t get past the vast price difference between the 3 85mm lenses nikon now has. Yes there’s a stop difference between some, build quality and newer glass technology but all are considered fantastic, pin sharp lenses.
    I’ve already got a 85mm f1.8 D AF and I’m not looking to upgrade it, but for those how are thinking of buying you’ve got a tough job deciding if they’re worth the money. Personally I’d buy the F1.8 and spend my saved money on another lens or two .
    Current UK prices are…

    85mm f1.8 D AF: £304
    85mm f1.4 D AF: £800
    85mm f1.4 G AF-S: £1500

    • Alex

      Current US prices are:

      85mm f1.8D AF: $439.95
      85mm f1.4D AF: $1,224.95
      85mm f1.4 AF-S: $1,699.95

      So it’s roughly a $500 difference for the AF-S motor, new optics, Nano coating, and weather sealed body.

  • coolpux

    the iso3200 of 3100 is totally unacceptable. even nex3/nex5 is better than this crap!

    • Ashton Kutcher

      How do I get a picture that matches my name & comments? All I have is this triangle thing that looks awkward & doubtful, which is appropriate for this post but no one will ever take me srsly

  • Iso 3200 looks like “cream cheese” , noise reduction blurry a lot!

    Look at this gallery of Sony A55 must be the same sensor of the D95 (or any name! lol) !

    Check it out!

    • Right, but remember, this is shooting through a mirror, and the Nikon will probably NOT. (and have better glass attached! 😀 )

    • Andy

      I hope you are kidding

      this pic has worse iso then d90

      • Roger


      • Roland

        That picture looks like it’s from a POS camera!
        And i don’t mean a Point and Shoot…

  • OI

    The high ISO samples don’t look good at all, in fact they look horrible.
    Sure it’s entry level but I doubt the upcoming DX models will be that much better. Let’s hope the new FX sensor will once again be crowned the lord of the darkness 🙂

    • Tim

      Never used medium format, have you?

      • iamlucky13

        Why? Is there a medium format camera that beat the high ISO performance of the D3s? Certainly neither Hasselblad nor PhaseOne can, but fortunately for them most users buy those cameras for their resolution.

      • OI

        Oh yes of course! I love shooting sports with my bunch of Hassies. Nothing beats the feeling of capturing the deceive goal with 60Mpix on my 30,000++$ camera system.

        • OI

          damn auto spellchecker always chooses the wrong one 🙂

  • Based on the samples alone, the new 85mm does look promising. Hope to see more reviews soon 🙂
    The ISO performance of D3100 is quite good too, taking into account it’s an entry-level model. We can look forward to even better performance on both the D90 and D300s replacements.

  • Gary

    The lenses seem to be spectacular. Another round of winners from Nikon.

    The D3100 seems to be a great entry level camera and bodes well for the other new models to come.

    All in all, a great technical achievement from Nikon.

    • Really? This 28-300 is the only one really sparking my interest. Well, based on the IQ that is.

      The 24-120 seems to have icky CA…I mean hell, the bodies already are correcting it and it still shows horribly? This does not look promising.

      And the 85mm looks right sharp, but has bokeh worse than it’s predecessors.

      • Gary

        Keep in mind that we have yet to see the best images these new lenses can produce.

        With any new equipment it takes time for even the pro’s to get used to the new stuff and really learn how to make it shine. The previous 85 1.4 was and is a classic; it’s very easy to find incredible images taken with it.

        • Uh, CA and bokeh aren’t things that get better with testing. They are inherent to the design. Yes, you can mask them with technique and sometimes even processing, but they are still basic and immutable functions of design.

          I will say the long end of the 24-120/4 looks promising, and that is where the old 24-120 was wretched. However, the wide end still is what it is. It’s like they traded short for long, instead of maintaining the short and improving the long. Impressive that they did it with a constant aperture, but the I’m still underwhelmed overall.

  • Eric

    Im intersted in seeing a direct comparison of the bokeh of the old and new 84 1.4. I couldnt care about how sharp it is, people buy the lens for a 1.4 portrait lens with the best bokeh period.

    • +100!

      • Roger


        Bokeh comparison is needed badly.

        • Godzirra



          Sigma 85 1.4 may be the way to go for Bokeh if the G doesn’t perform… maybe…

  • I dislike 85 1.4 AFS

    That bokeh of 85mm f/1.4 looks like 18-55mm lens

    I am at loss of words here, that bokeh is so distracting, how could you guys say the results look OK? I am not commenting on any other new Nikon lenses just 85 1.4 but damn, it’s so expensive and results are just unsatisfactory to me. 85mm f/1.2 from Canon really is undisputed bokeh king

    • Well, the only thing that would sell me on it at this point, having seen the sub-par bokeh, is how well it deals with CA and longitudinal CA in very bright light. The 1.4d and 1.8 look a bit rough in bright light wide open. If the 1.4G can perform this trick, I may completely change my mind about it.

    • gt

      sorry that doesn’t make any sense at all.

      If you really think that the bokeh between the new 85mm and the 18-55mm are the same, you should probably quit photography altogether. Instead, go work on your observational skills and come back when you are ready.

      or, alternately, switch to canon and stop posting around here.

    • Roger

      Canon 85/1.2 didnt quite live up to the hype in my experience. I’ve heard it’s creamy, smooth, mindbending, mindblowing, mindblasting, you name it, but it wasnt exactly in actual use. It too can produce some awful bokeh without too much trouble. Great lens, nevertheless.

      New 85/1.4 is a tough one. Samples posted by Lindsay Silverman indeed look wretched. Bokeh looks much better in other samples, most notably the review done at some dutch website. We need more samples, the jury is still out.

    • lolcatmaster FTW

      I don´t like you because you don´t produce any bokeh at all….

  • Click

    I bought the old 85mm F1.4 a few months ago and looking at these limited photos I don’t see a significant difference from what I would expect with the older lens. For the $500 savings (I got mine on sale as the dealer feared being stuck with old stock no one would want) I don’t think the AFS would have sold me on the new model.

    • i bought my 85 1.4d for 1200 plus tax (canadian dollars) new 85 1.4 G is listing at the same site, for 1899.99 plus tax if i remember correctly. Thats a hell of a price increase for SWM and slightly different optics but we shall see.

  • SimonC

    We need a comparison between the 85 1.4D and 85G to make any meaningful comments about bokeh with the new lens.

    I agree that some of the shots with the 85G have a rather distracting bokeh, while others look very, very nice.

    But let’s not write off the 85G just yet – I am sure Nikon worked to improve the bokeh.

    • I seems to look fine closed down, but other lenses have smaller apertures covered. Some mit zoom even!

  • SimonC

    The D3100 sample high-ISO pics appear to have NR on. The default NR on recent models is pretty high (for my tastes). ‘Need more samples plus RAW files before making any sort of call.

    • Plus sony seems to like aggressive AA filters and their NR algorithms aren’t the bestest.

  • nicolaie

    my 50 1.4 G beats the old 50 1.4 D by a solid mile. i’ve owned two of them, and a 1.8 D. if the 85 1.4 G will be the same in respect to the 84 1.4 D, then that will be a great upgrade.

    about the D3100, i think the high iso pics look great for a 14 mpix crop camera, even my D700 shows plenty noise at 3200 iso in artificial lighting.

    • Phillip

      50 1.4G still can’t 50 1.2 AIS at f/2 department.

  • Jabs

    As A long time photographer and also slide shooter, the images from the D3100 and the wedding pictures from the 85 F1.4 are simply stunning. They remind me of a D3S or what you would expect from a camera with the same exceptional color clarity and fidelity as the D3S.
    A true revolution has begun and thus I now understand what Nikon meant, when they casually implied that we will be surprised. The B+W showed great contrast and an ability to allow your photograph to look like it leaps from the screen of you monitor in an almost 3D manner with the background disappearing gradually and not abruptly.
    Truly amazing – congrats Nikon, you’ve blown me away. Time to start saving my money to buy some new gear, as Nikon seems to have perfected the in camera techniques that has made the D3S so stunning and now, even the ‘entry level’ has the D3S look. Time to relearn photography AGAIN and to hone our craft for a new level indeed.
    A new era has truly begun.

    • I love nikon and all but your either exagerating or drinking the japanese coolaid. The d3100 and the four new lenses dont do anything new to photography.

      • Jabs

        @Eric Pepin,
        Getting to the point – most posters here are NOT photographers but spec addicts and obviously do NOT know photography. Most are like the old SLIDE -vs- PRINT film debates. I shot 99% low ISO slides – mainly Fuji Velvia 50D and 64T and at times Ektachrome 50D (too blue) and Kodachrome 25 or 64 on Nikon pro bodies.
        Thus, from experience I look and see what I perceive as a revolutionary result that reminds me of the fidelity of color slides.
        I use 64 bit Linux and Open GL 3.0 on desktop cmputers and not Windows, so not stuck in the limitations of either DX-10 or DX-11 and thus what it looks like on my monitor is completely different from Windows, as I use both and can view on both platforms on either an LCD or Sony professional monitors.
        You probably use an LCD or a laptop for your viewing and the majority of LCD’s have about 67 to 87 percent of the color gamut of an excellent Sony Trinitron CRT, so perhaps you have been hampered by that.
        Professional here and not some amateur crybaby.
        Have a good day!

    • Phillip

      I know Cliff personally, and one thing I can tell you is that he has a full-time professional retoucher on staff. And that definitely makes big difference in terms of quality of post.

      • Hi Philip. Do we know one another? Really? I don’t have a full time retoucher on staff BTW. I have a full time studio manager. There is a huge difference between processing and retouching. Incidentally, I was the one who processed these images from the new 85G, and there was no retouching. They are directly from lightroom, and the B+W images were done with a simple desaturation. Please don’t get on a public forum and comment about me when you don’t really know what I’ve done with my images. I want people to see the images without retouching so they can make their own judgements. Buy the lens, or don’t buy the lens. My impression is that it is clearly an upgrade, and I’ll be purchasing this lens, for sure.

        • Joey jojo jr shabadu

          I know Phillip personally and he is known to make up stories every now and then.

          • olga

            CLIFF, I saw you website but unfortunatly your pictures are far from beeing made by “the best wedding photographer of the world” as self proclaimed.
            You should really learn how to proper expose your shots & avoid those overprocessed darky looks, it isnt flattering at all, have a look at some real good work here & learn from it :


            • Lihkin


              You old hag. Are you kidding me? You are trying to compare that stupid guy’s photos to Cliff’s? That guy you referenced has snapshots in his gallery. Obviously you have no idea about wedding photography. And by the way, Cliff is not just a self professed world class wedding photographer- most people that know something about photography know that he is. So in future please don’t talk about stuff you don’t. Ok? Now go and finish that Vodka.

          • While I think these photos that Olga posted are great quality… they’re just a totally different style.

            I, for one, have admired Cliff’s darker, timeless style since I got into the business. It’s just that… it’s his style. I’m sure there are brides who want bright and poppy pictures and they go elsewhere…. and then are laughing in 25 years because that style is “soooo early 2000s.”

            • amien

              Olga’s link shows TOP NOTCH QUALITY wedding shots, they are just perfect ! CLIFF seems to hide under another pseudonym to promote himself while bashing the others with no respect at all. Very small minded !
              Cliffs pictures are very amateurish, more postproduction than good exposure & white balance. Its like he needs to “fix” his shots ! Besides : who wants to have a wedding souvenir which looks like a Funeral ???

            • I agree that Olga’s link provides top notch quality photos. I not only never said anything of the sort, but DID say they are quality.

              And I don’t think Cliff bashed anyone about anything. He made a correction to something that could misconstrue something about his technique. I would too.

              And I DO NOT think they look like funeral pictures. Nor do the 750+ wedding clients he’s had.

  • Phillip

    I will pass 85mm 1.4 upgrade by keep using my great 85mm 1.8D. My money will be spent on either AF-S 35mm 1.4 or AF-S 135mm 1.8.

    • +1 (or maybe just the 135DC)

      • Phillip

        I just sold my 135 f/2 DC, and I found 70-200mm VR2 performs mucho better at 135mm FL.

        • But the point is that extra stop of light! I do already have the VRI (which I will NOT give up after trying out a VRII–missing focus lock and I get better magnification for portraits).

          Do you happen to have any full res shots from your 135 wide open? There don’t seem to be any FX ones online…

          • Phillip

            I rarely shot any images wider than 2.8 on 135DC because sharpness is not there with tons of CA when its wider than 2.8 on 135DC.

            • Really?! I found it wonderful wide open, but I haven’t tested it extensively. Now I’ll have to go try one…

    • Roger

      Oh AF-S 135mm F1.8, I want I want…… if it’s as good as the Sony lens.

      Hopefully Nikon is working on it …..

      • Yes, they are working on 135/2, 200/2.8, 300/4, 400/5.6 etc. but they want it to make them perfect, so we have to wait another 10-20years. 🙂

  • BenS

    Im not a bokeh expert or a pro. I see a lot of negative comments here about the new 85 mm f1.4. Has Nikon release a new one which is worst than the older one ? If yes, how come has this happened ? Did Nikon not compare the new with the old during its development ?

    • Phillip

      I don’t know whether or not the new one is better than the old one without playing with it. But, one thing is certain that judging from the sample images Nikon released the compelling reasons for upgrade are not strong.

    • Roger

      I wont be putting down all that money for AF-S 85 on blind faith, I can tell you that.

      Let’s wait for more shots, and take it from there. As soon as this lens gets in the hands of actual users, instead of these so-called “reviewers” there will be thousand of shots to see, and I’m sure someone will do a comparison with the old 85.

  • Ray

    if that 24-120 f4 is that damn good (no exif, well i cant find it…) then.. wow… but i still have to be able to pixel peep first.. those 1024 res photos dont mean much, i can get good results with any lens at 1024 res.

    but so far im kinda sold on that lens, it will be one of my only zoom lens… the rest? ill stick with primes.

    • Phillip


      don’t forget Nikon’s marketing machine is at full speed as we speak.

      • Roland

        You mean the same marketing machine that is using Canon shooters for their material? 🙂

    • Roger

      Dont forget 24-120 is still a zoom lens, and one with a serious range at that. Dont expect any miracles.

    • Nikon’s site has full res shots. That’s what I’m basing my opinion on at this point…I mean hell, you’d think they’d choose the most flattering. I quite appreciate that they are showing it’s weaknesses first. Helps curb my GAS.

  • Phil

    I don’t know, noise reduction or not, the images look USEFUL. If you try to reduce the noise reduction process it’s just gonna look really grainy. They’re generally pleasing-looking images.

    Whiter D5000? I’ve heard noise about the D3000 and D90 replacement now, but nothing on the D5000. I like the idea of the tilt screen, I wish they would’ve given the 3100 the tilt screen if they plan to trash the D5000. I wonder how the D5000 sensor looks against the ‘3100.

    Screw the 85mm Nikkors, get a Samyang and be happy (and richer). So you have to manually use your camera, oh, the pain of it all, LOL!

    • Split image finders only work on the center of the frame. Sure you can use the af sensors, but you can’t look at your subject while focusing.

      What would be nice: focus priority in manual focus mode.

      The 14 and 85 Samyangs ARE lookin damn good. Tempting.

  • Mario

    I am disappointed about the 28-300 pics. They really don’t look very sharp. And the pictures cannot even be compared to the razor sharp ones, my old 18-200 VR I creates.

    • What images you looking at? The ones on the Nikon site look quite good to me…

    • And so do the ones at the top of this page. I mean, considering it’s range and all. I’d like to compare it to the tamron…

    • Godzirra

      The 18-200 is a DX lens so you’re shooting using the centre of the lens.

      The 28-300 is an FX lens so you’re gonna get some more edge softness (which is there I can see).

      Not bad at all for an FX superzoom though. From what I’ve seen the samples look just as good as Canon’s 28-300L (which costs a LOT more BTW).

      • Confuzzled

        Godzirra, you’re confused. Only when you use a DX crop of an FX lens do you “shoot using the center of the lens”. But a DX crop on a DX lens uses its full frame, as does FX of FX lens.

        This doesn’t consider lenses like the DX 17–55/2.8, which is fine on FX from around 28mm, or the DX 35/1.8, which is fine on FX for near‐focus shots stopped down. Both those lenses project an image circle that’s larger than strictly needed for DX, which is probably part of why they’re so good. No 18–XXX zoom can this be said about—nor that.

        • Having owned the 17-55/2.8 I have to disagree. It’s not really great at any focal length on FX. Too much vignetting and not sharp.

          I think what Godzirra said makes perfect sense. The 28-300 is impressive as an FX lens, since it is technically more challenging to achieve that level of quality on FX. For what it is, it’s looking like the star of this group of recently released lenses.

          • Global

            The star? The 24-120/4 VR is the star. The 28-300 VR is just going to be handy. But the sharpness compared to the 24-120/4 VR is no contest, 24-120 wins easily. If you want a great walk-around lens, try the 24-120/4 VR. If you want a bit of extra reach, try the 28-300VR if you generally aren’t able to bring a 70-300VR.

            If you can easily bring the 24-70/2.4 & 70-300 VR, then forget the others.

            • 120mm on the 24-120 isn’t looking that much better than the shots at similar focal lengths on the 28-300. In fact in some shots, it looks worse.

            • Global

              Maybe. I don’t know which exact pics you are comparing, but I highly doubt it. Everything ive seen shows the 120 to be sharper and quite good. Not 24-70 good, but much better than the 28-300. Anyway, the purpose of these lenses can overlap, but the main point is that the 28-300 is your one lens. A 70-300+24-70/2.8 is probably a better 2 lens combo. I still don’t know why someone would want a 24-120, unless they just can’t afford the 24-70 OR really really need a bit more extra reach. Sometimes the 24-70 does feel short.

            • Actually, that’s exactly it…28-70 is plenty wide enough–70mm sometimes seems short. At least on FX. But maybe I’m spoiled by five years of shooting DX.

  • ELK

    Any RAW high-ISO samples available on net? The noise reduction is too heavy on D3100 sample pictures at

  • Anonymous

    where is the surprise Nikon was talking about a while ago? I kind of remember that stupid Nikon execs every week said something. Now we know, Nikon does not have anything. It is another crappy year from Nikon when it comes to new dslr bodies.

  • SDiggity

    D3100 images have been yanked. PULL THE LINK SIR!

  • Eduardo

    Pictures removed, because it was a preproduction body.

  • Amien

    Lindsay Silverman 85MM 1.4G shots are NOT convincing at all. This reminds me of the weird busy bokeh of a cheapo zoom lens !!!

  • Seriously guys… you have to ask if these are really the 85mm AF-S… or the setup and situation. Would the 85m AF-D had done better if shot back to back?

    We have to wait for identical comparisons.

  • Landscape Photo

    Enough for 85mm, why don’t we speak about the 24-120mm ?

    • Because that’s a boring, slow, mid-range zoom that no real professional would care to own?

      • On the contrary, spec wise, I’d love to have something like that for weddings. However, it doesn’t appear to be a real performer. So…stick with my aging 28-70, which still looks better at f4 than this new lens.

        However, maybe I’m just not as professional as you.

        Looking at your site: kudos to NOT using sound clips/music! Really! I hate when people do that.

  • Ronald

    New HI ISO example D3100
    ISO 3200 HI-ISO NR normal
    Lens 55-200 VR

  • Rafael

    Id love to see , more sample images or video from the 85mm f1.4 G..

  • Jabs

    The mindset of an obsessive complainer, perhaps.
    1. They complain to be noticed of become outrageous, infamous or even get attention.
    2. They complain about things that are needed or even lacking and when the item is resolved, available or appears – instead of acknowledging this, they continue unabatedly abusing others or now raising their outrageous expectations in newer complaints about shortfalls.
    3. They might get glee from outrageous exploits perhaps to make up for either being lazy and/or incompetent, so their raison d’etre in life is often to make fun of others or just do silly things so as to be the center of attention. Jealousy rears its’ ugly head, perhaps.

    Little brats – perhaps!

    Possible solutions – Go take a course in photography, attend a Seminar, learn to control your anger or frustrations, get a life plus some gear and then practice, practice and more practice and if unable to become competent or creative with this, then maybe switch fields or do something that you are able to do well, if you can.

    • …you seem to be complaining a little obsessively. ; )

  • Jabs

    Correction –
    1. They complain to be noticed of become outrageous, infamous or even get attention.

    Should have been –
    1. They complain to be noticed OR TO become outrageous, infamous or even get attention.

  • Chad

    Am I missing the high ISO D3100 pics? I don’t see anything but naked chicks on the link.

    • ha, they changed the pictures – I removed the link

  • Back to top