|
powderific posted:How big is the art and how close are the quarters? Musket posted:The 40mm 2.8 comes to mind. You can't uncrop narrow fov. Also, any news about a d500 yet? That lens looks pretty good. For my flat work it tends to be around 2 feet by 3 feet or so and I only have ~5 feet to stand back. Think I'll probably grab this lens and play some garage tetris for some more space. Thanks.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
Musket posted:Also, any news about a d500 yet? Musket posted:That or wait for the D500. You're trying to make people grind their teeth into dust, aren't you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
Looking at pricing, the D7200 is actually priced almost reasonably... Maybe I'll just stretch the budget and get one of those 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
I love mine, if that helps. My girlfriend convinced me to get it over the 7100 and even though I've only benefitted from its extra features on one shoot (and I use the wifi a fair bit), I'm glad I listened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
I love my D7200 so much. The dynamic range is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:I love my D7200 so much. The dynamic range is amazing. Wait until you shoot film!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Musket posted:Wait until you shoot film! Whenever I walk by a thrift store i always check for an ME Super. One day...
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Whenever I walk by a thrift store i always check for an ME Super. One day... buy my N90s + 35-70mm f/2.8 instead!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
There's a groupon deal for a d800 for only 1899. I thought someone might be interested. It's refurbished but whatever. https://www.groupon.com/deals/gg-ni...fb6027641964443
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:There's a groupon deal for a d800 for only 1899. I thought someone might be interested. It's refurbished but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
If anyone wants an AF Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8, I've got one up in the Buy/Sell thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Will I be happier with the Tamron 70-300mm or the Nikon 55-200mm (version 1) for my d3200? I'm playing with the Tamron right now and 200mm seems more than enough zoom for me I don't need the extra focal length - but which of these similarly priced lenses will have the edge on image quality ? Does the Nikon have a faster autofocus and smoother zoom?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
I ended up getting the D5200 with 18-55 and I really like it. I need more reach though. I've heard really good things about the 55-200, but how does the 55-300 compare?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
Digital Jesus posted:I ended up getting the D5200 with 18-55 and I really like it. I need more reach though. I've heard really good things about the 55-200, but how does the 55-300 compare? I have only the 55-200, and so can't give you a comparison based on personal experience, but I will say that lots of folks seem to like the Tamron 70-300 -- might be worth checking that out as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Yeah I want that Tamron 70-300 at some point to replace my cheapy Nikkor AFS one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
I love my tamron 70-300. Best gear purchase yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted: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. Here's what i'm going by:   I guess the main difference apart from focal length is the VR on the Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Here's what i'm going by: That is not the tamron droid you are looking for. You want the 70-300 VC USD lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Yeah but that one is considerably more expensive my wife would not be happy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Yeah but that one is considerably more expensive my wife would not be happy. Well the 70-300 tamron that people like is the VC USD one. If you want a macro lens you can probably find better than that tamron one you posted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
1:2 isn't considered macro unless we're in the 1970s again 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Don't bother with that old Tamron. Buy the new one, or buy a Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Don't bother with that old Tamron. Buy the new one, or buy a Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Ok, only buy the new Tamron then. I own one, it's great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:What? That lens is amazing for its price. It's the non-VR ones you want to stay away from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Nikon just officially announced new lenses: NIKKOR AF-S DX 16-80MM F/2.8-4E ED VR, Nikkor AF-S 500mm f/4E FL ED VR, Nikkor AF-S 600mm f/4E FL ED VR. The 16-80mm sounds very appealing to me and it's speculated it'll be around USD$900. The other two... well, the 500mm will probably be north of $9000. Also, good grief Nikon, that's a lot of very specific qualifiers: quote:*1 Among 5× normal zoom autofocus (AF) lenses with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 at the maximum wide-angle position for digital SLR cameras equipped with image sensors equivalent to the APS-C size available as of July 2, 2015. Statement based on Nikon research. Kenshin fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
No D500 announcement? Nikon is over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:Maybe I had a bad copy but mine was really soft wide open, had wonky bokeh and the AF motor died. If you're getting a stabilized 70-300mm, I'd get the Tamron or save your money for something better. I recently had a day out with the 80-200 2.8 and loved that lens ( https://flic.kr/s/aHskbxHDSJ ). It sort of gave me the telephoto bug. I noticed though that I really never shot below 3.5, so it would sort of be a waste of lens for me. I was looking at the 70-300 4.5-5.6 as a solution, but I feel like that 5.6 at the long end is a bit small. I'd be interested in how it treated anyone who had it, and if they found a better solution in that price range. I also worry it couldn't match the 80-200 2.8's sharpness at the long end. Is that just out of reach at the price range? edit - http://www.techradar.com/us/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-budget-nikon-telephoto-zoom-1043012/1 Reading this and getting closer to thinking the 70-300 is a good idea. If the wife wouldn't lose her poo poo I'd just get the 80-200. JesusDoesVegas fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jul 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
JesusDoesVegas posted:I recently had a day out with the 80-200 2.8 and loved that lens ( https://flic.kr/s/aHskbxHDSJ ). It sort of gave me the telephoto bug. I noticed though that I really never shot below 3.5, so it would sort of be a waste of lens for me. I was looking at the 70-300 4.5-5.6 as a solution, but I feel like that 5.6 at the long end is a bit small. I'd be interested in how it treated anyone who had it, and if they found a better solution in that price range. I also worry it couldn't match the 80-200 2.8's sharpness at the long end. Is that just out of reach at the price range? Remember that at 200mm 2.8 you have more control over shutter speed in bad light than at 5.6 aperture. Get the 80-200 2.8 you won't regret it. You also can get better isolation of subject from the background at 2.8 than at 5.6.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Musket posted:Remember that at 200mm 2.8 you have more control over shutter speed in bad light than at 5.6 aperture. Get the 80-200 2.8 you won't regret it. You also can get better isolation of subject from the background at 2.8 than at 5.6. This, on the other hand, is a 100% crop with the 70-300mm VR on a D90 at 220mm and f/5.6 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:This, on the other hand, is a 100% crop with the 70-300mm VR on a D90 at 220mm and f/5.6 Legit looks like an oil painting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 09:16
|
|
|
So I have a lens recommendation question. I'm using a D3300 with the kit 18-55mm lens mostly. 95% of what I use the camera for is taking pictures of my model ships (I took 700+ pictures on my vacation that I downloaded from the camera and never looked at again), and I'm wondering if upgrading the lens would make any appreciable difference, and if so, what lens? I was looking at maybe getting a prime, but if I did that, would the Sigma be as good or better than the NIKKOR which is $100 more? Should I be looking instead at a longer focal length macro lens of some sort? I guess I'm wondering first - what sort of improvement/gains will I get, and second, what would be best for the type of shooting I'm doing. All my pictures are taken without flash, tripod mount. I typically set up in aperture priority, and then switch to manual and adjust shutter speed based on which part of the image I'm trying to expose properly. Since there is no time pressure on my shots and the subject doesn't move, it really doesn't matter to me if I need a 1.5 second exposure to get it. I do have Lightroom (thanks eBay special!), but I haven't really learned to use it much, so I find it's easier to just take 3 or 4 shots at different shutter speeds and then just pick the one that looks best to my eye. My image manipulation is typically limited to opening it in paint to crop and resize it if needed (and I keep all the originals). Here are a couple shots I just took with a penny to show the scale of what I'm shooting for you guys to have a reference point. I have a couple of cheap soft-boxes I can use to add a bunch of light to shots when I need to, but these are taken with just the work-bench lighting and some open windows. F16  F5.6 (max aperture for this lens)  I sort of failed with the focus point on that second one, but since it's just a demo shot for this post I didn't go back and re-shoot it. This would certainly be a throw-away normally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Get a macro lens for that kind of subjects. (Nikon brands their macro lenses as "Micro".) You can go for a 60 mm, but consider going all the way to 100 mm, since that gives you more working distance. If you want to go cheap, you could also try the Micro-Nikkor 55 mm AI-S f/2.8 lens; it only does 1:2 scale macro and will require fully manual focus and exposure (only works in M mode) on your camera, but it's a great lens and you should be able to get it cheap. It's the precursor to Nikon's current 60 mm macro. Otherwise consider a Sigma 100 mm macro, they also tend to be good. Also, your photos seem slightly under-exposed. Try slowing the shutter speed by 1/3 or 2/3 stops (1 or 2 clicks) over those.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Also, your photos seem slightly under-exposed. Try slowing the shutter speed by 1/3 or 2/3 stops (1 or 2 clicks) over those. Thanks for the advice. Those 105mm micro lenses are pricey! Will have to decide whether to save up for one of those. The Sigma is cheaper and has the same F number $670 f2.8 vs. $1000 for the Nikkor, so I'll probably target that one. On the exposure, I normally shoot one shot at whatever the camera thinks, then take shots at 1, 2, and 3 clicks slower when I'm trying to expose the darker stuff. The shots I posted are 1 click slower, but I didn't take the 2/3 click shots in this case. The problem I run into when I go much slower is that it starts to over-expose the deck too much because the holly wood is so white, and then the detail of the deck gets washed out. Depending on what I really want to pull out in the photo I'll certainly go ahead and do that. Here is a good example - I think this is slowed down 2 clicks, and you can see that the tree-nails in the deck are getting lost/washed out, but I was trying to pull out the details on the pumps which are very dark in comparison.  I'm certainly still learning, since the photography part isn't really my main focus, but I'm slowly improving and getting better shots. Getting the time to invest in reading & learning more about photography is the problem when I'd rather be working on the model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
You may be able to get more bang for your buck with a better lighting setup, and learning a bit about focus stacking techniques in photoshop. Good clean white lights in small defuser boxes could make the colors and textures pop in those little details, and focus stacking will help you hone in on the exact subject you want to highlight at that small scale. Now, a macro lens would definitely be on my shopping list if I had your needs, but it may be cheaper to start there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
What do you think is lacking in the photos you posted? Do you want to get a closer perspective or do you want sharper images? If you're happy with the perspective in those photos, then I'm not sure you need a macro lens. You make get sharper images using a prime lens, but honestly the 18-55 is pretty decently sharp especially if you're using a tripod and you are stopped down. Your next step should definitely be to experiment with lighting and learning Lightroom. You can very easily bring out detail in the shadows without overexposing the white areas and you don't need to take multiple exposures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:What do you think is lacking in the photos you posted? Do you want to get a closer perspective or do you want sharper images? If you're happy with the perspective in those photos, then I'm not sure you need a macro lens. You make get sharper images using a prime lens, but honestly the 18-55 is pretty decently sharp especially if you're using a tripod and you are stopped down. Thanks. Part of my original question was whether I would see improvements, and what they might be, as I really don't have a clue beyond what I'm currently doing. I'm not particularly unhappy with what I'm getting now, but I'm always trying to improve myself, regardless of what it is I'm working on. I will try to make some time to learn more about Lightroom, and probably should start shooting in RAW to take advantage of all that it can do. Also, that focus-stacking thing is something that I didn't even know existed. Wow...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
If you don't mind manual focus you could try the 105mm f/4 AIS. It only goes to 1:2 reproduction (I think that's 1:1.5 on crop), but that should probably be good enough for what you're doing. I think you can find them for about $150-200.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:23
|
|