Weekly Nikon news flash #172

  • Nikon filed a patent 2012133116 for a 6-24mm f/2-2.8 lens (28-112mm equivalent) that will probably be used for a new Coolpix camera with a 1/1.7 inch sensor.

  • New: Aquatica AD800 housing for the Nikon D800/D800e camera (price: $3,359.00).

  • Only few hours left: 25% off when you rent the Nikon D4 from BorrowLenses - use code "BLDOW" (good until Sunday, July 22nd, at midnight PST).

  • Nikon D3100 kit with a 32GB SD memory card and camera bag on sale for $496.95.
  • Nikon signed a deal to remain The Open Championship patron until 2017.
  • Nikon launched "Nikon Scene" blog in Australia.
  • Capture One Pro 6.4.3 has been released with Nikon D4 and D800/E tethered support (via USB or Wi-Fi/Wt5, liveview is not supported). Capture One Pro allows you also to create a Wi-Fi network and share your pictures live on your iPad or iPhone.

I just received my D4. I was posting on the forum regarding HDR and checked the bracketing options on my new camera. In addition to the bracketing options listed in the D4 tech specs, when I press the BKT button I am able to select +2, -2, +3, -3, 3 or 5 frames at 2.0 EV and 3.0 EV steps between them. I tried it out, and it appears to work. In Aperture priority mode I set up a 3 shot bracketing at 3EV between. The camera gave me shutter speeds of 1/15, 1/160 & 1/1250. with 1/160 being the proper exposure. This feature is not listed in the manual either. I have firmware version A 1.0, B 1.0, & L 1.004. Attached is a photo showing bracketing setup for 5 frames at 3 EV between. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't think anyone has mention this level of exposure bracketing.

This entry was posted in Nikon Patents, Weekly Nikon News Flash. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • I wonder if that bracketing feature is found on the D800 as well

    • These are the options for my D800:

      +3. -3, +2, -2, 0, 3, 5, 7, and 9 frames at 0.3, 0.7, and 0.9 stops.


      • dubb

        same on mine.

        Seems odd that they’d put the useful bracketing improvements in the sports camera, and leave them out of the landscape/architecture camera.

    • umesh

      And you have a medium format camera picture set as your avatar……….

  • One hundred and seventy-two weekly updates. Congratulations [NR]

  • Zone

    How about announcing a fricken update for the 80-400mm Nikon!!!

    • please…

      I’ve added the BigmOS to my shopping cart more times than I can count. Holding out for this Nikon! (or a 300/4 VR).

      • Jan

        why would you buy the Bigma many times? You know the lens is reusable right?

        • Pablo Ricasso

          Now THAT is funny.

          Just for that I’m going to give away a million dollar idea.

          Make a VR teleconverter. (It’s the perfect place for VR.)

  • T.I.M

    I just tested the Nikkor 24mm PC-E that I bought few months ago, that lens is INCREDIBLE, even better than my 105mm AF-S macro !

    That’s soooo sharp, you can’t believe your eyes !

    (tested with D800 ISO 200 1/250 flash, manual focusing on live view, using my test charts)

    • @T.I.M.
      Why wait so long to test the lens? Why shoot test charts? You should be shooting beautiful landscapes with that lens, not paper.

      You want another sharp lens, 300mm f/4 AF-D, absolutely quick AF, fabulous color contrast, and needle sharp.

      BTW, did you ever buy that 200 f/2? That is also very very sharp, from what I’ve heard.

      • T.I.M

        @Dr SCSI
        I also have the 300mm f/4 AF-D, yes it’s sharp but it also have a little CA on high contrast subjects.
        I keep mine because it’s in like new condition and I love the built quality, fast focusing with the D800.

        Yes I have the 200mm f/2, VERY sharp, even at f/2.0, very nice bokeh.

        It make a 400mm f/4 with the TC20-EIII with same sharpness !
        (1.8m minimum focusing, and the teleconverter make you loose 2 aperture steps but does not incrase d.o.f so you still have the f/2.0 bokeh)


        • @T.I.M,
          Ahhhhhhh…200 f/2, not long ago you only talked about buying one…lens envy here… 😉

          I also have the 24mm PC-E and although I think it is very good, I still want a 17mm version like our Canon brothers have. 24 just isn’t wide enough and I hate the shift movements on cloudy days, I’m not coordinated enough. Recent Image with my 24 PC-E: http://www.novumlucis.com/Nature/Atmosphere-Sky/Sea-of-Clouds/23906728_prkTGM#!i=1939113683&k=NF5BkLb&lb=1&s=A

          • T.I.M

            My lenses (and I promised my wife that I won’t buy anymore …..before the next one)

            14-24mm f/2.8 AF-s
            24mm PC-E f/3.5
            24-70mm f/2.8 AF-s
            105mm macro f/2.8 AF-s (my baby)
            200mm f/2.0 AF-S
            300mm f/4 AF-D
            300mm f/2.8 Tokina MF
            Nikon lens scope (great with the tokina)

        • Rob

          A teleconverter DOES change the depth of field. It will have the DOF of a 400mm F/4, because that is what the lens is once you attach the tc.

          • Pablo Ricasso

            Hmm. I think the best way to think about this or to express this is to say that a 200 F2 lens has a depth of field that approximately equals that of a 400 lens set on F4. I have the manual focus 200 F2, 300 F2.8, and 400 F3.5 lenses and I can tell you that the ability to blur the background increases a bit with each, as far as I can tell. I haven’t conducted any formal tests. Even the 400 F5.6 can give plenty of blur.
            In my experience, putting a lens on a converter tends to give MORE depth of field than one would get if they had the same effective focal length and aperture in a single lens. My early “tests” often included shots of a field and I found that I actually preferred some inexpensive constant aperture zooms to the lesser prime lenses because they got more in focus. Later I found that opening up the better primes to f5.6 vs F8 increased the EFFECTIVE depth of field (rather than the theoretical) only because those lenses performed so much better when not stopped down to where zooms and lesser primes peak. If I stopped them both down to F8 lenses like the 135 F2 and 105 F1.8 were no better than an F4 zoom. Depth of field is a tricky subject. About the only constant is that a longer focal length WILL narrow the depth of field. It’s more important than aperture if you want blur.

          • T.I.M

            That’s what I learned at the photography school, I guess the teachers and books are wrong….

          • T.I.M

            @ Rob

            1 take a picture with the 200mm at f/2
            2 take the same picture at f/4
            3 take the same picture (x2) at f/2 + teleconverter

            open the files with photoshop and you will see that the 200mm at f/4 have more d.o.f than the 200mm f/2+teleconverter.

          • T.I.M

            The teleconverter is croping the image, like you do with photoshop.
            It does not increase the d.o.f the 200mm f/2 + teleconverter give a T-stop 4, not an f/4 aperture.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              Rent a 400 2.8, set it on F4 and then take the same picture with your combination. There won’t be a lot of difference, if any. Longer lenses blur the background better than fast short lenses. One reason people are willing to pay so much for the latter is that they 1) actually need to see in the dark or freeze action 2) need the angle or perspective or 3)don’t want to carry a long lens or have enough room to use one.

              Oh, and the 400 can open to 2.8. You’ll really like trying it at that. I thought my 200 was really special until I bought the 300…

            • Rob

              1) Cropping does decrease the apparent DOF, because cropping decreases the circle of confusion. This is true whether you are cropping by using a crop sensor, or manually cropping an image in PP. When you crop (enlarge), details that appeared just barely in focus become just barely out of focus because you are magnifying the blur.

              2) The TC does affect the F number of the system. The aperture is 100mm wide open (doesn’t change with TC), and with the TC attached the focal length of the system is 400mm. F = f/D = 400mm/100mm = 4.

              If you still don’t think cropping affects DOF, look at these photos:

            • Pablo Ricasso

              Oh, and I forgot to add that your combo probably has one advantage over the 400 lens that can make it more appealing… It has a shorter minimum focus distance. If you can take a very tight shot, well you can get all kinds of blur over the other that you would just have to crop to get the same perspective. But the last version of the inexpensive Sigma 400 F5.6 allows you to be even closer than either and probably offers you even more “compression” if you can make use of it, despite being cheap and one stop slower. But if you’re photographing something more than so many feet away, the 400 F2.8 offers the most.
              And thanks (Rob) for that simple explanation about cropping. It helped further my understanding a bit.

  • I am not a fan of metal housings. A plexiglass Ikelite makes more sense, especially considering the relatively short useful life of DSLR bodies.

  • kin notwell

    did someone say metal ?

  • I thought the J1/V1 multiplied the lenses by 2,4 or 2,7 (a bit more than the x2 of the 4/3 Panasonic/Olympus)

    But you wrote 6-24 as 28-112 (in 24×36 equivalent)

    With the 6mm, if you multiply this number by 2,4 or 2,7, you won’t get 28, since you have to multiply 6 by 4,65 to get close….

    Where is the mistake ?
    Thank you

    • PAG

      The post said the 6-24mm “will probably be used for a new Coolpix camera with a 1/1.7 inch sensor.” Admin does not expect it to be a Nikon 1 lens.

      • Ken

        Unfortunate that it’s not a N1 lens! A 17-65 would be great to have – although I’d still prefer N1 13/2, 18/2 and 31/2 primes…

  • neversink

    Why in the world do molded plastic housings cost more than a D800????

  • Back to top