|
1st AD posted:Who cares about the D750 I could point you to a forum that is happier than a pig in poo poo that they have a FX body that is a sequential number from the D700. They of course were very angry at the D800 and the D600/610 mathmatically was inferior to the D700 as a proper replacement. The true answer is gear whores. They are excited about this. Just like if they were to do a D400 replacement in a D7200 body (which is the D400 replacement, dwi people). Nikon is having an identity crisis.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
This kind of weird product engineering it was made me choose Canon when I went FF. I think Nikon shooters were looking forward to a true 5D3 competitor and D700 successor and only sorta half got it. Yeah yeah the Nikon/Sony sensors are "better" but I felt like features and handling wise I was compromising a lot less with Canon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:This kind of weird product engineering it was made me choose Canon when I went FF. I think Nikon shooters were looking forward to a true 5D3 competitor and D700 successor and only sorta half got it. Lets be real here. Both companies poo poo on their customers. Nikon on their mid range customers, Canon on anyone that buys a Txx camera with that 81 year old sensor. THe D700 kept up with the 5D2 in terms of IQ but lost out to the 5D3 but the only people who cared about that were chart shooters. By then the D800 came out and people were angry at the file size. Again, mostly chart/wall shooters were mad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
I just want a new high-end crop sensor body for birding because I feel mildly silly putting giant telephoto lenses in my D3200 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:I just want a new high-end crop sensor body for birding because I feel mildly silly putting giant telephoto lenses in my D3200 D7200 when it comes out, until then D7100. Literally the D300 replacement in every way but buffering. D400 rumors have been around for years and never materialize any truth. Alternative is a Fuji XT1 + 600mm Nikkor on a gimble.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:I just want a new high-end crop sensor body for birding because I feel mildly silly putting giant telephoto lenses in my D3200 D2X or D7K bro
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:This kind of weird product engineering it was made me choose Canon when I went FF. I think Nikon shooters were looking forward to a true 5D3 competitor and D700 successor and only sorta half got it. The only thing I wish my D800 did was wifi in a non-retarded way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Musket posted:D7200 when it comes out, until then D7100. Literally the D300 replacement in every way but buffering. D400 rumors have been around for years and never materialize any truth. Alternative is a Fuji XT1 + 600mm Nikkor on a gimble. Well, yeah. I'd been hoping they would announce the D7200 but if they don't announce it before February I'll pick up a D7100 for my Borneo trip in March.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Musket posted:I could point you to a forum that is happier than a pig in poo poo that they have a FX body that is a sequential number from the D700. They of course were very angry at the D800 and the D600/610 mathmatically was inferior to the D700 as a proper replacement. Pretty much. The D700 had the D3 'flagship' sensor in a stripped-down chassis. The D4 sensor is in the Df, which is fantastic but has all this weird misplaced retro design and is clunky as hell. The D800 is comically overpowered and 'out resolves' all but the most recent glass, but is still in the D700's relative price range. The D600/610 is in the sensor sweet spot comparable to the 5d3, but is missing a lot of the functionality that a professional wants, like an AF button. And then there's the DX lineup. To use Nikon is to compromise, somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If it's as cheap and good as the 35.... Lol nope $800.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
The D750 sounds like an amazing price point for the advantages gained over the D610. Wider focus area, more focus points, lower light focusing, tilting screen, aperture control in live view, faster burst mode, nearly as small/light... This might be the camera to bring me over to FF when used prices come down in a year or two.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:This kind of weird product engineering it was made me choose Canon when I went FF. I think Nikon shooters were looking forward to a true 5D3 competitor and D700 successor and only sorta half got it. How is the D800 half a competitor to the 5DMkIII? I went from a 5D MkII to the D800 because I liked its sensor and feature set better so I'm curious about what you think was the compromise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
powderific posted:How is the D800 half a competitor to the 5DMkIII? I went from a 5D MkII to the D800 because I liked its sensor and feature set better so I'm curious about what you think was the compromise. Sorry I was referring to the D750, but I'll explain my thinking. When I bought my 5D3 the only the D600 and D800 were available. I rented both the D800 and 5D3 and for me, it came down to the 5D3 having better AF, more manageable files sizes, (to my eye) better video, and more FPS. The D600 would have been nice as it was like $1300 cheaper, but the AF, shutter speed, no AF-ON button, no Av control during shooting etc etc made it a no go for me. Then the 5D3 had better high ISO, works with more of my legacy lenses, and for my purposes, I like the Canon lens lineup a lot. God damned I wish I could have had the Sony sensor in a Canon body though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
If you check my post history 80% of is making GBS threads on Canon though. I could have sworn I was going D600/D800 until about 2 weeks prior to my purchase.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
The Nikon identity crisis is neat IMO because it means that certain people won't have to replace the D700.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:What is the use of a largish aperture capability on a landscape lens that you'll be shooting with at f/16 or more? Or do people use a 20mm for things where they'll get bokeh? Fast wides are useful for filmmaking, astrophotography and general low-light use. Unless corner-to-corner sharpness is stellar and it completely lacks distortion, I don't see the 20mm displacing the 14-24mm for landscape use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
f2 for deadpan night landscapes, handheld at iso6400 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Also I don't use my Nikon for video anymore, but my Blackmagic Cinema Cameras all have m43 to Nikon Speedboosters and a 20mm 1.8 would round out my current set of primes; got 24, 35, 50, and 85 already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
So instead of making a camera that some people (read: I) want, a d300s replacement, they go ahead and make yet another fx body. Then they continue to not release any crop body wide angle lenses, but instead they go and make a new superzoom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:So instead of making a camera that some people (read: I) want, a d300s replacement, they go ahead and make yet another fx body. What would you want in the D300s that isn't provided for by another camera?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:So instead of making a camera that some people (read: I) want, a d300s replacement, they go ahead and make yet another fx body. Your replacement is a D7200, shut up already. (see thread title) VelociBacon posted:What would you want in the D300s that isn't provided for by another camera? Probably the extra weight and more than just top seals for weather sealing and a larger image buffer that was never really used unless you were spray and praying. But mostly cuz it looked like a pro fx body when gripped.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
The pro body construction and weathersealing, the pro body buttons, and the big buffer. I don't spray and pray but 6 shots in burst is just terrible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Then they continue to not release any crop body wide angle lenses, but instead they go and make a new superzoom. Darn Nikon for not releasing a 12-24mm f/4 and 10-24mm f/3.5‑4. Darn them to heck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
I get why some people would want wide angle crop zooms, but is something wrong with the Tokina 11-16 or the Sigma 8-16?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I get why some people would want wide angle crop zooms, but is something wrong with the Tokina 11-16 or the Sigma 8-16? Doesnt say Nikkor on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Musket posted:Your replacement is a D7200, shut up already. (see thread title)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:Fast wides are useful for filmmaking, astrophotography and general low-light use. As a photojournalist, boxing, small-venue concerts/stage performances, the county fair, and general indoor ambient-light stuff come to mind as well. Pretty much anything where a sane person would use flash, but you don't want the subject floating in a black void. Also structure fires/wrecks at night, lit only by the fire and/or  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:51
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Shallow dof labia shots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
To change the subject a bit, I've got a question about lenses! I'm currently shooting a D7100, and in my bag I've got the kit 18-70mm 3.5-4.5, which its sort of meh, and the 35mm 1.8, which is a somehow imbued with magic that makes every image gorgeous. I've been craving a lens that covers the 35mm + range, and I'd like to go past the 70mm. The obvious choices I see are the 55-300mm 4.5-5.6, and the 55-200mm 4-5.6. The 200mm is slightly cheaper, and both have image stabilization to some extent. The 300mm has ED glass, which apparently cuts down on chromatic aberration or something, and a longer zoom. Does anyone have any experience with either of these, and am I missing any obvious competitors (3rd party perhaps?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
JesusDoesVegas posted:To change the subject a bit, I've got a question about lenses! It's bigger than the ones you mention, but the Tamron 70-300 VC is pretty bitchin and sounds like it would be a decent choice for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Either that or a long prime (60/85/90).
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
JesusDoesVegas posted:Does anyone have any experience with either of these, and am I missing any obvious competitors (3rd party perhaps?) They are all lenses that were intended as a complement to the old 18-55 kit lens, and as such were all pretty meh to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:It's bigger than the ones you mention, but the Tamron 70-300 VC is pretty bitchin and sounds like it would be a decent choice for you. Love that lens on my D7000, +1
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:They are all lenses that were intended as a complement to the old 18-55 kit lens, and as such were all pretty meh to be honest. From what I've seen the 55-200 is slightly less of a shitheap than the 55-300 but it's a close race. I'd probably go with the Tamron.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
I've never used a long prime, but they sort of scare me. At 35 or 50 I can probably zoom with my feet just fine... When things that are far enough away that I would want a telephoto length that seems harder. Maybe not though... Like I said I've never used one. Renting a fixed telephoto for a day could be fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
JesusDoesVegas posted:I've never used a long prime, but they sort of scare me. At 35 or 50 I can probably zoom with my feet just fine... When things that are far enough away that I would want a telephoto length that seems harder. Maybe not though... Like I said I've never used one. 135mm f2. Jokes all aside, the Tammy is your best bet. Or you could get a 80-400mm and be done with ever needing another tele for a few years. And no you cant zoom with your feet in some situations with a 50mm. Right tools for the right job. https://www.keh.com/search/list?s=80-400mm+nikon
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
JesusDoesVegas posted:To change the subject a bit, I've got a question about lenses! The 55-200mm is pretty garbage, but it's also cheap. The sweet spot is around f/8. I would go for a 135mm fixed, f2 if you can afford it.  Natural Violence 2 by Chris Hayden Photo, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
To get something of decent quality I'm going to have to save a bit, but while looking for that Tamron 70-300mm, I found an old 24-200mm for $35 (model A03s... turns out Tamron made eight different models of these from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s). I figured, what the hell, I'll throw it in my bag to play around with while I save for something a little more modern.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:From what I've seen the 55-200 is slightly less of a shitheap than the 55-300 but it's a close race.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
VelociBacon posted:What is the use of a largish aperture capability on a landscape lens that you'll be shooting with at f/16 or more? Or do people use a 20mm for things where they'll get bokeh? Why exactly is the new 20mm a landscape lens? Why is f/1.8 used solely for bokeh?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 10:28
|
|