New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - What do you use?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

What do you use?

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  < 12 3>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/28/2014 at 21:37
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3407
Yeah, nice list RWB.  I think a full frame body would go nice with all that FX glass!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/28/2014 at 21:56
RWBlue View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 52
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/28/2014 at 22:01
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14560
You certainly have some nice camera equipment, Blue.

I have the f/4 version of the 70-200 and love it!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2014 at 00:11
RWBlue View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 52
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2014 at 08:18
Skylar McMahon View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar

Joined: April/05/2011
Location: TEXAS
Status: Offline
Points: 5686
Originally posted by RWBlue RWBlue wrote:

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.
 
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?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2014 at 09:18
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14560
Originally posted by Skylar McMahon Skylar McMahon wrote:

I thought the only difference between the 7000/7100 series is the built in WIFI?


D7000 = 16.2 MP
D7100 = 24.1 MP w/ no optical low pass filter in front of the sensor.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2014 at 09:20
Skylar McMahon View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar

Joined: April/05/2011
Location: TEXAS
Status: Offline
Points: 5686
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

Originally posted by Skylar McMahon Skylar McMahon wrote:

I thought the only difference between the 7000/7100 series is the built in WIFI?


D7000 = 16.2 MP
D7100 = 24.1 MP w/ no optical low pass filter in front of the sensor.
 
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2014 at 10:25
ol0ko View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: June/25/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 38
Originally posted by budperm budperm wrote:

Bucky  I use a crayon...


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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2014 at 10:26
RWBlue View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 52
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2014 at 11:39
Skylar McMahon View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar

Joined: April/05/2011
Location: TEXAS
Status: Offline
Points: 5686
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.  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2014 at 12:24
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14560
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.



Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2014 at 12:46
Skylar McMahon View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar

Joined: April/05/2011
Location: TEXAS
Status: Offline
Points: 5686
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2014 at 13:23
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14560
Originally posted by Skylar McMahon Skylar McMahon wrote:

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.


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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2014 at 23:53
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3407
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/30/2014 at 07:16
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 14050
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2014 at 17:39
RWBlue View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 52
FX lens on DX bodies are always a point of discussion.

First, there is vignetting.  FX on FX or DX on DX can give you vignetting.  Vignetting for those that don't know is darkening around the corners of the frame.

Second, I think the image with better with FX glass.  I don't know if it is the coating of quality of glass or how they put it together or....., but I can see some difference in some lenses.

Third, I have thought I was going to get a FX body for several years.  It is always just a little out of reach or, I see other needs or now the DX bodies are getting so good and several thousand less ......I have a hard time justifying the FX.  Side note, I may have a lead on a body with almost no use on it.  As it is just too heavy for the person who bought it....Trade them a D7100 for an D810 even up....Whacko

Fourth, They didn't have the 18-300 Nikkor when I bought my lens.  If they did, it would have been more difficult to decide.  But isn't the 18-300 a true 18-300 on a DX, where my 28-300 is really a 36-450mm (check my math) on a DX
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2014 at 17:43
RWBlue View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 52
RifleDude, 
"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."

I will give you, reasons 1, 2, & 3.  Those are some good reasons.

We can argue over VR.  To be honest, I am not really impressed with an VR.  I have seen some studies posted on line and I will agree that VR helps, but at least for me....not enough.  I swear the difference between a gallery shot and crap is just too small.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2014 at 17:53
RWBlue View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Lets see if this works.

28-300mm  Just walking around during a party and found this cat.  When I tried to get closer for a second shot, the cat ran.....so 450mm of zoom really helped that day.

I shot this bear while the person I was trying to change lenses well add a 2x to the 70-200mm.  
That extra little bit of reach was also useful in allowing me to keep some distance.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2014 at 17:59
RWBlue View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Fun typo above....

I shot this bear while the person I was with was trying to change lenses.  I had the 50-500 ready to go.  He has the 70-200 ready to go.  He needed more reach (2x +70-200mm is still not 450mm), but it was a lower Fstop.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2014 at 19:22
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14560
Originally posted by RWBlue RWBlue wrote:

But isn't the 18-300 a true 18-300 on a DX, where my 28-300 is really a 36-450mm (check my math) on a DX


No, the focal lengths on all lenses are expressed exactly what they are. They don't use "FF equivalent" conversions in the focal length specs for DX lenses. A given lens's focal length(s) always remains the same whether a lens is attached to a crop sensor or full frame sensor camera, it's just that in comparison, the DX's smaller sensor size means a given image occupies 1.5x more of the sensor area (or has 1.5x smaller angle of view) than a full frame sensor, giving the appearance of 1.5x greater magnification. The 18-300 is 27-450mm equivalent (to the angle of view on a FX sensor), but it's still an 18-300.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2014 at 19:24
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14560
Nice shots,RWB!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2014 at 21:11
RWBlue View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Thanks and RifleDude, you are really confusing me.

So using my DX body, if I take some photos with my DX lenses set on 70mm and my FX lenses set on 70mm, they will all be the same image?  (It may be true, but I sure doesn't seem that way...I may have to set down with a tripod and my lenses to see it with my own eyes.)
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/01/2014 at 00:00
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14560
The end result won't be the same only because of the DX sensor's 1.5X "crop factor" vs. the FX's "full frame" sensor. Yes, technically the image reaching both sensors will be the exact same size, but since the DX sensor is 1.5X smaller than the FX sensor, the image will fill more of the DX frame, giving the appearance of greater magnification. Or, you could say that the FX sensor has a greater field of view. In reality, the subject isn't more magnified in the DX camera, it just occupies a greater % of the DX's smaller sensor, as the angle of view is narrower. If you took the exact same shot at the same distance, same vantage point, and same focal length with both cameras, the DX image will appear more magnified for the reasons already stated. However, if you cropped the FX image so that it has the same amount of space surrounding the subject as the DX image, the images from both will appear the same (assuming the same or similar pixel pitch) with the same level of detail.

Crop factor explained here.
http://digital-photography-school.com/crop-factor-explained/
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/01/2014 at 00:03
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14560
Originally posted by RWBlue RWBlue wrote:

...my 28-300 is really a 36-450mm (check my math) on a DX


A 28-300mm lens would be equivalent to a 42-450mm on a DX.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/08/2014 at 14:43
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11269
Originally posted by Bitterroot Bulls Bitterroot Bulls wrote:

Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:


I wasn't aware it didn't have an OLPF. I thought that was only a feature of the D800E and D810,


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!

Just stumbled onto this.  Can you elaborate on this?  I do not fully understand how you can cancel a random blur filter.  I was under an impression that the blur filter is taken out and a different piece of glass with the same optical pathlength is added to the stack.  

Perhaps, I misunderstand something.

Thanks
ILya
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  < 12 3>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "What do you use?"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
There are no similar posts.


This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.