Just received a Rokinon 14 mm, F2,8 AF lens for Christmas. The lens was bought off my wish list. I selected the lens strictly by specs. I put the lens onto my Nikon D750. Shot a few manual, a few auto, a few "S" mode, and a few "A" mode. So far it worked as expected. I attached a flash to my camera and tried a few shots (manual mode, Auto mode, "A" mode and "S" mode. In every non manual mode (any time the camera controlled the flash) the results were extremely over exposed ( 4.2 F Stops). This happened with both my Nikon speedlight(SB-600)as well as my Yongnuo speedlight (YN568EX). If I set the flash to compensate 4.2 F stops, the pictures came out fine. If not, the picture was basically a white screen. I can't find any explanation. Any one have a clut?

It's funny you said that. I thought the same thing since I live in Gilbert. Unfortunately, I don't know when because gas is so high and money isn't so abundant these days.

Like other posters I found your first shot to be the best. While all of the images were beautiful, the first shot was stunning! I have to ask...the first shot looks so good I find myself wondering if it's HDR? HDR or straight photo, it makes me want to go there! Thanks for posting!

"owned by a descendent of Jeff Bezos"? Not unless they owned a Delorean! Possibly an ancestor of Jeff Bezos? I should be ashamed of myself for this comment...but I'm not. What do you expect from an ex New Yorker?

You are one hundred percent correct! Well put!

"The OP has been a member of UHH for seven years, but is still randomly selecting shooting mode? I don't think he intended this particular topic to be about learning ?" I can't believe how much people have read into this post. While I am not an award winning photographer, I do know my way around a camera. I do not randomly select shooting modes. Primarily, I use manual but use the other modes under certain circumstances. What I know and don't know isn't the question. Nor is the quality of my photographs. My point was the vast improvement of the phone cameras. I have seen some stunning images created by phone cameras. I was at a wedding where some extremely beautiful images were captured by a cell phone taken by a rather drunk individual. Obviously there are things I can do with my SLR that would be impossible with a phone camera. Controlling light and focus make for more interesting portraits. I have also taken quite a few very nice pictures with other people's phones. At social gatherings people who know me like the pictures I take and so they ask me to take pictures for them. The point is using a camera phone is much easier than using an SLR and the results are often excellent. My grandson's birthday party is a perfect example. The party was outside and since we live in "The Valley of the Sun" near Phoenix, the scene was well lit. My daughter took a shot of my grandson. Not only was the lighting, color and composition perfect but the picture had a beautiful bokea! In my original post I asked if the phone cameras had surpassed SLRs. While that question was tongue in cheek, the truth is phone cameras are gaining capabilities every day and dedicated cameras will always have superior capabilities to phone cameras. The point is, the situations requiring those superior capabilities will be fewer and fewer!

First of all I love the picture. To me it captures two kinds of danger...the weapon and the beautiful woman. Both can really do you harm! Having said that, why are you guys obsessed with safe gun handling practices in a photo? First the original poster feel it's necessary to point out any danger from bad trigger discipline was mitigated by removing the firing pin. Then a commenter says "The lack of a firing pin, which nobody would know, doesn't lessen the appropriateness of calling out a finger on the trigger.". Really? Why? In many action movies they use real guns as props. They point them at each other and actually pull the triggers! Do you guys go to the movies and scream at the screen calling out poor gun safety practices? I carry a gun every day and go target shooting as often as I can. I strictly follow all gun safety practices that apply. But guys, lighten up. You're never going to run into a lady dressed like this so you don't have to worry that she might accidentally shoot you...I suggest you enjoy the fantasy!

All of the above are excellent! Thanks!

OK...fair enough but...if a photographer took the same photograph with a phone and a DSLR and the results were comparable, doesn't that say something about the equipment?

Ok...the answer to your question is obvious. The shirt is up to show off her 38s! As far as what would be more effective, I would beg to differ. Let's be real here. The effect that is trying to be realized here is sexual attraction. While there is the effect of "less is more" I believe the approach of this shot is more straight forward.

Since I'm not the photographer I can obviously be totally wrong but this is the way it seems to me.

You have expressed what I was thinking better than I did!

Thank you. That's exactly what I was talking about!

Wow! 8 pages of responses...A lot of people seem worried about my skill with camera settings. I can assure you all that I am reasonably competent in all modes (auto, aperture priority, shutter priority and program). I am reasonably talented as an amateur photographer (although I shot a wedding professionally as well as a helicopter motor for marketing use professionally). My weaknesses in photography are speed and creativity, not controlling the camera as has been suggested. Hence my bemoaning the advancements of cell phone cameras. There has been some condescending remarks explaining to me "I think it simply means that you haven't learned to use your DSLR to its full potential." Another remark I spotted I don't think was meant to be condesending but came out sounding that way to me. The remark was "So, you are just a picture taker, not a photography! Sorry to say that! " Besides the fact that "photography" is an art and not a person, it still sounded a little aloof. Another goody was "The difference between a picture taker and a photographer is in the person, not in the equipment used ". So I guess a "photographer" is some special super important intellectual being. Funny, I looked up photographer for a definition and I found "a person who takes photographs, especially as a job".
Ladies and genltemen, I get the fact a skilled person can make great images with a relatively cheap camera. Do I believe that it's the equipment that determines the quality of a picture. No, but the camera is still a significant variable. I am good enough with any camera that in my circle of friends I am the person always asked to take the pictures. I am always asked to bring my camera to gatherings and I am the one they hand their cameras (and phones ) to to be taught how to use them. What I was talking about in my original post was simply how much camera phones have improved and how they can sometimes take pictures that are as good as or better than pictures with a DSLR. Sorry, but often people have taken 5 shots before I get my camera out of the case or adjust the settings. Also, my eyes aren't as good as they used to be so I have to depend on auto focus. In low ligh level that can be off or too slow. Closing your lens down under low light conditions to get greater depth of field means you will probably have to up your ISO which can cause noisy images. And if the scene is moving or changing adjustmens must be made fast. OK, I break down and use auto. Sorry, but I have had an iphone take a superior picture to my D5100 with me shooting both shots.
Two final thoughts. Sorry, but phone cameras have improved a lot. Yes, there are a lot of things you can do with a DSLR you can't do with a phone camera but they can take some nice images.
Secondly, maybe my post wouldn't have been so controversial had I qualified my last line. Maybe I should have asked...have the phone cameras surpassed the DSLR cameras for amateur shooting of social gatherings?

Anyone else tired of people sometimes getting better pictures with their phone cameras than you get with your dedicated DSLR? I'm at an event. Everyone is shooting. Even in low light conditions it seems people often get better pictures than I do. regardless of what mode I m shooting (Auto, Program, A, S or full manual). Is this just happening to me? Have the phone cameras surpassed the DSLR cameras?

After seeing your post I became curious about the wide range as well. The flash itself is the source of the trigger voltage and there is very wide range of voltages used. After spending a considerable amount of time researching this I was unable to come up with an official reason from the manufacturer. I did find a lot of circuit diagrams and theories of operation and I have come up with a theory of my own. Given the time when the flash was designed the circuitry was relatively unsophisticated. Also, the flash would be used with a wide variety of cameras. Since the cameras have some form of switching circuitry to fire the flash, they present a resistive load (measured in ohms) to the flash trigger circuit. Different cameras had different circuitry and therefor present a different value of resistance (ohms). Since voltage equals current times resistance (E=IxR), the lower the resistance, the lower the voltage. I am really curious if this is the case and posted this hoping someone with the technical knowledge in this field will either conform of correct my hypothesis. In the meantime you should always check the cameras max trigger voltage before you hook it up to the Sunpak 522. If the camera can't handle 200 volts, I wouldn't try using the flash on that camera.