ariel_s1
-
Posts
945 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by ariel_s1
-
-
<p>For $400, you can get far superior cameras for your needs. Since you are willing to consider an 8 year old used camera, then I assume that a relatively new, Nikon-refurbished camera doesn't scare you. This D5100 has light years better image quality for landscape, and Cameta is currently selling it refurbished with a remote:<br>
Plus, it has the D200's AF module, which while not as good as the D2H's, is respectable enough for action. Digital camera bodies, being tied to the semiconductor industry, become obsolete about as fast as laptops do these days. You need to have a compelling reason to step down to something so many generations old. Plus, the lack of warranty and the age of the D2h means that if anything does go wrong in the near future, you're out the whole purchase price of the camera, as it's not worth having Nikon spend $300 to factory refurbish it.</p>
-
<p>So, you have multiple camera bodies, but are trying to limit the number of lenses that you own? I'd say that you have it backwards. Pick up both an 18-105mm, and then for the F100 something like the 28-105mm or even the older 28-85mm.</p>
-
<p>Any Olympus, Panasonic, or third party flash made for 4/3 or micro 4/3 cameras will work. I'd recommend skipping the 36/360 series flashes from Olympus and Panasonic, as the boneheaded decision to use only 2 AA batteries makes for an absurdly slow recharge time. If you get the Olympus flash that ends in R, such as the FL-50R, then it will be able to be used as a wireless flash, as your E-620 supports wireless flash.</p>
-
-
<p>Carl, RAW is used as a file type, not an acronym, and that's why it's capitalized. It's all-encompassing, so that people don't have to individually state and inherently be aware of each manufacturer's specific raw formats, such as NEF, CR2, RW2, etc. If Gary had started this conversation talking about RAF files, I would have had to turn to googling to find out what he was talking about. File types such as BMP and DOC are capitalized as well, even though neither of those are acronyms.<br>
So, I guess my pet peeve is people having unfounded pet peeves :p</p>
-
<p>You are correct; the film simulation and other in-camera settings apply to the JPEG, as the RAW is an unprocessed image. I don't have an X-E1, but that is the definition of RAW, that no settings such as color space, saturation, white balance, color shift, etc have been chosen yet. You can recreate Fuji's choices on your computer, with Lightroom, by adjusting the various settings in the "Develop" pane, or you can just search for various user-created Lightroom presets that have attempted to do the same. You can do a quick google search of some creative search terms, such as "Lightroom velvia," "Lightroom velvia preset," "mimic Velvia Lightroom," etc. Here are some links I found through my own searching which should be helpful:<br>
http://x-equals.com/blog/smooth-as-velvia/<br>
-
<p>The magic of the D80, when it was released, was that it was basically the D50 body with a D200 viewfinder tacked on top of it. The D90 and D7000 continue this tradition, so the viewfinder on the D7000 is about as good as what you had on the D300. It has an ISO button. The D5100's viewfinder is as good, if not better, than the "noble" D70's. If you don't like scene modes, don't use them. For a long time, many photographers used the same argument you do for scene modes against video. You aren't being forced to use any feature you don't want on a camera.</p>
<p>With qual and WB buttons, do you not shoot in RAW? If not, then I suggest doing so, and those buttons become obsolete. Which is why I think it's funny that full-frame guys tout that "advanced" feature as a selling point especially: if you're shooting full frame and using JPEG, you're throwing away quite a bit of the advantage of full frame. JPEG is 8-bit compressed, and when you shoot in it you're forced to choose a color space when the photo is taken, what a waste! Lightroom is a program that will pay itself back in time saved uploading and organizing alone, even though most consider that a secondary feature of the program, as it's one of the better RAW converters and batch editors on the market today. As for the ISO button, re-map one of the function buttons to it, and problem solved, unless you have it mapped to something more pressing.</p>
<p>As for the 50mm f/1.8G, its optics are enough improved over the older f/1.8D version that even if it didn't autofocus on your "lesser" camera, it would be worth upgrading to it. However, it does autofocus, which makes it a no-brainer, especially since you mention shooting wide open, and the bokeh alone of the new version versus the old is a stark difference. Again, looking at the full frame guys talking about how they could never live without a built-in autofocus motor, but if you look at Nikon's lineup today, most all of the worthwhile lenses are AF-S anyway, making the built-in motor redundant. As for using larger lenses, before I sold my 300mm f/4 due to lack of use, it was mounted on a D80, D200, D90, and D3100. All without issue. If you really want to increase your ability to frame with it anyway on a DX camera, which provides such a narrow angle of view, buy yourself a $40 tripod, especially since the Nikon f/4 version doesn't have VR. The advice of an old college professor pop into mind: "Blessed are the flexible, for they shall never be bent out of shape." Don't worry so much about what things are "supposed" to be. I, like you, thought that I "needed" a worthwhile upgrade to the D300, to give me something to upgrade to my D200 from. A friend handed me his D3100 on permanent loan, that a lab bought him for a project and scrapped. Yes, it has fewer controls, but I enjoy throwing my 18-70mm or 35mm lens on it every once in a while and taking it out. I understand the shortcomings that it has, and just work around them.</p>
-
<p>I feel like this photographer's experiences mirror my own:<br>
I use a Panasonic G2, and while sensor performance has increased since my camera, resolution is not enough different to warrant a re-test with a new camera, and the enlargement size from the sensor is never going to change. So yeah it's possible, but your keeper rate will likely go down. Excuse link, but seeing as these things have already been expounded on rather competently, I don't feel the need to reinvent the wheel. As they say, there's nothing new under the sun!</p>
-
<p>Jesus, instead of spending $2,000 on a D600 to get wider angle with your 50mm f/1.8, why not just spend under $200 to buy the 35mm f/1.8 for your D7000? Problem solved. Your solution to me of buying a camera just to match one of Nikon's cheaper lenses (if it's the f/1.8D, it's literally the cheapest lens that they produce) is like buying a transatlantic flight for the free peanuts; you're going about it all wrong. If you find yourself using the 50mm f/1.4 wide open or at f/2 on the D600, then that would be the time when you're finally seeing an advantage from DX to FX.</p>
<p>Your argument that you "aren't too concerned with the field of view" of a 35mm on DX completely contradicts your earlier posts. In fact, it looks to me like your grasping at straws, decided that you needed and FX camera, are trying to justify it to yourself, and were hoping that we'd agree with it. Especially, as you mention, that the D7000 images look better to you. Read this article, it's very enlightening:<br>
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/11/i-feel-vindicat.html<br>
Put your 35mm lens on your D7000, and you will find it equivalent to using the 50mm lens on the D600. The result in being able to use the extra space will be nigh-identical.</p>
<p>As for the color cast, as mentioned there are a few things. First of all, it could be that you are reviewing the photos on your LCD, which isn't a good idea. Second, don't be afraid to tweak white balance if needed. And third, as Shun mentions, and this is what I do, just shoot in RAW and use your favorite image editor to correctly set white balance and color space later. I light Adobe Lightroom 4, since it allows batch editing, so if I set the white balance on the first photo in a studio, as long as lighting doesn't change, I can just apply that setting immediately to all the photos in the session. If an individual photo needs a little tweaking, then adjusting the yellow/blue or green/magenta slider or using the dropper to readjust is trivial.</p>
-
<p>As ME said, most of these compact digicams are not built by whichever name is stuck on the front of the camera. So most Nikons and Canons that you see at your local Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy are not actually made by them; they just have the say on what features to include and what design to make the camera. My current Pentax point and shoot, as with pretty much every Pentax point and shoot that I'm aware of, is actually a Sanyo camera in a Pentax shell. So, it seems that whoever makes the XZ-2 didn't give Olympus exclusive rights to the camera. Heck, maybe it's even Olympus themselves that are contracting the camera to Pentax!</p>
<p>Overall, it's nice to see Pentax releasing a good camera. My current pocket camera is an Optio I-10, which doesn't have very respectable image quality.</p>
-
<p>Everyone has their own reasons. Perhaps it was an impulse buy, and the return period has passed. Maybe they need the money, which is why some of my gear that I otherwise would enjoy keeping is on the chopping block. They might have thought they wanted a small camera setup, but enjoy using one of their other systems, which is why I still have my Nikon DSLR system and haven't completely gone to micro 4/3. They might just want the X-E1, which theoretically would be a free upgrade if they get their asking price for their current body. Maybe they, like you, read reviews, but as John says, after experiencing the grass on the other side, realize that it wasn't any greener (the most important part of the camera is still the 9 inches behind the viewfinder, and if you're making poor composition or technical decisions, your photos won't be any better).</p>
<p>It's true with every camera. If I go check my local classifieds, or even ebay or my favorite online used camera site right now, I see cameras that were released after that Fuji, such as the Nikon D600 and D800 and the Canon 5D Mk III, with listings for sale as well. Those are also all great cameras that anyone would be lucky to own, so I wouldn't read too much into some people's choices to divest themselves of their gear. Do what works for you, and others be damned. If the X-Pro 1 has features that are worthwhile to you over the newer, cheaper X-E1, by all means go for it.</p>
-
<p>I don't think it's fair to call using a zoom lazy, as if it's more noble to be using a prime lens for a shot. You use what you need to get photos, and if the immediate change in focal length is needed to provide a tighter or wider crop for a given perspective, then there's no need to judge someone for it, especially as with today's CAD/computer modeling that allows a $7,000 computer with a $6,000 program to rival a million dollar lens design facility of 20 years ago, we are seeing zooms that in many cases are providing either competitive or superior performance to prime lenses. I enjoy using all of my primes, but there are times when it is beneficial for me to throw on a zoom lens. If you find yourself not using, not enjoying, or not appreciating the output of the 24-70mm, then by all means sell it. I've seen people's lens collections that are much more eccentric than not having a midrange lens. If you do rarely need a zoom, which you don't really seem to, perhaps pick up one of the relatively cheap but good 24-85mm VR lenses that has just flooded the market due to its package deal with the D600. Otherwise, there is no "right" answer with lenses. If for someone owning the set of 24mm/35mm/50mm/85mm higher-grade primes works best for them, then so be it. </p>
<p>Also, it would be interesting to hear why using the 24-70mm feels lazy, but using the 70-200mm doesn't.</p>
-
<p>Why not the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G? At 321g for the CV 90mm vs 351g for the Nikon G lens, you're looking at a 10% difference in weight, to retain full autofocus, EXIF, contemporary design (which helps with flare and other optical defects), etc. Also, it is a full two stops larger aperture, so it can double as a portrait lens if you'd like. If you want a little longer, I'm not sure how it handles flaring being such an old lens, but the 105mm f/4 micro-Nikkor is nice and light.</p>
-
<p>The Sony NEX cameras, as I just mentioned in another thread, are better choices than micro 4/3 for a few reasons. Consider the NEX-6 if you want a viewfinder built in. With the NEX cameras:<br>
-Your crop factor is 1.5 on Sony NEX, instead of 2 as it is with the micro 4/3 Panasonic and Olympus cameras. I use a Panasonic G2, but don't find much use for most of my lenses because of that. The lenses that I do find useful for adapting are my 50mm f/1.4 as it becomes a solid portrait lens (although Olympus has the very good 45mm f/1.8 for less than $400 now), my macro lenses, and a 135mm or a 200mm which become rather compact very telephoto lenses. Otherwise, with Sony NEX cameras, your other lenses are still useful. Plus, if you have the Konica 57mm f/1.4 then it becomes an almost perfect portrait lens, and an 85mm becomes a nice long portrait lens. 4/3 and micro 4/3 have the same crop factor of 2, by the way, but the older 4/3 cameras are harder to adapt lenses to, since they are still DSLRs instead of mirrorless.<br>
-Sony has focus peaking, which helps to manually focus lenses. As they say: luxury, once experienced, becomes necessity. Once you've used this for manual focus, going back to not having it with these older manual focus lenses hurts.<br>
-Sony has very good viewfinders, very high resolution and good quality.</p>
-
<p>The Sony NEX cameras, as I just mentioned in another thread, are better choices than micro 4/3 for a few reasons. Consider the NEX-6 if you want a viewfinder built in. With the NEX cameras:<br>
-Your crop factor is 1.5 on Sony NEX, instead of 2 as it is with the micro 4/3 Panasonic and Olympus cameras. I use a Panasonic G2, but don't find much use for most of my lenses because of that. The lenses that I do find useful for adapting are my 50mm f/1.4 as it becomes a solid portrait lens (although Olympus has the very good 45mm f/1.8 for less than $400 now), my macro lenses, and a 135mm or a 200mm which become rather compact very telephoto lenses. Otherwise, with Sony NEX cameras, your other lenses are still useful. Plus, if you have the Konica 57mm f/1.4 then it becomes an almost perfect portrait lens, and an 85mm becomes a nice long portrait lens. 4/3 and micro 4/3 have the same crop factor of 2, by the way, but the older 4/3 cameras are harder to adapt lenses to, since they are still DSLRs instead of mirrorless.<br>
-Sony has focus peaking, which helps to manually focus lenses. As they say: luxury, once experienced, becomes necessity. Once you've used this for manual focus, going back to not having it with these older manual focus lenses hurts.<br>
-Sony has very good viewfinders, very high resolution and good quality.</p>
-
<p>The answer is never. It's time to upgrade.</p>
-
<p>That adapter that you found is simply a piece of metal, no contacts or anything, that moves the lens to the correct position away from the film/sensor plane. The crop factor of the Olympus E-M5, along with every other Olympus and Panasonic micro 4/3 camera, is 2. Because of this, you may want to consider a Sony NEX camera, since like your Nikon camera, the crop factor is only 1.5. In fact, Nikon uses Sony sensors in their DSLRs, so overall, image quality will be near-identical to your camera, or better. In addition, Sony has a feature called focus peaking, which highlights in-focus contrast areas to help you achieve focus, and it also has much higher resolution viewfinders. Because of all of those reasons, a NEX-5R and the aftermarket viewfinder, or a NEX-6, are probably better choices for you than the E-M5.</p>
<p>The Olympus does have image stabilization, but you have to decide how important that feature is for you, weighed against focus peaking and the smaller crop factor. Also, because of the higher pixel density (same resolution, but on a smaller sensor), while you will have the same magnification such as 1:1, the Olympus will seem to give your lenses a greater magnification.</p>
-
<p>Ebay is your best bet, if you don't want to deal with a repair shop. Either find someone that is selling the mount itself, or find someone that has damaged their lens in a way that the optics/barrel are messed up, but the mount is fine. Alternatively, that is such a cheap lens, currently selling near me for $50-$60 in perfect condition, that I wouldn't consider it worth my time to repair the lens.</p>
-
<p>No, you are thinking of 1980's NiCad battery technology. The D800 uses lithium ion batteries, and don't develop any sort of memory. However, they DO have other shortcomings. They last longest when kept about mid-charge. While Shun's practice to keep them fully charged is the best way to be ready to shoot, it decreases battery life. Still, I think it's worth the trade-off and that is what I do as well. If a battery lasts 3 years instead of 4 or 5, that's fine. Buy a second battery that much earlier, and you end up losing $10-$15 a year due to "poor" battery maintenance. That's not enough for me to even think twice or lose any sleep.</p>
-
<p>I would like to thank you very very much, because the kind of pointless spending that you discuss just having done helps flood the market even more for used camera buyers like me. I look forward to seeing your camera on ebay soon, where you will have taken a hundreds-of-dollars depreciation hit just for me. How thoughtful!</p>
-
<p>Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. Hands down, end thread. And yes, he doesn't mean so-so, he means double-so. As in, "That sky is so, so blue that it's electric!"</p>
-
<p>I really don't mean this to be harsh, but considering that you are getting tripped up by basic photography terms like "prime" and telephoto in the other thread that you started, buying a D600 won't lead to any better photos from you. Just like a new driver wouldn't be able to utilize the increased capability of a Ferrari over a Honda, you won't see any increases by stepping up to a D600 over your D7000. In fact, a good landscape photographer friend of mine recently decided to back up his Linhof 4x5 camera system with a digital setup, and chose the Pentax K-5, which is nigh-identical to your D7000. You don't need full frame; don't buy into Nikon's lineup and attempt to drive you upmarket. Instead of burning money on a camera that will be a waste for you, buy yourself a better tripod, one that is both lighter and sturdier, with a gear hook on the bottom to use your gear bag to weight it down. After that, look at your lens lineup and consider some higher quality lenses, if you don't have them yet.</p>
-
<p>Read my analogy again. Yours is incorrect. You are confusing "telephoto prime." The oxymoron like you describe would be if it's "prime zoom," or "telephoto retrofocal." Telephoto and prime are not mutually exclusive; both can exist. Reread all of the posts here, and then read these:<br>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_lens<br>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens<br>
If it still doesn't make sense, I really don't know what to tell you. A lens CAN be both a telephoto lens, which describes its design and colloquially refers to a lens being the opposite of wide angle, whereas a prime just means that the lens is ONLY 50mm, so it doesn't zoom.</p>
-
<p>You are all over the place with your potential lenses, going from wide angles to midrange zooms to a normal prime, so if I were you, I'd try to nail down exactly what I was looking for. If I were in your position, I'd be looking for a midrange lens. There's a reason that pretty much every camera comes with a midrange lens, which you are sorely lacking. Go look at pretty much every Nikon DX camera, and when sold with a lens, it has one that starts at 16mm to 18mm. I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, and I love it. The same is true for its competitors from Sony, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, etc. Heck, even looking at digital compact cameras, pretty much every one has a zoom lens that starts between 24mm and 35mm equivalent. Consider the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS as well instead of the Tamron, as it has fast focusing because of the ultrasonic motor. I'd recommend that you pick up one of those midrange zoom lenses to solve your current problem, but since the 35mm f/1.8 is less than $200, I often say that it is a lens that EVERY Nikon DX user should own, so consider picking one up as well.</p>
<p>Mark Cooper is right about a midrange zoom lens, whether it's an 18-55mm, 18-105mm, 17-50mm, 17-55mm, 16-85mm, etc. It is the lens that 90% of people are going to use for 90% of their photos.</p>
Are you still using old technology to take digital pictures?
in Nikon
Posted
<p>My main camera is a D200. A friend recently gave me a D3100 that his work bought him for a project and then scrapped, letting him keep the camera, and since his digital system revolves around a Pentax K-5 with associated lenses, he has no use for it and gave it to me on indefinite loan. I shoot both cameras in RAW, and while the D200 is just as good at ISO 100, raising the ISO makes the D3100 quickly pull away, to the point that ISO 1600 on the D3100 looks better to me to ISO 400 on the D200. So, while I happily use a D200, I don't recommend that anyone buy into one. If you already have the gear, by all means use and enjoy it, but if you have the chance to choose which camera in which to invest your hard-earned money, definitely step up. You have to have a very compelling or niche reason to buy into something old. My D200 stays at home more and more these days, and my disappointments with the D3100 are relatively minor, although there are definite dealbreakers for me, but as an old college professor once loved to say, "Blessed are the flexible, for they shall never be bent out of shape." Overall, these digital cameras are tied to the semiconductor industry, and are obsoleted at a similar pace to other processor-driven items like computers. I could just as easily use a laptop from 2003 and then parade it around showing how well it allows me to write responses here on photo.net, but I'd be deluding myself to think that it was anything but obsolete, and that a newer computer would serve me a lot better with a lot less hassle.</p>
<p>I'm not convinced that a CCD vs CMOS produces a different color rendition, as from my understanding, they are just monochrome detectors with RGB arrays placed in front. I don't see a technical reason that anything physical would provide color differences between the two technologies.</p>
<p>And like Kent, I use relatively old lenses sometimes. I have a 24mm f/2.8 Ai, 55mm f/3.5 PC-micro (non-Ai, but I have an extension tube that's Ai, so I can use it for macro as long as it's larger magnification than 1:2), 135mm f/3.5, Tamron Adaptall 180mm Anniversary and 90mm, etc. I haven't used my old F body with them in a long long time, but they are pretty fun on digital.</p>