eric_arnold

<blockquote> <p> if the D500 could produce decent NEF's between ISO 6400 and 9000</p> </blockquote> <p>that's a huge "IF"... realistically, i wouldnt expect an APS-C sensor to do too well past ISO 6400, especially with non-static subjects. where the D500 could conceivably be better than the D3s and D810 is in AF acquisition and focus accuracy in low-light, but it might be a little noisier at the upper ISO reaches. </p>

<p>For me the ideal would be an RX100 or similar camera as Marc mentions. Mainly for candid/snapshot opportunities, not as a true backup. The rationale is that a compact is easier to deploy than a DSLR.</p>

<p>The more appropriate term is probably 'subject isolation.' Bokeh does refer to the quality of out-of-focus areas, not just OOF areas. Subject isolation is when you shoot at an open aperture to separate the subject from the background with a shallow depth of field. It's pretty common for portraits, but for some reason, that's not what the OP wants to do. Therefore, he doesn't need a fast lens, he just needs to stop down the kit lens to f/8 or so. </p> <p>I wouldn't necessarily say bokeh is an entirely subjective term. What constitutes good bokeh is somewhat open to interpretation, but generally, it means OOF areas which are blurred in a smooth way which is pleasing to the eye, not harsh or jagged. Sometimes a lens with have smoother background bokeh than foreground bokeh, or vice versa.</p>

<p>SDM is essentially the same as USM. they both use ultrasonic vibrations. </p>

<blockquote> <p> can i not get more depth of field with this. Is it bokeh or nothing?<br> something like a 35mm 1.8 can give me the equivelant of the quality of an 85mm 1.8 but with background in focus?</p> </blockquote> <p>i'm not sure the OP is aware that aperture is a selective value. yes, a 85/1.8 or 35/1.8 can stop down to f/8 to get everything in focus. but an 18-55 can also stop down to f/8. at 55mm, the 18-55 will give a pleasing view for a head and shoulders portrait. so, start there. the reason people shoot portraits with shallow DOF is to make the subject 'pop.' if you dont want to do that, you don't have to, but i wouldnt go all crazy with new lenses etc. until you first have a better idea of what you're doing, photographically. </p>

<p>assuming you have an 18-55 kit lens that came with the camera, just shoot at 55mm in aperture-priority mode to stop down the aperture to the desired depth of field. you dont need another lens right away, you need to learn your camera first. </p>

<p>the one time i saw a Sony A7 in a photo pit, it was attached to the 90 macro. the photographer did complain about the slow focusing speed, which appeared to be much, much slower than the 24-70 AF-S i was using. </p>

<p>if it was me, i would use D3s and D500.</p>

<p>best practice would be upload to external location (SSD drive) + cloud storage. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Nikon seems reluctant to share more than basic mechanical compatibility with Zeiss, keep the best for themselves. Guess who's growing their market share and who's shrinking.</p> </blockquote> <p>The implication that Nikon's market share is shrinking <em>because</em> they're not sharing proprietary technology with Zeiss is frankly quite ridiculous and entirely unsupported by factual evidence. Overall CIPA numbers confirm that Sony's numbers are growing, as is mirrorless overall, while DSLRs overall are declining. Obviously, Canon's shrinking DSLR sales can't be due to Nikon's refusal to cooperate with Sony, can they? And DSLRs still outsell mirrorless 3:1. While there appears to be a tremendous desire to conflate things which are unconnected so as to lend Sony platitudes, perhaps we should try to stay within reason, and give Sony the credit it deserves, without going overboard on the hyperbole. Wishing to dominate the zoom market and actually dominating are two different things altogether, and to be fair, Sony is starting from a disadvantaged position in relation to Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron, in terms of actual sales. Before we can even speak of domination, the Sony GM line would first have to achieve parity.</p>

<p>if that's an older Tamron with aperture ring, you may have to set the aperture ring to f/22 to enable AF function on that body. </p>

<blockquote> <p>It is also noisier, slower and heavier than many focus-by-wire mechanisms.</p> </blockquote> <p>i don't know about slower; all my Nikon AF-S lenses focus way faster than my Fuji lenses, which i believe are focus-by-wire. The cheaper AF-S lenses use a micromotor, which is slower and noisier than higher-end AF-S lenses. And the pro-spec Fuji zooms use a twin linear motor.<br> <br> Also, the technology in higher-grade Nikon AF-S is what Nikon calls a "silent wave motor" which uses ultrasonic vibrations. this is essentially the same technology in Tamron's USD, Sigma's HSM, Pentax' SDM, Olympus' SWD, Canon's USM, and Sony's SSM. So, it's inaccurate to suggest that Sony has some sort of proprietary technology that no other manufacturer uses. In actuality, they all use this technology, which was pioneered by Canon, incidentally.</p>

<p>i will accept a "used" D5. just so we're clear.</p>

<p>depends on the repair cost, but i'd probably just get the 18-140. it's a better lens optically, and has VR. Consumer zooms like the 18-135 dont have the strongest build quality and often just have tape holding them together. so impact damage could prove to be a recurring issue even if you get it repaired. OTOH a refurb 18-140 is pretty inexpensive right now. </p>

<blockquote> <p> I believe the Baptis lens OLED may be available for DSLR too?</p> </blockquote> <p>where did you see this? according to Zeiss,<em> "The ZEISS Batis autofocus lenses were developed especially for mirrorless full-</em><em>frame system cameras by Sony." </em>In other words, Batis lenses aren't available for any other system, mirrorless or DSLR.<br> <br> Regarding durability of mirrorless lenses, i'd be careful not to put them all into one barrel. Even within systems, there are different levels of build quality -- some are plastic, some are metal or mostly-metal. The Fuji XF lenses have an all-metal build, for example. The recent Nikons use a lot of plastic, and are designated as "E" or electronic lenses. Any non-manual lens has the chance of not working in the future, DSLR or mirrorless. Also, some mirrorless lenses are focus-by-wire, and others have focusing motors built-in.<br> <br> Overall, durability probably isnt something i would be overly concerned about. if you use your gear in harsh environments, there are weather-sealed bodies and lenses across a variety of systems, including Fuji and Olympus. Under normal conditions, wear and tear shouldn't be a major issue. But as to whether any electronic instrument will last 10 years from now remains to be seen. </p>

<blockquote> <p>AFIK, that's not possible with a mirrorless or DSLR camera in video mode, although many video cameras allow for simultaneous stills</p> </blockquote> <p>actually, it is possible with some cameras, but it disables video recording. some 4k modes also allow for stills extraction after the fact. </p> <blockquote> <p>The camera would shoot up to 1000fps and it fires the flash with each frame. These things have heavy duty guard in front of the flash tube as they might explode.</p> </blockquote> <p>Ok, but that's hardly a solution for someone using a consumer DSLR, is it? i wouldnt suggest using the Hubble telescope for someone inquiring about basic astrophotography. The whole point of this thread is that on-camera flash is not a video light, and that flash in general really isn't suited for this purpose, either. </p>

<blockquote> <p> Zeiss also have the Milvus and Loxia and the 55mm FE and then there is the other Sony 50. Aren't they in danger of cutting their own throats with this overproduction?</p> </blockquote> <p>i dont think so. 50mm is a classic FL, and a high bar has been set by the Otus as well as the Sigma ART. Makes sense to me that Sony would want to produce something along those lines. The trend of big/bulky 50s with complex optical formulas is an interesting one, but then there are choices if you prefer something smaller. Personally, i prefer the 35mm FL, but other manufacturers have multiple 50s in their lines too, so this isn't an unprecedented move. It's worth noting that the Zeiss Milvus doesn't come in Sony-mount, and it and the Loxia are both manual-focus, so that right there is a reason for this lens to exist. the Loxia and the Sony 55 are also slower. No doubt, the new Sony is aiming for the high-end market, and specifically A7RII buyers. i'd expect amazing bokeh from an 11-bladed aperture, but $1500 for a 50mm is a high price to pay, and at that price point, you're either absolutely certain of what you want, or money is no object. I'm sure this lens will make A7-series buyers happy, or at least precipitate lustworthy drool, but here again we have Sony directing R&D resources toward its FE line, while the APS-C E-mount lenses continue to be neglected. Maybe that's Sony's way of saying they don't really want you to buy an A6300.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Not a good idea to buy professional photographers gifts of cameras</p> </blockquote> <p>depends on the camera. i will accept an 810, D5, Hasselblad X1D, or Leica SL without hesitation, especially if you throw in a new carbon fiber tripod.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Actually some flashes designed for high speed motion study can flash at very high rate. </p> </blockquote> <p>Actually, <a href="http://www.scantips.com/speed.html">this article </a>explains why an SB-800 is better an an AlienBees external strobe for capturing a falling milk drop. the sb-800 can fire at 1/128, for a duration of 1/41600 sec; the AlienBees strobe only goes to 1/32. But that wouldn't be sufficient for video, which needs continual illumination from light sources to be effective. Otherwise you would get uneven lighting. Most high speed flash photography is aimed at motion capture of a single object, like a bullet hitting an apple, and may use sound sensors as triggers. But even a specialized high speed flash isnt designed for perpetual motion capture, even if you were to use one on a D5100. Which is why videographers use video lights.</p>

<p>a flash can't recycle fast enough to be always-on while shooting videos, and even if it could, it would drain the battery pretty quickly. as others have suggested, a dedicated video light which fits into the hotshoe and has its own power supply is the way to go if you need illumination while video recording. </p>

<p>i doubt you'll find a used D5 on the market, as they just came out recently. you might have better luck with a D3 or D3s. those are still pretty expensive, however; a more budget-friendly pro DSLR would be a D700. alternately, you could look at a high-end DX body--the other cameras i mentioned are all full frame--such as the D7100 or D7200.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Obviously having 2 cards is better than 1, but is this simply a technical case of 1card filling up and pouring over to the other, or is it a case of 1 card having a different function than the other? Should the buyer go with 2 identical cards, or can they differ? Certainly video is most of the issue here, right?</p> </blockquote> Having 2 card slots is more "pro" in that for wedding shooters and the like, you can set one card to automatically backup your files. You can also set them to overflow. (this isn't so much of an issue nowadays with high-capacity SD cards, but a few years ago, the highest capacity was 4 gigs, so it was conceivable you might run out of memory space over the course of a day. Currently, you can get 128g SD cards, so the camera will run out of battery long before you deplete the available memory on on of those). it's also helpful to have two cards for photojournalism assignments where you have to upload images to the edit desk in the middle of an event. With two card slots, you can pop out one card and keep shooting. Of course, you could always just carry extra cards on you, but it's neat to have double card slots. Another use for that is if you want to separate images on different cards, for instance if you did a portrait shoot and want to upload them as a set, while keeping them separate from landscape or candid images. i'm not sure if this is true with the XT2, but in my Nikon D3s, i can set one card to RAW and one to JPEG, or enable one card for stills and one for video. You dont have to use the same type of SD cards in each slot, but for maximum performance with the XT2, you want UHS-II SD cards. if you use one fast card and one slow card and have them write at the same time, they may only write at the speed of the slower card. i think you need the UHS-II type of cards to do 4k video as well. And of course, 4k video will eat up available card space pretty quickly. All in all, 2 card slots is a good thing to have, even if you're not a pro.

<p>the short answer is no, that ancient Vivitar isnt a good choice for a modern DSLR system. As noted, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00T8LQ8VW/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687442&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00JPRWBBK&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=9VQCBH7P2S1VX77RMG1X">a d3300 kit with 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR lenses</a> is about $700; the same kit with 55-300 is a couple hundred dollars more. That's a pretty good deal, though you could maybe save some $$ by buying used. As for filters, if you are travelling anywhere that is dusty, like the serengeti, definitely pick up some UV filters to protect your front lens elements. NDs and polarizers are nice to have too.</p> <p>I understand the thinking behind getting a longer than 200mm lens for a safari trip, but i would still start out with the basic 2-lens kit for basic travel photography. In the actual safari wagon, you probably will want something longer than 200mm such as 200-500 or 80-400 or 150-600, but these are not only expensive, but add considerable bulk. i dont know that it makes complete sense to invest in a lens for one-time use, but then the flip side of that is, once you're in Africa, you may regret not doing so. good luck!</p>

<p>The bad news here is this older Tamron screw-drive lens <strong>will not AF</strong> on a Nikon body without a built-in focus motor, such as the D3200. Even if you set the aperture ring to the smallest aperture, there is no motor to engage auto focus. The good news is that you only paid $75; maybe you can get your money back. </p> <p>Perhaps the seller was unaware that screw-drive lenses wont work on many modern Nikons, but in any event, whenever i buy a lens off of CL, i test it to make sure it works before buying. In the future, if you want full AF capability, you either need an AF-S lens as Jerry says, or the 3rd party equivalent: Sigma's is HSM, Tamron's is USD. FWIW, that 70-300 isn't a very good lens anyway; besides soft optics, it needs a fast shutter speed to overcome camera shake. You would be much better off with a stabilized lens like the Nikon 70-300 VR or the Tamron 70-300 VC if you are planning on shooting handheld. </p>

<blockquote> <p> the real advantage of a grip is that you have portrait-oriented controls. Anyone who spends a lot of time shooting in a portrait orientation can appreciate the advantage of having repositioned controls. 1000 shots is good, but of course a DLSR will get that with just one battery. </p> </blockquote> <p>yes, i forgot to mention the XT2 grip does enable portrait-oriented shooting, with a separate shutter button, and AF joystick. This is certainly a benefit for vertical shooters. The grip also mitigates one of the weaknesses of mirrorless -- short battery life -- as well as enables longer 4k videos and increased frame rate. It can also be recharged with a DC adapter. Seemingly, Fuji has thought of everything here, although adding the grip does make the body more DSLR-like.<br> </p> <p>As for the "smaller is better ethos," Fuji has stated its newer primes are a response to customer feedback, and of course, they can be used with smaller Fuji bodies like the XT10 and XE2. That said, the XT2 w/grip is designed to balance with the bigger lenses in Fuji's arsenal, the 16-55, 50-140, 18-135, and 100-400, which ostensibly offer higher performance, but less-obvious weight (and cost) savings over their DSLR equivalents. All that adds up to versatility, as the XT2 can be configured for smallish/lightish, or for applications which require longer/heavier glass.<br> <br> Whether the $1600 price tag is worth it is another question. It's perhaps a no-brainer for devotees of Fuji who have already bought into the system, but also represents a 60% premium over the current price of the Sony A6300, which has somewhat similar specs, if not exactly the same features. The Sony doesn't have direct AF point selection, and an arguably-weaker lens lineup, without any native 2.8 zooms. And the Sony 16-50 kit lens is nowhere near as good as the Fuji 18-55, which means to get the best out of the Sony system, you'll have to spend hundreds more on a better lens, which makes the price differential a wash. <br> </p>