Posts for: MacPhotog
Apr 29, 2014 03:53:25 #
Nobody can beat the military when it comes to devising acronyms. The following is a little gem from a facility in San Diego that I worked next to when I was in the Navy: NTISA/JITF. That mouthful means Navy Tactical Interoperability Support Activity/Joint Interface Test Force. LMAO! (which means Laughing My A$$ Off!) And don't ask me what they did in that facility; if I had found out, they'd have had to kill me! LOL!
Apr 20, 2014 05:14:05 #
coco1964 wrote:
I would even consider a refurbished D7000 which have come down since the intro of the D7100 and spend the rest on good glass.........
+1. I have a D7000 and it is a very worthy camera; I love it. Body-only refurbs are going for around $600-$650 and would give you some serious money for good glass. I also suggest checking out either third-party glass or refurbed or used Nikon glass to save some bucks.
Apr 19, 2014 04:58:18 #
There will be opportunities to pay it forward on UHH as you gain experience.
Apr 19, 2014 04:53:55 #
Bloke wrote:
Amazing the things we do without thinking, which would have been horrifying in film days! When I was first out trying out my new T4i, and I had to change the battery, I photographed the battery, just for a marker as to when in the sequence it was changed... Who would have wasted film like that?
Back in the days of film, film was wasted in all kinds of ways, up to and including replacing rolls containing unexposed frames just to change film speeds. Manually bracketing every shot was another big film waster, but a necessary one if you were into hedging your bets.
Apr 19, 2014 04:12:41 #
big_dave wrote:
Looks like I need to take another look at the 24-105. And I'll check out the Tamron SP 70-200. Thanks for all of your input.
If you're on a budget (which most of us are), another lens you might want to consider is the Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC MACRO OS. This is a newish lens and the reviews I've read have been positive (just google it). I have this lens and am impressed with its sharpness. You can find it for around $350.
Apr 19, 2014 03:57:44 #
mpsp2000 wrote:
I am long time Nikon owner and am looking to upgrade my camera as it has been a while since I last made a purchase. Without a doubt I will be buying a Nikon. My problem is, which one? The model you are looking at appears to be a very nice unit at a very reasonable price point.
Several questions need to be answered before opinions can be given. Which Nikon do you currently own? What capabilities and/or features do you want in the camera you upgrade to? Do you want to stay with crop-sensor (DX) or move up to full-frame (FX)? Nikon's current lineup has something suitable for just about anyone.
Mac
Apr 9, 2014 05:33:47 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
The term 'Refurbished' can only by used by a manufacturer, and a manufacturer's warrant is included, usually for 90-days. The item is basically new, but may been previously sold and the transaction fell through, or upgraded, or other situation. Also, store demo cameras & lenses, tweaked by manufacturer, sometimes with missing original boxes, fall into this category. ALWAYS a good buy.
Note that refurbished camera shutters are not typically replaced during the refurbishment process. I've heard of people buying refurbed cameras to find out that they have 10K or more clicks on them. I was thinking of buying a refurbed D7000 until I called the store selling it. I asked them if they could find a refurb with a low shutter count. They told me that they get so many of these refurbs that they can't take the time to look. So, if you buy one, you get what you get click-count-wise.
Apr 8, 2014 19:26:28 #
photon56 wrote:
It would seem, from how the camera is behaving, th... (show quote)
In set 2, you didn't give it anything to override. You initially set the ISO to 6400 with the max Auto-ISO also set to 6400. With both those settings the same, the camera had nowhere to go to make a change. Also, I was in Manual mode, not Aperture Priority; not sure if that makes a difference. What was your minimum Auto-ISO shutter speed set to?
Apr 8, 2014 17:23:20 #
Hi all. I am making pics of hummingbirds in manual mode with flash to bring out the iridescence of the feathers. I selected Auto-ISO with a minimum shutter speed of 1/250 (the max for this camera) and a max ISO of 6400. After making a few pics, I discovered that the camera selected an ISO of 6400 for all the pics. Granted, my feeder is in my patio which faces north and is in the shade all day, but I figured it wouldn't select any higher ISO than 400 or at the most 800. When taking it out of Auto-ISO and setting the ISO manually at 400, my pics were fine. You probably question why I used Auto-ISO at all and the answer is that it was an experiment to see how well it worked and what ISO the camera would select.
So, my question is why did the camera select such a high ISO, in fact the max, when I did it at 400 and got good pics. Does using the flash confuse the Auto-ISO calculation algorithm?
Thanks in advance.
So, my question is why did the camera select such a high ISO, in fact the max, when I did it at 400 and got good pics. Does using the flash confuse the Auto-ISO calculation algorithm?
Thanks in advance.
Mar 24, 2014 02:05:38 #
Cwest wrote:
Thank you all for the comments. I have narrowed my selections down to five.. the sx50, fz200. hs50exr, p600
Can any one out there help clarify the best for fast, low
light shooting?
Can any one out there help clarify the best for fast, low
light shooting?
I own the HS50EXR, so I can't speak to the other models you mentioned. While the Fuji is a remarkable camera overall, it has a variable-aperture lens (f/2.8-f/5.6) and does struggle in low-light situations. You might consider the FZ200, which I understand has a fixed max. aperture of f/2.8 and would probably better meet your low-light needs.
Mar 24, 2014 01:36:01 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
I think she/he cleans up nicely...I love how the iris enhance works wonders on owls...
Because of how the shadows fell on the face, a graduated filter worked best...one for the shadowy side of the face, one for the highlight side of the face. Literally, 2 minutes worth of work.
Because of how the shadows fell on the face, a graduated filter worked best...one for the shadowy side of the face, one for the highlight side of the face. Literally, 2 minutes worth of work.
He/she did clean up nicely. You did a great job with the blown highlights and enhancing the shadows on the right side of the owl's face. I don't think I could do this in Picasa though, which is all I have.
Mar 23, 2014 18:20:22 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
It's a nice shot, but there is still some highlights/shadows that can be tweaked. I'd be happy to show an edit if you would like.
Feel free to make any changes you see fit, but please don't be offended if I prefer the original.
Mar 23, 2014 14:38:34 #
BigDaddy wrote:
In short, what difference, at this point, does it make? :lol:
In short, what difference, at this point, does it make? :lol:
The point of the exercise, ladies and gentlemen, was to demonstrate that, while no photo is PERFECT (not even after PP), at least IMO, not every photo NEEDS PP. The owl photo was made with my humble bridge camera, the remarkable Fujifilm HS50EXR with film simulation mode set to Velvia (vivid) and sharpness set to high. It is absolutely SOOC. It was made approx. eight feet from the subject and was neither cropped nor resized. I set the camera to manual mode with 3-frame bracketing and chose the frame with the least amount of blown highlights. The pic pleases me the way it is, and that's, after all, what counts. Thanks to all who replied.
Mar 23, 2014 05:36:45 #
Hi UHHers. I'm new and thought, after lurking for awhile, that I'd join so I could put in my two cents worth in this thread. The attached pic was taken at the San Diego Zoo a few days ago (excuse the hatchet lighting, though I rather like it). IMO, PP is very subjective and my version of PP might, to others, be completely unsatisfactory. Having said that, would anyone like to hazard a guess as to whether or not the attached pic has endured PP?
