The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by bigshot

I am a *gasp* a regular consumer myself. I studied to become a professional photographer, but drifted into design instead. I have some lenses that say "pro" on them, and some that don't. I'm able to make great pictures with all of them. Heck, I'm even able to make great pictures with a $200 point and shoot. If you can't make great pictures without having thousands of dollars of electronics and glass hanging around your neck, that says more about your ability as a photographer than it does about the quality of your equipment. If you look down on other photographers because of their equipment and not their ability to create a great photograph, that says more about you.

See ya
Steve

This makes me sad to read this.

[milkpowder]

Originally Posted by bigshot

If I was a cartoonist, I'd draw a cartoon of a fella sitting on a couch surrounded by camera bags. He'd be pointing a camera with a huge lens at his bare feet. The caption would read, "Look at that BEAUTIFUL bokeh!"

And he would be right if he was shooting with a 58/1.2 or 85/1.4

Originally Posted by bigshot

I shot a wedding with a Mamiya RB67 once. No AF at all. No auto exposure either. It wasn't hard, it just took an assistant to help coordinate the shots. I doubt if I'd have any problem shooting an outdoor wedding with a point and shoot. The only real limitation would be the flash.

See ya
Steve

All that proves is that you can manual focus much quicker than a point and shoot. That isn't saying much to be honest considering how darn long some of them take to focus, meter and then finally shoot

[Towert7]

Speaking of weddings, I wouldn't heir anyone unless that had some serious gear. You need serious gear to be a pro wedding photographer in my eyes, and in millions of other's eyes. The market segment says you can't be a pro without pro gear. ^_^
Funny how that works.

[OverlordXenu]

Originally Posted by jude

I went with a 60mm f/2.8 macro when I using the Canon, mostly for product photos, and then finding out that it could work for taking pictures of bugs, too.

That being said, I agree that 60mm is too short for me for bug work. That Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro is intriguing, but the reports of its slow focus turn me off. With the Canon 60mm--which had a pretty fast focus--I could put it on continuous focus, and it would quickly adjust for tiny movements caused by me, the wind, etc.

Also, like Towert7 said, shooting macro with large apertures resulted in parts of my targets being out of focus, so I tended to shoot bug shots when it was very sunny out so that I could stop it down and get the DOF I needed. I never really did much with the flash (for macro), nor did I ever pick up a macro-specific flash, although that's another tempting piece of kit.

I've honestly never heard of someone using autofocus for macro with a macro lens.

Edit: Also, just wondering...Why did you go for the D300 over the D90? The D90 is cheaper, has the D300's sensor, and offers a lot more bare functionality (such as ADR).

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu

I've honestly never heard of someone using autofocus for macro with a macro lens.

I've setup situations where a fast continuous auto focus would have been helpful.

[Arainach]

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu

I've honestly never heard of someone using autofocus for macro with a macro lens.

Edit: Also, just wondering...Why did you go for the D300 over the D90? The D90 is cheaper, has the D300's sensor, and offers a lot more bare functionality (such as ADR).

The D300 has ADR too. It's also built a lot better and meters with MF glass.

[skyline889]

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

The 18-135 is a solid lens for outdoor shooting and general purpose photography. It's sharp, fast to focus, maintains a respectable distortion profile, and costs somewhere around $250. For a versatile one-lens solution, it's hard to do better.

Of course, if you can spend a bit more and don't need the range, Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8 is another third-party gem. Build quality and focus-accuracy are not up to pro standards, but wide-open sharpness rivals or surpasses that of Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8. The Tamron retails for around $400.

However, if you're on an extreme budget, I wouldn't discard the VR kit lens as a possibility. It feels like a toy, yes, but performs well where it counts: optical quality.

All 3 are viable options, though, so do some more research and narrow down your must-have elements of a lens.

Thanks for the advice. I thought about stepping up to a 2.8 zoom but I tried the Tamron a while back and wasn't that impressed. It was reasonably sharp but CA wasn't very well controlled and build quality did not feel $250 better than the kit lens. The light weight may be great for wedding pros but I like something more substantial. I've also heard that the newer production models coming out have some back focus issues. I thought about the 18-55mm VR and I think I'll get it as a cheap walk-around in the future but for now, I think I'm going with the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 D. It's supposed to be one of the sharpest primes you can buy and its pretty cheap too so it seems to be my best option. It's a little too long for me as I'd actually want the 20mm 2.8 D but at over twice the cost, I don't think it's worth it for me.

Originally Posted by philodox

Nice, what did it run you if you don't mind me asking? I've been considering a FE since a reasonably priced good condition F2 seems to be near impossible to track down.

The F2s are just awesome. Shooting with it is a joy, it's just too bad developing film and enlarging isn't quite as much fun.

[laxx]

Originally Posted by Towert7

Speaking of weddings, I wouldn't heir anyone unless that had some serious gear. You need serious gear to be a pro wedding photographer in my eyes, and in millions of other's eyes. The market segment says you can't be a pro without pro gear. ^_^
Funny how that works.

I disagree. You don't have to have pro gear to be a pro photographer.

I can understand some (IE 70-200 f2.8), but I've seen plenty of pro wedding photographers without pro lenses (non Canon L primes such as 28 f2.8, 50 f1.4) and they take amazing pictures.

[philodox]

I know this is a Nikon thread, but I've sort of been flip flopping lately... Not sure if I want to just drop around the same amount of money I was looking to spend on an SLR and get a top of the line point and shoot.

I do want to take some artsy shots, but I seriously doubt I will get into this at a professional or even serious amateur level. Some things that I've been considering are the Leica V-Lux 1, or maybe one of the similar DSLR-like compact cameras from Panasonic like the DMC-FZ50K or DMC-FZ28K [the Leicas are just modified Pannys AFAIK].

To keep in the topic of the thread, I suppose something like the P80 from Nikon would fill a similar void.

Another option is that I wait for micro 4/3rds to become a bit more mature and pick a camera from Olympus or Panasonic [possibly Leica?].

Any thoughts? What would be the main thing that I'd be loosing with something like the V-LUX 1? It has good glass, good range, good features. Obviously, you can't change the lense so you are stuck with what it offers... but if that's not a big issue will this take comparible/worse/better shots than an entry level 10MP DSLR with a good all-rounder lense?

EDIT: Just checked and, after rebate, I can get a new Leica V-LUX 1 for $679.95 CDN.

EDIT2: The Fujifilm S100FS, which also looks cool, is the same price as the Leica. [no rebate]

EDIT3: They have a used Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50K for $589.00 as well.

[bigshot]

The Lumix point and shoots are incredible cameras. I was reading on another board yesterday how they outperform DSLRs in certain circumstances. The Olympus 8080 is an excellent camera too as are the Canons. Point and shoots are very useful for candids. The main drawback is that they don't perform as well in low light as DSLRS and the noise reduction they apply to deal with that tends to flatten out textures into flat, featureless colors. Another problem is that if they are too small, they are hard to hold steady. But for the convenience of their compact size, they're invaluable.

Point and shoots aren't replacements for DSLRs. They're two different things with two different purposes.

See ya
Steve