|
Not all rechargeable AA batteries are equal. They are typically rated for a given number of mAh (milliAmp hours) at their nominal voltage, and many devices (such as cameras!) have a minimum rating. Cheap/crappy batteries tend to lose their performance pretty quickly after just a few charges, and deep-cycling any rechargeable battery tends to wear it out quickly too. So check what the manufacturer recommends for your flash, and check the rating on your batteries, before you assume it's faulty.
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
How often should I get a CLA done? I had one done on my d700 two or three years ago because the shutter was off, vignetting at 1/250 flash sync. Did a shoot on Saturday and saw that I have the same problem, vignetting at the bottom starting at 1/250. Isn't there a screw inside the mirror area that adjusts shutter tension? I feel like I can DIY this.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
I have an old Nikon EM (unsure of model, the number on the back reads 7820105) and I was wondering if any of the lenses can be used with any of Nikon's digital models? I got this 16 years ago when I won a photo contest, but at the time I had no idea how to use it properly (I was 10 years old, not the best thing to be handing a kid really) so I want to see if anything in the set is salvageable or not.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
red19fire posted:How often should I get a CLA done? I had one done on my d700 two or three years ago because the shutter was off, vignetting at 1/250 flash sync. Did a shoot on Saturday and saw that I have the same problem, vignetting at the bottom starting at 1/250. I could be wrong on this but I don't think there's really a standard CLA "schedule" for most cameras. I've always just figured that if something starts going weird, it's time for it to get serviced. I mean unless it's fifty years old or something and was stored at the bottom of the ocean and you KNOW there's gonna be things wrong with it, then by all means get a CLA Just Because.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Colon Semicolon posted:I have an old Nikon EM (unsure of model, the number on the back reads 7820105) and I was wondering if any of the lenses can be used with any of Nikon's digital models? I got this 16 years ago when I won a photo contest, but at the time I had no idea how to use it properly (I was 10 years old, not the best thing to be handing a kid really) so I want to see if anything in the set is salvageable or not. Yes the lenses will work on digital bodies, but if it's a D3x00, D5x00 or other lower-end model you will only be able to use them in full manual mode. Unless you for some reason got AF lenses with a non-AF body, in which case you will be able to use (at least) the auto-exposure modes. (Even then, they'd still be screw drive AF so lower-end digital bodies wouldn't be able to AF them.)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Colon Semicolon posted:I have an old Nikon EM (unsure of model, the number on the back reads 7820105) and I was wondering if any of the lenses can be used with any of Nikon's digital models? I got this 16 years ago when I won a photo contest, but at the time I had no idea how to use it properly (I was 10 years old, not the best thing to be handing a kid really) so I want to see if anything in the set is salvageable or not. The lenses should be AI or AI-s, so they will mount on any Nikon F-mount camera. Nikon's advanced amateur/professional digital cameras can meter with them, but most of the consumer level digital cameras will not. Assuming it's actually Nikkor or Nikon Series E glass, someone will likely be interested in it. e:fb
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Not all rechargeable AA batteries are equal. They are typically rated for a given number of mAh (milliAmp hours) at their nominal voltage, and many devices (such as cameras!) have a minimum rating. Cheap/crappy batteries tend to lose their performance pretty quickly after just a few charges, and deep-cycling any rechargeable battery tends to wear it out quickly too. We used top-of-the-line rechargeable batteries for the flashes at the newspaper several years ago; they didn't last very long either in terms of flashes per charge or overall life before they didn't work anymore. Now we just burn two sets of Duracell Procells a week, though I do keep a set of old Energizer rechargeables in my bag for emergencies. But even those are pretty old; more modern rechargeables may be better, and the small performance tradeoff is probably acceptable for a hobbyist, as opposed to buying pro-grade single-use batteries by the case. Certainly better for the environment. Though apparently Procells are like 50 cents each in 24-packs from Amazon. Probably worth it to at least get a brick of them to keep around for when your rechargeables run down and you don't have time to recharge them. Or to keep in the AA tray for your battery grip to run the camera when those batteries poo poo themselves at a critical moment -- I would've killed for a AA adapter tray when I was issued a D1 and one trashed battery. I remember once I'd been out all day and hadn't had a chance to give the battery a full charge cycle; I was putting it on to charge for 5 minutes, shooting two frames, and putting it back on the charger. And one time I was in a place without power outlets, and cooked the battery on the car's defroster vent to get an extra two shots out of it. Edit: also, if you're out in the sticks and your batteries run down, try the local feed-and-seed before going all the way back to a real town to find a WalMart. I stopped in at a feed store in BFE, TX to photograph their baby quail  , and they had a bucket of AA Procells by the counter. I forget the price, but I don't think it was any more than the consumer-grade ones at the chain stores, which are all 15 miles away.Edit again: 
Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 12:50 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 12:38
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Even several years ago you could be a generation of battery chemistry or so behind. New, good NiMH batteries like Eneloops should last longer and perform better than alkalines in most situations. The exception would be stuff that was designed with the higher 1.5 volt alkalines in mind, but even then depending on your load you might be below NiMH voltage by 1/3 a way through the battery. Also, I'm pretty sure procells are just bulk packaged versions of the regular coppertop. The Amazon Basics white cells are basically third generation eneloops if anyone's looking for a quality low self discharge NiMH: http://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-...eywords=nimh+aa
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Yeah, pretty sure the ones we used to use at the paper were NiCds, as were the camera batteries at the time. My Energizers are (early) NiMH, but they've probably improved since then. Do Eneloops come in different amp-hour ratings? The last set of Energizer rechargeables I got claimed 2400mAh, the Eneloops I've seen are around 1900. Or is that "optimistic for marketing purposes" vs "what you actually get", like how car horsepower used to be measured with a stripped-down engine on race gas, and now it's done on a chassis dyno with all accessories mounted? If they've kept up with the camera batteries, though, I'm sold. The D1, even with a fresh battery, lasted a day or two on a charge; a D2/D700 (same battery pack), maybe a week. I've had my D7000 for six months and charged the batteries maybe three times. Of course, I don't do full-time photojournalism with the D7000, and the paper can't afford current-gen pro models for comparison. On a tangent, there's a reason the D4 costs so much, and it's not just "newspapers will buy it" -- presumably it's of the same quality as the D1, and I've seen a D1X subjected to things that would kill a D7000 and reduce a D3200 to powder. E.g., dropped hard enough to break a chunk of metal off the body, and make the focusing screen fall out. My coworker popped the screen back in and was good to go. And that was the best of the four D1X bodies we had -- aside from the one accident, the guy babied it. As opposed to the boss, who is the reason we can't have nice things; before I got laid off we had four shooters and three working late-model bodies at any given time, because his kit is constantly in the shop and/or a total writeoff. I try to treat my issued gear as if it were my own, but I'm more willing to take risks with the corporate gear. Like, if I'm going to shoot a football game (I still work for the paper as a contracted stringer during football season/when two guys want to take vacation at the same time) and if rain is forecast, I'll grab a D2 from the pile and leave my personal D7000 in the car. To be fair to my boss, the total writeoff wasn't entirely his fault -- he rides a Harley, and somebody rear-ended him and drat near killed him. The D2h he had on his shoulder at the time still works, despite the busted LCDs, gnarly scratches (just like clipart bear-claw damage) across the top of the prism box, and the lens torn off just in front of the aperture ring and what's left of it stuck because the mount is bent. But it'll still make an exposure and save it to the card. He tried to get the scarred top plate put on the replacement body as a trophy, but the shop refused to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
They're significantly, massively better than NiCds, and definitely better than early NiMH. If you want to really know exactly how much power a cell has, the crazy people on Candlepowerforums (a site that's for flashlight enthusiasts. No joke.) has a lot of tests: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?79302-NiMh-Battery-Shoot-Out There are definitely higher capacity NiMH batteries out there than the Eneloops, but they're typically not low self discharge. With an Eneloop or similar you'll still have most of the battery charge left even if you leave it sitting out for a few months. Normal NiMH lose power much faster. Battery mAh ratings seem to be pretty accurate. Those Energizers probably do or did have at least 2200 or so. If you ever want to know for sure you can bet someone on Candlepowerforums has tested it. All that said, NiMH isn't as good as the lithium ion batteries found in current cameras.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
powderific posted:They're significantly, massively better than NiCds, and definitely better than early NiMH. If you want to really know exactly how much power a cell has, the crazy people on Candlepowerforums (a site that's for flashlight enthusiasts. No joke.) has a lot of tests: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?79302-NiMh-Battery-Shoot-Out You also gotta consider their ability to deliver absurd amounts of current for a short period of time though, which NiMH is really, really good at (try going rock-n-roll at 8fps with the AA tray full of alkalines and see if you can even fill the buffer before it drops to shutter-disable-dead). Or y'know, recycle a flash.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Didn't see anything specific on the last 10 pages, so I figured I'd ask: What do people think about the 85 micro Nikkor? Krock has a fantastic review of it (which consists mainly of him complaining that it's made in China), but I thought some other opinions might be more enlightening. KEH has EX used ones for $350-$400, which seems pretty reasonable, and I've got a D5200, so a built in motor is a must.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
KRock notes that it's probably the worst-performing Micro-Nikkor, and Photozone's tests bear that out. It has significant vignetting wide open, but you won't be using those apertures at macro distances. It's not the sharpest Micro-Nikkor overall, but again, it'll be so dulled by diffraction at macro distances that you won't be able to tell. Practically, it's a fine lens. In my experience, autofocus doesn't matter if you're using the lens for macro work—manual focus is much more reliable. If this lens isn't just filling the "moderately long lens that can do macro when I occasionally need it" role, you might consider the 105 f/2.8 D Micro, which sells for about the same price used as the 85 DX and has none of its issues. It just won't do autofocus on your D5200.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
junidog posted:Krock [...] consists mainly of him complaining [...] wow really?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Just get a 90/2.8 with a motor. Any brand will do
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:wow really? It's just so entertaining though.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Just reverse mount any old 50mm you have sitting around.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
My favorite Krock thing ever is his review of the 28-300 kit lens, it's so good that it's the only lens you need to have!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
1st AD posted:My favorite Krock thing ever is his review of the 28-300 kit lens, it's so good that it's the only lens you need to have! That sounds a lot like his review of the 18-200VR. And his review of the D40 — waaaaait a minute One of my top5 krock things is that somewhere he explains that the picture of himself with the stupid huge zoom lens on the front of his site is there because gigantic lenses are what says "photographer" to people and that he rarely would use such a lens irl, instead he'd use <lens you are reading review of> Dren fucked around with this message at 20:30 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Dren posted:That sounds a lot like his review of the 18-200VR. And his review of the D40 — waaaaait a minute To be fair, I don't have much use for a 400mm f/2.8 most of the time either
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:To be fair, I don't have much use for a 400mm f/2.8 most of the time either I found it, it's on his  "your camera doesn't matter" page where krock puts on his art guru hat and rambles on for pages about how the photographer's vision is what really matters.krock posted:A camera catches your imagination. No imagination, no photo - just crap. The word "image" comes from the word "imagination." It doesn't come come from "lens sharpness" or "noise levels." David LaChapelle's work is all about his imagination, not his camera. Setting up these crazy shots is the hard part. Once set up, any camera could catch them. Give me David LaChapelle's camera and I won't get anything like he does, even if you give me the same star performers. There is an undertone there of "Let me tell you a secret about running a camera/lens review website. One thing you're gonna want to do is — are you sitting down? — ok, it's you're gonna want to put a photo of yourself using a giant camera lens on the front page of website in order to visually communicate that the website is about expensive camera poo poo and you. You get that? You can keep that one. First one's on the house."
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
imo, unless you're doing studio macro stuff where you can control everything and your subject is non-living or very slow, go for the longest focal length you can afford. I use the Nikkor Micro 200mm and I still have to get pretty close, close enough to scare off skittish critters at least. That said I'm using full-frame so I don't know how much more distance you get if you're using a crop sensor. Another issue with shorter focal lengths is that it becomes very easy to cast a shadow on your subjects, but that depends a lot on your lighting setup as well - you can probably get away with it if you use a specialist macro flash setup. As everyone's already said, autofocus is meaningless; you'll be focusing by swaying your body or slightly shifting your hand position anyway, or even better adjusting your macro rail.
Jimlad fucked around with this message at 00:17 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Dren posted:I found it, it's on his Is he wrong?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Is he wrong? I'm not even a "camera guy" and I can say "yes of course he is." Tools, talent, and experience are all important for creative endeavors. Limiting your tools can make for an interesting challenge, and having lots of great tools cannot completely replace talent or experience, but the qualities and capabilities of your tools do matter. I imagine he's trying to make a useful point, though. A lot of people run out and spend too much money on equipment without learning the fundamentals of a craft. There are entire industries based around feeding that tendency, and cameras are no exception. I'm sure the majority of high-end expensive cameras are sold to neophyte photographers who are capable of doing enough research to find out what is a top-of-the-line product, and have enough money to afford it, but have little or no experience and are buying "more camera" than they'll ever need or use. Just as an example, I post and read a lot in the Trad Games threads having to do with miniature modeling. Tons of people in there lament that the photos they take of their figures suck, and it's very very common for someone to say "my camera sucks" when they do so. Most of the time what sucks is their understanding about sufficient light. Even a lovely cameraphone can give reasonable results to illustrate your little plastic mans, if you understand what its limitations are and compensate for them: holding the phone still by bracing it against something, knowing what its minimum focus distance is and staying outside that, and most importantly providing enough light. I took tons of photos for years with my Canon Powershot IS720, including lots of macro photos. It cannot compete with even an entry-level DSLR, but I knew enough about how the camera worked to squeeze out decent performance, and people would look at my photos and go "oh that's a nice camera." They didn't understand that it's not particularly better than their own sub-$400 point-and-shoot, it's just that I read the manual, understood the camera's capabilities, and took thousands and thousands of shots to gain experience with it. So yeah, K-Rock is definitely off base telling people that their camera literally doesn't matter, but I think he's trying to speak to the kit-fetishists who would benefit from more attention paid to learning the basics, thinking about photography as a creative endeavor, and then developing an artistic process. All of which can be done with almost any camera that is functioning correctly. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 17:43 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Is he wrong? He's not wrong. However, the article is both lazily and poorly written. It does not illustrate the point well. Plus, his whole livelihood is built on people clicking amazon referral links to buy gear he rubber stamps so perhaps cynicism is warranted with regard to his half-assed article about how the camera doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Is there much of a difference between the DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens at 18mm and other offerings for more specific landscape lenses? I've found the kit lens to be alright at that focal length when it's stopped down to landscape levels of aperture but I've never tried a 'proper' landscape lens. e: 3.5 not 4.5, and it's the version II with the not very useful VR 1 VelociBacon fucked around with this message at 08:25 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Not really that you'll notice. People buy UWA zooms because they're wider. Modern kits are pretty good.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
You are giving him too much credit. K-rock recommends whatever will net the most Amazon referral credit from people who don't know any better than to believe him.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:You are giving him too much credit. K-rock recommends whatever will net the most Amazon referral credit from people who don't know any better than to believe him. And to stir up angry leica fans.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'm not even a "camera guy" and I can say "yes of course he is." Tools, talent, and experience are all important for creative endeavors. Limiting your tools can make for an interesting challenge, and having lots of great tools cannot completely replace talent or experience, but the qualities and capabilities of your tools do matter. Compare to, say, woodworking, metalworking, or sculpture. People built beautiful things for thousands of years with hand tools. But unless they're hipster artisans, those people now use power tools, at least for the roughing-out stage. Fancy tools don't make you an instant craftsman, but if you're good at a craft, better tools make it a lot easier, which means you can make your art faster, sell more of it, and make more money. Though the argument against "better tools don't make better art" for photography isn't so much on the camera end -- assuming it's not sports, I could get equally good results with a Speed Graphic, an OM-1, or a D7000, and could make do with a late-model phone camera. There's varying amounts of work involved after the fact, but the composition and such would be the same. The real place where better gear makes all the difference is in lighting -- have you seen the poo poo 19th-century portrait photographers had to go through to build a decent studio, using only natural light? Nowadays you have strobes that you can put the lights exactly where you want, and dial in the exact amount of light you want. Photographers would have killed for that 50 years ago -- you could put flashbulbs or hot lights anywhere, and maybe even vary the power on hot lights, but the downsides were that flashbulbs had a set power rating of "twice as bright as the sun" and occasionally showered your subject with red-hot broken glass, and hot lights melted the subject or at least made her sweat her makeup off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Sod's law, spent ages tracking down a second hand d3100 from London Camera Exchange for £240, even got a 6 month warranty on it. Popped into town today and find out PC World have the d3200 on clearance, new, for about the same as I paid after postage. Is it worth the hassle of arguing with LCE over returns and having to wait for the cash back from Nikon? Is it a much better camera, or just a small jump in ISO and a bit more resolution I don't really need?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Sod's law, spent ages tracking down a second hand d3100 from London Camera Exchange for £240, even got a 6 month warranty on it. Probably worth it. The jump from D3000->D3100 wasn't huge, but there's a pretty big difference between the D3100 and D3200 in terms of the sensor. Likewise, the differences between the D3200 and D3300 are very minor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Nikon Rumors says there's going to be a D800s announced on the 26th. If it's true, get ready for a solid price drop on the d800 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Literally the only things I mind about my d800 are the not-quite-magic AF and the form factor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Gizmodo has a writeup about the D810: http://gizmodo.com/nikon-d810-subtle-improvements-for-one-of-the-baddest-1596084950
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
I like the zebras, exposure shifting during time lapse, 60p, and recording internal while outputting the full HDMI stream, but I don't think there's much reason for most D800 owners to upgrade. If I was shopping now I'd get it over the current version though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Gizmodo has a writeup about the D810:  powderific posted:If I was shopping now I'd get it over the current version though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Gizmodo has a writeup about the D810: A nice 3300bux firmware update.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Literally the only things I mind about my d800 are the not-quite-magic AF and the form factor. I'm hoping against hope that the d810 drop will also dip the Df prices. A bad goon photographer can dream. E: vvv why? I want that d4 sensor, and the focus/green sensor problems of the d800 are a turnoff. red19fire fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
But the Df sucks?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 16:12
|
|