bobburk3 wrote:
I'm looking for a good lens to use on my Nikon D7200 for general landscape and some sports. I have a AF-S Nikkor 70-200 1:4 G ED which I like for sports. But I find it too long for some of the landscape shooting I do and for team pictures. I'm thinking the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Lens might be the perfect lens. I want distant objects to be sharp as well as fairly close objects. I want it to have VR. I prefer to buy used since I can't really afford to pay thousands of dollars for a lens that I use as a hobby. But I want sharp images. Any ideas?
I'm looking for a good lens to use on my Nikon D72... (
show quote)
The 24-120mm lens is indeed a great lens for an FX camera. The 16-80mm is an excellent general photography for an DX camera.
Alafoto wrote:
Remember that T-mounts have no automatic features, not even stop down from wide open to focus to the selected shooting aperture. You will likely have to focus at the maximum aperture opening, then manually stop down to the shooting aperture otherwise you will probably find the image too dark to focus accurately when stopped down. Primitive, but functional.
You mentioned a granddaughter's soccer games, if I recall correctly. For any kind of action shots you'll have to shoot wide open.
You comment would be relevant to a DSLR but does not apply to a mirrorless although it is easier to focus a wider aperture. Focus peaking helps. I have a pin hole "lens". In bright light the view finder in my mirrorless camera is more than adequately bright.
SteveR wrote:
Is the 8 slice pizza bigger than the 6 slice pizza?
Indeed the more pieces that you cut a pizza into the larger it gets. HI HI
JeffinMass wrote:
It seems to me there are people who are leaving RAW for Jpeg. I am wondering if anyone has any thoughts about this?
I am sure that your impression is not correct. Raw files are like negatives and allow for extensive post processing. Jpeg are like slides. What you get is what you will have. I have yet to take a photograph that cannot be improved by post processing. Sometimes this is minor and sometimes not. One can always batch process RAW files to jpegs or take both jpegs and RAW files in camera.
I use jepgs for a few photos but the photographs are of a utilitarian use. (e.g. a picture of a part sent to a vendor or a photo of an item that was broken in shipment)
Keep up the good work.
See table 2a in the link to learn about appropriate apertures to avoid diffraction effects.
https://www.zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker/docs/tables/macromicrodof?s[]=macro&s[]=depth&s[]=field
This is a great lens. I usually use this lens @f2.8 or f4 with stacking to prevent diffraction losses in resolution.
Remember the marked f numbers are the the infinity focus values. @ 5x the apertures are much smaller.
Blaster34 wrote:
You’d be a hit in NYC, Southside Chicago or Baltimore…
Places that I don't visit.
Fstop12 wrote:
I can't imagine walking around with this contraption in public. In today's violent society I suspect this could quickly escalate into getting shot by police.
https://petapixel.com/2023/06/07/stockcam-is-a-camera-cage-that-takes-shooting-pretty-literally/
II used to have something like this. It worked well. Some orange paint or tape near the front might help.
There is nothing new about Canadian fires causing air quality issues. On May 19, 1780, folks in New England thought they were facing the end of time. Total darkness in the daytime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPQz9FpdOrw
rehess wrote:
If history had progressed differently, the majority of photographers might have used ‘medium format’ cameras, and our ‘measure’ could be completely different now.
I might consider the 8 x10in to be full frame but for the fact that I have used some even larger cameras. HI HI
Vault wrote:
I have searched the past posts by Hoggers and still cannot find a simple answer that satisfies my brain.
If a FX lens is put on a DX camera, the 100mm becomes a 150mm. So my Nikon DX 10-20 is a 10-20 or a 15-30 when it is on my D7100? Does this question make sense? My FX 80-200 2.8 AF-D 2 ring is that on my D600 but a 120-300 on my D7100. So are DX lenses made different than FX lenses or the marked focal lengths have different meaning.
There are basic physical properties of a lens. These are focal length, maximum aperture and image circle diameter.
These properties do not change with sensor or film size.
Consider an 8 x 10 in view camera. For such a camera a normal lens will be about 300mm. Its field of view will be similar to a 50mm lens on a FF (35mm) camera.
It is possible to attach different film holders on the rear of the view camera. On could have backs for 4 x 5 in film or perhaps 6 x 7 cm. If one fixes the camera position and aperture of the camera for the purposes of taking a picture and use all three backs, one will see that the depth of field on the film will be the same. What will change is the field of view.
The 8 x 10 film will have the widest field of view and the 6 x7 cm film will have the narrowest field of view. The lens has not changed at all.
A normal lens for any particular sensor size has a focal length equal to the diagonal length of the sensor or fill. This number, in practice is often rounded to a convenient focal length. Such a lens gives a field of view similar to a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera. A lens that has a focal length that is 2x the normal focal will have a field of view similar to a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera. A normal lens on a micro 4/3 camera is 25 mm thus a 50mm lens on such a camera has a field of view similar to a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera.
.
An advantage of small sensor cameras is that lenses can be manufactured that have a smaller image circle and
thus the lenses can be smaller and cheaper.
TriX wrote:
It’s perhaps an obtuse concept to grasp (and I take your point about Morse speed and bandwidth consumed), but think about it this way. Speed does drive bandwidth (high bandwidth depends on high speed), but they are not synonymous. There are several considerations. First, our internet traffic is typically TCP/IP. The TCP transport layer assures complete transfer of the data packets, in order, with error correction and retries if necessary. Those retries and retransmission of bad or lost packets limits the bandwidth of the actual information sent even though the speed of the connection remains high and unchanged.
Then there’s the issue of latency, which is driven not only by the speed of the transmission media, but the distance and the number of “hops” of the connection. Each retry or acknowledgement of a packet involves latency, which decreases bandwidth. And of course, there’s the “payload” (the actual data) size of the packet. Not the entire packet is data and the payload size is not always the same. There’s overhead from the header and CRC/trailer of the packet plus depending on the support for jumbo packets, the payload may vary in size. The net-net is you may have a 1Gbit internet connection, but the actual bandwidth of the link will vary due to latency, the number of errors/retries, and the size of the data files transmitted (the header and CRC/trailer size or “overhead” of the packet remain the same whether the payload is 100 bits or 1500 bits).
So the net-net is that BW and speed ARE related and more information transmitted does equal more bandwidth, but they are not synonymous. Make sense?
It’s perhaps an obtuse concept to grasp (and I tak... (
show quote)
What you are discussing is the issue of error correction that is often necessary for digital communications. If noise increases the number of errors then of course information transfer slows as additional packets must be sent.
Early modes of transmission did (do) not have error correction. Morse signals have a rather narrow band width. AM radio has a considerably wider band width as 2 side bands and a carrier is sent. The frequency band with is moderate for AM. FM radio signals send even more frequencies (higher fidelity) hand have a higher bandwidth than AM radio.
Analog Television has a much greater band width than FM as both a picture and sound are send. Again more information more bandwidth.
Your thinking is not correct. Morse code is the simplest form of data communication. It is well known that the faster Morse is sent the bandwidth of the signal increases. This increase in bandwidth is a result of the mathematics of wave forms. Modern digital signals are more complex than a Morse Signal none-the-less more bandwidth is required to send more information per unit time.
The speed of information on a wire is the speed of light reduced by a factor to account of interactions with the medium of transfer. Information travels at the speed of light in a vacuum (e.g. Radio Signals in space). Using more frequency space is required to transfer more information.
cony25 wrote:
Please give me suggestions on how to take a better picture in this situation.
You have some good suggestions for post processing here. Ultimately, there is no substitute for good lighting.
It did occur to me that makinng a pseudo-HDR might be helpful. Starting with a raw file create tiffs with +1 EV, 0EV, and -1 EV. combine these images into an HDR. Depending on your camera and software you might even be able to get +2EV and -2EV images.
I have used this method to correct images with high dynamic range that do not allow for separate in camera exposures.