|
f/1.8 is going to get you Bokeh no matter what. Wide lens are often used for landscape but can have other uses. You could do some weird portrait stuff I guess but portraits seem to be bigger with longer lenses and having the photographer back away. I've got a wide lense and I used it to take one silly picture of a hotel room and otherwise just closeups of buildings (that are terrible because my photography is terrible).
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
If it's like the rest of their modern 1.8's the OOF areas aren't super pretty 8(
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Am I a terrible person for considering the D750 + 24-120mm f/4 bundle? I currently have a D5100, 18-55mm kit, 35/1.8 prime and just sold a 18-200mm DX super(retarded)zoom on ebay for what I paid for it a year ago. My plan until the pricing for the D750 was announced was a used D610 and a used 24-70/2.8, coming out at ~£2k in total for good examples with a vendor warranty of sorts. The D750 + 24-120/4 is being banded around at £2349 new... obviously id be losing out on the lens, but the 24-120 seems pretty damned good (i'm fairly sure a 5100 > FF with very good "kit" lens will still be a huge difference, without a 2.8 24-70) and there are so many nice things on the 750 over the 610 - personally i'd be all over the movable screen, newer sensor, weatherproofing and the wifi. 51 point AF with more cross type points would also be nice but not something i'd particularly NEED. Having seen a couple of people in here rag on the D750, is this more from people that already have a FF body/system? and if you were moving to FF now for around this budget is it a good buy or am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Don't get a kit lens. The new Sigma 24-105 is a lot sharper than Nikon's 24-120 and about 2/3 the price. Tamron's 24-70mm is worth considering, too - the performance is pretty stellar considering the price point (my only real gripes about that one are slightly soft corners on full frame and distortion at the wide end). As for the D750, I'd wait for more comprehensive reviews and comparisons to come out before placing an order, but it looks like a great camera for people who were considering the D610 and wanted a little more out of their camera. If I was on the market for a body, I'd be considering getting one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Personally id grab a Used-EX D700 and never look back. Put the extra money in to good glass. Since everything I shoot, sits still and I use tripods 90% of the time, it makes sense for me since ISO 200 is ISO 200 and I dont need giant gently caress off files. But thats just me. Makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Don't get the zoom. Get a 35 and a 50 or a used zoom that's not the kit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
35-70 2.8 is a p.decent lens. Pretty inexpensive too. Good walk around length pair that with a couple of old AIS wider primes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Musket posted:Personally id grab a Used-EX D700 and never look back. Put the extra money in to good glass. Since everything I shoot, sits still and I use tripods 90% of the time, it makes sense for me since ISO 200 is ISO 200 and I dont need giant gently caress off files. But thats just me. Musket posted:35-70 2.8 is a p.decent lens. Pretty inexpensive too. Good walk around length pair that with a couple of old AIS wider primes. I have this combo, ownage confirmed. Some dickwad on cl offered me 500 for the d700  I don't know why, but lowballer idiots in NJ lead their emails with insults.
red19fire fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
red19fire posted:I have this combo, ownage confirmed. Some dickwad on cl offered me 500 for the d700 "Hey shitcock, give me a good deal on that camera."
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:Don't get a kit lens. The new Sigma 24-105 is a lot sharper than Nikon's 24-120 and about 2/3 the price. Tamron's 24-70mm is worth considering, too - the performance is pretty stellar considering the price point (my only real gripes about that one are slightly soft corners on full frame and distortion at the wide end). Thanks for this, it was kinda what I was assuming, people saying it doesn't answer any questions or gaps in the market probably already have something similar and aren't looking to make the jump from DX etc. I thought the 24-120/4 was fairly highly regarded on it's own despite being used as a kit lens for the D750, and you are getting it essentially for ~£550 I think (that being the bonus of the bundle) it seems that's about what they go for on ebay anyway so perhaps not so great unless you plan on using it, I definitely heard rumblings of people ditching 24-70 f2.8 zooms in favour of it which is what made me consider the bundle in the first place... maybe they are a bit mad? I guess my option for going body only would be D750 + tamron 24-70 f2.8 used which would work out about the same. Maybe the Nikon 35-70/2.8 someone pointed out above that seems to be hilariously cheap and very good (I guess if you're going to get a body with a focus motor in its probably worth using) along with some sort of slightly wider prime like a 20mm. The D700 which was pointed out honestly, while cheap looks a bit on the old side for me to jump to full frame with - especially as I probably won't upgrade past whatever body I get, this will be a keeper for a LONG time and I know it's not about the megapixels, but drat sometimes it seems pretty constricted if I need to get my crop on (but fine so far) on my D5100, let alone stepping down farther to 12MP on a D700. Definitely leaning toward the D750 body and a used 24-70/2.8 tamron currently but i'll keep an eye on the reviews and wait a month or two - thanks for all the suggestions!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
I've never used it or anything, but 24-120 isn't all that far from 18-200 which is a general failure of a lens. Which I also haven't used lol. But seriously if you're going with a zoom keep it all in the same range, wide zoom, mid-range zoom, telephoto zoom. The different optics don't work well together is what I hear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I've never used it or anything, but 24-120 isn't all that far from 18-200 which is a general failure of a lens. Which I also haven't used lol. But seriously if you're going with a zoom keep it all in the same range, wide zoom, mid-range zoom, telephoto zoom. The different optics don't work well together is what I hear. There's no reason good superzooms can't be made, they're just too enormous and expensive to be of use for still photography unless you're rich and insane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:rich and insane hi welcome to dorkroom
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:hi welcome to dorkroom I wanna see someone use that angie for their catte photography
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:There's no reason good superzooms can't be made, they're just too enormous and expensive to be of use for still photography unless you're rich and insane. Doesn't cover full frame 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Doesn't cover full frame Vincent Laforet spotted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:As a photojournalist, boxing, small-venue concerts/stage performances, the county fair, and general indoor ambient-light stuff come to mind as well. Pretty much anything where a sane person would use flash, but you don't want the subject floating in a black void. Also structure fires/wrecks at night, lit only by the fire and/or A good f/1.4 lens can get you usable shots in virtually any environment if you're willing to push the ISO hard - even on film. Modern digital sensors are absurd when combined with these wide apertures. I bet a Samyang 35/1.4 and a split-prism focus screen would own on a big-viewfinder flagship FF camera. Nikon's got the best support for Samyang lenses and being on Canon I always wanted to try that. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 02:04
|
|
.
|
People forget you can modify old Leica R glass to fmount with no change in registry distance, just swap out the mounting ring with about 20mins worth of unscrewing things putting on new mount ring, screwing back together. I loved my D700 + 35mm R and 21 f4 R. Amazing glass and was found super cheap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Dunno if this is the right thread for this or not but: I have a D3100, and the memory card slot spring stopped functioning. That is to say, the memory card won't click into place, it'll keep bouncing out. Is this something I can fix at home, or should I take it in? If I should take it in, rough estimate on what it'd cost (I'm in Toronto)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Hi, So I have a very old 80-200 2.8 with a squeaky motor (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200afs.htm) and I'm thinking about, maybe, exchanging it for the modern equivalent (70-200 2.8, http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-f%252F2.8G-ED-VR-II.html). Sadly, it's an expensive piece of gear, so I have two questions: 1. Is it going to be significantly better in terms of sharpness? 2. Also, I've never had a lens with VR. How much of a difference is it going to be? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Unexpected posted:Hi, From my experience, you can expect a sharpness of increase of approximately 1 stop from moving from the 80-200 to the 70-200 vr II (that is, the sharpness of the 70-200 at f2.8 is roughly the same as that as the 80-200 at f4) and possibly even better in the corners. VR is also pretty great. The top thing that makes me consider moving up to 70-200 from my 80-200 though is the autofocus speed and accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
A modern, stabilized 70-200 is gonna blow the doors off the older 80-200, hell a newer f4 one is probably gonna be much sharper than an older 2.8.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
JesusDoesVegas posted:am I missing any obvious competitors (3rd party perhaps?) '90s battleship Nikkor 70-300 f/4.5-5.6. $100 on ebay. Is screw-focus, not self-driven like the Sigma/Tamron, but metal barrel. 1st AD posted:A modern, stabilized 70-200 is gonna blow the doors off the older 80-200, hell a newer f4 one is probably gonna be much sharper than an older 2.8.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 12:19
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Unexpected posted:Hi, My 80-200 2.8 AFS squeaks as well, even after returning from a full service from Nikon. Like a high pitched buzzing that makes you worried the motor is dying or something. While it was in the shop I used a 70-200 VRI in a low light indoors event, and the AF snapped alot quicker and I got noticeably sharper pictures at lower handholding speeds (at least 1 stop). It was also stealth super quiet in comparison. I ended up hanging on to the AFS because I don't shoot enough anymore to justify the  , but I'd sell it and trade up to the newer VR versions if I was doing more of that kind of shooting again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:My 80-200 2.8 AFS squeaks as well, even after returning from a full service from Nikon. Like a high pitched buzzing that makes you worried the motor is dying or something. Thank you all for responses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
LoopyJuice posted:Thanks for this, it was kinda what I was assuming, people saying it doesn't answer any questions or gaps in the market probably already have something similar and aren't looking to make the jump from DX etc. The D750 looks like it is going to be a good camera and I have no reason to believe it won't be a great choice, but don't write off the D700 based on the pixel count or old tech. While it is 12MP the pixels are quite large in comparison to higher megapixel cameras. When cropping I have a lot more leeway with my D700 than my D7000, which as the same sensor as your 5100. You can also get a well cared for second hand D700 and also get a new D7100 for about the projected price of a D750. Having an FX and DX body are great for days were you want to shoot with short focal length primes but also have a mid to long range zoom on hand. Before you buy see if you can try both a D700 and 750 out. Obviously I have no idea what the D750 is like but I think you will be pleasantly surprised by good the D700 is. Obviously you know your needs better than I but if the difference between the 700 and 750 doesn't blow you away you consider a 700+7100 set up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Or just get a D700 and then go on a vacation somewhere!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
My old workhorse d70s is about to die, and I'm looking for a cheap replacement. Is there any reason not to get a mint used d7000 in the 30k shutter count range for $350, especially after comparing other used bodies in that price point? I shoot 90% of my stuff with either an 85 1.4 or a 70-200 2.8, mostly vacation snapshots and things for prints here and there. The lack of full frame doesn't bother me, and I'm not using this to make a buck, so consider this a purchase for someone who enjoys taking snapshots here and there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
D7000 is still a great camera.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
McSpatula posted:My old workhorse d70s is about to die, and I'm looking for a cheap replacement. Is there any reason not to get a mint used d7000 in the 30k shutter count range for $350, especially after comparing other used bodies in that price point? Any Nikon dslr you buy will crush the D70s in both usability and image quality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
nielsm posted:D7000 is still a great camera. Love my d7000.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Speaking of how great the D7000 is, I'm looking to get a 24-70 (or approximate range) for it. Any recommendations for a mid-range zoom for a Nikon crop-body?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
TequilaJesus posted:Speaking of how great the D7000 is, I'm looking to get a 24-70 (or approximate range) for it. Any recommendations for a mid-range zoom for a Nikon crop-body? Tamron 17-50 f2.8.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
LoopyJuice posted:The D700 which was pointed out honestly, while cheap looks a bit on the old side for me to jump to full frame with - especially as I probably won't upgrade past whatever body I get, this will be a keeper for a LONG time and I know it's not about the megapixels, but drat sometimes it seems pretty constricted if I need to get my crop on (but fine so far) on my D5100, let alone stepping down farther to 12MP on a D700. I use a D700 at work and a D7100 for personal stuff. The D700 is solid. Like someone else said, I see no real difference in cropping between the two. Low light performance is great as well. Personally if I were jumping to FX, I'd be doing it with a D700.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Tamron 17-50 f2.8. If that isn't long enough for you, the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 is worth every penny and then some.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
TequilaJesus posted:Speaking of how great the D7000 is, I'm looking to get a 24-70 (or approximate range) for it. Any recommendations for a mid-range zoom for a Nikon crop-body? If you can find a cheap used Nikon 17-55, it's even better than the Tamron. I paid about 300€ for my Tamron, later got the 17-55 for 550€. Totally worth it. Great workhorse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Hey guys I'm selling a sparkling almost-new D800 and SIGMA 35mm 1.5 Art lens over in SA Mart for ludicrously cheap prices since I need a deposit for a place to live before Thursday  Buy it and then make your own thread flipping it for a profit if you want!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Do you realize that paypal holds on to the money for at least 2 weeks? This may not be the quick source of cash you are expecting unless you go the craigslist route.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
I've never used paypal selling on SA, usually my company's GoCardless account or repeat buyers just send bank transfers. However I've started using paypal recently and it only takes like 2 hours to withdraw to a UK bank account so US/EU might be different. Nothing like last minute though!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Creepy Goat posted:However I've started using paypal recently and it only takes like 2 hours to withdraw to a UK bank account so US/EU might be different. Okay, well that hasn't been my experience for business transactions using paypal. Maybe it's faster if you mark as a gift or something like that, but that leaves the buyer with little protection so you'd probably have a hard time convincing someone to mark it like that. Here's what paypal says about witholding funds, it's worth reading since it might apply to you still, and there are steps you can take to reduce the wait time. https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/security/paypal-holds-faq
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 22:06
|
|