|
As someone who often places important subjects in the last millimeter of the corners of photos, I
TheJeffers fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Dec 19, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
What annoys me most about the 1.8's corners isn't the resolution, it's the aberrations (comma especially). It's an issue with all their modern primes too.TheJeffers posted:As someone who often places important subjects in the last millimeter of the corners of photos, I I wish sigma started making f/2 primes as well, their art stuff is fantastic but so big and heavy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
For someone who mostly takes pet/sports and macro photos, would a Nikon D5300 or Nikon D7000 be better? I've got a D3100 atm and looking to improve in the next few months. I originally thought D7000 (7100 is out of my budget). I've been comparing on snapsort but true resolution, dynamic range, etc, is all just  to me.I know the D7000 is weather sealed and can use non AF-S lenses, which is appealing, but ultimately I want to go with whatever will make my photos better V  V I want to stay with non APS-C because my lenses are all that format and it's cheaper than full frame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Fraction posted:For someone who mostly takes pet/sports and macro photos, would a Nikon D5300 or Nikon D7000 be better? I've got a D3100 atm and looking to improve in the next few months. I originally thought D7000 (7100 is out of my budget). I've been comparing on snapsort but true resolution, dynamic range, etc, is all just D7000
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
The only reason you should really get a D5x00 is for the articulated screen, which is mainly useful for video.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
I've had my D3100 since Mayish and I think I've shot... two? videos. So yeah not bothered for that. The D7000 will autofocus with any Nikon AF or Nikon-fit Sigma/Tamron lens, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Fraction posted:I've had my D3100 since Mayish and I think I've shot... two? videos. So yeah not bothered for that. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
It's not so much what it'll autofocus, but how well it'll do the job. And the d7000 will do a much, much better job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Cracking; thanks guys 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Also older lenses won't autofocus on the 5300. Things like the 50 1.8d don't have internal motors so it depends on your body's motor. The 5300 doesn't have the motor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Anyone had their D7000 serviced for back focusing issues? When I first got mine I thought it had a problem but I figured it was user error and ignored it. Then I mostly started shooting wide so I never really noticed the issue. Recently I went through some old shots and ran across some from my D40 w/ 35mm 1.8G. When I looked at them I was stunned at how sharp they were and it finally hit me that the D7k just has not been that sharp and there likely is a problem with it. So I dicked with the AF Fine Tune on the D7k a bunch and I'm fairly satisfied that cranking it to -10 fixes the back focus issue on the 35mm 1.8G. However, looking around online I see lots of people claiming back focusing issues with the D7k and that service can help. I might be interested in getting the service if it really works so I'm looking for feedback here. I'm pretty confident it's the camera not the lens but I don't have my D40 with me at the moment to check. edit: played with it some more in the daylight. Need about -14 for the 35 but my sigma 50-150 2.8 is perfect with no adjustment and so is my 10-24. I guess it's the lens. Dren fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
So I got a Nikon ML-L3 remote to use with my D3300. I took it out of the box and removed the battery protector, went into the camera and switched it to the remote trigger setting, and.. nothing. Doesn't matter if I'm in front of the camera or behind it, the remote won't trigger the camera. Is there another step I'm missing, or is either the remote or camera not working? If it's the latter, is there a way to figure out if it's the remote that's not working or if it's a problem with the camera? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
The Locator posted:So I got a Nikon ML-L3 remote to use with my D3300. I took it out of the box and removed the battery protector, went into the camera and switched it to the remote trigger setting, and.. nothing. Doesn't matter if I'm in front of the camera or behind it, the remote won't trigger the camera. Should be page 97 in your manual :  e - Just re-read your post and it looks like you're in the right mode. Sorry I can't be more help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:Should be page 97 in your manual : Yep, tried both the quick, and delayed trigger ML-L3 modes. I think that either I got one with an already dead battery (need to search the garage for my multi-meter to check that I suppose), or either the remote or my camera is defective. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Did you locate the IR sensor on the D3300 and point the remote right at it? Is it possible the camera tried to AF then failed to get focus? That can look a lot like the remote not working. You could try setting the camera to MF just to be sure. Is it possible the tab tore when you pulled it out and part of it is still in there blocking the battery contacts? I've had two ML-L3s and never a problem they work great. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
 I took the battery out and put the multi-meter on it. 3.2v. Got a small light and inspected inside the remote for plastic bits from the tab, nothing. Put the camera in quick response, lens on manual focus, camera on auto, put the remote right up against the rear sensor, nothing. Right up against the front sensor, nothing. Played around with different angles, distances, nothing. Smashed the remote really hard in frustration ... and the camera took a picture. Now it works fine, front and rear, AF or MF, pointed at the wall and bouncing it.. I have no idea what changed, but apparently getting mad and trying to crush it has fixed it. Thanks for the input.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
I got some Christmas money and am torn between the D7000 + a new lens or the D7100. Is the 7100 worth paying around £250 more for than the 7000? (Whichever I buy will be used from mpb, probably an Exc++ listing.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Fraction posted:I got some Christmas money and am torn between the D7000 + a new lens or the D7100. Is the 7100 worth paying around £250 more for than the 7000? (Whichever I buy will be used from mpb, probably an Exc++ listing.) A lens is going to be far more versatile than the D7100. There hasn't been a huge amount of improvement between the two versions of the camera, so you'd be far better off going a little cheaper and getting better glass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
The best investment is glass. The 7k is the better deal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
The Locator posted:
3.2V under no load is not exactly 'brand new' for a lithium battery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Are you sure? I'm guessing it's a cr2032 or similar, which I think are 3 volts. To be fair, I've never put a multimeter on one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
It is a 3v battery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
powderific posted:Are you sure? I'm guessing it's a cr2032 or similar, which I think are 3 volts. To be fair, I've never put a multimeter on one. Oh nevermind I'm an idiot and was thinking of 3.7V lipo batteries which, if charged, generally read 4.2V under no load (briefly).
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Went out with the 18-55 VR kit lens today and a ton of my shots have lens flare, I've never noticed this lens producing them so much but I guess I was shooting at a lovely angle. Lesson learned! Is this lens pretty bad for flare or were the lighting conditions and shot angles just unfavorable? e: VR1. VelociBacon fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Went out with the 18-55 VR kit lens today and a ton of my shots have lens flare, I've never noticed this lens producing them so much but I guess I was shooting at a lovely angle. Lesson learned! Is this lens pretty bad for flare or were the lighting conditions and shot angles just unfavorable? It is hilariously prone to flare and I doubt the tiny hood they sell for it is going to do much. You can mitigate it some by being careful about where your light's coming from, but yeah, nice lens, not great for flare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Went out with the 18-55 VR kit lens today and a ton of my shots have lens flare, I've never noticed this lens producing them so much but I guess I was shooting at a lovely angle. Lesson learned! Is this lens pretty bad for flare or were the lighting conditions and shot angles just unfavorable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
I have a D3200 with the two kit lenses (18-55 and 55-200). I am looking to expand my lens library. In particular I want to do some macro, and I'm ogling the fixed 28mm that this thread is so happy about. My dad just gave me his old Nikon film camera and the lenses he had for it. They are: A Nikon FG body in silver, in OK condition. It has wear around the screw hole on the bottom where you mount a tripod shoe, and some crud embedded in the seal around the film door, but everything seems to be in working condition (although the battery is long dead so I could only test the shutter in M90/B mode). The original manual is there too, although it's not in great condition. Lenses: A Nikon 35-70mm F/3.5-4.8 AIS 2-touch manual focus lens A Nikon 50mm F/1.8 Series E AI-S manual focus lens A Tokina 70-210mm F/4-5.6 SD Autofocus lens (Nikon mount obviously) There's also a Vivitar "collapsable lens hood" that is made of rubber and has whitened but still seems flexible and no cracks, in its original box, a couple of Vivitar filters: one is a "VMC" K-2 multicoated filter in "medium yellow" and the other is a clear VMC "UV-Haze" filter, both in 52mm. I've already managed to mount both of the Nikon lenses on my D3200. Obviously they only take photos in manual mode, with no autofocus and no metering, but I can select exposure settings and kind of trial-and-error my way to a sort of in focus photo. With a tripod and patience I suspect I could get stuff reasonably in focus in daylight, although the total lack of a focusing overlay like I had in my old film camera is going to be a handicap. My question though is this: would I be better off just trading all this stuff in to KEH for whatever they'll give me? I could use the credit to get most of the way to a 28mm. The KEH quote from their automatic tool is about a hundred bucks:  Although they didn't list the silver body so I had to pick black, and I'm not certain that all three lenses are in near-perfect condition. (I don't see any wear or scratches anywhere, but they're all dusty on the outside and need to be cleaned.) OR I could just keep these, if they provide some sort of utility with a D3200. Like, is this Tokina going to be usable as a macro lens for still photography? Think taking pictures of painted miniatures in studio conditions. Are any of these considered really good glass, such that putting up with unassisted manual focus and guesstimating metering is potentially worthwhile? Also if anyone wants to buy this stuff from me, or trade with me for an unused lens or something you've got that I might be able to use, I'm totally open to that too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I could just keep these, if they provide some sort of utility with a D3200. Like, is this Tokina going to be usable as a macro lens for still photography? Think taking pictures of painted miniatures in studio conditions. Are any of these considered really good glass, such that putting up with unassisted manual focus and guesstimating metering is potentially worthwhile? The 50 1.8 Series E is tiny and drat nice if you can deal with not having AF. The others are pretty much trash unless you can autofocus them, and no that's not a legit macro lens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:It is hilariously prone to flare and I doubt the tiny hood they sell for it is going to do much. You can mitigate it some by being careful about where your light's coming from, but yeah, nice lens, not great for flare. The 18-55 kit lens hood is hilariously useless. A deeper generic rubber cheapie hood might be a bit better, but not much. The only use I ever found for my 18-55 kit hood was pressing it up against a glass window at night to cut out secondary reflections. Edit: Meant to say "kit lens hood" is hilariously useless, not that the kit lens is. Jahoodie fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:The 18-55 kit lens is hilariously useless. A deeper generic rubber cheapie hood might be a bit better, but not much. The only use I ever found for my 18-55 kit hood was pressing it up against a glass window at night to cut out secondary reflections. It's pretty sharp at f/8 in the 18-35 range
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
Dren posted:It's pretty sharp at f/8 in the 18-35 range A lens that isn't sharp at f/8 is a paperweight. So that's not really a good judgment of quality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
As far as kit lenses go, the 18-55 vrII is fine and I dunno wtf you're talking about Jahoodie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Yeah it's no zeiss but it's perfectly serviceable. Sure it's not insanely sharp, and flare performance could be better or whatevs, but 8 times outta 10 if you gently caress up it's just user error.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Edit to my statement: that was referring to the lens hood for the kit lens as not good. (What do you think this is, the DPreview forums?) Do get the kit lens, it's cheap and not too bad. Don't waste your money on the Nikon branded lens hood for it, I did and regretted it. Jahoodie fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Ah right. It's minuscule (because it has to deal with 18mm) and completely useless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
So Nikon have announced the D5500, their first camera to have a touch screen! Better late than never Nikon. other than that it's almost the same as the D5300. Not sure what happened to the D5400. $900 so that's in the ball park of the D7100. Not sure why you would go for the D5500 over the D7100. http://www.cnet.com/uk/products/nikon-d5500/
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:So Nikon have announced the D5500, their first camera to have a touch screen! Better late than never Nikon. other than that it's almost the same as the D5300. Not sure what happened to the D5400. They are releasing a fresnel element telephoto too - interested to see how it compares to Canon's attempts
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:So Nikon have announced the D5500, their first camera to have a touch screen! Better late than never Nikon. other than that it's almost the same as the D5300. Not sure what happened to the D5400.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
My favorite part is that they took out the gps, so in addition to the price raise, you also have to buy the gps module that sticks out
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
I'm hoping the price is suggesting an announcement to a D7200 soon. I'd love to grab up a D7000 and a D7200 release will push down the D7100 price and thus hopefully finally push the D7000 to below £300.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 16:53
|
|