|
1st AD posted:Currently there is a bug in the firmware that prevents you from changing the aperture electronically while in live view mode, Is this a bug? I thought it was a "feature" to differentiate the D600 from the D800.
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
In general, Tamron's terminology works such that any lens that has a "II" on it, like what you would normally think means "version 2" or whatever, has the internal motor. Otherwise, no internal motor. I don't know if there are exceptions, but I'm guessing you can find the information you need on Tamron's website. I am almost positive that only the very latest version of the Tamron 90 f2.8 Macro has an internal motor, I couldn't find any other version that does, anyway. As far as I can tell the important thing is that the model number: AF272NII-700 has the II after the N. The f2.5 version definitely does not have a motor. Anyone who is coming from the 18-55 kit lens will be very happy with the 70-300 VR's sharpness, if they are looking for a long zoom. I don't know how it compares to things like the 70-200 f2.8 or the 300 f4, but of course the price also doesn't compare in that case. Note that there are a lot of versions of the 70-300 out there now, and the only one with VR is the best by far, even if it is a bit more expensive. Also, both of Nikon's 18-200 are optically identical. The second one has a slightly better VR system and a zoom lock so it doesn't slide out to 200mm if it's hanging off of your shoulder. It's also pretty much just as sharp as the kit lens, and can now be picked up for like $300 used. I personally wouldn't want one, but the lens will take good pictures if you want 18mm and 200mm without changing lenses. The 18-300 is supposed to be optically better, but it's massive and ridiculously expensive. There is no lens that goes wider than 18mm and also goes to 300mm. In any case, you can get the same/better optical quality than a superzoom for considerably less money. The only thing you gain is the convenience of not changing lenses, which is a pretty silly thing to worry about if you bought a DSLR. Her 18-55 kit lens should cover the wide end no problem outdoors. I agree that either a macro or long zoom is what you should be looking for. Watch out for zoom lenses that call themselves "macro" though, nowadays Sigma and Tamron will stick that name on anything. If you want to get a macro, look for the "1:1" on the spec list. Both the 90 f2.8 and 60 f2 macro lenses from Tamron are supposed to be great. The latter would also double as a good portrait lens, the former would be better for stuff like butterflies/insects. For stationary objects like flowers they should basically perform identically. For a long zoom at your budget, you pretty much only have the choice between Nikon's 70-300 VR and Tamron's 70-300 VC. They are basically the same lens in terms of performance. The Tamron is reasonably cheaper. I only own the Nikon, and I like it. I've heard equal accounts of people claiming the Tamron or the Nikon is better, so I'd probably just get the Tamron in that case since it's cheaper. After all those words, I'd get her the Tamron 90 f2.8 macro. It will be nicer than the 60 for bugs, it's super sharp, and if she ever wants to do portraits she can just take a few steps back compared to using the 60. Just be careful about the motor; Tamron makes it easy to buy the wrong thing. Fortunately, the non-motor version is discontinued, so if you buy new you are pretty much safe.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AF-90mm-2-8-Di/dp/B00021EE4U/ Here's the proper link for that lens. I wouldn't exactly call the 70-300 a "Jack of all trades." 70mm is already quite long on a crop camera, so the lens is pretty much specifically for either "stuff that's far away" or "small stuff that is kind of far away." Basically, birds and other wildlife, or distant landscapes/cityscapes. That being said, I would definitely expect sharper images from the macro lens. Macro lenses tend to be designed for sharpness over anything else. Being a prime lens makes it easier to design it that way, too. The 90mm would be fairly inconvenient for anything other than macro photography, but if you know for sure that she enjoys that, then it is definitely worth it. It's a lens that she could easily use for the rest of her life and be happy with it, although that's a dangerous statement; anyone who gets into photography will always want more/new gear, and there are definitely macro lenses out there that offer more, and are more expensive :P. In a pinch you could probably get decent shots of large wildlife with it, like deer, or a bear that's about to eat you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
nielsm posted:To that I'll just add that I can walk around with just a 135mm on a film camera (same field of view as 90mm on a DX crop camera) taking landscape, architecture etc., so it's certainly not that it's useless for anything but a few niche things. Sure, it might be best suited for macro and portrait, but it can be used for anything. It will just force you to take "a different kind of pictures", which I would argue is a good thing. (Limitations increase creativity, or something.) Yah, you are totally right. In fact, I have always been meaning to make more use of my 85, which is feeling rather unloved by this point, I'm sure.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
Option D. is to use the flash so much that you can guess exposure with reasonable success  . Honestly, it's easier to do that than you think. If you use it a lot, the number of test shots you need to take will go down over time. You can practice on your dog! There's a few variables to keep in mind: distance to subject, flash power, camera settings. Also, it's important to remember that shutter speed doesn't affect the amount of light you get from the flash, but aperture and ISO does. You can use that fact to balance how much natural light you get in the photo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:This is probably a dumb question, but if you're using a flash for an average shot, why would you ever shoot above iso100? I guess to lower shutter time/shrink aperture? Since only the aperture and ISO affect the amount of light the sensor gets from the flash, it's definitely possible to be at max aperture and flash power and still not have your subject be properly lit, especially if the subject is distant. In that case the only thing you can do is raise the ISO. It can also be tough to balance ambient light with flash power since that puts several restrictions on you shutter speed-no faster than your sync speed, no slower than you are comfortable with for whatever focal length you are shooting at. Sometimes to avoid killing all the ambient light, you have to lower your flash power and raise your ISO, especially if you are using a slow lens like a kit zoom. In general, I'd start at base ISO though and play with the other settings first. I'm a bit surprised that you have go to ISO 400 indoors, Musket. Is that with the flash at max power?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
Remo posted:Even if you are indoors, you may wish to raise ISO and lower flash power to bring up the ambient light, or simply to conserve batteries or to reduce overheating. Lower power flashes are also less distracting and intrusive. Yah, although I'm guessing that at f5.6 and 1/250th, all the ambient light is gone in a "poorly lit room," even at ISO 400. Lower power flashes are only less distracting when the lower power actually allows more ambient light in, otherwise, if you are raising ISO to match, it should look the same.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Also, all the old manual focus nikon lenses I've used sound very different from the modern stuff, so it could be a perfectly normal sound you are hearing. I assume it's the aperture mechanism that's to blame, since nothing else moves on them when you are taking the shot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
I'm not sure the D5100 doesn't have arrows + dot with a manual focus lens. On my D60 the exposure... bar... thing turns into a focus aid when you go into manual focus mode. Imagine my surprise when I got a D300  . I don't know what the gently caress is wrong with Nikon sometimes, but it's really bizarre that the entry level gets things like manual focus aids, the mid-level gets things like programmable custom settings on the control dial, while the almost pro cameras get neither. As for a macro lens, the 55mm is supposed to be great, but they are actually getting kind of expensive (they seem to be well over $100 on ebay anyway), and the 18-55 VR kit lens actually gets almost as close (1:2 for the macro lens, 1:2.7 for the kit, I believe). The one thing the macro lens gets you is the privilege of being able to pay about $60 additional for an extension tube that gets you to 1:1. At that point you've spent about $200 though and are probably better off saving just a bit more for the 40mm DX macro, or a used Tamron 90mm.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Lookit dat MTF chart! Haha, wow. I saw the price first and the only thing I could think was "the MTF better just be some horizontal lines," and, welp. And with that price, there goes my fleeting hope that this lens would drive down the price of used copies of the AIS 800 f5.6.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It's a 1.5 crop, same as all their crop DSLRs. You can have it crop another 1.3x for a ~16MP image, though. Yes, it's the same as cropping in post, although you do gain the added convenience of smaller file size, 7 FPS instead of 6, and I assume the viewfinder either has frame lines for the crop, or it might even black out the cropped off parts of the image. By the way, cropping DX 1.3x is the same as a micro-four thirds sized sensor, if anyone cares about the comparison.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
azathosk posted:That's negative side: It doesn't black out the border, but just draws a red line in the viewfinder. Actually, that's not really a downside. Being able to see what's about to enter the frame can be very valuable, especially for moving wildlife/sports, where the 1.3x crop is most likely to be used. If Canon really is bringing out a 7D2, I'll bet Nikon is making a D400. Those two companies pretty much move in lockstep nowadays, when it comes to camera bodies.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Anybody that "includes crop factor" for that sorta poo poo is horribly pedantic and should probably get banned or something. Can we make this an official rule?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Looking for a good portrait lens for my D600. Right now I have the 24-85/3.5-4.5 and the 70-300/4.5-5.6, so neither's ideal. I'm looking for something along the lines of the 85/1.8, but I'm really not up on what's out there either from other manufacturers or on the no-longer-produced-but-can-get-from-keh market. Does anyone have any recommendations in that regard? I'm sort of intrigued by the Rokinon 85/1.4 aspherical, even if it's all manual. Anyone using this lens? I have a Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 and I really like using it. I don't actually use it much because I find it kind of too long for crop cameras, but when I do it's been sharp and fun to use. I do have a split prism focus screen in my camera, though, so I don't know how hard it would be to focus without one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
The 55-200 VR is probably the only thing in your price range that's new and has autofocus. It will suck indoors, but you pretty much have to start spending thousands of dollars before you will be able to get a long lens that performs well indoors. Old, used manual focus lenses are cheaper, but on the D3000 you would have to meter manually as well. That's fine if you like challenging yourself and learning things, but really sucks if you just want some photos of your friends.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Isn't that a D1? EDIT: Yah, it's a D1. Offer them $20 and see what happens. ShadeofBlue fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Oct 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:I got outbid. What really worries me are the ones with no actual description other than the copypasted manufacturer's sales pitch. I suppose I could message them, but I've used the Nikon 75-300 you have pictured there, and it's not bad. I'm sure it beats the hell out of that sigma. Still, the best would be if you could stretch your budget/save a bit more and get a used Tamron 70-300 VC. It's quite a bit sharper, and the VC is a nice bonus. If you can't, the Nikon will serve you well enough. Pro screw drive lenses with pro bodies focus pretty drat fast, you would have to get a pretty expensive AF-s lens to go faster, is my guess.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Oh my god, I had no idea you couldn't use manual focus lenses without a splitscreen focus aid. Thanks Nikon thread, guess I will go put the split prism back into my F3 after years of using a plain one. I get what you're saying, but it's kind of a baffling decision to leave it out, given the marketing and other design decisions. By making the camera compatible with pre-AI lenses, Nikon is definitely acknowledging the use of manual focus lenses with it. It's also catering to the crowd that grew up focusing manually (often, or even usually, with a split prism viewfinder), as well as the crowd that wants to be retro and thinks that you need a split prism to use manual focus lenses. I would argue that having a split prism, or at least the ability to replace the screen with a split prism, would be more consistent with the rest of the camera. I would also say that for me personally, it is easier to use manual focus lenses with a split prism viewfinder than without. That being said, I'm sure it won't be long until someone like Katzeye makes a split prism viewfinder for it. Installing new screens isn't really that hard, even on cameras that don't have explicitly user-replacable focus screens.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
ultrabay2000 posted:Someone said the Df was essentially the same size as the D800, but I haven't found very many other size comparisons. Is that the case? There's nothing wrong with the D800 but I'd kinda hoped this camera would be more FM2 sized than D800 sized. I've been hearing D610 sized, which is only a little bit smaller than a D800 right? Yah, it seems big to me also. And the depth looks kind of odd with the retro styling, it's too thick to be a film camera. I guess all the electronics for the buttons and screen take up too much room.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:I thought the point was that the Df not only didn't have a split screen, but also had no possibility to replace the screen? "Not replaceable" really means "not easily replaceable." You can still reach the focus screen through the mirror box.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
Solaron posted:I have a D3200 with the 18-55 lens. My daughter dropped the camera and now it only sometimes focuses. Is there something I can do to find out whether it's the lens or the camera that's screwed up? I don't know a lot about this and need to learn more. :\ I'll bet if you go to a camera shop and ask them to mount a known working lens on your camera, they would be happy to do so. If it focuses fine, you know it's your lens that's broken.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:See, I don't really want to get into any studio stuff. Things I want to shoot: Borrow a flash from them .
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
A used D300 is cheaper and better  .
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:No reason, really. A bit late, but this is a terrible comparison. They completely missed focus on the 80-200, you can see that the left edge of the photo is sharp, while in the 180 photo it's out of focus in that area. Maybe the 180 is better than the zoom, but there's no way to see that from this photo. I've found that this is pretty much universally true for test/comparison photos on the net. There's always missed focus, or motion blur or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:I know this is not a Nikon but the same technique should work. That camera's fine I'm sure. https://youtube.com/watch?v=RCT-YMgjm9k
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
Dammit, people, my D300 is still a perfectly good camera, stop making me think about upgrading .
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Will I be happier with the Tamron 70-300mm or the Nikon 55-200mm (version 1) for my d3200? There's something strange going on if those are similarly priced, the 55-200 should be something like $100 or less used and the Tamron about $300, unless I'm mixing up my versions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:Don't buy the Nikon 70-300mm VR. That lens is a dud. What? That lens is amazing for its price. It's the non-VR ones you want to stay away from. Anyway, I'd choose the nikon over the Tamron in your case. It's a solid lens, it should be way better than the Tamron that you linked.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
The D5 goes to 3,280,000 ISO and the D500 goes to 1,640,000 ISO  . I mean, I don't know how meaningful the expanded range ISOs are since the noise probably makes them unusable, but still, those are some big numbers. I'll probably end up buying the D500 once used prices hit the ~1k mark. This is the first time since I bought a D300 that I've actually been tempted to upgrade, I forgot what this feels like.I really hope the Snapbridge stuff works reasonably well, too, since the ability to send photos to people right away means I will actually share the photos I take rather than letting them rot on my computer forever. Holy crap, the ISO button is on the right side now, too. ShadeofBlue fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Fluegel posted:Been shopping around for another deal: What does the thread say to a used D7000 body with a shutter count of about 13.000? Included in the package is a Nikkor 18-105mm and a Nikkor 55-300mm. Also included would be the battery grip for the camera, a lens hood and a D7000 book. Everything together would go for about 750$. Everything seems to be in pretty good shape and well maintained. Yay or Nay? It looks like KEH would sell you that minus the grip for about $750 plus tax and shipping, so yah it seems like a reasonable price to me. It's a good combo of lenses, too, although you'll have a bit of trouble indoors and in the evenings. I'd also get a 35mm f/1.8 DX asap  .
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:So ... I'm kind of at a crossroads, and I don't know what to do. What do you take photos of? If you do any sports/wildlife, I have to imagine the D500 would be best for you. If it's more landscapes/studio work, then the D810. I would not see it as a necessity to upgrade to FX unless you can specifically think of why you want FX over DX. The D500 will already give you a huge boost to your low light capability compared to the D7000.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
tijag posted:I have D7000 I bought from Best Buy a bunch of years ago and am wondering what the best way to go about it getting serviced is? I wouldn’t bother unless it’s horribly dirty or you’ve noticed an actual issue with it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
indyrenegade posted:Didn't quite wanna post "Hi been using X camera forever, what's new and cool/what do I buy next" but that's a good answer You'll be able to tell if it's shittered by the fact that the camera won't take photos anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
That's awesome! That's the 300mm f4.5 AIS there right? My dad has one of those, it's so good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2020 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
CIPA battery ratings are definitely useless for mirrorless cameras. As far as I know, the procedure is something like: - Screen stays on for the entire test - Only take a photo every 30 seconds - (other things that don’t really matter for mirrorless or DLSRs) Mirrorless cameras use way more power leaving the screen on, than DSLRs, because they are basically permanently in live view mode (which isn’t used in the DSLR CIPA tests), so that means using a lot of power on the sensor as well. I’m guessing that in real world conditions DSLRs will still win on battery life, but the difference is not as big as it looks.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2023 20:49
|
|