Kindly reach out, with your asking price, to Tom at forjava@pacbell.net
Rick from NY wrote:
What are you talking about? That is 100% incorrect.
Rick. Check it out. Oh, you CAN. But this is now discouraged, with prejudice.
No matter what all the other issues may be, as of last year, there is no longer depreciation in personal returns.
RWR wrote:
The first exposures I made with my Nikon Df was an exposure latitude test, and the only difference I could see from ISO 100 was a little increase in contrast. This is noted in the manual, which also says to use ISO 50 for larger apertures when lighting is bright.
In line with RWR's quote of the Nikon remark for his Df, I searched for quite some time to see if ISO 64 (native on D810) is preferred to ISO 100 for the D810, all else equal. Somewhere, Nikon said to prefer ISO 64.
Was pleasantly surprised that my digital light meter recognizes ISO 64, but then, I'm fairly new at this discipline.
f/1.1 is the extreme for Nikon. I don't have one, though. ;>(
SharpShooter wrote:
Yes, this would be correct.
I beilieve there are a few cameras that have ISO of 50 as the lowest NATIVE ISO. In this case you might gain something but I believe it's been discussed that most cameras actually produce the cleanest files above somewhere above 100 but not at 100.
But for most cameras the ISO 50 is an extended range just as the super high ISO ranges are. The Camera is actually virtually approximating what the noise would look like and constructing an image digitally since the camera can't actually go to 50 natively on its own.
I have on many occasions shot sports at wide open on a bright day and the only way to control the exposure is to either use an ND or lower the ISO or both. With big lenses you may not be able to get an ND big enough, even with the big square holders.
By the way, just to show off your fancy f1.2 is a crock of crap by jealous amateurs! A pro will use what ever it takes to set their photography apart, creatively, from the guy standing next to them. By all means, take advantage of the advantage!!
Low ISO is just another tool when needed, as is f1.2, or f1.0 for that matter!! ;-)
SS
Yes, this would be correct. br I beilieve there a... (
show quote)
Thanks. I see you shoot in a wide range of conditions. I am mostly in my small home studio, managed lighting, MF, high contrast. I can see the 1.4 would do well with low contrast. Looking forward to getting a Zeiss or a Voigtlander in due course. I need to learn more first, using what I have.
RWR wrote:
55mm is shorter than I like for close-ups in the field, and I was only using my f/3.5 lens at longer distances (2 feet to infinity). I like the f/1.4 speed for ease of focusing in low-light and for low contrast subjects, but was not impressed with the Nikkors I tried. I rejected the 58 f/1.4 Nikkor because it's a G lens, can't use it on my F3, F4E or F4S. So, I decided on the 55 f/1.4 Zeiss, which I "think" may even be a bit sharper than my 50 f/2.0 Summicron-R. Before buying, I wrapped a bit of sheet lead in a rag around my 55 Micro-Nikkor to equal the weight of the Zeiss, and decided it would be perfect for low shutter speed hand-held shots. It's only been three weeks, but I'm not disappointed.
55mm is shorter than I like for close-ups in the f... (
show quote)
So nice to get your communication, James. Upstate New York is great (SUNY Buffalo)! And such a rich history -- see my reference to Parkman -- all the way from the last ice age through the saga of Kodak.
The screen name is from an earlier job. I became a Java Architect at Sun Microsystems, focused on the Java programming language. People came to me for Java; see patent 7,340740, for example.
The name of the programming language is inspired by the delightful beverage. Check the nicely abstract logo for the language:
https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/tutorial/index.html James R wrote:
forjava.....
I really like your "Screen Name" here.... I Love Coffee. When in Rochester, New York, I ALWAYS make a stop in the JAVA COFFEE HOUSE = On Gibbs Street just off of East Ave.
As you may be aware = The George Eastman House (museum) is located at 900 East Ave.
I have no feelings about painting artists - I was (am) one.
These were just quotes I have collected from time to time over the years of collecting them from on line.
Thank you for your reply.
James.
forjava..... br br I really like your "Scree... (
show quote)
Interesting and I am wondering why as I have several variants of the Nikkors.
RWR wrote:
I bought a new Zeiss 55 f/1.4 three weeks ago and consider it to be enough better than my 55 f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor at normal distances that the price was worth it to me. The Micro-Nikkor is now used for close-up and macro work only. I've not yet tried any of the other new Zeiss lenses, but the 135 f/2.0 is enticing, especially since B&H has a $400 rebate now.
William Royer wrote:
I have put together a 4 lens set of Zeiss ZF for my D810 --- the 21, 35mm f2.0, 50mm Makro, and 100mm Makro. Although I have (or, had) some of the best Nikon fixed and zoom lenses including the Holy Trinity, I'd guess I use one of the Zeiss 80% of the time. IF a person is comfortable with manual focus, fixed focal lengths, typically uses the focal ranges of the Zeiss lenses (21-135), and tends to shoot objects that don't move quickly then I highly recommend them for full-frame cameras. They are sharp; I strongly prefer their jrendering over Nikon's; their construction is superb; and, I like their physical sizes (if not the cost).
I have put together a 4 lens set of Zeiss ZF for m... (
show quote)
What is it about the (color?) rendering you prefer on your D810 -- for example, if possible, 100mm vs. Nikkor 105mm G?
I notice you have no 85mm; do you prefer the Nikkor counterpart?
About this Adams quote: Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs. - Ansel Adams
So, are paintings (and other art forms like sculpture) trustworthy? Yes and no.
I've long since made a point of looking for independent evidence that pre-photographic renderings of events and people were generally accurate. Examples where accuracy can be expected:
* Images of individuals, as in Alexander on coinage vs. sculpture.
* Non-commercial drawings of scenes from the old West.
* Details surrounding subjects as in religious art, though sometimes the details, for example, furnishings, are contemporary to the artist rather than historical.
At the dawn of photography, it did not necessarily occur to photographers to record action events. For an example, see my earlier post on UHH about photographers at the OK Corral.
I've concluded that on the whole, artists experienced a duty to be accurate. We enjoy a huge privilege and are greatly in debt to deceased artists.
Let's review some exceptions to accuracy, to do with history. Victors' depictions of combat are immediately suspect. Examples:
1.a Some Egyptian friezes are impossible exaggerations.
1b. Depictions of battle aftermath are likely unverifiable yet accurate in the form of brutality, as in most paintings of battles in Ethiopia.
1c. Cesar's account of his actions in Gaul are known to be self-serving, if broadly useful.
1d. Napoleon's story after his defeat in Russia.
1e. Diaz del Castillo's account of the conquest of New Spain, written fifty years or so after the events, strikes me as accurate yet it contains at least one moralizing remark that is likely an afterthought.
1f. A goodly fraction of our historians are ax grinders -- with Francis Parkman being a towering example of accurate reconstruction from documents.
The other suspect domain is paintings of women. Commercial motives can lead to distortion. Pedagogical examples can be more responsible. Examples:
1a. Jean-Marc Nattier is notorious for depicting women as more beautiful than the cold reality -- and he was commercially successful. Visit the Getty Museum to see a couple of portraits.
1b. On the other hand, wrt Rubens' life of Marie de Medicis (Louvre), which Nattier engraved about eighty years later, intended to increase access to Rubens' art, Marie is depicted as portly in two of the three engravings I have. Maybe Nattier figured it was enough, in "La Paix confirmée dans le ciel," to render her exposed breast exquisitely.
camerapapi wrote:
"What is wrong with focusing manually?" Well, nothing wrong with it as I see it except for non stationary subjects.
Just instruct your subjects to only move exactly parallel to the sensor plane while staying quite close to the central axis of the lens. Should work...
So true (about downloading here).
Extraordinary work.
Steve Perry wrote:
Don't buy into the "FX is always better" myth - it's just not true. It really depends on what you're shooting. You want to choose the right tools for the job, plain and simple. If you're focal length limited, DX is a really great choice - it's also a bit more compact and the dedicated DX lenses are more compact as well. On the other hand, if you shoot really low light, enjoy shallow depth of field portraits, or photograph primarily city and landscapes, I think FX is can be a better choice. Horses for courses and all. I use my D7200 all the time for wildlife, but when I'm out shooting landscapes or at night, it's my D810.
As for quality, keep in mind the D500 is closer to 21MP than 20 - and the difference between 21 and 24 is negligible. Also the D500 will have a newer sensor and presumably better ISO performance and maybe better dynamic range. In theory, it should get a bit better results, although I think you'd be hard pressed to see it at lower ISOs.
Also keep in mind the D500 is aimed at action shooters. 10FPS, huge buffer, and killer AF is great for action, but if you're shooting just landscapes, those features just don't matter. So, my advice is go D500 if you do action, but if it's mostly stills, don't spend the extra on features you don't need.
Finally, here are a few shots from my D7200. I don't think shooting either the D500 or the D750 would have improved these. So, don't get too worried about what body you're using, just get out and shoot :)
(as always, these look better if you click download)
Don't buy into the "FX is always better"... (
show quote)
Very helpful, apa; thank you.
Apaflo wrote:
Some blown highlights or none is a judgment call that depends very much on just what the highlights are! A light source, cloudy sky, reflections off water, and many other things that commonly get blown out simply don't make any difference at all! The reason is because there is no useful detail to be lost or gained.
But feathers on a bird have detail that is usually the very point of the photograph! No way you want to lose any of that detail. Gray hair on a person's head is the same. Bright yellow or red areas of flowers too. Don't let them get blown.
Clothes can be a tough call. A bride's dress is one where the detail is important, but how about when you use flash shooting a birthday party for a 1 years old? Does the baby's white bib, or the collar, need to have all the detail possible? That's a judgment call that might go either way for different pictures with different photographers.
The dynamic range of virtually all digital cameras today, except at very high ISO, is greater than what a JPEG image can display (normally 6 to 7 fstops, but up to about 9.4 with exceedingly careful processing) and that is more than the 5 to 7 that a print can show. If your camera can capture 11 fstops, but the scene has 15... something either clips on the white end or blocks on the dark side. And then you put it into a JPEG image and again something has to go. And maybe you print it, and once again even more has to go... (or use HDR and make it ugly!)
Some blown highlights or none is a judgment call t... (
show quote)
So, I have been developing the habit of checking the histogram after, as my subjects are shiny products. Seems that checking the histogram is critical, no matter what path you take to get an exposure.
I see a couple of small areas of blown highlights in the first photo, but only if downloaded. I have had the impression that a minor amount is considered quite acceptable. From this thread, I am getting the impression that no blown highlights are acceptable. That is a question.
Apaflo wrote:
Do either, as the effect is exactly the same! Adjusting Exposure Compensation may be a little easier to control though.
In either case what is probably most important is inspecting the histogram to see what the effect was.
With an averaging center weighted metering mode the light meter is less likely to be affected even slightly by the small area of feathers that is bright white. But it is also more likely to be affected by sky or other areas that are brighter than middle grey. With spot metering the opposite is true, and the sky is less likely to affect the reading while the white feathers are more likely.
With an averaging meter the chances are great the a small but very white area of feathers will end up being clipped. With a spot meter the chances are great that a small but very white area will end up closer to middle gray that to white. Neither are really what you want, but the spot metering results can be recovered in post processing while the clipped whites cannot. In either case checking the histogram and making adjustments to Exposure Compensation (for example -1 with an averaging meter reading, or +1 for a spot meter reading) will nail the proper exposure.
Do either, as the effect is exactly the same! Adj... (
show quote)