|
Ashex posted:Okay, this makes a lot of sense and would explain the things I'm bitching about. I've generally relied on the aperture to manage "sharpness", never considered hyperfocal distance. * Focus distance does not visibly change sharpness of your subject except maybe in lovely lenses at the minimum focus distance, so focusing to infinity cannot be the cause of your sharpness problems. * However, your depth of field will not extend all the way to the camera so stuff close enough in the foreground will be out of focus and unsharp. * Stopping down increases your depth of field, but it does not make the image meaningfully sharper if you continue stopping down more than 1 or 2 stops on most lenses (i.e. f/2.8 to f/4 or f/5.6 may improve the sharpness, but further stopping down to f/8 will only increase DoF). Good lenses are usually sharp wide open, so stopping down only affects DoF and sharpness doesn't improve much. * Stopping down too much (e.g. f/22) will cause visible loss of sharpness due to diffraction. Technically, diffraction becomes limiting around f/11 or so on most cameras, depending on how large their pixels are physically on the sensor. So... is your problem that only the buildings in the background you focused on are sharp and the foreground is not? (read the hyperfocal distance thing, get a depth of field calculator app for your phone to use while shooting). Or are the buildings not sharp as well (what f stop are you using)? e: getting a longer lens means you will have to go further away to get large stuff to fill the frame, and result in thinner DoF. If anything, you would want a wider lens. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Apr 29, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 09:41
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
I just picked up a bargain of a 500mm f/4p that has a minor issue. The contacts for the cpu are worn out/pushed in and don't form a connection so i'm only able to use it as a non-cpu lens. I'm planning on buying just the contact block or a cheap damaged lens on ebay to see if it can be made to fit first then if it doesn't get a 45mm f/2.8 for it's P contact block. My question is will it be as easy a fix as just replacing the contact block with a new one? I don't mind spending a bit to get it fixed professionally if it's beyond my skill level (i'm comfortable taking apart pc's, laptops, tablets, phones and the like).
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
You can't just drop a spot of solder on the contacts to make them a little thicker? Can we get a pic of the problem?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
Photozone has nice analyses of lenses that graph how their sharpness performs at different focal lengths and apertures. The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 looks like it will resolve a sharp subject at any aperture, as long as it's centered in the frame. At 18mm, edge/corner sharpness is pretty awful, and using it for landscapes (even with hyperfocal distance) will produce a lot of softness, especially when shot wide open. snappo fucked around with this message at 16:35 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
I want to upgrade my current zoom (sigma 70-300 4-5.6). I'm looking at the sigma 70-200 2.8, but have concerns over the weight - it's nearly 4x the weight of my current zoom, and heavier than the macro lens I find uncomfortable to hold/use for any sort of period of time. Is there any comparable other lens (if a bit more expensive?) that won't make my hands/wrists ache? 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
I think this is going to be one of those 'yes, just do it' answers, but just to be sure - I should totally get that Tamron 70-300mm (new) over the Nikkor 85mm 1.8G or D (second hand), which is about the same price.. yeah? I already have a 70-300, but it's the most basic Nikkor plastic AF non-VR model ever. I like shooting primes, but ugh it's hard to justify spending the same amount just to gain 2 stops, which I'd kind of gain back in the VR sense anyway. This is an easy one, yeah? I hope so.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Fraction posted:I want to upgrade my current zoom (sigma 70-300 4-5.6). I'm looking at the sigma 70-200 2.8, but have concerns over the weight - it's nearly 4x the weight of my current zoom, and heavier than the macro lens I find uncomfortable to hold/use for any sort of period of time. Is there any comparable other lens (if a bit more expensive?) that won't make my hands/wrists ache? Constant-aperture 70-200 zooms are going to be big and heavy, especially f/2.8 ones. There's no getting around that. Even the Canon/Nikon f/4 zooms are ~750-850 grams. If you want a fast aperture and light weight, zooms should be out of the running entirely. If a zoom is essential, you might consider getting a support system like a monopod if it works with your shooting style. EL BROMANCE posted:I think this is going to be one of those 'yes, just do it' answers, but just to be sure - I should totally get that Tamron 70-300mm (new) over the Nikkor 85mm 1.8G or D (second hand), which is about the same price.. yeah? These lenses do entirely different things. Do you need f/1.8? Do you need 300mm? VR makes it possible to shoot at slower shutter speeds, but that doesn't help if you need to stop action—only a faster aperture can help with that. As above, you need to figure out what photographic problem you're actually trying to solve here.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
That's fair, the problem is I don't specialise in anything in particular otherwise I think it wouldn't even be a question. I like to take photos socially, and found I liked using my 70-300 as a candid portrait lens at a recent wedding, as getting natural shots of people just conversing was a lot of fun. I used a decent range of the lens for that, but I had plenty of light to play with so aperture/minimum shutter wasn't too much of a problem. I found on a recent trip I used a fair range of my lenses - my 35mm prime for general purpose and landscape, my 17-35mm* when we were on a catamaran and I had no distance to play with as well as some other landscape stuff, and the 70-300 for the wedding shots as above. I also had time to squeeze the 50mm into play for a small period, I think the only lens I didn't use was my 28-80 but it was ready and mounted for a walk I didn't end up going on. I'm trying to get out of using the aperture as open as I can for now, as I don't think I'm at the skill level to get the best results with such low depth of field. Half the time I'm using a wide aperture due to lack of light and trying to keep shutter/ISO levels bearable. I'm sure GAS means I want both lenses, and I would find uses for them both, but I think the zoom is going to be more useful for me right now. Next trip I'm on (when I sadly won't have any new lenses), I'm going to try go to a baseball game or something as my gfs brother in law is a referee for various sports, so a long range would be fun on that. e: I've not got any VR lenses at the moment, but am super keen to try one as I think my jittery, caffeine fueled nature is stopping me from using my lenses at the usual minimum recommended shutter speed. Either that or I have a back focussing problem, which I'll do the tests for but I'm not convinced it's the camera. It's usually me in these things. EL BROMANCE fucked around with this message at 15:17 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Constant-aperture 70-200 zooms are going to be big and heavy, especially f/2.8 ones. There's no getting around that. Even the Canon/Nikon f/4 zooms are ~750-850 grams. If you want a fast aperture and light weight, zooms should be out of the running entirely. Suck it up, buttercup, I guess?  Most of my photos are pet portraits or action shots. I use either my 50mm, which is nice for portraits, or my 70-300mm for distance/action. It's hard to get decent action photos with the 50mm unless I want to risk slobber/mud all over my lens. I'll try and get around more this week/weekend with my macro, and see if I'd be able to handle the larger lens. Would the sigma 70-200mm be *big* as well as heavy?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
In my experience with 70-200s, it's like putting a rocket launcher on the front of your camera, even though they're only like 8" long. They are not discreet, especially with a hood on. Here's a picture of the Sigma on a D7000.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
snappo posted:Photozone has nice analyses of lenses that graph how their sharpness performs at different focal lengths and apertures. How is this different from the 17-50mm?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Thoren posted:How is this different from the 17-50mm? I believe that's the older version -- Sigma made that before they came out with this one.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I think this is going to be one of those 'yes, just do it' answers, but just to be sure - I should totally get that Tamron 70-300mm (new) over the Nikkor 85mm 1.8G or D (second hand), which is about the same price.. yeah? Try taping the 70-300 you have at 85mm, visualize more bokeys and try it for a week to see how it feels. Or rent one or the other, I think the 85mm 1.8 is an unbeatable value.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:In my experience with 70-200s, it's like putting a rocket launcher on the front of your camera, even though they're only like 8" long. They are not discreet, especially with a hood on. Here's a picture of the Sigma on a D7000.  Is there any alternative for a good long zoom that won't break my arms?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
If it's fast and long, it's going to be big.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
If you do some strength training with a 120-300/2.8, it'll seem miniscule by comparison.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Fraction posted:
Fast, long, light: choose 2.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Fraction posted:
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:Have you tried doing curls, brah?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Anyone have a part number for the top/shoulder LCD for a D300?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:Anyone have a part number for the top/shoulder LCD for a D300? this was the 4th result on Google for the term "part number for the top/shoulder LCD for a D300" http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33733992
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
dakana posted:this was the 4th result on Google for the term "part number for the top/shoulder LCD for a D300" I think he wants the actual LCD and not just the cover. I found a couple on Ebay, but who knows whether they're any good. Nikon doesn't sell repair parts anymore, so it's probably something that a service center would have to fix anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
dakana posted:this was the 4th result on Google for the term "part number for the top/shoulder LCD for a D300" That's not an LCD.  TheJeffers posted:I think he wants the actual LCD and not just the cover. I found a couple on Ebay, but who knows whether they're any good. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:I think he wants the actual LCD and not just the cover. I found a couple on Ebay, but who knows whether they're any good. BlackMK4 posted:That's not an LCD. Well, I feel like an rear end in a top hat. Sorry about the snark. I was able to dig this up in penance: 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Oh, drat, that will be helpful. I appreciate it. Hopefully I can dig one up here soon - the camera works fine but the LCD only shows the left half which is a little annoying.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
I'm new to photography and got a 35mm 1.8, but I kind of regret it instead of grabbing a used Sigma 17-50mm for a hundred more. I've been going around taking shots, and having to physically maneuver a lot is more difficult than I thought. Do you guys think getting a Sigma 17-50mm would make the 35mm redundant? I also have a 55-200mm on loving backorder from Adorama. (Also if anyone has a cheap 18-55mm VR II kit lens they want to sell to me I'd probably buy it from you to save money over the Sigma. Plz help nikgoons.)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Thoren posted:I'm new to photography and got a 35mm 1.8, but I kind of regret it instead of grabbing a used Sigma 17-50mm for a hundred more. I've been going around taking shots, and having to physically maneuver a lot is more difficult than I thought. The image quality from your 35mm 1.8 at it's sharper apertures is going to blow the sigma kit lens out of the water. 35mm or 50mm are considered the must-have primes so you did just fine.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Fraction posted:
If you're shooting crop just get a cheap 85 1.8 and loving 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:The image quality from your 35mm 1.8 at it's sharper apertures is going to blow the sigma kit lens out of the water. 35mm or 50mm are considered the must-have primes so you did just fine. Thanks. I am extremely impressed with it so far. I was taking random shots at 1.8-2.8 to play with DOF and the sharpness blew me away. There were just moments where I wish I had the ability to zoom. Also I was talking about the 17-50mm @ f/2.8.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Thoren posted:Thanks. I am extremely impressed with it so far. I was taking random shots at 1.8-2.8 to play with DOF and the sharpness blew me away. Forcing yourself to get creative with a fixed focal length will only help you in the long run.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:If you're shooting crop just get a cheap 85 1.8 and loving 85 won't give me the reach I need; with my 70-300 I'm usually shooting between 200 and 300mm.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
I know I don't post here like ever but I thought I'd share a weird problem I had with my D800 in case anyone else runs into it. A few months back my D800 would start hard locking during autofocus, seemingly randomly. I mean it would lock up badly enough that to turn it off you'd have to actually remove the battery, and then remove the card as it'd decide the card was corrupt when it restarts -- which thankfully was not the case and the cards with customer images were fine! Sometimes it would do this a lot during a job, other jobs went by without issue. Drove me nuts and I sent it in to Nikon for service. They did some basic evaluation and CLA and charged me about $250. Didn't fix the problem at all and they never contacted me about not finding something or asking me for more info. Kinda aggravating as that was $250 + shipping that didn't need to be spent, but whatever at least the camera was CLA'ed. What it turned out to be was the old Nikon 28-70 2.8D AF-S lens I was using has a dying motor or binding something or other in the autofocus mechanism. Or both. I realized it by comparing the D800 with my previous camera, a D700 that now belongs to my sis, and finally noticing that the problem was only occurring at 5m focus and in a quiet room there was a noticeable squeak or grinding sound (it would vary between both) when it hit 5m and stopped. For whatever reason the D700 didn't give a gently caress and would just keep on trucking instead of hard locking. It would just stop and not reach focus if it had to move past 5m. So I tested both cameras with some other lenses I had and rented a Sigma something or other with a HSM in it and the problem disappeared. Once I returned the rental Sigma I just went ahead and bought the Sigma 24-70 2.8 and went on with life. No problems since. Anyways I thought I'd share that just in case someone runs into that problem since I did a poo poo ton of googling and never found anything remotely related to this, just the lock issues in the early D800s that were solved by firmware updates. It was really driving me crazy so hopefully this will at least be out there to help the next person.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Looking at updating my camera, because mine is old. I have a Nikon d50 that I'll be selling. I've got the 18-55mm lens that came with it, and I'll probably sell it along with the d50. I also have a Sigma 18-50mm wide angle and a Sigma 55-200mm zoom lens. Both of these lenses work on my d50, and from what I've researched they should be just fine on the d5200 or d5300. I'd be looking at buying the body-only, without lens Would there be any good reason to buy the d5200 or d5300 with the stock 18-55 lens if I've got these two lenses that work with it? Should I buy an additional lens to compliment those? I do a lot of landscapes, some long-exposure stuff. Very much a hobbyist, not a serious photographer in any regard. Is deltacloseouts a legit site? I'm finding a d5300 body for a solid $250 less than it is on BandH and it sounds too good to be true. http://deltacloseouts.com/details/55081?gclid=Cj0KEQjw-OCqBRDXmIWvveLE3_cBEiQAZWfImWH5qSxbKOUFA0i37D1-2WoGh6cbNps0jrp7_P883xEaAsvH8P8HAQ Any other thoughts/suggestions for getting my camera up-to-date?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Gstu posted:
Generally a bad sign of their prices are so different to b&h, who are generally the benchmark. I'm suspicious that they refer to themselves as Closeout while the domain is Closeouts, and the only review site I found said established 2015 while they claim 29 years. The reviews (only 4) smelt like they could've been bought. Also, is it worth selling your 50? The going rate here isn't high, and I think I'll keep mine (or pass down) to use in situations where I don't want to take my new body out. My sensor definitely needs a proper clean and the pop up flash is a bit sticky which doesn't help, but even without those issues it's not as if I could buy much with the proceeds. Always good to have a backup.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:My sensor definitely needs a proper clean and the pop up flash is a bit sticky which doesn't help, but even without those issues it's not as if I could buy much with the proceeds. Always good to have a backup. Slightly off topic, but how do you go about cleaning a sensor? Is the only way really to send it to Nikon for a service? I have dust on my sensor and planning a trip to germany later this year. I'd like to get the sensor cleaned before that.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
There are guides out there, and I tried to clean it myself carefully use a clean brush and doing it the best I could just to see, but I think mines got 9 years of buildup on it that probably needs a service. At least it's less noticeable on wider apertures and I heal/clone the marks out with lightroom.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
I've already send my D600 off to Nikon for the oil problem, but it's reared it's head again. Might try to manually clean it this time.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
tijag posted:Slightly off topic, but how do you go about cleaning a sensor? Is the only way really to send it to Nikon for a service? No but really just lint-free swabs and cleaning alcohol.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
What's some reasonably cheap older glass (e.g., AI-S through AF-D) that might still be worth considering? I've got a 105/ 404notfound fucked around with this message at 01:04 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Spit and shine. Seriously. I use Q-tips and cleaning alcohol at [NYC used camera store].
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:55
|
|