Jump to content

The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.


Recommended Posts

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.

Makes sense. I would want the 24-70 on the D750 ;)

 

 

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

You'er not making this any easier  :chair:

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

You'er not making this any easier  :chair:

 

:)

 

I'd apologize but honestly, it's like Nikon took my DLSR wishlist and made a camera w/ the D750.  Full frame, not exorbitantly priced, not 10000MP, wifi, etc,etc.  I just can't afford it right now at full-fare with everything else that's going on in life and w/ the D7000 still basically being 10x the camera that my skills warrant.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd apologize but honestly, it's like Nikon took my DLSR wishlist and made a camera w/ the D750.  Full frame, not exorbitantly priced, not 10000MP, wifi, etc,etc.  I just can't afford it right now at full-fare with everything else that's going on in life and w/ the D7000 still basically being 10x the camera that my skills warrant.  

That's the part holding me back, way better camera than I deserve and probably need.  And the fact that being a piece of technology, it's going to be outdated a year after purchase.  Then again I have held out this long with my D80.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the part holding me back, way better camera than I deserve and probably need.  And the fact that being a piece of technology, it's going to be outdated a year after purchase.  Then again I have held out this long with my D80.

 

Screw deserve, what does that even mean?

 

Need is another point.  Like I outlined earlier, you'd know if you need FX because you've run up against specific limitations in specific uses with a top DX camera.  I severely doubt you're going to run out of camera with the D7200 unless you really start pushing the limits of low-light performance AND are extremely demanding of the results.

 

Nate's point about the 18-300 has a bit of merit. My initial repsonse would be,"at that point just get a superzoom," but then you lose DSLR AF advantages.

 

To JonL's point about the SIgma 17-70, if you go the newer "C" version, it shouldn't be weak at the long end, and I don't much see the point of a 17-50 f/2.8 by comparison, as i'd rather take a portrait at 70/4 than 50/2.8.  The only other midrange zoom I'd really entertain is the SIgma 18-35 "A", which is essentially prime quality and aperture in a 2x zoom.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, quick question for you guys... 

 

Lauren is planning on getting a new lens for her D700.  With a Sigma 35 and Nikon 50 & 85 (and plans to sell her 24-85 3.5-4.5G which she doesn't really care for), she's looking to go wider.  Does anyone have experience with the Sigma 24 1.4G Art?  She's done a bunch of research, but knowing the kind of gear you guys use, I figured I'd see if anyone has first-hand experience.  She had originally planned to go with the Nikon 24-70 2.8G which she's rented a few times, but has a real affinity for primes.  Unfortunately Glass and Gear, while local, doesn't have much in the way of Sigma glass available to rent.

 

And just a little background on what she'll be doing with it... She's moved to more of a documentary style for her lifestyle photography, with lots of maternity, newborn and family shoots with a few weddings mixed in.  Her site is here, with lots of photos in the Blog portion.

 

Thoughts?  Has anyone tried that Sigma Art or other Art lenses, and are they worth it?  Better 24mm options?  Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haj, thanks for the head's up... Concord, MA would probably feasible.  Try before you buy is always preferable!  Pickup at Hunt's in Manchester or Portland is always nice and convenient, but it's nice to know there are other local-ish options for harder to find lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few snaps from a recent wedding taken with a second-hand Sony A7II that I just bought a few days ago with some manual lenses. (no PP or just cropping)

 

Minolta 35/2.8 New MD (last version)

This lens can be had for cheap, small and light, focusing is buttery smooth and it is sharp corner to corner, I had the Zeiss FE 35/2.8 and this one gives it a run for its money

 

DSC06818.jpg

 

DSC07239c.jpg

 

DSC08021.jpg

 

Canon 35/2 LTM

Contrary to the Minolta, this has a lot of vignetting and corner smearing (the hood I use has a tiny bit more in the corner as well, but it is better than dealing with the flare) and focusing close with the helicoid adapter is fiddly but it gives a nice cinematic feel, and it is tiny without the hood, despite having that extra stop. I think this is the one I'll keep to keep things simple (and maybe try something else).

 

DSC07405.jpg

 

DSC07410.jpg

 

DSC07622c.jpg

 

Canon 50/1.5 LTM

This lens used to be a sleeper, now well-known as a Sonnar variant, it gives very nice bokeh, but it needs to be stepped down a bit for sharpness (my copy may not be the best, difficult to find in good shape)

 

DSC06997.jpg

 

DSC07538c.jpg

 

DSC07549c.jpg

 

DSC07887.jpg

 

Canon 100/2 LTM

Misfocused a lot with this, but that was all my fault and not the lens, this one is superb for portraits. Handles very nicely, and the bokeh and sharpness are both great.

 

DSC07799c.jpg

 

DSC07176.jpg

 

DSC07833.jpg

 

DSC07760.jpg

 

Canon 28/2.8 LTM

Maybe it is a lens that HCB would approve (and Gary Winogrand, another famous photographer actually used one). Well, the smearing and vignetting of 35/2 is still nothing compared to this.

Unfortunately I couldn't use this well, I guess I'll try to focus on the 35mm FL for now, and expand to this later on. It is still a very nice lens, felt great on the NEX5N.

 

DSC07281.jpg

 

And there was the Minolta 200/4 that I brought, but it was a waste of space. Performs well, but a 200mm prime (with this aperture and MFD) is not that useful overall unfortunately.

I can see why a lot of wedding shooters who shoot primes use a 35, 85 plus 135 plus a wide angle, it is a very nice set to use.

 

Overall I would say the A7II is a terrific moment catcher/stealer. Battery life is not as bad as I thought (maybe with AF it would be a different story), the grip feels great (if it was a little bit taller it would be perfect), and the SteadyShot compensated the mildly drunk condition rather well (but not the misfocusing or framing or other rookie mistakes). It should perform even better with OSS lenses or those that can pass distance information to support 5-axis (instead of the 3rd party glass, where it is only 3-axis)

Even the built in mics are surprisingly decent, and better than the original A7 (same as the RX10?) as well as the much better XAVC-S codec, but the sensor feels a little dated (could have gotten the D750 sensor but then it wouldn't be positioned as 'entry level FF'). The A7S sensor in this body or a touch-screen to quicken the focus magnifying cannot come soon enough.

But this camera even with its faults is already way more capable than I am, whatever the next event will be, I will pay a lot more attention to framing and other amateurish mistakes and I will be less drunk as well.

(Sorry if it was too long.)

Edited by padam
Link to post
Share on other sites

 sensor feels a little dated (could have gotten the D750 sensor but then it wouldn't be positioned as 'entry level FF'). 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought A7II's sensor is the same 24 MP Sony sensor that is in D750?

I'm curious you found its battery life decent, as my A7r eats through batteries, even with the "Pre-AF" function turned off.  I can improve it by turning off the LCD screen completely, then you can't really preview the images you took, except in the small EVF.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought A7II's sensor is the same 24 MP Sony sensor that is in D750?

I'm curious you found its battery life decent, as my A7r eats through batteries, even with the "Pre-AF" function turned off.  I can improve it by turning off the LCD screen completely, then you can't really preview the images you took, except in the small EVF.  

 

I took 1200 shots (raw+jpeg) and about 30 minutes of videos, consumed about 2.5 batteries. I think that is fine, I expected much worse with the stabilization.

What I noticed a few days before was that the battery goes down even if I just fiddle with the settings here and there, and not take pictures.

 

It is more like the D610 sensor. Not exactly the same, since it has phase detection points as well so a bit noisier at high ISOs, but similar.

The D750 is newer and better in high ISO, better sensor readout for video with lower noise, etc. so it would have been a good choice, I guess it was more economical to keep the old one, but apart from the body design (should have been like this in the first place, no plastic in the front panel and the metal mount is a now tighter fit and without flex) the stabilization, software tweakings, and fixing some of the issues with the A7 (like sensor flare) there aren't that many new features.

Edited by padam
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is the rangefinder out of whack? The eBay seller asked me to make a video of what I was talking about. 

 

It looks like it needs an adjustment.  Rangefinders often need adjusting every couple of years or so.  Not a terribly expensive repair.  

 

What camera body is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen gandy of camera quest quoted me $110. Camera cost me $350...it's a Voigtlander r3a. Above all else it smells of cigarette smoke which is my making my throat close up so it's going back anyways. But the guy said it was functionally perfect and from a no smoking home...and he was the original owner. Something doesn't add up.

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...