IDK just feel like mentally shocked. hahaha..
yeahh. small lens for small body like mine


hahaha.. yeah d7000 would be nice.
but no money for the time being and I very poisoned with strobist thingy. it's awesome. for me.


anyway I tested out 85mm 1.4 on my d3100 body,
I have feeling it's a lil too big. like holding massive rambo gun. IDK what will happen if I hold 70200
it has nice built in quality but I do feel it's a little too 'tele' for DX sensor. IMO

---

Added on January 2, 2011, 6:57 pmI couldn't see why we are not okay with canon user. you are welcome
hahaha.. or it's just me.

This post has been edited by aldosoesilo: Jan 2 2011, 07:09 PM

i agree with you there bro ... tried the 85mm 1.4G on my D90 without a grip ... its totally off balance for me ...

edit in RAW and then convert to jpeg




NBTD.

D80+Nikkor 10-24

same again!

85 1.4g is not meant for crop sensor, it's designed for FF sensor anyway, i find it balanced horribly on my previous D90 but on D700 it is perfect

the only reason we don't find it suit is because we still use DX model.
cannot do anything. hahaha

What is function of RAW photos? o.o

raw photo means it bypasses all the camera function. as in wb, sharpness bla bla bla bla. correct me if im wrong. noob here

No doubt on that, but there's always 50 1.4g for DX user

care to share the PP process? d80 still doing fine here..CCD sensor still at its best

then why file size so big

and i still dont get it... bypass camera function?

---

Added on January 2, 2011, 7:48 pm^ wat is PP process?

---

Added on January 2, 2011, 7:53 pmoh and how do you guys clean your LCD monitor? I have no screen protector...

This post has been edited by BenSow: Jan 2 2011, 07:53 PM

RAW is WAR! hehehe

Raw file is Raw, which means its unedited, non-process, non-compressed, etc. you can think of the negative of the film.
JPEG is compressed, processed by the camera, etc. So, dependong on each model, the JPEG quality will be different.

With JPEG, there will be limited post processing, but for RAW file, you can do much more. If your camera support RAW processing, you can process your RAW file to JPEg, applying NR, adjust WB, exposure, ,icture control, etc. So, it better than ypu shoot JPEG. In case you need to capture the moment and got no time to check your camera settings, you can correct your exposure better with RAW, there's also more details preserved, etc.
Basically, RAW is the RAW file captured, like negative, so you can do much more as all the information/data is preserved (as captured by the camera - unprocessed).

Correct me if I'm wrong

It saves your photo's metadata,
metadata is all information regarding your photo e.g vocal lenght, iso, aperture, etc etc..
therefore when you want to edit it is easier and manageable, because without having the actual metadata editing software e.g photoshop will measure by itself, which actually not correct due lacking of information in the JPEG itself.

by saving ion JPEG you actually ask your camera to compress your picture, and JPEG is a lossy compression.
further reading here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression

RAW is still a compression method but they are depends on camera body (some is lossless data compression some also lossy data compression) but again as I told, it hold the photo metadata unlike JPEG, this makes it nicer when you want to edit the photo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression

again. I am not 100% sure. but at least this is what I know. I learn from my college.

---

Added on January 2, 2011, 8:14 pmPP stands for - Post Processing
the concept is as easy as whatever processed *again* after the process of taking photo is considered PP.

Photoshop, Lightroom, ViewNX2, even building adjustment on your camera consider post processing tools

This post has been edited by aldosoesilo: Jan 2 2011, 08:14 PM

How the performance of your 16-85?

to me, the 16-85 is a really nice walkabout lens and i use it to shoot for almost anything ... its kind of sharp and the focusing speed is not bad plus its a VR2 ... its like a step up from the 18-105 with a metal mount & a focus distance scale ... i lose 20mm of zoom but i gain 2mm in wideness ... to me, i prefer the additional 2mm wideness ...



This post has been edited by eddy230379: Jan 2 2011, 08:26 PM

Trying out something.

uh?

its HDR bro. 7 bracket

@KTCY,
that is regency kondo ... hehe

This post has been edited by mmohdnor: Jan 2 2011, 09:03 PM

Yeap.

you got yourself FF body or what? looks abit more wider than before... or correct me if im wrong