You won’t see any difference. It’s the same lens and the same size.
But in general: if you’re satisfied why change. I did for it added image stabilisation to my non VR lenses.
George
George
1 Like
Wir haben deinen neuen Beitrag erhalten. Dieser muss jedoch von einem Moderator genehmigt werden, bevor er angezeigt wird. Bitte habe etwas Geduld.
Du hast 1 verbleibenden Beitrag.
Interesting. Instead of contacting me and telling me why a post needs to be approved, they just shoot in the back.
Edit: I guess, it was the sh…t part in the post. Thanks, mod, for approving it anyway.
Agreed. That happens because the devs of the menus usually only think along the line “how can I add or multiply functions without getting punished for subtracting a then no longer necessary function?”. At best, they learnt how to add and sort functions. But only in their own view. It appears no one is in a photog’s shoes and even if, he will look at it in a “possible code?” way. And since the marketing companies believe in numbers, they only get super crazy excited by “adding” more features to their lists. Quality? Who cares? Quantity of features? YEEEEEAAAAHH! 
Few menus are less complicated and very few cameras have a clear separation between hard- and software “buttons”. To me Nikon is one of the worst (they even included AF micro-adjustments in their mirrorless systems), followed by Sony. I hear Olympus also have enough sub-menus to stack on a dozen of LCDs and still not seeing all. I don’t know all various manufacturer menus, but they share in common that they are not comprehensive, self-explaining and basically all over the place. More simplicity is apparently strictly forbidden and leads to death sentence.
Each company has a list of “poorly executed functions and opposite of logical interaction between hardware and software”, as they don’t seem to think from the result backwards to the set-up. And there’s only so much space to put in functions and still keep the whole thing operative. Instead of cleaning up, a paradoxon happens: Introducing “new” functions is progress, keeping the old shit in place is “making the usability easier for victims / users of the predecessor” just because the devs have no clue who is using what and why.
But your LF camera also has shortcomings. Just not in the menus, but in the hardware, dictated by “balancing weight against comfortable use”.
For one of your images there’s a prediction function in some LV settings (the long exposure) which gives an idea of the outcome, but the moment the image happens it will be a different result. Also, some cameras not only have a LV but also kind of recording monitor. I can stop a long time exposure when I see on the monitor “now it’s good”. Not on DSLR LV (to my knowledge), more on the systems of manufacturers being longer in mirrorless business than Nikon and Canon.
I worked as a software design and coding consultant for about 30 years and the biggest problem I saw was that, even if the coders foresaw problems, it was often managers that insisted that their “vision” was right.
Yes, I found that, tried it and ended up ignoring it because it didn’t seem necessary.
Ah yes - Olympus menus. What can I say but that even I could not get to the bottom of their menus and realised why the club members who had been conned into buying them were getting frustrated and staying in everything automatic. I was once in a camera shop when a hapless woman was being sold an Olympus. The salesman’s pitch was basically - “it’s so simple to use, just leave everything in automatic”. She would have been better off with a phone camera.
Actually, there really isn’t that much difference in weight between my Ebony SV45Te and my Nikon D850 with battery grip - both around 1.6kg without lens.
Of course, that’s not taking into account the backpack for lenses, filters, film holders etc. Although we used the Fuji Quickload system, with only one single-sided holder and single sheets of film in light-tight envelopes.
But the answer is simple - if the subject can’t be photographed from within 5O metres from the car, it isn’t picturesque 
The D850 has a 10 shot multi-exposure mode, so I tend to take multiple exposures, around 5 seconds each, each time the wave breaks. The camera combines them for me into a single file.
Last days I read in biography of Steve Jobs. I don’t think it’s bad if managers have their visions - per se. But some, if not ,most managers confuse “talking about visions” with “having a good one, and the right conversation partners as well”.
I was talking (just not loud enough, should say “I was thinking”) about the time consuming set-up and that some settings are harder on an Ebnony than on a Sinar or Linhof or… design concepts of LF cameras vary. Today I see that with two T/S lenses (and tried also a Nikon 19 mm, but no Schneider PC): Canon and Hartblei vary very much, the Hartblei is more flexible, I’d say,. but needs a lot more thinking in advance and once setup, it’s not super-easy to change.
Clever girl! 
Will keep that in mind next time when I walk 16 km through a Gorge. Simply not picturesque enough… 
It’s looks better than this attempt:
The fp-L goes down to ISO 6 and also combines single shots. Good for when I forgot an ND filter (which I normally do…) but movement of bright objects like this ship doing a U-turn on the river brings out "the truth.
With less movement it’s ok.
They probably thought it was obvious. Talk nicely to other posters, most of whom are their customers. 
You and I went through that - the D780 has more menu listings than I can count. I gave up, and you helped me, essentially by ignoring a huge number of them. There’s probably a logical reason why they are there (most likely from feedback from users), but for me, it was overwhelming. By contrast, my 18 or so years old D3 has a quite simple listing for menus, and even in the “Custom Setting Menu”, everything seemed obvious. I understand it has only 12 megapixels, and less dynamic range, but for most things I shoot, it is excellent - not that I would try to shoot something to make into a mural, when my newer Nikon has far better specifications.
When you and I went through my menus from the D780, just about all those (to me, bizarre) functions were turned off. All of Nikon’s efforts to help people get good images are now “off”. It is now set like my D750 before it (which you helped me simplify the menus) and my D3 (which is already simplified).
Going back through my 70 years of cameras, first it was box cameras, which led to 35mm cameras, and 2 1/4 twin lens reflex, along with what I call huge “press cameras”, some like your LF camera. The 35mm cameras were rangefinder, until the Nikon F changed the world (although Pentax Exacta, and Alpa, and many more) already had SLR cameras). SLR took over most of the world around me, until the next huge change, to Digital. It’s fun to look at all the digital cameras as they evolved. I remember on my first digital camera, I tried to edit an image to see one pixel (not knowing what the heck I was doing), and got a single dot! What the ??? …but over time, it got better, and I got an Olympus E-10 with I think 4 megapixels??, a huge lens which could make huge enlargements. Then there were more, and more, and more DSLR’s, as they improved. Then ML cameras came out, and the public was told how necessary they are, that a gazillion people dumped their old gear to buy one - an then replaced their old lenses with new ones. The camera industry had been suffering, and the best thing ML did was to get people to buy much more.
My question, is what comes next, when people dump their ML stuff in favor of the next best thing…?
I’m sure some people here have been involved in photography to be aware of all these changes over time. When enough people have bought ML, the camera companies will release something new, that causes people to want to dump their ML just as has happened over and over in the past.
Sorry for the diversion, but back to Menus. Fortunately, there are books and videos that I have found which explain what every single menu choice is, and does, which can also be used to figure out what’s important to the user, and what can be ignored.
@Joanna, even though I have since learned what each of the menu choices are for, thanks to you I have already ignored the ones that you suggested I ignore, and I think/hope that each of them that “edits” an image is now safely turned off, along with any menu choices that start with the four letter word “auto”. If a photo comes out crappy, I only have myself to blame, not the camera.
If someone like you pretends to have a clue, that’s just part of this entertainment thread here 
Wow, it turns out that both my D780 and my D3 have that function (which I may have noticed before, but ignored). Being curious for more information, this video popped up:
It is quite powerful, and towards the end he shows us some fascinating multiple-exposure images he has created. Seems that this mode can create some totally nothing images, but used more carefully, it is far more capable. We can pick how many shots we want to combine.
Once again I’m showing my lack of “open thinking”, as while I did notice this while going through menus, I couldn’t think of any good reason for doing so. Thank you for posting about it.
Oh, and thank you @joju.
First test; tried with my old D3:
It’s nice that the camera re-sets itself after doing an image, and turns the function off.
“Nikon’s Z series mirrorless cameras make double exposure or multiple exposure images a breeze due to the cameras’ electronic viewfinder.” I need to test this on my D780 in LV mode.
I suspect you would have gotten identical results, as you would have selected everything just as you do now.
I’m guessing your first photo might have been a 30-second time exposure, shooting down at the rocks, but the top of the screen could almost pass for “sky”. It’s fascinating, but with nothing for my brain to attach myself to, it’s annoyingly frustrating as I can’t figure it out - which I’m probably not supposed to do.
Second image looks like a beautiful “still-life” but for the water spray behind the rocks which brings it to life. lovely (sunset?) sky. Something that stands out is how you got everything in focus, from what looks like a few feet in front of you, to infinity. Something you did which I’m now trying to do (I think I got that from you) is how the rocks end exactly at the corner of the image. Nowadays I’ve been trying to copy that, as I love the way it looks.
Image #3 shows something I don’t think I can do with my camera - everything is sharp from the bottom edge of the photo to infinity. I doubt you used f/22 - I suspect you tilted the lens in a way that most cameras can’t replicate. Again, the bottom of the photo has the “lines” going right to the corner - and the sharpness of those “ties” is incredible. I’m also wondering how you got such a wide angle, which makes me think that you did this with your D850. I suspect the lens made the “horizon” curved, but maybe that’s a feeling, not “real”. But that’s what my eyes tell me.
The last photo - yikes! To me it looks more like a painting than a photograph. It is too beautiful to be real, and I suspect you used a very long lens to compress the distance like you did. I love the smoke, and the detail in the steam locomotives, and also the tracks and ties, which I can barely see. I wonder what the “thing” is off to the right, but as a “prop” it only adds to the photo. The ugly railing at the bottom left detracts from the photo, but proves to me that the photo is “real”. You must have waited for hours to capture some of these!
Final thought - I know you completely disagree with me, but your “signature” belongs on each of these.
To answer your question, I defy anyone in this forum using a ML camera to capture a version of photos like these. I suspect you spent hours taking every one of them.
Didn’t you want to post less?
Weren’t you going to post some of YOUR edited PhotoLab photos?
(Actions speak louder than words.)
…I love the way Joanna shows us what she does with PhotoLab, something many of us can learn from. I certainly try, but don’t always understand at first.
Yes, and the D780 can take up to 10 shots if required.
For a first attempt, that’s not bad. You might like to try the “lighten” and “darken” overlay modes to see what difference it makes.
Apparently, in LV, you should be able to see how each shot in a series affects previous ones - something the D850 doesn’t do, but what you don’t have, you don’t miss
Well, sort of. It was actually five shots of 5 seconds in multiple exposure, averaging, mode. You don’t have to take each shot immediately after the previous, so what I did was to wait for a wave to break, take a shot, then wait for the next wave, etc.
I hadn’t actually seen the “sky effect” until you pointed it out.
Indeed. Abstract images are just that - abstract. See them and make what you want out of them.
This was very much one of those “waiting for the light” images, when I was in place and waiting for the “blue hour”, just after the “golden hour”
The rocks appear a warm colour because they are made of pink granite, which is predominant around here - more obvious in this wider shot…
Yes, it was just after sunset.
That relies on focusing on the “hyperfocal distance” which, as quick and dirty rule, for a 28mm focal length, at f/10, is around 5.28m and gives a DoF from 2.68m to infinity.
But, for this shot I used my 20mm prime lens and, allowing for a tad of diffraction, I used f/16 at 1.27m to give me a DoF from 63cm to infinity, just to ensure that the foreground shingle was as sharp as could be.
You love it because it is one of those “tricks” (I refuse to call it a rule) we learn about landscape photography. It leads the viewer’s eye into the image. It came about because painters discovered such a composition was more pleasing, not because someone calculated it.
Well, you would be wrong. You certainly can do this with your D780. Just use the hyperfocal distance as described above.
You suspect wrong. The camera makes no difference. It was taken with the D810 and my old, now superseded, 28-200mm at 28mm. Fortunately, the PhotoLab lens module does a pretty good job with its imperfections, apart from my having to use the maximum everything for the chromatic aberration tool.
As part of the B&W series I am preparing, I wanted this image, but in the same aspect ratio as all the other prints, so I adjusted the X/Y ratio in the perspective tool on the Viewpoint palette…
This kept the rails in the corners and, if anything, gives the impression of using a slightly wider lens.
In fact, I had the 80-400mm lens fitted to my, long departed, D200 (APS-C sensor), at only 80mm (120m full frame equivalent). And, albeit only a slightly cropped 10Mpx image, once again, I used Topaz Photo AI to enlarge it to fill a 16" x 24" print with stunning detail.
It is actually, near enough, sharp all over because I focused on the front of the engine, which was around 50m away and, without diffraction, at f/8, that gave me a DoF from 25m to infinity.
It is a tanker wagon, more than likely for fuel oil.
But, it was there and, to get the framing right, there was no way to avoid it, even messing around in PL after the event.
With either waiting for the light, or just looking around for the best angle and composition, more than likely, but time flies when you’re having fun 
Finally, a pair of shots taken while waiting for the main image to “appear”, taken 18 seconds apart.
Now you see them…
… now you don’t…
It’s all about timing 
Well, one thing is for sure - you didn’t do what I typically do, find something interesting, find the right place to shoot from, figure out the proper settings, and shoot. A lot more effort went into them.
I take what might seem to be a long time for me, but is nothing like your assembling all the bits and pieces into a work of art. For me, for whatever time I take in “capturing” an image, I spend ten times as much PhotoLabbing (is that a word) the image. I get the feeling that to create the precision you achieve, you are usually using a tripod. I’m beginning to wonder about using one, or at least my new (to me) monopod. Without doing so, I capture what I “see”. By using one, it changes to what I would “create”.
Other than for shooting birds, I suspect the overwhelming majority of people here in this forum are hand-holding. For this kind of (landscape?) photography, maybe a tripod is essential, so everything can be adjusted perfectly. Something to think about.
@platypus and I see things differently, so he crops my images tighter. I can’t decide which way I prefer. Your images are already cropped “perfectly”, and when I wonder what I might have included or cropped more, I get a “blank”. They are perfect as they are. It’s as if you are composing on a ground glass screen, and I am capturing what I “see”. Next time I go “birding”, I need to also think “how would @platypus have cropped this” before I shoot.
I need to check this out. I’m not sure if the D3 even has those, but I’ll try with the D780 next time. I thought I knew what I expected, but the actual image amazed me. It showed me much more than I expected, like all the boats at the bottom left corner - I didn’t expect that, but love it!
Actually, that is not always the case, except for still life. It’s all about “seeing” and that is something that doesn’t always come easily.
If you want to improve your “hit rate” of good composition and framing, pretend you are using a camera that costs $10 for each shot and that you are using transparency film with a dynamic range of only five stops, not forgetting that you can’t work on transparency film after you’ve taken the shot.
It takes time but, bit by bit, you start to think of images as precious moments that you only get one opportunity to capture. This is not to say that you do this all the time but, with repetition, it becomes easier.
Yes, I will mention LF photography again, because it was the school I passed through to get to where I am today. When you compose for an LF camera, everything is upside down and reversed and the brain does some weird things putting a subject in the right place in the frame. You don’t see “real objects” but, instead, you see a collection of shapes, which you have to fit into the frame.
Well, obviously, with modern digital cameras, you don’t get to see the image reversed, so it can be harder to abstract away from the “real world” and requires a bit more time and effort.
One trick might be to take an initial image, then turn the camera upside down to view the screen reversed. If the composition still looks good, it’s likely to be good the right way up.
In some ways, it’s not about improving your picture taking, but more about improving your compositional skills - framing a scene or subject, then looking away and looking back to see if it still makes sense.
One trick that Helen uses for B&W is to look through a red filter, which effectively loses a lot of detail and colour and accentuates the relationships between the parts of the scene. And, if it takes time, it takes time, but it will save a whole load more time that you would have had to spend glued to a computer screen, “trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”.
This particular shot, which is much reduced in size to protect it from copying, took me around 2 hours to get all the movements right on my Ebony, in order to have everything sharp…
And, if the whole scene doesn’t “work”, look for small portions of it. This was a small harbour with one purple boat that was much more interesting to look at than the others. But it was surrounded by lots of small annoying white boats bobbing about and distracting attention. So, I watched and saw that it was drifting from side to side against it mooring, where it would pause for a couple of seconds. So, I framed the screen so that the prow would be in the corner and the reflection filling the remainder of the image…
Then it was a matter of closing the shutter, inserting the film holder, withdrawing the dark slide and waiting for the magic moment, when I could press the shutter release.
After scanning, this particular image required absolutely no post processing.
I realise this might seem boring to those of you who just want to rattle off thousands of shots and then throw away 99% of them, but it’s all about quality over quantity and training your eye. After a while, this kind of stuff becomes part of you and the principles will become so engrained that you will do all this kind of stuff automatically, even for moving subjects like birds.
It doesn’t, which is another reason to put it back in the cupboard and concentrate on the D780.
I vaguely remember those things, from the 1970’s, and how difficult it made things. As I recall, I was shooting with my Leica M2, and I never got comfortable with the big camera, which I think was a Graflex reflex camera. The University of Michigan Art Dept. had a 4x5 that I could use, but it never “fit” me, or vice versa. They told me, in very strong terms, to put away my Leica and learn from the big camera. I flunked, then took the course over again, doing exactly what they wanted, and got an “A”. Regardless of how I felt, it was very educational. They explained and showed what a “view camera” was capable of, and how my 35mm camera was not capable of those things. I think I sounded like some people here, saying how great the Leica was, but they forced me to do and think the way they wanted, so I could learn.
About your first photo - why did you include anything lower than the top step?
About the boat photo…
This made the image better for you, as the photographer, but for me, the most interesting things I expected to see are missing…
I like the boat photo, and the reflection, but most of the reflection is of parts of the image that were left out. Now I know why you did that, but I find it “annoying” because what my eye wants to see is missing.
About Nikon D780, D3, and Df…
The biggest reason for that, is when I switch from one camera to the other, I’m too “used to” the previous camera. I know full well which is “better”, and in an upcoming trip I am about to make, the D3 is being left home, along with my Df. I’m taking my 24-120 and 70-300. The longer lens is only for birds, along with my monopod.
A separate thought…
I wish more people in this forum would post the photos they took, and edited in PhotoLab. I’m tired of looking at specifications, but no images to show how those specifications were useful. To me, it all sounds like advertising.
And that is the whole point of the exercise. I went to evening classes when I was only about 17 and learnt how to use a view camera. At the time, it didn’t seem all that useful but, when I went to an LF workshop over 25 years later, it all fell into place.
And that is my second point. Going back to basics can be very useful in rediscovering basic skills that you have delegated to modern automatisms, forgetting how and why they actually work. So, you end up “repairing” more photos rather than taking good ones to start with.
Because the subject is the “Escalier (stairway) de Brelevenez”.
Then you are looking too hard. It is the photographer that decides what you will see. The image was framed explicitly to contain only that part of the scene you were meant to consider.
Once again, most folks tend to look at what is presented. Anything else is irrelevant.
Surely getting used to a camera makes it easier to work with because it becomes instinctive and you can concentrate on composition and framing rather than getting confused.
I have, at least, five cameras. I use one and only one. The others are interesting to look at nostalgically but not to have to waste time readapting to them. Maybe, one day, I’ll get rid of them.
Of course, you could swap those in for the 28-300mm and save yourself having to lug around a second lens, and avoid getting dust in the camera every time you change lens.
I understand that, and maybe for most people, they will accept it as-is, but as one of my buddies here in the forum will agree on, my mind works in weird ways. It also means that I am looking very hard at your image (but wanting more). Like the “extra steps” in the earlier photo, that to me, detract from the top of the photo which I find so fascinating.
Should the photographer be concerned with what people viewing their art think about it? I do think about this from the reverse point of view, as in “how much to crop” leaving “enough” but not “too much” or “too little” - as I’m looking through the viewfinder.
I try to capture the whole image I want to show, but if I’m not using a tripod, I usually leave a wee bit of “wiggle room” that I can adjust later.
If your dream lens was 24-300, or better yet, 20-300, and was just as good as my current lenses, I might consider it. Ken Rockwell finally did a test on my “p” lens:
NEW: 70-300mm VR AF-P FX
The key word in what you wrote is “MOST”. For better or worse, I don’t “fit” that category. But I also think MOST folks would look at your images, enjoy them, and move on, without trying to de-construct the photo in their minds, and try to figure out what you did, and why.
I wish more talented people were posting their PhotoLab results here. Personally, the image is what counts to me, not whether it was taken with a box camera or the not yet announced Nikon Z10 or Sony XX. I’m obviously wrong a lot, but I do try to figure out what you did/do, and how.
(I do that with everyone’s photos, but usually don’t post what I think here. I’m not sure anyone would want me to do so! I wish more people would do so, good or bad, with the images I post!! @Platypus gets the gold star recently for doing this several times. Then I need to sit back and contemplate if his suggestion is better for me than what I originally did…)
I wish @Wolfgang posted more of his work.
That may be the case in your mind but, as with every photo you’ve ever seen, it is the photographer who decides. You seem to be imposing your limits on where the edges of. photo should be. But where does that stop?
Not just with framing, but also with B&W, is this colour version…
… more acceptable to you than this B&W version?
To me, the answer is that neither are acceptable because there are major compositional faults. The most obvious is that it is difficult to separate the wreck from the background because the top of the wreck is in line with the visible horizon and, also, the detail in the background, behind the prow, makes it hard to make out the detail on that end of the wreck.
Fortunately, at that location (Plougrescant) there is room to manoeuvre, so I could “work” the subject.
-
An abstract image, so called because it is part of the subject, abstracted or removed from the full subject - the equivalent of being able to walk up to the wreck and look at the detail of the prow - in other words it’s like the photographer saying to the viewer “come and have a look at the prow of this wreck” without the viewer having to take in the entire wreck in order to appreciate just this detail.
-
Still an abstract or “part” of the wreck. This time showing more of the front of the wreck, with the beautiful compositional element of the jet trail to lead the eye back into the image…
… but there is an unavoidable distraction of the top of a tree, visible above the rail of the wreck. Is this acceptable, or…
-
… should it be removed in post-processing - at the same time, altering the aspect ratio to better suit the shape of frame it will occupy?
Is the “truth” more important than the artistic merit? Does removing the tree detract from the image? Or should it have been left in? If you had only ever seen the second, edited version, you wouldn’t have even known there was ever a tree there to “miss”. There are all sorts of extraneous background details that simply aren’t relevant to many images and, often, they distract the viewer and make it difficult for them to make up their mind what is more important and what the photographer was trying to convey.
-
Art for art’s sake…
The subject is the rusted metal fittings on the tip of the prow. Yes, you can see a hint of the background, but it is soft and returns focus to the main subject. It also adds “grounding” to indicate that it is not something that is handheld or flying through the air. The focus of this image and what the photographer wants the viewer to focus on is just this part of the wreck. Including any more would draw the viewer’s eye away from this exquisite detail. It is not meant only as a documentary, it is a piece of geometric art.
I must emphasise that all the above images are independent images and not crops.
Artists of old used to move the elements of their paintings around to maximise the compositional strength. You saw what the artist wanted you to see and, in those days, you had to accept it was so because it would take long journeys on horseback or in a carriage to go there yourself.
If you were to come over to Brittany, you would not see “Brittany”, you would see the sites and subjects that you were shown or that you discovered - abstracts. The rest of the time, you would be whizzing past kilometre after kilometre of scenery that there simply wouldn’t be time to stop and see in detail, but you would still get an overall feel for what Brittany is like. There’s simply too much to take in unless you travelled around for a few years. By which time, you would have forgotten a lot of the important bits.
And a photograph is very much like that. It is a “guided tour” of the parts of a scene that the photographer found the most interesting.
1 Like
If you really take loads of 20mm shots, then buy the 28-300mm plus a 20mm, because the prime wide angle will definitely return the better quality at that length.
But, apart from that, simply read what Ken says about the 28-300mm…
This 28-300mm VR replaces the entire bag of lenses or zooms used to carry. No longer do I carry any other lens in this focal length range. This 28-300 really does replace every other wide, normal, tele, macro and zoom. It’s superb for photographing anything that holds reasonably still. As you can see, it’s ultra-sharp handheld under any condition; leave the tripod at home except for star trail photos
The 28-300mm VR replaces everything in your bag, as well as your bag. This lens goes wide, it goes super-tele, it’s sharp, and it has VR so you actually can use 300mm hand-held, even in dim light. It even replaces your macro lens and your tripod
And, as I said earlier, unless you really need shorter than 28mm, it avoids your camera collecting dust every time you move from wide angle to telephoto.
I just did a search of my photos folder and found that, out of over 14,000 Nikon RAW files, I only have 280 taken at less than 28mm…
You need to determine your predominant focal length used (not the lens) because you have a massive overlap between 70mm and 120mm and, if you are predominantly using between these focal lengths, you are carrying a second lens for nothing.
Then there’s the weight consideration for carrying two lenses…
| 24-120mm | 1lb 9oz |
| 70-300mm | 1lb 8oz |
| Total | 3lb 1oz |
| 28-300mm | 1lb 12oz |
| 20mm | 13oz |
| Total | 2lb 9oz |