skipwv wrote:
Have a Nikon D7200 and Z5 and a Nikon 200-500 zoom. Thinking of upgrading either to a Z7II or a Nikon 500 PF prime. What’s your experience/advice? I like the Z7II’s speed and resolution for wildlife and I like the lighter weight of the 500 PF. Decisions, decisions!
Camera bodies come and go. Good lenses can last forever.
JimBart wrote:
Currently I possess a Nikon 7100 with Nikon lens of 18-140 and 55-300 plus a Sigma 150-300 and enjoy it. I shoot mainly wildlife and landscapes
I am however ThINKING of purchasing a OM 1 or a Mark ll but it seems like no one can tell me the difference between the 2 systems. I like the clarity/sharpness of the OM system and know I’ll need a new lens but nothing more. Is it worth a change?
HELP!!
1. What is the reason to change anything?
2. Why OM system? Is it weight?
3. Clarity and sharpness can often be the lens and only less often the body. BTW hang onto the 18-140 if you have a good copy. I sold mine and regretted it.
4. The Nikon D7100 is a good camera with 24mp. I can't see a need to change to a new system or a new body.
5. The Nikon 200-500 is a decent lens; but if it's sharpness you're looking for, then you might also have to invest in a good tripod. It's heavy and for distant shots hand holding is difficult.
6. changing systems can often lead to a steep learning curve to know the controls and definitely includes buying lenses.
7. Finally you need to be assured that the OM system has a long future. Burk photo can comment on this since I believe he is an OM user and his posts here are often very valuable.
rcarol wrote:
You can really tell the difference?
Certain little "helps" make everyday more complicated:(
Ront53 wrote:
I have Windows 7 and would like to upgrade to 10 or 11 and have no idea how to. What's problems would be involved?
I upgraded from Win 10 to 11 - HATE IT!
Chris63 wrote:
I have about 1000 slides I'd like to digitize.
Is there a smartphone app for that, which would offer decent quality and not be too expensive?
I'd rather not spend hundreds of $$ on a scanner.
Thanks
If you have a macro lens, the a screw-in slide holder can work to digitize and then send to your smartphone
Basil wrote:
@JVada posted about an issue he has involving a stuck filter that he can’t seem to break loose to remove. I didn’t want to hijack his topic, but it got me thinking, “is there anything that could be put on filter threads to minimise the potential for a filter getting stuck?
I’ve had some difficult filters in the past but I was always eventually able to get them off.
Just curious if anyone has any home remedies for treating filter threads or is that just not a good idea?
1. Never use silicone. If you contaminate the lens it is very difficult to remove.
2. Do NOT use any liquid lubricants
3. if you wish to lubricate use (with a toothpick) the tiniest amount of a dry lubricant on the filter thread. If any of this dust gets on the lens surface, it can be blown off or taken off with lens cleaning tissue.
BebuLamar wrote:
I would like to bore a hole in a piece of 1x8" which is 3/4" thick. The hole should be tappered. The large side is 2.5" the smaller side would be 1.5". What is the best way to do this? I have hand drill, jig saw. I don't have good wood working tools.
After drilling the 1.5" hole use a chamfering bit to start the larger hole and keep it centered.
CHG_CANON wrote:
Oh well ... you surely knew a new camera for the RAW shooter means new software. You've been on UHH too long to now feign ignorance of the issue.
You sometimes remind me of one of my chemistry professors from whom I learned a lot but who occasionally, just occasionally, found it difficult to be unfailingly kind:)
CHG_CANON wrote:
Oh well ... you surely knew a new camera for the RAW shooter means new software. You've been on UHH too long to now feign ignorance of the issue.
I was not feigning ignorance, just noting a fact.
yssirk123 wrote:
I prefer to save the native file format in it's original form and edit from there.
I was good until my latest camera (MILC) and my PS couldn't deal with the RAW and I was forced to use DNG as an intermediate step. Not ready to update my PS programs just yet.
jerryc41 wrote:
Every category of people is hated by someone. As for myself, I am universally loved. 😂
quoting the old Kingston Trio song, " .... and I don't like anybody very much ...."
Guess we have to pony up the $$$ to see it for ourselves.
donphotog wrote:
The Q3 is incredible but unique. Full frame with a fixed 28mm lens is considerably wide angle in my view; takes a bit of getting used to. 60 megapixels however leaves considerable room for cropping. The Summilux lens is, in my humble view, among Leica’s best; again incredible. I have two Fuji X-T5 image stabilized bodies with superb Fujinon XF lenses which capture fantastic images. So why Leica? There is something intangible in the superb Leica DNG files; there IS that Leica look which often makes me reach for the Q3 when I want to produce “photographic art.”
The Q3 is incredible but unique. Full frame with a... (
show quote)
can you describe the "Leica Look"?
Sorry, but I can't find the link to the discussion thread "prime vs. zoom". I am thinking about several situations in the past and one coming up this spring where I want a good quality (IQ) photo that I will use for a large print and cannot imagine that I will be able to use a prime because of the difficulty of the terrain. I will be forced to use a zoom. This happens so often I question why I even have primes in my kit .... except for some rare low light situations.