Posts for: therwol
Mar 18, 2024 16:59:01 #
CliffMcKenzie wrote:
OK, here we go as Dak says, first, follow Perry an... (show quote)
The 70-200 f/4 VR is a good alternative to the 2.8 lens, just as sharp, significantly lighter and less expensive. It has been discontinued, but there are used copies out there.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/897230/?cnxclid=17107954762390155609214661190008005
Mar 18, 2024 16:24:38 #
Dean37 wrote:
.....but for some reason the D810 seems to be more of what I would like. I did handle one for a few days, but didn't think it was right at the time.
A used D810 will cost you less than a new or used D850. If you're not trying to track fast moving subjects, you won't be able to tell any difference in the pictures those two cameras take unless you're into pixel peeping, and even then, the difference is subtle. The D810 is a VERY quiet camera for a DSLR. The D850 is not.
I went from a D810 to the D850 and consider it money wasted. If I were going to truly upgrade, I'd go mirrorless, but I'm at a stage in my life where spending a lot of money on cameras and lenses doesn't make any sense.
Mar 18, 2024 14:13:13 #
MichaelMcGrath wrote:
Absolutely - It would be foolish to buy the D850 when one has the D800, as I have - especially when there's more danger of moire with the 850!
The D800 has an anti-aliasing filter to reduce the risk of moire. The D850 does not, but the risk of moire is actually low. Moire is caused when a digital camera cannot capture the fine detail in a repetitive pattern. Higher resolution in a sensor actually reduces the possibility of moire. I wouldn't really worry about it.
The D850 was at or near the pinnacle for autofocus accuracy and speed for a DSLR. There is still some demand for it, though probably waning with the availability of mirrorless cameras that take everything to another level.
Mar 18, 2024 12:30:24 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
I'd like to hear more in response to the question about the OP's FX lenses on their new FX body.
Subsequent posts reveal that the OP put a DX lens on the camera for now and is looking at options for FX lenses.
Mar 18, 2024 02:17:41 #
User ID wrote:
Get a good book and use decent lenses, for which I strongly recommend VR lenses. High rez cameras can accentuate unsteadyness to an unfortunate degree. Some lenses on the "Official D850 approved" list lack VR, which shows you that the list is a marketing ploy that ignores actual user reality. Insist on VR.
I have a lot of experience with my D850. VR in a mediocre lens (such as a 24-120 or 28-300) trumps absolute sharpness in a non-VR lens for handheld shots at relatively slow shutter speeds. It becomes irrelevant at shutter speeds of 1/1000 or faster or when using a tripod, neither of which is always an option. Increasing ISO to boost the shutter speed is not a perfect solution unless done in moderation. At some point, noise and reduced dynamic range become apparent. The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is to have at least one VR general purpose lens, the best you can afford, and just take pictures. Mine is the 24-120 f/4 VR. Be aware that non-VR lenses have some limitations with a camera like this, but they can bring out the best in this camera if you use them properly.
Mar 17, 2024 21:25:20 #
rpm wrote:
So, I broke down & purchased a D850 after shooting 18 years with my D40X. The new one has so many buttons & it's heavy! Can't wait to do something with it but think I'm gonna need a lesson or two... any suggestions to get me up to speed?
What FX lenses do you have? You need good ones to appreciate this camera's potential. Yes, it's heavy. You'll either get used to it or you won't.
The big manual that comes with the camera is complete, but I prefer a book that's written in narrative form. I use Darrell Young's.
Mar 17, 2024 18:44:43 #
CamB wrote:
Most of this post isn't mine. Somehow my one paragraph about ectachrome got mixed with something I was responding to and it made it look like I wrote pages of info that were actually written by someone else a few comments earlier. I dont know how that happened.
It looks like the other user's statements were copied and pasted after your comment. If you hit "Quote Reply", the other user is named, and the text of the other user appears smaller than yours above yours. You can edit someone's text to highlight a particular statement you want to respond to, basically deleting everything else, but you have to be careful not to delete the first and last things in brackets or everything gets screwed up. You'll have to figure out what you did. I'll show you how Quote Reply is supposed to work with screenshots.
Mar 17, 2024 18:35:02 #
Rongnongno wrote:
1 - Do not watch it on TV br 2 - Read online, kill... (show quote)
I fully understand the bias in reporting news and having to check multiple sources to figure out what's really going on. I read the BBC web site extensively daily and get a different perspective on things, including what they consider important in sports (yawn). They are particularly good at reporting the things going on in the world that we ignore, but recently they've been grabbing stories from US sources and repeating them almost word for word.
Mar 17, 2024 12:59:05 #
riderxlx wrote:
I would not waste my time on CNN even if they paid me.
Bruce
Bruce
"The Supreme Court decided....."
Next show:
"The Supreme Court decided....."
Next show:
"The Supreme Court decided....."
Next show: ......
They sometimes have interesting documentaries, like the current one on the history of Las Vegas. The commercials drive me crazy.
Mar 17, 2024 12:51:59 #
CamB wrote:
[/quote]I am pretty sure there was an ectachrome 400. Also, I think Ectachrome 160 was the tungsten light version that you could have pushed to 400 for a few dollars more during development.
As I recall, Ektachrome 160 was for daylight. Ektachrome 125 was for Tungsten. You could pay a small amount for a special mailer that would tell Kodak to push process them to 400 and 320 respectively. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a long time.
Mar 15, 2024 16:36:49 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
A "fast" lens is photographer slang for a wide maximum aperture, preferably a fixed maximum aperture, say f/2.8 or wider, where f/2 would be an even better minimum 'wide' value to warrant this "fast" tag. Think f/1, f/1.2, f/1.4 for this "fast" slang application, although f/2 for 200mm is a pretty sweet lens.
You can find longer discussions, with examples, from a simple google: what is a fast lens
You can find longer discussions, with examples, from a simple google: what is a fast lens
With digital cameras, increasing the ISO can compensate for a "slower" lens in low light. Faster lenses allow you to shoot with shallow depth of field, sometimes desirable.
Mar 15, 2024 16:13:36 #
terryMc wrote:
Loose instead of lose, could care less, when meaning couldn't care less, possessive apostrophes in plurals, (how many photo's have been posted here today?), trying to sound sophisticated by using words like comprise and enamored, but using them incorrectly; All the complaining and ridiculing in the world isn't going to change any of this. Even the lexicographers eventually give up and accept these terms as "alternative usage."
Oral and written language are different. With English, there are regional dialects in several regions and countries as well as colloquialisms that can confound even native English speakers who are not familiar with them. (Ever been to Newcastle and listened to Geordie?) Written English must be standardized and concise, otherwise there can be confusion when reading it and coming across mis-spellings that create different words with different meanings, like loose for lose. This is particularly a problem for native speakers of different languages who read with a dictionary next to them. I'm sure that all of us have received user manuals written by non-native speakers that are incomprehensible. Legal documents must adhere to standardized language to that there is no misinterpretation of the meaning of words.
Mar 14, 2024 14:50:18 #
NDMarks wrote:
It's not like they have any real power!
They have real money, and the British taxpayers keep giving them more as well as tax advantages.
But that's their business if they want to keep doing that.
Mar 13, 2024 19:24:19 #
keywest305 wrote:
4 people 8 hands. Where are the extra hands. She has her arms wrapped around the two left and right from her and the oldest has his arms over mom...where am I wrong
You aren't wrong. The evidence is apparently that more than one image was used to make the photo, and that "copy and paste" was used. I don't care whatsoever. It was a UK Mothers Day greeting. It was apparently made to her liking. Some people are now saying that she used it to fake looking healthy. I don't think that what's going on with her and her health are any of our business.
Mar 13, 2024 19:16:52 #
bsprague wrote:
If a "pocket camera" can't do something better than a phone, it stops selling and is discontinued.
If a pocket camera doesn't sell, it's discontinued. It doesn't matter what it can do. So far there seems to be enough interest in the relatively expensive models by enthusiasts to keep them going. For how long?