Posts for: moonhawk
Aug 9, 2014 14:47:02 #
Guy sounds jealous to me....
I've gotten good advice, I don't agree with everything he says, I don't begrudge how he makes his living. The article points out where he states plainly what he does and then says he doesn't disclose.
Whatever--YMMV.
I've gotten good advice, I don't agree with everything he says, I don't begrudge how he makes his living. The article points out where he states plainly what he does and then says he doesn't disclose.
Whatever--YMMV.
Aug 9, 2014 10:14:25 #
Gene51 wrote:
Ah, no one told you about the 45mb raw files. Good thing it only shoots 5 fps.
So, now you'll be shopping for a new computer, ginormous hard drives, and a NAS.
Welcome to the club. :)
So, now you'll be shopping for a new computer, ginormous hard drives, and a NAS.
Welcome to the club. :)
Jeez...I thought he said "huge flies".
And then he posted his (very nice) photos. I was about to say "Dude--those aren't flies..."
Then I read your post.....
:)
Aug 9, 2014 10:08:57 #
You could sell the 28-300, get the 70-200 AND the D810, and have money left over for another lens, and still spend less than you would for the D4S.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Aug 9, 2014 09:49:56 #
moonhawk wrote:
KR is biased and opinionated but he has a LOT of good info on his site. And his approach may be far better suited to many of the beginners who come here looking for advice and get caught up in the opinion wars of a bunch of anal retentive OFWCs.
(Old Farts With Cameras).
Aug 9, 2014 09:48:55 #
KR is biased and opinionated but he has a LOT of good info on his site. And his approach may be far better suited to many of the beginners who come here looking for advice and get caught up in the opinion wars of a bunch of anal retentive OFWCs.
Aug 9, 2014 01:12:17 #
dsmeltz wrote:
That is Jack Arias not Aires.
And his video on crop vs FF is quite entertaining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY
And his video on crop vs FF is quite entertaining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY
Great video--Thanks for posting!
Aug 8, 2014 19:53:09 #
I'll stick with my D7100 over a 9300 if the 9300 is big and heavy. I have a D810 when I want to lug around the weight.
The 7100 is for all-in-one (18-300) travelling light--Biking, hiking, kayaking.
The 7200 would have to have some serious feature/ergonomic improvements to upgrade it.
The 7100 is for all-in-one (18-300) travelling light--Biking, hiking, kayaking.
The 7200 would have to have some serious feature/ergonomic improvements to upgrade it.
Aug 7, 2014 11:15:35 #
I upgraded and have no regrets. While the D7000 was one of my all-time favorites, the D7100 is better for all the reasons mentioned, and one more:
I used to occasionally brush the top left control knob, the one that selects shooting mode, when pulling the camera from my bag or pack, and not realize I had changed the setting. There is now a lock button on that knob, and I no longer have accidental setting changes.
I used to occasionally brush the top left control knob, the one that selects shooting mode, when pulling the camera from my bag or pack, and not realize I had changed the setting. There is now a lock button on that knob, and I no longer have accidental setting changes.
Aug 5, 2014 15:17:00 #
amehta wrote:
If you need "Fast", you usually use both ISO and a large aperture! :-)
True...but then you have to lug the darn thing around!
Aug 5, 2014 12:27:36 #
David Popham wrote:
Three years ago I bought a Nikon D7000 body along ... (show quote)
Sell both your lenses and get the new 18-300 VR. Great lens, great convenience.
Unless you need "Fast".
But you can do "Fast" with ISO these days.
Aug 3, 2014 18:24:29 #
Davethehiker wrote:
Great capture! It's amazing how they fight over th... (show quote)
Thanks--had a fun little trip down memory lane trying to find a shot that would illustrate whatever my original point was. One of these days I'll get all my old stuff properly cataloged and organized in LR.....
Happy hunting!
Aug 3, 2014 17:50:34 #
Davethehiker wrote:
For those who prefer a "natural" or uncluttered background background, I wonder if they realize what the camera will give you if you don't take control of the background. I now provide a photo with the natural background of a motion stopping strobe used in broad daylight. I call it a "coal mine hummingbird."
Well, here's one I shot in 2005 with a D70. No flash, no special control of the background, and no coal mines. Also no alterations--just a straight crop from the NEF.
Yes, the wings are blurred--I have plenty without the blurred wings, but I sometimes like the effect. Just my two cents. Your shots are very very good, just showing an alternate way of looking at your original question--or something like that. :)
(Please--don't anybody "fix" this for me--I can do the necessary PP if I want.)
Please,
Aug 1, 2014 10:50:51 #
Davethehiker wrote:
I'm continually modifying the process I use to mak... (show quote)
Ditto what davidrb said. Also try to arrange a smoother or less cluttered background. I adjusted the height of my feeders so that the background is distant trees.
I realize this is not always possible depending on location.
I also don't care if the wings are blurred in some instances--it gives a sense of motion and action. A lot of blur is preferable to a little.
In real life, you don't see hummer wings holding still...
Aug 1, 2014 10:39:59 #
Apaflo wrote:
Perhaps not perfect, but they are technically sufficient, which is what actually counts.
Can't argue with that. I also fully agree that some types of shots will never be possible with limited equipment, e.g. macro/extreme wildlife or birding close-ups.
And I do use both FX and DX myself. Each in its own place and for its own purpose.
But some of my favorite images were taken with the DX, and I really can't fault them from a technical perspective in any meaningful way.
Aug 1, 2014 00:51:32 #
Apaflo wrote:
That misses the fact that most non-boring great photographs are technically very close to perfect.
A great image requires an interesting subject, and must have technical perfection sufficient to show what is interesting about that subject.
A great image requires an interesting subject, and must have technical perfection sufficient to show what is interesting about that subject.
Like greatness, technical perfection is hard to define. Many great images are NOT "technically" perfect. What makes an image great is the image--what was captured and what was conveyed.
Pixels be damned.