Weekly Nikon news flash #173


    1. Are you happy with the number of MP
    2. Are you happy with dual card slots
    3. Would you prefer x2 XQD slots or 1XQD and 1 CF Slot
    4. Are you happy with FPS or would you prefer more FPS
    5. Same question on the ISO performance as well
This entry was posted in Weekly Nikon News Flash and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Rob

    The Zeiss is crazy good at 2.8, but I was surprised to see the 14-24 beats it on the edges and to me looks better than the Zeiss when stopped down. I should be glad though since I’m looking for a WA and the Nikon is over $1000 cheaper and much more versatile (zoom + AF).

    • lorenzo

      I saw the Zeiss comparison and wonder why they used a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 instead of a fixed 14mm f/2.8, the Zeiss is not a zoom, is it?

      I haven’t seen a comparison between these two Nikon lenses – I have both of them, never tested on the D300s, I am waiting for the D800E to compare them – but I guess the fixed focus should be sharper.

      • 14-24lover

        simple, because the zoom @14mm better than fix 14mm.

        • +1

          because 14-24 > world

          • China copy Lee now

            Easier to put filters on the world though.

            • Wah wah wah.

              In over four years in the field, I’ve never once been held back by not using filters with it. It’s just a flat-out magical lens. The contrast and flare reduction is SO good, even if I want a ND effect, I just take multiple exposures and blend the foreground and background.

            • filters are not needed when it is f2.8. and even if you would really really need them, it is so easy to DIY some holder for sheet ND filters.
              if i would be in need of ND filter for action so clumsy setup would be difficult, i would gladly take some 16-35 or old 20 instead.
              you are doing disservice to your self not using the lens only for such minor “issue”. it is like saying that you dont want to buy a house because the roses in the garden are white and you like red.

            • China copy Lee now

              Lol you guys mad?

              It was a joke.

              Try not to get all cranky when someone disses your fav lens, you’ll live longer (and at your age you need all the extra days you can get).

          • “14-24 > world”

            This is a fairly accurate expression.

  • Rob

    A) Yes, 36MP is pretty ideal for me. 24MP wouldn’t have been worth an upgrade.
    B) Dual slots are a necessity, but mixed card formats is a bad implementation.
    C) 2 XQD. I’d rather have XQD over CF as well, since CF will not get any faster than it is now.
    D) 4 FPS is too slow for me. I’d have paid $500 more for 6FPS and $1000 more for 8FPS. I hope they offer a buffer/fps upgrade similar to the buffer upgrades they’ve had in the past.
    E) ISO performance is great. Can’t expect any better with such small pixels. Down-sampled it is basically as good as the D3s and D4.

    • Jack

      I completely agree with you, the biggest drawback for me is the frame rate, a small increase would have been fantastic, and I’m sure would have got them even more sales. The ISO is perfect also plenty for me, as I mainly shoot landscapes, and sports in (mostly) good light.

      • guys in film times or with medium format camera you would not be able to make a single good shot, would you?

        • Nobody in particular

          So you only shoot with a film camera then?

          • scurvy hesh

            Nice Strawman, Nobody. That’s not what Harold was saying at all.

          • i shoot photography, not stop motion movies. with film, digital and MF (film and digital) and did so last 51 years.

            what i do not do, is spray and pray type of photography.

            • Rob

              Go shoot the NFL at 4FPS. Or NHL. Or NBA. Oh wait, no one would ever do that nowadays because you CANNOT guess with any reliability when the shot is going to happen.

              If any professional photographer could read an attacker well enough to get every shot, he wouldn’t be photographing for 50k a year; he’d be a professional athlete making 7 figures. Of course even the professional athletes can’t read each other that well. So if you want to maximize your keepers, you need more than 4FPS.

              Logic > you.

    • Plug

      I’d agree with all of this. If megapixel was reduced to 24 to enable fps to increase to 8 then that is preferable to me, but I would prefer 24 and 8.

    • I didn’t get the survey, but if I did, I would answer it in this way:

      A.) I am very happy with the number of pixels.
      B.) I love dual card slots…of any ONE variety. I don’t care what card, just make them the same. Since it only shoots at 4fps anyway, I don’t think XQD would make that much difference.
      C.) See above. Two of anything but keep them the same. (I prefer CF but simply because they would match my D3 series cameras but I realize some have moved to D4).
      D.) Current fps is fine.
      E.) ISO performance is great. No need to change.

  • lorenzo

    XQD “up to 1,000 MB/s.”

    What’s the max transfer rate of the camera?
    I think to recall that someone posted here to be only 60MB/s.
    If that is the case, what sense does it make a card so fast unless Nikon improves the camera first?

    Agree with Rob on the questionannaire except for the XQD cards and the ISO.

    • Rob

      Rob Galbraith has benchmarked the D800 at 69MB/s using the fastest CF cards on the market. There’s no reason to believe the camera is the bottleneck, since there is a noticeable increase in speed from the 1000x cards compared to the 600x. It’s also worth noting these same 1000x cards only get up to 61MB/s in the D4, while XQD cards get up to 94MB/s. Basically every card is faster in the D800 than the D4, so you could theorize that XQD cards would probably be close to or over 100MB/s in the D800 if it could read them.

      • lorenzo

        Thank you Rob for explaining the whole story.

        There is a Sandisk (but that is an SD) at 95 MB/s, while the CF are up to 90 MB/s, as far as I saw on B&H site. You talked about a 1000X card that should correspond to 150 MB/s, still very far away from the one announced here at 1 GB/s, that’s why I was surprised.

        Let’s say that you are right and the camera won’t be the bottleneck, we will know that only when someone could do this test.

        Maybe Nikon (Sony) meanwhile will can come up with a 48 Mpix too? ;~)

        • Rob

          I guess I worded that poorly. The camera and the card both play a role in limiting the speed. A 90MB/s card might get 90MB/s in a fast card reader, but it will never get 90MB/s in camera. It might get about half that. However the 90MB/s cards are almost always faster in camera than the 60MB/s cards. There’s no hard bottleneck at a certain bandwidth, and in the D800 and the D4 the 1000x cards are notably faster than the 600x cards. Just because a 90MB/s card isn’t writing at 90MB/s in the camera doesn’t mean the camera isn’t CAPABLE of 90MB/s – it just means it needs a faster card to do that.

          At Galbraith’s site you can look at almost all the big name cards and see how fast they actually perform in different cameras. The D800 and D4 are both notably faster than all previous Nikon bodies.

      • lorenzo

        Just checked at B&H; there are some Lexar CF cards that can go 150 MB/s Read and 145 MB/s Write. I didn’t see them before as I selected only Sandisk for the lower price.

  • peteee363

    i wonder why it wasn’t compared to the nikkor 14 2.8? i know some people like the 14-24 zoom, but the less glass, the sharper the image. and the 14mm 2.8 has less glass, and is super sharp.

    • lorenzo

      that’s what I said above; unless they wanted to have the same exact focal length of 15 mm. The Nikon 14 f/2.8 is very sharp, haven’t tested the 14-24 yet.

      • The 14-24 is stupid sharp corner to corner @ 14mm and is as sharp as the 14 2.8. On the D800, the 14-24 shows weakness in the corners @ f/2.8, I’m not sure about the 14mm 2.8 @ f/2.8 on the D800. I imagine it is about the same as the 14-24 on the D800.

        The 14-24mm f/2.8G is my choice over the 14mm f/2.8, hands-down. My copy is razor sharp at all points, even on the D800 and D800E, minus the one caveat I already spoke about above.

        • +1,000,000.

          The 14mm f/2.8 is essentially obsolete. For $400 extra bucks you get 15 through 24mm as a bonus in addition to flat-out better IQ across the board. The filters thing is overblown. With contrast and flare control *this* good, only in rare situations do you want filters… and there *are* options if necessary.

          I kinda hate it, because for years my 14-24 was my go-to lens. I found myself using 24mm 80%+ of the time, so I got a 24mm f/1.4. I rarely use the 14-24 anymore.

          But when I do… I fall in love all over again.

    • Stephane

      In all lab reviews, the 14-24 consistently comes up on top when compared with the 14mm prime… It’s just a much more recent design, tailored for digital, and, apparently, it shows!

      • Orangebox

        well having done this survey, i can say Nikon did ask about the live view screen, on its size and colour accuracy among other things, i though when starting survey it would be some quick simple questions job done.

        turned out i was wrong was really in-depth took me an hour to complete, gave loads of opportunity to comment about specific items, i added to it and asked for more fps + bigger buffer as im happy with the MP plus a double XQD slots, i also asked them to put the lockable CF door back in future models lol instead of the flappy door we get now which is crap and cheap.

  • BB

    The biggest disappointment with D800 is its liveview interpolation… Wonder why Nikon doesn’t ask about that??

  • nuno santacana

    Does anyone know how the Samyang performs considering the coma aberration?

    • FDF

      You won’t fall into a coma by looking at it’s price. You can’t say the same for the Zeiss.

  • FrenchGuy

    Does any one know if we still can install the battery pack of the D90 with the Easycover? Thank you!!!

  • Tevit

    I just ordered the E from BestBuy. I hope it gets delivered! Thanks for the heads up, Admin!

  • donald

    Interestingly the survey also asked about autofocus performance…….

  • Landscape Photo

    No zoom can beat a good prime. Otherwise prime lenses wouldn’t ever exist and all would be zooms.

    Advantages of prime lenses:

    * IQ: Instead of optimizing for a range, manufacturers may focus in a single focal (e.g. any Nikkor 85mm vs any 70-200 @ 85mm)
    * Aperture: Large apertures are possible, otherwise impossible on a zoom (e.g. Nikkor 24mm f/1.4)
    * Size: Smaller optics can be made if slow apertures are preferred (e.g. Nikkor 24mm f/2.8)
    * Price: Prime lens constuction allows modest prices (e.g. Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, this Zeiss is an exclusion though 🙂 )

    • Rob

      Did you look at the comparison? The Nikon zoom beats the $3000 prime in everything except center sharpness wide open. If you don’t use it at 2.8, the zoom is better at everything.

  • pooh

    The test showed how good the Samyung is.

    • Anonymous Maximus

      Yes, except for softness wide-open and heavy & complex mustache-type distortion. The article says distortion can be corrected, but how? I can’t see any lens profile for Samyang on camera Raw.

      • As said in the article as well, you can download additional lens profiles in Photoshop or by installing the lens profile downloader from Adobe labs. I found two for Samyang and one for Rokinon. All work a bit different,you should test whichfits best for your needs.

      • BartyL

        You can always create your own. I have the Samyang, and even on a D300s the distortion is evident. So I downloaded Adobe’s Lens Profile Creator, had some of the included test charts printed up, and made a profile. The profile is run in Lightroom and takes care of most of the distortion, vignetting and CA.

        • Spy Black

          They used PTLens in the article. The $25 PTLens is much better at correcting lens aberrations than the Adobe program, and has an extensive lens database, including the Samyang. A must if you have a lens like the 14mm Samyang.

          • BartyL

            I’d say the quality of correction in Adobe programs is mostly dependent on the quality of the correction profile used, and that in turn depends on the quality of the individual who created it. Although I followed Adobe’s instructions as best I could, creating a large data set of almost 100 images to process, I still wasn’t sure I was doing the right thing in some circumstances. I did it because I was unable to find a correction profile for the Samyang at the time. I don’t know if the profile I created could be better, but the results are a huge improvement over the uncorrected images.

            In any event the point stands, the OP has the opportunity to create a correction profile for him/herself.

            • Spy Black

              I’d still give PTLens a try. You can download a trial and apply the correction to your images to see if your Adobe corrections areas good. I tried it a while back with some full res Samyang 14mm images from the Photozone review and it was pretty impressive. I’ve considered the Samyang as well and if I do get it PTLens will certainly be part of my arsenal.

  • Back to top