|
What soundmonkey said. Tell them you expect a refund and a return label, wait for their negative answer then do a chargeback and get on with your life.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:What soundmonkey said. Tell them you expect a refund and a return label, wait for their negative answer then do a chargeback and get on with your life. Always remember that the phrase "eat chain" is perfectly acceptable in business communication.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
it's can'tpatible
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
did someone say eat chain http://loopthetube.com/#ZQ2rOtyZyLU&start=3.239&end=4.377
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
Nikon Df Engraving is only for Japanese customers. Thats it. gently caress Nikon, gently caress the Df, gently caress this thread and yall. Nikons over.  *posted from my Samsung Android Camera, yes you have to beat Angry Birds level 4-2 in order to unlock Aperture Priority mode
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Hail satan!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Musket posted:Nikon Df Engraving is only for Japanese customers. Thats it. gently caress Nikon, gently caress the Df, gently caress this thread and yall. Nikons over. Just buy a dremel
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
daspope posted:Just buy a dremel Only because the DF is already ugly as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Holy loving poo poo the 105mm f/2.5 rules. If you don't own this you're as retarded as I was until I did (very retarded).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Holy loving poo poo the 105mm f/2.5 rules. If you don't own this you're as retarded as I was until I did (very retarded). Meh， color is too cold. Its cheap though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
That's the best part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Holy loving poo poo the 105mm f/2.5 rules. If you don't own this you're as retarded as I was until I did (very retarded). Scrub, get the 135DC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
I bought one a couple weeks ago too. Thing fuckin rules and was cheap as dirt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
scottch posted:I bought one a couple weeks ago too. Thing fuckin rules and was cheap as dirt. Would folks recommend picking this up or the 105mm 2.8 Micro? I'd use it mostly for portraits, but I currently don't have a macro-capable lens, and I'd love to be able to get close to subjects. My current portrait lens is the 85mm 1.8 G, and I'm actually kind of shocked how far away the minimum focus distance is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
thetzar posted:Would folks recommend picking this up or the 105mm 2.8 Micro? I'd use it mostly for portraits, but I currently don't have a macro-capable lens, and I'd love to be able to get close to subjects. My current portrait lens is the 85mm 1.8 G, and I'm actually kind of shocked how far away the minimum focus distance is. I may be wrong, but if you want to maintain the same field of view at a closer distance, you need a shorter focal length lens, not longer. The 105 Micro will allow you to get closer, but you'll be seeing less of your subject at the same time. Get a 50mm or shorter lens, but be aware that you'll start to induce unflattering distortion for portraits using lenses shorter than 50mm at close distances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
thetzar posted:Would folks recommend picking this up or the 105mm 2.8 Micro? I'd use it mostly for portraits, but I currently don't have a macro-capable lens, and I'd love to be able to get close to subjects. My current portrait lens is the 85mm 1.8 G, and I'm actually kind of shocked how far away the minimum focus distance is. Reverse ring, 50mm lens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:I may be wrong, but if you want to maintain the same field of view at a closer distance, you need a shorter focal length lens, not longer. The 105 Micro will allow you to get closer, but you'll be seeing less of your subject at the same time. Get a 50mm or shorter lens, but be aware that you'll start to induce unflattering distortion for portraits using lenses shorter than 50mm at close distances. It's less that I need to be close, and more that I want to be _tight_. With the 85mm, I can't get closer than a whole-head shot (even some shoulders), which means I couldn't do something (un-portraty) like nose-to-forehead. I want to have a tight crop without distortion. (Note: on a full-frame body, here)
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Musket posted:Scrub, get the 135DC. I got the 105 because it's nice and small for shooting concerts with. It's actually substantially lighter than my 50 1.2 that I usually use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:I got the 105 because it's nice and small for shooting concerts with. It's actually substantially lighter than my 50 1.2 that I usually use. Oh yeah it's super compact and light, so people at venues with focal length restrictions often let it through. And it's sharp wide open.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
I'm looking for some advice on purchasing my next body. I got a d5200 earlier this year for it's video capabilities. I hadn't planned on shooting photos again (I used to shoot film in high school/college, had a d40 many years ago) but having access to a good camera body got me interested in shooting photos again. Over time I've ended up with some decent lenses (nikon dx f1.8 35mm, nikon dx f2.8 17-55mm, nikon f2.8 70-200mm VR1) and I've really been itching to get a second body so I can have a body on both my 17-55 and 70-200 at all times so I don't have to take the time to switch bodies. Also, the menu system on the d5200 is a bit of a pain, I shot a bunch of photos on my mom's d700 over vacation and really liked having most of the controls on buttons instead of having to make multiple clicks through menus. Considering the lenses I own, I've really been wanting to get a d7100. I have been tempted to go after something like the d610 but it's more expensive, and I only own one FX lens. I have been finding myself shooting events and product shots for friends recently, so I was wanting to upgrade a bit on the body. I have about $1000 to spend on a body, watching CL I see d7100's with low shutter counts for sale rarely for $900 obo. The d7100 seems to have many great reviews online. My question is do you guys think a new or lightly used d7100 would be a good choice or should I go after a different used or new body? I see you guys speak very highly of the d7000 and it's been tempting to pick one up as they are a bit cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
I'm not sure if any of them meet your criteria but if you're a fan of having a button for loving everything, the crop-sensor Dxxx series are a thing you should look at (used).
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
4/20 NEVER FORGET posted:I'm looking for some advice on purchasing my next body. I got a d5200 earlier this year for it's video capabilities. I hadn't planned on shooting photos again (I used to shoot film in high school/college, had a d40 many years ago) but having access to a good camera body got me interested in shooting photos again. Over time I've ended up with some decent lenses (nikon dx f1.8 35mm, nikon dx f2.8 17-55mm, nikon f2.8 70-200mm VR1) and I've really been itching to get a second body so I can have a body on both my 17-55 and 70-200 at all times so I don't have to take the time to switch bodies. Also, the menu system on the d5200 is a bit of a pain, I shot a bunch of photos on my mom's d700 over vacation and really liked having most of the controls on buttons instead of having to make multiple clicks through menus. The d7000 or d7100 are both great cameras and you can do everything through buttons still. Then again you can do basically everything through buttons on the d5x00 too, you just might be pushing 2 buttons at once.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
I am also considering buying a D7100, just waiting get the guts to pull the trigger. I currently have a D3200 and DX lenses (35mm, 55-300 and Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC) which I really like but I want to start transitioning into FX lenses as I want to be FF eventually. Also, my d3200 needs to go for repair as the screen keeps going dark but I can't be without a camera as I am on a photography course, so another body is needed. I have read a lot of internet about this camera but the thing that worries me is that there are contradictory views about low light high ISO performance. This is a feature that is important to me as I am a bit disappointed by my d3200 in this respect. Part of me thanks I should just jump straight to full frame as at least I know the D610 will be great in low light, but I would have to use it in crop mode due to my DX lens collection so wouldnt get the most out of it. Has anyone here got first hand experience of the low light performance of the D7100? I know the D7000 performs well in low light, is the D7100 the same?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
I'm just starting to get into this stuff but would this be a good deal on a D3200? It's quite a bit cheaper than other places that have that same setup on BLack Friday sale so I just want to make sure I'm not missing something obvious. http://www.adorama.com/INKD3200K1.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
nerd_of_prey posted:I am also considering buying a D7100, just waiting get the guts to pull the trigger. According to not only DxO but also Nikon naming design, the D7100 is in fact better than the D7000 in terms of IQ (barely).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Jymmybob posted:I'm just starting to get into this stuff but would this be a good deal on a D3200? It's quite a bit cheaper than other places that have that same setup on BLack Friday sale so I just want to make sure I'm not missing something obvious. Yeah that's a pretty great deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
nerd_of_prey posted:I am also considering buying a D7100, just waiting get the guts to pull the trigger. LOL STFU about upgrading and ISO performance and stuff like that and just take more pictures. Both cameras are equally capable and if you got one but not the other you'll likely never fully settle on one. D610 will have better ISO due to the larger sensor but D7100's sensor should be good enough with minimal post processing. Also, the D610 is a waste without FX lenses. Both are capable of ultra high ISOs anyways so there's nothing to worry about. Really the hugest difference will be if you moved to the D800 which gives you a ridiculous number of exposure stops but anyone with half a brain for exposing properly won't need that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Yeah that's a pretty great deal. Cool, I picked it up because I figure that if I don't end up using like expected then I can sell it with minimal loss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
nerd_of_prey posted:I have read a lot of internet about this camera but the thing that worries me is that there are contradictory views about low light high ISO performance. This is a feature that is important to me as I am a bit disappointed by my d3200 in this respect. It's crap compared to the D3 and D4 ($6k pro cameras), but blows the doors off the D1/D2 (older $6k pro models)/D3x00. ISO 25,600 on the D7000 looks better than ISO 6400 on a D2. Basically any camera is going to only be suitable for newsprint at max ISO, but newer and more expensive cameras give you more stops before you get to that point. Just be glad you get anything at high ISO -- I've shot film at ISO6400 and it was literally black and white, with grain the size of cornflakes. In other news, I got my check from this football season and bought a long zoom. I've had the Sigma 70-300 and the bottom-end Nikkor G 70-300 on my Amazon wishlist since I started shopping for the camera, but the reviews worried me (basically "not bad, worth the price, but not great, might be a lemon"); I ended up buying the '90s all-metal Nikkor 75-300 on eBay for less than the used price of the Sigma.  Reviews of f/5.6 lenses in general mystify me, people bitching about how it's only useable in the brightest of light, if there's a cloud in the sky you're hosed. Do these people not know they can change their ISO setting? Do they all have Parkinson's? You've been able to get f/5.6 and 1/500 in any conditions where the sun is over the horizon since Eisenhower was President. Maybe they're purists who refuse to go higher than ISO100 on principle. On the other hand, I just set mine at 640 or 1250 depending on the camera and don't change it unless I need to go higher. Those reviews also tend to complain about it being too slow for indoor work. What the gently caress are they doing where 70mm on a crop sensor is at all useful indoors? Edit: also, half the one-star reviews on any given screw-drive lens are D3x00/D5x00 owners claiming that Amazon lied about it being an AF lens, when it clearly states right under the price "will not work on [list of low-end cameras]" Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Nov 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 19:30
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
I'm annoyed by all the Canon lens lightning deals on Amazon while Nikon is usually the old 1 series cameras or a body only D7100 that sold out in 9 seconds. In a year in which Nikon has lamented lagging sales it might help to have an actual sale on lenses rather than this buy a body get a discount bs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
nerd_of_prey posted:I am also considering buying a D7100, just waiting get the guts to pull the trigger. If you want to eventually be in the FX system then do not buy a D7100. Save your money and buy what you want. If you're actually on the fence about it rent the bodies and check them out. I've rented lenses from lensrentals.com before and they have the bodies available for a fraction of the cost of buying them. d7100 $67 + shipping for 5 days: http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/cameras/nikon-d7100 d610 $90 + shipping for 5 days: http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/cameras/nikon-d610 fwiw, I think the low light iso performance on the d7000 is totally fine. If you get a speedlight (sb700 is the low end one now I think) it will do more for your photos than  high iso performance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
nerd_of_prey posted:Part of me thanks I should just jump straight to full frame as at least I know the D610 will be great in low light, but I would have to use it in crop mode due to my DX lens collection so wouldnt get the most out of it. My coworkers at the newspaper have FX cameras and are still using DX lenses. The vignetting of the 17-35mm DX lens can be quite nice when used properly. If you must have lenses made for the format, hit up eBay for old 35mm film lenses, then sell me your DX lenses. The D610 has an AF drive in the body, so any film lens made after the mid-'80s will work perfectly on it, and be a hell of a lot cheaper and more rugged than a modern FX-digital lens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:My coworkers at the newspaper have FX cameras and are still using DX lenses. The vignetting of the 17-35mm DX lens can be quite nice when used properly. Well this is one of my reasons for wanting to go full frame, I love old film camera lenses! I shoot a lot of film currently but use Olympus OM mount stuff, I would like to be in a situation where I can buy a lens and use it on a DSLR or a Nikon film body. I am not expecting the ISO on a D7100 to be as good as full frame but I would like ISO 3200 to give sharp photos that aren't so grainy detail is lost. I do a lot of gig photography in venues with terrible lighting and usually go between 800-3200 ISO, but at the upper end the noise is tough to fix. In this situation a speedlight wouldn't be acceptable. I think I will go for the D7100 as I could get that and a full frame-compatible lens (thinking of getting a macro lens) for the price of a D610 and use my DX lenses in the meantime. Then go full frame in a year or so when I have a few lenses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
The D610 is too expensive so you're gonna drop $1200 now and $2000 a year from now instead of saving up and only spending $2000? PS - The Fuji X cameras have some kickass ISO3200 for a bit cheaper price point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
Is it normal for a camera to have issues focusing in live view mode but no issues focusing once live view mode is off? Nikon d7k, happened with a couple different lenses. I know the AI metering sensor is up by the pentaprism and as such is affected by the mirror being up in live-view mode, but is the AF hardware affected too?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Is it normal for a camera to have issues focusing in live view mode but no issues focusing once live view mode is off? Nikon d7k, happened with a couple different lenses. I know the AI metering sensor is up by the pentaprism and as such is affected by the mirror being up in live-view mode, but is the AF hardware affected too? Yes. Contrast AF is absolute bullshit (although rapidly becoming less bullshit in recent years), which is what you're using if you're in live view. Phase AF, which is what you're using when NOT in live view is far more fast and accurate. Most of the difference being that in live view, the sensor is doing the AF, whereas in non-live-view, an actual autofocus module is doing the focusing for you. EDIT: Also the phase-AF module is actually at the bottom of the mirror chamber, not at the top, a small submirror on the back of the regular mirror reflects down onto it. Of course if the main mirror is flipped up, the submirror is flipped up too, so you're gonna be using contrast AF at that point. SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Dec 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Yes. Contrast AF is absolute bullshit (although rapidly becoming less bullshit in recent years), which is what you're using if you're in live view. Phase AF, which is what you're using when NOT in live view is far more fast and accurate. Very interesting, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Yes. Contrast AF is absolute bullshit (although rapidly becoming less bullshit in recent years), which is what you're using if you're in live view. Phase AF, which is what you're using when NOT in live view is far more fast and accurate. To add to this, a few Sigma lenses will not focus in live view on Nikon cameras. I had a Sigma 10-20 on my D7000 - no issues using AF through the viewfinder, but live view didn't work at all. The internet tells me this might be fixable with a firmware update of the lens. The same might be true for other third party lenses, but I have no issues with my two Tamrons, so I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Yes. Contrast AF is absolute bullshit (although rapidly becoming less bullshit in recent years), which is what you're using if you're in live view. Phase AF, which is what you're using when NOT in live view is far more fast and accurate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 13:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
Amazon and Best Buy currently have the 50mm 1.4G AFS for 349.99. Thanks to Nikon for the one lens on sale this holiday season.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 16:00
|
|