|
Things will always be getting better and cheaper. You will not be unhappy with a d7000
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:The main thing I'm worried about with the D7000 over my D90 is that the D7200 may come out soon and the D7100 will drop in price to D7000 levels very quickly. D7000 - price you find attractive, available right now, way better than D90 D7100 - might go down in price if/when a future camera exists, marginally better than D7000 in not particularly meaningful ways get the D7000 and be happy today
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
The 7100 has the beastly 51 point FX AF system spread over the DX image area...it's pretty sweet. But the 7000 is a solid camera still.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
I am on the side of caution, and wont buy a new camera until the D400 comes out, Cuz thats whats important. Or you can buy the D7000 and be happy today, shooting today.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
I just got a tamron 70-300 VC for nikon off ebay. I use a D7000. I've been led to believe that a long lens like that requires a grip on the body. Is this a weight distribution thing? What sort of grip do I need?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
None.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
TequilaJesus posted:I just got a tamron 70-300 VC for nikon off ebay. I use a D7000. I've been led to believe that a long lens like that requires a grip on the body. Is this a weight distribution thing? What sort of grip do I need? That's not why you use a grip - you use the grip for better ergonomics when shooting in portrait orientation. I also have that lens and that body, I love it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Awesome. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:That's not why you use a grip - you use the grip for better ergonomics when shooting in portrait orientation. Nah, a long lens like that can be way easier on a gripped camera for smaller camera bodies. My om-d would be a nightmare to use with longer stuff if I didn't have the grip. d7000 is already pretty big in the first place though
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
And a 70-300mm isn't too heavy either.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
The Tamron is still relatively small and light, so I wouldn't worry. With the 70-200 workhorses it might make a difference.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
The used DSLR market here is pretty thin and I'm looking to get my first DSLR. I'm looking at a Nikon D5000. Ergonomically the one I held (a long time ago, before I even thought about owning one FWIW) was pretty good, and the price is right, but according to the internet that type of Nikon has no autofocus motor. Additionally the OP of this very thread states "Entry-level bodies include the D3200 and D5200, and formerly the D40(x), D50, D60, and D5000, D5100, D3100, and D3000. They typically lack the autofocus screw (except the D50), which means they can't autofocus with screw-drive lenses (such as the excellent 50 1.8 and 85 1.8). They also can't meter old AI/AI-S lenses, although they can mount them. The D5100 and newer have the more current sensors that are far more capable of high iso." I don't really know what the implications of this are in a technical sense. Is this a good or a bad thing, and what does it mean for me, having never used a DSLR? Should it be a deal-breaker or does it not matter at all?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:The used DSLR market here is pretty thin and I'm looking to get my first DSLR. I'm looking at a Nikon D5000. Ergonomically the one I held (a long time ago, before I even thought about owning one FWIW) was pretty good, and the price is right, but according to the internet that type of Nikon has no autofocus motor.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:The used DSLR market here is pretty thin and I'm looking to get my first DSLR. I'm looking at a Nikon D5000. Ergonomically the one I held (a long time ago, before I even thought about owning one FWIW) was pretty good, and the price is right, but according to the internet that type of Nikon has no autofocus motor. It just means that the amount of available lenses is reduced for entry-level bodies. Most new lenses Nikon is producing are AF-S (and fully compatible with the D5000), so it's just a question of older lenses not working (fully). There are a lot of awesome older lenses you can buy for cheap, but I wouldn't worry about it if you're just starting out.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The motor mattered a whole lot more 5 years ago than it does now. The 5000 does have what basically is a D300 sensor though, and while that's not bad I'd try for a more recent one. Nikon now makes good 50's and 85's with a motor in the lens. A more recent camera? Or a more recent sensor? vote_no posted:It just means that the amount of available lenses is reduced for entry-level bodies. Most new lenses Nikon is producing are AF-S (and fully compatible with the D5000), so it's just a question of older lenses not working (fully). There are a lot of awesome older lenses you can buy for cheap, but I wouldn't worry about it if you're just starting out. This is good to hear. So a camera-mounted motor is essentially obsolete technology now, is that correct?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:A more recent camera? Or a more recent sensor? Slavvy posted:This is good to hear. So a camera-mounted motor is essentially obsolete technology now, is that correct?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:A more recent camera? Or a more recent sensor? Both; the D5100 (I believe) has the updated sensor with the crazy ISO, and it's definitely worth the upgrade. Coming from a D200 where I shuddered to even go to ISO 800, the ability of the newer sensors to make awesome images even at ISO 3200 has opened up worlds of low-light photography. Slavvy posted:This is good to hear. So a camera-mounted motor is essentially obsolete technology now, is that correct? I wouldn't say obsolete, just because all the old lenses are just as good as they ever were. Nikon is still manufacturing several no-motor lenses these days, in fact. It's more that if you're just getting into DSLRs, you probably will be happy with the AF-S lenses for a while. Probably by the time you want to be able to use older lenses, you'll be wanting a better camera body anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
The D3200's approved memory cards list only goes up to 64GB cards. Would it work with a 128GB SDXC card, such as this one? Is there a better 64GB or 128GB SDXC card?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
vote_no posted:Both; the D5100 (I believe) has the updated sensor with the crazy ISO, and it's definitely worth the upgrade. Coming from a D200 where I shuddered to even go to ISO 800, the ability of the newer sensors to make awesome images even at ISO 3200 has opened up worlds of low-light photography. Heck, the D7000 has perfectly usable 6400 as long as the shots are properly exposed 6400 as opposed to there's-not-enough-light-and-auto-ISO-max-is-6400.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Dren posted:The effect is that 50mm on crop is a little tight for shots of people (I assume this is what you take the most pictures of as a photojournalist). I never actually had a 50mm as a photojournalist, just a 17-35 and 70-200. One time the short lens broke and wouldn't zoom, it was stuck on 18mm. I didn't really care, I have legs. Of course, I learned on 35mm film with a 28mm prime, so I love my wide-angles. evil_bunnY posted:The pro bodies still have it, but it's really backwards compatibility now. Dren posted:Heck, the D7000 has perfectly usable 6400 as long as the shots are properly exposed 6400 as opposed to there's-not-enough-light-and-auto-ISO-max-is-6400.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 07:00
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
When I bought my D5100, firmware hacks were pretty much non existent. Today I came across this guy who's been doing quite a bit of work with the Nikon firmware to unlock a lot of neat features. - Full manual mode in live view (for video) - Super high bitrate video encoding (he claims 54mbps 4:2:2 compression) - Allows for 3rd party batteries again (be sure to read the FAQ about this one) - Lossless NEF compression - Higher quality JPEG compression ... among a few others. A bunch of different camera bodies are supported, not just the D5100. Here's a tutorial video with links in the description: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qp0PWcYJ3E&hd=1 There's also a bunch of "in action" videos here - https://www.youtube.com/user/4cc3ss43 BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 22:01 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Lets bring back lens talk. About a page ago I said I didn't want to fall down this rabbit hole, but here I am. After a couple weeks with my D7100 and its 18 - 70 3.5 - 4.5 I've been craving some sweet sweet prime action for a bit of the sharpness and larger apertures they can give me. When looking at the 35mm I saw Nikon has the 40mm macro option out there as well. It's a similar focal length (effectively approx 50mm and 60mm). The 35mm has a little over a stop of light larger aperture, but the 40mm has macro functionality. Both are things you probably won't be using every day, but are nice to have in your tool bag, and over the last two weeks I've had situations where I've wanted them. Both are pretty drat cheap as well. KEH sells the 35mm for roughly $150 and the 40mm for $215. I'm sure some of you will say, "Just get both!" but I'm not sure I'd be able to justify having two such similar lenses in by bag at the same time. So, who's used them both? What are your thoughts?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Get the 35, and a Tamron 60/2 if you want macro.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
The answer is now and ever shall be: 'get the 35'.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
JesusDoesVegas posted:Lets bring back lens talk. About a page ago I said I didn't want to fall down this rabbit hole, but here I am. After a couple weeks with my D7100 and its 18 - 70 3.5 - 4.5 I've been craving some sweet sweet prime action for a bit of the sharpness and larger apertures they can give me. Get the 35, its the best DX lens. I haven't used the 40, however from what I've read it is useless for macro because you end up being in your own light to get close enough to use it. And you could just get extension tubes for the 35 if you really want to do macro and it would probably cost less than the 40.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Or pick up a Raynox close up thingy, they're also cheap(ish) and good: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/275182-REG/Raynox_DCR_250_DCR_250_2_5x_Super_Macro.html Macro can be really fun depending on what you like to do with a camera so it's worth looking into, but I wouldn't get the 40mm in any case.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:I haven't used the 40, however from what I've read it is useless for macro because you end up being in your own light to get close enough to use it. And you could just get extension tubes for the 35 if you really want to do macro and it would probably cost less than the 40. The working distance is short but it's not the useless piece of poo poo k-rock claims it is. I've gotten really good results.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
powderific posted:Or pick up a Raynox close up thingy, they're also cheap(ish) and good: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/275182-REG/Raynox_DCR_250_DCR_250_2_5x_Super_Macro.html Macro can be really fun depending on what you like to do with a camera so it's worth looking into, but I wouldn't get the 40mm in any case. I own a Raynox 250 - it's good and fun to play with but without a way to reliably and quickly focus stack it's more of a novelty than anything else - the DoF becomes almost unusably thin.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Well... That wasn't even a debate. I took the plunge on a 35 with an nd filter because dammit I needed one today. Next purchase will probably be a flash (thinking the SB 700) then I have to be done for a while or else my wife will leave me.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Get the 35, and a Tamron 60/2 if you want macro. The Tamron 60mm f/2.0 is $487.60 (amazon), while the 90mm f/2.8 is $391.80. Given the 90 is cheaper, and assuming I'm typically shooting in good light, would you still recommend the 60 over the 90 for macro?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
JesusDoesVegas posted:Well... That wasn't even a debate. I took the plunge on a 35 with an nd filter because dammit I needed one today. I picked up a like-new sb-800 for $200 on CL I think. Worth checking out what's around.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The Tamron 60mm f/2.0 is $487.60 (amazon), while the 90mm f/2.8 is $391.80. I have both. Assuming you're talking about the old 90mm (that isn't internal focus), the working distance at 1:1 is essentially the same. The 90mm has pretty slow AF, but it's drastically faster than the 60mm. It also has a focus limiter, although chances are you'll end up manually focusing at macro distances. The front lens group extends at closer focus distances, so it nearly doubles in length at 1:1 focus. The 60mm's AF is glacial, but the lens stays a constant length. It's also super sharp at f/2. I find myself using the 60mm more than the 90mm these days, but they're both great. e: The 90mm covers a 35mm film circle, whereas the 60mm only covers APS-C. Which may or may not matter to you. Dia de Pikachutos fucked around with this message at 09:44 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I picked up a like-new sb-800 for $200 on CL I think. Worth checking out what's around. You got real lucky. The SB-800 is still probably the best flash Nikon has ever made, up there with the SB-26 and SB-900. I sold my SB-600 when I stopped using it much, but there is no way in hell I'd ever sell my SB-800. Also get a shady Chinese high voltage recycling battery pack for it, and enjoy being able to shoot at 5fps with the flash at half power. Nothing says "great idea" like pushing 300 volts directly into the flash capacitors to recharge in fractions of a second. EDIT: I got to briefly try out the Tamron 90 2.8 (F-mount, autofocus) once (wish I'd loving bought it), and it seemed like one hell of a nice macro lens for the price. SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 10:13 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The Tamron 60mm f/2.0 is $487.60 (amazon), while the 90mm f/2.8 is $391.80.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Also get a shady Chinese high voltage recycling battery pack for it, and enjoy being able to shoot at 5fps with the flash at half power. Nothing says "great idea" like pushing 300 volts directly into the flash capacitors to recharge in fractions of a second. Tell me more about shady Chinese high voltage recycling battery packs. My sb 26 doesn't even turn on if I put rechargeables in it b/c the voltage is too low. And I don't like using regular AA's.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
There's a high-power input on the high end nikon flashes. I'm going to go ahead and guess the cheap chinese fakes aren't exactly pushing the cleanest spec.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Dren posted:Tell me more about shady Chinese high voltage recycling battery packs. My sb 26 doesn't even turn on if I put rechargeables in it b/c the voltage is too low. And I don't like using regular AA's. This will not solve your problem. The flash still uses and requires the internal batteries for everything except recharging the flash capacitor, the high voltage pack doesn't replace the AAs in the flash (it just shoves a bunch of voltage into that 3-pin port on the front of the flash, usually capped with a Nikon logo thing). Also it sounds like you might have deeper problems because I use NiMH batteries in my SB-26 with absolutely no issue.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Im shocked to hear anyone praise the sb900... the interface is a nightmare and they overheat like crazy. Just today I had one start smoking on me at 1/128 power while shooting a four star admiral. I may look into third party offerings for flashes for my personal kit.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:This will not solve your problem. The flash still uses and requires the internal batteries for everything except recharging the flash capacitor, the high voltage pack doesn't replace the AAs in the flash (it just shoves a bunch of voltage into that 3-pin port on the front of the flash, usually capped with a Nikon logo thing). Huh, crap. It was a craigslist purchase so maybe there is something up with it. I just double checked and the NiMH batteries that work in my SB-28 don't even power the SB-26 on. Regular 1.5V AAs work fine though. JesusDoesVegas posted:Im shocked to hear anyone praise the sb900... the interface is a nightmare and they overheat like crazy. Just today I had one start smoking on me at 1/128 power while shooting a four star admiral. The only time I ever used one it overheated on me. SB-28 and SB-600 both work great though.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Isn't that why they released the 910 so soon after?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 04:24
|
|