aaron_yeo

<p>Hey everyone,</p>

<p>So I'm shooting a music festival this weekend, and I just got an idea that I'm surprised I hadn't thought of before, and can't seem to find anything online about: Using a monopod for height, to get a wide-angle but eye-level shot of performers.</p>

<p>It may not look as cool as I imagine it to be, since I'm effectively lowering their godly stage presence to the grounc, but it might make for interesting perspectives.</p>

<p>My questions are; has anyone tried this before? And also, where's the etiquette lie? The shows will be on a stage in a park, so I have no idea whether or not they're adding a photo pit or not, but I do have accreditation, so if there is one I'm in it. I usually try and stay out of the way of front-row fans, which usually isn't hard as they're looking at like a 60 degree angle up, and I'm not tall enough to obstruct their view (I think!). I'm thinking of just setting my camera to shoot off 9 frames on a timer, hoist up the monopod for a second, let it snap, and bring it right back down.</p>

<p>Now <em>I </em>wouldn't mind if someone did that in front of me, but there might be someone who would (especially if I do it a few times). What's your advice on this?</p>

<p>Hey everyone,</p>

<p>I'm working on this project tomorrow for a building tour, and I kind of want to try using the new 24-120 f4 for video, on a D7000. The project is supposed to look very amateurish, which means lots of panning and zooming (think Battlestar Galactica space shots).</p>

<p>I was planning on using my 17-50 2.8, thanks to amazing vibration compensation, and a nice wide range, but I was also planning on maybe renting the 24-120 for a day. The 24-120 will give me much more reach than the 17-50, but not as wide, obviously—one concern of mine is the DoF/bokeh of 50 f2.8 versus 120 f4,. More focal length, but tighter aperture—anyone have any idea how much better/worse it'll be on the 24-120? And this actually also applies to the wide end; I want to get some wide-but-bokehlicious shots. Will the longer 24 still look good at f4, versus 17 at 2.8? I will focus as close as possible to cut my DoF, but what do I have to work with in each of these cases?<br>

Also, how does Tamron's VC compare to Nikon's (assumably) best VR?</p>

<p>I know I want to rent it just because it looks like a sweet lens and I want to try it for fun, but I'm wondering if it's really practical for the purposes of the video.</p>

<p>Anticipated questions:<br>

Will I need to go wider than 24 (on DX)? Possibly, but if need be I can pull out the 17-50 for those.<br>

Will I need the reach of 120? Probably not, but it would be nice.<br>

Can I deal with a stop less of light? Yes, it will be very bright, but see above for DoF at both tele and wide.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for the help!</p>

<p>Frank, your answer is great, except it isn't any help when you consider the fact that you can't mix and match (as McManamey pointed out correctly) in the same sequence.</p>

<p>Matt, for future projects in similar setups, which do you think is the smarter option? Upping the 720 or downing the 1080? What should the final output be? (in FCP)</p>

<p>So we're going to make a short behind-the-scenes-ish video on a fashion shoot on Friday, and I'll be using a D7000 for most of the shots, and a D90 as a second camera for those talking head things. (Yes, there will be talking heads, thus BTS-<em>ish</em>) Now since the D90 is a little outdated as far as HDSLRs have come, the only format they both offer is 720p24.</p>

<p>My question is, is it okay to upsample the D90's clips to 1080, so it can "match" the D7000's 1080p24, or should I just shoot everything at 720?</p>

<p>Via web distribution, social media embedding, and all that, the target audience will be young adults, many of whom are university students. So that means lots of laptop screens, which usually can't do much with 1080 footage (but YouTube will do the 720 for us), but it'd be nice for those of us who do have big screens.</p>

<p>I've looked into the Siggies, and apart from the 30 1.4 (which is too close to my 35 anyway) it seems like they have sub-par image quality and they are quite bulky compared to the Nikon primes.</p>

<p>I'm looking at the primes because they're nice and small but hopefully tack sharp.</p>

<p>For those who have asked if I "really need X," I don't, but as a journalist I often shoot in very extreme circumstances and if I have the option of X, I'd much rather use it. My beef with 17-50 is that the AF and VR is loud - louder than screwdriven primes, anyway. The 17-35 would fit the focal lengths but it's not a compact lens. I have nothing against big lenses, in fact I use 'em all the time, but what I'm looking for right now is a small light lens I won't hesitate to bring with me everywhere.</p>

<p>So out of the Nikkors, I see a lot of disappointment with the 28, not-so-great on the 20, so it looks like the 24. I shoot on a combination of CA-handling-cameras (D200/D7000), but if it's fixed in the D7000 then no problem.</p>

<p>I guess I should mention I like to shoot wide-open or as close to it as possible. Therefore I must feel confident in the sharpness at those apertures. With the 11-16, 35, and 50, any of them at 2.8 is amazing, and the primes are almost as good at f/2.</p>

<p>The variable aperture zooms are out of the question for me, though.</p>

<p>The Sigmas look interesting... but I've had lots of up and down experiences with Sigma but maybe these are different.</p>

<p>So I'm in the market for a wide prime. On DX, my current lineup is the 11-16, 35 1.8, and the 50 1.4D. Tele stuff is not a problem, and so I'm looking for something that'll fill the gap between the 16 and the 35. Oftentimes the 16's too short, and the 35 not wide enough.</p>

<p>I've always been playing with the fast midrange zooms; the 17-55, Tamron's 17-50, Sigma's 18-50, Tokina's 16-50, etc. The problems for me, however, is the 17-55 is awkward (big and the damn zoom ring is tiny and so close to the body), the Tamron has loud AF and VR, the Sigma has slow AF, and so far I haven't found a sharp Tokina.</p>

<p>So I look to the primes. However, I've always thought that if you can't get a faster-than-2.8 prime, why not get the convenience of a zoom? Marginal sharpness performance is the only benefit I see here....</p>

<p>But I'm looking at the 20, 24, and 28 2.8s from Nikon anyway. The 24 1.4 is out of my price range for now (and when I go FX I'll pickup a 17-35) so I'm not even going to bother with that. But the 2.8s are cheap, look well-built and have the classic AF-D construction. I'd like to hear your success/failure stories with them, as well as which you think I may be happier with. Are there any reliable 3rd-party primes in this range as well?</p>

<p>Yup, video. I'm suckered into it. Print media is dying, it's all about multimedia in my line of work, and being able to produce that at half the price of a D700 is a winner in my books. I'm coming from a D200, not a D300, so I've been lacking AF, ISO, MP, and FPS capabilities for a while now. It's a big upgrade. I picked mine up today (rather luckily) so I'm currently in possession of three bodies at the moment.</p>

<p>It looks like I'll be selling Body B. It does feel a lot nicer with the in-tact rubber and all, but unless I win the lottery I plan on using Body A to its grave. It's rugged but has... character. The lower shutter count of B does sound nicer to people, but I'll warn them about the noise.</p>

<p>Now comes the hard part - getting both cameras to produce as similar images as possible, and deciding which one goes long (80-200) and which one goes short (11-16). Derp.</p>

<p>I'm only looking to sell one - after going to two bodies, there's no going back to one. For me, at least.</p>

<p>Good points, Jen, I'll see if anyone local can help me out with the problem. D200s seem to go at about $450-650 CDN for what it's worth, and it's really just to help me offset the cost of a new camera.</p>

<p>As much as I'd love a D700 - I don't have the fast wide-to-mid glass to serve me with it, and video is one thing I *am* looking for. And the D7000 has surprised me time and time again; with no D400 in near sight I'm jumping on it.</p>

<p>I've got a pair of D200s, and it's time to sell one of them (for a D7000! Whoo!), but the problem is, which one?</p>

<p>I'll list off the differences between the two bodies (A and B):</p>

<p>Both Body A and Body B, while not in the BEST condition due to the way I treat 'em, are free of visible scratches/dings/etc.</p>

<p>Body A's shutter count is at 42000<br>

Body B's shutter count is at 13000</p>

<p>Body A has a bit of peeling rubber on the grips, which I superglued back but it's still not as smooth/clean as the other one.<br>

Body B, on occasion makes a strange squeaky/rattly sound after I release the shutter. It happened with DoF preview as well, but it's not the lens. Image quality did not suffer, but the sound is a little concerning in terms of mechanics.</p>

<p>So which one do you think I should sell?</p>

<p>Body A is a little more rugged and dirtier, but doesn't have this suspicious sound, of which I couldn't find any info via Google.<br>

Body B is cleaner and definitely less used, but this issue (that hasn't techincally been a problem) might prove to be dangerous down the road.</p>

<p>Any advice?</p>

<p>It'll be commercial, aboard an Embraer 190, a smaller plane similar to a Boeing 737 or Airbus A320 I believe.<br>

I've done the flight hundreds of times (no joke) and there is a very nice view. Crossing the rockies provides lots of interesting photos as I've done before, and if there is too much cloud cover, it'll be okay as I'm only aiming for a 30 second video in the end, and take-off -> clouds -> landing is actually kind of cool in that short amount of time.</p>

<p>But interesting point - I never really thought about the potential damage of constant vibration... Hm. A gorillapod might do well enough on the armrest or something. Don't have time to find and buy one, unfortunately.<br>

I'll have a return flight, which means I'll have a second chance, but the view, azimuth of the sun and seat are much better going...</p>

<p>I'll have my 50 1.4 with me, I don't think I'm bringing my 35. Both of them aren't as wide as I'd like on DX though, especially for cloudscapes and the like. I do have one of those old rubber hoods from a 1.8 series E, which I never use but it seems it might be harder to hold up since there's some give thus requiring more pressure... which would just cause it to collapse.<br>

You mean a 3rd battery, right? It's gripped. And I certainly hope I don't use up 2 batteries.</p>

<p>Hey everyone,</p>

<p>So tomorrow I'm taking off for a short trip to Vancouver from Edmonton, and am planning to do a timelapse video out my window. I've done all the math to figure out the intervals/framerate etc of the final product, (1 pic every 8 seconds, for up to two hours to get 30 seconds of 29.97fps 1080) but all I need to do now is figure out how to keep the camera steady.</p>

<p>I'll be using a D200 with grip (although shooting small fine JPGs shouldn't use more than one battery, I don't think) and a Tokina 11-16.</p>

<p>What do you think is the best method of doing this? I have taken a few 4-5 second exposures on moving trains by removing the hood and pressing the filter on my Tokina right up on the glass, which works with a bit of pressure for short amounts of time, but I doubt I'd be able to hold it up for a flight. Anyone ever done this before? Help and ideas would be appreciated.</p>

<p>So I was in a rush this morning, and popped some files for work on an SD card that was in my computer's built-in reader. Almost went out the door, remembered my computer at work doesn't have an SD reader, so grabbed a D80 to serve as an impromptu reader. I plugged it in here at work via USB, on a computer running XP, and lo and behold Windows tries to severely wizard me into auto-downloading photos from the camera. I saved the stuff in the root of the card, a directory above DCIM (and the 100ND80 or whatever the folder with the actual pictures is called).</p>

<p>When I look in My Computer, the D80 shows up, under the Scanners and Cameras wizard, and I'm given several options:<br>

Download the photos to my computer - no thank you.<br>

View the photos ("advanced users only") - this shows me the contents of the 100ND80 folder, not whatever's above it... and without filenames, nonetheless.<br>

Some other junk: "test camera," change the clock/settings, I don't get it.</p>

<p>I can't find a way to change the autoplay settings... This is extremely frustrating as I need these files ASAP... anyone have any ideas?</p>

<p>I've searched, and searched, and Googled, even Yahoo!ed, but there are some little points evading me right now.<br>

<br /> I'm looking at a decent deal and buying a used 50 1.4 AF-D from someone, and I don't have the balls to meet up with him if I'm going to pixel peep and ultimately not buy it (unless there's a major defect/problem). If it was from a store, I'd go and try it out, but unfortunately that's not a likely option.</p>

<p>So what I'd like to know, from all you 50mm 1.4 AF-D (not S/G) owners out there, is how well it performs, when it comes to immeasurable qualities such as how it handles coma, CA, flare, contrast, and any other issues you may have. Not just real-world application, but extremes. You know, shooting into the sun kind of stuff. Comparisons to the 1.8 are welcome, but my 1.8 is a little faulty.</p>

<p>Anyone care to share anecdotal experience?</p>

<p>Okay, so I've done a thorough search, and while I've found a lot of threads hinting at my question or even explicitly mentioning it but leaving it unresolved, so I figured I may as well ask it myself.<br>

<br />How does Nikon magically fix chromatic aberration?<br>

<br />Nikon Capture NX (and the D300, D90 and probably the D5000/3000 I figure) does a pretty damn good job of correcting it, and I have no idea how. Since it only works with .NEFs, I assume that it's only possible with RAW files but I fail to see what more information it could hold. As far as I'm aware, they only hold an increased exposure latitude and global color information that aids in white balance control, neither of which would help fixing CA, or any other lens flaws. So shouldn't CA repair be possible on JPEGs?<br>

<br />Working on JPEGs would mean some form of software guesswork and a tradeoff between effectiveness and false positives on the fringes, which is how Lightroom and Photoshop try (and quite weakly, at that) to fix it.<br>

<br />So does Nikon have some magic data in the .NEF? Or do they just have really efficient algorithms to identify the ugly lines?<br>

<br />Now, I don't want an in-depth explanation on the differences between chromatic aberration and purple fringing, how they both occur, or a comparison between film and digital and why that makes a difference. I don't know the technical details of it, nor do I care. All I know is that it's a result of the lens, and there's really no uncompromising fix at the shooting stage. So it has to be fixed in post. But how do they do it?</p>