|
EL BROMANCE posted:That sounds pretty perfect, losing the 50-70mm doesn't really bother me all that much and I'm not one for thinking I need a set of lenses to cover every possible focal length. Is this a harder to come by lens? My usual stockist doesn't have any (MPB, they cover a sizeable selection) and eBay brought up nothing in the UK but one seller in Germany for £200 or so. I'm afraid I'm not sure. I got my lens last year from KEH (which is my go to for used gear), at which time they had only one copy (so I would have said "yes" then), but checking their website this morning, I see they have 4 copies for sale. But I realize KEH's current stock may not really be informative or helpful for you. Adorama and B&H Photo both appear to have new copies of the lens in stock as well.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I've got a 800 and it's killed my interest in any other non-pocketable cameras. Coming from a couple years older APS-C camera the increase in DR is what finally killed my film shooting. I went from a D70 to a D800, and am curious about what people's gripes about the interface are. Not defending it, just wondering where the big issues lie. And speaking of the D800, it's a dream. After shooting the aforementioned D70 and a series of loaned Canons for a few years, I went and did all of 'my' work in medium format film for 2-3 years because of the look and quality that I was after. The D800 was the camera that pulled me back into digital, and I've loved it ever since. I can only imagine that the D810 is that slight bit better. That said, when I made the jump, the D600/610 and the D750 didn't exist yet. The D750 in particular might be worth a good, hard look.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:
Why the Tamron over the Sigma 70-200 f2.8? I own the Sigma and it's the best thing ever. So I 'm just wondering if I miss out on anything by not having the Tamron instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Caryna posted:Why the Tamron over the Sigma 70-200 f2.8? I own the Sigma and it's the best thing ever. So I 'm just wondering if I miss out on anything by not having the Tamron instead. They're pretty comparable. The tamron is p affordable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
red19fire posted:What do you guys think about the D810? I couldn't be happier with the D810. Great image quality and low-light performance. Also nice to know that one can crop to vertical and still have a 12mp photo. Solid construction, and feels good in the (my) hand. I've also been impressed by the quick autofocus tracking of moving targets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Caryna posted:Why the Tamron over the Sigma 70-200 f2.8? I own the Sigma and it's the best thing ever. So I 'm just wondering if I miss out on anything by not having the Tamron instead. The comparisons I read had the Tamron just edging out the Sigma. I don't think there was much in it at all, and I'm sure there's probably other people who did comparisons that have it the other way (from my memory of the Sigma/Nikon/Tamron shootouts I saw they all had their strengths and weaknesses - the Sigma won in the build quality IIRC, and the main thing I came away with is that I'm not paying the massive difference in price just to have a Nikon logo on my lens when the final pictures would look essentially the same).
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
WugLyfe posted:They're pretty comparable. The tamron is p affordable. Here in the UK the Sigma is significantly cheaper than the Tamron (£700 for the Sigma 70-200 mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM vs. £930 for the Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 VC USD). Unless it's the Macro version of the Tamron. Anyway, back to saving up for the Tamron 15-30mm for my D750 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
thetzar posted:I went from a D70 to a D800, and am curious about what people's gripes about the interface are. Not defending it, just wondering where the big issues lie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Just saying "settings banks" should cause most people who have used Nikon's "pro" cameras to cringe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:How about the Sigma 17-50/2.8 EX DC OS HSM? That'll give you VC and the constant 2.8 and they seem to run around or under $400 used. I haven't used the Tamron 17-50, but I've got that Sigma for my D7100, and it seems pretty solid and sharp to me, and the VC (rather, OS) can be handy. The Tamron also comes in a VC version, although I believe the non-VC one is recommended here because of slightly higher IQ. No idea how either of them compare to the Sigma though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:Having gone from the D90 to the D800, the placement of the ISO button annoys the gently caress out of me. Other than that, my experience with the interface has been great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:* Tokina 11-16 2.8 (Own and on its way...) I would instead get the tamron 70-300 VC USD lens. It's superb and the VC is insane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
I did consider staying 70-300 rather than 70-200, but I find on my current lens I don't find myself going that far out (I don't do wildlife shooting and the crop factor on DX gives me plenty of reach), so I'd rather then fixed aperture across the board than 100mm of reach I probably won't need much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Do make sure you get VC if you can afford it. It's a great quality of life feature
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
Yeah no doubt, I'd have bought the 11-16 in VC if I could. Who is it that builds that tech into their bodies, Sony? That's a real smart move.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Yeah no doubt, I'd have bought the 11-16 in VC if I could. Who is it that builds that tech into their bodies, Sony? That's a real smart move. You can shoot at like 1/30 without worrying about shake using the 11-16. If there is a lens that doesn't need VC that's it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
Oh too true, but sometimes even that isn't enough. The nice fat aperture should help not put me in situations where that's an issue too often, and the ISO handling on the 7200 is as good as you're going to get out of DX at the moment. I took this at 18mm, ISO 800 and 1/2 sec exposure with VR on my kit lens, jammed up against the glass as best as I could at about 130 floors up. It's not a great photo by far, but I couldn't have done it without the VR if I wanted to get the light trails. No stabilisation would've been allowed up there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:* Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 OS Macro (To replace existing Nikon 18-55 3.5-5.6 kit) I got one of these on Thursday, and used it yesterday to take pictures of scale models at the annual big local show, and I really love this lens. My only real gripe is that the lens end is so huge, that it makes the on-camera flash completely useless for any thing even remotely close the the front of the lens due to shadowing, but I prefer to shoot without the flash anyway when at all possible. I'm a complete amateur 'hack' when it comes to taking pictures anyway, but the D3300 and this lens somehow makes some pretty good photo's for my purposes anyway. I love how close this lens will focus. The show is held in an aircraft hanger with the doors open, so some shots have great natural lighting from the front, others from the side, and then you have the ones with bright sunlight in front of the lens, but the subject only lit by the hanger lighting (which was surprisingly good actually, and very natural colored to my eye, probably something in the 4000k+ range). I took everything hand held, probably could have gotten better results with a mono-pod (tripod would have been too much of a pain with all the people trying to look at the models), but I'm dumb and left it in the car. This shot was taken with the front of the lens about 4" away from the figure, and as can be seen, has full daylight in the background.  The doors are directly behind this, so it's all overhead hanger lighting. Face is about 4" top to bottom.  This guy got Best Figure, all categories. Same angle and location as the first figure.  This one is much closer to the hanger doors, with the door light coming from the upper left of the photo, lens front about 3" above the model.  Wooden ship. This was my entry in the contest    Insane 1/700 scale aircraft carrier with photo-etched crew figures (313 of them) scattered all around. The entire ship is tiny, just a few inches long at most (I didn't measure it).  Same ship - Huge image - 6000 pixels wide so you can see all the crew dudes.  So for an amateur like me that uses his camera for this sort of shooting pretty much 90% of the time, I give this lens 2 thumbs up, I'm very happy with the results from yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Is there a "recommend me a camera to buy for my wife for christmas" thread anywhere? We've had the point and shoot cameras (powershots usually) for a couple years and now with the kids not holding still we're sick of having blurry photo albums. What should I buy? D5200 is entry level and running $550 or so, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
The D3x00 series is the entry level ones, they run cheaper than the D5x00 series while offering less features. The D5x00 series are more of a halfway house between the 3x000 and 7x000 cameras, although some of them have tilt screens and a few other features you don't get higher up because they redesigned the body. However - A DSLR doesn't mean "this is a better quality camera and therefore you will get better images" mind, it's essentially "here's a camera that gives you a lot more manual control in order to achieve the image you want through your knowledge". Ask yourself - is the camera my limitation, or is my ability to use it what's causing the blurry photos? Are you willing to sit down and properly learn how to take well exposed images through understanding aperture, shutter speed, ISO etc? DSLRs have auto modes, but if you're going to rely on using those, then you're not going to end up with much better results than the Powershot after spending a load of money. Not trying to put you off, but I don't want you both to be disappointed when you've given her a present that doesn't resolve the issues you're having, and simply throws more menu options and dials at you instead. I'm sure that the problems with your blurry photos with the point and shoot are resolvable, and once the camera is in fact limiting your abilities then a look at something more complex might be a better look.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
The Locator posted:I got one of these on Thursday, and used it yesterday to take pictures of scale models at the annual big local show, and I really love this lens. Glad you're enjoying the new lens  Because of course nothing in photography is ever final, I went from looking at the 17-70 OS, to get 17-50 OS and in the end... bought the 18-35 1.8 Sigma zoom at a good price due to a combo of black friday reductions and cash back deals. It was more expensive, but my old Sigma 17-35 was always my favourite lens when I only had basic stuff to hand so I'm used to the focal range. If I can find a second hand Sigma 50-150 OS version now, I've got my holy trinity DX zoom series and no real desire to go full frame for quite some time, if ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
That's fair, Bromance. The point and shoot we have now is 4 years old with a cracked screen (held on by tape!) so it's time for a new camera regardless. I think it was a cheaper $200 Powershot. I know she'll read instructions, watch youtube for demonstrations, and practice with the camera to get to where she should be. I probably will not, I just don't have the time for that. Hell, I usually just use my phone which speaks volumes. Thanks for the info, I'll chat it over with her and see what she wants to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:That's fair, Bromance. In the meantime find out how to set shutter priority on the powershot, put it to 1/200 or similar and your photos should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
I've been thinking of getting a 150-600mm lens for animals (mainly zoo). Right now I'm leaning towards the sigma contemporary, since the sports version is 1.5x the price for a bit more focus speed. However tamron also has one which is slightly cheaper, but I've been told the sigma is better. Does anyone have any recommendations?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:Is there a "recommend me a camera to buy for my wife for christmas" thread anywhere? If you do decide this, I'd go the used 7100 route. I got my wife a 5200 and wish I would have gone for the 7100.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Alright, I looked up my current camera and shutter speed settings go to 1/60. Guess it's a crappy Powershot Add in the fact that the thing has been dropped and the screen is cracked... I think I'll snag a DSLR and learn the drat thing. What kind of lens should I be looking at getting? I'll only be getting one lens to start, so is there a "good enough for amateur" all-around type? Doing some homework maybe the 18-35mm to start since it's cheapish? http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-55_3p5-5p6_vr_n15 Edit: Apparently that lens wont even fit I don't think... Wait, DX fits. Now is that a better all-around lens than the 55-200mm Nikon? Someone just tell me what to buy Too much stuff to sift through on a hundred different sites.
Spermy Smurf fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:Alright, I looked up my current camera and shutter speed settings go to 1/60. Guess it's a crappy Powershot If all you really want is pictures to stop being blurry consider one of the nicer point and shoots (RX100/LX100/X20). DSLRs are big, heavy, and way more than what you need in order to achieve "not blurry".
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-55_3p5-5p6_vr_n15 That lens is just the older version of the kit lens that you'll get bundled with one of the cameras you're looking at anyway. The 55mm to 200mm you're looking at goes from 'normal' (i.e. roughly the human field of view) to a fairly large zoom. I'd say it starts a bit too zoomed for most people, you'll be backing up to take a lot of your shots with just that lens. The kit lenses you can usually get are the 18-55, 18-105 and the 18-135. 18mm is a decent enough wide angle for most people (it's a pretty common start place for a lot of lenses, especially the DX ones), and the longer the number at the end is the further the zoom goes. The bigger the number, the more expensive the lens, but these are generally budget low cost lenses anyway. They're pretty decent start lenses, but they'll definitely work better outdoors than indoors if you're not using a flash due to their limited aperture. And learning flash is a whole ballgame unto itself. Given that you want a camera specifically for snapping the kids, maybe take look through some of the blogs listed here. I bet all of them contain advice on camera purchases aimed at people with the same level of experience as yourselves with the same aim in mind - http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/845217/best-photography-blogs-for-moms
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
I've been really pleased with the 35mm prime lens for my 3200 for taking pictures of my baby daughter. Now she's getting more mobile I'm planing to get the 55-200 Nikon zoom to get more natural shots when she's running around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Pissflaps - did you get that Grey Import lens you were looking at on Amazon in the end?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Not yet - planning to order it this week. I'll let you know how I get on!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:Alright, I looked up my current camera and shutter speed settings go to 1/60. Guess it's a crappy Powershot Spermy, if you have your heart set on a DSLR, here is a really good deal to start with: Amazon has the Nikon D3200 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm VR DX Zoom Lenses Bundle for just $396.95 plus free shipping. Next level up, you could do this deal at Adorama has the D5300 w/ 18-55mm lens for $449.95 Whatever you buy, read up on the stuff and on photography in general. How aperture and shutter speeds work, so you can get past the "blurry" stage of photos into stuff you'll be proud of.
Kenderama fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
A D5 but no D400. What gives Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Musket posted:A D5 but no D400. What gives Nikon. The xpro2 is the d400
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Can anyone think of a reason why selling my Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX lens now that i have my Sigma 18-35 1.8 might be a bad idea? I know the Sigma is stronger at the wide angle and is a lot heavier than the Nikon, but it just seems to be duplicating a lens for the sake of it. I haven't been able to find anything that says the Nikon can outshoot the Sigma anyway. I'm moving and could do with the cash... seems a non-brainer right? I found myself taking out the 50mm 1.8 more anyway after I bought it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Yeah man, go for it! Good luck though, I can't get rid of mine for anything approaching a fair price.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Can anyone think of a reason why selling my Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX lens now that i have my Sigma 18-35 1.8 might be a bad idea? I know the Sigma is stronger at the wide angle and is a lot heavier than the Nikon, but it just seems to be duplicating a lens for the sake of it. I haven't been able to find anything that says the Nikon can outshoot the Sigma anyway. The Sigma is a pretty fantastic lens. If you like the look of it, there's no reason to keep the Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Can anyone think of a reason why selling my Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX lens now that i have my Sigma 18-35 1.8 might be a bad idea? I know the Sigma is stronger at the wide angle and is a lot heavier than the Nikon, but it just seems to be duplicating a lens for the sake of it. I haven't been able to find anything that says the Nikon can outshoot the Sigma anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Thanks, someone on a UK forum was looking for one and although he might've now found one, I thought it might boost some cash. I'm digging the Sigma so far, but I think like most people it's going to need a purchase of that USB hub thing and a few hours messing with the focus at each FL.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Pissflaps - did you get that Grey Import lens you were looking at on Amazon in the end? OK so I got the lens today. £129.99 delivered. It's exactly what I was expecting - sent from an address in the UK but going by the language on the warranty card and a sticker on the box not intended for the UK market. Still, at half the RRP i'm not complaining.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:28
|
|