Jump to content

2dhouse

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    70

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by 2dhouse

    24mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/1.4?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I know this is off topic, but I really appreciate your choice of lenses, and even your current dilemma, however I just had to say how much I dislike the 501.4G. I've done a lot of testing, and I've found that the new-ish sigma 50 1.4. The G is just so .... blah. Poor chromatic, sharpness, AF speed. Otherwise I have every other lens you use and simply love your selections :). <br>

    PS: I'd do the same RE: 35mm 1.4. <br>

    Cheers</p>

    Nikon Wednesday Pic 2010: #49

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 09, 2010; 10:34 a.m.<br>

    David Dvir, that is a nice fencing image. Was it captured with a camera and lens after they had fallen 23 feet? (See<a rel="nofollow" href="../casual-conversations-forum/00XogB">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00XogB</a>)<br /> I wonder what camera, lens, and lighting you used. Was there just one flash from behind the athlete?</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Haha, Shun. Yes in fact it was captured using a D3s and a 24-70 after our big drop. <br /> Nikon D3s<br /> Nikon 24-70 2.8 @34mm (focus 11 feet)<br /> ISO 100<br /> f/3.2<br /> S: 1/100 (although really doesn't matter)<br /> Profoto 8a air, 2 heads, key on the right behind our athelete, fill 2/3 of a stop less power, twice the distance in front of her and a little closer to the camera then she was.<br /> The lights were at pretty low power so I believe the flash duration is something like 1/10,000s :)<br /> Let me know if I forgot anything.</p>

    <blockquote></blockquote>

    So my camera bag fell 23' onto concrete :O

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <p>Shun, yeah that's actually one of a few reasons I never store my bodies mounted.. but I still appreciate the advice, had I not been aware I may not have checked and that could have been bad.</p>

    <p>Bruce, I'm not sure what you mean exactly, I've just got the whole studio under a very extensive insurance policy for everything inside the studio, and a lot of stuff that leaves when we do on location shoots.</p>

    <p>Ray, hehe you asked for it! It's really just high school math I believe..<br /> <strong> </strong></p>

    <p><strong>Formula</strong></p>

    <p>My bag weighs in at 40lbs = 18.2 kg.<br /> And F=ma where m=mass (18.2 kg) and a = acceleration (the Earth’s gravitational pull of 9.8m/s/s)<br /> Therefore F=178.36N <img src="http://2dphotography.ca/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" /><br /> What does that mean? well.. a 10 pound (4.5kg) sledge with that energy would accelerate at 40m/s/s! combined with the earths gravity, nearly 50m/s/s! that's about 180km/h or 112mph after 1 second! assuming that the swing of a sledge is a little less than a second, I estimated that it would be traveling around 120kp/h around the same speed a very strong male would be able to achieve<br /> Now V(f)^2=2a(d) where V is the final velocity of our bag, and d is the distance it covered (23′=7m)<br /> so v•v=2•9.8(7m)=137<br /> therefore V(f)=11.7m/s = a whopping 42km/h! so that's the final speed of the bag when it hit the ground.</p>

    <p>Also I would agree that a sledge would be a bit worse, but given that the bag seemed to land on one corner with all the hoods, I think it was a pretty concentrated blow..<br /> phew that was a good deal of math :P</p>

    So my camera bag fell 23' onto concrete :O

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <p>Thank you for the advice, I've actually already tested everything quite thoroughly! Bullet indeed dodged..<br>

    I actually did exactly that as well. Also checked all focus/zoom rings to make sure there wasn't any stiffness - no scratches, stiffness or unsharp images so I think I'm good to go :) just that horrible bent 85 1.4 hood, which for the record I can't bend even if I stand on it and I weigh 270lbs :P</p>

    So my camera bag fell 23' onto concrete :O

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <p>So my camera bag just fell off a roof, 23' straight onto concrete, there's a lot of gear in it and somehow only 3 lens hoods where damaged! I did the math and it's the same force as a sledge hammer swung by a massive dude right onto the bag - I think the camera gods were on my side today! <br /><br />Here are some pics and a more detailed explanation<br>

    <img src="http://2dphotography.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/blog2.jpg" alt="" width="648" height="429" /><br>

    <img src="http://2dphotography.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/blog11.jpg" alt="" width="648" height="429" /><br>

    More info:<br /><a id="link_1291776101168_0" href="http://2dphotography.ca/blog/2010/12/sheer-luck-good-packing-or-telekinesis-either-way-crisis-averted/">2D Photography Inc. | Sheer Luck, Good Packing or Telekinesis.. Either Way Crisis Averted!</a><br /><br />One lucky dude I am today..</p>

     

    Nikon d7000 and Lightroom 3

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Alternatively, if for some random reason you don't wish to update lightroom, you could always run a script that changes the camera tag in the meta data from D7000 to any other Nikon body say, D300 or something and the RAW files should read fine. It's really as simple as lightroom 3.2 has never heard of the D7000... silly but true.</p>

    Have you guys seen this?

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <p>Wow that's.... sad. He does take it extremely well. And certainly anyone with that kind of gear most likely has insurance. I've been quoted by my insurance company that I could send them a video of myself smashing my equipment and they'd cover the damages.. so he's probably OK. Still sad sad sad</p>

    Photographer Joust

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <p>Hello All,<br>

    Just thought I'd share this as you all may appreciate it more than others..</p>

    <p>We've got a little series of clips we put out every Friday, this last one is my favourite. Just a clip about how we do things over at the studio - idea is to have fun. <br>

    This is the latest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU5ujXHKTIg<br>

    and the series can be seen here in it's entirety (only 3):

    Hope you all enjoy! :)<br>

    David Dvir</p>

    Nikon D300 needs Micro/Macro Lense for Jewelry Shots: Suggestions?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Sooo this is a bit out there, but I find it to be amazing. And for something like rings or small flat objects which may give you problems with DOP, this could be the solution... 85mm tilt/shit lens + extension tubes will give you wonderful detail out of your shots. The tilt will give you a perfect plain of focus and give you a nice image to work with detail wise. This is what I do and it works out great! The downside is the cost of course.<br>

    David Dvir</p>

×
×
  • Create New...