[bolmeteus]

A few shots from a wedding in Bangladesh. D3100, 50mm f1.8 G
 
 

 
 

 

 

 

[Oscar-HiFi]

Revive this thread a bit, modest setup, used for product photos and gig photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/135742064@N05/albums

Nikon D600, Nikkor 24-70 f2.8, Nikkor 80-200 f2.8, Nikkor 50mm f1.8

 

[The Fife Flyer]

The greatest band in the world I waited 40 odd years to see them.

D5300 with the 75-300mm lens

 

[episiarch]

Very nice shots! I'm impressed at the colour balance given concert lighting.
Also, were the Doobies here in the UK and I missed them?

 

[The Fife Flyer]

Very nice shots! I'm impressed at the colour balance given concert lighting.
Also, were the Doobies here in the UK and I missed them?

Thanks bud. I managed to get a few shots before the stewards told me to stop or have it confiscated
Unfortunately you did.
They supported Steely Dan at the O2 London in Oct last year. I got tickets, then a week later they announced Glasgow on Nov 3rd. So I sold the O2 tix only for Walter Becker to pass away the next day.

They were awesome. Their harmonies were still as tight as ever, especially for their age and did all the favourites. I can die a happy man now

 

[Ross H]

A quick shot at the Palace of Fine Arts Theater in San Francisco, taken on our trip last year. Shot with a D810 and Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 @ 17mm, ISO 100, f/8, 1/400.

 

[anoobis]

Not sure how active this thread is but I'll ask anyway! Firstly, please don't castigate me for talking old tech...

So I've been doing a _lot_ of reading about D300(s) and D7000 lately. Don't worry, I'm not going to ask which is better or what to buy. What I found interesting was the difficulty in ascertaining good information on image quality, despite the reviews and tests.

Anecdotally, the D7000 seems to have a good advantage with significantly lower noise, despite an increase in pixel count. Should be win-win. Looking at what comparisons I could find, e.g. dpreview, it doesn't seem that clear. Perhaps it's because directly comparable examples aren't available, e.g. both 100% crop, which aren't the same size. Perhaps it's because the test examples don't reflect real-world usage enough, I don't know.

Regardless, I purchased a D7000 in case you're interested. Yes, I've bought a really old camera. I don't have the budget for newer and it's more than enough for my needs. And newer than my current really old camera I went with the consensus of improved sensor and in-camera processing. The one niggling doubt I have is this example of lack of resolution/sharpness:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/21

Take a look at the left-hand side of the watch face for the D7000 and D300S, where the bevelling of the markers and hands is clear on the latter but not the former. My view is that actually the scene has changed and therefore it's an invalid comparison. It's also, again, one specific instance cited to show one camera is 'better' than another.

Any thoughts on this specific test? And it brings me back to the start, anyone else struggle in general to find reliable information needed to make a decision?

 

[anoobis]

So here's a really long shot. Does anyone know whether it's possible to buy replacement flash release buttons and how easy they are to fit? Specifically for D300 (long story). Or, can the flash be operated without the button?

I've attempted to contact Nikon USA but my browser won't play nicely with the Captcha verification, so I simply can't send a message! Nikon UK are of course now closed for the weekend.

Can anyone help?

 

[ZMG885]

So here's a really long shot. Does anyone know whether it's possible to buy replacement flash release buttons and how easy they are to fit? Specifically for D300 (long story). Or, can the flash be operated without the button?

I've attempted to contact Nikon USA but my browser won't play nicely with the Captcha verification, so I simply can't send a message! Nikon UK are of course now closed for the weekend.

Can anyone help?

Have you solved this yet? Gut feeling says you'll have to send it to a Nikon service center for repair.... You could also post over at dpreview to see if anyone has a DIY fix.

 

[jksoon]

I still have the old D300 and a D2x... and a D200 in a bag somewhere. I'm Ok with them being 12mp. These have been so reliable, solid feeling and focus so nicely that I just never got rid of them. I've purchased and sold many of my other DSLRs, but these are keepers. I've gotten used to the large size of the D2x, that it's my go to DSLR. I'm using the 18-200mm 3.5 VC lens. I have several of the kit 18-55mm lenses lying around, which is pretty good glass for the money. My next purchase will most likely be a D800 series and I have been wanting to try the Fuji X-Trans cameras. But these Nikons are staying with me.

 

[kid vic]

Nikon D3200 owner here, still pretty new to the whole photography thing TBH

 

[KcMsterpce]

My first digital SLR was the Nikon D3. It lasted me for 9 years, and then the aperture pin broke, meaning that the cost to replace it would exceed its value. So last year, I purchased the D810 (right after the D850 was released). Here in Korea, the price of the body went down $800, so I got it for about $1500. Man, what a difference ten years makes in DSLR technology! Holy moly! I love this camera so much. I hope it lasts me quite a while. It's so fast, so refined. I went 9 months without an SLR, and the moment I stuck my eye into the viewfinder, it was like settling into your favorite chair after weeks on the road. I missed the advantages of SLR - how easy it is to specifically determine depth of field; aperture, off-angle focus, and so on. After almost a year of cell phone picture taking, I forgot the comfort of having a camera that I didn't need to fiddle with to get what I wanted from it.

I spent almost my whole life growing up with SLR film cameras. It took several years for me to accept digital as a viable medium (once they hit about 5.1 megapixels at an affordable rate, I started to regard it as something worth my time). Growing up with film as the only means to taking pictures, it was a lesson in how to understand the way cameras function. It would cost more to take crappy photos, so I would take copious notes to better understand ISO, lighting conditions, etc... so that I would get the most value out of each roll of film. Using high school and college photo studios to develop my own film enhanced familiarity, and taught me how to evoke different artistic expression in the developing stage. I also understood that a bad picture will still be a bad picture; but it can look a little bit better when you have control and understanding of how to eke out more quality while in the red room. Or, I'd switch things up by experimenting with double exposure, solarisation, etc.... It also taught me to take pictures with the intent to capture what I desire IN THE FRAME, not to "fix it later" in Photoshop and junky photo apps.

I think photography is an art that has been oversimplified and under-appreciated these days. It's better to learn how a camera can accommodate to your needs in the moment, versus using post-production software as a crutch to "fix" what should not have been a mistake in the first place.

 

[ZMG885]

Not sure how active this thread is but I'll ask anyway! Firstly, please don't castigate me for talking old tech...

So I've been doing a _lot_ of reading about D300(s) and D7000 lately. Don't worry, I'm not going to ask which is better or what to buy. What I found interesting was the difficulty in ascertaining good information on image quality, despite the reviews and tests.

Anecdotally, the D7000 seems to have a good advantage with significantly lower noise, despite an increase in pixel count. Should be win-win. Looking at what comparisons I could find, e.g. dpreview, it doesn't seem that clear. Perhaps it's because directly comparable examples aren't available, e.g. both 100% crop, which aren't the same size. Perhaps it's because the test examples don't reflect real-world usage enough, I don't know.

Regardless, I purchased a D7000 in case you're interested. Yes, I've bought a really old camera. I don't have the budget for newer and it's more than enough for my needs. And newer than my current really old camera I went with the consensus of improved sensor and in-camera processing. The one niggling doubt I have is this example of lack of resolution/sharpness:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/21

Take a look at the left-hand side of the watch face for the D7000 and D300S, where the bevelling of the markers and hands is clear on the latter but not the former. My view is that actually the scene has changed and therefore it's an invalid comparison. It's also, again, one specific instance cited to show one camera is 'better' than another.

Any thoughts on this specific test? And it brings me back to the start, anyone else struggle in general to find reliable information needed to make a decision?

I wouldn't worry about that test scene. The D7000 is plenty sharp. What happens is the RAW files look softer than the out-of-camera JPEGs. If you go to the resolution test on the prior page you will see what I'm talking about. The JPEGs appear sharper because the solids are brighter, but the resolution is diminished vs RAW. In the RAW image, the edges are sharper and the resolving power is higher. This softness is the effect of how Lightroom/Photoshop process Nikon RAW files in their default settings.

If you are concerned about your particular camera, set up your own test scene and shoot that. I like to shoot books in a book case, with camera on a tripod, and your lens in it's sharpest aperature (typically f/4 to f/8), and take shots with increasing ISO to see sharpness and noise effects on the color as ISO increases. If the book title font edges are sharp and the colors are good, I'd say your sensor is in good shape. The D7000 sensor should be decently clean up to ISO 1600 in practical shooting and ISO 3200 pushed.

Aside from all that, I was in a gallery that specialized landscape photography of the dessert southwest. I saw 24" x 36" color prints taken with a the D7000 that were simply stunning. Helped me stop craving an upgrade to my D7100. If there is an aspect to the D7000 that needs workaround it would be the metering system, and this is not that difficult to do with exposure compensation. In my experience, the metering issues only slightly improved in the D7100 and D7200. What sets the D7100/7200 apart from the D7000 is a higher-res 24mpixel sensor and a much better auto focus system so you could better shoot birds-in-flight and sports. Nikon didn't drop it's good metering system into this line until the D7500 (and the D500 has the latest pro level auto focus).

 

[ZMG885]

My first digital SLR was the Nikon D3. It lasted me for 9 years, and then the aperture pin broke, meaning that the cost to replace it would exceed its value. So last year, I purchased the D810 (right after the D850 was released). Here in Korea, the price of the body went down $800, so I got it for about $1500. Man, what a difference ten years makes in DSLR technology! Holy moly! I love this camera so much. I hope it lasts me quite a while. It's so fast, so refined. I went 9 months without an SLR, and the moment I stuck my eye into the viewfinder, it was like settling into your favorite chair after weeks on the road. I missed the advantages of SLR - how easy it is to specifically determine depth of field; aperture, off-angle focus, and so on. After almost a year of cell phone picture taking, I forgot the comfort of having a camera that I didn't need to fiddle with to get what I wanted from it.

I spent almost my whole life growing up with SLR film cameras. It took several years for me to accept digital as a viable medium (once they hit about 5.1 megapixels at an affordable rate, I started to regard it as something worth my time). Growing up with film as the only means to taking pictures, it was a lesson in how to understand the way cameras function. It would cost more to take crappy photos, so I would take copious notes to better understand ISO, lighting conditions, etc... so that I would get the most value out of each roll of film. Using high school and college photo studios to develop my own film enhanced familiarity, and taught me how to evoke different artistic expression in the developing stage. I also understood that a bad picture will still be a bad picture; but it can look a little bit better when you have control and understanding of how to eke out more quality while in the red room. Or, I'd switch things up by experimenting with double exposure, solarisation, etc.... It also taught me to take pictures with the intent to capture what I desire IN THE FRAME, not to "fix it later" in Photoshop and junky photo apps.

I think photography is an art that has been oversimplified and under-appreciated these days. It's better to learn how a camera can accommodate to your needs in the moment, versus using post-production software as a crutch to "fix" what should not have been a mistake in the first place.

You went from one great camera to another! The D810 is awesome, and will be a great for years to come.

And your general point on photography is well taken, but I think these issues around photography have always been the case. To elevate it to an art form requires the photo telling a story and having the artistic elements (lighting and composition) spot on. Those elements, if off, can't be fixed in post. And the only way I've ever got there is to immerse myself in shooting, and if I do, I make myself available for that moment when I SEE the image and capture it. I've gotten to the point I can execute a good image, and I've only had a few that I think are really art worthy. I find when I focus on painting and drawing more, I tend to take better photos....

 

[KcMsterpce]

I agree with your point that having "an eye for composition" is the most important aspect to photography. The highest quality camera won't give you amazing photos if the person taking the picture doesn't have the knack for photography.
Give someone a cheap camera, and they can produce wonderful photos. Understanding how a camera works in conjunction with a good camera makes it easier for someone to evoke the tone they're going for with less effort. Generally speaking.