I have to declare I am an Adobe CC Photography Plan user.
I have used Lightroom for RAW management and processing since version 1.
I never thought Lightroom did everything I wanted. I never felt that switching between Lightroom and Photoshop was the best way to edit my photos. I am really fedup with how slow Lightroom can get.
I was delighted to see a plethora of apps, including ON1, being developped to compete with Lightroom/Photoshop pair.
I tried out all of these RAW processors/managers, and of the competition, ON1 stood out as the most credible.
I think with time ON1 may become a direct competition to Adobe, but here is the current state of affairs;
- I can’t port all my edits from Lightroom to any other RAW editor, including ON1, unless I save as TIFF or DNG and re-import. This is many years of work being lost. Alternatively keep two systems running at the same time, which is not feasible.
- I can’t take the chance that ON1 may disappear like DXO, unlike Adobe which is a robust company with increasing profits, is industry standard, and has a wide user base and good support.
- The most important reason for not leaving Adobe, was that there was no real speed advantage using ON1 in real life. As a matter of fact it has a more complicated layout which makes it slower to use.
- There is no new thinking behing ON1, it is merely being sold as a slightly quicker, and maybe cheaper Lightroom/Photoshop. It looks and behaves exactly the same. It has the same layout and layers as ACDSEE Ultimate. It comes with a few freebies, many of which are present in Lightroom.
- The discounted price is touted as cheaper, being a standalone app with no monthly payments. Yet, with time, paid upgrades for new cameras, lenses, and features, will appear, and will work out even more expensive to buy ON1 at the current retail prices.
- Since ON1, ACDSEE, DXO, and many more started being a credible competitor, Adobe has started seriously improving Lightroom, to a more modern app.
For these reasons, I decided to stick to Adobe Lightroom, for a lot longer.
Yesterday I did Auto AF fine tune for the two main lenses .. 24-70mm and 70-200 +/- TC 14E III on Nikon D850.
It took me a good 2 hours
I had to buy a collar for the 70-200 f4 to put on tripod safely ..
I did each lens, at each focal end, 10 times. I then averaged the value for the lens .. while keeping the values for each end saved on my mobile, in case I want to use at one end or the other exclusively in a critical shoot .. I had to do the 70-200 with and without the extender ..
The reason for doing 10 times each one is that the process is so critical .. even pressing the button on the camera makes a very fine vibration, that affects the value significantly .. I think Nikon have to change the process, so it is hands free, using a shutter release cable or timer instead.
At the end of the day .. the 24-70mm was spot on .. calibration value is zero .. i.e. doesn’t need any
The 70-200mm value is +5 without and +7 with Teleconverter
Wow .. that was a whole evening ..
It is easier than AF fine tune manually .. because I am depending on the camera to give a value, rather than trying to decide myself, based on a chart photo, which value to go for .. It is not as easy as they meant it to appear. There is some software out there that can do that, but still requires a lot of trials. I used a Datacolor Spyder LensCal as my target, only because I owned it already.
Averaging across focal end lengths and doing it at certain distances, showed the value different for different focal lengths and distances .. I therefore did it for longest Focal Length first, wide open and nearest subject first .. because that’s the shallowest DOF, as my main value, then for the shorter focal length .. Anything placed further or using the wider focal length, and the DOF would give enough tolerance for good focus, without the need of fine adjustments, as long as the lens is not an outlier of course. I averaged the values, with more weight towards the longest focal length value.
It is easier to do on prime lenses.
I have a host of enthusiastic Nikon lenses to go with my Nikon FF D600.
I have a AF-S 16-35mm f4 VR, AF-S 24-120mm f4 VR, and 80-200mm f2.8D screw-driven lens with which a TC is not usable except in manual focus. On the prime side I have the Nikon 50mm f1.8 and the Tamron 90mmm f2.8 Macro.
I wanted something further in reach beyond 200mm, so bought the very sharp 70-300mm VR lens. I then felt I needed further reach to 400mm or beyond to get wildlife and other photography.
I started a very frustrating trip for an amateur enthusiastic photographer.
The obvious choice was the Nikon 80-400mm VR. I read so many reviews about how the MKI was very slow to focus and created a lot of tug while screw-drive focusing. The reviews also indicated it was soft wide open, especially at the 400mm end, which is what I would have got it for. They also indicated it suffered from focus breathing, especially at very near distances, producing a field of view similar to a lens <300mm. It is still being produced and a new one sells for around £900, while a used one is around £500. I decided to skip this option.
The next choice was the 80-400mm VR MKII. It seems to have all the above sorted except for the focus breathing, and for the fact that it is almost twice as expensive at about £1900, with hardly any used ones are available for a more reasonable price. This was beyond my budget.
The next thought was do I change systems from Nikon to Canon to get the Canon 100-400L IS, which is an excellent lens, not as expensive as the Nikon 80-400mm and is available as used around £800. I felt that changing systems is such a drastic measure, especially as I really like all my other lenses, and I love my Nikon cameras.
The next option was still within Nikon perhaps get a 70-200mm f2.8 + TC2.0 which would set me back £1800 and is huge and heavy, that was not an option, or a 70-200mm f4 + TC1.4, which is not terribly expensive but <300mm and f5.6, so no real improvement, or a 300mm f4 + TC1.4 and that is more than 400mm and f5.6. I kind of decided against the latter as my use is not necessarily for far away birds only.
The last option was a Tamron or a Sigma. There are quite a few of them reaching 300, 400 and even 500mm, but very big and heavy, and all their reviews indicated a not very sharp image at the far reach, which is my needed reach.
For now I settled for the 70-300 VR, hoping for the price of the 80-400mm MKII to come down and to find a well priced used one within my budget.
I would be interested in hearing people’s comments on the 400mm end on a Nikon ?
Of course one of the most irritating things with Canon cameras is the way they set their auto ISO speed which is something you use all the time .. In Nikon it is the logical choice .. auto ISO tries to get a shutter speed >= 1/focal length with a pre-set minimum .. so if I use a 200mm it is 1/200+ .. if I set the minimum as 1/60sec and I use a 16mm lens then it won’t drop below 1/60 to 1/20 for example .. in Canon it is not the case .. they use an obscure algorithm and so it is very random and has no relation to the focal length you are using which is absolutely crazy and goes against all photography rules .. but Canon users have got used to living with it by setting a maximum and minimum ISO and minimum shutter .. this obviously is not good because if I set a minimum 1/60 for a 70-200mm lens I may end up with 1/60 at 200mm because the camera thinks so ..
Something else Nikon does well with auto ISO is that it sets Auto ISO to be up to 2 stops either quicker or slower than the focal length .. i.e. if you have VR and want a slower shutter speed than 1/FL you can have 1/100 @ 200mm or the opposite 1/400 or 1/1000 at 200mm if you are shooting something moving .. this doesn’t exist in Canon .. you have no control over what Auto ISO is at all and that is a major flaw that people keep moaning about all the time ..
The third thing is that inspite of Auto ISO .. if you are in A or S modes you can still vary the other variable i.e. A in S or S in A just by turning the main dial to vary the ISO without having to press any ISO buttons as well .. so it is the opposite variable on the opposite dial always .. and that is very useful and quick because you don’t have to take your eyes off your target you just turn one of the dials and hey presto the other variable changes .. so if I am at f4 and the speed according to Auto ISO is 1/200 and I want it to be 1/1000 I just turn the dial and I have high speed .. this is not in Canon either .. so Nikon cameras have better practical controls that you use all the time .. they are extremely user friendly once you go deeper than the shell or the skin as they say ..
Also, if you use Manual Aperture and Shutter then Auto ISO sets in to keep the exposure right for the set A/S .. i.e. if it becomes cloudy or sunny during the shoot yet I want all the pictures to be f4 and 1/60 then the ISO varies to keep the exposure right for these settings as much as possible .. of course if you set it in cloudy weather and becomes suddenly sunny or the opposite then you will have to change your basic settings .. but it is important if you are shooting a group of photos and want them all to have the same DOF and speed for the same look and effect .. Canon does not do that in Manual .. in manual you have to set your ISO as well .. So whether 6D, 5D or 1Dx they are all the same irritating settings .. baseline I would like to have a Nikon camera with a Canon L lens ??