|
FISHMANPET posted:The Nikkor 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 are both pretty great, and only $200 a piece. I couldn't decide which one I wanted more, so I bought them both. Those are two pretty quality lenses. Wait, does the D5100 have a drive screw? Unless you got the 50 1.8G?
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
dukeku posted:because lenses have a focal length, not a field-of-view This, pretty much. If you're familiar with your sensor size (which you would be after like a day of shooting with any given camera body), you know what 24mm is going to look like when you look through the viewfinder. Also it would be pretty dumb to label lenses in terms of field of view, because no matter what sensor/film size you have, a 50mm lens has a focal length of 50mm and that's never going to change.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
This shouldn't influence your decision (buy the 35 it owns so hard), but the 50 is also useful in that you can reverse mount it and still have manual aperture control if you're doing macro stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I have the 50 1.8 G and I cannot do this. I can however take glorious pictures of my cattes with it. You actually can, just not very precisely. Set aperture with lens mounted normally, hit DoF preview, look at roughly how big the aperture is, reverse mount it, press on the aperture tab until it looks about the same. Not an exact science, but it's possible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:You can do that with any lens. The D doesn't have the focus motor, no. And yeah you can do that with any lens, I was just pointing out that all is not lost if he has the G version.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
MrMoose posted:I definitely agree with what others said -- the 35/1.8 is great for catte photos. Right as I finally summon up the effort to go take some 35/1.8 catpix, I realize I have absolutely no idea where my 35/1.8 is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Nikon does not release the standards for .NEF files from what I understand. That means is Adobe, Apple etc have to reverse engineer the RAW files (make educated guesses) which is why things will look different. At least this used to be the case not 100% sure if it still is but I would not be surprised. It's gotten better over time but does still happen for newer RAW formats. A lot of time it's just people sperging though, and god drat I can't stand ViewNX (I don't even have it installed I don't think).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
DaJe posted:Quick question about filters. Does anyone have a preferred brand with them? I was thinking of getting a circular polarizer to use on my 70-300mm (67mm filter size), especially since it's mostly used outside, and it might be nice to have on me come my trip to Australia in a few months. I have a cheap standard Tiffen filter for my smaller lenses, which I haven't really sued in 5 years. As mentioned in some drat thread, Marumi DHG, some Hoya/Tiffen, B&W, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I dunno if it has improved since then but I ditched it for LR after 30 minutes when I got my first Nikon. Japanese firms shouldn't be allowed near GUIs. I'm not sure I've ever agreed with you before, but this is God's honest truth.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 10:52
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I don't know about you guys but once I'm past 85mm or so there's no way I could handhold without doing 1/2xfocal length for shutter speed (assuming no IS of course). You might want to get checked out for epilepsy. It takes some practice, but you can handhold at absurdly low speeds after a while (I think the longest I ever did that wasn't blurred was 28mm at three full loving seconds). Somewhere on the Pentax forum (I know, I know) there's a good guide written by a marksman about how to hold a camera steady.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Eegah posted:Yeah I can't wait to hunt around for that thing if I ever want to sell my D3100 I think that with that, much like the hotshoe cover, pretty much everyone expects that you lost it within moments of having the camera.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:But it'd be $20 as a first party accessory. Six bucks, actually 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:I have an F3 body sitting here that I'd love to get rid of if you're interested Take it to selling thread, do the needful, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Less leakage, better directionality, better uniformity, can be harder/longer to setup, doesn't fold as small, generally more $. - cannot be used to float to safety if falling from great heights
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
beergod posted:So I bought an SB-700 from a local retailer today. Every time I turn it on it sort of makes a grinding sound and the Zoom says "ERR" on the LCD. Yes, it's completely hosed, return it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
toggle posted:What is a good remote for time lapse/long exposure stuffs for a D7000? (apologises if this has been asked already) They dropped the ten-pin connector from the D7000, didn't they? There used to be so incredibly many cheap options (still, check GadgetInfinity just in case). Normally I'm all about buying quality gear, but it's pretty hard to gently caress up a timer/intervalometer. Your D7000 should be able to do time lapse (as in interval shooting, in Nikon's words) internally though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
snuffles posted:You can pick up an MC-36 knockoff and adapter for just a few Those are 10-pin, does the D7000 have that? I used to have an actual MC-36 and god it owned.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2013 00:02
|
|
off ebay, though like SoundMonkey said you should be able to do time lapse in-camera.
|
echobucket posted:I've been thinking about getting an old DSLR to convert to Infrared... and I just found out that apparently the D100 did not have an IR Filter built in. This sounds really dubious, pretty much everything that has a CCD has an infrared filter ('hot mirror') due to how absurdly sensitive they are to IR light and how much it fucks up photographs. The D100 might have a relatively weak hot mirror, but I can almost guarantee it has one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:I was thinking more like 400mm, gotta get those sweet pigeon close-ups while I'm waiting for the bus. The Tamron 200-400 f/5.6 is actually not terrible for the price.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
krooj posted:Yup. Or the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 or the 24-70 f/2.8 if you don't mind the offset focal range. You will poo poo a brick after seeing what quality glass can bring out of cheaper bodies. This is good advice but holy poo poo both of those are so stupendously more expensive than the Tamron 17-50 2.8 that it's not even funny. Probably go with the Tamron, dude.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:At least it's cheaper than an 80-200 2.8 and 2x teleconverter. ...which is what I use now, with a $50 Tamron 1.4x TC. 380mm f/4 is close enough to 400mm for me, and a stop faster. And when I take the teleconverter off I'm left with what is still an awesome lens.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:You have a 271 mm f/2.8 lens? It's an 80-200 2.8, which when used with a 1.4x TC, gives you 280mm f/4 on the long end, and it turns out I just can't type for poo poo. Nothing to see here. And anybody that "includes crop factor" for that sorta poo poo is horribly pedantic and should probably get banned or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:Can we make this an official rule? I was about to explain why I wasn't going to do that, but while explaining it I realized it wasn't a bad idea. code:
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:I saw a Nikon remote for 8 bucks in a store a few weeks ago, thought it was very cheap so I bought it. I've been rather unsatisfied with it though, maybe I am using it wrong or something but it doesn't seem I can get it to react unless I point the thing absolutely correct and at no longer than 2 meters or so. Are there a lot of crappy knockoffs like these floating around? Is the one by Nikon any better? Infrared remotes are total bullshit, especially if you're in an environment better-lit than "the bottom of a well at midnight on the darkest day of the year during a lunar eclipse."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Yeah it completely failed on me today in the sun. What would you recommend for remote triggering, I have like no idea where to begin. What camera body do you have? Hopefully it has some kind of wired option that'll let you radio trigger it (or at least a long cable).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:I have a D7000 Good, no, better than IR, probably. http://www.ebay.com/itm/110817480956 EDIT: Oh they just ship to Singapore, whatev, just search for "d7000 radio shutter release".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Urgh, for that price you can get one of the wireless flash triggers that has a shutter trigger mode. 2 functions for the price of one. Except the D7000 uses that weird moon connector that isn't the standard ten-pin connector, so you'd have to get an adapter anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted: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. I've also used the Samyang 85 1.4 and honestly it was pretty drat good. No autofocus obviously, but I believe this one was auto-aperture at least (or had the contacts for it and a proper aperture ring with the locking tab and stuff).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
1st AD posted:How does it compare to the Nikon 85 1.8? I've actually been quite pleased with the sharpness of that lens the one time I rented it (on full frame), but I would prefer having something with a manual aperture ring. The 85 1.8 I have no idea, but I saw some article one time that found it to actually be comparable to the Nikon 85 1.4. As in, fairly equal in most tests, actually better than the Nikon in one weird edge-case test.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Not to be too obvious but you do have to make sure the polarizer is actually big enough for the gigantic threading of a wide angle lens.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
tijag posted:I'm basically sure that Nikon cameras are AF sensing at 2.8, not 5.6. Unless of course you have a lens in which the largest aperture is 5.6. Where did you read that Nikon can't AF at 2.8? Probably mis-read the bit where AF is only guaranteed at apertures of 5.6 or faster (hence possibly losing AF performance when using a not-so-fast lens with a TC).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
You could also try a reversed 50mm on the end of a long telephoto using a coupling ring, although I'm not sure how much better results you'd get than with your current setup.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Errant911 posted:Ah okay, I realize where I went wrong (more than one place). As a warning, don't buy the Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4 AI-S because it's a huge purple fringing piece of poo poo (I used to have one).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
Krelas posted:Yeah the camera still works surprisingly enough. I think I'm going to pick up a D7000, they're such good value right now. Anyone who smugposts about Sony's dumbass hotshoe design gets a six-hour.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 09:06
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:So basically Nikon said "Hey you know how Pentax makes those awesome colourful cameras??" I'm the really discordant black parts.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
nielsm posted:I seem to have lost the charger for my D40, and while I've been considering getting a newer/less poo poo Nikon DSLR for a while now it's probably not happening right away. I got a 3rd party charger from Gadget Infinity and I've had no problems with it, for all of ten bucks.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Musket posted:Ive also bought plenty of aftermarket nikon chargers. Power 2000 makes good ones. Mine said "Kingma" and had a tiny sorta Norse looking viking dude on it, so if you want viking power, order from gadgetinfinity I guess. (Bear in mind mine is charger for EN-EL3e, I don't know what the Christ D40s use, but I'm sure they have a charger for it.)
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
PREYING MANTITS posted:That "phallus hide" grip he installed on his D1h wasn't actually from an elephant at all! Let us also remember that Ken Rockwell has an unironic webpage on his site about how aliens visited Europeans because they found Native Americans to be too savage and primitive to understand science. Yep, it's on there somewhere. Also the D1H is still actually a good camera in TYOOLASJC 2013, my wife uses one (that I got for $125 in this very forum), and it actually outperforms my D200 in several areas.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 09:25
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:K rock isn't that bad for succinct real world reviews. At least I can read a krock review in a minute compared to a 23 page dpreview piece of crap. Pretty much the only thing I use his site for is a quick reference for filter diameter and whatnot on lenses. Although he was entirely right about the 28-80 f/3.5-5.6D. poo poo's plastic, feels like the most bullshit lens ever, actually somehow owns.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Rockwell freely admits that he writes hoaxes and bullshit into his site for laughs. If you take everything he's posted on there seriously, you are exactly the type of person he is trying to catch and you should be laughed at. The problem being that his serious stuff is dumber than the fake stuff half the time.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 20:59
|
|