|
Flotzilla: Buy these: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=orderHistory&A=details&Q=&sku=435207&is=REG http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=orderHistory&A=details&Q=&sku=242758&is=REG Put camera in mirror lock up mode. Take off lens. Pull out a swab and put a bit of the cleaner fluid on it. Swab all the way across the sensor with one side of the swab, then back with the other. Put the lens back on. Take a picture of something bright, like the sky, at ƒ/16 and check for dust spots. If there are still dust spots, repeat with a new swab. It might be a good idea to try and swab out the body itself if you notice a lot of dust in there that's just gonna fall on the sensor in a couple of days. This is how I clean my D40 and D7000. It works well. Dry swabs + solution is cheaper than pre-moistened swabs. VelociBacon: I agree with Musket that the most important place to spend photobux is glass. The D7k has some nice to haves over the D200. Bigger LCD, full viewfinder coverage, sensor with really nice iso 1600, and better AF system are the ones that come to mind. Still, glass really is the most important thing. If you really wants all those focal lengths then that's where you should spend your money. You should definitely consider the 35mm ƒ/1.8 so you can get a taste of the wonderful IQ that primes have. The tamron is not for me. There are so many good (and not absurdly expensive) primes available in that range and I'd rather have those. If you're going to shoot at night you'll really want a tripod. The best thing to do is buy as much of this stuff used as you can (or rent it) so that you can get a feel for what you really want. Dren fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Jun 3, 2013 |
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Dren posted:Flotzilla: You should get a rocket blower for 8 bucks too, either one on their own probably won't work perfectly, but blowing then swiping is normally a great one two punch. Also, gently caress how dusty the d7000's sensor gets, the built in sensor cleaner does jack poo poo  My sensor has legit around 200 dust particles on it, which is loving awesome when you're using it to PHOTOGRAPH DUST PARTICLES UGH.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Flotzilla posted:So I just purchased a factory-refurbished Nikon D7000 and a new 35mm f/1.8G from Cameta that arrived a few days ago. When shooting this weekend, I noticed a dark smudge in some photos that I took stopped down below f/5 or so that I didn't notice in earlier shots with the aperture more open. It's always in the same place so I'm assuming it's something on the sensor? I've tried using the menu option to clean the sensor with no luck of removing it. I only have the one lens so I can't try different lenses but if I need to test more to diagnose the problem, I can go borrow a lens from a friend to see if it has the same issue. Clean sensors are on you. Cameta may toss you a freebie if you ask them nicely, but 9/10 times its all on you to clean it. A sensor cleaning is pretty cheap. Sensors get dirty over time. Its not a big deal at all. First step is to blow it out with a rocket blower and clean your back lens element. Take picture. If its still there, head to local camera shop and either by a DIY sensor cleaning kit, or pay them to do it. A car analogy fits in here somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Seeing as how I've owned the camera for 3 days and I bought it with both a manufacturer and seller warranty, am I wrong in thinking that I shouldn't have to spend $50 on sensor cleaning items? I know I'm bound to need a sensor clean at some point in the future, but that's a lot to spend so shortly after purchase. Edit: I'll prob start with the rocket blower. Guess that would be good to own anyway... Flotzilla fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
That's a lot to spend on a sensor cleaning, especially when I can take it to a repair center for a professional cleaning in a dustfree environment for not that much more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
I view sensor cleaning the same way as changing the oil on my car. It's just part of the cost of ownership. If you change lenses dust is going to get in there.1st AD posted:That's a lot to spend on a sensor cleaning, especially when I can take it to a repair center for a professional cleaning in a dustfree environment for not that much more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Part of the issue is that shipping cameras tends to knock dust loose and onto the sensor really well. Most of the digital cameras i've bought arrive dustier than what the seller showed before hand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Ok, thanks for the re-assurance, goons. I've never dealt with cleaning a sensor before but it's good to know that it's not a big deal at all, and not worth contacting the seller over. I looked at the sensor itself and I'm pretty sure I can see the speck of dust. The sensor is upside-down compared to the image right? So if the dust I see in the image is in the top-left, I should see the dust on the bottom-left of the sensor? Because I definitely can see it with my naked eye so I'm not too concerned about getting it off of there myself. Other than this issue, I'm totally loving the Nikon. I came from a Canon T2i, and I know the D7000 is a more professional camera but I'm totally digging the better build quality and more menu options and everything. This thing is built like a tank. Also, dog approves: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
What the hell are dog's eyes doing 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Anyone have some experience with the Voigtländer 40mm f/2? I'm trying to decide between it and the 35mm f/1.4 AIS which I've already tried (and loved). I'll be getting both eventually but I'm leaving for a holiday in a few weeks and can only pick up one; mostly going to be used with a D600 but on occasion an FM2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
snuffles posted:Anyone have some experience with the Voigtländer 40mm f/2? I'm trying to decide between it and the 35mm f/1.4 AIS which I've already tried (and loved). I'll be getting both eventually but I'm leaving for a holiday in a few weeks and can only pick up one; mostly going to be used with a D600 but on occasion an FM2. I'm relatively new to photography so I'm curious, what differing shooting scenarios do you have in mind for these two lenses? The focal lengths and max aperture seem relatively close and I'd like to know what each would be used for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
snuffles is trying to decide which one to buy, I'm assuming s/he doesn't want both
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
Dude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
snuffles posted:Anyone have some experience with the Voigtländer 40mm f/2? I'm trying to decide between it and the 35mm f/1.4 AIS which I've already tried (and loved). I'll be getting both eventually but I'm leaving for a holiday in a few weeks and can only pick up one; mostly going to be used with a D600 but on occasion an FM2. Buy a samyang 35mmf1.4 instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Buy a samyang 35mmf1.4 instead. the 40mm is a pancake. I was considering all these options and landed with the Sigma 30 f/1.4 because I found a great deal. I'm shooting crop too. Otherwise I'd end up with the Nikon 35mm f/2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
The back focus problems of the 80-200/2.8 AF-D (two-touch version) with the D7000 are more severe than I had expected. If I was asked to take a head shot right now, I'd focus on the tip of their nose, and even that might not be enough. I've tried using the AF adjustment setting in the body, but this is far, far out of its range. My D7000 is still under warranty, so I've sent an e-mail to the retailer asking if they can calibrate it for me. Has anyone else had this type of adjustment done professionally? If so, what were the results?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
I just got my beatiful, sexy upgrade from a D7000 : my new D800 , but the only glass I have for FX is the 85mm 1.8D (but the 35mm 1.8 dx seems to work pretty nicely as well) I had just gotten the tamron 17-50 2.8 vc for the d7000 before upgrading to the D800, and I'm wondering if there's any equivalent walkaround zoom that does not cost the same as the camera ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 12:57
|
|
|
Klogdor posted:I just got my beatiful, sexy upgrade from a D7000 : my new D800 , but the only glass I have for FX is the 85mm 1.8D (but the 35mm 1.8 dx seems to work pretty nicely as well) The 24-70 f2.8 costs less than $3000. Why did you buy a 17-50 2.8 for your d7000 if you were going to be upgrading to the D800?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
The equivalent with VC would be this. If you can live without VC (not a big deal at this focal length range), you can look at this. The 35dx will work fine at close focus but not when you focus it at anything beyond 20 feet or so. Remo fucked around with this message at 13:26 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:24
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Why did you buy a 17-50 2.8 for your d7000 if you were going to be upgrading to the D800? I got a surprise payment , and there was a short time discount on the D800 (down from 3250 usd to 2781 usd, Norwegian prices..) I was going to wait until next year to buy it, but I found it too hard to resist. Remo posted:The equivalent with VC would be this. I'll keep an eye out for the non-vc one, but I have to admit I really enjoyed having VC on the last one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
It is a bit late for this but you really need to consider the total cost of moving over to FF inclusive of the required lenses. There is little point in buying a camera early (unless the deal is extremely good), if you lack the lenses to utilize it fully with. It's always better to save up and wait for prices to drop, until you can make a decisive migration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
Remo posted:It is a bit late for this but you really need to consider the total cost of moving over to FF inclusive of the required lenses. While I mostly agree, I can do most of what I want with what I have (I also have a couple of manual lenses and the 28-80 3.3-5.6 silver plastic thingy) and prefer buying stuff gradually. the 17-50 was mostly just very convenient for walking around. Also, I'm terrible at saving up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
Klogdor posted:Also, I'm terrible at saving up. I feel you there bro.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Buy with a credit card. It's like saving up, but you just pay a bit of money to do it after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
He can just shoot in DX mode until more surprise monies come.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Of be like me: buy a 50 with the d800 and never take it off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
Ag Bengip posted:The back focus problems of the 80-200/2.8 AF-D (two-touch version) with the D7000 are more severe than I had expected. If I was asked to take a head shot right now, I'd focus on the tip of their nose, and even that might not be enough. I've tried using the AF adjustment setting in the body, but this is far, far out of its range. My D7000 is still under warranty, so I've sent an e-mail to the retailer asking if they can calibrate it for me. Has anyone else had this type of adjustment done professionally? If so, what were the results? I have the same lens on a D700, and I took it to get CLA'd because of back focus. 80mm wasn't too bad, but 200 was godawful. I emailed Nikon service about it, they were pretty much useless. My local shop said that because it was the last of the pro film lenses before digital hit, it will always be a bit weird. It's something like the internal focus mechanism slightly moves the focal plane on the sensor/film as you zoom in and out. I got a split focus screen from Katzeye, it definitely helps, though I think I need to adjust the shims because the split-prism is very slightly off at correct focus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
red19fire posted:It's something like the internal focus mechanism slightly moves the focal plane on the sensor/film as you zoom in and out. I think what this means is the lens is slightly varifocal rather than a true parfocal zoom. The actual focal length is changing which results in the focal plane moving relative to the sensor a bit. It should be a problem on film too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Hey all, forgive any dumb questions as I quite literally know next to nothing about cameras, but I'm looking for a new camera for my fiance. I noticed that Amazon has the Nikon Coolpix L820 for a very good price, but has anyone used this particular model before? She does a lot of nail polish photography, so I want to make sure this would work well specifically for that purpose. If someone here does own one, would you mind taking a picture of something glittery in macro mode? Also, can you comment on color accuracy and how easy is it to hold in only one hand, since she'll be photographing the other one. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
That sounds like a better question for the point-and-shoot thread to be honest. Edit: It can be found here. VelociBacon fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jun 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I think what this means is the lens is slightly varifocal rather than a true parfocal zoom. The actual focal length is changing which results in the focal plane moving relative to the sensor a bit. It should be a problem on film too. I also have the 80-200 f2.8, and the focus problems at 200mm are the pretty bad. On my bodies it seems to be a focus shift when stopping down at closer focus distances; it's fine at 200/2.8, but terrible at 200/4. No issues from 80 to ~150mm. Dia de Pikachutos fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jun 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:That sounds like a better question for the point-and-shoot thread to be honest. Thanks, I'll repost my question over there!
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
So my D200 came in with the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses and I've been learning lots and really enjoying becoming familiar with the camera. I have a question about exposure; On the shots I've been taking that have been indoor and lit with standard tungsten/incandescant style lighting, I've noticed that I've been having to use a much higher ISO than I would have expected, especially since a lot of these photos have been at f3.5 (at around 1/60 shutter). On these settings I've been having to use ISO's over 400 to have an acceptable exposure. I know that it's a non-CMOS body, but does that seem like a larger than expected requisite ISO? I realise that the difference between 100/400 ISO is negligible unless I'm blowing up the shots, and that I could slow down the shutter (if I had a tripod). Is this where the older sensor dates itself? I'm still extremely happy with the camera and can't wait to find the time to do some outdoor shots to see how it performs in that environment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
No, 400 iso is 400 iso no matter what sensor you use. Indoor lights are just not that bright compared to sunlight (even if your eyes are good at adjusting so that it looks the same).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Get the 35mm 1.8, the kit lenses are not great for indoor shooting usually unless you have a flash. You can go to ISO 800 pretty comfortably with Lightroom noise adjustment. But 800 is only one stop more than 400 and 400 is two stops faster than 100. The 35mm gives you two stops over the kit lens as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
Your eyes tend to have pretty good sensitivity and aperture ranges, and a quite good auto-exposure, so you don't really notice the real change in light levels. Try shooting a scene out a window, so you catch both parts indoors and part outdoors. Use M mode at ISO 400, f/5.6, and adjust the shutter speed until you get decent exposure indoors, then adjust shutter speed to get decent exposure outdoors. Compare the two shutter speeds you obtained. Depending on the weather it will probably be 2 to 8 stops of difference (that's a factor 4 to a factor 256 in shutter speed.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Your eyes tend to have pretty good sensitivity and aperture ranges, and a quite good auto-exposure, so you don't really notice the real change in light levels. Try shooting a scene out a window, so you catch both parts indoors and part outdoors. Use M mode at ISO 400, f/5.6, and adjust the shutter speed until you get decent exposure indoors, then adjust shutter speed to get decent exposure outdoors. Compare the two shutter speeds you obtained. Depending on the weather it will probably be 2 to 8 stops of difference (that's a factor 4 to a factor 256 in shutter speed.) The last reliable autism I heard about eyes was tldr, 32mm, f/3.5, ISO 800, maximum exposure (actually integration) time of fifteen seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Like mr despair said, ISO does not vary from sensor to sensor. ISO 400 on one camera is the same exposure as ISO 400 on another camera. Where sensors differ is in the quality you get at various ISO levels. The general rule is that newer sensors and physically larger sensors (full frame as opposed to crop) have higher quality high ISO. The newest crop sensor cameras (Nikon calls these dx) have very usable ISO 1600. I'm not quite sure what the latest full frame sensors (Nikon calls these fx) are capable of but I'm pretty sure they look great even as high as 25,600. The good news about exposure is that if you practice with setting exposure manually (with the camera's in viewfinder meter to help you) you can quickly get to the point where you can guess at exposure pretty drat accurately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
Thank you for the excellent responses, I was under the impression that an APC's 400 ISO would be around a CMOS ISO 200 or something. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll play with it outside and see how I do, also looking locally for that 35mm f/1.8 lens, actually have been trying to keep my eye out for that one since I bought the camera.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
I saw some charts where people test the actual ISO vs the stated ISO of cameras, and there are some cameras which have slight deviations. E.g. the camera's 12,800 ISO ends up being only 10,000 ISO. Basically its the manufacturer fudging the numbers. Not very noticeable in real life generally though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 04:30
|
|