|
DanTheFryingPan posted:I rate the OP an F65 out of FM2n. Isn't that effectively zero though?
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
After using a D40 I just can't be impressed by flash sync speeds in the hundredths.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Is there an AF prime, f/2.8 or faster, somewhere between 28mm and 45mm, for less than $200 that will work on his D5100? 35/1.8!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
Goldmund posted:Can anyone recommend a book for the d7000? There are several to choose from out there. Thom Hogan seems pretty smart on his website but I haven't actually read any of his books.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Listen guys, you're over thinking it Legdiian posted:that lens on the D600 would be the equivalent of 16-56 lens on a D5100
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Look bub when you inevitably get tired of your puny "full frame" sensors and move up with the big boys you're going to need to understand the relationship between coverage, focal length, and field of view I just type the film dimensions + 'diagonal' into wolfram-alpha and divide by 42 to get a crop factor. krooj posted:I kinda, sorta want Nikon to release non-junk mirrorless bodies that take regular F-mount You mean a Pentax K-01?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:If you can find it (which ain't that easy) Sigma of all people made a bitchin' screw-drive Nikon mount 24 2.8 (it's an older one), and shockingly, it's actually a loving awesome lens, at least on crop. For less than $100, when I bought it. The AF Super Wide? They seem to have those pretty consistently on keh for $150-200. I've only done one roll of grainy B&W through mine (and a half dozen shots on my D7000) so I have no idea how it performs though. And focusing sounds like ball bearings chattering if you have to go through a big chunk of the focus range, but infinity to 1m is short enough not to be loud.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
Manual focusing is pretty bad in the tiny viewfinder, guess-and-check exposure isn't really any worse than regular manual mode (especially on a one-dial body, since the lens has an aperture ring).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure AI lenses only meter on bodies with focus motors, but it might still be worth it for the MUCH smoother focus ring.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Yeah, the entry level bodies have significantly smaller viewfinders, and they only have an on/off focus confirmation dot rather than the arrows + dot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
It's technically for when you attach a motor drive but I just use it as a shutter button lock.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It's like a 3c part, and Canon includes one. Can't let'em one up you like that. But it'd be $20 as a first party accessory.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
So there's actually a lower limit for photography dollars?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Admittedly I'm no good at birding but my D7000 with a Sigma 50-200 feels like it's pretty good with focus tracking, all those AF points close together mean things don't get lost in the gaps.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
I think if I'm going to carry my D7000 around I'm going to need a heavier lens 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Musket posted:300mm AIS f4 weighs more than you. Carry that around all day, get swole. I was thinking more like 400mm, gotta get those sweet pigeon close-ups while I'm waiting for the bus.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2013 04:12
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:One of the best things about the D7000 (and D7100) is the ability to meter with lenses that give no aperture feedback (like T2 mounts and the like). I use a lot of stuff on PB-6 bellows or random non-nikon lenses, so that ability is important to me - although it might not be so much for you. I didn't think any Nikons did that, how do you do it? SoundMonkey posted:The Tamron 200-400 f/5.6 is actually not terrible for the price. At least it's cheaper than an 80-200 2.8 and 2x teleconverter.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:DOUBLEPOSTING BECAUSE SPACE IS AWESOME. They should send Ashton Kutcher into space.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It’s a logarithmic scale, so the discrepancy is worse than it may appear. Isn't ISO logarithmic anyway? 2/3 of a stop should have the same effect whether it's between 200 and 400 or 12,800 and 25,600.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
I think USD means it has a focus motor in the lens.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Did Nikon ever make an autofocus 135mm other than the f/2 defocus control?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
1st AD posted:....why would you need another 135mm for Nikon? I don't have a thousand bucks to spend on a lens, and it's too useful a focal length to only have one of.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:On small formats 135mm is an exotic focal length. The only reason it exists is because it was the longest lens to which a rangefinder could be coupled. You can't really compare it to 85mm or 35mm and be serious. It can't be particularly exotic if it was popular and cheap enough to get a Series E version, and there must be something it's good at to justify the defocus control model. So it's surprising that they never released another autofocus option. SoundMonkey posted:The 135 f/2.8 E-Series owns serious bones if you can give up precious AF for a a really awesome lens. I already have the Series E, but sometimes I'm lazy and just want to point and shoot.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Jesus Christ, what the hell would someone use that for? Going to space, obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
Reminds me of an FG.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
It's already up on camerasize http://camerasize.com/compare/#495,486
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
Every photo after 36 is a multiple exposure.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 04:46
|
|