|
BonoMan posted:Ah, poo poo yeah the D3300. I was staring right at it. Comes in sexy "Red" too. nice. Just make sure she likes getting some attention from it, because people ask about it a lot!
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
Kenshin posted:Red is best. But, drat.. Amazon is offering a nice Bundle (Body, 18-55, 55-200, bag, 16 gig card, wifi module) but only for the black model. No Red. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Ah, poo poo yeah the D3300. I was staring right at it. Comes in sexy "Red" too. nice. You can get a used like-new d7000 for the price of a new D3300, if you think she'd not mind getting a used better camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Most of the stuff I do with my D7000 has been with my Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon 55-200. I've been enjoying my little Pentax ME Super's prime kit of 28/3.5, 50/1.4, and 135/3.5 (with the pancake 40/2.8 for walkaround), and sort of feel like assembling a DX prime kit. I already have the Nikon 35/1.8, so what else would I need? I'm thinking the 85/1.8 on the telephoto end, but then I don't know a good wide-angle option. Maybe just go with the Tokina 11-16/2.8?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Most of the stuff I do with my D7000 has been with my Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon 55-200. I've been enjoying my little Pentax ME Super's prime kit of 28/3.5, 50/1.4, and 135/3.5 (with the pancake 40/2.8 for walkaround), and sort of feel like assembling a DX prime kit. I find the range of the 10-24 more useful
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Ever since we've had our first kid, my wife has been using my D600 for taking pics of her. She actually has an affinity for photography it turns out (and is in a sort of "what do I want to do with myself?" crossroads) and our anniversary is next weekend. I'd love to get her a starter DSLR. She likes my camera, and I'm not stingy with it, but she just is always afraid she's going to break it or something. Keep the D600 and buy her a D610. spookygonk fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
spookygonk posted:Keep the D600 and buy her a D610. While I love my D600 and I'd love to get her a D610. It's $1200 more. Sooo, that's not realistic right now. I like the D7000, but honestly she might prefer the smaller lighter D3300 to start off with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:While I love my D600 and I'd love to get her a D610. It's $1200 more. Sooo, that's not realistic right now. There's also the D5300 which is in between the two, and has decent video quality (if that matters).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
WugLyfe posted:There's also the D5300 which is in between the two, and has decent video quality (if that matters). Oh shi- it has built in wifi and gps too. Might go with that instead. edit: Also Amazon has some great deals going on for amateur stuff. Free amazon basics dslr backpack, tripod and discounts on lenses. edit 2: And flip out LCD screen. She'll love that. BonoMan fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
People were talking about the D2Xs as an upgrade earlier. I currently have a D80 and there is nothing wrong with it but would a D2Xs be a decent upgrade? On paper they aren't that different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Man Wifi and GPS sounds great, wish I had that in my D5100 (who are we kidding I hardly use it anyway).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Compared to a D80, the D2Xs has a higher continuous frame rate, better autofocus, and an all-metal, pro-style body with an integrated vertical grip. The pictures from either will look about the same. If you don't need any of the pro-targeted features, it's a side-grade at best. Considering that a D2Xs is still $500-700 used, you could probably take that money and get a used D7000, which has a much newer sensor that's usable out to ISO 6400. Hell, a refurbished D7100 is $850 now. Either will give you much better image quality, which is probably what most people want out of an upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Red_Fred posted:People were talking about the D2Xs as an upgrade earlier. I currently have a D80 and there is nothing wrong with it but would a D2Xs be a decent upgrade? On paper they aren't that different. The D2xs is loving amazing. Having said that, have a close look at the feature differences between the D2xs and the D2x, and if they don't matter to you, save yourself a couple hundred bucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
What's the highest usable ISO on the d2xs? I was looking at getting a d300s but since the d2xs was mentioned here I've been considering that instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
GunForumMeme posted:What's the highest usable ISO on the d2xs? It's rated up to 800 before it hits Hi range. You will get much better ISO range out of the D300S and you can load the D2X color profiles. The D2Xs (and D2x) really shine at the low ISO range and at ISO 100 they are absolutely incredible. Unfortunately once you get past 400-600, performance drops very quickly. If you can live with the low ISO range it is an incredible camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
iammeandsoareyou posted:It's rated up to 800 before it hits Hi range. You will get much better ISO range out of the D300S and you can load the D2X color profiles. The D2Xs (and D2x) really shine at the low ISO range and at ISO 100 they are absolutely incredible. Unfortunately once you get past 400-600, performance drops very quickly. If you can live with the low ISO range it is an incredible camera. Thanks for the help. The overwhelming majority of my stuff is landscapes on a tripod, but I wanted to break into sports, which means starting out at badly lit high school stuff. I understand that I won't be getting SI cover shots and just want something usable to practice to see if I can get better and if I like it, plus I wanted a crop for reach. Would the relatively low ISO of the D2xs (compared to others) be alright to deal with bad lighting? (I'd imagine plenty of newspaper quality images were taken by many a D2xs in crap lighting to begin with.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
GunForumMeme posted:Would the relatively low ISO of the D2xs (compared to others) be alright to deal with bad lighting? (I'd imagine plenty of newspaper quality images were taken by many a D2xs in crap lighting to begin with.) You'd be cranking your ISO because it's sports and you'd need a fast shutter speed, combined with the poor lighting I think it'd be impossible to stay in low ISO on a d2_.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Compared to a D80, the D2Xs has a higher continuous frame rate, better autofocus, and an all-metal, pro-style body with an integrated vertical grip. The pictures from either will look about the same. If you don't need any of the pro-targeted features, it's a side-grade at best. This is a really good point. I don't really get sensors though, do they really give better image quality? I always thought that was mainly down to glass. Main reason I ask is that I'm going to Mexico for month in January and it's a toss up between getting a new body, new super wide lens or nothing at all. I do most of my photography on trips and it's really general so I'm not sure what's best. I'm currently borrowing a colleagues Tokina 11-16 f2.8. But I'll probably get a prime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:You'd be cranking your ISO because it's sports and you'd need a fast shutter speed, combined with the poor lighting I think it'd be impossible to stay in low ISO on a d2_. there was a high-speed version of the D2, built for speed rather than resolution. It's a bit cheaper, too, but nobody really needs more than 4 megapixels (Don't buy a D2h, the body is great but dear lord 4MP really is a limiting factor more than you'd think)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Talk me out of renting a 135 DC next weekend for an event I'm shooting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Talk me out of renting a 135 DC next weekend for an event I'm shooting. Its the best lens, but I can't imagine it would be too great for events. Probably be better off with a 24-70 since you're renting. Someone had the 135 dc on CL with a bent filter thread for $750, I'm mad I didn't get the money in time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Its the best lens, but I can't imagine it would be too great for events. Probably be better off with a 24-70 since you're renting. Depends on the venue, if it's open enough for you to wander around, you can get some really good stuff at 135. Wide to mid focal length shots of events can start to all look the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
iammeandsoareyou posted:you can load the D2X color profiles. This intrigued me. Not specifically talking about these cameras, but in general I know little about color profiles... A bit of googling didn't yield me much. Why would you want to use alternate profiles? What exactly would that do for it? Is it similar to using Kodachrome vs nondescript color film? Any reading on this anyone could link me to would be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Talk me out of renting a 135 DC next weekend for an event I'm shooting. You won't regret it, unless you need more range. Apart from playing around with my Hasselblad lenses, it's been getting most of the love from my kit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
JesusDoesVegas posted:This intrigued me. Not specifically talking about these cameras, but in general I know little about color profiles... A bit of googling didn't yield me much. Why would you want to use alternate profiles? What exactly would that do for it? Is it similar to using Kodachrome vs nondescript color film? Any reading on this anyone could link me to would be awesome. Well it's obviously a subjective preference thing, but many people really like how the D2X renders color. When the D300 was released the Color pre-sets were different and in many peoples' minds produced inferior results. I don't know whether it was third party and blessed by Nikon or an actual Nikon release, but set of optional updates were released that would allow users to add the D2X profiles (and a couple of other custom profiles) to the D300 and D700. They are available here for the D3, D700 and D300 generations. As far as I know those are the only ones that are supported. http://nikonimglib.com/opc/index.html.en I personally think that the D2X profiles look much more natural than the D300 stock profiles. It's not an all or nothing decision either. There are a few open slots to add custom color profiles in addition to the existing color options.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
There must be a Lightroom profile that does the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:There must be a Lightroom profile that does the same thing? I'm sure there is, though I haven't checked. I believe the page I linked also has an option to load these to Nikon's Capture software rather than to camera. I just loaded the optional profiles directly to camera because I disliked all the D300 profiles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
I read around a bit... Apparently if you shoot in RAW your in camera profile has no real effect. The color profile in your conversion software (probably lightroom) is what you will see. I still want to mess with that a bit. I imagine there are profiles that emulate the look of various films.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
JesusDoesVegas posted:I read around a bit... Apparently if you shoot in RAW your in camera profile has no real effect. The color profile in your conversion software (probably lightroom) is what you will see. This seems like maybe a good thing to do http://youtu.be/SDIQBL7euFA Create calibrated profiles for specific camera+lens combos
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
How come no one ever told me about this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Airhg7qtn6s I feel really dumb finding this out just now, I've had lightroom for at least like 4 years, I've just never played with the custom tone curve.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
The curve and exposure are the first thing I hit 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
1st AD posted:The curve and exposure are the first thing I hit I always thought when people said they messed with the curve they were doing it in that linear mode. I've played with that a bunch and it doesn't do anything I like. I didn't know about the custom mode...
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Well, now I know how to pronounce VSCO
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Well, now I know how not to pronounce ISO and VSCO ftfy
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
I admit I love me some VSCO filters, though I think a lot of them overdo the contrast. I wonder if in 5-10 years this film filter look will be hilariously corny and dated looking (more than it already is  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Well, now I know how to pronounce VSCO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyEFiaUQYGE&t=53s
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I admit I love me some VSCO filters, though I think a lot of them overdo the contrast. I wonder if in 5-10 years this film filter look will be hilariously corny and dated looking (more than it already is Are film shots from the 50s and 60s hilariously dated and corny? If they do a good job recreating films tones, then they should be pretty timeless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Considering that a D2Xs is still $500-700 used, you could probably take that money and get a used D7000, which has a much newer sensor that's usable out to ISO 6400. Hell, a refurbished D7100 is $850 now. Either will give you much better image quality, which is probably what most people want out of an upgrade. GunForumMeme posted:Would the relatively low ISO of the D2xs (compared to others) be alright to deal with bad lighting? (I'd imagine plenty of newspaper quality images were taken by many a D2xs in crap lighting to begin with.) ISO800 is decent:  HI-1 (1600) isn't noticeably worse:  HI-2 (3200) is bad, but does the job:  Those are at f/2.8, if you have a slower lens you're pretty much hosed. The D7000 looks about the same at max regular ISO and the two HI settings, but they're three stops higher -- you can get away with f/5.6 in the same situations. Same stadium at f/5.6 with a stop higher shutter speed with the D7000 at HI-1 (12800): 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 18:41
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Anyone ever use the sigma 24-70 2.8? How's it compare to Nikkor or Tamron versions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
Here's a d750 underexposure test. Nuts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 03:47
|
|