1. Wow, you can actually tell? Do you know what is the resolution on the D40's LCD? Do you know what is the resolution of your images (assuming shooting at 6mp)? In other words, sharp images on the D40 LCD does NOT translate in to sharp images on your computer screen.
2. Do you know how big is the focusing area of the D40? What if when you shoot someone's face, the whole box is covering the face? What are you focusing on then? Can you see?
3. Come on, give a more solid example. Panning is something that if you stand where the subject is moving along your focusing plane, you actually might *not* need to do any adjustment to your focusing. How about subjects that move in and out of your focusing plane? Say it's coming towards you or going further away? Can you keep up then?

ifer, personally, I think it's easier to do manual focus on film. Film SLRs are full-frame cameras, with larger viewfinders and also split-screen focusing. Furthermore, those will probably use actual manual focusing lenses, with damped focusing rings. In other words, all the older gears are meant to be manually focused. On film SLRs, the problem would not be manual focusing, but manual metering - the opposite of DLSRs - since there is no manual feedback on your exposure. Big bummer.

---

Added on September 23, 2008, 10:28 amThat's right. Hence my question to xandman. Or did I mis-read his statements?

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 23 2008, 10:38 AM

Tsk tsk tsk xandman. Why don't you just stop this right now and avoid making a further fool of yourself?

Yes, I know what is stop down metering. It is when you close the aperture of the lens to allow the light meter to read the correct exposure. This is necessary if you're shooting at anything but the largest aperture (the light meter will always expose for the max aperture).

Now tell me this - how is a body that cannot read metering info from a lens, going to meter it? (Stopped down metering, or not). Heck some cameras even need to use the DOF preview button to do stop down metering. That makes it even more ridiculous because D40/x/60 don't have DOF preview button.

Oh, btw xandman, I think you are the one confused. The "trial and error metering" is called 'manual metering'. Stop down metering, is not manual metering.

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 23 2008, 11:01 AM

Well, good for you if you can be satisfied with manual focusing. I just find the LCD and small-ish viewfinder of the D40 to be more suited for auto-focusing. Same goes for the terrible focusing rings of the current AF lenses. But that's just me.

TakNak Chimping has nothing to do with manual focusing, but more towards metering, unless you use a manual focus lens as well during that outing.

Not really. New is just RM1300 @ digitalsmania (pudu plaza) or RM1350 @ JOne. Both grey set. New ones are about 14xx (forgot the price).

Mounted on my ex-D40


Ah, I see KTCY beat me with the pricing.

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 23 2008, 11:38 AM

OK, then I stand corrected on the chimping exercise.

I don't find the chimping exercise to be anything useful to me, hence the reluctance to join in or organizing such an event. I already shoot manual exposure almost 100%, so I know my metering and lighting. It'll be helpful if I can accurately guess exposure just by looking at the room, something a no chimping exercise can help, but I don't find the need. I can guess 70% correct most of the time. The other 30% takes about, oh 5 seconds to fix by taking another shot after adjusting exposure.

Actually, the difference isn't the coverage (95% or 100%) but the actual size of the viewfinder. E.g. the D700's viewfinder, being a full-frame camera, will trump our cropped sensor viewfinders because it's larger and possibly brighter.

Note that both the D700 and the D40 viewfinders don't offer 100% coverage.

And there's no such thing as a full-frame film because the standard 35mm film is used. Hint, go find out the size of D3 and D700's sensor size

Random portrait for lens test.


What do you guys think of the shot above?

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 23 2008, 03:02 PM

I know the D3's viewfinder is 100% coverage. Was comparing between film/full-frame viewfinders to the cropped sensors.

Sorry for the image size, linked from flickr. I'll link a larger one.

---

Added on September 23, 2008, 3:03 pmIt's cheaper than I expected really. But if it's worth it or not, you need to decide for yourself

The Sigma's lens is sharper, but damn big. Have you seen the size in comparison with the other 50mm lenses? My god it looks like a 85mm prime. I'd wait for reviews first. It's only due in December though.

Btw, Nikon says it's a new optical formula, meaning it's not the same as the old lens. But I didn't compare the number of elements and stuff. I tried the older one though, it ain't bad but it was hard for me to get a sharp shot. I didn't know what was wrong. I mean I can get sharper pics with my 30mm Sigma.

And there are 2 minor issues with the lens:

1. the focusing ring rotates, so it kept on rubbing against my fingers
2. there's bad fringing of the bokeh! Yes, the bokeh. Damn hard to fix in post-processing. Front bokeh has red fringing, back bokeh has green (or the other way around, I could be mistaken).

After trying for a while, I didn't buy the 50mm f1.4.

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 23 2008, 03:09 PM

I got my dose of prime poison already (hint: go see the random portrait shot hehehe). OK la, I'll say it la, broke down and went for a 85mm f1.4 just now. I didn't get a 50mm because I found the range to be quite similar to my 30mm. Just a tad more reach. So I went for a 85mm instead.

---

Added on September 23, 2008, 3:30 pmUhm, because the bokeh has got color fringing.

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 23 2008, 03:30 PM

Yup. Was looking for a good portrait / telephoto lens. After much deliberation, this was the one I settled for.

Agreed. Or just use an auto-focusing lens

That's why for manual focusing, I don't plan to use my DSLR. Rangefinder maybe hehehe

Yup, definitely fringing. It's an older lens. I heard the newer Nikkor's no longer have this (the 70-200VR for example). But alas, there's no update to the 85mm f1.4. But I really think I can live with the fringing

asfax, I think you were just asking for fun. You knew you'd get this kind of pricing right?

Where are you from? Why so far up north?

With regard to my stupidity, to each his/her own they say.

I'm surely happy you are not jealous, because I find showing off gear distasteful. I'll be damned if I do that. I apologize if I sound snobbish. That is NOT my purpose. Showing off pics is much more fun

Which is a better lens? That's debatable. What's more important is each piece of glass has a purpose and fits a shooting style. Bugger shooters will have macro lenses, event shooters will probably own a f2.8 telephoto zoom and landscape shooters an UWA lens (everyone should own a normal lens though hehe). Are all macro shooters stupid simply because I can't comprehend a need for a macro lens? Absolutely not.

If one own many glasses because they are 'nikkor's best' or 'the trinity' or whatever, then, that's very sad.

---

Added on September 23, 2008, 11:38 pmJust in case you are interested - YL Camera in Pudu Plaza is selling the D90 RM 2650 body only. Add 1K for the kit lens package.

Skip the lens I say

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 23 2008, 11:39 PM

The distortion is exactly why you should go for the Sigma. Complaining about distortion for the 10-20 is like complaining about the fish-eye effect on a fish-eye lens.

Huh? Manual metering? And why would a film SLR suit me more?

My photos aren't world class, but I'd like to think they're passable la. They're on flickr mostly. Feel free to look around.

If I spit out bull-shit, it's definitely not intentional. I'll be the first one to say I tend to make mistakes. What I don't do is hide behind them. If I made mistakes, I'll be more than happy to be corrected.

Master? Far from it. But I know where my ISO button is la.

The distortion exaggerates perspective and can work wonders with lines. They're also good for in-your-face kind of photos. Shooting with the 10-20 is tricky and needs practice but definitely do-able.

Do you own a 10-20? I reckon 'no' because from what you're saying, you don't know how to shoot with a 10-20.

And the Tokina 11-16 distortion free? Come on. I know folks using that lens and abuse it for portraits. People look fat and like aliens (elongated head).

If you've stressed the tokina is a constant f2.8 then I agree it's an advantage over the 10-20.

Btw, what happened to your other partner? After the fiasco with stopped-down metering, he just kept quiet?

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 24 2008, 12:02 AM

I thought we were talking about the distortion? Yes, I agree the Sigma is soft compared to the other UWA, but I never claimed it was the sharpest. I only said the distortion effect is useful for a distorted perspective.

Don't push you lack of self-confidence on me. I never claimed you can't shoot. You did in the previous post. I've never seen your work. (Oops, looks like I did claim you can't shoot. Well if you claim the 10-20 can't be used as a serious lens, then I guess I'd have to say you don't know how to shoot with the lens).

And the same thing goes with claiming I'm the 'master'. I have never, and will never, claim to be master of anything. I'm not as arrogant as some of the trolls in this forums.

If you find my posting style offensive, feel free to ignore them. Why read them? You don't have any right over how I post and vice-versa. If I have to put up with childish posts, I guess you'd have to as well

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 24 2008, 12:30 AM

Yes, I have the 10-20. http://www.flickr.com/photos/eng-bernie/se...57607356533273/
The link is for all the newest photos with the 10-20. Please, take a look at the badly distored pics. I take portraits with that lens too btw. So how's that for distortion?

zio, sorry for hogging the thread

Yes, YL offered 2650 for body only. It was initially offered at 2850. Additional 1K for the lens. They posted it at MIR. I didn't call to confirm though (there was a phone number there) because I didn't intend to buy one.

And why exactly are you basing the lens performance on my pictures? I'm just showing I do own the lens and to demonstrate the distortion effects. My pics might not do justice to the lens.

Calling the 14-24 an UWA? This is a D40 thread.

bai bai (not that I expect you to keep your word)

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 24 2008, 12:57 AM

Which Sigma? 50mm? Or 10-20mm?

Last time I checked, it was around 2k for a local warranty set. But seriously, for 2k, maybe the tokina 11-16 f2.8 is a better buy. Grey sets are 1680 if my memory serves. The 11-16 still has distortion (despite what was said earlier) but has the added advantage of f2.8 and a tad sharper. However, you lose the 20mm-ish range, which is what I generally use to take portraits in wide angle. At 16mm, there's still slight distortions so if you take portraits with the tokina, make sure you center the subject.

So I guess it breaks down to:
1. Do you need f2.8? The large aperture is useful if you plan on using it as a walk-around lens + landscape. Remember though that f4-f5.6 looks bad on paper but since we are talking about wide angles, you'll get by with very slow shutters to compensate the lack of light.

2. Is sharpness very important? Blow up sample pics of the 11-16 and 10-20 and judge if you can live with either lens. I find that the 10-20 is OK enough for me.

3. Do you need the extra 1mm? When I go wide, I want wiiiiiide, hence the Sigma

4. Do you want HSM? The Sigma has a silent-wave motor and will focus faster, quieter. On a D40 too

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 24 2008, 01:18 AM