Outline ·
[ Standard ] ·
Linear+
Nikon D90 V10, V10 but D90 still going strong
|
geekster129
|
 Nov 9 2010, 10:50 AM
|
|
QUOTE(KIEN18 @ Nov 9 2010, 10:41 AM) Allright. 
Added on November 9, 2010, 10:42 amYa..i place my camera on the floor.. by the way, what is bursting my shoot? 
Added on November 9, 2010, 10:43 amen.. 
Added on November 9, 2010, 10:45 amSo, for the summary is...when in dark place, use higher ISO and smaller aperture ( with large number) is it? smallest possible f-stop number (e.g. f/3.5), largest aperture opening. In layman terms, buka mata besar besar!!  This post has been edited by geekster129: Nov 9 2010, 11:04 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
zstan
|
Nov 9 2010, 10:52 AM
|
|
|
QUOTE(KIEN18 @ Nov 9 2010, 10:41 AM) Allright.
Added on November 9, 2010, 10:42 amYa..i place my camera on the floor.. by the way, what is bursting my shoot?
Added on November 9, 2010, 10:43 amen..
Added on November 9, 2010, 10:45 amSo, for the summary is...when in dark place, use higher ISO and smaller aperture ( with large number) is it? you place on your camera on the floor should be quite stable d ma..can try even lower shutter speeds like maybe 1/5 seconds? burst shot means set the continuous shooting mode. |
|
|
|
|
|
edwardgsk
|
Nov 9 2010, 10:56 AM
|
|
|
Bigger aperture la, to allow more lights enter your camera ma  If smaller aperture means your picture gets even darker already  |
|
|
|
|
|
Str33tBoY
|
Nov 9 2010, 10:59 AM
|
|
|
comparing nikon 17-55 wif tamron 17-50...
is d quality different alot...?
coz wana see izit worthy to get nikon for extra 2.5k...
thx for all d sifu advice...
|
|
|
|
|
|
zstan
|
Nov 9 2010, 11:01 AM
|
|
|
QUOTE(Str33tBoY @ Nov 9 2010, 10:59 AM) comparing nikon 17-55 wif tamron 17-50... is d quality different alot...? coz wana see izit worthy to get nikon for extra 2.5k... thx for all d sifu advice... what you pay is what you get. applies to all lens and all systems, in general la though  This post has been edited by zstan: Nov 9 2010, 11:01 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
edwardgsk
|
Nov 9 2010, 11:03 AM
|
|
|
nikkor 17-55 definitely worth it, even if second hand unit This post has been edited by edwardgsk: Nov 9 2010, 11:03 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
KTCY
|
Nov 9 2010, 11:19 AM
|
|
|
QUOTE(Str33tBoY @ Nov 9 2010, 10:59 AM) comparing nikon 17-55 wif tamron 17-50... is d quality different alot...? coz wana see izit worthy to get nikon for extra 2.5k... thx for all d sifu advice... p/s : You still non stop gear hunting huh ? And photos ? |
|
|
|
|
|
celciuz
|
Nov 9 2010, 11:48 AM
|
|
|
I haven't seen the comparison between the 17-55 and 17-50 before, but is it the differences in terms of color contrast like 85mm f/1.4D versus the 85mm f/1.4G?
|
|
|
|
|
|
FaezFarhan
|
Nov 9 2010, 12:18 PM
|
|
|
QUOTE(KTCY @ Nov 9 2010, 08:27 AM) 18-200 good for travelling but daily use, 16-85 anytime  Would you upgrade from 18-70 to 16-85? Like is it worth it?  |
|
|
|
|
|
edwardgsk
|
Nov 9 2010, 12:18 PM
|
|
|
QUOTE(celciuz @ Nov 9 2010, 11:48 AM) I haven't seen the comparison between the 17-55 and 17-50 before, but is it the differences in terms of color contrast like 85mm f/1.4D versus the 85mm f/1.4G? I've seen and try them myself. When shooting objects under low light, the colour output is not as vibrant as nikkor 17-55 If you take D and G lens to compare, tamron 17-50 is much more worse than that  |
|
|
|
|
|
geekster129
|
Nov 9 2010, 12:19 PM
|
|
|
I heard most people discussed about Tammy. Any Sigma users? Is it good?
|
|
|
|
|
|
FaezFarhan
|
Nov 9 2010, 12:21 PM
|
|
|
QUOTE(geekster129 @ Nov 9 2010, 12:19 PM) I heard most people discussed about Tammy. Any Sigma users? Is it good? Because Tammy is more affordable. Heard that Sigma is better for the 17-50 2.8, but 1k more expensive |
|
|
|
|
|
geekster129
|
Nov 9 2010, 12:27 PM
|
|
|
QUOTE(FaezFarhan @ Nov 9 2010, 12:21 PM) Because Tammy is more affordable. Heard that Sigma is better for the 17-50 2.8, but 1k more expensive How about Tammy build? I heard some horror stories from my friends. |
|
|
|
|
|
faareast
|
Nov 9 2010, 12:58 PM
|
|
|
lets include tokina also in the discussion...
|
|
|
|
|
|
KTCY
|
Nov 9 2010, 01:26 PM
|
|
|
QUOTE(geekster129 @ Nov 9 2010, 12:19 PM) I heard most people discussed about Tammy. Any Sigma users? Is it good? Sigma 18-50 not bad. Cheap and good. 1.9k QUOTE(FaezFarhan @ Nov 9 2010, 12:21 PM) Because Tammy is more affordable. Heard that Sigma is better for the 17-50 2.8, but 1k more expensive 18-50 is more ex around few hundred only QUOTE(faareast @ Nov 9 2010, 12:58 PM) lets include tokina also in the discussion... 16-50  Anyway  This post has been edited by KTCY: Nov 9 2010, 06:17 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
celciuz
|
Nov 9 2010, 01:33 PM
|
|
|
The newer 17-50 f/2.8 OS is the one that is pricey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
zstan
|
Nov 9 2010, 01:38 PM
|
|
|
sigma 17-70 also not bad if you don't mind the not constant f2.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
geekster129
|
Nov 9 2010, 01:45 PM
|
|
|
QUOTE(zstan @ Nov 9 2010, 01:38 PM) sigma 17-70 also not bad if you don't mind the not constant f2.8 17-70 is a macro? I'm planning to buy a Nikkor prime and then later save money on a Sigma tele. Now want to play with portrait first. |
|
|
|
|
|
KTCY
|
Nov 9 2010, 01:47 PM
|
|
|
QUOTE(geekster129 @ Nov 9 2010, 01:45 PM) 17-70 is a macro? I'm planning to buy a Nikkor prime and then later save money on a Sigma tele. Now want to play with portrait first. I call it close-up instead of macro.. Portrait prime? 135mm f/2 |
|
|
|
|
|
geekster129
|
Nov 9 2010, 01:52 PM
|
|
|
^
The King Of Bokeh... hahaha
|
|
|
|
|
Quote
0.0391sec
0.24
5 queries
GZIP Disabled