Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
What do you use? |
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Author | ||
Bitterroot Bulls
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: May/07/2009 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 3416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I haven't quite decided, Ted. I hope to get some D7100 shots today. |
||
-Matt
|
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Will be interested in hearing your impressions of the D7100. On paper, it looks to be a superb camera!
I wasn't aware it didn't have an OLPF. I thought that was only a feature of the D800E and D810, but I do see it mentioned in the specs. Interesting. Given that you seem to primarily take nature/wildlife/landscape shots, you probably won't be encountering very many "moire inducing" shot scenarios where you'd benefit from an OLPF anyway. |
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
Bitterroot Bulls
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: May/07/2009 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 3416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Actually Ted, the 800E does have an OLPF. But it also has a "cancelling" optical glass layer. the D810, D7100, and even the D3300 are lacking the OLPF alltogether. I will keep a look out for moire, but I will deal with it when it happens. I will take the extra sharpness the rest of the time! |
||
-Matt
|
||
RWBlue
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Nikon D7000 & D300
28-300mm Nikkor 17-70 Sigma 50-500 Sigma 105mm Nikkor 24-70 Nikkor 70-200 Nikkor 2 2x modifier Nikkor (yes they stack) Cannon point and shoots Fuji point and shoot Toshiba tablet Android phone (Actually did a great job videoing the 4th of July) And I am sure I forgot something I need an action cam don't I?
|
||
To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.
|
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Very nice gear, Blue!
Is your 70-200 the f/2.8 or f/4 version? |
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
Bitterroot Bulls
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: May/07/2009 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 3416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yeah, nice list RWB. I think a full frame body would go nice with all that FX glass!
|
||
-Matt
|
||
RWBlue
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It is a 70-200 the f/2.8.
Yea, I have been wanting a D810, but.... To be honest, I don't really think I would get the mileage from it. Yes, it is better for studio work. Yes, it is better for some macro work. Yes, if I were a wedding photographer. But I don't do studio work for a living, I am not a wedding photographer, and I don't take that many macros. To be honest, with the number of hard miles on the D7000, a D7100 would be a better investment. The D7000 has already been back to Nikon once and it probably should go back again.
|
||
To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.
|
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You certainly have some nice camera equipment, Blue.
I have the f/4 version of the 70-200 and love it! |
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
RWBlue
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You know, I really didn't answer the question of what I use....or use the most.
With all the gear I have access to, I use the D7000 and 28-300mm the most. It is small enough and light enough I can put it on my bicycle or in a backpack or .....and go. It is a one lens setup for fast action when I don't know what I will encounter. When I am shooting photos, others are changing lenses.
|
||
To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.
|
||
Skylar McMahon
Optics Jedi Knight Capt. BlowHard Joined: April/05/2011 Location: TEXAS Status: Offline Points: 6082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Wow, that is a nice lens. The next Lens I buy is the alternative to that one. 70-200mm F/4. I thought the only difference between the 7000/7100 series is the built in WIFI?
|
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
D7000 = 16.2 MP D7100 = 24.1 MP w/ no optical low pass filter in front of the sensor. |
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
Skylar McMahon
Optics Jedi Knight Capt. BlowHard Joined: April/05/2011 Location: TEXAS Status: Offline Points: 6082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Interesting. Cory was going over some of the specs on the 7100 and 5K series Nikon's and decided on the 5000 line. Wanted to use it with her Ipad. I didn't read it, but I listened to what she was explaining.
|
||
ol0ko
Optics GrassHopper Joined: June/25/2014 Status: Offline Points: 38 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I need to pick up a pen and pencil when I go out on hunting trips. It is not a bad idea to document hunts with drawings at all. |
||
RWBlue
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Skylar, I think a 70-200 would be a good addition, but ....
I am very impressed with the Sigma 50-500. If you are looking for reach on a sunny day and are willing to use a tripod/monopod because of the weight, then the 50-500 is better. If that doesn't work for you, (weight being the biggest issue), and still think the 70-200 is better, I would tell you to go with the F2.8. This gives me the ability to take photos without a flash of my niece dancing on stage when I push the ISO a little. If I had the f4 or the big sigma, I have to push the ISO too much. And I know it is not the popular option with the pros, but I keep recommending the 28-300 as the first lens everyone should get. It is just so flexible.
|
||
To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.
|
||
Skylar McMahon
Optics Jedi Knight Capt. BlowHard Joined: April/05/2011 Location: TEXAS Status: Offline Points: 6082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thank you for the input.
The reason, I was choosing to go with the 70-200mm is mostly for wildlife shots. And also, because the lens received EXCELLENT reviews. For the most part, I will be in a ground blind of sorts and shooting with the camera, prior to taking my harvest shot during hunting season. Although outside of hunting season it is simply nice to get outside and go for a drive and capture several species while on the road. I actually discovered this lens thanks to Rifledude. Ted and I went fishing together. It was started out like pulling teeth because I do not like to fish. I thought all fishing was the same. However inevitably I was wrong. I LOVE DEEP SEA and bay fishing. Mostly because you never know what is going to hit the line and there was always some action. One of the best times I have ever experienced and I am truly thankful that Ted included me on the trip. But I'm getting off topic....Now, I discovered this lens on the way back from the trip. Ted and I both went to a local ranch and he was kind enough to allow me to use his lens to shoot with. Part of the reason why my photos appears so grainy is because my ISO was set on ISO HIGH II, which after some short math Ted discovered was like 24K, needless to say there was a lot of noise on the image. Which isn't bad if I wanted the artistic look like an oil painting. But unfortunately that was not something that I was going for. I wanted a clear image in sharp focus, which is what I would have had, providing I paid closer attention to my settings. But I'm seeing this is a common beginner mistake. Overall the initial impression that I liked about the 70-200mm F/4 is that the lens extension is internal. Unlike the lens that I currently use. I really enjoyed that feature in particular. Granted I didn't spend a lot of time with it, but what time I did, I really enjoyed using it.
|
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
There are 4 reasons I chose the f/4 version of the 70-200 over the f/2.8 version:
1. It's half the price 2. It's much lighter 3. It's much shorter 4. It actually has better VR technology, being a later generation. In exchange for the above, I do lose 1 stop of light. There are times when I do wish I had the extra stop for DOF reasons, but I seldom ever find myself handicapped in lower light conditions by the 1 stop light loss disadvantage. I can compensate for the difference by bumping ISO up a bit more, and my D800 handles ISOs up to at least 3200 very well, so it's really not that big a deal anymore. The VR is so effective, I can keep ISO relatively low and get by with amazingly slow shutter speeds with surprisingly sharp images. I can remove most of the noise with NIK Define 2.0 and LR5 and get a surprisingly good image as long as I'm not printing huge images. The f/4 version produces essentially the same image quality as the f/2.8, and in fact according to Nikon's own MTR charts, the f/4 is very slightly sharper. |
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
Skylar McMahon
Optics Jedi Knight Capt. BlowHard Joined: April/05/2011 Location: TEXAS Status: Offline Points: 6082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That Sigma may not be a bad option in the future. On my camera the 50-500 would translate to 75-750mm I believe and that would be nice when my son is playing baseball.
I'm pretty dead set on the Nikon 70-200m F/4 though. Like Ted stated with the updated VR. I could save some money and still achieve what I want for now.
|
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Skylar, I like the focal length range of the Sigma 50-500 Blue mentions, but keep in mind it has variable max aperture (f4.5-6.3). At 500mm, where it would most benefit you for wildlife, you only get f/6.3 wide open, not the best for low light shots common to wildlife photography. It's not a very fast lens, so wouldn't be the best choice for action shots (your boy playing baseball). As for the 70-200, although it's a great, versatile lens, understand its limitations as a wildlife lens. 200mm is a bit on the short side for wildlife photography on a full frame body, but on your D7000, you have 300mm, which is o.k. for reasonably close shots at larger animals. I consider 300mm to be marginal reach for most wildlife photography, and it wouldn't be the best choice for smaller critters like birds. You could attach a 1.4 teleconverter to it (280mm / 420mm effective on your camera) and still maintain good IQ, but at the cost of 1 stop of light loss. With that combo, you will have the same effective reach and angle of view on your D7000 as I do with my 300mm + 1.4X teleconverter on my D800. Edited by RifleDude - August/30/2014 at 14:21 |
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
Bitterroot Bulls
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: May/07/2009 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 3416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
RWB, why did you go with a 28-300 FX lens if you are using a DX body?
I am not criticizing, just wondering. It seems the 18-300 DX could save some weight and offer some versatility with the much wider low end.
|
||
-Matt
|
||
Urimaginaryfrnd
MODERATOR Resident Redneck Joined: June/20/2005 Location: Iowa Status: Offline Points: 14964 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Nikon F4 Besler 23C ACP200 Arkay Paper Dryer. Sold the Mamiya and Hasselblad gear for almost nothing. Ive had a couple of digital Nikons but so far I hate them. I'm really wanting to go back to a Yashikamat 124G. The change from film to digital was a $50,000. Hit for me. But I have enough Photogenic Powerlights to lights to light the moon, and hand painted backgrounds up to 16 ft wide.
|
||
"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do". Bobby Paul Doherty Texas Ranger |
||
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |