|
Paul MaudDib posted:Just a reminder that there's literally no reason not to buy a 105/2.5 unless you are a chump. I've been skulking around on ebay trying to snag one for under 100 for the past few months. I'll get one eventually. I've convinced myself if I just buy poo poo that McCurry used I'll have no excuses for my bad pictures.
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:43 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:All this autism and the term "entrance pupil" wasn't used once? No but I used your mom's entrance pupil once 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 07:18
|
|
|
Hughmoris posted:Adorama has a refurbished Nikon D7000 (body only) on Ebay for $599.99 It's one of the best consumer cameras by Nikon, value-wise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:All this autism and the term "entrance pupil" wasn't used once?  Don't give away the title of the XXX parody video version.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 12:00
|
|
|
Since there's been some recent discussion about it, anyone have some opinions on the 85mm 1.8G vs the 105mm 2.5? I'm on DX (D7100) and my only other lenses are the 35mm 1.8G and the 18-105mm kit. I almost exclusively use the 35mm for mostly casual portrait photography and I'm looking to complement it with another lens. Looking to spend no more than ~$500, so I could perhaps consider a zoom lens like the 18-200mm (buying used), as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
entr0py posted:Since there's been some recent discussion about it, anyone have some opinions on the 85mm 1.8G vs the 105mm 2.5? I'm on DX (D7100) and my only other lenses are the 35mm 1.8G and the 18-105mm kit. I almost exclusively use the 35mm for mostly casual portrait photography and I'm looking to complement it with another lens. Looking to spend no more than ~$500, so I could perhaps consider a zoom lens like the 18-200mm (buying used), as well. I don't know much about the 85mm G but the 105mm destroys the old 85mm any day of the week, especially wide open.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
I have the 85 1.8G, it's quite good and more contrasty than the old D one, focus speed is acceptable. I've tried the 1.4G version too, and its juuust so slightly better, but not $1k+ better for the price. You really have to ask yourself if you're willing to do manual focus on a relatively long lens, as is the case with the 105. The 85G is excellent and you won't be pulling your hair out trying to nail focus. And on a crop, you're getting plenty of reach with the 85. There's also the value thing, since the 105 is half the price of the 85 iirc? That said, I want to find a 105 to play with  edit: look at the Rokinon/Samyang 85 1.4 if you want a quick MF portrait lens edit2: my 85G still gets some pretty bad CA sometimes :/ nothing that can't be dealt with in post
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
The 85 is perfect aside from CA, which you can correct in post automagically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
I had damaged my D700 by carrying it via a rapidstrap with a 70-200 attached to it. Basically the weight of the lens had separated the base plate of the camera slightly from the rest of the camera, from the front there is a 1-2mm gap between the front plate and the base plate. Camera still works but it will occasionally shut down and restart by itself. I tried sending it for repair but the local service center (singapore) told me it would take 1-2 weeks to do a complete check of the camera, which is very difficult for me for now as I have a lot of shoots scheduled for the next few weeks. I would like to know if anyone has had experience with similar type of damage to their cameras as well as how much it costs to repair, or if its even repairable in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Wait, like, the bottom of the camera came off? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
Its still attached to the camera but not very firmly, think of it as being partly ripped off. My gut feel is that it is likely beyond economical repair (taking into account the typically high rates charged by my local service center), and that I may need to get a D600 to replace my dear D700. But would like to hear if anyone has any similar experiences with their cameras.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
I don't quite get how the bottom part ripped off, I'd expect the lens mount to rip before anything else on the body. I basically hang onto my 80-200 more than the actual body when I have it mounted, lens mount explosions scare me. edit: pics?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Remo posted:I had damaged my D700 by carrying it via a rapidstrap with a 70-200 attached to it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
I just picked up my first DSLR a few weeks ago, the d5200 with the 18-55 kit lens, and I have a few questions about lenses. Just to be clear I can mount and use AF lenses but will be required to do all focusing manually, correct? Is there some sort of focus meter to assist or will it come down to my own ability? Using the kit lens, I can generally get an approximate focus but find it difficult at times to be sure it is the sharpest it could be. Obviously I'm fairly new to advanced photography in general, so any recommendations for good starter lenses are welcome. I'd like to get a wide prime lens for low-light, landscapes and star shots and a longer range zoom like the 55-200, with about $600 to spend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
I was changing between a few lenses that day and it was more convenient to just keep the sling mounted on my camera tripod mount, a very poor decision in hindsight. Here is a pic 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
MissSheGrrl posted:I just picked up my first DSLR a few weeks ago, the d5200 with the 18-55 kit lens, and I have a few questions about lenses. Just to be clear I can mount and use AF lenses but will be required to do all focusing manually, correct? You will need to focus any lens that isn't AF-S manually. quote:Is there some sort of focus meter to assist or will it come down to my own ability? Using the kit lens, I can generally get an approximate focus but find it difficult at times to be sure it is the sharpest it could be. If you change custom setting a3 to ON, a little bar graph will come up in the finder to help out when you're in P, A, or S modes and mount an AF Nikkor or switch an AF-S lens to M mode. You can also watch for the focus confirmation dot in the lower left of the finder. Note that the manual focus ring on the 18-55 is a total joke, so manual focusing with it is next to impossible. quote:Obviously I'm fairly new to advanced photography in general, so any recommendations for good starter lenses are welcome. I'd like to get a wide prime lens for low-light, landscapes and star shots and a longer range zoom like the 55-200, with about $600 to spend. There are no wide, fast primes for DX. The most popular fast normal lens for DX is the 35mm f/1.8 DX Nikkor, which sells for about $200. If we're defining "wide" as 28mm equivalent or so, Sigma will soon be releasing an 18-35 f/1.8 zoom, but it's $800. If you don't care about AF speed, a wide max aperture, or tank-like build quality, the 55-200 f/4-5.6 DX Nikkor with VR is a sharp, capable telephoto zoom for about $250.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Ok I managed to find out what went wrong with my camera - the screws holding the base plate came loose over time, it was not obvious to me previously as they were under the rubber base cover. 5 minutes with a screwdriver and the base plate is once again securely attached to the rest of the body. Lessons learnt - avoid using heavy lenses while slinging the camera from the tripod mount, and check the base plate regularly for any looseness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:You will need to focus any lens that isn't AF-S manually. Great, thanks for the suggestions. Glad to know the focusing problem wasn't entirely my fault.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Spend a little more and get the 75-300 if possible. I hated that 55-200vr when I was starting out. Anything outside of perfect sunshine and it would poo poo the bed. edit: it is twice the weight and twice the price, so this may be an issue :/ Miko fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Hmm, yah that may not be ideal for me at the moment. Do camera shops ever allow you to try out lenses before buying if you bring in your own body? Obviously this may be up to individual shops but I'm curious if this is a common thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
MissSheGrrl posted:Hmm, yah that may not be ideal for me at the moment. Do camera shops ever allow you to try out lenses before buying if you bring in your own body? Obviously this may be up to individual shops but I'm curious if this is a common thing. That's the only positive thing I can say about my LCS though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Yeah, I've been to a number and they have lenses behind the counter that people pop onto a camera body all the time and shoot photos of random ppl in the store.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
MissSheGrrl posted:Hmm, yah that may not be ideal for me at the moment. Do camera shops ever allow you to try out lenses before buying if you bring in your own body? Obviously this may be up to individual shops but I'm curious if this is a common thing. You can do it the local place here as well. They have at least one on display that you can play with. You can use your own body or use one of theirs to test it out in-store.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
If you do use a local store to test-drive lenses, at least also have the decency to actually buy whatever you decide on at them. The extra cost over an online retailer is for the service of making sure you get the right thing for your needs. vv good point nielsm fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Aug 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
nielsm posted:If you do use a local store to test-drive lenses, at least also have the decency to actually buy whatever you decide on at them. The extra cost over an online retailer is for the service of making sure you get the right thing for your needs. Note: this does not apply if "local store" is Best Buy or some poo poo, in which case go in and do whatever then buy online for cheaper. Or if they're a bunch of dicks with terrible customer service like my old local store was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
My local camera store dude went into a tirade about third-party battery grips, saying they'd explode if the batteries weren't seated right and he's heard of a guy who's melted his grip and burned his hand. JUST GO WITH NIKON, YO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Note: this does not apply if "local store" is Best Buy or some poo poo, in which case go in and do whatever then buy online for cheaper. The only camera store in Pittsburgh is run by a bunch of creepers (who tell me to shoot porn and nudes every time I go in there for a lens cap) and some old guy who continually recommends a Rokina fish-eye for all those skateboarding videos I intend to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
Jesus Christ what is the matter with people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Just picked up my 70-300 tamron VC USD and holy poo poo is this a step up. Couldn't be happier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Miko posted:My local camera store dude went into a tirade about third-party battery grips, saying they'd explode if the batteries weren't seated right and he's heard of a guy who's melted his grip and burned his hand. JUST GO WITH NIKON, YO. My third-party grip for my D7000 (Bower) was a piece of poo poo, but only due to the fact that the joystick only moves the cursor in one direction now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
The OP to this thread is amazing. A+, would "read" again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
I may have been trying to copy all the cat pictures into a post for a different thread, and I MAY have accidentally hit "save changes" instead of preview to make sure I had everything, and I just MIGHT have deleted all the text in the OP last night. This wouldn't have happened if I was drinking instead  If anyone has archives and can go find the old OP and throw it in pastebin or something so I can fix it that'd be grand  Still better than the canon thread though  e. ok pretty much fixed, thanks RangerScum for the help! Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Why does the OP actually have any text? It should be just catte pictures, posing with their Nikons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
It was for a while! Sorry you missed it while it was good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
So I'm feeling the 35mm DX lens I got on my D7000 is too limiting. It's too narrow for the kind of stuff I like to photograph, scenery mostly. Even objects tend to disappear. I think the lens would have been much more useful for everyday use if the focal length had been 25mm or even 30mm. It's really nice when I photograph something that actually fits in the view though. But most of the time I either want to take a photo of a scene or I want to take a photo of something far away, rarely something in the middle. I have no money, two kids coming any month now, and house loans, so I can't really afford any of the lenses I have found so far, they're all hundreds of euros and go up from there. I'm considering a Nikkor 18-55mm II, the ones you get bundled with cameras mostly. Unless anyone has any other options/input? An alternative idea, if I could score on the used market and get a good price for my current lens (and maybe a kidney too) would be an 18-200, bit of jack of all trades but I'd need only one lens and it's not like I am more than a rank stinking amateur. His Divine Shadow fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 09:46
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:I have no money, two kids coming any month now, and house loans, so I can't really afford any of the lenses I have found so far, they're all hundreds of euros and go up from there. I'm considering a Nikkor 18-55mm II, the ones you get bundled with cameras mostly. Unless anyone has any other options/input? The 18-55 is great for what it is, the only real thing that talks against it is the poor maximum aperture (f/3.5-5.6) which means that coming from the 35/1.8 you will need to either use flash more often or bump ISO higher, when shooting indoors or at night. But the image quality is great, particularly considering the price. An 18-200 is probably not what you want. I'd say you're better off getting the 18-55 now, then adding a 55-200 (or similar) to your collection later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 10:06
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:So I'm feeling the 35mm DX lens I got on my D7000 is too limiting. It's too narrow for the kind of stuff I like to photograph, scenery mostly. Even objects tend to disappear. I think the lens would have been much more useful for everyday use if the focal length had been 25mm or even 30mm. It's really nice when I photograph something that actually fits in the view though. But most of the time I either want to take a photo of a scene or I want to take a photo of something far away, rarely something in the middle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 10:38
|
|
|
I've been shopping around for my first DSLR and I have until tax return time to finish shopping for used parts. I'm trying to spend between $300-500 for a body, an 18-55, and a 50, just to get me started. (I understand that's tight, but it's about what a Canon 20D would cost to get started, so it's my baseline to beat, basically.) I've been half settled on a 20D for a while, but as I've looked more into long-term costs, it seems like the Nikkor lenses have a much broader range of options in the $100-400 range, which is where I would want to be buying. But the OP talks a lot about autofocus not working on certain bodies, and I can't quite wrap my head around them. Would the lower ends of the Nikkor lenses potentially not work if I went out and got something as old as a D3000? Am I missing something in the lineup better than the D3000, as far as my price range goes? Or am I misreading the Canon vs Nikkor lens situation? I just go looking for my third lens and the Nikkor 70-300 is $90 used, and that seems bonkers compared to Canon's offerings. Huxley fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
I have a D90 for sale at $325 http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3125105&pagenumber=160#post419060874 It's the same resolution as the D3000, but with better dynamic range, better low-light performance, better build quality and compatibility with all AF lenses. It's video function is pretty awful, but it's been great as a still camera.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:43 |
|
|
Buy that dude's D90. AF screw included, so you (mostly) don't need to worry bout no lens compatibility issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:34
|
|