peter_petrov1

<p>Taking pictures of small children is like taking pictures of wild animals - it requires fast camera, fast lens, and a good technique. D300 is a fast camera, so I'd try to cover the other two aspects.<br> Shooting outdoors during the day is easy, there is enough light for any lens to shoot at 1/250 or faster. Shooting in the evening in a well lit room is tough, so having f/2 (with 35/1.8) is much, much better than having f/4 or slower (with 18-140). That is, there is no use for a blurry shot at f/4 and 1/60, you need 1/125 as a minimum for moving objects, the faster the better. For me, there is no contest here - the fast lens is much better suited for the task.<br> As already mentioned several times, choosing a second hand f/2.8 zoom is also a good idea. Even though it would cover the same range as the standard 18-55 kit, it would allow taking much more useful pictures. Other good options to consider are the 35/2 D and 24/2.8 D primes from Nikon.<br> About the technique ... it takes practice. Smile at children to smile back at you. Try to remain unnoticed, or make the shooting a game. Try any option to provide more light (kids sometimes don't like flashes). And so on. Just don't take the task of shooting your children too seriously, and spend more time playing with them than shooting them ;-)</p>

<p>Wetlands on Nord sea:</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5563/14760722736_0c786d1d6c_b.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="465" /><br> D300, 28-105/3.5-4.5</p>

<p>There is a simple to remember rule for choosing lenses: cheap, fast, or good - pick any two.<br /><br />If you need a single low-weight versatile zoom, with built-in motor, and a bit longer than 50mm - here are some options:</p> <ul> <li>Cheap and fast: perhaps some old 17-70/2.8-4 or 18-70/3.5-4.5.</li> <li>Cheap and good: 24-85(AFS), 16-85, 18-105, 18-140, and so on.</li> <li>Fast and good: 24-70, 24-120. (Fast zooms are definitely not low-weight)</li> </ul> <p>HTH, YMMV, and so on.</p>

<p>If it has to be one versatile lens, then perhaps the new Nikon 24-120/4 is the best option. 24mm on DX body should be wide enough for group shots, and 120mm could be pretty good for head&shoulders shots.<br> While it is not mentioned which 17-50 you have, I suppose it is one of these with constant 2.8. If it is acceptable to use a second lens in addition to 17-50, there are dedicated telephoto DX zooms that could do the job. For example, there is 50-150/2.8 from Sigma, and I think there was 50-135 from Tokina. The new stabilized Sigma is a bit expensive; on the other hand, the previous non-OS version should be cheaper second hand, and the Tokina too (see <a href="https://www.keh.com/search/list?n=147&category[]=Zoom+Lenses%2C+Non-Mfg&mnt[]=73&fl[]=50-135mm&zf[]=Zoom&fl[]=50-150mm">KEH</a>). Finally, if 2.8 is not mandatory, there are several slower 55-200 and 70-300 lenses from Nikon and other manufacturers.</p>

<p>My son got a new toy, and I got a chance to test the macro mode of 28-105/3.5-4.5:<br> <img src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3855/14597201047_f10fc857ee_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="425" /></p>

<p>The summer is finally here, and the plums provided a good opportunity to test 58/1.4:<br> <img src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2914/14548293056_aa92946553_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="425" /></p>

<blockquote> <p>They never replaced the D300 and are now years overdue with the replacement to the D7100.</p> </blockquote> <p>There are 1 year and 4 months between now and the release of D7100 in February 2013. </p>

<p>As long as there is no risk for electric malfunction or overheating, it should be safe to keep shooting with SB-26 on D800. If it gives you enough light for your type of shooting there is no need to buy new flashlight.</p>

<p>There are two quite cheap options for macro photography:</p> <ul> <li>Reverse-mounting the lens. Looking at <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Reversing-Rings/ci/3065/N/4077634538">reverse rings</a>, prices range from $15 to $40.</li> <li>Mounting another lens in reverse position in front of your lens (face to face). The lenses are connected via simple coupler that usually costs few dollars. I think the rule is that the lens in front must be wider than the one attached to the camera, like in this example: [camera]=[50mm lens]=[28mm lens]. You could take a cheap wide angle lens.</li> </ul> <p>It is true that these options are not that convenient compared to dedicated macro lens. On the other hand they are much cheaper, and would allow you to buy something even more important, flash equipment for macro shots.</p>

<p>Lens is 105/2 DC, and camera is D300. There is an B+W UV filter on the lens (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11972-REG/B_W_65070147_72mm_Ultraviolet_UV_Filter.html">this one</a>). I've also used flash reflected off the ceiling most of the time. I took close to 200 photos - the stripe was only on a couple of them, and on each of these there was this bright gap between the curtains in the background, either in the left or the right part. There was no such defect on the rest of the photos.<br> So it can be flare/ghost caused by the filter? It is true it was not needed in the conference room, I keep it on the lens since I often shoot with it outdoors. I should remember to remove it in such situations in the future.<br> Thanks for the suggestions!</p>

<p>While shooting at a conference recently, I noticed a blue stripe appearing on some of the images (see the example). On all of these images, in the background there is a little space left between the curtains, and this space was much brighter than the rest of the frame. So I concluded this is the reason for the blue stripe, and for sure would know in the future to adjust the curtains ion advance, and also frame more carefully.</p> <p>My question is, how is this effect called? While I was thinking it could be <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare">lens flare</a>, I think I haven't seen examples where you only get a stripe.</p><div></div>

<p>If we are going to dream, here is one from me.<br /><br />Nikon could make a digital camera with the size and usefulness of FE. It cold have the following features:</p> <ul> <li>With a mirror, so that the user can compose through optical viewfinder. No power-hungry-slow-weird-color-expensive EVF, thank you very much.</li> <li>Without any screen on the back or top - they take space and drain a lot of power. I would review my images on the computer anyway.</li> <li>Without AF motor, to save space. Or with it, I don't mind as long as it is cheap.</li> <li>With small buffer, to reduce the price.</li> <li>With dials on top for speed, aperture, and ISO.</li> <li>With slow, low-power processor to save price and increase battery life.</li> <li>With the cheapest and slowest AF module, 11 AF points are more than enough.</li> <li>Without video, thank you for this.</li> <li>With spot metering, so the user can decide what the exposure should be.</li> <li>With the cheapest contemporary 10MP+ sensor.</li> <li>And so on - anything reducing weight, price, and power consumption.</li> </ul> <p><br />In other words, a model like those in the d3x00 series, with much bigger and better optical finder, and without the screen and some of the electronics. Don't care if it is DX or FX. DX would be definitely cheaper, so let's start with it. In other words, from the "good, fast, cheap - pick two" formula my dream camera would be good and cheap, not fast.<br /><br />I would gladly pay for such camera what cameras in the d3x00 or d5x00 series cost. I would use such camera for landscapes, preferably on tripod, with all F-mount lenses I have. Would I shoot action with such camera - certainly not, I would use another camera for action like I do now.<br /><br />Could Nikon build such camera - yes, sure. Would they do it - no, there would probably be very low demand and hardly any profits.<br /><br />Now, since this is a thread for mirrorless cameras, I actually like them when they are small, with small sensors, and with fixed lenses. P&S cameras and smartphones are mirrorless, and they are great for their intended purpose - and price. Now, asking for expensive FF mirrorless cameras and lenses is a bit too much.</p>