Braineack

iTrader: (62)

how much $$$ you want for the 50mm?

I'm guessing your D5100 sold? I'm about to sell mine with a 35mm 1.8G and Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

I split the camera and kit lens up from the 50mm, and no it hasn't sold yet. Asking $180 shipped for the 50mm.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Personally I'd go with the D7100 and keep the 50mm. But the Pentax offers a lot of camera for the price.

There's things about the D7100 I wish the D600 I just bought has... 51 point focus, Auto-FP flash sync, 1/8000sec

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's going to be the K-3. The more reviews I watch, the more excited I get about it. Near full frame performance and features in a smaller and much cheaper package. Everything I've read says the K-3 is built like a tank, and feel like it, so you get that boost of confidence. Then you have the weather seal thing. I'll enjoy not being mildly paranoid all of the time about damage from anything and everything with my Nikon.

BTW,

D5100 with 18-55mm and accessories for sale, $420 shipped!

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I was tempted by Sony's new offering the a77 or whatever.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

I like the translucent mirror technology, and 12fps! Doesn't Sony mostly use Zeiss ($$$) and non proprietary lenses? That would be one thing to stop me. And after my recent experience with Sony products, I have to say they aren't the powerhouse they used to be. I've handled quite a lot of Sony junk over the last decade.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Oh man, my indecision! I've been dead set on going with a Pentax K-3, but after some frustration with finding a full set of professional glass that I like, I'm becoming very very tempted by the D600. Especially considering with how affordable they are as of recently. $1600 for the D600 vs $1100 for the K-3. And that is full frame vs crop, though the K-3 offers exceptionally good performance when compared to the D600, even better in some regards. Mainly, I just like the idea of having a full selection of gear at hand, compared to spotty coverage for Pentax in the 3rd party. I'm liking the thought of a D600 and a set of Tamron VC glass. What DO!?!?!? It may literally come down to a coin flip. The pluses and minuses of both balance out to a finer point than I can detect.

PS, dat Nikkor 70-200 f/4

On another note, I'm finding the 24-70 range zoom to be less useful the more I think about it. At that focal length range, you can compensate from 24 to 70 by just moving a reasonable number of steps (ignoring the compression for a second), so I don't see why it's really necessary to spend $1200-$1800 for a 24-70 2.8 when you can just get a possibly better IQ set of fast primes, maybe a 28mm or 35mm and a 50mm. Not only do you get better optics because of them being prime, but even buying Nikon glass, you are coming in at around half the price, AND the lenses are faster. Is my thinking flawed here? If you have the 35mm on and want a 50mm aspect, just take take a few steps forward and recompose. Again, I know there are more dynamic things than just taking a few steps and getting the same exact results... but still.

And as for the 70-200 f/4, I'm liking that much more than a 2.8. Given it's already on the long end, you will be getting great compression and plenty of background blur even at f/4 or f/5.6, while weighing less and being considerably smaller and cheaper. With the great performance of high ISO on modern cameras, it's easy to make up for that stop loss in aperture with a stop up in ISO. And I can totally understand wanting a 70-200 zoom, since compensating for that range is more than just a few steps, more like tens of steps, or 100+ steps, and massive changes in compression.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

how about the 150-500 Sigma?

I got my refurb'd D600 for much less than $1600.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Too big, too heavy, too slow, probably too much distortion and soft optics. I can't decide what exactly I want. Now I'm thinking of just getting the full Tamron 24-70, 70-200 2.8 VC setup.

I've always had good luck with Nikon refurb lenses, but I'm not sure about bodies. Do they install a new shutter, or does it still have a count on it?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

this is it with the D7100 at F/8 with that 150-500:

Rainy Day House Sparrow 1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Rainy Day House Sparrow 2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Female Cardinal in the shadows | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


Here's the lens I'd like to try: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/a...-7-resized.jpg

Sigma 120-300mm Sport with a 1.4TC. only a ~$4000 combo. also on a D7100.



My D600 shipped with 35xx clicks. Supposedly if you get a factory refurb'd D600 they replace the shutter and clean the sensor. Do you know of the issue with the D600 and why the D610 came out so fast?

Primes are fun, but I'm lazy. If I had a 50mm attached to my D600 on Wednesday, I wouldn't have been able to capture this:


Julia enjoying her new toy by The Braineack, on Flickr

But If I get the 70-200. I'm covered from 24-200 with two lenses and f/2.8 fully throughout. If I need more stops of light I can use the 85mm 1.8G or 50mm 1.4D.

Going pure prime isn't a bad idea, plenty of others do the same. The glass is cheap as hell for the image quality.

I got my 85mm for $375, and it's optically the best lens that Nikon has made. My Tamron cost 3x that.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Because I use flashes so infrequently, a slow lens like f/5-6.3 wouldn't be a good match for my kind of shooting. Yes I do know of the oil/dust issue with the D600, and that is indeed a good reason to consider a refurb (if somehow refurbs fix the issue). Though I have heard that after several thousand shutter releases, the problem goes away, so it doesn't seem to be too detrimental in the long run.

24-70 and 70-200 is a nice coverage at 2.8, which I guess is the logical thing to do. Then cover the fast primes throughout the range, as well as a wide/ultrawide.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

It's my understanding that the issue doesn't really show itself until about 5000 clicks. it got to the point that Nikon released an entirely new product line within a year.

The D600 came out in late Sept 2012, the D610 came out in Oct 2013. The only difference between a D600 and D610 is the shutter and some silly quiet mode.

I wouldn't say the issue goes away, the reason it got to the point it did is because people were sending them back 2-3-4 times until Nikon finally started replacing the shutters and stopped just cleaning the sensors off and sending them back. It was so bad and damaging to them they actually had to release a new product line, even though late model D600 units supposedly shipped with no issues. But there's nothing to say if you get serial number XYZ that you have an updated unit. I wasn't willing take that risk and got a refurb'd unit for a song that I have no issues with. It came with a 90-day warranty from Nikon so I wasn't too worried. Hard to tell it wasn't new.



I use flashes a lot, and I'm not really a fan of shooting in the dark without; my shots never seem to turn out how I want them to this way. The above was with a bounced flash...

skidude

iTrader: (3)

Body: Canon 20D
Lenses: Canono IS 18-200 f/3.5-5, Canon 50mm f/1.8, Canon 18-55 kit lens, Canon 55-170 (I think) kit lens
Tripod: Yes, but I don't use it very often.
Filters: None yet
Flashes/Strobes: Once in a while I'll use the built-in flash with a piece of paper as a diffuser.
storage/travel bag: Small Pelican box; I don't really carry spare lenses
other accessories: Cheap china wireless remote
Post Processing: I just use lightroom. I'm still trying to figure out how to organize the pictures I take, as the quantity is starting to become too much for iPhoto, what with duplicates (raw and processed jpegs) and stuff.

Anybody use lightroom for photo organization? So far I usually take a bunch of pictures, then they sit on my camera for months until I get around to processing a big batch in lightroom. Then the raw files sit in iPhoto while I save some processed jpegs off to a folder which I then just import back into iPhoto as a separate event. It doesn't work very well.

Reverant

iTrader: (10)

Wait, you got the AF-S 24-70? The $1700 24-70?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Tamron 24-70mm VC. the $1300 24-70. I saw no reason to spend the extra cash on the Nikon. It's larger, heavier, the hood is beyond huge, and doesn't have VR. The only advantage is that it has less vignetting and sharper in the corners at 70mm.


Keeping raw files stored for long times on a SD card is asking for trouble.

skidude

iTrader: (3)

Why? And my 20D uses CF. It is not a new camera.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Well, it's not like there is an unlimited supply of oil in the camera. I've read quite a few account of people toughing it out and eventually it fixes itself once all of the excess oil on the shutter is splashed off. After that point, it's fine.

Don't forget the tweaked AWB on the 610! Totally worth the extra $500. Nikon should make things right and release the 610 at current 600 prices.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

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.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

The extra cost is to make up for the huge hit they took fixing D600s on warranty work and screwing over vendors; and for the waste of money they put into the DF.

My D600 has the newest firmware which has the WB fix, but I shoot RAW.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Which is a complete load of ****. They fucked up, and now they are asking people to pay release prices over a year later, on what is essentially the exact same camera.

RAW FTW OMG WTF

And while they were at it, the D610 should have gotten a better AF, not the bunched in the center D7000 AF. At least that would make it worth the extra money for me.