Photography: what do you own?
12-27-2013, 11:09 AM
#201
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Outside Portland Maine
Posts: 2,023
Total Cats: 19
they fail.
they can become uncharged and lose all the data. CF cards use flash memory.
they corrupt easily.
they simply go bad at a much greater rate than your HDD ever would. and the cheaper/older the card, the more susceptible they are.
there's a reason pro models have two slots, it's not for extra storage, many pros with write 1 image to 2 cards just in case.
what will happen when one day you want to go take pictures and fill up your card, then you go to dump 3-4 months worth of shots on your PC and the card fails?
I use LR to process my photos. I simply organize my files by folders by date. LR does that same thing if you import directly though it.
the best part about LR is that it doesn't create jpeg copies unless you export them. Out of maybe 100 RAW files I might process 10 and only export 2-3. Only 2-3 extra files were created and uploaded; when your process RAW in LR it's simply a list of commands in a tiny file that tells LR how to display the picture, but the RAW file itseld isn't altered and it's not creating new files, just displaying them in a particular way.
they can become uncharged and lose all the data. CF cards use flash memory.
they corrupt easily.
they simply go bad at a much greater rate than your HDD ever would. and the cheaper/older the card, the more susceptible they are.
there's a reason pro models have two slots, it's not for extra storage, many pros with write 1 image to 2 cards just in case.
what will happen when one day you want to go take pictures and fill up your card, then you go to dump 3-4 months worth of shots on your PC and the card fails?
I use LR to process my photos. I simply organize my files by folders by date. LR does that same thing if you import directly though it.
the best part about LR is that it doesn't create jpeg copies unless you export them. Out of maybe 100 RAW files I might process 10 and only export 2-3. Only 2-3 extra files were created and uploaded; when your process RAW in LR it's simply a list of commands in a tiny file that tells LR how to display the picture, but the RAW file itseld isn't altered and it's not creating new files, just displaying them in a particular way.
I do know that flash is less reliable, so I take important pictures off pretty quick. If I'm just out shooting crap I don't really care much about is when they sit for a while.
Reply
0
0
12-27-2013, 11:14 AM
#202
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
I don't understand the pricing/design of cameras; I'd put the 51pt in all of them*.
I haven't had any issues with the focus. I came from a D5100 which only had 11 points on only a single cross-point in the center.
Seriously, this thing has been in auto focus most of the time, it's done a pretty good job picking the right points itself. Only needed to switch it to a desired point a few times. But I wish it had the 51pt. no doubt.
* take the df -- It's pretty much a D600 with a D4 sensor yet it costs an arm and a leg. There's nothing new about the camera, it's a bunch of pre-existing parts in a stupid new retro body with tons of compromises.
I haven't had any issues with the focus. I came from a D5100 which only had 11 points on only a single cross-point in the center.
Seriously, this thing has been in auto focus most of the time, it's done a pretty good job picking the right points itself. Only needed to switch it to a desired point a few times. But I wish it had the 51pt. no doubt.
* take the df -- It's pretty much a D600 with a D4 sensor yet it costs an arm and a leg. There's nothing new about the camera, it's a bunch of pre-existing parts in a stupid new retro body with tons of compromises.
Reply
0
0
12-27-2013, 11:19 AM
#203
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
I don't understand the pricing/design of cameras; I'd put the 51pt in all of them*.
I haven't had any issues with the focus. I came from a D5100 which only had 11 points on only a single cross-point in the center.
Seriously, this thing has been in auto focus most of the time, it's done a pretty good job picking the right points itself. Only needed to switch it to a desired point a few times. But I wish it had the 51pt. no doubt.
* take the df -- It's pretty much a D600 with a D4 sensor yet it costs an arm and a leg. There's nothing new about the camera, it's a bunch of pre-existing parts in a stupid new retro body with tons of compromises.
I haven't had any issues with the focus. I came from a D5100 which only had 11 points on only a single cross-point in the center.
Seriously, this thing has been in auto focus most of the time, it's done a pretty good job picking the right points itself. Only needed to switch it to a desired point a few times. But I wish it had the 51pt. no doubt.
* take the df -- It's pretty much a D600 with a D4 sensor yet it costs an arm and a leg. There's nothing new about the camera, it's a bunch of pre-existing parts in a stupid new retro body with tons of compromises.
I'm sure not having the 51pt is all a justification for asking more for their higher end cameras. I can almost guarantee the 51pt only costs cents more to manufacture than their lesser versions. Or give me a custom camera option from Nikon, make all systems modular. Mix and match AF systems, sensor sizes, ect.
Reply
0
0
12-27-2013, 11:40 AM
#205
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Maybe I should just go the D7100 route. Basically the same camera, just slightly less impressive high iso performance, and the difference in dof and fov because of the sensor size. And the D7100 is actually a bit sharper than the D600. then you get faster fps continuous and a more logical AF system, 51pt that fills the viewfinder. Hmmm. Damn, I hate making decisions like this. I can second guess myself more than anyone I know.
Reply
0
0
12-27-2013, 11:53 AM
#207
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Oh, and better dynamic range, by quite a bit.
Last edited by NA6C-Guy; 12-27-2013 at 12:05 PM.
Reply
0
0
01-01-2014, 04:04 PM
#208
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Woot. D7100 will be purchased this weekend. I wish I had kept my DX lenses now, but I wasn't expecting to be back on the Nikon team so soon. I will eventually pick up a D600, or maybe by then, something newer and better. But for now, a D7100 is more in my price range, and it never hurts to have a backup camera like the D7100. Also good to have a crop camera when you need that extra reach. I'm still going to start buying good pro glass anyway. 24-70, 70-200 Tamron VC, and some other stuff I'm sure. For now though, the D7100 and a 35mm 1.8G as the bare minimum to get another camera in my hands. I'm losing my mind not being able to shoot. A D600 (or some other FX) should be in my collection in the next few months, budget/job willing.
Reply
0
0
01-01-2014, 04:14 PM
#209
Congrats, I bought my wife a D7100 for her birthday, so far so good. Upgraded from a D3100.
I'll get around to posting some of her shots in the Critique thread but, she's an amateur for sure. She mostly uses the camera for baby/kid photos, she'll be doing two newborn photo shoots in the next month or so.
She has the 18-140 Nikon that came with the camera kit, as well as the 35mm 1.8G (F,G? I think G...). We also have a 55-200 Nikon lens, but that isn't getting much use now, thinking about maybe selling it. She almost exclusively uses the 35mm prime lens.
Also just got her a YN565EX based on Brain's recommendation, and a studio lighting kit (not flash, just some static studio lights).
I'll get around to posting some of her shots in the Critique thread but, she's an amateur for sure. She mostly uses the camera for baby/kid photos, she'll be doing two newborn photo shoots in the next month or so.
She has the 18-140 Nikon that came with the camera kit, as well as the 35mm 1.8G (F,G? I think G...). We also have a 55-200 Nikon lens, but that isn't getting much use now, thinking about maybe selling it. She almost exclusively uses the 35mm prime lens.
Also just got her a YN565EX based on Brain's recommendation, and a studio lighting kit (not flash, just some static studio lights).
Reply
0
0
01-01-2014, 04:21 PM
#210
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
That's a nice, large leap from the 3100 to the 7100. The 35mm 1.8G is a great lens. I used to have one, but sold it, and now I want it back. 35mm equiv. ~50mm focal length is so useful. Is that a 55-200 VR that you have? Or just the non VR version? I also had one of those in VR, and it was a pretty decent cheap tele-zoom lens. A bit slow to focus, and feels pretty cheap, but optically it is pretty solid.
Reply
0
0
01-01-2014, 04:51 PM
#211
Yes, 3100 to 7100 was a pretty big jump, but my wife is starting to get into photography more seriously so I figured I would splurge on her a bit.
I mean, I have more money in one driving suit then I do in the camera...and I have four driving suits...
Yes, the 55-200 is VR, I bought it with the 3100 ~ 2 years ago. The kit we got was the D3100 with the standard 18-55 VR and with the added 55-200 VR (so she could shoot my motorsports activities). Turns out the 55-200 isn't really enough zoom for shooting racing, so I'd like to get a 55-300 instead. Plus the 18-140 covers most of the same range as the 55-200, so I seriously doubt a lens swap is going to happen very often for that extra little bit of zoom. Result = 55-200 lens sits in the camera bag, mostly unused for who knows how long....
I mean, I have more money in one driving suit then I do in the camera...and I have four driving suits...
Yes, the 55-200 is VR, I bought it with the 3100 ~ 2 years ago. The kit we got was the D3100 with the standard 18-55 VR and with the added 55-200 VR (so she could shoot my motorsports activities). Turns out the 55-200 isn't really enough zoom for shooting racing, so I'd like to get a 55-300 instead. Plus the 18-140 covers most of the same range as the 55-200, so I seriously doubt a lens swap is going to happen very often for that extra little bit of zoom. Result = 55-200 lens sits in the camera bag, mostly unused for who knows how long....
Reply
0
0
01-01-2014, 05:24 PM
#213
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Tamron makes a 200-500 that has gotten really good reviews, for under a grand. Might be an option. Though the 55-300 is half the price, but probably doesn't perform nearly as well as the Tamron.
Reply
0
0
01-02-2014, 08:06 AM
#215
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Buy a used Nikon 70-300 VR from keh.com or alike. Best zoom for ~$300.
The 55-200 is a very **** lens.
The 55-300 is pretty good for the price, but it's autofocusing is SLOWWWWWWWWW. It hunts like crazy in poor lighting, and if it misses it has to fully finish the zoom cycle before coming back to grab it.
Optically it gets soft at 300mm, but only a pixel peeper will actually notice this.
The 70-300 focuses fast as ****. If you're close, in or out, it will bring it to focus instantly and tracks objects much better. It's sharp throughout the zoom range with less distortion. It's also an FX len so it will carry over to a FX body.
I went from a 55-200 to the 55-300 for the reach, and then to the 70-300 for the focus performance and so it would fit on an FX. Even if I buy a 70-200 2.8, I'll keep the 70-300.
NA6C, there will really be no need to go to a D600 from a D7100 unless you really need the better low-light, but the D7100 has the best DX sized sensor on the market, it's already damn good in low-light, and it has the better auto-focus system, so the D600 might be a downgrade for you.
For those on a crop sensor, the Tamron 150-600mm at ~$1000 is worth a look; if you're shooting in good lighting, that's one Hell of a zoom for the price. A lot of people with the Sigma 150-500 are salivating for it to be available.
The 55-200 is a very **** lens.
The 55-300 is pretty good for the price, but it's autofocusing is SLOWWWWWWWWW. It hunts like crazy in poor lighting, and if it misses it has to fully finish the zoom cycle before coming back to grab it.
Optically it gets soft at 300mm, but only a pixel peeper will actually notice this.
The 70-300 focuses fast as ****. If you're close, in or out, it will bring it to focus instantly and tracks objects much better. It's sharp throughout the zoom range with less distortion. It's also an FX len so it will carry over to a FX body.
I went from a 55-200 to the 55-300 for the reach, and then to the 70-300 for the focus performance and so it would fit on an FX. Even if I buy a 70-200 2.8, I'll keep the 70-300.
NA6C, there will really be no need to go to a D600 from a D7100 unless you really need the better low-light, but the D7100 has the best DX sized sensor on the market, it's already damn good in low-light, and it has the better auto-focus system, so the D600 might be a downgrade for you.
For those on a crop sensor, the Tamron 150-600mm at ~$1000 is worth a look; if you're shooting in good lighting, that's one Hell of a zoom for the price. A lot of people with the Sigma 150-500 are salivating for it to be available.
Last edited by Braineack; 01-02-2014 at 08:26 AM.
Reply
0
0
01-02-2014, 10:34 AM
#217
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Only that 17-70.
I see a lot of bird photographers use the Sigma 150-500 and it produces great results.
Not my shot, but this was taken in their backyard on a D7100 with it:
Rainy Day House Sparrow 2 by krisinct, on Flickr
I personally wouldn't buy a telephoto without IS, OS, VR, or whatever.
I see a lot of bird photographers use the Sigma 150-500 and it produces great results.
Not my shot, but this was taken in their backyard on a D7100 with it:
Rainy Day House Sparrow 2 by krisinct, on Flickr
I personally wouldn't buy a telephoto without IS, OS, VR, or whatever.
Reply
0
0
01-02-2014, 12:12 PM
#218
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
That is a good point. I would benefit from the better high ISO performance, but even then, the D7100 is already pretty awesome in that regard. Though the D600 offers about 2 full stops of improvement.
I'm not sure how I missed that 150-600 VC. A much better option than the 200-500. Though I guess I was looking at the 200-500 for the full frame coverage. Maybe I should just get the 150-600 and worry about crop sensor gear for now, except for the 24-70,70-200, which is great for either format.
I'm pretty sure that Sigma 70-300 is the one I had the displeasure of using a few years ago. Borrowed it from my aunt to shoot, and it was a horribly loose and clunky, cheap plastic toy lens. Which should be expected for a super tele with a $150 price tag. If it wasn't that exact model, it was another Sigma super tele range lens that was in their bargain range of lenses. One of the worst handling and worst made lenses I've ever used. The one I used also had a horribly loud AF since it was screw drive. The internals must have had all sorts of slack, because I have never heard a louder, nastier sounding lens focus.
I'm not sure how I missed that 150-600 VC. A much better option than the 200-500. Though I guess I was looking at the 200-500 for the full frame coverage. Maybe I should just get the 150-600 and worry about crop sensor gear for now, except for the 24-70,70-200, which is great for either format.
I'm pretty sure that Sigma 70-300 is the one I had the displeasure of using a few years ago. Borrowed it from my aunt to shoot, and it was a horribly loose and clunky, cheap plastic toy lens. Which should be expected for a super tele with a $150 price tag. If it wasn't that exact model, it was another Sigma super tele range lens that was in their bargain range of lenses. One of the worst handling and worst made lenses I've ever used. The one I used also had a horribly loud AF since it was screw drive. The internals must have had all sorts of slack, because I have never heard a louder, nastier sounding lens focus.
Reply
0
0
01-02-2014, 12:18 PM
#220
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Dizamn, that lens is also an FX lens. I thought it was only for DX.
In Nikon made a lens like that, it would be $10k.
Reply
0
0
