LOL I have 3 lenses that cover 24mm.

Actually, even pro ones like the 24mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 ain't the fastest focusing lens. They still misfocus in low light and when used with non-cross type AF sensors.

You fly all the way to KL just to try out the 24mm f/1.4?

Agreed. The thin DoF and background blur is very surreal for wide angle. Price also very surreal.

Like Nike says, Just Do It.

Hyperfocal distance is a distance when focused at, all objects at distances from half of the hyperfocal distance out to infinity will be acceptably sharp.

Taking 18mm and f/8 as an example, the hyperfocal distance of that lens on a D7000 is 6.7 feel from where you are. If you get the camera to focus 6.7 feet from where you are, subjects that are from 3.35 feet in front of you (half the 6.7 feet) to infinity will be acceptably sharp.

If you're in doubt about DoF with different lenses and at different focal lengths, look it up here;

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

You must be a pro now.

Background too cool? That would indicate that there is presence of white light source. Not yellow. If you have to shoot in Tungsten WB, avoid white light source !

Aiks... Perhaps you did not really read what I wrote earlier on why you need to use the tungsten gel with yellow lighting. Your main subject's WB from your main lighting (from flash) would be close to background's WB so that it's easier to tune WB in PP if required. Your background would not turn very yellow while subject remains neutral or your subject turns blue while your background is slightly yellow.

What type of action scenes is this that requires 1/125 in a dimly lit environment?

If you have a f/1.4, you would be able to shoot at ISO 1600.

Don't understand about the skintone comment. Why is it difficult to achieve in that setup?

Yes, any FX lens can mount on the D90.

The Nikon F mount has never changed since 1959. You can still mount old lenses on your latest Nikon bodies unlike the Canon.

Like Andy214 does not know? I thought the challenge was to get ambient as well as subject illuminated in the same WB? Not flash as the main light.

What has gels got to do with it? I guess you did not read.

There was never a discussion of have or don't have gel. Of course when you don't have a gel, you make use of the normal speedlight like the way it is supposed to be used. How else is everybody using their speedlights?

That's correct. That was what I was trying to put forward. For skintones, I never like to put high contrast or high saturation.

Not too sure of your problem but metering can be fooled and the flash will underexpose. Perhaps that is why you see suggestions to use centre weight metering and using full manual flash or full manual exposure to fix more variables and less chances of the camera screwing up.

For me, the advantage of a f/2.8 lens is that I can expose close to the ambient light and let the flash be the fill light.

This post has been edited by jchue73: Aug 17 2011, 04:04 AM

I'm at the lost here... You coming in halfway and telling us something we already know that you get patches with white and yellow lighting when using flash without a gel in tungsten lighting and now you say I don't understand you?

Please read posts starting from post #815.

Looks fine but toning down the red channel would be excellent.

What did you use? Flash alone in tungsten lighting?

Chill dude. I wasn't attacking anybody. I was putting out a statement too. If somebody is not familiar with manual exposure or flash, they just need to ask. I understand what you understand and we're talking about the same thing.

I think KLPF will be in Mid Valley on October 7th to 9th. They usually have good deals on tripods going by history. Else, if you cannot wait, I suggest you head to Eng Tong in SS2, PJ.

Else, you can head to Singapore and be spoilt for choice and cheaper on price too.

How often are you going to use the tripod? I bought my Manfrotto 190ProB with 488RC2 ballhead 6 years ago.





The ballhead limit was 8kg and tripod limit was 5kg.

I believe the models are outdated and replaced by slightly improved ones (added bubble spirit leveling gauge). It still serves me well occasionally when I need a support.

I would suggest something like the G12, the Oly XZ-1 or the Pany LX-5. More wide angle (24mm), choose LX-5. More zoom at fast lens, the XZ-1. They are excellent for their price and portability.

Do you see yourself taking underwater pics? Get the XZ-1 because their UW casing is relatively cheaper.

Carbon fibre tripods (lightweight but sturdy) are expensive.

Get a Gorilla Pod with a PnS. Shoot RAW.

I don't find Nikons very good for PnS. The LX-5, XZ-1 and Canon's offering are better unfortunately.

I actually do not understand why people go with mirrorless cameras... Yeah portability but the price is a killer. Might as well get a full DSLR.

Idea is well executed but me thinks it's a little overprocessed.

Nicely said and very true indeed. +1 That is why we need to supplement additional toys to keep our photography interest focused. New toys for the camera allows us to try out different things with our DSLR.

For the record, I carry my D700 in my bag every day with a lens attached to the body. Now that I just got the XZ-1 myself, I carry it everywhere I go in a belt pouch.

So, are you going to be satisfied and stuck with just a pancake lens for RM 2K? For info, the LX-5 and XZ-1 can be had for around RM 1.4k.

I don't like the idea of Liveview / LCD view and I'm more of the traditionalist who prefers to view and compose through the viewfinder. I've never used the Liveview LCD to take shots on my D300/D700. It's a feature I least use. As I speak, I'm actually looking at the VF2 accessory for the XZ-1 which would give me the ability to forgo the OLED screen to take shots.

Seriously, I don't find the logic. Body for the NEX for example is small but the lenses are humungous it looks awkward. Small body with a front heavy lens is very hard to hold for long time. If you carry huge lenses, might as well go with a real DSLR where you get better controls and stability. I don't mind if it's cheap but if you start to compare what the real PnS cameras like the LX-5 and XZ-1 can do for such a small package, the logic behind NEX series is flawed.

This post has been edited by jchue73: Aug 22 2011, 03:21 PM

Yes, but most people also get the misconception that the mirrorless body is "compact". You'll get into the same situation when people start to ditch their mirrorless body systems after they find out that the mirrorless body solutions aren't that much compact anymore because they forgot to factor in the equation of lens changing.

We're talking about NOW prices. Prices at launch time is always bloated.

Is this price at launch? What was the price when it first came out?

The PnS is suppose to be a quick and lightweight companion to the cumbersome DSLR system and perhaps also as lightweight solution to mirrorless systems as well. If I'm buying a compact system that requires me to still be in the need to carry additional lenses, that's not small and compact anymore. I would just pick up my DSLR and shoot.

Ok, it's people's choice but I feel it's downright silly to spend so much on something which can already be done on a normal DSLR. Making the body size smaller than what your hands can comfortably hold is just false economy. IMO, the size of the normal DSLRs are just about right. Smaller than that, you sacrifice ergonomics and hand holdabililty.

1st photo is obvious hand shake. 1/30 for shutter speed is not enough at 200mm. You need a tripod.

2nd pic is not enough DoF for the person on the right. Person on the left is reasonably sharp.

T&S (tilt and shift) lens.

PC-E NIKKOR 24mm f/3.5D ED

PC-E Micro NIKKOR 45mm f/2.8D ED

PC-E Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8D

The last one is a macro lens and perhaps a little too tele for architectural work?

Anyway, you can use Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8 for architectural work but you still get slight distortions.

I think he meant that if want to test if a f/2.8 lens is sharp, we should not test it at f/8 to f/13 because any lens would be sharp at those apertures.

An f/2.8 (or f/2 or even f/1.4) lens should be tested wide open.

You mean the glass element inside is loose?

You shoot wide open at f/4 on the 16-35? It's is never known to be sharp at the corners. No problem if you start shooting at f/5.6 onwards.

This is a Nikon thread and as much as we like a 70-200mm f/4 lens, it does not exist in the Nikon lens lineup.

Depends... If you zoom at 200mm and you're very close to the subjects, DoF is very thin. But usually for 2 or 3 people chatting does not need f/8. f/4 is enough DoF. Not necessary to have all subjects sharp in informal shots. Formal ones should be sharp.

This post has been edited by jchue73: Aug 23 2011, 03:35 PM

From the samples I see, yes indeed it could most probably be that the elements in the lens are not aligned properly. I've read that this happens when you accidently bump the lens hard and the shock sometimes dislodges the elements.

Like what vearn27 has described in detail the method with a Nikon body and what celciuz confirmed, which part of custom WB on the Nikon is more complicated and different than on the Sony?

Nikon's method seems to be similar to Sony's. No?

Wait a minute... A700 mana ada function to use other picture's WB as base WB?

Not intuitive because you guys are trying to work out something from the camera without a manual.

Speaking about car analogy, Nikon is to Sony like AMG is to Mercedes. Nikon tunes Sony made sensors to make them better.

Yup. Even D70 can do custom WB.

Fisheye lens is very niche. A few shots is fine but more than that, it becomes boring. RM 1k ++? What fisheye is that?

The A700 works similar to Nikon DSLR bodies when setting a custom WB. I may be wrong but if you're referring to using a WB from a photo as base WB for other subsequent photos, I don't think the A700 can do it. Not sure about other Sony models.

Potong stim... I think Nikon is trying to capture back the PnS market by flooding these new models. Somehow Nikon still has not gotten it right when it comes to PnS. Hopefully, their latest offerings will address these issues.

Anyway, I suspect a D300s successor is very near seeing Sony's A77 DSLR.

I brought in the AMG thingy because I know Andy is a car guy.

Anyway, I don't know about who's starting the "my dad is bigger than your dad" but at the very least, coming in here on a Nikon thread (of all theads you must pick this one), you should look up first before proclaiming that the A700 can do things easier than the Nikon system. If it's something new or easy, well, it's all is good since the basic fundamentals boils down to photography at the end. Nikon can learn a thing or two too. But what we merely responded these few hours pointing out to you in response to your original statement were two things;

1. Custom WB method on the Sony is similar (if not identical) to the Nikon system.

2. The A700 does not have the ability to use WB from other photos as base WB.

So if that is called "my dad is bigger than your dad", my sincere apologies. Merely stating facts.

Looking forward to seeing something we do not know. I'm currently intrigued reading up Sony's recently released A77. It's fun reading about new stuff and base on Nikon / Sony relationship, it only gives me something to look forward for the Nikon body (if it ever comes out) and base on history, we can expect that the Nikon one would be better.

The Nikon one so cheap? Where you find?

I hope nobody takes it the wrong way. If that sentence came across as Nikon thread only for Nikon, I humbly apologise. What I had originally meant to say is that before you stick your head in to commit and say something unfounded where people here are familiar with Nikon, please make sure you have the right facts first. I have no qualms about other non-Nikon users popping in and out. I do that too but not often.

For the first part, I think it is a little incorrect. Canon used to be the king of high ISO but not anymore.

With regards to this thread being "slow" moving, I think I prefer quality to quantity.

You need a 24mm f/1.4 or a 35mm f/1.4 that has 0.3m and 0.25m MFD respectively.

No customising of the Custom WB but you can still tweak the camera's preset WB using just the buttons without going into the menu. Same for D700 / D300.

That is true. Nikon could have made the multi-selector button at the back for the right thumb to tune WB.

I believe it's still doable with just the top LCD. The additional input must come from your right thumb on the multi-selector button at the back.

That is why a top LCD is a must requirement for me. A little sad that the D700's top LCD is smaller than the D300. Would have liked it if it was bigger.

Despite all that, I still miss the additional smaller rear LCD found on higher end D2 and D3 bodies that shows ISO, WB and Quality together with a mic that you can speak into to append additional info to the pics.



Yup. The right thumb could be used on the multi-selector button.

Change body to a 1 series.

Viewfinders are so difficult to check. With the D700 and D300, you can assign the ok button in the middle of the multi-selector button to zoom 100% automatically at the focus point on the rear LCD screen after you had taken the shot. Handy to check for camera shake or if you nailed the shot.

Don't understand why it's not well implemented... Personally, I think putting it in the menu is better and less chances of screwing up your settings by accidentally turning the knob.

Errr... In the first place, the Nikon pro bodies like D700/D300/D3 do not have a physical rotating knob for PASM. You access PASM by pressing Mode button + turning the wheel. I guess Nikon can add a U1 and U2 option there but the pro bodies already have 4 shooting menu banks that you can have 4 different configurations for different events / situations.

Isn't showing b1 to b6 / a1 to a6 adjustments on the top LCD enough?

This post has been edited by jchue73: Aug 25 2011, 12:34 PM

C1, C2 and C3. But I believe it's there because they do not have shooting menu banks like the Nikon bodies.

What I've read is that those sensors on the pro Nikon bodies are manufactured by Sony but designed by Nikon since only big companies like Sony and Nikon have the capability of producing those sensors.

For other camera bodies, they take the Sony directly with some circuitry and processor changes.

I believe Nikon's sensor / DSLR roadmap follows very closely to Sony's.

So you suspect Nikon's sensors are made by Canon? There are not many companies that have large enough facility to make sensors for Nikon. So Nikon tying up and using Sony is not surprising.

Yes, that is what I'm thinking. The last time 2008 Olympics in Beijing, the press photographers had a taste of the D3 and that was a turning point for Nikon. Rest as they say, is history.

The same for the rest of the pro Nikon DSLRs. Measured WB is only saved in d-0.

I thought the U1, U2 came about when Nikon first released the P7000 which is a blatant copy of the Canon G12 that also had the U1 U2 knob. Have not read about the P7100 yet. I believe the P7000 was the first Nikon camera to have the U1, U2 knob selection since it came out before the D7000.

What ISO did you shoot that? If it was bright enough, I would have still tried to use the non-crossed sensors. With a G lens on a D700, chances on accuracy is higher also.

No. With the D90, you still can only save the measured WB at d-0. You can copy them to d1-d4 as with other bodies.

Yup, that was what I was trying to say with the Canon 5DMkII. The U1, U2 is the same as Nikon's shooting banks on the pro bodies. I personally think it's fine Nikon "hides" it in the menus as oppose as putting it in the knob. Chances are that you can accidentally twist the knob and ruin your shots. At the end of the day, it's just nit picking and personal preference.

If you want to shoot wide open all the time, you need 24mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4.

Yah, go camera shop with your friend and you probably end up with something else like a 35mm f/1.4 instead of a 35mm f/1.8 or a 50mm f/1.4 instead of a 50mm f/1.8...

Yeah, speed but what about accuracy? No point having 12fps when all shots turn out mis-focused.

What lens are you referring to? Large aperture lenses are very prone to focus and recompose technique.

Shashinki?

http://shashinki.com/shop/gitzo-m-82.html

http://shashinki.com/shop/markins-m-83.html

BTW, why do you need Gitzo tripod? Do you know how much they cost?

Sports shooting is like Olympics and World Cup. Photos get sold and published worldwide. So which one bigger profit?

Manual focus and hyperfocal technique.

Use bulb mode on tripod. Open shutter as long as you want to capture the light trails.

Yup, that's true. The 14-24mm f/2.8 is a good example of a zoom beating almost every other prime in that range except the 24mm f/1.4.

That's correct. I carry the bulky stuff but I find it annoying other people instead are complaining about the weight !

The 50mm prime is still better than any other lens in that range including the 24-70mm f/2.8.

Stop down the 85mm f/1.4 to f/2.8 and you'll see it blow the 70-200mm f/2.8.

Whoa... Where is this? I always wanted to shoot a KF.

Perhaps you should do a 70-200mm f/2.8 focused at 85mm f/2.8 vs 85mm f/1.4 at f/2.8 (as you already did)...

Please remember first and foremost that focal length remains the same on DX and FX. It's just that on DX, the angle of view is narrower because of the crop factor.

Have a lookie at Nikon's lens simulator.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/index.htm

50mm on the DX body is 31º 30' while on FX body it is 46º 40'.

Wahlau...

But why?

Lenses don't get obselete overnight, especially the expensive primes or pro zooms. If anything, bodies do. The saying still holds true that lenses are investments while bodies come and go in digital photography.

What lens are you specifically looking at? I doubt that there will be a lens that is replacing something that is already new.

Aiks ! No poisoning please.