|
I'm looking to upgrade my zoom lens. Currently I have the 55-300mm DX lens and I'd like to move up to the 70-200mm 2.8 lens. I've gotten to use the Nikon version of the lens and it's fantastic, but is there any reason not to go with the Tamron or Sigma versions considering they're less than half the price?
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Thanks for the info. I'll definitely be keeping a lookout for that while I do some more research. I wanted to make sure it simply wasn't the Nikon branding causing the increase in price. Luckily I don't have an immediate need for the lens yet, but it's something I'll be wanting to have for when it starts warming up again for outdoors events.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
Nice, had no idea about the 80-200 version until now. That's going into the consideration pool as well. Both my 18-105 and 55-300 have vibration reduction so I may try turning that off and seeing how my shots come out to see if I've really been needing that feature. Although I know being able to go up to f/2.8 as opposed to the f/5.6 I've been used to will be a huge help.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Z9 officially revealed. https://twitter.com/NikonUSA/status/1445359890034221061
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
Should the thread title change to The Z8 Will Literally Never Exist?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Philthy posted:I was really interested in AI art a while back, now it just angers me. I think, mostly, because most people are using it as their own creation. It's a creation from a computer. It doesn't matter to me if you fed it an image you drew, took, painted, whatever, you're essentially the paintbrush here and not the artist. The artist is the computer. You're not signing that piece of art yourself, you're showing off what a piece of code did. People will argue semantics that Lightroom or Photoshop use AI to help color grade, remove an object, fix a blown out sky, but we're not talking about that here. We're talking wholesale generated art, there is a difference IMO. Maybe that will be blurred at some point and I will just throw my arms up and shout at clouds. You might be glad to know the United States Copyright Office agrees with you on this: https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-created-images-lose-us-copyrights-test-new-technology-2023-02-22/ I highly recommend reading the explanation for why the Copyright Office rejected copyright protection for these images: https://www.copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf Page 8 is where the discussion of copyright law comes into play. The jist of it is that if you were to give the exact same prompt to an artist to draw, that artist would hold the copyright for the resulting artwork and not you. Because the artist in this instance is AI, non-human entities cannot be granted copyright. Another example is if you entered your prompt into an image search engine the resulting images would not be "authored" by you no matter how closely they matched your artistic vision. United States Copyright Office posted:Though she claims to have “guided” the structure and content of each image, the process described in the Kashtanova Letter makes clear that it was Midjourney—not Kashtanova—that originated the “traditional elements of authorship” in the images.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2023 19:15
|
|