You mean the liveView (LCD) become dark. Viewfinder is the one which you use your eye to see, this one will not become dark during capture.
LiveView (LCD) will become dark during capture, which is not like compact camera where the image remains on the LCD.

When you set AUTO ISO, check the MAXIMUM ISO, make sure it's set to 3200 or 6400. If it's set to too low, then the camera won't use high ISO.

You can also try shoot in "S" mode, use the front knob (on the right) and turn to the right, you should see the shutter speed changes. Try adjusting the shutter speed to 1/50 or faster (e.g. 1/100), take a photo now, you should see it's much faster.

This post has been edited by Andy214: Nov 8 2013, 06:05 PM

You applied heavy noise reduction?
Looks like watercolor painting

Harder to spot, but it will look less natural due to too smooth and watercolor feel, or lack of details, even you view at smaller size, will see like something; not sure how to put it, but usually phone pictures will apply heavy noise reduction and even share in small size, you can see it.

Even got noise, when you view at small size, it's hardly noticeable as it actually gives more details to the picture.
But then, it really depends on personal preference, many people don't mind the smoothening effect, or prefer those "angelic" look by reducing clarity,

Btw, did you do any manual CA correction?

Oh ya, nice watermark~

Simple and Nice

Macam Gundam

New Tamron 90mm? If yes, can consider Nikon instead.

If older Tamron 90mm, there is no Internal Focus, the lens will extend when you focus, its noisy and it's slow;
You can consider a used Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro VR, you should be able to get around RM2K+
The quality and everything is just so much... better.

Moreover getting a Nikon lens, you have less worry if you upgrade your body in the future... I mean, camera body.

This post has been edited by Andy214: Nov 15 2013, 04:05 PM

How soft is the soft?
beside, make sure there is no back-focus or front-focus issue.

Just like the 35mm f/1.8G, some users complain it's soft wide open, but it's still sharp. Or maybe just the how acceptable "sharp" or how "soft" from each person.

Are you referring to street price? If street price, new Nikon 105mm street price is below RM3K.

Whenever Nikon release new body, 3rd party lens is not guarantee to work 100%. Some may have issue like unable to focus in LV, some may have issue with Nikon Speedlight AF Assists, etc. For some issue, some user may not notice the problem and still use it... Nikon Speedlight AF assist issue is one of it, and many users didn't notice this.
However, usually, you can send the lens back to the manufacturer to update (if available). Other issues could be "accuracy", "speed", but this really depends what you use the lens for.

Anyway, after some experience, if there is a choice, I would go for the Nikkor. Besides, the Nikkor 105 built quality, silent focusing, etc. it's worth to get compared to the Tamron; If lucky, you may find a good used unit for good price.
Not saying the Tamron is bad, but personally, I would go for the Nikkors for this; It's usable for portraits, even for moving subjects, it's able to continuous focus accurately on moving subjects.
But if use solely for Macro work, then it won't be the priority, the Tamron can do the job good enough.
Just like the Tamron 17-50mm, RM1.1K vs Nikkor 17-55mm RM5K; the Tamron is good enough for casual use, even for events, but for the Nikkor would be better if you're using for important events (e.g. paid job as it's more accurate and reliable in many ways)

This post has been edited by Andy214: Nov 15 2013, 05:23 PM

I didn't say I have used. I said, there is NO GUARANTEE it will work 100% in FUTURE bodies. This is stated by Nikon themselves. Of course, you're free to choose what you like. I was just merely giving my personal opinions and suggestion based on my experience with 3rd party lenses.
That said, I have nothing against 3rd party lenses because my suggestion also depends on what the person used it for, just like the 17-50mm vs 17-55mm, for casual users, the Tamron 17-50mm is good enough and it's very cheap at RM1.1K vs RM5K++

For the "fast" enough, it may varies from person to person. The Tamron 17-50mm focus is not fast, but to some people, it's good enough. But I can't say it's not good enough for sports, there's still pros which use this lens and able to capture good pictures from sports event, but who will know the actual situation and difference?
If one own BOTH and used both for long terms, then one may know which is slightly better or a lot better. Sometimes slightly better is good enough to pay for more, while to another person, slightly better is not worth to pay for more.

That said, good enough is also depends on people. For you, you may prefer the Tamron. For me, I prefer the Nikkor. I didn't ask the person NOT TO get Tamron. Read back my post, I was suggesting "can consider the Nikon instead", unless you feel Nikon should not be even considered?

Yes, used one at RM3K is a good bargain, the accuracy and reliability is much better, especially critical for job, even a slightly better accuracy is important.
That said, really still depends on the purpose. The Tamron 17-50mm is still good enough for most casual use even for jobs, some profesional photographers used them; by merely seeing the photos, how many or who can tell which lens is used?
But a better lens, surely will benefit more especially for paid jobs.

Yes, you're right, they're stepping up their game. I'm not saying that 3rd party lens will not be better. Just like we can't say the Nikkor will always be sharper than 3rd party, so similarly, I can't say that the Nikkor will be more accurate or more reliable.
But I'm saying 'generally', the Nikkor "should" (or chances) be more reliable and accurate, as in, as a customer, the Nikkor should give more reliability for this. For more accurate, the owner needs to test and try out both lens to know, but from short testing usually you can't really tell (unless the difference is huge), and also one needs to test and make sure the lens has no problems like back-focus or front-focus, even slight, then it's unfair to compare.

For this, after testing, if there is "slight" difference, let's say the Nikkor is better "slightly" for the tester, but the price difference is huge. Then it's up to the person whether he/she feels it's worth paying more for the "slightly" better.
In some cases, a 3rd party maybe better or the better option, then it's a more easier choice since usually 3rd party is much cheaper.

I'm not aware of the buyer's budget, so I'm just suggesting. In the end, it's up to the buyer if he/she willing/wants to save more for it. I was also having budget constraint, but in the end I decided to save and get the Nikkor, but then back then there was no Tammy 90mm VC, the main reason I didn't get the older version is due to the lens extend during focusing, the slow and noisy AF.
If there is the VC version, I'm not sure if I would still choose the Nikkor or not, may need to try out both properly first

But the Tamron 17-50mm without VC price is so so much cheaper than the Nikkors. A good option for those casual DSLR users. Casual users using say a low end body which have no weather sealing, may not really need a weather sealed lens, but having it of course is better, but also need to know what the new price, hehe.

Yea, "generally" it should be better. But actual case, need to test in detail first.
And also, if better, how much better and whether the price difference is worth to pay (depending on each person's point of view).

Anyway, lens is a more long term use compare to body, but body... depreciates in price, fall behind in terms of newer technology/sensor/etc and being replace much faster; but on special case, the older bodies may still be very good and valuable such as the D700, D3S, etc.

Increase exposure... try different color profile, use/try Portrait. (If shoot RAW, you can switch between the profiles to see the differences)
Try turn on D-Lighting to high, if you shoot raw, you can try adjust the D-Lighting by processing the RAW from the camera. This basically recovers the shadows, but will/may make your photos less contrasty.

This post has been edited by Andy214: Nov 25 2013, 04:13 PM

After you process the file to Jpeg. With RAW, when you choose process image in Camera Body, you can change the D-Lighting option also, you can try it and see the difference.

And choose "Portrait" color profiles, it will be less harsh, you can also reduce the contrast.
You using "Standard" color profiles? Try vivid, you will know kaw kaw, hahaha

Btw, D-Lighting can also recover on highlights if not wrong.


This post has been edited by Andy214: Nov 25 2013, 05:25 PM

D-Ligthing is for processed image (e.g. Jpeg) in your camera.
When you choose to process RAW in your camera, after process, you will get JPEG file.

If using LR or PS, you can recover yourself.
D-Lighting will be more on overall or based on the camera processing to determine which to recover, but if if you recover yourself, you can control which part to recover and get better result.

Your previous question was asking to do direct in camera right? hehe

This post has been edited by Andy214: Nov 25 2013, 05:45 PM

During shoot, if you shoot raw, you can try to adjust later. This one may see PS skills, I'm not sure how good/much can recover and still look natural/ok.
If you mean during shoot, even shoot raw, but you want to get JPEG image on the spot, you can try processing the RAW in camera.

If you're processing the RAW file through PS or LR, then you can try lower the contrast, black levels, clarity, etc. Firstly, choose suitable color profiles, you may notice when you change color profiles, the result will be different.

The image your friend shot, the shadow is pretty bad, hehe. Maybe those shifu with good skills can recover.

This post has been edited by Andy214: Nov 25 2013, 06:17 PM

Get rid like completely? Not sure, maybe those pro editing skills can do it.
It can look unnatural too if you get rid completely, or maybe depends on the editing skills.