crappyjones123

Thanks Antonio. September is out because some of my classes have mandatory attendance. The little time in May is the only time neither one of us has class.

A brief history of time. Stephen Hawkings sense of humor is just the perfect kind.

Trying to plan a summer trip to surprise Julie. So far I've short listed Paris, Santorini, a drive up the west coast of Ireland (admittedly this is something I've wanted to do for a long time but she expressed interest in as well), and Rome. May 8-16/17 seems to be the only time available to both our schedules. Instead of trying to rush through things and visiting multiple places in a day, I'd prefer to just stick around one city and venture out (barring of course the Ireland trip. Can anyone suggest one vs the other for that time of year? The prices are more or less the same. Neither of us drink or smoke in case that rules in or out any particular locations. PS. or any other place really. We had a great time in New Orleans but the rough cost of visiting is pretty much the same. I figured, travel within the US is easier and can be done at other times (thanksgiving break/spring break) so was trying to do something across the pond.

It's nice to be Jeff. Also +1 re. Sony sensors.

Very nice Mike. What speakers are those?

After a 27 hour marathon editing session, I am finally done with the lab manual I was making for one of the classes. It feels good to be done but I am so exhausted that I can't even sleep. I'm sure I'll crash soon but man this thing took forever but I am proud of the final product.

Forgot about that. If you want to go real light, I'd suggest the RX1 as well over the X100/S/T. Full frame + much better IQ is well worth the price difference.

On the elbow? Nope

The mirrorless bodies lose value VERY fast. Especially Sony and Fuji gear so keep that in mind. They both release new bodies every few months.

If the d800 is out, take a look at the Sony a7s. It's a fantastic body and will mate with your legacy nikon glass as well. Also what Jeff said. I sold the 35 when I had the 50 because they were basically the same focal length to me for what I was shooting with them. Take a few steps back you get a 35. Move a little forward and you have a 50. With the ability to seriously crop you often didn't even have to step closer. The 24-70 seems to fit kinda the same pocket that a 50 fills. If I were walking around, id pick the 50 and maybe a 15 uwa if you want to get real wide.

85G @ f/2.2

The d750 is a popular body amongst wedding pros on Fred Miranda for what it's worth.

I think the big difference will most likely be af speed. Low light performance is probably the same these days. The loxia lenses are great but I think too slow for event photography like at a wedding where fast af locks are crucial. Then again, people are shooting weddings with fuji xt1s with great success which I thought was very slow compared to the d800.

Damn, exif says 6:41am. I don't remember it being that harsh but it was June so perhaps it was.

Thank you gene. I think it was around 9am perhaps. I can check the exif when I get home.

Alyson. 85/1.8G.

I buy exclusively from Fred Miranda forum now after that giant debacle with Adorama. BH has always been good to me but I can't justify new gear costs and Amazon charges sales tax now so they are out. Sticking to the forum has cured my impatience to a degree as often the gear I want isn't available and by the time it appears I realize I don't really need it in the first place. The only lenses I can see myself buying in the future are the rokinon 135, sigma 85 art and maybe an ultrawide Zeiss (I've stayed away from this mostly because I don't find myself travelling enough to where I can justify an $800-$1000 lens just sitting on the shelf. Might give the rokinon 14 a try again as it is around $250 used but they have such a big decentering issue that it almost isn't worth it. People swear by their good copies though.

That's what I was trying to say but I guess I didn't clearly. I kept going after multiple copies of the 85G because of what dxo rated the lens at and well, what you had to say about yours. The samples I was getting certainly were not anywhere close to what the testing shows. Maybe I just have bad luck with that lens. The 35 art was supposed to have some issues as well but I got myself a super sharp copy in the first go. The same with the 50 art. Had to go through a couple of zeiss 135s to get a good copy. Just wish I could afford to keep that lens. Man that thing was gorgeous. Smoother and sharper wide open than the 85G at any f stop.

That's pretty good for a hospital. All the ones I go to get maybe a Mb/s at best. It's pointless to even connect to it.

I went through maybe 3 to 5 copies of the 85/1.8 G before I found a decent copy and it's ok. Certainly not one of the sharpest lenses in the world where dxo rates it. Can't afford the Nikon 85/1.4 and I remember Jeff saying he didn't find the build quality of the $1000 plus lens very good. The day sigma comes out with an 85 I'm getting it. Unless rokinon does something magical with their supposed 135.

Depends on what kind of light you are shooting in. The estimation I have seen most frequently has been 1/focal length for the slowest shutter speed you should be using. Even at f/2.8 and a reasonably high iso it is sometimes difficult to shoot at 1/80s in low light with a 70mm lens. To me the 24-70 is an event lens where walking farther or closer isn't always a possibility and you can just zoom in or out from where you are standing. People might use it as a walk about lens but I usually task that to a 35mm. If I am walking about a city, I am usually not in a hurry and can usually move about freely or at least with more freedom that I could, say on a yacht. Zooming with legs if you will. I'll take the bump in image quality over the convenience in that instance. Also, shooting with the d800 also allows for extreme crops so the prime as a walkabout lens becomes even more attractive. I'd suggest using just the prime before you buy the zoom to see if you find yourself wanting a zoom at all. Rent it as needed. As a rule now, if I don't use a lens in a month I sell it. The 35 art was sharper than any lens I've ever used but I didn't pick it up for almost 4 months. The 50 art did everything.

Doug, her other work might be excellent and worth the drive (I am not familiar with her) but I wouldn't put that particular image anywhere close to the top of the best images I have ever seen. Assuming of course that I would pay the most of the best. Ps. Looked at her work. I have to confess not seeing what you see. But that is the case with most all conceptual photographers. I find it very difficult to appreciate their work. Too cerebral for my little brain.

I don't expect the image stabilization of a third party lens to compete with with of a lens made by the body manufacturer. Typically the cost savings were the only reason to go with a third party lens with sigma has offered better image quality with lower costs for the past few years at least compared to nikon lenses. I can't wait for an art series 85mm lens. The 85/1.8 is great but I can't use it under f/4 or f/5.6 as it is not sharp enough. Certainly can't use it wide open. The sigma art lenses are absurdly sharp wide open so it becomes an artistic choice as to how much depth of field one wants.

I mistakenly forgot tamron before the rented lens. Never played with the sigma 24-70. I actually liked the vc very much. I was shooting on the top deck of a yacht in pitch dark and on a lower floor where the only light was the dj lighting. It's not going to be as sharp as a 35mm prime but it gave unexpectedly good results. I can post some images from the lens when I get home. Iirc I don't think the Nikon lens has any sort of image stabilization. I do remember the lens being super heavy. My hand hurt at the end of the night. I actually walked into best buy wanting to buy the d600 but the d800 felt better in the hand and once I saw the dedicated iso button on the top left, I was instantly sold on the d800. Changing the iso without moving the camera from my eye is a breeze. I remember asking Peter a lot about the two cameras before I purchased it and what he said is correct. The d800 will force your technique to be good. After spending a couple of years with it I think I've gotten better but still not there yet and use fast glass to make up for my lack of good technique. I also have an essential tremor that I got diagnosed with recently so that doesn't help with shooting in low light but controlled breathing helps. Big advantage of the d800 is you can crop to your heart's content and still end up with a good image. A smaller sensor requires you to be more conscious of your composition while you shoot. In that sense I think the d800 favors amateurs like me where the d600 might not be as forgiving. I am leaning towards the d800 unless you can play with a d750 locally and find it to be better in your hands.

Also, there are some issues with the d750 that are cropping up. http://petapixel.com/2014/12/22/nikon-d750-owners-reporting-dark-band-problem-shows-lens-flares/