|
vote_no posted:What are the 28's issues? Given that they're close in price, I was thinking about going with the 28 over the new 35. Nothing after you stop down to 5.6 but before that, CA and SA to hell. Nothing you cant fix in Lightroom.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
Musket posted:Nothing after you stop down to 5.6 but before that, CA and SA to hell. Nothing you cant fix in Lightroom. Y'all talkin the Sigma 28? Because the worst I heard about NIkon's 28 was "sorta meh but still worth it for the price."
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Y'all talkin the Sigma 28? Because the worst I heard about Nikon's 28 was "sorta meh but still worth it for the price." On the other hand, when you look at the canon/sigma offerings you wouldn't be wrong to think we got off easy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It's probably worth the price, but the comma especially is annoying. It's not exactly 50mm money anymore, so you'd expect things to get better instead of worse. Sigma actually made some really respectable 24/28 2.8s back in the day for Nikon screw-drive, I used to have a 24 2.8 from them that I got for $100 and was excellent other than focus sounding like a moaning yak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Sigma actually made some really respectable 24/28 2.8s back in the day for Nikon screw-drive, I used to have a 24 2.8 from them that I got for $100 and was excellent other than focus sounding like a moaning yak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
4/20 NEVER FORGET posted:I love having buttons for everything. Similarly, the stock D7000 feels way too small to me, even though I have tiny hands. But again, that's mostly because I'm used to D1 and D2 variants. It's a bit ironic that I don't feel comfortable with a digital camera that's not a hulking monstrosity, but my 35mm SLR is one of the smallest (Olympus OM-1). On the other hand, I've also daily-driven a 4x5 Speed Graphic. Also, the D7x00 series can stand up to a bit of rain, whereas the D3x00 and D5x00 aren't weather-sealed at all. Doesn't matter for most people, but a thing you should consider. quote:The high ISO performance of the d7100 is amazing, I am amazed at the clarity of my shots at 6400 ISO, with the right lens this thing practically takes photos in the dark.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 22:07
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
I'm looking to finally upgrade my camera and get back into some more serious photography work. Currently shooting with a 6.5 year old D80 that is probably getting close to it's shutter's final snap. Would a 7000 or 7100 be a good replacement for someone who rarely shoots paid work, but is looking to try to get drum up some more freelance work eventually? And where can I find a good rundown on the differences between the 7x00 series? I'm trying to figure out if the 7100 is worth a few hundred more than the 7000.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Got my D600 in the mail today so I went and bought a 50MM 1.8G to play around with (I wanted the 85 but they didn't have any. Oh well, saves me money for now). I'm in love.  DSC_1956 by AVIDWORKS, on Flickr f1.8 (center point focus), 1/100, 3200 ISO, no noise reduction in post or camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
oops double post
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Dr. Lenin posted:I'm looking to finally upgrade my camera and get back into some more serious photography work. Currently shooting with a 6.5 year old D80 that is probably getting close to it's shutter's final snap. Would a 7000 or 7100 be a good replacement for someone who rarely shoots paid work, but is looking to try to get drum up some more freelance work eventually? And where can I find a good rundown on the differences between the 7x00 series? I'm trying to figure out if the 7100 is worth a few hundred more than the 7000. IIRC, the biggest differences are a 24 megapixel sensor instead of 17 and a 51-point autofocus system instead of a 39-point. If those don't matter to you, performance is very similar between the two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
Also no AA filter on the 7100.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Coming from an 11 point auto focus on the D80 means that even a 39 point is completely amazing. What does the AA filter do exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
So traditionally, DSLR's have an Anti-Aliasing filter in front if the sensor. It slightly softens the image to avoid digital artifacts like moire and false color on fine details. It was considered a requirement on lower megapixel sensors with big chunky pixels, but nowadays with the very high MP count and densely packed photosites, you can get away without one 99.9% of the time. So no AA filter will give you a shaper image at the expense of some situations (maybe a screen door at a specific distance) producing moire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:no AA filter will give you a shaper image at the expense of some situations (maybe a screen door at a specific distance) producing moire. ... which can easily be fixed in software the 1 in 100 times it happens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Yeah whatever man just don't expect me to upload those 7100 pics to my http://www.45footawayscreendoor.tumblr.com domain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:... which can easily be fixed in software the 1 in 100 times it happens. Most moire is caused by poor resizing, sharpening, and RAW processing anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Thanks for the info. I've seen some pictures of moire caused by some suit patterns - would this fall into the 'just don't do poor resizing, sharpening, etc., category or will have to worry about possibly happening sometime if I decide to get into shooting weddings? And is there a recommended guide for fixing moire in software? I've never done spot color corrections before. And if anyone on here has first hand experience with the D7100 that can put my fears to rest that'd be great. I trust the word of goons for some reason more than people on other poo poo forums.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
There's easily googleable guides on removing moire, and Lightroom has a specific tool built in. I have a camera without an AA filter (Ricoh GR) and I've noticed moire in 2 out of 3000 pictures (both were buildings), and it wasn't even that bad. Unless you're buying a camera to only shoot portraits or fabrics, it's really nothing to be concerned about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
 I bought a Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 AI that's probably about 35 years old, and it's so god drat sharp. Pretty cheap, too, I think--got it for $150 on eBay.Clutching onto the F-mount makes things inconvenient for the entry-level Nikon bodies, but it's nice being able to mount pretty much any old-rear end Nikon lens to my D7000 and expect it to work flawlessly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Clutching onto the F-mount makes things inconvenient for the entry-level Nikon bodies, but it's nice being able to mount pretty much any old-rear end Nikon lens to my D7000 and expect it to work flawlessly.  In other news, 18-105mm kit lens + brick walls (or anything with straight lines, really) is an exercise in frustration. These are with in-camera correction and the closest Photoshop lens correction filter I can find (there's not one for D7000, I'm using one made for D5000; somehow they're different for different bodies):  
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:It really annoys me when people write Amazon reviews and bitch about screw-drive lenses not working on their D5x00. READ THE loving DESCRIPTION AND/OR GET A DECENT CAMERA, YOU DUMBASSES! When I had the 18-105 I mostly used the 28-105 range because of stuff like that. The wide end has wonky distortion and poor corner performance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:When I had the 18-105 I mostly used the 28-105 range because of stuff like that. The wide end has wonky distortion and poor corner performance. Yeah, it's wonky as poo poo at the wide end. I'm used to the newspaper-issue Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8, which is somewhat better, but retails for $1700. Eventually gonna flip the kit lens and get a Sigma 16-55ish; the f/2.8 is $400 and the f/1.8 is $900, but the extra stop or two more than makes up for any distortion they may have (which is probably less wonky than the Nikkor kit lens anyway).
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Clutching onto the F-mount makes things inconvenient for the entry-level Nikon bodies, but it's nice being able to mount pretty much any old-rear end Nikon lens to my D7000 and expect it to work flawlessly. Yeah I got an EX grade Tokina 80-200 2.8 from KEH for $180 and so far it owns. I'll be testing it out today, but so far it seems to be decently sharp and the AF isn't awful. Not as good as an AF-S lens, but where else am I going to find a telephoto zoom at 2.8 for that price?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Is there any reason to go with a d700 at this point? About to go into the digital realm after shooting medium format and 35mm for the last couple of years, and the d700 and d600 are almost at the same price. I really don't care that much about af as I am so used to manually focusing everything and if that is the only thing the d700 has over the d600, than I guess it'd be best to stick with what is newer. Also I'm looking at purchasing from KEH, is it safe to assume the oil issue would be taken care of if ordered from them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:Is there any reason to go with a d700 at this point? About to go into the digital realm after shooting medium format and 35mm for the last couple of years, and the d700 and d600 are almost at the same price. I really don't care that much about af as I am so used to manually focusing everything and if that is the only thing the d700 has over the d600, than I guess it'd be best to stick with what is newer. Also I'm looking at purchasing from KEh, is it safe to assume the oil issue would be taken care of if ordered from them? Know that the jump that you're making is very difficult from a manual focus perspective. It is HARD to manually focus a DSLR. We forget how much technology went into making it easy; not just the well-dampened lenses, but the ground glass, the split prisms, the sparkle coats. A DSLR has none of that — and they don't even get the focus peaking and other niceties that show up on some of the smaller cameras now. One of the ways to make it easier is to get an aftermarket focusing screen for your DSLR... which, last I checked, was way easier for a d700 than a d600. That would really be the only reason, though. Fake edit: Apparently these guys now do D600/d610/d800 focusing screens: http://www.focusingscreen.com/
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
I have a D600 with just around 10k clicks on it, one wet sensor clean and it's pretty much oil free these days (there's one single spot that shows up past f11 on most of my lenses if I set it to infinity focus, but otherwise it's fine). At the prices the D600 is going for these days, it is well worth the price even if you have to take it in for cleaning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
So, the Tamron 10-24 I found on Craigslist didn't pan out because the guy had already sold it. But I'm still half looking for a wide angle lens. Are there any others I should be looking for that will work with my D5100 (aka they should probably be able to auto focus). Still pissed I didn't grab the Tamron 10-24 I saw for $250 a while ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:So, the Tamron 10-24 I found on Craigslist didn't pan out because the guy had already sold it. But I'm still half looking for a wide angle lens. Are there any others I should be looking for that will work with my D5100 (aka they should probably be able to auto focus). I have the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, which I picked up a few months ago for my D5100, and have been really happy with: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-4-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U00XK The thing is a tank -- I guess that's the deal with Sigma's EX line, it just seems really heavy duty and high quality. The AF seems to work quite well. When I was doing research for it, I was a little skeptical of the variable aperture, and was also looking at the Tokina 11-16/2.8 (and the Tamron you mention, but that's variable aperture, too). The Tokina doesn't have AF, and also was quite a bit more (I see this Sigma used on KEH for about $330). And I haven't felt limited by the 4-5.6 -- I'm mostly using the thing at like f/8 anyway -- or at least I haven't really felt the lack of being able to open it up wider than f/4. From the reviews I read, the Sigma seemed pretty well reviewed, and I've been quite happy with it, at least from the limited paces I've put it through so far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
I read a few things online that said the same thing you did, and I just snagged one on Ebay for $300. 10mm here I come!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Just had to brag to goons: used an impromptu work trip to Oman to justify snagging a 35mm pime for my d5100. Really looking forward to putting it through its paces out in the desert. Can't believe it took me 1.5 years to make the purchase, as its so cheap in photobux.
Wayfaring Stranger fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Wayfaring Stranger posted:Just had to brag to goons: used an impromptu work trip to Oman to justify snagging a 35mm pime for my d5100. Really looking forward to outside ing it through its paces out in the desert. Can't believe it took me 1.5 years to make the purchase, as its so cheap in photobux. The thing about that lens is that it owns really really hard. (Assuming you mean the 35 1.8 DX)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
thetzar posted:get an aftermarket focusing screen for your DSLR... I didn't even know such a concept existed that I might google it. Holy poo poo how did I not know you could do this until now, time to mod my old D70 for some sweet vintage lensfun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:(Assuming you mean the 35 1.8 DX) Speaking of which: I just got my first camera (D5200 with 18-55 kit lens), and have been farting around getting used to photography, trying to learn what I can, and all that fun stuff. I'm thinking of buying my first lens, so I'm trying to chose between Nikon's 40/f2.8 and the 35/f1.8 and was wondering if y'all had any advice or opinions one way or the other. As I'm new to this, I'm mostly looking for a general walking-around-taking-pictures lens, taking photos of landscapes and buildings mostly, but definitely not exclusively cat pics!. I have noticed with my kit lens that in low light situations I have to go to semi-extreme ISO&shutter combinations to get good exposures, which can be challenging. Additionally, sometimes it seems like I can't get particularly shallow depth of field. It seems like the main tradeoff between the two is the 35 can let in 2.4x (1.3 stops?) more light than the 40, while the 40 can do close focus/macro. The tradeoff in low light ability doesn't seem that bad, since even the 40 lets in 3.2x (1.67 stops?) more light than the kit lens, which has a max aperture of f/5 at 35-40mm. Am I under crediting the wider aperture? Would the difference in DOF between 1.8 and 2.8 be worth noting? That said, I don't have a burning desire to do macro, but given that I'm just starting out I'd rather have the option to play around than not. I'm fairly certain I'd be happy with either, but advice would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Unless you're really looking to do macro photography, get the 35mm f/1.8
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
I don't know anything about the 40/2.8 but I know the 35/1.8 enough to say that it loving rocks and everyone agrees. I don't hear that about the 40/2.8.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
junidog posted:Speaking of which: I own both the 35 1.8 and the 40 2.8. The 40 2.8 is an excellent lens with good macro capability, but unless macro is a big thing for you, for the price, I'd recommend the 35 1.8. Not only is it faster, it's just faster to focus overall due to not having a macro range. Also bear in mind that, apertures being equal, the 35 is going to be sharp as all gently caress at 2.8, whereas the 40 is just going to be "pretty good" (although it does perform very well at 2.8). EDIT: The 40 2.8 is a really good lens for its price, even if you turn on the focus limiter and never use it for macro. SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:The thing about that lens is that it owns really really hard. Indeed I do mean that. Thanks to this thread I knew that it would be my first non-bundle lens purchase.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
Get the 35 now, if you feel you need macro later get a Tamron 60/2 that'll double as portrait glass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
If you shoot Nikon crop and you don't have a 35, you might want to get checked out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:If you shoot Nikon crop and you don't have a 35, you might want to get checked out. I just picked up a 17-55 2.8 as an upgrade from my kit lens. I have the DX 35, but I was considering selling it and buying the 50mm 1.4, to get something out of my current zoom range. Reasonable, or should I hold on to the 35?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:06
|
|
