eric_arnold

<p>if i wanted a camera specifically for using legacy lenses in manual focus mode, i'd probably get a Sony NEX. Focus peaking clearly isn't Fuji's strength, however image quality and native lenses are. im not sure there's a better camera for $500 than the XE1, and not sure there's a better kit package than the XE1+18-55 for $700. yes, the lenses aren't cheap but they are impressive.</p>

<p>85/1.8G.</p>

<p>there are really only a few upgrade routes from Kitlensville: a constant aperture lens or one with a wider range. anything longer is probably going to be as slow. a prime lens is sort of a lateral move, because while you will see an IQ improvement, you're trading focal range for sharpness and a fast aperture.</p> <p>it may be overstating the case a smidgen to "expect miracles" from the tamron 17-50, but it's optically as good a lens as has been made for DX and does offer better subject isolation qualities than either the 18-55 or 35/1.8, especially at 50mm, where the bokeh is pretty decent. again, the question is whether 2.8 is a wide enough aperture for your low-light/indoor requirements. if you absolutely need 1.8, it's a simple decision, then.</p>

<p>i have the 35/1.8 and used to own the non-VC tamron 17-50. the tamron was the sharpest standard zoom i've owned, including the nikon 24-70 AF-S and sigma 17-50/2.8 OS. the tamron was tack sharp at 2.8 and the corners filled out nicely at f/9. really a super lens. it's unquestionably an upgrade from a kit lens in terms of optical performance and also build.</p> <p>i replaced the tamron with the sigma after it was stolen; however, i dont use the OS as much as i thought i would when i bought it. the sigma is also more susceptible to contra light as it has a larger front element and isnt as sharp in the corners wide open as the tamron.</p> <p>the 35 is nicely compact and pretty sharp from 1.8 on. it's not without flaws, though, including just so-so bokeh, which is a bit disappointing for a fast lens. it's the easy choice because of low cost, compact size, and good IQ, but obviously the tamron gives you more versatility in terms of focal lengths and is also ultra-compact, for a constant-2.8 zoom. it's a great little walkaround lens but also perfect for shooting events.</p> <p>between the tamron and the 35/1.8, it's hard to say which one will be more useful, since we don't know what camera you're using. i'd say it comes down to how much the aperture range of 1.8-2.8 is important to what you want to shoot. IQ wise, i'd rate the 35 and 17-50 as about even, with maybe a slight edge to the tamron at common apertures. you can't really lose either way. for $200, you can't get a better prime for DX than the 35/1.8, and for a little bit more, the tamron delivers pro lens performance in a kit lens size.</p>

<blockquote> <p>even when you select single point AF? What you describe should only happen with dynamic area, auto area or 3D-tracking.</p> </blockquote> <p>you are correct, sir. I had 3D tracking set.</p> <blockquote> <p>I would still use single point AF-C mode over AF-S for anything that moves - and that includes portraits of kids when shot with a fast lens wide open.</p> </blockquote> <p>fair enough. but i would not use AF-C for group portraits.</p>

<p>i jumped in on the XE1 and kit lens when the price dropped to $800 for both. there was a sale going, so i snapped up the 14, 27, 35, and 60 primes. i actually dont use the viewfinder that much since its small and i wear glasses, but its nice to have, and the XE1 is very reassuringly built for a small camera.</p> <p>IMO the 18-55 kit lens is worth it for the faster speed, IQ, build and effective stabilization but all the Fuji lenses i've tried are really great. i'm really digging the 14mm and the 35 especially. i plan to test the kit more extensively on an upcoming Mexico trip and have decided to leave my DSLR gear at home. my entire setup now fits in a Lowepro waistpack which is much lighter than my Kata backpack loaded with Nikon gear. also considering scooping up a second XE1 body so i can have the 14 mounted at all times.</p> <p>i've thought about an adaptor for my Nikon glass, but since stabilization isn't supported, it doesn't make sense to use that with the 70-300, which is the one lens i'd want to use with my Fuji setup, since i don't currently have a telephoto. i'll probably get the 55-200 or the upcoming 50-140/2.8 eventually, and maybe an XT1 as well. the XE1 is so compact, it works best with compact lenses--it's really small with the 27mm pancake, which makes a great street setup.</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>Same experience here as Dieter. AF-C and an AF-ON button is all what I need, for everything.<br /> <em>I am using a D90 body</em> and plan on buying a full frame at the end of the year</p> </blockquote> <p>Sorry, but that isn't great advice for someone currently using a d90, Dieter and Jose. to put myself in the OP's shoes, i just pulled out my d90 and set it to AF-C (i usually set it to AF-S). here's what i discovered: if you point it at a static subject, focus and then move the camera even slightly, the selected focus point jumps around wildly. the D90 only has one cross-type sensor, in the center, so it's much more possible to introduce focus error when using AF-C with that camera, as opposed to something with more advanced AF. i could also point out that the d90 has a combined AE-L/AF-L button which is smaller and isn't as optimally-placed as on prosumer/pro bodies like the d300 and D3s. in order to engage it, you have to move your thumb to an ergonomically-awkward position. Because of this, i never use that button with the d90, even when shooting fast action at events. (i do generally use the AF-On button with the D3s.) Note that the d600/d610 also share the same hybrid AE/AF button, in the same position as the d90, although the button extends out from the body more -- the d90's button is recessed, making it far less tactile.</p> <p>Here's something i found about the d90's AF, from <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D90/D90AUTOFOCUS.HTM">Imaging Resource</a>:</p> <p>"There's an important difference between Single and Continuous Servo modes: In Single Servo mode, the shutter won't release unless the lens is focused, or the lens itself is set to manual focus. (Focus Priority) In Continuous Servo mode however, the camera will fire regardless of the state of focus. (Release Priority) <em><strong>If you want to be sure that the camera is focused when you snap the picture, use Single Servo mode</strong></em>. <strong><em>Use Continuous Servo for moving subjects, and/or times when the instant of shutter release is more important to you than sharp focus.</em></strong>"</p> <p>That's pretty helpful IMO in understanding the difference between AF-S and AF-C on a D90. Since the OP is mainly concerned about sharpness in photos, it should be clear that using AF-S is the best way to ensure focus accuracy with static, i.e., sedentary, subjects. the focus confirmation beep helps too, as an aural aid when shooting.</p> <p>I mention this because it's important to practice good shooting habits, especially when you are still making your way up the photographic learning curve. For more advanced shooters, and/or those using more advanced bodies, AF-C and AF-On <em>might</em> produce better results in some situations. But as i mentioned before, focus doesnt actually "lock" in AF-C because the servos are active. i think there's sometimes a tendency in this forum to project "this is what i do, so therefore everyone should do it" as opposed to tailoring one's response to the OP's skill level (and equipment level). i mean, i've seen recommendations for $3000+ exotic lenses for people using entry-level cameras who just want a decent telephoto lens for walkaround use.</p>

<blockquote> <p>this only makes sense to me if you are talking about AF-S mode as I am not aware how to do a focus and recompose when in AF-C mode.</p> </blockquote> <p>my point is that focus and recompose works best in AF-S.</p> <blockquote> <p>Any subject (or photographer) movement and focus is off for the former; the latter adds the additional problem that the simple act of recomposing can already throw of focus.</p> </blockquote> <p>after four years with the D3s, i'm pretty familiar with both modes as well as the AF-On button. don't get me wrong, i use AF-C frequently. out of more than 500 shots, most taken with the 24-70, in AF-C mode, that i took this past Saturday, i had only three where focus was missed. that's more than 99% accuracy. but i wouldnt recommend using AF-C for posed group shots or portraits. the focus doesnt lock completely in AF-C because the servos are active. and for single shots, even with some subject movement, i generally will use AF-S. it's easier for me to hear the focus confirmation beep letting me know focus has locked on, then to watch for a green dot which appears and disappears every time the subject moves. i get a lot of keepers doing events using AF-S. i only use AF-C on things which move fast, or frequently. one of the best things about the 24-70 is that it does lock focus so fast, so AF-S mode is eminently usable, even with moving targets as long at they stay on the same focal plane, i.e. horizontal movement. with good panning technique you can easily lock focus with the first shot in a sequence and follow the sequence all the way through the action. if the movement is less predictable, then AF-C is better.</p>

<p>IMO the fuji XE1 is pretty close to a perfect mirrorless camera *, and the 18-55/2.8-4 OIS lens you get with it is a cut above basic kit lens blahdom. if you want something more pocketable and, er, less interchangeable, i'd go for a Sony RX100 or Canon G15 or G1X. besides great IQ and glass, the reason the Fuji kicks ass for candid/night/street shooting, though, is the high-ISO performance, which is about two stops BETTER than a d300. the smaller-sensor cams can't really match that. it's one of the best deals going at the current sale price.</p> <p>(*except it's sucky at AF-C. for everything else than demanding action shooting, it's great. but the Sony RX's and Canon G1's dont really have great AF either, so there's your tradeoff)</p>

<blockquote> <p>Personally, <strong>I use AF-C for portraits almost exclusively</strong> - DOF is thin and the person (especially a kid) is always moving. Fixing it to AF-S may result in missing focus ever so slightly due to that small amount of motion.</p> <p><strong>For groups shots, events, and portraits, AF-S is preferable to AF-C</strong>. AF-C is more for sports and fast moving subjects.</p> </blockquote> <p>ack, more contradictory advice. i tend to agree with Dan here. I generally use AF-S for single shots and AF-C for continuous shooting, i.e. a burst. in AF-C, your focal point changes with subject motion, but it doesn't give you a focus confirmation "beep", just a green dot in the viewfinder. So the focus doesn't lock quite as tightly. what this means is, if you use focus and recompose technique in AF-C, you could miss focus, as the focal plane may have shifted from what you thought it was. Unless you are shooting close-up with a fast lens and shallow depth of field, any motion of a portrait subject should be fairly slight, and easily correctable by using a) a fast enough shutter to freeze subject motion and b) enough DoF to give you latitude for error -- i.e. 5.6-f/8. also, 1/60 is generally the minimum shutter for people shots, it may not be fast enough for squirmy rugrats (except if using flash, which will freeze motion even at lower shutter speeds). this is where auto-ISO can help in manual mode--set shutter and aperture first, then let the camera dial in light sensitivity. of course, you will also have to meter correctly for the scene you are exposing for.</p>

<p>Robin, i think you were a little quick to take offense at a perceived slight to the 5D... on a Nikon forum. the fact is that Nikon never really properly updated the d700, which is one reason its held its value despite the introduction of higher-spec'ed models. meanwhile, Canon has updated the 5D twice, which caused the original 5D to depreciate in value. So there you go.</p>

<p>the 24-70 is a super lens. i think you just need more practice with it.</p> <blockquote> <p>if you are using a tripod turn off vibration reduction</p> </blockquote> <p>the 24-70 doesnt have VR. o_O</p> <blockquote> <p>Many of you have said I need to try to test with a tripod. First let me say, my style of photography will not allow me to do this on a regular basis but I will for sure try this today to test my lens.</p> </blockquote> <p>i generally shoot the 24-70 handheld, but taking test shots with a tripod when you first acquire a lens is a good idea, so you can eliminate camera shake when checking its performance.</p> <blockquote> <p>I tested the lens in automatic mode to see if the sharpness was better and it was not. Is this normal?</p> </blockquote> <p>personally, i never use auto mode, ever. you do need to control your shooting parameters (shutter speed, aperture, ISO) because the camera is just a tool. what you want to do is shoot the same scene, on a tripod, at a range of apertures beginning with 2.8, on down to f/11 or so. you'll also want to check focus accuracy at different focal lengths, say 24/35/50/70. does the lens accurately focus where you tell it to?</p> <blockquote> <p>Was I wrong by following that advice? Does it make that big of a difference?</p> </blockquote> <p>VR will not stop blur caused by subject motion, it only allows you to handhold at slower shutter speeds or reduce camera shake with long lenses. at the shutter speeds you'd typically shoot an action-oriented lens like the 24-70, it shouldn't matter. use 1/focal length as a guide and you should be okay for static subjects. for moving subjects 2/FL or more, depending on how fast they are moving.</p> <blockquote> <p>If I am taking these pictures in the woods and I have to turn my aperture to create a deep depth of field to ensure everyone is in focus, then how do I get enough light into the pictures.</p> </blockquote> <p>raise your ISO or use flash.</p> <blockquote> <p>does turning up the shutter speed create more noise in the picture?</p> </blockquote> <p>no. raising ISO will introduce more noise into the picture, but a d90 should be ok up to about 1600.</p> <blockquote> <p>I have also learned from your comments that auto ISO is not a good idea.</p> </blockquote> <p>actually, i use auto-ISO frequently, particularly in manual mode when i am setting shutter speed and aperture. but you dont want to use auto-ISO with flash as it may cause overexposure. these are all technical issues which are common for beginners. once you stop shooting in auto mode, suddenly, there's a lot to learn!</p> <blockquote> <p>Do most of you shoot in manual mode all the way? Does anyone shoot in aperture or shutter priority mode? What is the best way to learn these setting while shooting?</p> </blockquote> <p>for shooting people, manual mode works well because you need to control both aperture and shutter, generally. for more help, purchase a copy of "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. that's an excellent self-help book which explains the relationship between shutter, aperture, and ISO.</p> <p>oh, and congrats on your new lens, it's quite an impressive tool when used correctly.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>I am planning to get a TC17eii later for even longer range.</p> </blockquote> <p>at the price for this, i'd almost rather go with a dedicated, stabilized 70-300 if the plan is to use it on a 70-200. the tamron VC model is just $40 more. not the best lens for sports/events, and the zoom ring is stiff and awkward, but v. good optics and effective stabilization and more than sufficient for landscapes/nature/outdoor portraits in good light.</p>

<p>also, if i were the OP, i'd strongly consider the sigma 18-35/1.8, perhaps alongside the 11-16 tokina, on either the d7000 or d7100. not only does that 1.8 aperture effectively mitigate the FF DoF advantage, but the optics on the sigma are almost certainly better than your older primes as well as equivalent DX zooms. i'm not sure how much you use 17mm, or would use it if you had a FX DSLR (i find 17mm a bit limited as a focal length, personally, and tend to prefer a 20/21mm prime or an UWA zoom) , but the 18-35 covers the 24/35/50 focal ranges on DX impressively.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I think the 5D has more reliable metering and arguably better AF</p> <p>I found the 5D's AF module, which has only one cross-type AF point, ancient. It is more so now 9 years later. The D700 was introduced in 2008, based on the 2007 D3 technology and still has Nikon's top-of-the-line Multi-CAM 3500 AF module</p> </blockquote> <p>RJ, are you sure that's what you meant to say? as Shun noted, the 5D's AF clearly isn't on a par with the d700's, which is the same module as the d3/d3s, which are both sports/action cameras. the 5D's AF isn't as good as the d300, which has the same multicam 3500 module as the d700/d3/d3s and the d7100.</p> <blockquote> <p>FX will look better than equivalent DX and it will be noticeable printing above 8 x 10 or cropping in heavily.</p> </blockquote> <p>this isn't necessarily true. i have 12mp DX and FX bodies and i've printed at 16x20 and even 20x30 in both formats and the differences aren't as noticeable as the Internet would have you believe. often i can't tell the difference offhand of what i've shot with which camera without extreme pixel-peepage.</p> <p>i will say that FX has a different "look", but the fact is this: d700 is first-gen FX, while the d7000 is 4th-gen DX. without getting into all the technical mumbo-jumbo, the differences between the d600 and d7100 are also not going to be as apparent as say, the differences between the d200 and the d700, even at large printing sizes. 24mp DX gives you plenty of detail, especially at low ISO, and as much cropping latitude as 24mp FX. the biggest difference, besides the higher cost of equivalent FX lenses, at this point, is DoF and low-light. if you never go above ISO 1600, that's a wash, and the increased DoF of DX may be advantageous in many landscape photography situations, especially since high-MP bodies are more subject to diffraction.</p> <blockquote> <p>I guess the options are clear (splurge for the D700 or 600, or settle for the ultra-wide DX lens for now and save up for a bargain nikon full-frame body</p> </blockquote> <p>you really have to think about what advantage FF gives you in 2014. if your main reason is to use older lenses at their correct focal length, then you have to consider whether those lenses will be better than a modern lens for the same application. for the price of a new d600, you could get a tokina 11-16 <em>and</em> a sigma 8-16 (or nikon 10-24) or a d7100 <em>and</em> a tokina 11-16. the question comes down to, are two older primes from the film era going to give you better IQ than modern zooms? also, no guarantee those ancient primes will be stellar on a high-MP FX body.</p> <p>for general landscape use, i don't think there's much advantage to a 12mp FX camera over a 16 or 24 mp DX body, except in extreme low-light, or if you really need the shallowest DoF possible, which you generally don't for this application. it's also questionable whether a d600 would suit your actual needs--rather than perceived needs--better than a d7100. the d7100 even has the better AF module, which kind of adds insult to injury. if you're planning on printing excessively large or severe cropping, a d800 would be better than either a d600 or d7100.</p>

<p>for DX, the 70-200 VR I is the way to go. not just the optics and AF speed, but also the build.</p>

<p>if you're mainly doing sports and special events, a D3 is plenty of camera. the 12mp FX sensor might be a little dated, but speaking as a D3s owner, it's still quite good. an 800 wouldnt be my first choice for sports b/c of file size/buffer issues. the D3 has better AF than the d600, which would be a key consideration if it were me. besides the price of the D3, tho, you might want to check the actuations. a low-mileage D3 might be worth $2500, but how many of those are there left out there?</p>

<p>the RX100 II and RX100 III are both better at high-ISO than the RX100, which is already pretty good for a compact. in general, ISO performance is similar to crop sensor DSLRs about 5 years ago. 3200 is probably the upper limit but you should be able to get a usable 1600 even with the RX100 I. the RX100 III has a fast aperture throughout the range so you can keep the ISO lower. the slow aperture at the long end is one of the downsides of the original RX100 for nighttime street photography. if you plan on doing a lot of this shooting, the mk III would be the way to go. if you can forgo the zoom and are comfortable with the 35mm focal length, you might also want to consider the Fuji x100s, which is very clean at 6400 and has shallower DoF than the RX1000 can muster.</p>

<p>speaking of capturing moments, i've been shooting more flamenco, this time at an SF wine bar, Movida.</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>If I were you I might take a look at the Nikkor 16-85 G VR. I have I have used it for the same situations you are talking about and have been very happy with the results.</p> </blockquote> <p>this is a terrible recommendation for "low light conditions" as the aperture is very slow and no better than a kit lens. i'm guessing the OP has the tamron 18-270, which has a max aperture of 6.3 at the long end.</p> <blockquote> <p>There is an 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR for a list price around US$2700.</p> </blockquote> <p>also not a great recommendation for low light. for $2700 you get a one-stop improvement in max aperture on the long end over the current lens.</p> <blockquote> <p>80% of the photos being blurry and unusable?</p> </blockquote> <p>the blurs are caused by too low of a shutter speed. in these situations, you need to take control of the camera and tell it what you want it to do. you also have to find the sweet spot between aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. on the d90, you will have grainy shots above ISO 1600. using that as your theoretical limit, you need a shutter which allows you to freeze motion. the quicker the motion, the faster the shutter speed needed. for theater, you might be able to get away with 1/100 but 1/200 would be better. for sports, 1/200 is bare minimum; 1/500 is better. if you can't get clean shots at ISO 1600 and the shutter speeds i mentioned, you need a lens with a faster aperture.</p> <p>you could bite the bullet and get an 80-200/2.8 or a more expensive 70-200/2.8. that would give you more versatility than a prime. a 50/1.8 might work for hoops, but you may not be able to get close enough for theater. a new 80-200 is about $1000; used ones are a coupe hundred less. good luck. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Rick, by that pixel-count logic, Nikon only make 1 pro body, the D4S....Oh, and the retro-oddity the Df.<br> Forget the 600 and 800 series....too many pixels.</p> </blockquote> <p>right, except Df is not a 'pro' body; has too many consumer features (AF, buffer). pixel isnt the only logic, though. Nikon used to make one pro FX body and one prosumer FX body (D3/D700), along with one pro/prosumer Dx body D300). They added D3x which is a pro body, at least in size/body shape. I'm guessing not too many PJs bought D3x @ $8000; more like well-heeled amateurs and fashion/commercial photogs. which is the same market for the d800, which also isn't a 'pro' body. meanwhile, d7000/d7100 introduced; d300s never replaced/updated -- which would have been easy to do w/ d7000 sensor. d600/7100 are clearly prosumer models, though d7100 comes closest to pro DX out of anything in Nikon's current line.</p>

<p>thanks Alastair. i'm wondering if the sigma 35's reputed focus issues are specific to the D800. i used a D3s.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You also don't have to get quite as close in order to fill the frame. Eric, if you'd been using a 50 you might have taken a step back, and then your dancer wouldn't have a spider hanging from her right elbow!</p> </blockquote> <p>lol, that's not a spider, that's her hair! i dont know if you've ever shot flamenco, but the hair is often subject to as fast/unpredictable motion as the arms, head, and legs. you really do need to not crowd the frame as the movements can be sudden. also, stepping back would have been impossible as this was a seated show and i was at the front. light was low enough that i needed sub-2.8 just to get a decent shutter speed, so i didnt use the slower 24-70 zoom. so the 35/1.4 proved the perfect lens for this task. FWIW, i've shot a lot of live performance with a 50 too, and it's great when it works out, but there have been many times the hand or foot was outside the frame in an otherwise great shot. if you dont shoot things that move fast often, this may not matter as much, but for me it does. BTW the dancer liked the pic so much she used it for a flyer for a workshop she was teaching.</p>

<p>i had an 18-70 as the kit lens to my d80 and never really warmed to it. since that was the d70 kit lens, for a d7100 i would think something newer might be better-suited to high-MP sensors such as the d7100. the 18-140 is the sharpest-rated superzoom on DxO mark, so that might be worth a look, especially now the price has dropped a bit.</p>

<p>just want to illustrate the difference between a 35 and a 50 here. in the attached shot of a flamenco performer, i used vertical/portrait framing to get the dancer's hands and feet inside the frame. a 50mm would be cropped 30% tighter, so you'd likely lose one or both.</p><div></div>