|
Some of us can't handle the banding in the shadows that occurs when you push an inferior camera's exposure five stops, okay 
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
Musket posted:Do you shoot nothing but MTF charts and brick walls? Also, pentaprism viewfinder rather than pentamirror. Makes a huge difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
The D7100 also has no low-pass filter on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Musket posted:Do you shoot nothing but MTF charts and brick walls? Way more options and way better AF module and much better construction and ergonomics. Whether or not that's worth it as an upgrade over a D3200 I don't know. The D7k made me happy as an upgrade from a D90, but I have no experience with the D3200.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
One of the best things about the D7000 (and D7100) is the ability to meter with lenses that give no aperture feedback (like T2 mounts and the like). I use a lot of stuff on PB-6 bellows or random non-nikon lenses, so that ability is important to me - although it might not be so much for you. Also, as Fart Amplifier says, the pentaprism viewfinder is also nicer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Musket posted:Buy 17-50 tamron 2.8, not a new camera body. Trust the dorkroom. Yup. Or the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 or the 24-70 f/2.8 if you don't mind the offset focal range. You will poo poo a brick after seeing what quality glass can bring out of cheaper bodies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
krooj posted:Yup. Or the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 or the 24-70 f/2.8 if you don't mind the offset focal range. You will poo poo a brick after seeing what quality glass can bring out of cheaper bodies. This is good advice but holy poo poo both of those are so stupendously more expensive than the Tamron 17-50 2.8 that it's not even funny. Probably go with the Tamron, dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:One of the best things about the D7000 (and D7100) is the ability to meter with lenses that give no aperture feedback (like T2 mounts and the like). I use a lot of stuff on PB-6 bellows or random non-nikon lenses, so that ability is important to me - although it might not be so much for you. I didn't think any Nikons did that, how do you do it? SoundMonkey posted:The Tamron 200-400 f/5.6 is actually not terrible for the price. At least it's cheaper than an 80-200 2.8 and 2x teleconverter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:At least it's cheaper than an 80-200 2.8 and 2x teleconverter. ...which is what I use now, with a $50 Tamron 1.4x TC. 380mm f/4 is close enough to 400mm for me, and a stop faster. And when I take the teleconverter off I'm left with what is still an awesome lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:...which is what I use now, with a $50 Tamron 1.4x TC. 380mm f/4 is close enough to 400mm for me, and a stop faster. And when I take the teleconverter off I'm left with what is still an awesome lens. You have a 271 mm f/2.8 lens?  Or is it a 180 mm f/2.8 and you’re including the crop factor?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 08:45
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:You have a 271 mm f/2.8 lens? Stop faster than the Tamron 200-400mm, I'd wager. e: I found the 17-55/2.8 for 500€ used, and it's so hugely worth it. Pretty banged up, but great value for the price. DanTheFryingPan fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Mar 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 11:30
|
|
|
krooj posted:Yup. Or the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 or the 24-70 f/2.8 if you don't mind the offset focal range. You will poo poo a brick after seeing what quality glass can bring out of cheaper bodies. Having owned the DX 17-55 and Tammy 17-50 nonvc and currently own the 24-70 , the Tammy non VC is a great lens worth far more than its 400photobux tag. Plus its got bees inside of it 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:This is good advice but holy poo poo both of those are so stupendously more expensive than the Tamron 17-50 2.8 that it's not even funny. Probably go with the Tamron, dude. The Tamron is better value for money for sure, but the 17-55 can be had used for around $700, which is a few hundred more than the Tamron. Consider the poster was asking about a D7k body, tho. I guess the Tamron + 35 1.8 DX would be a good life choice as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:You have a 271 mm f/2.8 lens? It's an 80-200 2.8, which when used with a 1.4x TC, gives you 280mm f/4 on the long end, and it turns out I just can't type for poo poo. Nothing to see here. And anybody that "includes crop factor" for that sorta poo poo is horribly pedantic and should probably get banned or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Anybody that "includes crop factor" for that sorta poo poo is horribly pedantic and should probably get banned or something. Can we make this an official rule?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:Can we make this an official rule? I was about to explain why I wasn't going to do that, but while explaining it I realized it wasn't a bad idea. code:
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:I didn't think any Nikons did that, how do you do it? I get metering in A and M modes on the D7000 and D300 with all of my old T-mount lenses. It only works in spot and centre-weighted metering modes, as far as I understand. You can even wiggle the little AI metering prong thing to watch the aperture numbers (and metered light level) change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
I saw a Nikon remote for 8 bucks in a store a few weeks ago, thought it was very cheap so I bought it. I've been rather unsatisfied with it though, maybe I am using it wrong or something but it doesn't seem I can get it to react unless I point the thing absolutely correct and at no longer than 2 meters or so. Are there a lot of crappy knockoffs like these floating around? Is the one by Nikon any better?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:I saw a Nikon remote for 8 bucks in a store a few weeks ago, thought it was very cheap so I bought it. I've been rather unsatisfied with it though, maybe I am using it wrong or something but it doesn't seem I can get it to react unless I point the thing absolutely correct and at no longer than 2 meters or so. Are there a lot of crappy knockoffs like these floating around? Is the one by Nikon any better? Infrared remotes are total bullshit, especially if you're in an environment better-lit than "the bottom of a well at midnight on the darkest day of the year during a lunar eclipse."
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Infrared remotes are total bullshit, especially if you're in an environment better-lit than "the bottom of a well at midnight on the darkest day of the year during a lunar eclipse." Yeah it completely failed on me today in the sun. What would you recommend for remote triggering, I have like no idea where to begin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Yeah it completely failed on me today in the sun. What would you recommend for remote triggering, I have like no idea where to begin. What camera body do you have? Hopefully it has some kind of wired option that'll let you radio trigger it (or at least a long cable).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
I have a D7000
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:I have a D7000 Good, no, better than IR, probably. http://www.ebay.com/itm/110817480956 EDIT: Oh they just ship to Singapore, whatev, just search for "d7000 radio shutter release".
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Good, no, better than IR, probably. Urgh, for that price you can get one of the wireless flash triggers that has a shutter trigger mode. 2 functions for the price of one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Urgh, for that price you can get one of the wireless flash triggers that has a shutter trigger mode. 2 functions for the price of one. Except the D7000 uses that weird moon connector that isn't the standard ten-pin connector, so you'd have to get an adapter anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Except the D7000 uses that weird moon connector that isn't the standard ten-pin connector, so you'd have to get an adapter anyways. Sure, but those are usually only like $3-4, and some of those remote flash sellers bundle the cable of your choice anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Sure, but those are usually only like $3-4, and some of those remote flash sellers bundle the cable of your choice anyway Eg.. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Yongnuo-RF-...=item3cc2bb4eb4 Or just search for rf603 n3 (n1 = 10 pin, n2 = d70, n3 = dx000/d90/etc) (Sorry, can't edit on ipad app)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
Question for the Nikon users here in the dorkroom. My aunt recently picked up a new D3200 and we have found that her old lenses (actually grandpas lenses) from her 1970ish 35mm nikon fit but the new camera seems to not like them, it just turns off. I know that you can use them manually is there some ritual she will need to do to get them to work without making the camera say "no!" And turn off. Also would it be cheaper for her to get a DSLR that supports the old style lens or simply replace them with newer ones? I think she would be replacing a telephoto lens and a wide angle if she got new lenses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
I think she should be able to turn the selection dial to manual mode (the "m") and use the lenses manually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Question for the Nikon users here in the dorkroom. My aunt recently picked up a new D3200 and we have found that her old lenses (actually grandpas lenses) from her 1970ish 35mm nikon fit but the new camera seems to not like them, it just turns off. I know that you can use them manually is there some ritual she will need to do to get them to work without making the camera say "no!" And turn off. Also would it be cheaper for her to get a DSLR that supports the old style lens or simply replace them with newer ones? You can turn the mode dial to M and set a shutter speed while messing with the aperture dial on the lens to set exposure, but you will get no metering and the camera won't work in the other exposure modes (as you've found.) Using it like this will be a gigantic pain in the rear end at best. Buying a different body will be much more expensive for the most part unless you get something older - you need one that has the aperture feeler for AI/AI-s lenses (D7000/7100, D200, D300(s)), etc.), all of which will cost more, be more complex, and/or have lower image quality than the 3200. Did it not come with a kit lens? The 18-55 VR is great 99% of the time if this is just a casual camera and is $200. Wide-angle on a DX body requires something like the DX Nikkor 10-24/12-24, Tokina 11-16, etc. The DX Nikkor 55-200 VR is a cheap, good telephoto. If she needs something for low light, the 35 1.8 DX is a good fixed lens. None of these are expensive options except the wide zooms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:I think she would be replacing a telephoto lens and a wide angle if she got new lenses. The value proposition is likely to hang on which lenses they replace. If the tele is the 200mm f/2.0 IF-ED, for instance, then go the new camera - but it's likely to be cheaper to get the 18-55 and 55-200 (or similar), and I expect that AF would be a welcome bonus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:The value proposition is likely to hang on which lenses they replace. If the tele is the 200mm f/2.0 IF-ED, for instance, then go the new camera - but it's likely to be cheaper to get the 18-55 and 55-200 (or similar), and I expect that AF would be a welcome bonus. Just pick up the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses. The former should be less than $100 and I just bargain binned the latter for $120. VVVV it came with the 18-55 which is fine for a general purpose lens. What exactly isn't she happy about? Maker Of Shoes fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Mar 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 10:29
|
|
|
Yup it does come with a lens although she didn't seem excited about it for some reason, I was dragged in when camera seemed to be snubbing its nose at her old lenses. Thanks for the help ill let her know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 12:05
|
|
|
What AI-AIS-E series lenses are they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Tried it and it worked. manual focus with no light meter. I guess her initial thought was that the lens wasn't great. Which was odd since for the price i would think they would provide a decent lens and that the clerk at bestbuy said her lenses would work (yeah I know bestbuy camera dept is the worst place to buy one but she didn't know any better). I mentioned most of what I've read here to her that its a good general purpose lense she seemed happy about that. Thanks for the help in figuring this out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Given that the old lenses are probably nicely finished metal, and the new lens is wobbly plastic, I can totally understand why your aunt was underwhelmed. That said, most of my wobbly plastic lenses are better than the nice, metal old lenses I have any day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:Given that the old lenses are probably nicely finished metal, and the new lens is wobbly plastic, I can totally understand why your aunt was underwhelmed. That said, most of my wobbly plastic lenses are better than the nice, metal old lenses I have any day. That's a good point, although we all were impressed by the sheer lightness of the new camera. I think part of it was she doesn't want to get a new doubler and telephoto lens. That said how much would these go for her new camera? would be a nice easy x-mas gift for this year for her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
Very few people use "doublers" anymore. She should just get the kit zooms and/or a 35mm. Welcome to modern times, granma.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:That's a good point, although we all were impressed by the sheer lightness of the new camera. I think part of it was she doesn't want to get a new doubler and telephoto lens. That said how much would these go for her new camera? would be a nice easy x-mas gift for this year for her. In a way, her new camera is a doubler - the effective field of view on her old lenses would be smaller on the new camera owning to the smaller size of the sensor relative to 35mm film. Basically, the only the middle 70% of the frame is used, so voila! Instant increase in apparent magnification at the imaging plane. Basically, sticking any of her old lenses onto the D3200 would give the same FOV as using that lens on her old camera with a 1.5x doubler. You can use the concept of "35mm equivalent" focal lengths to make this comparison when moving from a 35mm film camera to a DX sensor camera, but it's probably best not to go down that rabbit hole for a variety of practical, technical and semantic reasons. Besides, I'm sure your aunt is probably more interested in taking pictures than worrying about boring technical crap. Edit: To answer your actual question, I am told that the Tamron 70-300 VC is quite good value, and would be more than enough zoom for most people. I have not used it myself. Check the gear thread for recommendations, too. Dia de Pikachutos fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
spongepuppy posted:In a way, her new camera is a doubler - the effective field of view on her old lenses would be smaller on the new camera owning to the smaller size of the sensor relative to 35mm film. Basically, the only the middle 70% of the frame is used, so voila! Instant increase in apparent magnification at the imaging plane. Interesting, I'll mention this to her but yeah i think shes more concerned with having a new camera ready for her next vacation. Also I've been reading a lot lately about photography doing research into her problem and am getting an interest in trying this out what would you suggest as a cheap used nikon to chase down for someone who wants to try this out?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 03:08
|
|