I didn't use fill in flash that's the reason. I'd opt for correct exposure on the clown and kid
D40/x/D60 Thread V4, The saga continues...
D40/x/D60 Thread V4, The saga continues...
|
|
Aug 31 2008, 09:31 AM
Return to original view | Post
#21
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
If the background didn't over, the clown and the kid will under.
I didn't use fill in flash that's the reason. I'd opt for correct exposure on the clown and kid |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 31 2008, 02:30 PM
Return to original view | Post
#22
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
QUOTE(ifer @ Aug 31 2008, 11:46 AM) yeah, it is part of the nikon malaysia deal for arts uni in malaysia. Thanks for the compliment. It will make me strike for better photos they have this offer for my uni for the first 5 weeks of a new semester. for those who remember, i did 'promote' it approximately half year ago. anyway, KTCY nice photo you have there. i dont find the exposure to be 'wrong' what i find it interesting is the fact that the clown and the kid were like in a world of their own. the whole place looked boring, with the people at the back doing nothing but day dreaming rotting. but for these 2 people, they are enjoying themselves. the kid's expression says a lot and the action of the clown compliment it. it is a nice photo in my opinion. QUOTE(orenzai @ Aug 31 2008, 11:56 AM) Well, not really. Event 70-200 sometimes will be like that. » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « |
|
|
Aug 31 2008, 03:45 PM
Return to original view | Post
#23
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
That's my friend's lens
I keep on "molest" the lens whenever I saw it I scare later that 70-200 VR will go make a police report for keep molesting it |
|
|
Sep 1 2008, 12:41 AM
Return to original view | Post
#24
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
QUOTE(ebernie @ Aug 31 2008, 05:31 PM) If that's the case then just overexpose the background. Since the subject is what's important, I know I wouldn't care if the background is out (you can crop away too). Anyway, hope to see more stuff from the 85mm (though personally, I've seen my share of 85mm poison, but I just love that lens so much I wouldn't mind seeing more). Why didn't just grab the 85mm f1.4? If you did that, I'll be *very* *very* jealous Cause 85mm f1.8 I get it for a very reasonable price Added on September 1, 2008, 1:11 amAdd some pic for the night DOF might be too shallow ![]() ![]() This post has been edited by KTCY: Sep 1 2008, 01:11 AM |
|
|
Sep 1 2008, 03:04 PM
Return to original view | Post
#25
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
|
|
|
Sep 1 2008, 08:41 PM
Return to original view | Post
#26
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
QUOTE(ellist @ Sep 1 2008, 08:36 PM) hi thanks man... Not really. I used CPL yesterday and it really make the sky look even more blue. Well, kit lens of D40 is very good if you know how to utilize it jz now i talked to my frens, they said not recommend me to buy CPL filter for kit lens. Coz effect not good....and at the end i will upgrade to a better lens and the CPL will wasted coz might be not same size.....really? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 1 2008, 09:53 PM
Return to original view | Post
#27
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
I no money to get Pro1d :( but if for my future 70-200 VR, I will get B+W filter
Yes, you can atatch both UV and CPL filter at the same time. |
|
|
Sep 2 2008, 12:13 AM
Return to original view | Post
#28
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
Don't think so mate
CPL is not a must actually |
|
|
Sep 2 2008, 06:04 PM
Return to original view | Post
#29
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
QUOTE(shiinkuro31 @ Sep 2 2008, 02:53 PM) my reply, a quote from kenrockwell.. I won't get a DX lens. Reason pretty simple QUOTE(kenrockwell) In some ways the cheaper 18-70 mm and 18-55 mm lenses do the same or more and cost a lot less. This professional 17-55 just feels more solid and inspires more confidence and is a stop faster. The images aren't any different. It works great, which it had better do for $1,250. It feels right: it's solid metal with engraved markings. Don't pay extra for it if you're hoping distortion would be gone: the $150 plastic 18-55 mm has similar distortion at the wide end and much less distortion at the long end! Buy one if you need to look tough and have a lens you can use for self defense. Personally I prefer my lighter 18-55mm kit lens, which gives about the same results optically for digital, even the D2X. Digital isn't very tough on lenses compared to what we did with 35mm film. I'm not particular to needing f/2.8 for low light; I use slower lenses and crank up the ISO. this lense used to be in my wishlist. I made my opinion from people's review since I dun have chance to try this lense.. 1. Hard to sell off especially those f2.8 lens 2. Who knows 1 day I might try FF This post has been edited by KTCY: Sep 2 2008, 06:04 PM |
|
|
Sep 3 2008, 09:16 AM
Return to original view | Post
#30
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
QUOTE(loon1031 @ Sep 3 2008, 08:59 AM) This might give a helping hand http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/sb600vs800.htm |
|
|
Sep 3 2008, 12:08 PM
Return to original view | Post
#31
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
Today I got a confirmation on at least 3 lenses (released at Photokina):
* AF-S 50mm 1.4 G - replacement is coming (confirmed) * AF-S 85mm 1.4 G - replacement is coming (confirmed) * AF-S 70-200mm 2,8 VRII - replacement is coming (confirmed) http://nikonrumors.com/ |
|
|
Sep 3 2008, 12:27 PM
Return to original view | Post
#32
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
70-200 VR I will stop production. Remaining stock will get cheaper a little bit I guess.
|
|
|
Sep 3 2008, 12:42 PM
Return to original view | Post
#33
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
It should be the price of 50mm f1.4 ++ abit
Well, old 50mm should be discontinue by then |
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 3 2008, 12:47 PM
Return to original view | Post
#34
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
QUOTE(darthbaboon @ Sep 3 2008, 12:44 PM) Search somewhere in the site I'm pretty certain that they had the 50mm f1.4 AF-S rumored to be about USD 700. That sound expensive. Around Sigma 50mm f1.4 price QUOTE(ifer @ Sep 3 2008, 12:44 PM) Around Rm 1,000 |
|
|
Sep 3 2008, 12:52 PM
Return to original view | Post
#35
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
No doubt I will get Nikkor lens
|
|
|
Sep 3 2008, 12:54 PM
Return to original view | Post
#36
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
Well, is 1.4 after all right ?
Wonder how many will grab this. It's a superb lens to pair with D40/x/D60 This post has been edited by KTCY: Sep 3 2008, 12:55 PM |
|
|
Sep 3 2008, 02:51 PM
Return to original view | Post
#37
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
Better camera + old optic = Good choice.
Is like getting D300 + Ais lens still I manage to capture decent photos |
|
|
Sep 3 2008, 06:17 PM
Return to original view | Post
#38
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
|
|
|
Sep 5 2008, 08:00 AM
Return to original view | Post
#39
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
QUOTE(mindkiller6610 @ Sep 5 2008, 12:34 AM) not all canon lenses are more expensive than nikon, I can get Nikkor 50mm at RM 330 also la for eg. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II only around RM330 while Nikkor AF-D 50mm f/1.8 cost around RM350-380. Canon 18-55mm kitlens sells cheaper than Nikon 18-55mm kitlens.. but Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is more expensive than Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR IF-ED actually it depends.. |
|
|
Sep 5 2008, 01:47 PM
Return to original view | Post
#40
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again |
|
|
Topic ClosedOptions
|
| Change to: | 0.0361sec
0.22
6 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 15th December 2025 - 02:11 AM |