Bliz, your girls holding gun very hot

This post has been edited by nivlanauk: Mar 20 2011, 10:49 PM

Like that also arrogant?

---

Added on March 20, 2011, 10:50 pmOne hot and one cute

This post has been edited by Bliz: Mar 20 2011, 10:50 PM

first wat do u want to shoot? and what camera are u using?
of cos if ur camera got more focus points, it makes it easier to track.
else just make sure u pan better.

got P90 gun?

RAW got more colour range?
did a quicky from there http://blog.epicedits.com/2008/04/07/raw-v...-comparison/.....

so you mean if straight shoot in JPEG colour will loss? and if shoot in RAW what software will batch convert it? LR only? duno PS can or not ...lazy find *ahem* LR to do that.

This post has been edited by Agito666: Mar 20 2011, 10:56 PM

nice job, makes the eyes looks nicer

and just a note to others, i dont own a G, just a D, the colors are not as good as the G ofcuz, but its way better than nifty fifty lolz good lens = better color

Nice theme n pics Blitz..... This morn I went BTS to try out 16-35VR vs 17-55 f/2.8, end up the 17-55 looks much better contrast, saturation and sharpness eh =.=

2 more photos before I go to bed


DSC_8186 by Bliz®, on Flickr


DSC_8191 by Bliz®, on Flickr

---

Added on March 20, 2011, 11:05 pmYes the D version of the lens has very pale colour, I have used the D version of the lens a few times before deciding to get G instead

Thanx mate..Well I have not tested 17-55, but 16-35 has very good colour/contrast to me already, probably due to the F/2.8 that's why look better? No idea

This post has been edited by Bliz: Mar 20 2011, 11:05 PM

before u sleep, wuts the MFD for 85G ar?

This post has been edited by Tony Stark: Mar 20 2011, 11:07 PM

85cm, same as the D version

owh..okays then btw, not very pale la..u make it sound like its so bad makes me sad abit

This post has been edited by Tony Stark: Mar 20 2011, 11:11 PM

hi kent, u own tamron 17-50mm, how its performance with ur D7K?its produce soft picture at f2.8?

No.... both shot at same aperture n settings, the Nikon guy say mayb using DX, the outcome of 16-35 not so good, I wonder y.... since 16-35 got N coat summore,so disappointed ler.... at 1st thought after try to confirm in BTS den can straight buy dy, but end up

Haha, maybe I just hate the way it renders colour, but the D version is already a very good lens

diff sort of gun

This post has been edited by scotty: Mar 20 2011, 11:12 PM

If u are going FX soon, just get the 16-35 else get the 17-55 first and sell it after u get FX.

Soft at 50mm zoom, very soft =) no nit photoshop for models, 35mm much better, forgotten how is it at 17mm

Can't resist posting pics


DSC_8349 by Bliz®, on Flickr

---

Added on March 20, 2011, 11:16 pmCome join the 1.4G family

This post has been edited by Bliz: Mar 20 2011, 11:16 PM

Going for plan 2.....

Contrast n Saturation Comparison
16-35VR

KEN_5566 by Kent3888, on Flickr

17-55 /2.8

KEN_5593 by Kent3888, on Flickr

Sharpness Comparison

16-35VR

KEN_5586 by Kent3888, on Flickr

17-55/2.8

KEN_5561 by Kent3888, on Flickr

This post has been edited by Kent3888: Mar 20 2011, 11:20 PM

From the pics above the 17-55 seems to be better, must be due to stop down 1 stop compared to F/4 of 16-35

This post has been edited by Bliz: Mar 20 2011, 11:24 PM

Yawor.... now hunting for DX king liao, later den fund for VRII zoomzoom , lol......