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 356

post #5326 of 5720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattimis View Post

1. using FX lenses does not produce better viewfinder presentation which was the discussion please actually read and understand what you are talking about if you want to join the discussion.

2. This is COMPLETELY un true using DX on a FF camera crops down on the amount of sensor space used... which removes image quality through pixels. Shooting a crop lens on an full frame will drop half the resolution from the sensor.
2a. its called circle of illumination, atleast where I live, and the dx is not capable of higher resolution because the optics arent anywhere near low enough quality to limit resolution. 500% crop an image and you will see pixel no matter what lens you use, so the resolution isnt being altered other than the fact that dx has a smaller circle of illumination and thus causes you to loose pixels on a full frame. Which is the opposite of your statement.

Use compatible equip.. thats why they make it.

OH and btw Im not going to post my CV on here simply because I dont feel like linking my professional career with a hobby I was simply offering to help people, who I realize photography is a hobby full of people who know everything. Also experience in a professional setting is everything.. I think that is what you meant to say, my mother has been taking pictures since the 50's and I dont think I would consider her capable of teaching photography haha.

and please teach me something and I will gladly accept the knowledge but frankly I would rather pick the brains of my old professors who have been professionals for 30 years and not random internet trained photographers. Having read the incorrect data you've already posted I will go ahead and keep with my sources.



On a side note you should actually use cameras your going to compare. I have used the M-8 M-9 and fuji xpro-1 and the difference is indistinguishable in quality. If you looked at an image from both I seriously doubt you would have any idea which is which.
you still didn't explain yourself on the first part
A DX will perform the same whether on FX or DX body just as the FF sensor will. FOV will change and yes you will lose pixels but the quality of both cam and lens remains the same( not at full resolution os course). If you're posting to FB or makining a 4x6 can you see the difference. Is there an apparent quality loss? Semantics. On D800 you still have almost 16 MP. How many do you need? I can still create whether on a DX or FX.
I get the feeling you're under the thought that a better camera makes a better photo. One old timer gave me the advice years ago that the best camera is the one you have with you.

Did you know that everything a digital photographer need to obtain perfect exposure is his or her camera? It has everything you need to get perfectly exposed digital files with no overexposure. But you have to use the LCD of the camera. From what you imply you don't even use the LCD to check exposure and comp? anyone using digital would be crazy not to take advantage of it.
Talk to your instructors about the Circle of Confusion. There's more to it than illumination.
I have used the Leicas and the Fujis. I shot both of them side by side and looked at each file. The Leica has few rivals. It will edge the Fuji out with its detail and sharpness. Much like real sharpness from film. The Fuji is close but displays what I will refer to as digital sharpness. For someone soo concerned with the quality of their camera and optics I'm surprised you haven't recognized the differences the two camera systems exhibit. I think it's cool you want to help peeps but I think you go about it all wrong. You assume too much and your ego does all the talking.
post #5327 of 5720
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

looks pretty good in b/w.  Did you do any skin softening?  Or did you lose some contrast b/c of the harsh backlight?  I'm JUST starting to play around with off-camera flash.  I did a bunch of research.  This is fun!

 

 

testing out some different processing styles

 

 

 

^ no flash.  Until now I had to blow out the background also to properly expose the subject. 

 

 

how I love this D600......  I took this while driving home from school through the windshield :D


In that shot the background was completely blown .  I am still trying to get used to having to expose for background and correcting in PP - the histogram is finally making sense to me which helps the most.  In Lightroom I usually look at exposure and contrast first, there is a setting for clarity which I really like the effect on pictures, and luminance I like for background adjustment

 

Your off camera flash shots are great.  Did you do any diffusing for the flash?  I also completely forgot HOW to use the flash separate of the hotshoe - care to walk me through?


Edited by Mr.Sneis - 3/4/13 at 10:32am
post #5328 of 5720
Quote:
Originally Posted by musubi1000 View Post

Chimping is one of the advantages digital affords digital photographers. I would like to see how many of todays so called " photographers" could take a photo with a film camera.

 

Parallel parking exposure doesn't work at all for photographing candids of people and street shooting. If you say, "Wait a second while I diddle with this a bit..." the moment is lost. The worst thing to me is having my subject be aware of the camera. That's why I NEVER wear my camera around my neck. I keep it hidden in a side bag until I need it. Whenever the camera is in view of the subject too long, you start getting too much of what I call "say CHEEZE".

 

I started photography around 1974. I've done everything there is to do with film... shooting, developing, printing, both B&W and color. Film is MUCH more difficult than digital because you have a much narrower latitude and the film is MUCH less capable in low light. When you shoot with film, you have to nail your exposure within a half stop to a stop or you start blowing out whites or losing detail in the shadows. I still shoot carefully like that, even though I don't necessarily have to with digital. But I always make a few meter readings in an area before I start shooting to insure that I expose properly in camera. That allows me to pack the maximum detail and dynamic range into my shots.

 

The difference in image quality between DX and FX is considerably less than the difference between exposing properly in camera vs fixing the exposure in post processing.

 

You should go to a major art school like I did, Mattimis. It would humble you and knock a lot of the bluster out. You'd find out that there are a lot of people who know things you don't, and it would show you how to learn from them.


Edited by bigshot - 3/4/13 at 2:44pm
post #5329 of 5720
Yes back in the days of film there was a product called Polaroid. We used to use this instant film to check comp and exposure for every important shot. Anyone who tells me that they don't ever chimp their digital camera ever is full of it. Each and every pro and art director I know loves the fact that they can basically shoot a digital shot to check comp and exposure instantly and it doesn't cost a thing. If any pro told me they never chimp their camera I'd say they were a fool not to take advantage of it. Granted chimping isn't gonna work with all subjects but its very useful for static stuff. If one weren't to chimp they'd have no idea for certain until they got then files into a computer. Why do you think the manufacturers install features like histogram, highlight, shadow(Olympus) and focus point checking? I'll admit I chimp every important shot to make sure the comp and exposure are dialed in perfectly before I start my shooting. Everyone is different. But to sit there and tell everyone what's right and wrong about how they work or what they use is wrong.

As for the loss of print quality most commercial printers max out at 300 ppi (prints at 150 ppi still look great) So say the average consumer wants to print a 4x6. The max rez the file needs is 1200x 1800. Everything else gets resampled out. So at a 4x6 or even 8x10 (2400x3600) there is a negligible loss of apparent quality. The differences grow the larger you get but there is an excessive degree of quality to begin with. An 18-55 DX on a D700 is about 5mp.

Talk to your instructors. They will verify And probably agree with both Bigshot and myself. There is a difference between a photographer and a camera operator in my book. My equipment isn't my limit. But it is for new photographers. Err camera operators.

If you were to compare a single capture of film vs digital I would know which image had more dynamic range and which would be capable of more resolution. Do you really know the differences? Talk to your instructors about edge sharpness and how digital images are sharpened as well. Film has bit depth? Since when?

Oh yeah on a side note you should actually own the cameras you claim to have.
Edited by musubi1000 - 3/4/13 at 5:22pm
post #5330 of 5720
Quote:
Originally Posted by musubi1000 View Post


You say using LCD is stupid to check exposure. I never said I would use the image review for exp. have you heard of a highlight review? It's all any digital photographer needs to check exposure. That's why every SLR and mirror less camera has this feature. you mention focus being more important than exposure. How do you check it without using the LCD and chimping it? You mention red channel blowing out skin when WB is set improperly. How do you check the red channel for blow out? On the computer? Why not check it out on the LCD by chimping it? The Nikon pro cameras have rgb histograms and can check individual channel blow out. Red channel blow out in skin(prolly cause wb was set to sun or cloudy and shot under tungsten) is a possible issue with JPEGs. If you actually do use the color checker by x-rite you use it in RAW format so this is usually a non issue as you can correct in post. By using the x-rite color is assured so a photographer shouldn't be concerned with the color balance. Checking to make sure exposure is good, focus is good, comp is good are all benefits available to the digital photographer when they review the LCD (chimp). I never said anything conceited like" I never chimp" cause that's all bull.

wrong again, you can still blow out a channel in raw... raw means you can use non destructive editing methods.

 

Me and everyone I work worth never chimp to check exposure or color.

post #5331 of 5720

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZnX_h498E

 

This how I picture myself explaining resolution on here

post #5332 of 5720

These are the shots I took with a friends Leica M9 with a 24 1.4 summilux.

a happy family

Redondo beach marina

the ol arcade

I know these are Leica images in the Nikon forum but I needed my images to speak for me

The next images will be Nikon stuff. mostly

post #5333 of 5720
Quote:
Originally Posted by musubi1000 View Post

Just because you have the latest and greatest doesn't mean a thing. In most cases it just allow the operator to take bad images faster. Like I keep saying the quality of gear isn't important. It's what you put in the frame. FX or DX

 

Absolutely agreed.

 

All of the current photographers who are using the "latest and greatest" with the highest resolution sensors stand in the shadows of Adams, Cartier-Bresson, Evans, Weston, Ray, Stieglitz, Steichen, etc. Those photographers did not have digital cameras with FX sensors and "highest resolution" sensors.

post #5334 of 5720

Nikon D800 with a Tamron 70-300 VC

 

24-70 2.8 Nikkor

17-35 2.8 Nikkor

17-35

post #5335 of 5720
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post

Gen, thank you. I find them used at stores for anywhere between 300-600$ (AFD) and I've not followed the AFS much. I've found great deals however on 2,8 zooms. 

 

I have the AF-S v1 and it's convenient. That Nikon put out a revised one speaks to the consumer demand. You're welcome to borrow mine any time as I don't use it very often these days.

post #5336 of 5720

How high are D5100 users able to push up the ISO before getting distracting levels of noise?

post #5337 of 5720
Domo
post #5338 of 5720
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAZRr1275 View Post

How high are D5100 users able to push up the ISO before getting distracting levels of noise?

 

It's good to 6400.

 

re: the rest of this...

 

To paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt a bit... Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss technicalities; small minds discuss people.


Edited by bigshot - 3/4/13 at 9:27pm
post #5339 of 5720

Kodak's thermal imaging is for more careful resolution of half tone dots. The half tone dots are rendered at 10,000 dpi, not the image itself. It increases the ability for the halftone to render more colors or shades... It isn't for higher resolution images. Most printers, both photo printers and prepress ones, are 1200 dpi and the images going in are required to be no more than 1/4 that resolution. 300 dpi tops for high end photo printing. 200 dpi for more typical stuff like normal magazines and newspapers.

 

You see, you may know the photography end enough to get along, but prepress is something entirely different.

post #5340 of 5720

Well lets just post images from archives. Any Nikon images out there? hows about from an H5D?

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)