All armchair photographers rejoice.
Actually, it's called in-depth review which was credited to Simon Joinson and Phil Askey at dpreview.com. As noted, the review was done with firmware v.1 prior to the first firmware upgrade which allegedly could corrupt image files in certain circumstances and was hence pulled from distribution. Nikon screwed up.
After reading the comparison, and seeing with my own eyes and recalling what Ken Rockwell's early review, I have to conclude that, all things being equal, based on out of the camera unmolested JPEG, Canon delivers visually cleaner and sharper images.
More Trouble in Paradise
As if the firmware upgrade blunder wasn't bad enough, Nikon suffered another embarrassment. The latest review on its once class leading, pro grade lens Nikkor AFS-VR 70~200 f2.8 was deemed to be largely poor when shot using Nikon's own FX sensor D3 camera. Digital Loyd says"Its optical performance is without a doubt the very worst I’ve yet to see on the D3 from any lens." Long time Nikon shooter Bjorn declares that "the covering power of this slim design simply is not adequate for a good performance across the entire FX frame." And I have heard Nikon is going to sell newly designed nano coated lens. Could that be a marketing ploy? The 70~200 is up for an upgrade.
UPDATE
4/25/08
Just as promised, Nikon re-released the D3 firmware update.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
LG just up the ante by introducing its own touch screen cellphone a week after Apple made the iPhone announcement. The PRADA phone is a col...
-
New York City is falling apart .... Buildings are collapsing , the financial market is in a tailspin and the dollar is not the dollar it us...
While the 70-200 f/2.8 is bad in fullframe, people around the world is still facing shortage of supply of this lens at this moment. I also wonder why no one have noticed the problem when this lens is used in the film bodies which should still be very common at the time this lens is introduced.
ReplyDeleteBecause those amateur would be looking at the pictures in 4x6 prints, there is no way they could tell the difference. Soon after everybody can afford the big gun no long shoots film. With digital, pre FX, people can peep the pixel at 100% or even more, and of course, the lens is good in the center. Now with FX, the lens off center weaknesses just got thoroughly exposed, people look at the jpeg at 100% and they are right there.
ReplyDeleteI am happy with my 80~200 f2.8, though I didn't do any "test" at all.