Jump to content

buri

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    154

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by buri

    Build-in Lens Hood on Nikon 14-24mm f2.8

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>One other thing, I shoot D700s, but instead of buying the 14-24mm f/2.8, I opted for the 16-35mm f/4.0. The two extra mms I would have had on the 14-24mm weren't that dear to me; and the VR on the 16-35mm makes up for the difference between f/2.8 and f/4.0.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Ok guys, since you brought this up, I will ask. I bought the 14-24mm because it is the sharpest wide-angle lens I have ever used (and don't even get me started on the amazing lack of distortion). I shoot strictly DX now (D300 and D200 backup), so I use the 14-24mm f2.8 AF-S, 50mm 1.8 AF-D, and 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S). It seems to me that with a DX sensor, this coverage is more than adequate to shoot almost anything. Eventually, I will add a 24-70mm 2.8, but I am hoping Nikon adds VR to this lens in the next rendition. When I switch to DX, I think my 14-24mm lens will see less use, but by then I will have the 24-70mm. I just don't see why I would want to switch to a 17-35mm f2.8 or 16-35mm f4....I don't think the wide-angle performance is equivalent to the 14-24mm (which to me is the whole point). Maybe I am hard headed, but I think I will stick with the 14-24mm.</p>

    <blockquote>

     

    </blockquote>

    Build-in Lens Hood on Nikon 14-24mm f2.8

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Good for you Ted! I am usually the same way, but in this case, I was on a business trip....so I couldn't bring a camera bag. Being a photo enthusiast, I can't stay for a week in Vermont without bringing out the camera. I am probably crazy, but I am still glad I brought it even with the damage. Plus...what is a few hundred dollars compared to a great shot. I could sell a couple of prints from this trip and the damage would cover itself. That is one of the joys of doing photography for the love of it and not full-time (all money I make is profit to me)!</p>

    Build-in Lens Hood on Nikon 14-24mm f2.8

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Ah, Ok. I thought that I might be crazy for a moment. I don't have the lens in front of me, so I wasn't sure. I wish it was metal as it probably wouldn't have chipped. I think with will very carefully file the chip to smooth it out, and if I sell the lens, I will get it repaired (or next time I service it).</p>

    <p>Needless to say, I will be overly cautious for a while! Thanks for all of the help guys! If anyone else has an experience with this damage and repair costs, just let me know. I will report back if I end up getting either a repair performed or a quote.</p>

    Build-in Lens Hood on Nikon 14-24mm f2.8

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Ah, Ok. I thought that I might be crazy for a moment. I don't have the lens in front of me, so I wasn't sure. I wish it was metal as it probably wouldn't have chipped. I think with will very carefully file the chip to smooth it out, and if I sell the lens, I will get it repaired (or next time I service it).</p>

    <p>Needless to say, I will be overly cautious for a while! Thanks for all of the help guys! If anyone else has an experience with this damage and repair costs, just let me know. I will report back if I end up getting either a repair performed or a quote.</p>

    Build-in Lens Hood on Nikon 14-24mm f2.8

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Well, the lens is a US lens and it is under warranty for 2 1/2 more years. Does the warranty make any difference in this case? If not, I will probably just hold onto the lens until it is time to sell. I really don't think it hit hard enough to damage anything else. The zoom ring is still smooth, the aperture still goes from 2.8 and 22, and the focus is still accurate. I did a spot check after the incident.</p>

    <p>I do count myself lucky, but it is frustrating to treat your equipment so well and then have one slip like this and damage a nice lens. Oh well....such is life.</p>

    Build-in Lens Hood on Nikon 14-24mm f2.8

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Hello all!</p>

    <p>I had an unfortunate event recently and partially dropped my D300 with my 14-24mm f2.8 lens attached (my favorite wide-angle lens by far)! I was hiking near a waterfall and had to decide if I wanted to break my neck of possibly damage the camera....it was a tough call, but I decided to keep my neck intact. ;)</p>

    <p>Anyway, it is a story. I ended up knocking two very small chips into the edge of the built-in lens hood. It looks to me like the lens hood could just be replaced. Has anyone had experience trying to get this repair done? I have not idea how much to expect in damage, but if it is a lot, I will want to wait to get it repaired. The good news is that I caught the camera before any damage was done to the camera body or the lens (the lens hood is only cosmetic damage). Nothing else was hurt.</p>

    <p>Thanks for the help! Let me know if you need any other details. I can provide shots of the damage if interested. You guys rock!</p><div>00We2T-250889584.thumb.JPG.375aa37a6fd286d020d8e68f4f6fac41.JPG</div>

    Basic question on LCD monitor calibration

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>You should always use a device-independent color space for editing (e.g., sRGB or Adobe RGB). If you make a separate image file for commercial printing (recommended), it's usually safe to convert that file to sRGB. If you print yourself, Photoshop (and any color-managed application) can interpret any color space accurately, then print it using a print profile. Print profiles are printer/paper/ink specific, and should not be used as a color space.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Ok, I DO NOT USE PRINTER PROFILES FOR MY COLOR SPACE. I use a batch to assign them to a new jpeg file before sending to the lab. It isn't rocket science.</p>

    Basic question on LCD monitor calibration

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <p>Bill,</p>

    <p>I have done this a number of times (by the way, great monitor choice), and I have found it is best to reset all monitor settings to factory default and then 'let the software do its thing.' It is really pretty easy.</p>

    <p>Also, I would recommend calibrating about once a month. It just seems that it stays more accurate that way. Slight changes can start to make a big difference.</p>

    <p>Let me know if you have any other calibration questions and enjoy your new experience with color accuracy....OH YEAH, also make sure to use the printer profile from the lab you use on your images. Otherwise, calibrating your monitor won't do you a lot of good with your printer results.</p>

    Wedding photography with 50mm lens.

    in Wedding & Event

    Posted

    <p>Phineas,</p>

    <p>Just wanted to let you know that my intention was not to insult your equipment. I shoot with 2 D80's. If I could, I would shoot with 2 D3's. I just can't afford it.</p>

    <p>To put it in perspective, I won't shoot a wedding with what I have. It is too important to most brides, and I don't want to ruin a lovely woman's most important day. That bride is on display, and if you can't do her justice, then don't shoot the wedding. Both you and her may regret it.</p>

    <p>That is just my opinion on wedding photography. I love shooting my wife and daughter to experiment and am slowly getting better. I would just hate to experiment during a wedding. If you do the wedding, then I wish you all the best. I just wanted to give you a fair warning before proceeding. It could save you some frustration and disappointment.</p>

    Wedding photography with 50mm lens.

    in Wedding & Event

    Posted

    <p>5x7 was more of an exaggeration than anything else. Of course, you can make a decent large print...but we are talking about a wedding (a one time event that the bride can't ever get reshot). The point was that if you take a newer digital camera and make a 16x20 or 20x30 print and an older 6mp camera with the same sized print, you can see a noticeable difference in quality. I know a lot of photographers that didn't switch to digital until the D200 and some until the D3. They chose to shoot with film because they liked the enlargements better.</p>

    <p>By the way, I was referring more to practical photography...in which you have to crop shots to get exactly what you want. It is very difficult to frame every shot just the way you want it in the moment. For example, when the bride and groom are at the alter...it is nice to be able to have some pixels to spare so you don't have to be in their face with your camera.</p>

    <p>Also, it isn't "suddenly according to Ryan." A lot of pro photographers that are light years ahead of me have shared their opinions. I didn't just "all of a sudden" come up with my opinion. In fact, I know pros that didn't even switch to digital until the D3 (for full-frame).</p>

    Wedding photography with 50mm lens.

    in Wedding & Event

    Posted

    <p>One more thing to add...if you aren't a professional, I would be hesitant to shoot a wedding with a manual focus lens. If you don't know exactly what you are doing, you can lose a LOT of shots. Just wait until you have to deal with a bride that is upset with her wedding shots (hope you never have to)!</p>

    Wedding photography with 50mm lens.

    in Wedding & Event

    Posted

    <p>I second the multiple bodies comment as well as the 6mp limitation of the Fuji camera. I would suggest a couple of things:</p>

    <p>1) If you still have the Nikon and 50mm lense, USE IT! You can still use the Fuji camera on the side, but the Nikon will produce better results (newer technology, better focus, more MP, etc).</p>

    <p>2) Ask the people paying for the photos how large they would like to be able to print. A 6mp camera just will not print as well as the Nikon. 6 mp isn't bad, but it does not look as good as when it is printed really large. If they just want 5x7's then it should work fine.</p>

    Nikon 80-200 ED vs. Tamron 70-200

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Unless you have shot with an Nikon 80-200mm AF-S, you don't know how fast it focuses. I have owned three versions of the 80-200mm Lens (the push-pull like Kenneth, the 2 ring D lens like Alexander, and now the AF-S version). The AF-S is both sharper and faster-focusing. Yes, it is heavier, but I couldn't justify selling it because the quality was amazing. Granted...I may have just gotten a really good example of the lens as I bought it from an accomplished sports photographers, but my model is oustanding.</p>

    <p>Put it this way, I bought the AF-S version for $770 and could sell it for around $1100. I also bought a 80-200mm 2-Ring model for $550 and sold it for $825. I had both at the same time and could have kept the $550 2-Ring model and made money off of the AF-S plus saved the difference between the AF-S and 2-Ring model. The AF-S is so good, that I chose to keep it even though it cost me a lot more.</p>

    Best cheap high ISO dSLR?

    in Mirrorless Digital Cameras

    Posted

    <p>Guys, he has Nikon glass....stop recommending Canon cameras for Nikon lenses. That is just crazy.</p>

    <p>Again, don't use a Canon with Nikon Glass...please ;) I have nothing against canon, but you invest in the lenses and buy a matching body. You don't buy a body and make your lenses work with it somehow.</p>

×
×
  • Create New...