Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: amehta
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 784 next>>
Oct 30, 2014 18:50:30   #
faygo wrote:
I promised to show you some of the pictures I took using all the great advice and was pleased with the results.

Great job with the lighting in a fairly difficult situation, with the bright background! :thumbup:
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 18:49:02   #
dat2ra wrote:
Since the crackheads down the street broke into my place and ran off with a bunch of my photo gear, I want to buy a 50mm FX prime lens for my D800. I've read a bunch, but cannot decide which would be better, the f1.4 G or the f1.8D, or?? I shoot mainly portraits and cityscapes so I want good sharpness and bokeh. None of the 50's are excessively expensive; I just want to get the best glass. Advice from the pros? Thanks.

One which is a little more expensive is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG Art ($950), but I think it is better than the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G or AF 50mm f/1.8D (I have both f/1.4 lenses, and I used to have the f/1.8D). The Sigma is the only one I'm excited about.
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 17:47:28   #
Michael Christy wrote:
I want to move up to FX later. Thanks

Yes, that does affect things.

With a telephoto, a lens can serve the same basic function for FX and DX. With wide angle, that is simply not possible. Even the excellent FX 14-24mm f/2.8 is only slightly special as a DX lens.

The 20mm f/1.8 might be a better choice for you, since you already have a 35mm. Or maybe get a 24-70mm f/2.8 (Nikon or third-party).
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 16:37:53   #
Michael Christy wrote:
I often do not go beyond 400 on my ISO. I do not have a kit lens; I have a 35mm DX and a 12-24mm DX (tokina.
35 mm is too long in some spaces.

With a 35mm lens, the 28mm might not provide a huge improvement. A better choice might be the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC for only $100 more.
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 16:37:21   #
craggycrossers wrote:
Michael - I have the 28mm f1.8G and use it with my full frame D700. Works great (see photo). However, on your D300 the 28 is going to act like a 42mm lens. It's an FX lens. That what you want? You already have a DX 35mm lens which gives you a wider angle of view than would the 28 and you have your Tokina.

The 28mm FX lens is wider than the 35mm DX. The crop factor has to be applied to both lenses, or neither, to compare them.

The "DX" designation on the lens has nothing to do with focal lengths, only with the image circle it will produce on the sensor.
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 16:30:18   #
Greenguy33 wrote:
I agree. I don't think either lens will actually serve me well for what I shoot.

A lot of people think they should get a "nifty-fifty" because
1. everyone tells them to
2. a lot of people say they use it a lot
Neither is a good reason.
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 16:07:21   #
Morning Star wrote:
This is one of the reasons that I ignore all the numbers and just look through the viewfinder to see what I like....

"Crop factor squared for mp" - my camera has a crop factor of 2, so extending the above sentence, "...or 40mp vs 10mp for 2x".... Sorry, the math doesn't add up for me.
Camera's sensor records (just shy of) 16mp images, and records them exactly as I see them through the viewfinder.
Amehta, or anyone else, I'm not knocking your math, it's just that I don't understand it, and find I don't need it.


So if I read that right, if you want to crop your images from a full-frame camera, to match the size of the images that my 16mp camera takes, you'd have to start with a (at least) 32mp camera?

Honestly folks, I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to wrap my head around this, but I think I'll give up and just enjoy using the camera.
This is one of the reasons that I ignore all the n... (show quote)

There is no problem if you are using one size sensor and you understand what your lenses will do.

FWIW, to get the same pixel density of your m4/3 16mp sensor in a full frame sensor, one would need about 64mp, 4x the 16mp, because the 2x crop factor gets applied twice (16 x 2 x 2 = 64).
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 16:04:42   #
CaptainC wrote:
I have the answer! Having used both crop-frame and the so-called full-frame for years:

Pick up a camera body - attach lens - go shoot pictures. By some miracle, I get what I see through the viewfinder.

Wow! Who knew?

Or, understand it and plan the shoot better. What a concept! :-)
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 09:30:27   #
dsmeltz wrote:
Then if you take a shot with both an 18MP APS-C and a 25MP full frame from the same distance with the same lens and crop the ff shot to match the APS-C shot the APS-C shot has more MP?

Yes.
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 09:20:07   #
Skeeter41 wrote:
Okay, Hogs. I could use some advice. In anticipation of an Alaska cruise next summer, I'm considering getting the FZ200 (doubt the Canon SX50 or SX60 would work well for me, given my unsteady 73 year-old hands). Here's the thing. I have (and love) my T3i and most of the time use my Tamron 18-270 zoom with really good results. Given that I'm using a cropped sensor, my maximum zoom is 432 mm equivalent, a bit less than the 600 of the panny, but I can live with that. I'm thinking that even though I have slower glass on my camera (6.3 at maximum zoom), will the larger sensor make up for the faster glass (2.8 constant) on the FZ200? In other words, since I can push up the ISO on my camera without much noise, will that overcome the slowness of my glass? Any thoughts?

Skeeter
Okay, Hogs. I could use some advice. In anticipa... (show quote)

Overall, it's pretty close. Perhaps a monopod is the real answer?
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 09:18:13   #
dsmeltz wrote:
I was trying to roughly calculate the portion of the ff sensor used to capture what remains after the ff shot was cropped to look like the 10 MP APS-C shot in the earlier.

That's what I thought. If you have a 24mp ff sensor and crop it to match the sensor size of a APS-C sensor, you are left with 9-11mp.
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 09:15:04   #
Greenguy33 wrote:
Wow, that looks like a nice lens! :thumbup:

Yes, just go to Hunts and pick it up. If you don't think it's worth it, you get 30 days to return it, just keep the receipt (but I don't think that will happen).
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 09:03:26   #
dsmeltz wrote:
No. The cropped ff image would have been taken using the around 16mp on its sensor compared to the 10mp on the APS-C camera.

The crop factor is squared for mp, so it would be about 25mp vs 10mp for APS-C (1.6x) or 22mp vs 10mp for APS-C (1.5x)
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 03:14:32   #
TucsonCoyote wrote:
Sony Alpha lenses

Thanks, I should have realized that. Do you use SEL for E-mount/NEX lenses?
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 01:31:26   #
Zone-System-Grandpa wrote:
Guys/Gals, have you ever experienced a situation or situations whereby you had wished for an extra camera body which is or will be the same as the ones that you already have ~ so that when you want to take photos with a different particular lens, you won't have to remove lenses that are already mounted upon the camera bodies that you currently/already have ~ such as lenses already mounted upon them that are of a different focal length ? Well, if you have, perhaps, you won't think of me as being totally nuts when I have temptations to purchase another, identical camera body ! :D

Although my current Nikon camera body arsenal consists of a D800e and a D810, serious considerations are now being given to purchasing another D810 body whereas when I want to place a particular lens upon it, there will be no need to remove lenses that are already mounted upon either of my existing bodies; namely, the D800e or the D810..

It's not that I am lazy nor is it because there is money to burn, but I'm thinking that constantly removing a lens from a body isn't always the best option at hand ~ due to the possibility of dust entering into the body or contaminating it's sensor and it surely would be more convenient to just grab another body and place the lens of choice upon it, especially, if the other camera bodies and the lenses mounted upon them will need to be immediately used too ;-)

Comments ? AND, please don't be shy ! 8-)

Best Regards ~ as always,
~Doug~
Guys/Gals, have you ever experienced a situation o... (show quote)

I can see using two bodies for the convenience, but I think three would start to get inconvenient, with the extra weight and the harder packing. I think it is easier to get the sensors cleaned every month instead. :-)
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 784 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.