Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here) - Page 234

post #3496 of 4863
7/12/09 at 12:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverlordXenu View Post
Noise.
if it is between noise and not getting a shot, I will take the noise. Shooting raw and the dfine plugin makes noise super easy to deal with.
Reply
post #3497 of 4863
7/13/09 at 6:05pm
It's here!



I've only taken some test shots with my various lenses so far. Nothing worth posting except for pixel peepers. The 70-300vr is wickedly sharp, even wide open at 300mm (it's supposedly weak point).
Reply
post #3498 of 4863
7/13/09 at 10:29pm
Awesome! Congrats Iron_Dreamer.
Reply
post #3499 of 4863
7/13/09 at 11:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer View Post
It's here!
I'm curious, why the tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 instead of the nikon 17-35mm F/2.8?
Reply
post #3500 of 4863
7/14/09 at 12:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Towert7 View Post
I'm curious, why the tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 instead of the nikon 17-35mm F/2.8?
It's MUCH cheaper.

I'm not so hot with the Tamron though. :/ But I don't shoot much wide angle so I'm fine with that.
Reply
post #3501 of 4863
7/14/09 at 12:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lan View Post
It's MUCH cheaper.

I'm not so hot with the Tamron though. :/ But I don't shoot much wide angle so I'm fine with that.
I had a hunch that was the case.......


For some reason though, I have it drilled into my mind that if someone buys a D700, they are going to get equally nice lenses to go with it.
Reply
post #3502 of 4863
7/14/09 at 1:13am
I'd probably be interested in 14-24 more than 17-35 though. 17-35 was ok at it's old price but now? No way.
Reply
post #3503 of 4863
7/14/09 at 2:41am
It was essentially because I need a lens wider than 24mm, and the Tamron was the best-regarded of the readily available, non-expensive options. $250 shipped, with a $10 rebate is less than I paid for any of my DX lenses, by far, and less than it is selling for on most photo forums.

Why not the Nikon 17-35? Well aside from its' ridiculously inflated price recently, it isn't even the best ultrawide Nikon sells anymore. If I'm paying the premium for a high-end Nikkor, I'm going to make sure I get the best, the 14-24.

Anyway, here are a few shots I got at a local lake after work today. First two are with the Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5, the latter with the Tamron.







Whether it is a weaker anti-aliasing filter, lower pixel density, or just plain better sensor technology, I am amazed at how much sharper the files (RAW) are coming out of the 700, compared to the 200. I am comparing shots using the same lens, and same RAW converter (ACR 5.4). Go figure.

There definitely are a lot of small nicities on the 700 that add up to a more pleasant photographic experience. Live view came in handy a few times near the ground. I definitely like having the built-in viewfinder shutter, and the multi-controller on the MB-D10 is a godsend.

Funny though, that the change I am having the hardest time getting used to is the CF card slot, I keep looking for the release slider from the 200!
Reply
post #3504 of 4863
7/14/09 at 3:35am
iron dreamer and jude, is there a reason why you didn't get the D3 instead? it seems like the D700 and MB-D10 is pretty much the same size as a D3, minus a few thousand dollars and a few features.
Reply
post #3505 of 4863
7/14/09 at 3:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Towert7 View Post
....For some reason though, I have it drilled into my mind that if someone buys a D700, they are going to get equally nice lenses to go with it.
Budget, man--that's probably why. I want the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 to go with my 24-70mm f/2.8, but I don't have the other two yet, because, well, we're talking a king's ransom, man.

Until Iron_Dreamer picked up his D700, it might be said I had a nicer camera and lens combination than he did (between 24-70mm anyway), yet he consistently produced better photos than I ever have. He now has what most would call a far nicer tool with the D700 than he had before, and, from what I've seen from him, I'm sure he'll exploit the body and lenses he has to make it a very worthwhile pickup.

I've got improvements to make to my camera setup, too--unfortunately, all of the improvements I need to make are to what's behind the viewfinder, whereas Iron_Dreamer seems to have that part pretty well covered.

Peter, I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with this new stuff, man.
Reply
post #3506 of 4863
7/14/09 at 3:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by fureshi View Post
iron dreamer and jude, is there a reason why you didn't get the D3 instead? it seems like the D700 and MB-D10 is pretty much the same size as a D3, minus a few thousand dollars and a few features.
Because the D3 doesn't have a sensor-shaker thingamabob? Or was it that "few thousand dollars" bit?

(Of course, I'd love to have a D3, man.)

Read my last post (which I was probably posting as you posted yours), and that should answer the question.

(I have a D300, by the way.)
Reply
post #3507 of 4863
7/14/09 at 3:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by fureshi View Post
iron dreamer and jude, is there a reason why you didn't get the D3 instead? it seems like the D700 and MB-D10 is pretty much the same size as a D3, minus a few thousand dollars and a few features.
Well, the extra price just wasn't in the cards for me at this point, and realistically, the benefits of the D3 wouldn't have made much a difference to me. The only one I'd really want is the 100% viewfinder.

Plus the D700/MB-D10 has the flexibility of being two parts, so I can have a smaller or larger setup, depending on where I'm going. I don't know that I'd want a fixed pro-size body as my only DSLR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jude View Post
Peter, I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with this new stuff, man.
Just more of the same, hopefully better, though. I already know that this camera is a boon to handheld and windy macro shooting, the high ISO and FPS let me get shots I'd never get with the D200.

Want to feel worse about your photographic skills? Just cruise the photo fora at Fred Miranda. That always sets me back a level or two. No matter how skilled you might be, there is always someone more clever.

So I just have fun with it. I get as much enjoyment out of just being out shooting the pictures, as I do viewing/editing them. I think it is the application of creative energy that does it for me. And to think, most of my life, I had thought myself to be a completely non-creative person
Reply
post #3508 of 4863
7/14/09 at 9:54am
Iron Dreamer, don't worry about people questioning your lens choice, we're just jealous.
Reply
post #3509 of 4863
7/14/09 at 5:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyacorn View Post
Iron Dreamer, don't worry about people questioning your lens choice, we're just jealous.
Speak for yourself, my D50 is the cat's meow!
^_^
Reply
post #3510 of 4863
7/14/09 at 6:22pm
I would rather have a nicer lens for a FF. At the very least, constant-aperture.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)