Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Rick from NY
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 58 next>>
Mar 26, 2024 11:03:21   #
Aren’t we all just spinning our wheels here, since the OP never mentions what the gear he will be supporting is (MFT or small ff mirrorless with short zoom or Z9 with 400/2.8?), what type of visit this will be, i.e traveling alone, hiking, cruising, large group or small, geared toward ordinary citizens or photographers, etc?

Without knowing those parameters, especially the weight of his rig and distance to be carried , how can one suggest a specific tripod? Suggestions to shop around to find best fit ergonomically are right on regardless of any parameters, but seems to me that suggesting specific models aren’t very useful. And, incidentally, what head to mount?

Btw - count me in the group that considers tripod use on a boat pretty much useless since the rocking of the vessel and/or vibrations caused by the engines are not mitigated by using a tripod placed on a deck (or bracing it on a ships railing). On a vessel, my experience has taught me that best practice is to select shutter speed high enough to overcome such movement and hand hold.
Go to
Mar 25, 2024 10:19:16   #
User ID wrote:
Adams really shouldnt have bothered, based simply on the result he managed to salvage.

OTOH, Jon has recorded an excellent scene. To my eyes it needs some PP but is basically waaaaay beyond Adams dismal moon scene.


This comment pretty much rules you out as someone whose critique I’d value.
Go to
Mar 24, 2024 07:14:11   #
deanfl wrote:
I found these interesting…..thank you for posting!


So did I and I expect others interested in street photography (or not) might also find it interesting. but it seems the admin staff inexplicably and rather heavy handedly immediately saw fit to move my post from the main section where I initially posted it to “links & resources” where few will see it. It’s been up for 24 hours and you’re the only view to date.

Pity admin felt it was not worthy of a broader audience.
Go to
Mar 23, 2024 10:30:15   #
I enjoyed browsing through these. Brings a whole new meaning to “street photography “.

https://www.boredpanda.com/vintage-history-retro-photos/
Go to
Mar 22, 2024 15:37:39   #
Talk about nice timing - this guy’s video appeared on my YouTube feed 20 minutes ago. I don’t know anything about him, but he is echoing my conclusions about the 24-200.

https://youtu.be/r7hY4fDFt4Y?si=6nAmXTbao-jIPyQ1
Go to
Mar 22, 2024 09:12:34   #
yssirk123 wrote:
The 24-200 was the first Z lens I bought and I still love it. It's far and away the most versatile lens in my bag, and the image quality is excellent.


Glad to have a fellow shooter confirm my impressions
Go to
Mar 21, 2024 16:36:03   #
jeffhacker wrote:
I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 24-200 f/4-6.3 as well. The 24-200 is a great travel lens; my only issue with it (I have a Z6ii and a Z7ii) is in low light situations, and those situations where I need the bigger aperture. I’ve got the 14-30 f/4 as well when I need a wider angle, but if you’re traveling weight does count :-)


If it’s noise that is the problem with slow lenses, I have found the new noise reduction software to be amazing.
Go to
Mar 21, 2024 09:17:56   #
Delderby wrote:
I have an RX10ii which has a Zeiss 8x zoom (24-200) f2.8 constant aperture. I have found it equals my Leica d-lux 109 (f1.7 3x zoom) I've seen nothing that compares with the RX10ii for my type of photography.


What does this have to do with my original post?
Go to
Mar 21, 2024 09:16:26   #
FOR THOSE WHO EITHER DIDN’T BOTHER TO ACTUALLY READ THE REPLIES TO MY OP AND MY FOLLOW UP COMMENTS AND/OR TO THOSE WHO JUST DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF MY OP, I ADDED THIS COMMENT YESTERDAY…..

How about we ignore the “600mm” RX10 nonsense in my thread? My post has nothing to do with any Sony or any other brand. It was written to alert Nikon shooters that the all purpose Z super zoom is a giant improvement over its dslr versions.

You want to argue about that camera’s focal length, start a separate thread.
Go to
Mar 20, 2024 16:19:21   #
bwana wrote:
Or add a LensBand to hold the zoom location...

bwa


Had never thought about that solution, but as a matter of fact, the lens is so new to me that I wasn’t yet aware it had a zoom lock. So far, my copy hasn’t crept on me. I’ll be looking out for that.
Go to
Mar 20, 2024 16:16:23   #
How about we ignore the “600mm” RX10 nonsense in my thread? My post has nothing to do with any Sony or any other brand. It was written to alert Nikon shooters that the all purpose Z super zoom is a giant improvement over its dslr versions.

You want to argue about that camera’s focal length, start a separate thread.
Go to
Mar 20, 2024 11:42:59   #
BobHartung wrote:
Be sure to lock the lens when carrying as it has a tendency to "auto zoom" , i.e. extend under it's own weight.

Thx
Go to
Mar 20, 2024 09:30:56   #
dpullum wrote:
Rick from NY said: "I’m 76 and leaving for a 2 week vacation abroad and simply cannot haul my fast Z lenses." "I’m a Nikon shooter and had tried out several “super zooms” over the years "

Nikon shooter... well your index finger will actually work on other brands!! Amazingly!!!
"several “super zooms” over the years" Guess what... they have improved... While I have a Panasonic, Canon, Sony, and the rest also have fantastic 1" sensor Superzoom pocket cameras.

A major item in today's world is the effectiveness of AI post-processing... noise and sharpness and resolution; a 1" 20 mp sensor, 10x zoom, macro, and in-camera 3 ring circus of both burst and video abilities is for an excessively mature [76 y old] person on vacation is quite adequate [understatement]. Also as backup, a modern high-resolution cellphone is great. Both do not use swap lenses and fit in one's pocket.

Compact Superzoom pocket cameras spell freedom and capture when on auto the fleeting moment of photo opportunity.

I have a Panasonic TZ100 equipped to take add-on lenses and filters. [attachment for 52mm about $25] I am using it as a go-to camera, and my heavy Sony A65 and those 5 lenses stay at home collecting dust.

Most of the recommendations in this post will by the end of carrying the camera and lenses around for two weeks will feel like they weigh over a ton!!

Enjoy your vacation, and do not be burdened by heavy cameras... Caution: big equipment paints a target on your back for those wanting to steal your equipment that costs as much as they make in a year working.
Rick from NY said: "I’m 76 and leaving for a... (show quote)


Appreciate the thoughts, but perhaps I should have been clearer in my original post. I already own a Sony A6700 and some good glass to go with it. As I said originally, I tried that combo as a replacement for my regular gear on a 2 week vacation to Spain. As excellent as that camera kit is, overall I was disappointed in the overall results. Got some great shots - sometimes - if lighting was right.
I also own a Sony RX100 v7. The rx100 is always in my pocket. No matter what other gear I’m carrying. But not yet that feeble that it would be my only camera. Clarifying my point, while I am 76 and looking to pare down weight and bulk for “vacation” pics, I am not close to giving up on my FF Nikon gear yet.

I have sung the praises of both of my Sonys often in this and other forums, but for me, as good as they are for many situations, they don’t hold a candle to my “real” FF gear. And - only part of that is due to the physical characteristics of the 1” sensor. It has to do with muscle memory. I can shoot my Nikons in my sleep. I spend too much time remembering how to change settings with the Sony menu system.

So while I’m aware of physically smaller alternatives, until I cannot carry even my Z8 with the 24-200, I’m sticking with FF and what I know will give me the results I want 99% of the time.
Go to
Mar 20, 2024 01:36:15   #
Mac wrote:
You made a good choice with the 24-200mm lens i have it and use it a lot on my Z 6II. In case you haven’t seen it, here is a link to Ken Rockwell’s review of the 24-200mm lens. He is very complimentary of it. https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm Enjoy!


Appreciate the link to KR review. I confess the I’m not usually a fan of his reviews and often disagree with many of his conclusions/recommendations, but as I read his review of this lens, I found myself nodding in agreement often. Especially by his rave about the len’s macro capabilities. The sample butterfly shots I posted were all “macro” shots.

He’s more gushingly positive about the lens than I am. His numerous and impressive sample photos do indeed show of the capability of the lens when shooting stationery objects, but as I mentioned, I won’t be using that lens for sports or critter gigs. He alludes to not needing 2.8 glass which strikes me as hyperbole. While I do find the lens to be a very capable option when I can’t carry my 2.8 gear, for me, the 24-200 is never going to my first choice for gigs that count. It was satisfying to read that another respected photographer found the lens to be a keeper.

And the sale price of $700 (200 off of 900) made it downright inexpensive compared to the other glass on my shelves.
Go to
Mar 20, 2024 00:55:02   #
Wallen wrote:
I used to have a similar setup with 2 lenses, covering 18-200. Great for about 80% of the time. Unfortunately I find that there are times the 18mm can't get the framing I want and frustrating moments where the 200mm is lacking in zoom range. I ended up getting an 8mm fisheye, a wide that goes down to 11mm and another lens that can reach 600mm. Now everything is not a mobile as before LOL. The bazooka (as my wife calls the 600mm) means I now always need a car to lug stuffs around

I found the Tamron 18-270 superzoom a great alternative. It was was not a sharp but it did well most of the time.
I used to have a similar setup with 2 lenses, cove... (show quote)


I think you missed the point of my post. My goal was to reduce the weight I’m carrying on vacation, not equip myself for every focal length eventuality. I went that route for the past 55 years, but will not going forward when shooting for my own enjoyment . And the lenses you mention will do me no good on my FF Z8 and D850.

As for needing wider than 24 or longer than 200 - sure there might be a few times when I’d prefer my 14-24/2.8 or my long “bazooka” fast glass, but once again, on vacation shooting for personal reasons, I’m not carrying my full kit. My guess is that during my 2 week holiday in France, other than if I happen to spot Yeti swimming a couple of hundred yards away down the Sienne with the Loch Ness monster under his arm, I’ll wager that I’ll never feel cheated at being restricted to only 200mm.

Apples and oranges I’m afraid.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 58 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.