"Chimping" refers to the practice of looking at your LCD after every shot and going, "Ooh! Ooh!" Yes, the camera did the take the picture. What a surprise. If you are shooting in Auto, or you have decent experience with a camera, you can be pretty certain that the shot will turn out okay. Unless you're tethered to a computer screen or an iPad, that tiny LCD on the camera isn't gong to reveal the fine points of the photo. Too much chimping can make you look like an amateur and even cause you to lose good shots.

When I'm out doing a lot of shooting, I turn the LCD off. It's a distraction, and it uses up the battery. One little poke at that Review arrow can show me the image if I have to see it.

Okay, it's your turn. Let the attacks begin! :D

A few days ago there was an excellent discussion on this topic, but I do not make it too long -> new one
Alternative 1. Half release/push of trigger locks focus and exposure . you need to hold it half all the time until you push full=take a picture. For next picture ..repeat.
Alternative 2. BBF set in f4 menu to Focus-On . Push it and it holds the focus (forever) . Half push release trigger holds the exposure . !! Each time you need a new focus you have to push/set BBF . If you want to cancel this function you must go thru the menu-f4.
Alternative3. BBF set in f4 menu to Exposure (Hold) . Push the BBF and exposure is locked (for 6 min) . Push the trigger and it focuses in half way and full push takes the picture. Second push of BBF releases this function and you are at Alt 1.
OK NOW - the question is :" How the menu c1 (on/off) changes these 3 functions above??? I have tried to combine these functions , but did not find any difference.
BONUS question is: Can I assign exposure to BBF and focus to Fn button ? So I can use both or choose one? I tried, but it din not work that way for me.

Is there anybody who knows the answers..i finally got confused and gave up. Thank you

Miro

I just read a posting about a dropped lens and immediately remembered the last, and hopefully last, time I dropped a lens.

It was a few years ago and it was an almost brand new Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 lens. I was removing the lens from its case and it somehow slipped out of my hands and landed face first at an angle on the pavement below.

I generally do not use UV filters when taking photos as they only add an extra layer of glass for the light to pass thru. But, when the lens is not in use I always put a UV filter on it for added protection.

The then $1500.00 lens hit the concrete with a nasty thud. I uttered a few four letter expletives then picked up my lens. The glass was cracked and the rim was bent at the point of contact.

I then removed the $10 UV filter that saved my lens, mounted the lens to the camera body and went about taking photos. On the way home I stopped at the local camera shop to pick up a replacement filter. The sales person tried to sell me some special quadruple coated specifically designed for digital cameras super deluxe UV filter for like $80 or some outrageous price. I said, just give me the cheapest one you've got, its only purpose is a companion for the lens cap.

Thanks everyone for all of the great comments and advice. It has given me a lot to think about. As suggested by many, I will definitely get the kit with the 24-120 for an extra $300, as I can always sell it on eBay and purchase a different lens if desired.

I know some of you have the 24-70 F/2.8 and I am curious as to the image quality of the new version with VR compared to the older version without. Since I shoot mainly on a tripod, I wonder if it would be worth the extra $600 unless there are other improvements besides VR.

I am looking to upgrade my Canon T4i to a Nikon D750 and am interested in some advice on lenses. I have read on a multitude of posts the importance of getting the highest quality lenses possible and want to make the best choices I can.

The D750 currently comes bundled with the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Lens for only $300 more than the price of the body alone on B&H while the lens alone costs $1100. I shoot mainly landscape and fly fishing/landscape photos and almost always use a tripod and the articulated screen on my T4i to compose the shots.

I am very interested in the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Lens as this has excellent reviews and is the perfect range for landscapes. On my current camera I use 10-18 and 18-135 mm lenses and rarely shoot beyond 100mm which is 160 mm in FF. The 24-120 lens is a great range but I wonder if it would be better to sell it new and use that money to invest in something like the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR Lens.

My key question is whether the 24-70 lens is higher enough in quality to justify the cost. I have had several images grace the covers of fly fishing magazines this past year and want to have high quality images when I submit them. However, if the image quality of the 24-70 is not noticeably superior to the 24-120, than perhaps the extra cost would not be justified.

I would appreciate any advice and input from those of you who have used these lenses. Thanks.

Phil

I just got that book from Rocky Nook. I bought the bundle with the ebook download and printed book. I think it's excellent. The chapter - Field Techniques, Methods, and Tips is great. They'll have recommended settings for photographing say a basketball game and then discuss techniques. For some reason they forgot to send my printed books initially but after an email they put in the order again and I got them.

I also got "The Digital Zone System Taking Control from Capture to Print" at the same time.