|
evil_bunnY posted:But the Df sucks? Does it?
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:25 |
|
|
I own a Df, and good christ I've never had to listen to so many people give a camera poo poo before. I bought it because it's a D4 sensor for 1/2 the price of a D4. Apparently however, I've made egregious errors in judgement, or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
But it doesn't AF and shoot like an F4, and it's got worse controls, and for the price you could have gotten a D800(e) or whatever canon makes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:But it doesn't AF and shoot like an F4, and it's got worse controls, and for the price you could have gotten a D800(e) or whatever canon makes. People really need to work out how to express "I believe this camera does not have the mass-market appeal that the manufacturer hoped for" in a different way than "this camera is universally terrible."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Right, it's not super terrible but you can do a lot better for the money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
I already own and use a D800, it's great. But it doesn't stand up to the Df in low light.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Just enjoy your nice camera. gently caress the haters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Yeast posted:I already own and use a D800, it's great. But it doesn't stand up to the Df in low light. Anything that a D800 can't do in low light I don't need my camera to do. I think the Df is a neat camera and I'm glad that people are buying them because otherwise companies like Nikon/Canon are never going to take any risks to develop anything novel. e: all the people hating on the Df probably have little to nothing bad to say about the leica M9 or equivalent which is just as niche.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Just enjoy your nice camera. gently caress the haters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:
It's not that the df is too niche, it's that the df missed the niche. The M9 (and friends) are 100% on point as digital M rangefinders, where the Df totally missed the point and the opportunity to be a digital F(3/A/M/E or whatever ).
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:e: all the people hating on the Df probably have little to nothing bad to say about the leica M9 or equivalent which is just as niche. TheJeffers posted:Just enjoy your nice camera. gently caress the haters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:It's not that the df is too niche, it's that the df missed the niche. The M9 (and friends) are 100% on point as digital M rangefinders, where the Df totally missed the point and the opportunity to be a digital F(3/A/M/E or whatever ). The Leica is at least pretty, the DF might be a decent camera but it's design really missed the target audience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:It's not that the df is too niche, it's that the df missed the niche. The M9 (and friends) are 100% on point as digital M rangefinders, where the Df totally missed the point and the opportunity to be a digital F(3/A/M/E or whatever ). The Df missed the opportunity to have even less features for it's price. It also missed the opportunity to limit user's ability to customize the setting the way they want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
I just wanted to stop by to praise my D3100. I'm currently working as a videographer/photographer assistant and we're able to use it almost seamlessly with his Mk. 3 5Ds (as a back up/for extra angles, mind you); the built-in mic even picks up audio comparable to the camera-mounted shotgun mics we use. I'm even more impressed given how much it's been battered around, especially during the OWS protests, and just generally exposed to the elements. It's easily the best purchase I've made in my life and have no complaints about it given what it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:It's not that the df is too niche, it's that the df missed the niche. The M9 (and friends) are 100% on point as digital M rangefinders, where the Df totally missed the point and the opportunity to be a digital F(3/A/M/E or whatever ). I always use the Epson R-D1 as an example of what the manual-focus crowd wants. The R-D1 is kind of a piece of poo poo camera, it's literally a digital sensor grafted onto a Cosina Bessa rangefinder body - to the extent that you still need to "wind" every shot in order to cock the fully-mechanical shutter. There's really very few APS-C cameras from 2004 that can still command $750-1000+ prices a decade later. Yet the R-D1 does, because it is one of the few cameras to fill the niche for a simple, manual camera with tactile controls. re: IanTheM, I'm perfectly comfortable with phrasing that as "people want a camera with less features". People want a camera where the core features work in the way they desire, yes, and they're willing to give up dumb features around the edges that they don't care about. The Df rather notoriously does not shoot video, for example. And a lot of the experience in user interface design (and just design in general) tells us that "customizing things any way you want" isn't always a good thing. Generality usually comes at the cost of complexity, which is not a good thing. I'd rather have a camera that has a great interface for taking pictures rather than one that can do everything. Tactile controls are just a solid user interface paradigm, and it's one that has decades of refinement and user experience. Throwing that away is stupid. For the ultimate in user configuration, you should go buy yourself one of those Samsung cameras with the smartphone built in. No tactile controls and it has a computer built in, it's gotta be an awesome camera! Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
I will happily signify the end of a good post. Good luck to the next posters!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
I'm having focusing issues and I'm trying to decide whether it's my lens or camera. Setup is a D600 with an 85mm 1.8G. Focus through the viewfinder seems to miss a lot. Even if I'm using a tripod and remote and take multiple shots of the same thing, every few are out of focus. Yesterday it was as bad as every other picture. At one point, five handheld shots pointed at the same thing were completely out of focus and I couldn't tell that anything was actually in focus. Another issue that seems to contribute is the distance between the camera and subject... Objects close up are (usually) in focus, but shooting objects at distance never yields acceptable results. Micro-adjusting the focus through the camera body does not seem to make a difference, even maxing it out to +/- 20 and everything in between. Meanwhile, shooting through live view and zooming in to focus seems to yield sharp, in-focus images, every time. I mostly shoot wide open or close to it using single point AF, so I understand that could be a contributing factor... but I consider myself fairly competent with the camera and this is a recurring issue. The lens is brand new so is under warranty, however I bought the camera used. Should I send both in to have them checked? I was planning on sending the camera body in anyways for the service advisory. Help! emotive fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
emotive posted:I'm having focusing issues and I'm trying to decide whether it's my lens or camera. I can't say for sure but it kind of sounds like an issue with the body. The lens just moves where the body tells it, and it usually either fucks up drastically or not at all. That camera can auto-focus through live-view, right? That should happen through CDAF on the processor rather than PDAF sensors in the viewfinder. If that works OK on stationary targets then you probably have an issue in the autofocus on the body. Maybe the focus screen isn't sitting quite right or something and it's throwing off the PDAF sensor points or something like that, I once installed a focus screen upside down in my Canon 40D and it tripped up the autofocus/confirm sensors kind of like that. That would matter a lot at infinity but not a whole bunch up close.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I can't say for sure but it kind of sounds like an issue with the body. The lens just moves where the body tells it, and it usually either fucks up drastically or not at all. Yeah, focusing through live view almost always works perfectly. It's by far the most consistent, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
emotive posted:Help! This might be a dumb question but have you tried it with different lenses? If it only happens with the 85mm its probably the lens, not the camera.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:This might be a dumb question but have you tried it with different lenses? If it only happens with the 85mm its probably the lens, not the camera. Not a dumb question. Honestly, I haven't played with my other lens (50mm 1.8) enough to tell for sure. The few times I have used it images seemed pretty sharp but I'll have to do some more testing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:The main thing I'm worried about with the D7000 over my D90 is that the D7200 may come out soon and the D7100 will drop in price to D7000 levels very quickly. That's about the price difference in the states. I have a D7000 and I am very happy with it, but I think that if I were in your position I would wait for the 7200 to come out and pick up a 7100 after the price drop. I got my D7000 to replace my D5200 because I got so sick of the D5200's control set up. The D5200 has the same sensor and image processing as the 7100, and there is a small but noticeable image quality increase over the 7000. It's not so great that I wish I had paid an extra $300.00 for the 7100 but it is enough (plus the convenience of the flip screen) that I ended up keeping the 5200 for tripod and weird angle stuff rather than selling it. With the 7200 about to come out in a couple of months, I would wait for the 7100 to drop in price
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Focus issue will be easy to diagnose with a second lens. You have to be pretty drat disciplined with a 85/1.8 wide open though. Should be pretty easy to diagnose by shooting a a newspaper from a tripod (use exposure delay).
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
So I took a tumble over the 4th of July weekend and now my 50mm 1.8D is no longer autofocusing. I know it is the lens and not the body as my other lenses are still working. Anyone know of any troubleshooting I could do to get this lens back up and running? I am not devastated or anything as it is easily the most affordable lens to replace, but I would still prefer not to have to spend money if I do not have to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:So I took a tumble over the 4th of July weekend and now my 50mm 1.8D is no longer autofocusing. I know it is the lens and not the body as my other lenses are still working. Anyone know of any troubleshooting I could do to get this lens back up and running? I am not devastated or anything as it is easily the most affordable lens to replace, but I would still prefer not to have to spend money if I do not have to. Good thing they are so dirt cheap on the used market. ITs gonna cost more to repair/fix than to buy a EX off KEH.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Musket posted:Good thing they are so dirt cheap on the used market. ITs gonna cost more to repair/fix than to buy a EX off KEH. Yeah definitely wasn't looking to ship it off, as I am eyeballing them for sub 90 bucks all over, but if it's something I could try and fix myself I wouldn't mind digging into it and dissembling it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:So I took a tumble over the 4th of July weekend and now my 50mm 1.8D is no longer autofocusing. I know it is the lens and not the body as my other lenses are still working. Anyone know of any troubleshooting I could do to get this lens back up and running? I am not devastated or anything as it is easily the most affordable lens to replace, but I would still prefer not to have to spend money if I do not have to. Does the focus ring rotate smoothly? Check for the focus drive screw in the mount. Does it rotate along with the focus ring? If you have more mechanically-coupled AF lenses, check if the focus drive screw protrudes the right amount.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:Yeah definitely wasn't looking to ship it off, as I am eyeballing them for sub 90 bucks all over, but if it's something I could try and fix myself I wouldn't mind digging into it and dissembling it. I tried to find manuals to repair them, all I found was places that will do it for 70bux which is too close to NIB https://www.keh.com/246572/nikon-50mm-f-1-8-autofocus-lens-52
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Does the focus ring rotate smoothly? The screw rotates but is definitely not as smooth as it once was. I'll have to check to see if the screw protrudes the right amount when I get home tonight. Musket posted:I tried to find manuals to repair them, all I found was places that will do it for 70bux which is too close to NIB https://www.keh.com/246572/nikon-50mm-f-1-8-autofocus-lens-52 This brings up another question. What, if any, difference is there between that lens, the 1.8D, and the 1.8G? I know the G doesn't have an aperture ring, but optically is there any difference between the three?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:This brings up another question. What, if any, difference is there between that lens, the 1.8D, and the 1.8G? I know the G doesn't have an aperture ring, but optically is there any difference between the three?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
The G has no aperture ring, and different optical design (7 elements in 6 groups, with 1 aspherical) from the D (6 elements in 5 groups, with no aspherical) The G and D have multicoating The non-D does not
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:The screw rotates but is definitely not as smooth as it once was. I'll have to check to see if the screw protrudes the right amount when I get home tonight. Dont get a G, go with the AF-D so you can use it with your F100 you may purchase in the future. Optically, ive never really noticed a difference, having owned both. I dont look at images at 4:1 and peep. Thanks to lightroom, who gives a gently caress if the G beats the D in CA since you can fix it in a few seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Has anyone ever used the Vivitar 24/2 on a digital body? I'm curious mostly about sharpness and CA since I'd be using it primarily for video.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
I had a Vivitar (Kiron) 24/2 back when I was shooting with a Pentax K10D. It's a great little lens, but I didn't like the results that I'd get on a crop body for stills. It was great on a full-frame film body, but on crop, it was too tight, and the resolution wasn't all that great. As for video, the throw on it is pretty decent, and the copy I had turned smoothly and with a good amount of resistance. I've seen video samples (check youtube) and it's not a bad lens for that purpose. Selling it is one of my biggest regrets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
This response to my above inquiry to Nikon Service blew my mind. "I did review the images and the aperture is set very high at 1.8, and when taking photos at a distance the focus point will be be completely clear. You can try setting the AF fine tune to 0 and take images more close up to have a clearer subject. I would also recommend testing Capture NX2 to sharpen the images and try to fix the soft focus issue."
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
emotive posted:This response to my above inquiry to Nikon Service blew my mind. looks like K-rock's amazon referral revenue dried up. Man's gotta pay the bills somehow I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
emotive posted:This response to my above inquiry to Nikon Service blew my mind. Out of interest, have you adjusted the diopter by any chance? Edit: sorry, ignore that - this is an A/F issue, the diopter won't make any difference. sildargod fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
emotive posted:This response to my above inquiry to Nikon Service blew my mind. If you do multipoint for distant stuff instead of single point, do you get better results? I've always had certain lenses that just don't seem to provide enough contrast for single point AF once you get to a certain distance (on Canon though) - the 50/1.4 is one of these. Past 10 feet out or so and it's worthless for me with single point AF, maybe 1 out of every 5 shots in focus. Switch to multipoint AF to give it more to work with, and it nails it every time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:If you do multipoint for distant stuff instead of single point, do you get better results? I've always had certain lenses that just don't seem to provide enough contrast for single point AF once you get to a certain distance (on Canon though) - the 50/1.4 is one of these. Past 10 feet out or so and it's worthless for me with single point AF, maybe 1 out of every 5 shots in focus. Switch to multipoint AF to give it more to work with, and it nails it every time. I'll give that a shot. It's more than just shooting at distance, though... 1. Using Live View nails focus every time. If I focus with live view, turn it off, and re-focus through the viewfinder, it shifts. 2. If I have the camera mounted on my tripod and am shooting a stationery object, i.e. a car, the focus is never consistent. If I half press the shutter to focus, then release and re-focus, a good chunk of the time the focus will shift just enough to keep whatever I want in or out of focus. This also applies if I take the shot and repeat the same shot without moving the camera or subject. The other day I did this and only 2 out of the 5 shots I took were "sharp". 3. Micro-adjusting never produces consistent results Image samples:   These two of the cat are referencing what I mean about focus changing between two shots. Both were taken with single point AF-S focus aimed on the left eye, and while neither came out sharp, the second is far more out of focus. The camera movement was negligible, I simply re-took the shot immediately after the first...  This is an example of a completely out of focus subject at distance even though the focus point was aimed directly on the front wheel of the car. It is literally impossible for me to get a long distance shot in focus at wider apertures. Nothing in this image looks to be in focus. I'm aware that shooting this wide open was not the best option.  This image is one from a string of five consecutive shots -- not a single one was in focus. Nothing in the last two images appears to be in focus. With all that said, does this sound more like a body issue than the lens? The results are just so inconsistent it's driving me insane. emotive fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:25 |
|
|
emotive posted:I'll give that a shot. It's more than just shooting at distance, though... Did you say before you have other large aperture lenses? (A fast 50 I think?) - What are your results with that? Sometimes a particular lens and a body are just on the far end of spec with each other - so if in spec is "+/-2mm" and you have a lens that's +2 and a body that's +2, suddenly you have a combo that's 4mm out of spec, and you just need to swap the lens for another copy. If you don't have the same poor results with another lens (suggesting it's not just a body problem), what I'd try is seeing if you can micro adjust for a 90% keeper rate or so with close focus, and then see if multipoint gets you better results at a distance. If you can't get it to that, you can try bugging Nikon again until they agree to calibrate your lens & body together. And test with proper focus targets rather than real subjects if you're going to be trying to sort this out seriously - you want something with really good contrast (black line on white background) which is distant enough from other contrasty bits, that you know it's the only thing it will lock on to, and shoot it straight on from a tripod so you know you're not moving back and forth a little between focus & shutter firing. BTW - on your last 2 photos, the second to last one looks like it's focused at infinity, and the last one looks like focus is right behind the car (look at the curb) timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 16:29
|
|