[sleeping]

IMNSHO if we’re talking about classical elements those are really symbolic concepts, and I’m not sure it should be necessary for an image to literally contain fire/air etc to be appropriate here. Consider that the basic theory was that everything in the universe was made of those components….

[sleeping]

Does it change the technical f/1.8 to something better or worse? Is it merely a field of view thing? What about lens distortion? If the image uses more of the center of the lens configuration, is it bettar? Warse?

When people talk about Focal length changing, they’re really using it as a shorthand for field of view. The focal length doesn’t change at all when you use a smaller sensor, but the field of view approximates that of a longer lens.

Because the true focal length doesn’t change, the F-stop is the same as well, so for exposure purposes that’s not affected. However, if you’re comparing output of the same dimensions a smaller sensor image is enlarged more to make the final image, meaning the DOF is not the same (for an equivalent field of view and F-Stop, DOF is a bit deeper on a small sensor camera than on full frame)

[sleeping]

Seems to me (again, the more inexperienced person) that with the 12mm, all you’d have to do to accomplish the same picture is set your kit to 18mm and take a couple steps back.

Sorry, but I’d have to disagree. Ultrawides are a different world altogether than a “normal” wide angle. Using one effectively generally means stepping *closer*, not back, and there’s no way to replicate that with anything else (however, you can come much closer to approximating a longer FL by cropping)

Also, percentage-wise 12-18mm is the same as 200-300mm.

[sleeping]

Also, you can make it more difficult for people to do that by disabling sharing on your Flickr account (your account > privacy and permissions). That way people can only easily get a link to your flickr photo page, not the embed codes and stuff.

[sleeping]

Another thing he’s doing is very carefully placing his plane of focus – keeping it parallel to what he’s interested in as a subject rather than perpendicular to it. That’s really important when you have a mm or so of DOF.

[sleeping]

I probably should have linked to their smaller version, which isn’t quite as big or pricy: http://www.spiderholster.com/black-widow-holster.html I’d definitely need to try it in real life before I considered putting the $$ down for one though….

[sleeping]

I replaced my mini ballhead with one of these and found it a significant improvement: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554096-REG/Manfrotto_234_234_Swivel_Tilt_Monopod.html (I always wanted another hand with the ballhead)

[sleeping]

You mean the fact that it’s upside down?

[sleeping]

It sounds a lot like this, which actually exists already: http://www.spiderholster.com/single-camera-system.html

[sleeping]

I will almost certainly get:
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 or Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 (if I can afford it)

If you do get the 50/1.8, you could get a 52mm reverse coupling ring too. That plus the 55-200mm makes a very decent setup for high magnification macro shooting:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/awrose/3177643125/ (I used a 50mm series E which is an older manual lens but has the exact same optics)

The new 50/1.4 is only worth the money over the 1.8 if you *really* need high sharpness wide open or the extra 2/3 stop

And possibly one of:
Vivitar 7mm f/3.5
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 or Tamron SP AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5
Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 or Tamron SP AF 60mm f/2 (macros)
Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6

I would recommend starting with one of the rectilinear wide angle options, too.

Fisheyes are fun, but not something most people use every day, or even every month (unless you’re planning on taking up snowboard/skateboard photography…)

A 55/60mm macro and a 50mm standard prime seems kind of 50mm heavy for a DX kit, and I’d generally recommend a longer macro lens than 55-60mm (tamron 90mm, 85 or 105 nikkor, sigma 105 or 150mm etc). Although the 60mm F2 macro could probably safely double as a fast-ish portrait lens as well as a macro, so that might be a useful way to go instead of the nikon 50s…

The 70-300 VR is a very decent lens, but it’s not an overwhelming improvement on the 55-200, which is actually an excellent bargain for the optical quality it has. Unless you really need faster focusing, I wouldn’t priortize it.

I was also lusting after a 500mm (or 800mm) mirror lens, but I feel very wary of that for some reason. Can anybody confirm or allay my trepidation on that matter?

Mirror lenses are really hard to use effectively because of the slow fixed aperture and weird bokeh. It’s not impossible, but I’d rather have something a bit more usable (which is why I bought an old 200-500 F5.6 Tamron adaptall last week, 300$ and no donut bokeh: http://www.flickr.com/photos/awrose/5676880587/ )

[sleeping]

So… who wants to talk me out of the 70-200mm f2.8L I’m itching to order?

My shoulder, after lugging a Nikon equivalent around for most of last weekend…. Those things are *heavy*.

[sleeping]

Yes, certain very very old cameras don’t have timers — and maybe we should consider those on a case-by-case basis… and maybe not —

Actually, somewhere kicking around in one of my boxes of old photo bits I have a mechanical timer that screws into a standard threaded cable release socket for just such cameras 8)

Here’s one on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/Walz-Mechanical-Self-Timer-/180634157122?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a0ea28042#ht_500wt_922

[sleeping]

Also, if you’re shooting in raw, don’t you want to slightly under-expose?

No, not if you can help it (providing you can avoid blowing the highlights):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

[sleeping]

That would be getting on for twice the rate I’m shooting at currently, but I’ve been consciously trying to at least post (if not shoot) fewer, better photos for the past several months, so that may be something of a factor. I did shoot seven hundred something frames at my sister’s wedding not so long ago though…

[sleeping]

That does sound like there might be something wrong with it. I have an old 70-300G that I haven’t sold because I don’t want to be responsible for inflicting it on anyone else, but the 70-300 VR I have is very sharp except at 300mm, where it’s OK, but definitely a bit softer if you look close.

[Author]

Posts