|
Miko posted:Buy that dude's D90. It doesn't have AI metering, but that's not an issue if you don't mind shooting a test exposure or two and looking at the histogram (which I usually do anyway because it tells you a lot more about your exposure than the simple -/+ meter). I shot tons of stuff on AI/AIS lenses with great results.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
Any thoughts on the rumored D610 and D5300? As an owner of a D600, I'll be slightly annoyed if it's significantly upgraded in any way, thought at this point it looks to be a marketing gimmick to get away from the D600 oil spot reputation. Edit: http://nikonrumors.com/2013/08/29/rumor-nikon-preparing-to-announce-new-d5300-and-d610-dslr-cameras.aspx/
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
The 5200 has been out less than a year, and only six months ago outside Japan. Don't see why they'd do a refresh so soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
nielsm posted: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. I'll go look for an 18-55 deal, only affordable option anyway. Still, howcome you think an 18-200 isn't an option? If we overlook the cost issue it looks to me on paper to be a solution that would allow me to have just one lens, which is a definite plus in my book.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:I'll go look for an 18-55 deal, only affordable option anyway. Still, howcome you think an 18-200 isn't an option? If we overlook the cost issue it looks to me on paper to be a solution that would allow me to have just one lens, which is a definite plus in my book. Because the optical quality is going to suffer at the expense of being able to cover the entire range. What people commonly do as a first lens after the kit is a 55-200 so they can cover 18-200 in two lenses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Jimmy Thief posted:Any thoughts on the rumored D610 and D5300? As an owner of a D600, I'll be slightly annoyed if it's significantly upgraded in any way, thought at this point it looks to be a marketing gimmick to get away from the D600 oil spot reputation. Its a marketing gimmick to sell a body with a shutter that wont have the oil problem. No upgrades (except for 3 CF slots and better video and probably a 80mp sensor).
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:I'll go look for an 18-55 deal, only affordable option anyway. Still, howcome you think an 18-200 isn't an option? If we overlook the cost issue it looks to me on paper to be a solution that would allow me to have just one lens, which is a definite plus in my book. On paper its great. Real world its terrible. But go ahead and waste the money. Krock loves it on a D40 because you cant see how ugly your kids are because the image quality is poor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Musket posted:Its a marketing gimmick to sell a body with a shutter that wont have the oil problem. No upgrades (except for 3 CF slots and better video and probably a 80mp sensor). I'm going to be annoyed if it actually does have better video. I ended up shelling out for a D800 mostly because of the exceptionally bad moire in the D600.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Because the optical quality is going to suffer at the expense of being able to cover the entire range. What people commonly do as a first lens after the kit is a 55-200 so they can cover 18-200 in two lenses. Ok I was seeing some debate on the issue of quality but thanks to this Krock fellow (that seems to generate some heated opinions) I found good deals on a refurbished 18-55 and 55-200, could have them for $250 with shipping to Finland.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
Ken Rockwell is an odd fellow who has really strong opinions that he tries to force onto his readership. Also, for as much cred as he gets as a photographer, 90% of the pictures he posts are just snapshots of his kids, which doesn't do much to win over skeptics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
Well I ordered a refurbished 18-55 for $84 and a 55-200 for $107, more than I had planned but at least now I am set for a loooong time. Maybe I can take the 55-200 and go moose 'hunting'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Well I ordered a refurbished 18-55 for $84 and a 55-200 for $107, more than I had planned but at least now I am set for a loooong time. Maybe I can take the 55-200 and go moose 'hunting'. 1) That is a fine lens combo that will do well for you. 2) As a Canadian, moose are absolute dickheads, stay as far away as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
They're everywhere here in Finland, number one cause of animal related traffic accidents. I live rurally so I tend to run across them from time to time. Sometimes brown bears too, but I've only ever seen their tracks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Well I ordered a refurbished 18-55 for $84 and a 55-200 for $107, more than I had planned but at least now I am set for a loooong time. Maybe I can take the 55-200 and go moose 'hunting'. For future reference, you can also visit the Finnish sites Digicamera, Kameralaukku and Kameratori for used camera gear. Also handy if you want to sell stuff. e: (Buy my D7000)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 10:49
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:They're everywhere here in Finland, number one cause of animal related traffic accidents. I live rurally so I tend to run across them from time to time. Sometimes brown bears too, but I've only ever seen their tracks. Yeah, animal-related traffic accidents that leave a totalled car, and that the moose calmly walks away from. I just hope you don't get grizzly bears, our other horrifying death machine. Dude next door had to shoot one on his porch a couple years ago. Took more than five shots with the shotgun. Tanks aren't as hard to kill in most FPS games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 10:50
|
|
|
Well we got some pretty fierce hares: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z865Wow8sfg
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 11:51
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Took more than five shots with the shotgun. Tanks aren't as hard to kill in most FPS games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:I'm going to be annoyed if it actually does have better video. I ended up shelling out for a D800 mostly because of the exceptionally bad moire in the D600. I can assure you that there will not be any new cool poo poo added to the D610 that couldnt be put in a firmware up... oh that dont happen with Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:I ended up shelling out for a D800 mostly because of the exceptionally bad moire in the D600. I kind of want to do this... the D600's moire is un-loving-believable at times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Might as well get a BMCC at that point and shoot raw video (or ProRes)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
That's probably the right choice for narrative films, but it has some serious shortcomings for field documentary work, no F-mount option and no stills capability.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
 in raw mode video is recorded into folders containing individual DNG frames, take your stills from there Also the main shortcoming for this camera is battery life, and this is remedied with external battery packs. And no F-mount option isn't a shortcoming unless we're saying every Canon shooter out there is dealing with a serious shortcoming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Might as well get a BMCC at that point and shoot raw video (or ProRes) I actually have been thinking about it since they dropped the price. Also I'm not invested in Nikon monetarily enough to not consider going a Canon mount direction (plus we got a 5DMkIII with some nice lenses at work and I could start using that package's accessories). Although the non-daydream reality is that I'm about to buy a house and start having kids so this is probably all moot anyway!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
If you have a 5Dmk3 you might just bypass the BMCC and just do Magic Lantern raw, but workflow is going to be so much easier on the BMCC. Also the BMCC has the same DR as the D800, the 5D falls short by quite a bit. OR just save and buy a house and be a responsible adult instead of a creative professional 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
1st AD posted:
No F-mount is a shortcoming when you own an array of F-mount lenses and no Canon/M43 lenses, and a roughly M43-sized sensor that resolves to 1080p (give or take) isn't really suitable for still photography. I already co-own a RED with a business partner, but I would like to be able to spend days in the field tracking endangered animals without carrying 30lbs of camera, rigging, lens and batteries. The D800 works very well for this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:No F-mount is a shortcoming when you own an array of F-mount lenses and no Canon/M43 lenses, and a roughly M43-sized sensor that resolves to 1080p (give or take) isn't really suitable for still photography. I already co-own a RED with a business partner, but I would like to be able to spend days in the field tracking endangered animals without carrying 30lbs of camera, rigging, lens and batteries. The D800 works very well for this. F-mount has a longer register distance than EOS and M4/3 is much shorter than that. Allow me to resolve your dilemma.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:F-mount has a longer register distance than EOS and M4/3 is much shorter than that. It's not a dilemma. I already have the tools that do what I need them to do  The BMCC is great for a lot of applications, but I wouldn't have much of a use for it right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
So I own a d5100, along with the 18-55 VR kit lens, The 35mm AF-S and the 40mm AF-S Macro. Basically I like taking pictures of my dogs in and out of the house, taking pictures of landscapes, flowers and plants and I like wandering around with my friends at night getting drunk and taking pictures of our group and people around us while we're out on the town. I think I'd also like to get in to taking pictures at local music shows along with portraits shots. Should I buy the 50mm 1.4 AF-S or the 85mm 1.8 AF-S or something else? I like the idea of 1.4 aperture on the 50, but its too long to use when Im with a group of people indoors, and also seems too short for something like shooting people on a stage. I don't really want to spend more than $500-600. So what do you guys think?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Dr.Mrs.The Monarch posted:So I own a d5100, along with the 18-55 VR kit lens, The 35mm AF-S and the 40mm AF-S Macro. Basically I like taking pictures of my dogs in and out of the house, taking pictures of landscapes, flowers and plants and I like wandering around with my friends at night getting drunk and taking pictures of our group and people around us while we're out on the town. I don't understand why you'd take a dslr to the bar but why not buy the 50mm 1.8G? You pay a huge premium for the 1.4 that you probably won't really get the value out of if you're just doing impromptu shots anyways? Also your camera body doesn't have an internal focusing motor I'm pretty sure which cuts back your options on the higher end lenses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Dr.Mrs.The Monarch posted:So I own a d5100, along with the 18-55 VR kit lens, The 35mm AF-S and the 40mm AF-S Macro. Basically I like taking pictures of my dogs in and out of the house, taking pictures of landscapes, flowers and plants and I like wandering around with my friends at night getting drunk and taking pictures of our group and people around us while we're out on the town.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Dr.Mrs.The Monarch posted:I think I'd also like to get in to taking pictures at local music shows along with portraits shots. Should I buy the 50mm 1.4 AF-S or the 85mm 1.8 AF-S or something else? I like the idea of 1.4 aperture on the 50, but its too long to use when Im with a group of people indoors, and also seems too short for something like shooting people on a stage. I don't really want to spend more than $500-600. So what do you guys think? I bought a 17-55mm f/2.8 DX AF-S on craigslist for $650 and I couldn't be happier. They seem to sell cheap on the used market as people move up to full-frame. Just something to think about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 11:17
|
|
|
4/20 NEVER FORGET posted:I bought a 17-55mm f/2.8 DX AF-S on craigslist for $650 and I couldn't be happier. They seem to sell cheap on the used market as people move up to full-frame. Just something to think about. You can find a used Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for $250 shipped on amazon now too, if you're on a real tight budget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
How's the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-D? Seems like it's sharp and has a nice aperture for the focal length.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:How's the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-D? Seems like it's sharp and has a nice aperture for the focal length. For the five minutes I hosed around with one it seemed pretty nice. Paging dreadhead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
I've used one and almost bought one, may still. The resolution on full frame is equal to anything you'll get out of a 70-200 2.8 (which is to say fantastic) though a little less so on a crop sensor (you probably will not notice this or if you do it won't matter for your application). No distortion, CA and all that is negligible, and all that's correctable with lens profiles these days. If it's a thing you need, there's no issue with it per se. It's a bit hefty, if that's a consideration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:How's the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-D? Seems like it's sharp and has a nice aperture for the focal length. It's a great lens, you might be tempted to pay the extra for the newer AF-S version, but once you've learnt how to use the focus limiter the AF-D isn't too slow to focus either. CA (on a bright day) is higher than my Tamron 70-300, but it's easily fixable if it turns out to be a problem, and the 300mm AF-D is sharper than the tamron at full length. The 39mm filter is a bit... weird, but you can probably just ignore it and leave the neutral filter in, and use the filter ring on the front (it's not supposed to have one by most online reviews, but mine has what appears to be (I think, it's been like a year since I checked and I don't use it) 82mm thread, and Krock states it has a 82mm front thread too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Well I ordered a refurbished 18-55 for $84 and a 55-200 for $107, more than I had planned but at least now I am set for a loooong time. Maybe I can take the 55-200 and go moose 'hunting'. Where did you order from? Do they ship all over Europe? I'm having no luck finding good stores in southern France.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
I just rented a 70-200 f4 for a shoot and I reeeeally like it a lot. I'm thinking of buying a used copy off fredmiranda or somewhere. It's super light compared to the 2.8 and the extra foot or so closer MFD makes a big difference in the stuff I like to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
powderific posted:I just rented a 70-200 f4 for a shoot and I reeeeally like it a lot. I'm thinking of buying a used copy off fredmiranda or somewhere. It's super light compared to the 2.8 and the extra foot or so closer MFD makes a big difference in the stuff I like to shoot. Does Nikon even make one of these, or do you mean the 70-210 f/4? If so, I used to have that lens, it owned hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Does Nikon even make one of these, or do you mean the 70-210 f/4? If so, I used to have that lens, it owned hard. It's new and apparently really good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 03:52
|
|
