Check out Software and Computer Support for Photographers section of our forum.
Posts for: Larry L56
Dec 16, 2016 18:04:25 #
JoeS wrote:
Thanks!
Were you in an eating distance of that creature or what?? I have some big cat shots, but zoo shots are not at all the same.
Dec 16, 2016 17:57:43 #
I like the texture you are getting in your shots, just fabulous.
Dec 16, 2016 17:46:37 #
Reinaldokool wrote:
To the contrary, I've never found a satisfactory r... (show quote)
That is an interesting you never could find a reason for a larger sensor...To me even if the technology in lens making and sensors maxed out perfect, the DOF differences from full to cropped and viewfinder size, would be enough for me to go full frame.
Check out Black and White Photography section of our forum.
Dec 16, 2016 17:30:03 #
Maybe the best way of choosing between full frame and cropped needs to be a subjective choice. If you cannot see why full frame is any better, then do not get it. The reasons others want full frame, may not in your scope of shooting to appreciate.
Dec 16, 2016 16:43:51 #
I hated to spend on a one time use thing so I just made a square tube out of corrugated plastic that fit a bit snug over my 60mm nikkor micro lens and cut a opening adding a shelf and sides to square up a slide. By moving the tube on the lens and twisting it I could hone in on the slide perfectly. I shot hundreds thru it in no time. The sample was shot in '83 in Maine.
For positives, just use a tripod and do one size group at a time, with locator marks on the floor, use a cloudy day for your light source perhaps through a window near by. I have shot a lot of photos that way with excellent results.
For positives, just use a tripod and do one size group at a time, with locator marks on the floor, use a cloudy day for your light source perhaps through a window near by. I have shot a lot of photos that way with excellent results.
Dec 16, 2016 16:04:07 #
Dec 16, 2016 15:56:28 #
I had a pair of OM-1's 35mm bodys I really liked. They had huge view finders, were small, quiet, low vibration, light and held up over 25 years. When I went digital 10 years ago, I was disappointed in them not entering into making serious digital pro level bodies, perhaps they figured the money was providing for consumer market.
Check out True Macro-Photography Forum section of our forum.
Dec 16, 2016 14:04:05 #
MtnMan wrote:
There's your answer. You need both!
If money is important refurb D800 and D5300 will do the job. They are what I have.
Then you can afford 200-500 for wildlife and 16-35 for landscape.
If money is important refurb D800 and D5300 will do the job. They are what I have.
Then you can afford 200-500 for wildlife and 16-35 for landscape.
For that matter, grey market new D610's with limited 1 year warranties are around $1200. If you are not worried about having a better focusing system.
Dec 16, 2016 09:53:22 #
The D500 has a better body and overall performance. The ISO is also very good even at 3200 and DX lenses are less money building a system. With the sensor in the D750, it's much larger size also the viewfinder being large, still outweighs the D500 for me. The bottom line for me in this would be the better image quality, ease of viewing, and the option of getting a narrower depth of field for isolation of the subject, a very big factor for portrait, and other similar work like weddings. Coming from a D300s to full frame Df, I now would never go back to DX unless I was doing micro work. I also like the larger field of view using my prime 600mm to locate the subject faster, this is important in getting a fast shot and not really mentioned much.
Dec 15, 2016 11:31:44 #
Meives wrote:
First and last with the silhouettes are outstanding. On the bird I would cut it out and paste it to a background that was sharper. David
Which bird, there were 5 in the last set? I like some bokeh generally to isolate the subject and that Nikkor 300 mm F4 D has the best bokeh I have ever seen. I never cut and paste however, just too much manipulating for my liking. I try photo with the minimum of post processing needed, yet I use Light Room however with raw.
Here are some more sunsets using my cheap 28-105 D. The lens has no internal motor and no VR, perhaps not a desirable lens anymore, but the contrast and sharpness is really good for what it's worth.
Dec 15, 2016 11:18:18 #
JeffDavidson wrote:
Yes! The sky was mostly overcast and gray.
Thanks!
Thanks!
I woke up about 3am and the thought came to me, the sky needs to be a bit out of focus,,, that what was bothering me about the sky I just could not figure at first,,, but still a fantastic shot, lol
Dec 14, 2016 18:39:11 #
Was it stuffed? Just joking. That is an amazing shot with a 70-200mm, I can never get very close to them, having to even stay inside my truck hoping not to spook. I have a 600mm 5.6 with nothing that close up except for an overhead eagle landing right above me one time by chance.
Dec 14, 2016 18:09:32 #
Marionsho wrote:
I never really expected to justify the cost of most any hobby.
I should start a thread about the difference in views between a Pro and the Hobbyist.
Now tell me, how could the printer count?
I should start a thread about the difference in views between a Pro and the Hobbyist.
Now tell me, how could the printer count?
Since I use my printer is for a lot of general sign graphics, I could not fully count it but at least it is a write off...."Write off"= For me to justify buying something regardless of the real need, that is work related. Being married 35 years, one must do what he can to help keep peace with the wife.
Dec 14, 2016 16:37:25 #
It's a write off for me, I seem to get a new body every 3 years or so. I have no real need for any more lenses covering 14mm - 600mm + a 1.4x & 2x, ext tubes, etc...It is sort of funny however when my car cost me less than some gear I may be carrying at the time. I am looking at a new 54" latex printer, does that count?
Dec 14, 2016 16:19:20 #
I have used the 80-200 f2.8D for years. It has some limitations like the sharpness dropping off after 140mm at f2.8. Mine is now slipping in manual focus mode. If you plan to do weddings, the F2.8 is a big plus and like mentioned above, VR will not help with subject movement and wind. I rarely have a VR need since I went full frame, I can push my ISO higher using my Df body, still getting excellent results. IMO, VR is a big cost in money, weight, and another thing to break.
Check out Digital Artistry section of our forum.