|
I will find an Fx camera someday. (not FX, as in full frame, but Fx, as in F2/3/4/5/6.)
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 09:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
pwn posted:
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 21:14
|
|
The F4 can take a drop to the pavement with nary more than a scratch.
|
KFJ posted:So, a person I work in a studio with recently showed up with three old Nikon lenses, called "Series E" or something like that. Now, I'm not too well versed in the Nikon lens stuff, so I was wondering if these can be mounted on a D5100? They will, but they'll be manual focus only.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 09:41
|
|
|
This is probably a dumb question, but if you're using a flash for an average shot, why would you ever shoot above iso100? I guess to lower shutter time/shrink aperture?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:Yah, although I'm guessing that at f5.6 and 1/250th, all the ambient light is gone in a "poorly lit room," even at ISO 400. Lower power flashes are only less distracting when the lower power actually allows more ambient light in, otherwise, if you are raising ISO to match, it should look the same. Pretty sure he means less distracting for the people in the room, not for the image viewer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Somewhat of a DSLR newbie here. Can somebody explain to me the whole crop sensor stuff? I have a D5100 and I recently bought the 50mm f/1.8 G lens. It works great and takes amazing photos, but I understand that I am not getting the full frame? Should the lens be DX or do I need a fancier camera? This helps: 
Krakkles fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Jan 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:So my D5100 is an F mount, meaning I can technically use any F mount lens in history, but I'll lose features like auto focus and metering, correct? I can deal with manual focus but exactly how much of a pain is losing metering? http://bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm Basically, you should be able to mount anything except Nikon 1, but most stuff won't meter or autofocus. Krakkles fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
D7000 is basically better than the D80 in every way. Get it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:So I just got this thingo from a garage sale for $5 because I knew that vintage Nikon SLR's can go for a lot of money, and lenses aren't cheap at all either, so I figured that worse case scenario, this will look great on a bookshelf. The question is this: IS IT REALLY WORTH AS MUCH AS EBAY SAYS IT IS?! KEH sells that lens for $235 (and has a reputation for selling quality, working items, so they're probably going to be able to sell for more). They don't have the body in stock, but based on what they're selling an F4 for, $100 sounds about right.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
scottch posted:Cannot go wrong with the 35/1.8. The 50 can be a little tight in some cases, so the 35 is just more versatile. Also, cattes are gay.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:This was not the case on my D5100 and now my D7000. Correct. http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14130/~/how-does-the-auto-iso-feature-work%3F Basically: It goes up to a Maximum you select, minimum appears to depend on camera model (D200 in that link says minimum approx. ISO 200, D7000 manual says minimum ISO 100). Krakkles fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:Is this just because the D3100 is a beginner's DSLR and the lens is crap compared to the F3 or is it because I'm a retard who can't figure out how to put the camera into advanced user/god mode or something. The D3100 is a very entry level camera, and does have a lot of limitations compared to the higher end dSLRs. Best bet, throw that 105 on something like a D90 and you'll probably find the experience much better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Kazy posted:Nikon D7100 this March, $1200, no AA filter, 24MP, stereo mic. Ditto. *sigh* goodbye, money!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 08:53
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:The main thing that strike me, as a wildlife shooting Canon user, is the 6fps and an 8 RAw buffer isn't exactly pushing boundaries for top-level APS-C. By comparison the 7D does 8fps and 25 RAW, and the latest rumours are that the 7D2 will manage 10fps. That and skimping on the buttons for back-button focusing. Why would the 7100 have a smaller buffer than the 7000? I'm 99% sure my 7000 does 10 shots in buffer, though I don't have it in front of me. Edit: Yep, D7000 does (minimum) 10. http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7000/features03.htm Edit2: and yep, D7100 bottoms out at 6. What the gently caress: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/spec.htm On the upside, I don't see a good reason to upgrade now, so yay money. Krakkles fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Feb 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
nielsm posted:It should also fit more pictures in the buffer then! Since it actually reads less data off the sensor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
If I have a D7000, what's the next step up for me? I remember thinking the D7100 added some features and took some away, and on balance, I didn't like it more than the D7000. I don't have such an opinion (yet, I'm still looking) about the D7200. (Edit: It looks like the big thing I didn't like about the 7100 is fixed in the 7200 - buffer size.) Is the D7200 worth it over the D7000? What's the next step from there? What should I consider? It looks like a D7200 runs $1200 from KEH, so a D800 isn't much of a stretch at $1600. I know the glass I have wouldn't work on (or, wouldn't take full advantage of) the D800, but is it worth stepping up to anyway? Krakkles fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:what do you want to do with a new camera that you can't do with the 7000 now? 404notfound posted:From a D7000, I'd say the next step is full frame (D610, D750, D810). But that's assuming you're actually starting to feel limited by your gear somehow. evil_bunnY posted:Think long and hard about whether you need anything better, and whether the upgrades are worth the literal weight on your shoulders. I'd say the things that I value that I think the 7200 (or something else) might do better are: shooting fast (either higher FPS or larger buffer, or both), shooting in low light (7000 is good, are others better?), and better autofocus (again, 7000 is good, are others better?). Resolution, I'm not unhappy with, but jumping to 24mp wouldn't probably make my pictures worse. I'm not set on going full frame, but if the 800 or another camera offers big advantages, I'm open to it. What is the difference between 610, 750, and 810? 610 looks practical, cost wise, so it'd be the most likely of those - is the 610 better than the 800? (800 is within the price range, 810 is probably not). Krakkles fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Update: I'm looking at online specs, and it looks like the 610 doesn't offer what I like (fast responsive shooting, specifically) - so I'm looking at the 800 or the 7200. For the most part, specs seems slightly on the side of the D800, but I'm not sure how much benefit I'd see without FX lenses - would I be able to use it in DX mode and get still get the benefits? (like, 36MP isn't possible through DX lenses, right?) Also, the 7200 is a brand new camera, whereas the 800 is about 3 years old at this point. Probably doesn't matter, but maybe the newer processors are better or something?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If you want FPS and a cool buffer stick to a high end DX body.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
TequilaJesus posted:Anyone here have personal experience upgrading from the D7000 to the D7200. I'm thinking of making the jump. I have a D7000 and have had for about 5 years, I bought my wife a D7200 recently. The 7200 is better in every way (clearer photos, faster focus, more focus points, adds a bunch of features like wifi, etc) and it shows. I plan to get one, or, timing allowing, get the updated version which is out, when my 7k dies. I can't find the specs right now, but I recall that the 7100 didn't appeal to me because the buffer held less frames (because it was the same buffer size with increased image size, but the 7200 didn't have that issue.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
So I bought a Nikon 50mm 1.4D, and I have a question. It seems to focus very soft, most of the time, but sometimes it's incredibly sharp (within the DoF). I've fine-tuned the focus on my body (D7000), and I've tried shooting at different apertures. The fine tuning helped some, the different apertures don't seem to. Is this a known thing? Is there anything I can do?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Excellent, thanks, everyone! I've been trying different focus modes in the hopes of finding something, so at this point I believe I've tried everything except 3D tracking, which I can't figure out how to activate. It does seem like some of this may simply be an issue of resolution on the body - if I take a shot from two feet away, you can make out hairs and pores. 6 feet and there's very little resolution. I'll try it out on my wife's 7200 to try to confirm that. Focus shift could be the issue, too. Sounds like I should just shoot at 1.4 always! 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:It isn't just you, I prefer my 35mm f/1.8 over my 50mm f/1.4 for most situations exactly because of the focus reason. Would the 1.4G be better? I bought the D recently and may be able to exchange it. It kind of sounds like this may affect that lens as well, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
What's the best FX comparison to the D500? Looking at specs, I'm either missing something (likely) or they've updated the DX high end more recently than the FX, and it has some features (AF, buffer, etc) that the FX line doesn't have, which ... doesn't seem super likely.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Doesn't the D500 use the same autofocus system as the D5? 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
powderific posted:Nothing in the FF line comes close on its strengths: af speed, buffer, framerate. I mean, other than the D5 obviously. The full frame bodies just get you the benefits of the bigger sensor. I use a D7000 right now, but want to upgrade. Going to FF would be terrific, but AF speed, buffer are definitely more important to me. I see lowlight sensitivity as a positive, so I think that's a tick in the direction of FF, but I don't know that it's enough. I have a fair amount of DX glass, so if I went FX, the plan would be to use it in crop mode with most of my lenses (I think I have one that's FX compatible), and upgrade glass if/when it becomes necessary or financially possible. Obviously I'm not spending $6-7k on a D5, so I can't solve the conundrum that way. I would prefer to spend about what the D500 costs, which would put me in the D750, but I could justify the D810 as well. I'd appreciate thoughts and advice
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:What do you take photos of? If you do any sports/wildlife, I have to imagine the D500 would be best for you. If it's more landscapes/studio work, then the D810. I would not see it as a necessity to upgrade to FX unless you can specifically think of why you want FX over DX. The D500 will already give you a huge boost to your low light capability compared to the D7000. I like landscapes and studio work but it's rare by far compared to parties, babies, and random low light snaps. Thanks - that helps. Krakkles fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You'll have enough poo poo to carry to want back if you go FX. I almost never carry my D800 anymore, kid's too fast, glass is too heavy, AF is not as good as a sports-oriented body. Thank you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
borkencode posted:I'm sending my camera in for service and have a dumb question: do I put the body cap on it when I send it in? It says no accessories, but not having it on there seems strange.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
So ... I think I have a dumb question. When I got my D7000, I recall noticing that images taken in M were grainier than images taken in Auto, regardless of ISO setting. Is there a reason that would happen? Was it applying noise reduction? Everything I can find says that it doesn't apply NR when shooting RAW, which I always do. More to the point: now that my D500 doesn't have the auto mode, how do I reduce graininess? Images shot at ISO 100 even seem grainier than I would expect.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
red19fire posted:IIRC the auto ISO could only be turned off in the menu on the d7k. So even in manual mode it would still push ISO if you were underexposed. They may still do that on the d500. The D500 does have a setting for it, I'll review and review the manual just in case. The images show the ISO that I thought I was shooting at in EXIF, at least - and same on the D7k. Thank you!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:NR settings apply to both, they're a post-process setting. In all honesty, totally possible. I don't have the D7k anymore, so I can't do the Auto vs Manual, but I can keep an eye on it from the D500.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
While we're at it, I'd like a better/faster flash for my D500. I've got an SB600 now, what should I move to? Recharging quickly is a huge plus to me, not making that god drat capacitor whine would be cool also.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
So wait, you are buying a full frame canon and want to put your Nikon lenses on it? Don't. As mentioned above, they're designed for APS-C (less than full frame sensors). And, no offense, but those lenses aren't anything special.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Given you like to do action shots of kids, I think you're in kind of a weird position in the market - kids move fast, so fast AF and fast shutter speed are the big things that will make it work well for you. In that vein - the D600 is going to give you better ISO performance, meaning you can (edit: raise) your shutter speed. (I'm not sure how much better - the D7200 will perform well at ISO 3200, and very usable at 6400, but the D600 should work at least at those levels, if not a bit higher.) On the flip side, the D7200 has a newer/better AF system, which will make a big difference as well. These exact thoughts (with a different budget) lead me to the D500, not that that helps. I think I'd probably go D7200, given those options. There have been big gains in AF systems over the years, as well as useful ISO ranges - I'd wager the D600 does a little better than the D7200 at high ISO, but not a whole lot. Krakkles fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Magog posted:I don't know if I'm just too picky or my camera is bad but I've heard several people talk about using the D7200 at like 3200 ISO and it being fairly good whereas I can't accept the results at like 400 ISO at most. Sure I have a high DPI display to view it on (full screen is half size) but it seems quite bad? The difference and the reason people talk about it - 3200 is still more than acceptable for a non-professional print, or Facebook, or Flickr, which let's be honest, is what most people are probably doing. It bothers me when I forget to flip the ISO down for a shot I could've and I get a 3200 ISO shot out of my D500 - and people talk about that being fine at 12800.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
I think there's a goon Flickr group called something like: "Sell your camera and kill yourself" Try that. A little more serious: I have an acquaintance who is a professional photographer - like, it's her business, she's been published in fairly major publications, she's taught classes on photography at the Apple Store in a big city. I've seen multiple Facebook posts from her over the last few years with a message approximating "Hey, feeling like doing a photo shoot, does anyone have a camera I can borrow?" If it were once, ok, maybe she just sold her cameras to make room for another. No. It's consistent over a few years. Krakkles fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Yeah, people straight up scam on Craigslist and the like. If you look over in Automotive Insanity, there are several posters proudly discussing how they'll lowball sellers from different fake accounts to make the initial lowball offer seem reasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Cross-posting from gear: I'm thinking about buying a Nikon 85mm 1.8G - is there anything else in the neighborhood I should be considering? I'd primarily use it for portraiture and maybe pseudo-macro? (It's supposed to focus at 2.62ft, at which I figure 85mm on DX would be pretty tight if not exactly macro.) Will I love it? Is there anything to worry about with it?
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:The reproduction ratio is 0.125x. Take a 1:1 macro lens and divide the size of the objects in the photos by 8. That will be the size of the objects in the photos done by the 85mm 1.8. I'd like to have an actual macro lens, so I might actually go for that. What other lenses should I look at also? Edit: looks like a 60mm 2.8D and a 105mm 2.8D are both pretty inexpensive. Which one should I get? Krakkles fucked around with this message at 23:17 on May 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 23:14
|
|