|
Someone is buying me a Nikon Df. I have a Nikon D70s with an SB800 so it's obviously one hell of an upgrade in sensor quality (and 'everything else' quality really) Now tell me why everything sucks and why I'm going to hate it because the Internet ruins everything
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:The Df is a wacky-rear end gift choice. I wanted a D610. Honestly no money exchanged hands, my family and I have been collectively collecting Air Miles for like 15 years and never spending them. My dad calls me and says, "Hey apparently our Air Miles are going to expire so we're going to spend them all, you wanted a camera right, which one do you want? D5100?" I said "Well no I was going to get the D610. I want a full-frame Nikon." He says "We can do Df? They don't have D610 for Air Miles." "Oh that's the hipster one. OK. It does have a light meter, right?" "Pretty sure it does..." And that was that. I don't want to sell it (I do think it's pretty cool). But I can sell the lens! It comes with the 50mm 1.8 and I've already got one of those. I mean I love low light performance (that's why I've got the gigantic gently caress off speedlight) and apparently it's got the D4 sensor so it's much better than anything else in that price range... Pivo fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Alright, yeah, the fact that the the Df has the D4 sensor but the D610 autofocus is kind of a big problem. It just can't focus poo poo that it could perfectly expose! Grrrr. This is annoying. Everyone was right, the manual dials are nearly useless. The ISO one is useful when you're in auto ISO. Exposure compensation may be useful, but I'm used to doing that from the command dials, I dunno if I'll think that's totally awesome. Buuuuuuuut in general you use it just like any other Nikon DSLR. All things considered, I kinda love it. I need to find something to do with the 50mm 1.8 I have now, since I already have a 50mm 1.4. I just wish it had better AF.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
That's not what I mean about the AF, I mean the sensor can destroy the gently caress out of a low light scene (TRUST ME) but since it's got the AF from a D610 it can't focus. It's actually a big problem. I think it's bizarre that Nikon mated a low light superhero sensor with one of their low-end pro-sumer AF systems.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
1st AD posted:No he's right, the AF module is from the D7xx series and is great for crops, but woefully undersized for full frame. Dpreview and everyone else seems to think it's the D610 system, I couldn't tell you myself I just have to pick someone to trust. Regardless all I'm saying is that it's not as good as it should be.....
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
annapacketstormaya posted:Weird stuff happening with my card reader: if I try to copy stuff off it in Linux using cp, it freaks the gently caress out and all the files stop showing up even though they're still there and the card is still mounted. If I copy them off using rsync, there's no problem at all. Any idea why that would be? I'm guessing it's some weird conflict of cp's implementation and a bug in the vfat driver/something weird about the reader or the card, since I've never had a problem with the reader on Windows, though I'm using a card that I haven't used before. You can see the implementation of cp here: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/cp.c and here: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/copy.c God, how verbose. Who knew cp was so complicated? Anyhow, I doubt it's causing your problem. Have you tried the reader with another card, or the card with another reader? Would help you narrow down the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:YYYY/MM, one cat per year, shoot/event tag per shoot/event Iunno about you but I shoot way more than one cat per year
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Dren posted:which does bring up the question "why do they stop at 10,000?" Historical reasons. They're like DSC_xxxx, DSCNxxxx, right? 8 characters long. Historic thing, the 8.3 filename. There are systems still in use where 8 characters is the maximum length of a filename - I think AIX...? And old Microsoft stuff. Nowhere you'd put photos. But it seems logical that by default the filenames don't exceed 8 characters in length while those things are still in use somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Also it's just straight up a spec everyone agrees to use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_rule_for_Camera_File_system Having everyone agree lets your cards get along with other cameras after your camera has had its way with it so it's not a bad thing
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
I just use S3 to keep a backup of my Aperture library. It costs like $1.20/mo or something, it's so small I don't even care. They even have 'Glacier' now for long term storage which is even cheaper.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
If you're a Canadian and paying for Amazon Prime you're an idiot. All of the costs, none of the benefits. Not to say that you're an idiot. Just that potentially you may be.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Does canadian prime get free streaming like real prime does? no
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Well my photo library is ~3TB of RAW files. I'm guessing "unlimited photo storage" is intended for the few hundred dick picks of the typical user and not something like what I need, although as I said I can't find any quantifier that goes along with that offer of unlimited storage. 3TB is going to be a bitch over the Internet unless you've got gigabit symmetric anyway. Yeah, at that point "off-site" is going to have to be a site you control, not the cloud. Unless you've got a fat pipe! That'd be like 80 bucks a month on S3 anyway. Really not geared to that kind of thing. I keep ~40GB on S3, my most important stuff. If you're someone like my father who shoots 12fps and keeps everything, maybe it's not for you. Then again, if it's a business, 80/mo is a drop in the bucket. Pivo fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:That is awful. also "This item does not ship to [your Canadian city]" for loving 99% of the poo poo on Amazon I'm jealous of how useful Amazon is to Americans.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:You have an actual healthcare system so it evens out. for some definition of 'health' and for some definition of 'care', it's not bad you guys pay more per capita on health i dunno why you don't get your poo poo together. probably distracted by all your baubles from amazon.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
My camera assumes 1/focal length when doing auto ISO. So 1/50, usually. Not a bad choice 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Ok when I got my Df (shut up) I did notice that, holy poo poo, compared to my D70s - same era as that D50 I believe - was ramping up the ISO pretty quickly. The thing is, it's just programmed to prefer to ramp up the ISO than gently caress with what the meter says about aperture and shutter speed. My advice? When using auto-ISO - which I think everyone should use unless shooting fully manual - just set your maximum in the settings to what your ACTUAL maximum is. If you don't want it to go above 800, gently caress it, tell it that! Your meter will complain then instead of giving you some grainy shot. To be honest I've learned to just let it go. I let it have whatever ISO it wants. If it picks a high one which makes me gag, that means I'VE hosed up. The metering system can give you quite a lot of response you know. Just learn to use the camera. AutoISO is awesome. I love it. I love that we have sensors now where going above 800 isn't a loving problem. But you have to get what that's telling you. And there are menus and options and all sorts of configurations that put things in your viewfinder to let you make that decision. At the end of the day, you can just turn it all off and set a fixed ISO. But why the hell would you? Learn how it works. Set a max you're comfortable with. Work with your meter, or turn it off and fight with your sensor. It's your choice. Pivo fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
On my camera I find that auto ISO prefers a shutter speed 1/focal length when on aperture priority. So I'm always shooting at 1/50 or whatever. The trick to figuring out autoiso is to figure out the algorithm and make it do what you want. It seems ISO takes priority to shutter speed. That makes sense. But to me it means mostly going into manual and dealing with both yourself and letting auto ISO save you from yourself, if it can. Git gud basically. Just to add on to what I said before. Modern Nikons are completely new to me too. All I've had are relics.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
She's already got 60 Ds
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
I want to do studio work too but I want to eat ramen by choice, not necessity. I know a guy does fashion photography. Amazing, beautiful work. Worthy of any publication. In his 40s, broke as gently caress. YMMV. I romanticized photography at one point and every single pro was like "GOD NO MAN DON'T DO IT".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Instagram being square is actually really clever. Let me take a second to blow your mind: it means that no matter the aspect ratio of the device taking the photo, or displaying the photo, it's always the same. Making it square means they don't have to care about aspect ratios. It's the cleverest loving thing in the world. For casual photos, it completely solves the aspect ratio problem.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Anyone here a photoshop expert? I just need a quick question answered. I literally never touch Photoshop it's amazing I even have it. So I have a photo of my friend that I stuck onto a picture of Tatooine.  The lighting clearly doesn't match. I want to make it look more coherent. This is just for fun, thank god no one pays me to do this. But how do I do it? She's on a separate layer. I've played with adjustment layers but I still can't really figure out how to do what I want to do. (also, any way to make the edges less ... edgy? Even with proper lighting it won't look like she belongs)
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:I'm sure someone else can answer a whole hell of a lot better than me, but I think you should at least let them know what version of PS you are using first. Oh, CS6. Hopefully nothing I need to do requires any of the modern poo poo they've been doing lately. I'm still on the fence about buying into CC and transitioning to LR. But it'd be pretty funny if I was using some decade old one ya?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:You should start by retaking the photo of your friend with stronger, more directional light like in the background. I didn't take the photo, someone else did. She's 5000km away at the moment. She sent me a composite and I was like "that's not that good, I could probably do better" so she emailed me the files. Like "lol ok do better then"  I did OK but no, there's no way to light her from behind which is clearly where the sun (suns) are. All I could do was darken her and do a nice crop. I'm not an artist. I write software. I think I did OK, I guess, maybe, probably not.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Yeah.. maybe. poo poo. Good thing no one is paying me for this and it's just for fun. I don't know what's up with the Twi'lek costume but she's a legit professional model, really doesn't need my help, I just thought I'd play around a bit. I guess I suck more than I realized. The original was really terrible though.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
I have a level in the viewfinder  It's not that useful.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Thoren posted:I've been shooting street photography and it's an absolute struggle at night. With my F/4 lenses I end up having to shoot at 1/50 shutter speed and a cranked up ISO. With my f/1.8 prime lens I have more flexibility but everything becomes a depth of field shot. Heh, tripod helps a lot, but a big gently caress-off flash helps a lot, too. You get that 'flash look' but it helps to isolate your subject from the background, or you can just use it as fill. Modern direct flash can actually look very nice! Otherwise, if you don't have enough light, you don't have enough light, I'm not really seeing a solution other than the tripod.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Use a business card or small mirror to bounce the light from your on-camera flash off walls or the ceiling or something. Most "high end" flashes also have a built-in diffuser and can tilt and rotate the head, and gigantic bounce cards (is that what they're called?) cost like, 10 or 20 bucks with the thing to attach it to the flash. And high end flash will last you a long time, so they're a good investment. The tiny on-body flash is usually crappy, it'll cast shadows with long lenses.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Muttonchips posted:Do you ever reach a point where you feel like you're not utter poo poo? Right before you die.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Ask your doctor for some xanax. Why'd the Mexican get prescribed Xanax? For hispanic attacks.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Amazon customer service is loving fantastic and as long as you don't abuse it they will pretty much do anything for you. Just be nice to the poor CSR and tell them you're upset the camera arrived with a scuff mark. They'll send you a return box and cross-ship you a replacement if you ask for that. That is, unless you bought it from a third-party retailer through the Amazon platform. I don't know how returns work in that case.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Amazon US must be run completely differently to UK, the CS here is abysmal and I've never seen a penny from them for any damage to items. Didn't even get a sorry for a hard disk they shipped in one of those thin flatpack cardboard things that wouldn't protect a book very well. It died <24 hours later. Probably. Here's an experience I had: I ordered a litter box from Amazon Canada. I didn't look at the dimensions, I thought small vs large .. well, my cat's pretty small ... so I got the small one. He barely fit in it and he kept kicking litter outside of it. I called Amazon support hoping maybe they could give me a discount off the larger one or something, more or less looking for a handout because of my idiocy. I don't have Prime or anything. She was like, "Oh that's no problem! We'll refund you the entire purchase, and then you can feel free to purchase the larger size if you want." I said, "Do you want this thing back? My cat HAS been pooping in it." She starts laughing and said, "Oh no sir, you dispose of that however you like!" It was entirely effortless, completely friendly and non-judgemental. And they didn't HAVE to do that. Now, for more expensive equipment like cameras, I imagine they would want the defective piece back so they can try to return it to the manufacturer as defective (or however they rectify those situations), but they've been fairly great to me with DOA computer equipment. Unless Amazon UK is totally different in culture than Amazon Canada and Amazon US, I'd saaaaay that maybe you just had bad luck and someone was having a bad day?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
It does really look like a focusing screen. Maybe it's only really visible on the 400 because wide-open is f5.6? Normally MF focusing screens are quite in-your-face, but I'm not familiar with the 5Dmkii. If it's not visible in the final image, it's not happening in the lens, SLRs being what they are.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Yeah, it's not visible in Live View, and it seems to match up with a circle on the focusing screen itself. Guess I need to test the lens on another DSLR and see what kind of results I get. Or just grab another lens, stop it down to 5.6 and hit the aperture preview button (you Canon types have that, right?). Betting you'll see the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
Some people place a lot of importance on 'getting it right in-camera'. There's not much technical reason for that, and even before digital there was a lot of post work with how you develop and print ... But somehow it feels more personal, like you're creating the art yourself, instead of fiddling with a computer to help you create the art. I shoot purely RAW because I'm not an artist nor am I a pro, I'm more about capturing moments for fun, so I care less about circlejerking about 'getting it right the first time'. But that may be why some people prefer not to shoot RAW. I just can't see a technical reason for it, I think it's purely emotional, but it may be good for learning if you refuse yourself the ability to fix certain things after the fact.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I understand the reasoning for why a photojournalist on a deadline would shoot jpeg but if there is no time or editing/manipulation constraint for your image it's just the objectively worse choice. Vinyl is objectively worse at accurate reproduction of recorded sound. Modern dual-clutch transmissions are objectively faster and more reliable than manual transmissions. Fly-by-wire highly automated aircraft are objectively better than old Cessnas with physically linked controls and no automation at all. Watches driven by an electronic movement are more accurate and reliable than watches driven by mechanical movements. Yet for some reason people prefer vinyl, manual transmissions, hand-flying the aircraft while wearing a mechanical watch. I'm not defending shooting JPG, just saying that the immediate emotional connection may be there in a way that fiddling with LR after the fact does not give, but without going down into the money-pit that is film. After all the mind is a powerful thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Make a selection, feather it, adjustment layers... play with it. As for algorithms, it's not trivial, but MIT's got you covered, kinda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoyNiatRIh4
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Polarizers are awesome. If you are tired of your polarizers, send them to me
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Is there a difference between the DOF and subject isolation / background defocus levels of, say, 50mm @f/2.8 on a full frame digital camera and 33.3mm @ f/1.8 on aps-c? http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Does anyone have a recommendation for where to get insurance for gear? I'm starting to travel with my telephoto and macro kits, I get nervous about carrying around $10k of poo poo. For business or pleasure? My renters insurance covers electronics up to some ungodly amount but not if I'm using it for business?? Otherwise they don't care if I broke it in China or in my bathroom, they just want the deductible, a receipt, and a police report if there was a crime. For insuring business assets, talk to an agent. I used to work in insurance, it can be hard finding a policy that's perfect for you. But if you don't want to go through an agent, call the companies you already pay (for personal auto or whatever) and ask them what they know. Insurance guys are happy to sell policies!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 18:27
|
|