I have only crop sensor Nikon bodies and mostly FX lenses and they work just fine, better than my few DX lenses.
Many software updates are fault fixes or performance patches and they should be supplied without any extra cost. Additional functionality should require an upgrade fee but the user shouldn't have to pay for the functionality they already paid for.
Comparing software upgrades to hardware upgrades is like comparing apples to Clydesdales.
What I hate about the cable company, other than that they lie to us, is they charge for the service then they charge for a converter box so you can get their service, then they charge you for services you don't want or use.
Trains are cool, especially older British trains.
It's not a case of need. You don't need a whole lot of power or a big engine to go fast. Heck, my 1.2 litre RX7 could hit 150.
Just think of the size of the tree stumps that jeep could rip out of the ground.
I use a speedlight on Halloween. People are in motion all the time so natural light will require a high ISO setting or just use a flash.
He may not have been the first European to visit north America but he still deserves a big place in history.
I've always liked Steamtown in Scranton PA. They have some amazing hardware exhibits there.
The Strasburg Railroad in Strasburg PA may be small but they do a great job of preserving the steam Era heritage.
Nosaj wrote:
Interesting. Canon is getting a bit sleazy here. If this report is true, Canon is merely releasing what shoukd be a G-5X mark 2 as a G-1X mark 3.
Not at all. There may be some similarities between the G5X and the G1X III but the new camera is no G5X clone. The G5X has a 1 inch class sensor, the new G1X is APS-C. The new camera is more like a mini 200D on steroids with a fixed lens.
The reason your camera store guy told you the Tamron, for the money, is better is because their profit margin on the Tamron over the Nikon is higher. Several years ago I was leaving on a trip and I needed a 70-200 f/2.8 lens so I went to the local camera store to get one. They were out of the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 but had the new Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 in Stock, for $1499 I believe. The sales guy went on and on how the Tamron is comparable to the Canon and costs $600 less but if I really wanted the Canon, he'd have one tomorrow afternoon. Since I planned on being 500 miles farther south the following afternoon, and I needed the lens, I bought it. I now have the Canon lens along with the Tamron lens and I have no complaints with the Tamron, although the Canon is definitely better than the Tamron. Several years later I told the lens story to a friend who works in a camera store about 40 miles from my home, a store that specializes in Canon gear but also carries some Tamron and Sigma lenses and he told me the stores profit margin on the lenses and even though the Canon costs $600 more than the Tamron, the store makes more on the Tamron, and this is no different with Nikkor lenses.
Interesting photo. Where did you see them? I've been to see them a few times in the Philadelphia, PA, USA area; a fun show...
Welcome to the forum. You don't have to post a lot of photos to participate. This place is first and foremost about communication, sharing of ideas and knowledge. A photo from time to time if fine but it's more about the words.
If you are still struggling with "mastering" the world of digital photography, photographer, author and educator Scott Kelby has a book series called The Digital Photography Book, and they are a really good set of books to help one learn digital photography. They are easy to read and understand, and hold, and cost around $20 each. I highly recommend them. I have the whole series and enjoyed reading them. I gave a complete set to my daughter for Christmas and now she has a side business photographing infants, pregnant women and family's (with a Canon 80D I bought for her and my Canon 6D and lenses).
Pretty bird; nice photos...
sb wrote:
YES! It is a great lens. Possibly one of the best quality-for-the-money lenses out there! You can sometimes find them new "white box" - this is not gray market but one that came as a kit that was separated and the camera body sold separately. They run about $600 if found this way. There is a version II - I have not heard what the differences are - I consider the version I to be flawless! (I am not a professional, though...)
I have both the original and the version II. The original is a really nice lens, for around $600 but not $1000. The Sigma Art equivalent lens is a much better lens in that price category. The version II is, in my opinion, every bit as good as the Sigma Art and better, especially for a "kit" lens, but your not going to find one of them for $600. I bought my EF 24-105 used for $500 a couple few years ago. I have passed a lot of light through that lens and have never been disappointed by it. My EF 24-105 II came as the kit lens to my EOS 5D IV. The newer lens (2016 vs 2005) is a bit heavier than the original but it has better glass in it, better coating and is sealed better. The II is also more bokehlishious than the original (better bokeh, yay) and has better image stabilization. Canon took a pretty darn good lens and made it better.
Interesting; I wonder how much I can get for my G1X II?!