Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: Jude's Blog
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
The XP image resizer is good for general usage but a bit too basic. I need something with resampling options + batch capability + free and the FastStone Photo Resizer 'fits the bill' perfectly.
I don't know what I'm doing half the time and am merely applying my highly non-professional and subjective "oh that looks cool why don't I do that" cookie-cutter to every photo.
What you have to know is that most photographers use your cookie-cutter approach .
And let me just say that after seeing the picture of the bubbles you can no longer call yourself unprofessional. You're at the point where I would recommend you stop criticizing yourself publicly. Just let your pictures speak for themselves. You'll find that there are a lot of people who would call some of your photos professional.
One thing is for sure, you certainly have nice equipment.
Any D300 users..? I got mine yesterday, great camera, at least compared to D50. Feels wonderful in my hands. I'm just having a little problem with custom setting f1, multi-selector in playback mode. Which one is 100% magnification, low or medium?
Any D300 users..? I got mine yesterday, great camera, at least compared to D50. Feels wonderful in my hands. I'm just having a little problem with custom setting f1, multi-selector in playback mode.
Indeed! I am strictly a user only because the camera is my dad's. I've only read the last several pages and iirc there are at least 2 or 3 D300 users.
I went shooting (photos) with a friend today around the Mong Kok, Pacific Place and Kowloon Tong in Hong Kong. He has a D300 and I got a chance to try out two of his splendid Nikon lens, the 70-200mm F/2.8 and 35mm F/2.0.
The 70-200mm was heavier than I was expecting but the images are immaculate. AF is pretty quick and I liked the "Internal Focus" feature. I'm not so sure I'd like to lug it around on holiday though...
I was even more impressed by the 35mm F/2.0, which produced razor sharp photos. The generous aperture size makes indoor photography very easy (low ISO and fast shutters). Funnily enough, I never missed the lack of 'zoom' at all. Initially, I had trouble controlling the depth of view, which required a surprising amount of skill and precision with the F-stop. I have never shot at lower than F/3.5 and never expected the focus to be so shallow at F/2.0. I didn't have a chance to verify this myself, but I felt that the same F-stop value on the 35mm produced shallower depth of view than on my dad's 18-200mm. Am I imagining things? Nevertheless, I enjoyed the 35mm's short minimum focussing distance.
The 35mm F/2.0 isn't without its drawbacks though. First, the lack of VR (which I'm used to) means that I have to use a high ISO to compensate for low light when the shot asks for a particularly small aperture and therefore slow shutter speed. This quite frankly makes hand held shooting a bit of a pain in the arse... I also discovered that even 35mm (x1.5 on DX) isn't wide enough to take photos in tight indoor spaces. I know this isn't the lens' fault. Anyhow, I was glad I could try the 35mm because I now know that the 50mm F/1.4/8 I was considering would've been a tad 'narrow' for my needs.
I have no photos from today because I didn't have 'my' camera with me and shot with my friend's instead.
Later in the day, we went to a large specialist camera shop in Mong Kok where my friend enquired about availability of the 24-70mm. Apparently, they only sell it with the D3 body!? Why? They couldn't tell us... Anyhow, my friend already has one on order from one of the larger electronics retailers and will hear from them early next week. I hope to be able to try it out if it arrives before I leave Hong Kong for university, which starts in a few days. Unfortunately, that also means I will no longer have a single decent DSLR at my disposal. I do have a colleague with a D80 but it would be inconvenient and awkward to use it on a regular basis...
Hence I need to ask for some advice as to what would be a suitable Nikon package for a beginner. For the body, I was thinking one with an AF motor. I personally would like to wait for the D90 (or whatever the D80 replacement will be called) because that should have some of the D3/300's waterdowned features. For lens, the 50mm F/1.8 should be a good place to start because it is so cheap. Later on, I could perhaps add in a 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 VR and a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. I find this all incredibly expensive and not something easily affordable by a student with no regular income whatsoever. Considering my inexperience and newness to this "hobby", for lack of a better word, should I start with the much cheaper, more basic but still very decent D60 kit? My main concern are the lens restriction and that the D60 may be too basic(?).
Headphoneus Supremus: Videographus Supremus: Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
Originally Posted by uppis
Any D300 users..? I got mine yesterday, great camera, at least compared to D50. Feels wonderful in my hands. I'm just having a little problem with custom setting f1, multi-selector in playback mode. Which one is 100% magnification, low or medium?
__________________
lan's Head-Fi International Meet 2008 "CanJam" High Definition Videos! are here
lan's Head-Fi Meet 2007.Nov.10 High Definition Videos! are here
lan's Head-Fi International Meet 2006 High Definition Videos! are here
My advice to you:
- Use your own ears as everybody's hearing and preferences are different.
- Try to audition as much equipment as possible to find your sound.
- Buy used to save money.
I say that because after you try a D300, nothing will suite in comparison. Only thing to do is get a D300. ^_^
I'm just kidding of course.
To be honest, a D80 is plenty good enough. Unless you can afford better, the D80 should be very nice.
As for a lens, you need to decide what you plan on doing with the camera. If you only take long range shots and drive to your location, a big telephoto lens is going to work nice.
If instead you like the lightest you can get because you walk around with your camera for hours on end, then you need to look into something light.
For most of my pictures, I could get away with a nice 85mm and either a 35mm or a 20mm fixed focal length.
For times when I will be taking pictures of a variety of subjects though, it is nice to have the 18-200VR. At 680$, it is a great starter lens. (since it takes the place of 2 or so lenses).
A slightly cheaper, though arguably more cumbersom (and not as good) alternative would be something like the 18-70mm and 70-300mm basic lenses. Neither of these have VR, which the 18-200VR does. It also means that you will need to carry 2 lenses most of the time, and will find yourself switching lenses quite a bit.
Again, this is for 'in general'. if you shoot very specific scenes, like only landscapes, or only people pictures, then you can buy a setup that is more specific and not as 'general purpose'.
For a sold pro-sumer setup, I would start with a D80 and 18-200VR. This setup alone is cheaper than a D300.
Well, those are some things to consider. As always, do NOT expect them to produce the level of quality that your dad's setup gives.
Thank you! That seem logical to me, but the noise on medium zoom at ISO 200 with indoors pictures made me wonder.. And milkpowder, D50/D70(s) have AF motor, and they are pretty cheap. D50 was just perfect camera, at least for me, to start photography as a hobby.
Initially, I had trouble controlling the depth of view, which required a surprising amount of skill and precision with the F-stop. I have never shot at lower than F/3.5 and never expected the focus to be so shallow at F/2.0. I didn't have a chance to verify this myself, but I felt that the same F-stop value on the 35mm produced shallower depth of view than on my dad's 18-200mm. Am I imagining things? Nevertheless, I enjoyed the 35mm's short minimum focussing distance.
If you put the 18-200VR on 35mm, and set them both to the same f stop, and shot at the same distance away from the subject, then you should get roughly the same DOF. Now, how each lens renders the out of focus part could be different, but the DOF should be roughly the same.
This picture was shot using the 35mm lens at F/2.5, so I could have even gone shallower!!!
Full Size
The DOF on this lens is crazy when you get close. And this lens can get close (especially seeing how it's not a true macro)!
I think the DOF on this picture is about 2-3mm.
Why? They couldn't tell us... Anyhow, my friend already has one on order from one of the larger electronics retailers and will hear from them early next week. I hope to be able to try it out if it arrives before I leave Hong Kong for university, which starts in a few days. Unfortunately, that also means I will no longer have a single decent DSLR at my disposal. I do have a colleague with a D80 but it would be inconvenient and awkward to use it on a regular basis...
