|
Yeah, its a new one, and I had a guy sell me his old 80-200 f2.8 because he liked the 70-200 f4 vr so much. It's around 1k or so, but way lighter than any of the 2.8s
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
Picked up a d7000 over my first d3200: loving it so far. Is it worth while me picking up any books for it? I know everything is online these days, but a nice published book has a bit more charm to it. I'm in the UK FYI. Any goony recommendations? Not so much entry level stuff telling me what shutter speed does, but more like multi exposures and EV control for certain situations. Stuff where I can go 'ah , that little trick will help my skills immensely .
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 09:37
|
|
|
Understeer posted:Where did you order from? Do they ship all over Europe? I'm having no luck finding good stores in southern France. I bought from Adorama.com in the US, they ship internationally. Here's a shot I took with the 55-200, not very good, too much ISO and I had the VR feature turned off. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
simosimo posted:Picked up a d7000 over my first d3200: loving it so far. Is it worth while me picking up any books for it? I know everything is online these days, but a nice published book has a bit more charm to it. I'm in the UK FYI. When I picked up my d7k I found just reading through the owners manual (available online in .PDF, sorry) was extremely helpful. It shows you how to do bracketing, multi exposures, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
I have an embarassing problem....I can't get the lens hood off my tamron 17-50mm VC lens. It is in the reverse position and it just won't budge! Its really getting in the way when shooting and pissing me off because I must be missing something simple. Any tips to free my lens of this hood welcome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
phimosis
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
Are these pop-up diffusor thingies worth the money until one can afford a flash? http://fotodioxpro.com/index.php/st...d70-d70s-d.html Do they differ a lot in quality between brands and design and there is one particular model you'd recommend or should I just get whatever? edit: oh yeah some of them are just reflectors too that bounce the light upwards, is that a better option or are both of these entirely worthless? His Divine Shadow fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
If I could remember how much much I spent on stupid poo poo like that years ago I'd probably jump off my balcony.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Are these pop-up diffusor thingies worth the money until one can afford a flash? Easy enough to DIY a diffuser or bounce solution here (try an empty pack of cigarettes, piece of tracing paper, an old clear film canister!) Save your money for a flash with tilt and swivel, you can get used Nikon branded stuff for the $150 range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Easy enough to DIY a diffuser or bounce solution here (try an empty pack of cigarettes, piece of tracing paper, an old clear film canister!) Or a brand new Yongnuo for half that!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Suddenly realized you can get DSLRs for $500 these days, and happened to have $600 in my slush-fund account. I'm about to buy a factory refurb D5100 with the 18-55 and this Sigma 70-300 from Amazon. Is this a good idea, or is there another one I should be looking at at that price point? I was originally going to get the D3100 two-lens kit, but I really want that extra stop of ISO. I'd like a D7000 because I'm used to the top-end Nikons (and it would let me use "my" screw-drive 80-200 f/2.8 when shooting football for the newspaper), but at double the price it's a bit out of my range. Edit: a fast prime will be my third lens once the bank account recovers. Until then, I think f/3.5-5.6 will be enough at ISO25k, since I'm used to using f/2.8s on bodies that max out at extremely noisy ISO6400. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Sep 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 07:31
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:Suddenly realized you can get DSLRs for $500 these days, and happened to have $600 in my slush-fund account. I'm about to buy a factory refurb D5100 with the 18-55 and this Sigma 70-300 from Amazon. I got my 'used' d7k (4k shutter actuations) for $600 off craigslist with battery charger, battery, screen cover, etc. I'd just get a used d7k with that money. If you're serious at all about it you're going to get frustrated with the lack of lens options and honestly overall feel of the lower end nikons (IMO). Edit: 25k ISO is still going to look like poo poo even on the D7K. It's not bad for documenting stuff for the newpaper probably but there's going to be significant grain even in the non-shadows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Edit: 25k ISO is still going to look like poo poo even on the D7K. It's not bad for documenting stuff for the newpaper probably but there's going to be significant grain even in the non-shadows. Yeah, I'd only max it out for newsprint. Surely it looks better than HI-2 on a beat-to-hell D2h, if only because of the higher resolution making it less obvious when scaled down to print size.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Yeah, I'd only max it out for newsprint. Surely it looks better than HI-2 on a beat-to-hell D2h, if only because of the higher resolution making it less obvious when scaled down to print size. I actually moved to a D7K from a D200. I could take a couple pictures right now with both and upload them for you if you wanted to see the difference (GF now owns the D200).
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I actually moved to a D7K from a D200. I could take a couple pictures right now with both and upload them for you if you wanted to see the difference (GF now owns the D200). I meant D2, H-model. It's what I've been using at the paper, and its high-ISO performance leaves something to be desired. (sometimes I get an Xs, which isn't much better; they let me use their spare/old gear for football, fulltime guys have either a less-trashed D2Xs or a D7000.) But yeah, show me what the D7000 looks like maxed out. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Sep 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
I thought you meant D2H as in D2 Hundred  oh well. Included hyperlinks for Big on the D7k shots. These shots are all with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D lens.http://i.imgur.com/jFliVYg.jpg  http://i.imgur.com/powFrZR.jpg  Comparison with D200:   Edit: For D7K sensor porn zoom in on the in-focus moss in the big version of this picture (which I didn't end up using or hosting anywhere because I wasn't happy with the DoF issues in it):   Taken with a 70-300 Tamron VC USD lens which is a great first-tele lens for this body. VelociBacon fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Sep 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I thought you meant D2H as in D2 Hundred http://i.imgur.com/pIh4BOo.jpg  Lately I've been at a darker stadium, and forced to use ISO6400 to get a reasonable shutter speed. Or, as my coworker who normally uses the D7000 put it, "I don't know how you shoot football with this thing every week." Of course, he never had to shoot football with an original D1. Edit: That's some nice moss. Looks like the modern three-digit cameras have the same noise at a given ISO as the 5+ year-old single-digit models do two stops lower. Also, when clearing out my Amazon wishlist for the camera shopping, I found it still had the Canon I added in 2003 that was, at the time, the level that the D5100 is now. It's going for $40 now Comedy option: buy the lenses now and save up for a new D7000 with warranty, because this is a thing that is on my desk:   They know I still have it, and I'll give it back if they ask. Ultra-comedy option: buy it from them. What should I offer? That reminds me, did Nikon ever figure out glue, or is my eventual D7000 going to end up wrapped in tape? Dammit, the $600 budget was for a body and full range of lenses. Though maybe if I get a D7000 with the short lens I can borrow the beater 80-200 screw-drive from the newspaper until I can get the Sigma next month. Or should I make an offer on the beater? It's over ten years old, literally falling apart and is the old style with no motor of its own. On the other hand, it's f/2.8 and they'd probably let it go for $200. On the first hand, it's so trashed the repair shops all refuse to touch it, so once it stops working, that's it. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Sep 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Easy enough to DIY a diffuser or bounce solution here (try an empty pack of cigarettes, piece of tracing paper, an old clear film canister!) OK so I won't bother with any of those, based on what I've been able to google myself to as well as looking through this thread, the SB600 is a very good flash that could be had for that price. What model Yongnuo would you (aimed at thread in general) recommend if I wanted something like the SB600? The SB400 was something I was considering but I read so much negative feedback about it that I didn't bother, it seems it has no real purpose. I see the seller who tried to sell it on the local craigslist-equivalent has it back up for 40 euros, back then it was 80 euros.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:That's pretty nice, considering what I have to deal with. Here's the D2Xs (the better of the two cameras I get to use, though not this week as the other guy's D7000 died in the rain last week) at ISO3200 (link to full-size): Don't buy that beat to poo poo camera on your desk, it'll break and you'll feel stupid when you end up having to essentially throw it out. Do you have access to the nikon lenses you've been using for work? I would still buy a used d7k body. In my opinion if you were going to save up the $1000 or so for a new D7K you're better off spending the extra $400 on a lens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
lmfao if you buy a beat to poo poo D2h
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Real Chat, buy a Beat up D2XS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Isn't that a D1? EDIT: Yah, it's a D1. Offer them $20 and see what happens. ShadeofBlue fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Oct 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Does the kit 18-55 come with a lens hood?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Does the kit 18-55 come with a lens hood? Nope, but here's the right one for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Bear in mind if you're buying that you might as well just buy some $5 collapsible rubber hood from eBay or something. It's nearly as much of a joke as the 35 1.8's hood is. Not to say the 18-55 doesn't have some pretty shameful flare problems, but they're not the type that's gonna be solved by a 3/4" hood.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:Isn't that a D1? D1x. It has been relatively well-cared-for, but I wouldn't pay more that $20 for it. I do get to use the newspaper's gear when I do jobs for them, that's why I decided on the D7000 -- the 80-200 f/2.8 they give me is camera-driven.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
Looking for a lens recommendation. Mostly a take million lovely pictures of my kids guy. Took a photography class in high school, can and do MASP... but I'm no artist. Body: D90 Lenses: Nikon 18-55mm kit lens Nikon 50mm 1.8D Looking for a third lens with a budget of ~$300 I was also thinking about buying an external flash so I can do things like bounce flash and have a diffuser. Any thoughts on Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 + Nikon SB-400 or Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 + Nikon SB-400 ? Should I skip the flash and get a more expensive Nikkor?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Just get a 35.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
You can consider getting the Nikkor 24/2.8 AF-D, if you want something wider than normal. 24 is a pretty nice focal length on crop too, although I'm not sure if it's within your price range. Don't get the SB-400, you may as well just stick to your onboard flash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Any thoughts on Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 You mean the 70-300 VC USD Tamron right? This lens is fantastic. I picked mine up for I think around $350 from KEH, using it on a D7K body, it's great. VelociBacon posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
On a more serious note, how much should I offer the paper for "my" 80-200? It's like this but with two of the three screws holding the front bit on missing, along with the nameplate (there's a hole that goes right down between the lens elements under the nameplate, btw; I put a bit of gaffer tape over it, that's how I know it's mine), and the camera shops refuse to fix it (they say the mounting ring is hosed but it still talks to the camera just fine), but it works. And is f/2.8.  It was the new hotness when they gave it to me on a D1 (no letter) ten years ago, and I'm still using it for football. It's either that or a Sigma self-motorized 70-300 f/4-5.6, with my budget. Edit: they sold the two of those that weren't literally falling apart without telling me, and the broken one is what I get to borrow. Jerks. The fulltime guys run newer 70-200s that lock at f/2.8 at the slightest hint of trauma; "mine", despite its slow focusing, can take a hit and keep on truckin'. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
KEH has an UG grade one touch 80-200mm listed for $205 but frankly if it's so hosed that no one will touch it I wouldn't pay real money for it. Offer them $100 or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 12:06
|
|
|
Yeah it's a nice lens but in that condition it could just as well fall apart next week. I think you're foolish to buy it at all, really. Even more so if you're able to borrow it anytime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:KEH has an UG grade one touch 80-200mm listed for $205 but frankly if it's so hosed that no one will touch it I wouldn't pay real money for it. Offer them $100 or something. Yeah, the other one went for $200 several years ago; with the $300 bill to freshen it up, it was still a decent deal. This one, not so much. I'll see if they'll let me keep it at home and give it back when their 70-200s are in the shop. When I got laid off, they told me to keep my kit and only asked for it back 3 months later when one of the full-time guys trashed his and they needed the spares. One of the guys at the paper had a good idea: hold back  of every paycheck, and after a couple of years use it to buy your issued gear for yourself or upgrade your newspaper-owned gear (with the option to buy it next time). His idea was that it would encourage us to treat the gear better, and give us either previous-gen DSLRs for personal use or better resale value for the paper when they upgraded. I was onboard, but the photo boss shot it down, possibly because he goes through cameras like most people go through potato chips.They still have the D2 that photo boss was carrying when he got run over by a car on his motorcycle. It's still got half the lens barrel stuck in the mount, and the card door torn off, and all three LCDs shattered, but it still clicks and writes to the card. Pro Nikons are loving tanks. It'd probably still work if you could get a lens on it. He wants to swap the top cover onto his current rig as a trophy -- it's got gouges across the top of the prism housing like movie werewolf scratches -- but can't find a shop that will do it. Edit: the D1x I never returned is actually as good as a D1x can be, it's just taped up because the rubber bits will not stay on. We've tried every glue known to man, but the only thing that works is gaffer tape. Though the tape on it is probably worth more than the camera (see the old joke about the beater car doubling in value when you fill up the gas tank). On a similar note, I went through and cleared out my Amazon wishlist for the camera shopping, and found that I still had the Canon I added ten years ago that was at the same level then as the D7000 is now (Nikon didn't really have a prosumer option then); it's going for $40. Also I went to Best Buy and touched the things, and y'all are right, I'd be disappointed if I got the D5100. I couldn't judge the relative heft with the security bungee cord; but I had to play with the 5100 to change things, where with the 7000 I already knew how to work it because it's a baby D3. Definitely getting a vertical grip/battery holder, though, it's way too short in stock form. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:On a more serious note, how much should I offer the paper for "my" 80-200? If your gonna throw money at a beat to gently caress 80-200, just throw money at me. I have a 80-200 sittin 0987263098746 pages back in the gear sales thread, thats just collecting dust.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
So I was digging through a closet and found my father-in-law's old 35mm Pentax camera (a K1000), which has an "SMC Pentax-M 50mm F2" lens on it. It also had stored with it a 28mm/2.8 and a 135mm/2.8, both of which are Sears brand, and say they are made in Korea (I dunno who actually was making these for Sears). The 135 mounts on the Pentax, but the 28mm has a slightly smaller mount and doesn't fit on the Pentax -- I'm not sure what it was used for (and the fact that it was in the same box in our closet doesn't mean much). I could use the 50mm/2 and the 135mm/2.8 on my D5100, if I used a Pentax K Lens to Nikon adapter, like this one, right? Would that be worth playing around with? I mean, in the grand scheme of camera stuff, the adapter is not a big purchase, but are the lenses likely to work well with such an adapter (assuming they're in good shape)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:So I was digging through a closet and found my father-in-law's old 35mm Pentax camera (a K1000), which has an "SMC Pentax-M 50mm F2" lens on it. It also had stored with it a 28mm/2.8 and a 135mm/2.8, both of which are Sears brand, and say they are made in Korea (I dunno who actually was making these for Sears). The 135 mounts on the Pentax, but the 28mm has a slightly smaller mount and doesn't fit on the Pentax -- I'm not sure what it was used for (and the fact that it was in the same box in our closet doesn't mean much). You could but honestly glass adapters suck. You could get a glassless adapter but you won't be able to focus past a certain distance. You would be better off buying an AI Nikkor 50/2 and 28/2.8 or something if you wanted to play with manual focus, assuming that those meter on the D7100. If not either play with manual metering (not hard with a rule-of-thumb) or just buy a 35/1.8 DX and a 50/1.8 and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You could but honestly glass adapters suck. You could get a glassless adapter but you won't be able to focus past a certain distance. You would be better off buying an AI Nikkor 50/2 and 28/2.8 or something if you wanted to play with manual focus. Thanks. I have Nikkor 55/3.5 and 105/2.5 lenses that my dad gave me from his old 35mm Nikon, and I've been playing around with those, so I don't really have a pressing need to use the Pentax lenses (or whatever other weird Sears lens this 28mm is), but I figured if the adapters were decent it could be worthwhile. The issue with glassless adapters is you can't focus to infinity, right? And this is the 28/2.8 you're talking about, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:Thanks. I have Nikkor 55/3.5 and 105/2.5 lenses that my dad gave me from his old 35mm Nikon, and I've been playing around with those, so I don't really have a pressing need to use the Pentax lenses (or whatever other weird Sears lens this 28mm is), but I figured if the adapters were decent it could be worthwhile. The issue with glassless adapters is you can't focus to infinity, right? The issue with glass* adapters is that they crop and degrade the image. The only way to extend the register distance optically is to use a teleconverter. That magnifies the image a little (adds focal length), and because it's a cheap lovely little piece of glass (or even plastic) that was never meant to be in the optical system it adds optical defects. This forum doesn't even recommend you use a lovely plastic UV filter, this is 10-100x worse because it's in the rear of the system. I meant this, it's one of the old manual focus lenses that is pretty popular (along with the 105/2.5, which loving owns, and all of the 55mm Micro Nikkors, which are all pretty great, so good on your dad). It's like a wide-normal on a crop body. 24mm is also a really nice equivalent on crop, 35mm equivalent is probably my favorite all around focal length. Don't pay too much if there's an AF equivalent available, but at the same time you can definitely pick up some awesome lenses for cheap if you're willing to deal with manual focus. Consider purchasing a split prism focus screen if you enjoy it, they vastly improve your focus accuracy. Again, probably an order of magnitude or two more accurate, and if you can swap the focus screen on that model the $15 ebay specials do fine. *glass, not glassless Do be aware that some of the early models had compensating Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Oct 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Bear in mind if you're buying that you might as well just buy some $5 collapsible rubber hood from eBay or something. It's nearly as much of a joke as the 35 1.8's hood is. If you do this, find some old worthless filters and pop the glass out, then mount whatever abomination you create onto that, it'll be a hell of a lot easier than trying to get the bayonet right (I don't even think the 18-55 has a bayonet). Somebody fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 10:00
|
|