|
scottch posted:Cannot go wrong with the 35/1.8. The 50 can be a little tight in some cases, so the 35 is just more versatile. I found this to be true. I bought the 50/1.8 just before Christmas and ended up returning it for the 35. Both were great, but I preferred to have a bit wider angle.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Thanks, guys. I was leaning towards the 35/1.8 also, but wasn't 100% certain. Catte photos will be posted sometime this weekend. Hopefully sooner. Hopefully the local store has a nice bag (they have the lens for the same price as online sites, so I'm buying there).
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
I fukken love my 35/1.8.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
scottch posted:Cannot go wrong with the 35/1.8. The 50 can be a little tight in some cases, so the 35 is just more versatile. Also, cattes are gay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
I've got both the 35 and the 50 for my D5100. The 35 is way better for cattes. I can frame a cat from 4 or 5 feet away, whereas with the 50 I'd have to be 10-15 feet away. I went to a cat sanctuary and I kept the 50 on whenever I was outside, but switched to the 35 when I got inside. For messing around in my apartment the 50 is pretty much useless. With the 35 I can walk closer to the subject if I want to, with the 50 I can't always back up far enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
This shouldn't influence your decision (buy the 35 it owns so hard), but the 50 is also useful in that you can reverse mount it and still have manual aperture control if you're doing macro stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:This shouldn't influence your decision (buy the 35 it owns so hard), but the 50 is also useful in that you can reverse mount it and still have manual aperture control if you're doing macro stuff. I have the 50 1.8 G and I cannot do this. I can however take glorious pictures of my cattes with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
tijag posted:Here in the Nikon thread, we like to keep our crop factors to 1.5. It’s technically 1.52×, which makes the comparison uglier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I have the 50 1.8 G and I cannot do this. I can however take glorious pictures of my cattes with it. You actually can, just not very precisely. Set aperture with lens mounted normally, hit DoF preview, look at roughly how big the aperture is, reverse mount it, press on the aperture tab until it looks about the same. Not an exact science, but it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:You actually can, just not very precisely. Set aperture with lens mounted normally, hit DoF preview, look at roughly how big the aperture is, reverse mount it, press on the aperture tab until it looks about the same. You can do that with any lens. The 50mm 1.8D does have the aperture ring, but I don't think it has a focus motor. If you're going to reverse mount I'd say to just get a cheap manual focus 50mm off of ebay or something, having an actual ring is real handy. M42 lenses with the auto/manual switch are nice too, set the aperture to what you want, look through the viewfinder, and then flick it the lever and it'll stop down to whatever ring you have it set to. Same idea, but with less "winging it".
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:You can do that with any lens. The D doesn't have the focus motor, no. And yeah you can do that with any lens, I was just pointing out that all is not lost if he has the G version.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Oh and get us more photos of that dog (and any cats in the vicinity as well). Here's to tide you over until my next roll gets developed!     The white one is named Ginger since she has red ears and a bright white body, and since I too am a ginger. The brown one is named Maxwell and is my girlfriend's, as is the grumpalump looking one named Minnie. They're all Cavachons and they all love using their front paws like a cat does. These were all taken with iPhone so terribly sorry about the image quality 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
So I did buy the 35/1.8. Last night, I got the camera out and played with it. My girlfriend decided she wanted to play with it a bit too and took some pictures of her cat (Slinky). She also took the picture I included of Molly. Anyways, here are the promised catte photos. Now that I have a camera again, it's time to start working on knocking rust off with regards to photography skills. Rudy by mrmoose007, on Flickr  Molly by mrmoose007, on Flickr  Slinky by mrmoose007, on Flickr  Rudy, Stoner Cat Extraordinaire by mrmoose007, on Flickr I definitely agree with what others said -- the 35/1.8 is great for catte photos. MrMoose fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
I have a Nikon FM, the shutter release guard appears to have some sort of function by rotating but I can't figure out what it does. It has marks which indicate functionality, but they seem to be missing on the other photos of Nikon FMs I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
It's technically for when you attach a motor drive but I just use it as a shutter button lock.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
MrMoose posted:I definitely agree with what others said -- the 35/1.8 is great for catte photos. Right as I finally summon up the effort to go take some 35/1.8 catpix, I realize I have absolutely no idea where my 35/1.8 is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
My new D5200 is here! Awww the great dog pics I want to share... ... as soon as Apple pushes out a RAW Compatibility update to support it in Aperture 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
In the meantime you can use the bundled ViewNX software to convert your raws to gigantic loving tiffs 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
1st AD posted:In the meantime you can use the bundled ViewNX software to convert your raws to gigantic loving tiffs 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
Meh, that's nothing.  I saved with layers embedded for that one so I could go back later. The flatted tif is only 800 megs. I'm sure an LF guy will come in here and shame this too if they want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
At any rate, I can't say I'm supremely impressed with my first day out with it. I imagine it's one part me figuring it out and sucking rear end at panning and one part using NXView instead of Aperture but focus at least seems less sharp than what I was able to do with my 3100, and I don't think my little 55-300 VR's autofocus can keep up with 5fps  I'll give it a shot with some other lenses later. Anyway here's a couple dogs courtesy of NXView.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
Why didn't you just pop the tiffs into Aperture?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
Didn't even think about that to be honest. I can wait till a RAW update though, just to keep my workflow consistent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Meh, that's nothing. 3.2 GiB? I consider any panorama that can be saved as a TIFF or PSD a small one. PSB is necessary for anything over 4 GiB.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
I recently bought a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter from KEH, and I thought I'd share my opinions on it. For the price I paid ($89), I'm pretty happy with the results. Both of these were taken on my D90 with a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and the Kenko TC at 280mm. Here's one like I got (although this one is missing the case and end caps) http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Lens-Converters/1/sku-NA109991304610?r=FE @ f/6.3  Canada Goose at Petit Jean by jdorseydesign, on Flickr @ f/4  Squirrel at Petit Jean by jdorseydesign, on Flickr You can see the one at f/4 isn't as sharp as at 6.3, but I'm still happy with the results.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Eegah posted:At any rate, I can't say I'm supremely impressed with my first day out with it. I imagine it's one part me figuring it out and sucking rear end at panning and one part using NXView instead of Aperture but focus at least seems less sharp than what I was able to do with my 3100, and I don't think my little 55-300 VR's autofocus can keep up with 5fps Maybe consider shooting RAW+JPG until RAW is supported? You can use/post the jpgs and go back to the RAWS later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Yeah that's what I should have done but I was concerned about card space -- even with the old camera at 3fps it wasn't uncommon to rack up a thousand shots in an hour or two. Not that that should matter since these are still basically test shots anyway but the dogs were all playing and it was just so cute and I had to shoot shoot shoot Also this isn't any different on the 3100 but I want to murder the guy who decided the auto-ISO screen should be buried that deep in the menus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
I have a 14-24mm lens that I'm thinking of selling, however, the zoom ring gets sort-of caught at a certain point and with a bit of resistance will push forward and you can continue to zoom. I have a co-worker with a lens who says he's had the same problem and never bothered with it, as it doesn't really affect the sharpness of the picture or anything like that. It's just kind-of annoying while you're zooming. And if I'm going to sell it I'd like to sell it in tip-top shape to maximize my dollars. Now, I could send it to Nikon to fix it. It's still covered under the 5-year warranty I believe; but I think there is a charge for this and I don't have the money to do it (or the time). I'm hoping I can fix this myself. Any thoughts on this? Would I be wildly stupid to try to do this? First, I don't understand why this occurred. There must be some form of grit or something embedded underneath the zoom ring. I'm not sure. I haven't dropped it or anything so it's not the result of a bang. When I remove the rear lens cap I see 4 small screw holes. I'm curious what would happen if I carefully took the lens apart and got the zoom ring off and maybe brushed away whatever was causing the resistance -- if it's that easy. I don't know. I definitely don't want to make the problem worse, so if this is not a good idea let me know. I'm hoping someone might be able to say "Oh yeah, I had that problem once." And then offer a quick and easy solution to fixing it. But this is an expensive lens and I don't want to break it by attempting a DIY experiment. What do you think? Edit: I need the money ridiculously fast. Like, if I had the money right now that would be a blessing. So I need to get started if I'm going to do it. Edit 2: Maybe I unknowingly banged it or it got knocked. It doesn't look like it got knocked and I certainly don't remember it happening. But a repair costing $1,000? Ouch! Mannequin fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
I bought a D5100 with the 18-55mm VR kit lens about 4 months ago (first DSLR and still a newbie learning my way around it) and I just realized today that I never registered the lens or camera. After digging through the box, I noticed that the warranty slip for the lens mentions that you need to register it within 10 days of purchase for the additional 4 years to be valid on the warranty. Am I pretty much boned on this? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
Eegah posted:Yeah that's what I should have done but I was concerned about card space -- even with the old camera at 3fps it wasn't uncommon to rack up a thousand shots in an hour or two. Not that that should matter since these are still basically test shots anyway but the dogs were all playing and it was just so cute and I had to shoot shoot shoot Add it to your user menu. Or map it to one of the buttons. And then murder that guy, because wtf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
I mapped the function button to ISO on my 5100, but auto ISO is a bitch. At least it will still go into auto ISO in auto mode even if auto ISO is turned off. Or at least on the 5100, I'm not sure if it works "as intended" on the 5100 or a firmware bug.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
sofullofhate posted:Add it to your user menu. Or map it to one of the buttons. I... have a user menu? I think everyone maps fn to ISO, but it's criminal that Auto isn't, say, the option left of ISO 100. Also, am I going crazy here or is there some serious vignetting going on?  JPG from the RAW+JPG pair, looking at the RAW file in ViewNX2 looks the same. 35mm f/1.8 for 1/100s (it was getting late), no hood or filters. I still have the 3100 so I'll try bringing both tomorrow to test things out but man this is weird.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
Double postin' but I guess it's partly because ViewNX and Aperture do RAW decoding totally different? Here's a shot from my 3100: What the hell 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Eegah posted:Double postin' but I guess it's partly because ViewNX and Aperture do RAW decoding totally different? Here's a shot from my 3100: Nikon does not release the standards for .NEF files from what I understand. That means is Adobe, Apple etc have to reverse engineer the RAW files (make educated guesses) which is why things will look different. At least this used to be the case not 100% sure if it still is but I would not be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Nikon does not release the standards for .NEF files from what I understand. That means is Adobe, Apple etc have to reverse engineer the RAW files (make educated guesses) which is why things will look different. At least this used to be the case not 100% sure if it still is but I would not be surprised. It's gotten better over time but does still happen for newer RAW formats. A lot of time it's just people sperging though, and god drat I can't stand ViewNX (I don't even have it installed I don't think).
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
Quick question about filters. Does anyone have a preferred brand with them? I was thinking of getting a circular polarizer to use on my 70-300mm (67mm filter size), especially since it's mostly used outside, and it might be nice to have on me come my trip to Australia in a few months. I have a cheap standard Tiffen filter for my smaller lenses, which I haven't really sued in 5 years. Honestly I feel a little stupid, because I only just realised I can rotate it to adjust it for a better effect. I always just thought it was supposed to make things more vibrant all over (like polarized sunglasses or something, though to be fair I haven't sued it in 5 years, and never used it much at all back then. So yeah, basically, is any particular brand good? Is it worth it to try to go for something higher quality? Would the $25 Tiffen one I found on Amazon be just fine?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
DaJe posted:Quick question about filters. Does anyone have a preferred brand with them? I was thinking of getting a circular polarizer to use on my 70-300mm (67mm filter size), especially since it's mostly used outside, and it might be nice to have on me come my trip to Australia in a few months. I have a cheap standard Tiffen filter for my smaller lenses, which I haven't really sued in 5 years. As mentioned in some drat thread, Marumi DHG, some Hoya/Tiffen, B&W, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:As mentioned in some drat thread, Marumi DHG, some Hoya/Tiffen, B&W, etc. So if I wanted to go for higher quality over something cheaper, then something like this http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-67mm-Super-Filter-Japan/dp/B003QSG6SS would be a good buy? (this is what I was looking at otherwise http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-67CP-67mm-Circular-Polarizer/dp/B00004ZCFQ)
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
Eegah posted:I... have a user menu? You should have a personal menu you can add items to, yes. DaJe posted:So if I wanted to go for higher quality over something cheaper, then something like this http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-67mm-Super-Filter-Japan/dp/B003QSG6SS would be a good buy? SoundMonkey posted:A lot of time it's just people sperging though, and god drat I can't stand ViewNX (I don't even have it installed I don't think). evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 10:27 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I dunno if it has improved since then but I ditched it for LR after 30 minutes when I got my first Nikon. Japanese firms shouldn't be allowed near GUIs. I'm not sure I've ever agreed with you before, but this is God's honest truth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 10:52
|
|