clayton_berg

http://www.photo.net/site-feedback-forum/00QfCZ

 

Not sure if you are aware but the way photos show up in the critique forum has changed. If I understand it correctly photos uploaded from the last 24 hours are display randomly. Everytime you refresh the page you get a different random 100 photos from the queue. It's to keep photos from being quickly pushed off the page.

Yes Brooks I'm sure that technology will eventually evolve to the point where a DX sensor can perform as well as the full frame D3 sensor. The question is whether or not nikon will decide if that is a priority or not. I'm sure that nikon could produce a killer medium format twin lens reflex camera but clearly that's not where their priorities lay.

 

Oh well. Whatever happens will happen and I will shoot what I've got and make due. Equipment isn't necessarily the deal breaker. I took home a second place ribbon at one of my towns biggest photography shows on a shot that was made with a D70 at 1600 iso shot with the 70-300 g lens.

"I have mentioned a few times that after using DX for several years, the very first time I put my 500mm/f4 on the D3, the lost of reach was extremely obvious and annoying."

 

I could not agree more Shun. I was out hiking today with the D200 and my 80-400 VR. It's remarkable how often I use that lens at 400mm. In order to get that kind of reach I'd have to be shooting a 600mm lens on the D700. With my D200 showing hot pixels and some kind of chromatic abnormality the more I think about it the more I'm realizing that the D700 may not be the answer. As wildlife photography becomes more and more a passion of mine I'm starting to believe that the lure of shooting clean iso 3200 may be interesting on paper but it doesn't mean much if I can't fill the viewfinder with whatever critter that I'm pointing my camera at.

Shun do you think that the D300 is the last of it's kind; a DX body with pro features and feel? Will nikon keep that feature set exclusive the FX bodies or will we continue to see them in the DX lineup?

I agree Richard. I am really looking forward to the high iso performance. Those of us who can't afford to shell out for an f2.8 400mm prime and shoot cheaper glass like the 80-400 can now get the similar shutter speeds enjoyed by the 'fast glass crowd' by just bumping up the iso without the noise penalty.

 

I hate being a wet blanket but am i the only one who is a little disappointed that nikon didn't announce some more glass today as well, or are we still expecting that later down the road? I sure would have loved to also see an announcement for a 80-400 VR AFS, a 300mm f/4 AFS VR and some of the fast primes offered with afs as well. That's one department with which nikon really does need to up their game as canon really does have them there.

Someone can feel free to correct me, but I think that the corners on the 70-200 only get blurry at the largest apatures at 200mm on full frame. Chances are your corners are going to be out of focus anyway when you are shooting f2.8 at 200mm so I'm not sure how much of a weakness that is. There is some falloff wide open at 200mm on fullframe as well but again how much of an issue is it at f2.8 at 200mm? As I understand it at f8/200mm the corners are tack sharp with no distortions. And as stated above on the DX sensor it's a mute point anyhow.

 

I shoot hockey with the 80-200 2.8D. At 1/320 I don't miss too many shots because I don't have VR. I do miss shots because it won't autofocus fast enough. Autofocus on the 70-200 is silent and instant. IMHO, for your application I would say that would be the reason to shell out the extra greenbacks. I do not know how fast the autofocus is on the 80-200 AFS is compared to the 70-200.

I own the 80-200 and I like it alot. The AF is fast enough for hockey (although barely) so I don't imagine you having any trouble with soccer. It doesn't have enough reach for shooting birds and wildlife, but then again neither will the 70-300. The great IQ with the 80-200 make it a no brainer when shooting landscapes and portraits as well. All in all a lens built like a tank that inspires confidence.

 

One thing however, I know you say you are getting a D200, but in case you don't know the 80-200 will not autofocus on the D40, D40x, and the D60.

Yeah, same here. I just uploaded something as well and got 7 anon ratings all from new users in the span of about a minute.

I think it all depends on your definition of art. Photography is not pure creation like most forms of art are. Photography is the art of observation, not creation (for the most part). All that being said, not all everyone is capable of observing as well as some are. If you've observed well and if you have the technical skill to be able to capture what you think you see then you might be an artist.

http://www.photo.net/photo/5699012&size=lg

 

You've already seen plenty of examples of what that lens can do at 300mm, but there's one more. Personally I just bump up the iso a bit to get my shutter speed faster. In good light this lens is resonably sharp, and the D70 produces very decent images at high iso. Personally I think this combo of lens and body is a good marriage of price and performence.

Donald, thanks for viewing some of my shots. But I'm not sure if you understand my motives behind uploading pictures for critique. My goal isn't to get better ratings than other posters, my goal is to learn. And there is nothing to learn from an anon 3/3 rating.

Bob Atkins: "My guess is that if people were forced to leave a meaningful comment (something other than "it sucks" or "wow"), you'd see about 10% of the rating you currently do. Many (if not most) images would receive no ratings (or comments).

 

Then there's the problem of making people leave a meaningful comment. Not quite sure how you do that. If you require a minimum of 100 words, you're not going to get any ratings or comments at all on the vast majority of images."

 

I understand that sir, but I think any comment at all would be an illuminating one. If someone just posts 'wow' or 'this sucks' you can automatically pretty much in your mind strike that 3/3 or 7/7 off. You know that the person probably doesn't really know why they either like or hate it. If someone leaves a comment then you can tell if they are rating it low because they hate the subject, are in a pissy mood, or if there are real problems with the photo.

 

Everything might be subjective, but at the same time different types of photography can be as different as night and day. Insect/macro photography doesn't exactly spin my wheels, but it wouldn't be fair for me to go into the insect forum anonyomously and leave 3/3's all over the place because they are 'pictures of bugs'. That wouldn't be fair or right, but at least if I was forced to leave a comment even anonyomously people would know where I'm coming from.

I wish they'd get rid of the anon ratings and make it manditory to leave a comment. It would just make all of the ratings that much more valid. I've recieved 3/3's that I've probably not earned. My last upload had a few of them, but some time last night or this morning all but one of them were removed. So obviously the admins are checking and trying to keep things fair and I applaud that.

 

But at the same time there are some 3/3's handed out by people with an axe to grind, and on the other end of the spectrum there are 7/7's handed out by people with an agenda as well. If people were forced to articulate why my shot is either so poor that it only deserves a 3/3 or why my shot is so outstanding as to rate a 7/7 it makes the rating that much more meaningful and makes it possible for me to learn from it. And if someone can't say why my shot is so great or so poor then it makes it easy for to dismiss that rating as well.

I like what Victor proposes. I think it would be great if a below average rating forced the user to leave a comment. The comment could even be anonymous. This way, if you get a low rating and the person can't provide a decent reason for it the photographer could at least disregard the rating. The 3/3 would still be there, but at least the photographer would have an idea of what that person was thinking and what that person's motivations were behind the rating.

 

I don't have a problem with the low ratings I've received. I'm here to learn, not to get my ego stroked. But I hear rumblings. I've heard rumblings that when the server was down and nobody could see the images that there were still 3/3 ratings being handed out. Hearing things like that makes you question the validity of the 3/3 ratings.

 

A 3/3 rating with a thoughtful intelligent critique is a blessing. A 3/3 anon rating is simply a mystery. Forcing someone to leave a comment, even an anonymous one would take the mystery out of it.