greytata a.nogueira

Sorry Eric, your words were and I quote: " the sigma 15-30 is actually supposed to be a pretty good lens..."

 

Not a big deal though..;-)

<div></div>

Sigma do have in my opinion, two interesting proposals: the 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro and the 28-70 f/2.8 EX DG.

 

I have seen results on images captured with the 28-70 - I do not own any of the above - and IQ was very good.

 

Cheers

Sigma do have two interesting proposals: the 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro and the 28-70 f/2.8 EX DG.

 

Cheers

Eric, there is a great confusion ghere. There is no Sigma 10-30. The Sigma 15-30 was discontinued and the Sigma 10-20 is a DX lens. However, the Sigma 12-24 is a Fullframe lens and IQ of this one is superb, with very.little distortions.

 

JC Uknz, I do not agree with you. When shooting with a super wideangle, the main subject most of the times is the composition of the image itself.

 

Let's go clicking

I used for a long time a Groschupp ball head but now I use a Manfrotto tilt&pan head, the 808RC4 with my Manfrotto X55ProB tripod and although slower than a ballhead, is much more accurate.

 

I agree with both opinions of Alan and Daniel but I'll stick with a pna&tilt.

 

Cheers

The Sigma 10-20 is a great lens - I own one - but now the Tokina is cheaper, as the new model - Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 - is already on the shelves.

 

The Nikon 12-24 is too expensive although it has a slight edge in image quality over the the Sigma and the 12-24 Tokina.

 

Nowadays the best deal is the Tokina 12-24 f/4, althoug I prefer the overall image quality of the Sigma.

 

Cheers

Wide angle shooting is great. If you are shooting landscapes, the most important rule is to level the camera.

 

If you want great dramatic effects, when shooting a subject, the more closest you are to that subject the most dramatic you can be and the camera levelling is not that important. Depth of field is not that important if you shoot with a superwide angle

 

I shoot with a Sigma -10-20 on my D200 and I love it.

 

You can also get some important tips here: http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/m_Mastering_Wide-Angle/m_Mastering_Wide-Angle.html

 

Have a nice trip

I really think that the bottom line here is: to pay or not to pay for a good photo editor. And my answer is very clear: when we have such good programs for free, as Gimp, XNView, and some others, what's the point to pay for similar programs? Do they give more ? No they do not. The only big question is that as Photoshop became the "standard" ( why ? ) and most of existing plugins are designed to be 8BF's plugins and others "8's". However and for instance Gimp, do have very good plug-ins, very easy to install and in some cases do work with better results than Photoshop's plugins. The amount of Gimp plugins is more than enough to suit any photographer needs. And it also has a great RAW editor - UFRaw - that works flawlessly. I do not have nothing against Photoshop or Adobe and PS is a great program indeed but...

 

I teach photography in my home town and when I start new classes, I always tell my pupils: concentrate on how to capture with quality , do understand digital imaging and if you do that, you'll spend less time in front of your computer. And the only software we work with, is Gimp for developing and editing because it's powerfull and free, and XNView for browsing images and do some "lighter editing on the fly ", because it's handy and free as well. If they want later on to use another program, so be it, but not in my class. And it has a great advantage: you you are well used to work with the Gimp, migrating to another program is very easy.

 

Good captures to all.

The Gimp. Thatﾴs what I use. Woks great , as good as PS and...it's free. The GUI is a bit cluttered but it's a question

of getting used to it. For viewing and browsing my images on my machine, XNView is very handy and works well. It

can also help for editing and accepts 8BF plugins. And it's also free. Cheers.

You're right Frank. The SB 600 can be used only as a remote flash unit. Cheers.

Ok for the 14-24 - although is not ultrawide for my standards, when coupled in the D300. I would go for the brand new 11-16 Tokina 2.8. On the tele end, I would consider the Nikkor 70-300 VR instead of the 80-400mm. Image quality overall is better, the lens is smaller and lighter. Cheers

Well, you are well equiped. I have both the Lumiquest Pro Max and the Lightsphere and I get better results with the

Lightsphere, on my SB600 coupled with my D200. Cheers

Using my own saying: " A photographer must spend more time behind his camera than in front of the computer"

 

That said, the longer you'll care about your shooting, the less you care about post-processing. Cheers

Amanda, the SB 600 can also serve as commander for the Nikon CLS. In what recycling times are concerned, the SB600 is very quick, although it cannot accept the power pack. It also have the pull-out diffuser which you can leave a little upwards - not in front of the flash main strobe - enabling some bouncing light wich is very handy. The SB800 do have a dedicated white bouncer which whereas the SB600 do not, but you can buy some of those bouncer/diffusers at any store. I have both - the SB800 and SB600 - and the result is that I use the SB600 a lot more. I am quite unhappy for paying a lot more for the SB800, without real benefits.BTW, the SB900 is on it's way. Cheers

Vesselin, in practical terms, no doubt that the 18-200 is much more versatile than the 16-85, but if you are like myself, where image quality it's a must and a decision factor...well, go for the 16-85. There are no miracles on zooms which covers focal lengths from 18 to 200 mm.

Greg, it makes a lot of difference not because you shoot speedy objects but because sometimes available light can be less than desirable. And for portraiture, sometimes that happens a lot. Cheers

Greg, it makes a lot of difference not because you shoot speedy objects but because sometimes available light can be less than desirable. Cheers

Well, first things first. Bigger sensors do have bigger pixels, for the same amount of pixels on a sensor. So theorically, image quality would be better. On the other side, bigger, full frame sensors, do need "top notch" glasses in order to pull out the best of the sensor capabilities - especially resolution on the edges of the lenses - and here, lies the problem , because top notch lenses do cost more sometimes, than the full frame bodies itself. It depends for what you want the camera. I own a D200 and I exhibit my works on A3+ sizes with great results. Do I need a full-frame, probaly not but although I know that I will end buying a full frame body, I will buy it only when I am able to buy proper lenses to go with it. Cheers

It depends on the compromise you want. I do not own any of these lenses but for a travel lens, the 18-200 would be the natural choice for many.The downside however, would be theorically, image quality as the biggest the difference between the "edges" focal lengths, the harder is to built a good lens. But again, for travelling purposes, who cares ? Well I care. On www.slrgear.com, and www.photozone.de, the reviews are much more in favour of the 16-85 than on the 18-200. Read all about it. Cheers

As per Nikon literature: " D-type and G-type NIKKOR lenses relay subject-to-camera distance information to AF Nikon camera bodies. This then makes possible advances like 3D Matrix Metering and 3D Multi-Sensor Balanced Fill-Flash. " Hope this helps. Owning a D300, I would go for the D. Cheers

I think that you'll have plenty of good OOF's on both when wide open or at their biggest apertures ( small f/number ), being that I would go for the f/2.8. In the field , it makes a lot of difference. Believe me.

I guess you'll have no problems. 24 mm on a 20 D is equivalent to 38,4 mm which I think .- I think - it will give you no problems in what regards vignetting. Try and see....Cheers

As far as I understood, you sold the photo's use to the magazine but not to the band ( although they gave you full credit for the capture itself ). I think they should have contact you prior to put the photograph in "my space", as even given credit to the author, does not mean they have your authorization, which they did not. I do not know what you can do at this time, probably nothing. As they have taken not the photograph from a tear sheet of the magazine article, but the photo itself, you should ask the magazine how come the band had access to the original. But again, probably you cannot do much about it now. One idea: in future, put allways a watermark in your captures in a way that, if someone want to take it out by cropping it, will destroy the capture or at least the most important of it. That's what I did, after I was ripped once on the internet. I do not mind that my photographs are used by others, but allways with my consentment.

Well probably I am a lucky guy with my Sigma 10-20. I know some samples do had problems but I am really quite pleased with my sample. And when stopped down to F/8, it works nicely. Facts of life. ;-)