Jump to content

The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My daughter (almost 12) is on the yearbook staff at her magnet school. Her grade went on a field trip to the Atlanta Aquarium, and she was one of four people allowed to take a camera. I set her up wit

A night out in the rain with the X-Pro2 & XF 23 f/2 

One of the reason I stopped posting was there just seemed to be so much drama. Getting angry and going off because of someone's post is just not a good use of my time. Being offended by these pics is

Posted Images

  • 2 weeks later...

I think I'm finally figuring out how to take portraits. 
 
16429479243_fdcca634ab.jpg
NYC 2015 Easter Parade by Lord Nikon 12, on Flickr
 
17049644225_db287c5026.jpg
Fire Hydrant Portrait by Lord Nikon 12, on Flickr
 
16863413069_b667a440a8.jpg
NYC 2015 Easter Parade by Lord Nikon 12, on Flickr
 
The trick for people is to use the 14mm lens, and get less than 2ft away. With this technique failure is impossible. 
 
For fire hydrants, you should make some noise while at a distance of approximately 30-45ft so as not to startle the creature. Then approach slowly and in silence never breaking eye contact even for an instant. The fire hydrant can see your trepidation. If you need to look at your camera to adjust settings the Fire Hydrant knows and is laughing at you. Anyways, once you get to within shooting range of the fire hydrant, crouch down low so that you are at its eye level, and in one smooth motion bring your camera to your eye and fire. The Fire Hydrant will make a funny face if you wait too long to take its picture. I once heard a fire hydrant mutter something along the lines of "like a tourist who gets all his friends together, clears the sidewalk, and then starts to look for the camera app on his phone" to a photographer. 
 
Seriously, Easter parade photos are up on my Flikr page. 
Click for all the photos
 
16863414039_faa8bd565d.jpg

Guggenheim NYC by Lord Nikon 12, on Flickr

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking of replacing my old Nikon D80 with a Samsung NX1 and the 16-50 f/2-2.8 ED OIS lens. For the price the NX1 looks pretty hard to beat and from what I have read Samsung plans to keep it up to date for a while with firmware upgrades. Any suggestions before I pull the trigger? Only negative that I can see is the only fully functionally lenses available are Samsung lenses.  

Edited by naamanf
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about that body except that it does fantastic low light video. And BH is offering a $200 instant discount along with 4% rewards (always comes in handy for the extra battery. 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081854-REG/samsung_ev_nx1zzzbzbus_nx1_digital_camera.html

 

Looks like a fun body.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the NX-1 a bit at CES. I liked a lot about it, and Samsung does have some compelling lens options, including pancakes.  The main drawbacks I see at this point are poor resale on Samsung gear (at this point), H.265 video compression (apparently a bitch to edit at the moment, but should be a boon in the future).  The AF was as good as the best mirrorless I've tried, which is to say that it's still not good enough for fast moving subjects (IMO).

 

If you're looking for high-qualiy video and stills in one body, the only other option to consider would be the Panasonic GH4.  If you just want a high-performance crop body for stills, and aren't as concerned with video, I would get a D7100 or D7200, as they have a great sensor and AF performance, and more lens choices.  If you're going mirrorless to keep it small, I'd look at either Fuji (X-E2 or X-T1) or Olympus (EM5-II).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the NX-1 a bit at CES. I liked a lot about it, and Samsung does have some compelling lens options, including pancakes.  The main drawbacks I see at this point are poor resale on Samsung gear (at this point), H.265 video compression (apparently a bitch to edit at the moment, but should be a boon in the future).  The AF was as good as the best mirrorless I've tried, which is to say that it's still not good enough for fast moving subjects (IMO).

 

If you're looking for high-qualiy video and stills in one body, the only other option to consider would be the Panasonic GH4.  If you just want a high-performance crop body for stills, and aren't as concerned with video, I would get a D7100 or D7200, as they have a great sensor and AF performance, and more lens choices.  If you're going mirrorless to keep it small, I'd look at either Fuji (X-E2 or X-T1) or Olympus (EM5-II).

 

In regards to EM5/EM5-II, I found its single AF (AF-S for Nikon) to be fast enough (especially with 45/1.8 lens) to get "action shot."  Its focus tracking, on the other hand, is rather poor.  Also, the Olympus menu system is horrendous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deciding what to get is killing me. Starting to think I should stick with Nikon and invest more in FX lenses. Then that leaves me with getting a D750 or D7200, is the full frame sensor worth almost twice the price for a hobbyist that likes taking pictures of his kids and beer? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say no, naaman. At this point, I would only deal with the size and cost of FX to accommodate specific needs, like printing extremely large, shooting fast action in very low light, extremely low light or thin DOF video, astrophotography, etc.

For general purpose photography, even a D7100 will serve you extremely well, with the 7200 having a few nice features, but extremely similar performance. Used 7100's are really cheap right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deciding what to get is killing me. Starting to think I should stick with Nikon and invest more in FX lenses. Then that leaves me with getting a D750 or D7200, is the full frame sensor worth almost twice the price for a hobbyist that likes taking pictures of his kids and beer? 

 

If you can wait it'll be interesting to see if Nikon updates the 810 in the not too distant future and if so, what that does to D750 prices.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sun came out today and I picked up the 1Ds I bought a little while back. My right arm now looks like I got it from Arnold Schwarzenegger.

FA5V0341_edit1_900.jpg

 

FA5V0388_edit1_900.jpg

 

FA5V0419_edit1_900.jpg

 

FA5V0458_edit4_900.jpg


I like it a lot though. I don't see myself restocking on 35mm film after I use up what I have.

(The exif on those photos is misleading. The lens was an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 )

Edited by Duggeh
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I picked up the D7200 and a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4. I really want a fast almost every situation lens. Wondering if a fixed 2.8 17-50 or 24-70 would be better?

 

Or take them back and get the D750 and the Nikon 24-70 2.8? Team overkill. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, that is exactly what I would go for if needing a general purpose DX lens. The Nikon 17-55 is large, heavy, expensive, has no VR, and isn't sharp in the corners on 24MP bodies. The 24-70 is larger, heavier, more expensive, and an awkward focalfocal range on DX.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ Makes good sense to me.  The only counter-point I'd offer is that the 7200 shoots well enough at higher ISOs that my choice for a do everything lens would have been the 18-300 VRII from Nikon.  It's only a few ounces (~2) more than the SIgma, covers way more range and is only a stop (ish) slower.  Granted, it's almost double the cost of the Sigma but I can't imagine a scenario short of ultra-wide-angle where it wouldn't cover it.  My 18-200 has been on my last two bodies (D80 and D7000) 99% of the time and I've only put the 12-24 on there occasionally for fun and forcing me to use it.

 

Oh, I guess my other pieces of advice would be to get the D750 since that's what I'm targeting early next year. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I picked up the D7200 and a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4. I really want a fast almost every situation lens. Wondering if a fixed 2.8 17-50 or 24-70 would be better?

 

Reviews say Sig 17-70 has pretty poor IQ at the 70 mm end, which then kind of evaporates the extra reach advantage over the sharper Sig 17-50, which also has constant f/2.8 aperture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...