Jump to content

breogan_gomez

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    333

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by breogan_gomez

    Thoughts on the Nikon 1 series

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Adrian, how do you know the AF is outstanding? Nikon claims that is great but we do not know how good it is compared to the Multicam 3500 that have the D3, D700 and D300. </p>

    <p>I do not believe that the 1 series can be remotely as fast as the D3 series where the shutter lag is as low as 0.04 seconds. Sony NEX 7 (which costs more than 1K $) claims to have a shutter lag of 20ms which is a world apart from the one at D3 series.</p>

     

    Any good reasons why Nikon couldn't make a small, lightweight full frame DSLR?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>But there aren't many people taking these kinds of photos, so yeah, I can understand why Nikon isn't keen on catering to them. For those who are, sometimes a D7000 or even a D3 just won't do.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>I has nothing to do with being nice or keen, just market share, profit and potential sells.</p>

    <p>Nikon's smallest prime is much bigger than you average Leica or Olympus lens. Nikon is just a different system.</p>

    <p>Few years ago I read an interview of some pro photographer who went inside North Corea to make some pictures. He had to use a small, tourist-like, camera. He choose a Canon 5D with a prime ("its small and looks like a cheaper DSRL") and a G9 (or something of this series).</p>

    Tired of waiting for a D4 - D3s?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>Who knows? They may increase the pixels and lose a half-stop of sensitivity, and the D3s will be as hard to find used at a decent price as a used SB-800! Enjoy your new camera!</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Ralph, may be I wrong, but I think it is safe to say that Nikon won't be presenting a D4 if it isn't a substantial leap forward respect the previous model. One only has to look at the F3, F4, F5, D1, D2, D3 progression. Each one of them was a tremendous improvement over the previous.</p>

    <p>Also we have to think about the D3 average user which is a full time professional. Nobody is going to spend some thousands dollars to buy a D4 if the features are similar to the D3.</p>

    <p>Its my impression, again I could be wrong, that the D3s/D3x production cycle it is going to be longer than the D1 and D2 models. I see those as transitional models and D3 models more "finished". Sure they have some issues in video mode but they are hard to fault for still photography.</p>

    <p> </p>

    Any good reasons why Nikon couldn't make a small, lightweight full frame DSLR?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I would say that, when you look at the numbers, its difficult to see that happen.</p>

    <p>I was checking the FM2 and F3 specs and the former is 550grs. and the latter 750gr, and that's only mechanical body with no electronics. A D7000 weights the same as the F3 and that's the lightest you can get with a magnesium body. Granted, one could take out the focusing motor and reduce the battery, then you have to put a bigger mirror, pentaprism and sensor to go FX. More or less that camera would weight the same as a D7000.</p>

    <p>Main problem is that Nikon is not likely doing a camera for each ones preferences. Will do a model that can serve many different purposes at the same time. So you will likely have a focusing motor and a nice battery on a camera with magnesium body.</p>

    <p>Adding it all up one can see that this camera is already on the market and is a D700.</p>

    Tired of waiting for a D4 - D3s?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Shun, spreading rumours? You should ban yourself... ;P</p>

    <p>One question, if D3s was the latests FX body on the market, how comes that is becoming obsolete? If someone else brings more features then I would agree, until then the D3s is the state of the art.</p>

    <p> </p>

    Anticipating future bout of NAS

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>NAS is pretty easy to justify, isn't it?</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>It's not exactly that (although NAS has something to do with that). You should see my refrigerator, my car and my furniture. They are not the cheapest.</p>

    <p>Here we have a say: "If you are poor you should spend more money on something you want, because you can only spend it once". You know, "buy cheap and you'll buy twice".</p>

    <p>Honestly, i don't want to convince anyone. I am happy with my decision, that's all.</p>

    Anticipating future bout of NAS

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Well, that's what I've paid for the 17-55...</p>

    <p>Eric, I see your point. It's just that I've paid 800$ for a D40x new and after a few months I felt I've bought a piece of plastic. Then 400$ for a Tamron 17-50 and again I had the same feeling. Then I've bought a D200 (second hand) and I really saw the light, time latter I changed the Tamron for the nikon and I feel my money has been really well spent.</p>

    <p>Sure, the quality of my pictures has nothing to do with the gear I have. It's just that I love to spend my money on high quality things and get the feeling that they are going to last much longer.</p>

    <p>My father always bought few thing but of high quality. He had a F3 and a 50mm/1.2 when I was a kid and my first camera was a FM2 with a 50/1.8 AIS. I am used to sturdy metal things, I can't stand the cheaper made weak plastic ones.</p>

    <p>But, again, this is only my personal opinion.</p>

    Anticipating future bout of NAS

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Eric, I guess... I've paid the double for the 17-55 (second hand) than what I've paid for the 17-50 new.</p>

    <p>I my opinion, when I see the product as a whole (not only picture quality) I think I didn't pay that much. But I understand that many people only look for IQ. In my opinion that's not the only thing that matters.</p>

    Anticipating future bout of NAS

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Sorry Phil, I ws trying to make a extrapolation of the 28-70 from the 17-50.</p>

    <p>Both lenses are have a similar build quality. My 17-50 extended quite a bit when zooming and, in a year of use, developed a slight wobble that surely would gone worst with time. The lens felt plastic and weak from day one. The 17-55 is build like a brick.</p>

    <p>I can tell you that the AFS from the 17-55 is a plesure to use, I has nothing to do with the Tamrom autofocus motor (or the AF motor from body). Is fast, accurate and silent. The tamron AF motor was quite annoying.</p>

    <p>I haven't tried the 28-70 so I can't comment how the picture quality compares.</p>

     

    Anticipating future bout of NAS

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Me, if I would have to choose just on paper I would prefer to have a 17-55 than a Tamron 28-75.</p>

    <p>Myself I had a D200+Tamron 17-50 and I've sold the lens (plus some other manual lenses) to buy a Nikon 17-55. Both cameras are in perfect balance and the 17-55, compared to the Tamron is much much better built, has faster autofocus and nicer color rendition and sharpness.</p>

    Dynamic Area AF + AF-C mode in NIKON F5

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>That's the way it works with my D200 when I have tested it with my kids. ;P</p>

    <p>When I set the camera in AF-C the camera locks on one focusing point and, regardless the subject is static or moving at the time I half-press the shutter, then the camera corrects focus when the subject moves. If an obstacle gets in the way the camera keeps focus on the subject and doesn't shift to this new subject after a while. Is my impression that will work much better if two or more focussing points are on the subject. That means, the subject covers a substantial part of the frame. The way I think about it is that Nikon autofocus is desgned for things like car races, football players... etc. If a lamppost or another player gets in the way the camera will hold focus on your original subject.</p>

    <p>I think is important to see that this are subjects with more predictable trajectories than running kids or dogs.</p>

    <p>I suggest to do a search on this forum about "autofocus lock" or "AF-C lock", there are extremely useful posts here.</p>

    <p>Good luck!</p>

    New Twist on an Old Question.

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>But Mark, you said:</p>

     

    <blockquote>

    <p>Lex... appreciate you answering the question in the spirit in which it was intended! Your budget does not need to cover the flash!! I didn't list it but I do have the SB800!</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>That mean that you expect the answers to be realated with your current gear/situation.</p>

    <p>In my particular case, if I would had 2K, I would buy a Nikon 12-24/4 and keep the rest in the bank waiting for my next purchase. Being an amateur doesn't force me to buy all the stuff at the same time.</p>

     

    New Twist on an Old Question.

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>If you are not a pro on assignment but some (advanced) amateur with 2K I would buy the best possible glass that fills your interest. Choose your favourite: wide-angle, mid-range, short-telephoto, long-telephoto, macro or perspective correction.</p>

    prime lens vs zoom lens

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Depends on which zoom lens or prime.</p>

    <p>For example, on my D200 I do really prefer my 17-55 f/2.8 over the 24mm f/2.8 AI I used to have. The only advantage of the prime here is the portability since both have the same max aperture. However I have a 50mm f/1.8 AF and a 50mm f/1.2 AIS that are better than the 17-55, they are faster, lighter, smaller and, in the case of the 50mm f/1.2 in much much sharper.</p>

    <p>So, it really depends on which prime or zoom.</p>

    <p>Manual focus lens are cheap and some of them offer really nice optics. Of course, the more separated from the standard 50mm the more expensive. Some people swear by the 28/2, the 105/2.5 or the 35/1.4. Or regarding zoom the 75-150 f/3.5 E or the 80-200 f/4. All manual focus and relatively cheap.</p>

    <p>If you do not have any lens I'd suggest to start with a 50mm f/1.8 AIS. It is very cheap (second hand only), fast and has top optics. Oh, and is very small.</p>

    <p>If you plan to switch to digital any time soon you may want to expand you possibilities by looking to some AF or AFD lenses. You can not use type G lenses on your F3 (they do not have aperture ring)</p>

×
×
  • Create New...