Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Yeah I know they have 'em, but they're useless so I choose not to acknowledge their existence.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
NeoGAF Camera Equipment Thread | MK II
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
Yeah I know they have 'em, but they're useless so I choose not to acknowledge their existence.
JadedWriter
Member
The thing just kept disconnecting from my phone while I was trying to download a pic, I almost threw my phone into the pavement.Yeah I know they have 'em, but they're useless so I choose not to acknowledge their existence.
jongkookie
Member
Lmao.
I've been wanting to buy one for my D3200 since last January but I never do coz I think it's unnecessary. More so since I shoot in RAW and tend to overexpose my shots so even if I can transfer it quickly, it'd still look like shit anyway. Same reason why I don't have Eyefi or Weye Fye or whatever DSLR to phone thing out there.
What I end up doing is take a phone pic of my screen and say it's a teaser lol.
JadedWriter
Member
My job wants me to send them stuff while I'm some place so they can tweet it, that's why I got it. The thing is a hassle. I'm on my phone cursing at the app trying to download shit when meanwhile I'm missing shots.
jongkookie
Member
Damn, you need another person to do that if it has to be live.
I dunno what events you shoot but a majority of the modern sports photographers I know do it in between breaks and they're bosses don't even care if it's late for however long.
One of them shoots for a major sports team and she's tethered instead, her laptop screen is mirrored to a TV nearby where the social media team hangs out and they just walk over to her laptop if they need a picture.
JadedWriter
Member
Well that's cool. I shoot a good amount of corporate functions, parades and other stuff. I'd use my phone for that shit, but the camera on that is fucked since I dropped it and it busted the glass on the lens. The pictures are blurry and flared out on that thing. My bosses boss complained so I said fuck it and just bought the damn adapter.
Astral/H3X
Member
The Wi-Fi cards are likely to be the better option for you. IIRC they are set up so that when a photo is saved in jpeg it's automatically sent to your phone, no cameras interaction needed. I'd look into that
JadedWriter
Member
Where do I stick the wi-fi card?
QualityPixel
Banned
There are wifi SD cards. I've never used one but they seem pretty neato
http://techpp.com/2015/04/28/wifi-sd-cards-camera/
It's part of the SD card. But they suck as well. The write speed is not super fast. Signal strength is abysmal on higher end cameras with magnesium body. And the workflow is pain in the butt unless you don't mind it sending every single picture to your phone. (It has selective mode but I find it just doesn't work that well and it depends on your cameras support for it.) Lastly, since it acts as access point, iirc, you are connecting to it as if you are on wifi network so you are no longer on cell network - double check to see if that has changed. I'd check for you except they decided my card has reached end of life so it is no longer supported in full capacity.
JadedWriter
Member
I would prefer something without a yearly subscription, and with the way I shoot I'd suck the life out of my phone within two hours depending on what type of event it is.
I ended up ordering the 14mm Fuji a couple weeks back, figured it was a good time given the $400 discount (Canadian) as well as a $250 store credit. Hopefully it will be sufficient! Had been wondering if the high discount on this lens meant it was getting a replacement, but haven't seen any rumours, and I guess the "replacement" would be them trying to sell the more expensive 16mm (or 10-24mm).
ChopstickNinja
Neo Member
This.
Which also sucks for me as I am trying to sell two of my Fuji lenses to get a telephoto for an upcoming trip.
I had it and I agree on the +/-
It is however the lens I used the most for portraits when I had it. I sold it to buy the Tamron equivalent which is just better IQ, AF and has stabilization to help with critical shutter speeds. The only downsides are the price and the fact that it's much bigger but meh
I don't know about DOF being less relevant the more "tele" you get. Shooting at 200mm with a 70-200mm f/2.8 still does not compare to the 85mm in terms of quality of bokeh or IQ.
JadedWriter
Member
Interesting. Might really be the Tamron then since it's a newer lens and I heard the Tamron stuff has gotten a lot better recently.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Is you budget going to allow for that?
JadedWriter
Member
If I can find a deal on ebay and finance it or something, all depends really
Planning on buying a Nikon D7200 (certified refurbished,body only) and a 35 mm lens for about $1000 total. I'll then get a decent zoom lens as a Christmas present to myself.
Anything seem glaringly wrong with this plan, for someone mostly doing Travel and Street (hobby) photography? I like my camera choice, I just get a tad nervous spending more than $10...(all mental...I can afford the camera + lenses, no question)
Anything seem glaringly wrong with this plan, for someone mostly doing Travel and Street (hobby) photography? I like my camera choice, I just get a tad nervous spending more than $10...(all mental...I can afford the camera + lenses, no question)
JadedWriter
Member
The camera is fantastic and I heard the 35G lens is good as well...it's a bit too limited for me, but it's good. Is your next lens going to be an ultra wide angle? Since it looks like you don't need anything specifically for portrait work.
Yeah, if I was getting into portrait work, I'd sooner invest in a lighting rig. Damn have I learned the importance of lighting in the past year or so...
I probably will go with an ultra-wide zoom. Better for landscapes and the like, right?
JadedWriter
Member
Yes. Tokina has an 11-16 2.8 I believe that's supposed to be pretty damn good for crop sensors. If landscapes are your thing then yeah an UWA would be best for you.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Not necessary for portraits given your level and budget. First learn how to use natural light for portraits. Add in a $20 multi-panel reflector. Or a $2 piece of white foam core.
Once you can do that, then buy lights.
jongkookie
Member
Can somebody point me to a 18-55mm or similar f/2.8 lens with AF for FX Nikon that's less than $600?
I'm currently using the kit lens at work and while that's fine and dandy since I've got an awesome photobooth with shittons of light, I need the images to be much sharper. Granted I'm shooting in basic JPG(no time to edit since I shoot about 500 pictures a day and I gotta submit it at the end of day) so there's definitely gonna be a hit in quality but I was using my Vivitar 28-90mm yesterday and the images are definitely much sharper than the kit lens.
Biggest reason why FX is coz I'll be upgrading soon so I'll also be using it outside of work since I'm buying it with my own cash, not the company's lol.
I'm currently using the kit lens at work and while that's fine and dandy since I've got an awesome photobooth with shittons of light, I need the images to be much sharper. Granted I'm shooting in basic JPG(no time to edit since I shoot about 500 pictures a day and I gotta submit it at the end of day) so there's definitely gonna be a hit in quality but I was using my Vivitar 28-90mm yesterday and the images are definitely much sharper than the kit lens.
Biggest reason why FX is coz I'll be upgrading soon so I'll also be using it outside of work since I'm buying it with my own cash, not the company's lol.
JadedWriter
Member
You can get a Tamron 28-75 2.8 or an an older 2.8 35-70 or you can have fun getting the older Nikon 2.8 28-70. which is a damn expensive lens and probably fat enough to break your 3200.
Pretty sure most of those are screwdrive AF and wouldn't autofocus on a D3200.
Edit: The Tamron 28-75 isn't and will autofocus on the D3200.
They would all autofocus on an FX body though.
jongkookie
Member
^Good lord that lens is probably half of his height lol.
I'm actually talking about something like this: Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 17-35mm f/2.8D
But minus the $2K price tag lol.
I'd be able to use that at work where I use a D5500 then take it home with me to use on my future FF body.
I already have the 28-90mm focal lengths covered thanks to my Vivitar Series 1 and while that is MF only, I've gotten so used to it and it's weird varifocal zoom-thing that I'm pretty confident I still can get decent shots out of it. Of course, I'll be replacing it with a modern lens but that'll be after I get my FF body.
I'm actually talking about something like this: Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 17-35mm f/2.8D
But minus the $2K price tag lol.
I'd be able to use that at work where I use a D5500 then take it home with me to use on my future FF body.
I already have the 28-90mm focal lengths covered thanks to my Vivitar Series 1 and while that is MF only, I've gotten so used to it and it's weird varifocal zoom-thing that I'm pretty confident I still can get decent shots out of it. Of course, I'll be replacing it with a modern lens but that'll be after I get my FF body.
JadedWriter
Member
I thought the 35-70 out of all of those was the only one that's screw driven?
He could use the lens hood as a hat.my kid looking through the d500 and 500mm.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
If you have a lot of light, the kit lens at f8-ish should be sharp enough, no? Does it really matter? I doubt the recipients of the pics are going to be pixel peeping.
JadedWriter
Member
He might just want the 2.8 for bokeh reasons. I know I do since I do a lot of portraits.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Perhaps, but in a photo booth? I'm assuming it's mostly groups, in which case you want more depth of field.
jongkookie
Member
Actually I have a feeling the lens is broken. Focusing is slow, sometimes it completely fails, shots with the built-in flash take too long and the images seem softer than before. I think it's broken because the previous photog also lent the company his kit lens and I used it for a week while training and it was the complete opposite to my kit lens.
I could ask the company to buy a kit lens but since I just started the job a few weeks ago, I'm pretty sure I don't have that kind of clout yet lol. So I'd rather buy it on my own that way I can use it anytime and anywhere.
Yep, you're absolutely right. I'm pretty sure I won't be shooting portraits at real 18mm but it'll be nice to have since I mostly shoot objects to begin with(outside of work) instead of humans. If I was gonna shoot portraits, I'd switch over to my f/2.8 70-210mm lens instead.
JadedWriter
Member
That lens should be pretty good for portraits. I need to eventually get a 1.8 85, I've gotten to enjoy 1.8 on my D600 oddly enough, when it hits focus of course. Just check ebay for a lens depending on what it is you should be able to find a deal for it.
Looking back at it there were two, an earlier D model with screw drive and a later AF-S.
JadedWriter
Member
I can't even find the af-s version. What does it look like? Jong's honestly just better off getting the Tamron 28-75 in my opinion, or at least checking ebay for a good 17-35 deal.
DarkJediKnight
Member
Anyone feel Nikon's colors suck compared to Canon?
I have Canon t2i and bought the Nikon D700 FX camera because it's fairly cheap now and has great auto focus.
The functionality of the camera is amazing but I cannot get the pictures to look nearly as good as my t2i. I don't do a lot of processing and with my t2i raw files I just use lightroom auto tone and punch. Sometimes a little boost in contrast and I'm good. With the Nikon I'm fiddling around and it doesn't have the vibrancy or the look of the Canon camera.
I also noticed that the bokeh on the Canon is far smoother. I'm using the 50mm 1.8g and 1.8 STM.
I have Canon t2i and bought the Nikon D700 FX camera because it's fairly cheap now and has great auto focus.
The functionality of the camera is amazing but I cannot get the pictures to look nearly as good as my t2i. I don't do a lot of processing and with my t2i raw files I just use lightroom auto tone and punch. Sometimes a little boost in contrast and I'm good. With the Nikon I'm fiddling around and it doesn't have the vibrancy or the look of the Canon camera.
I also noticed that the bokeh on the Canon is far smoother. I'm using the 50mm 1.8g and 1.8 STM.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
No. I try not to get caught up in subjective analysis too much, especially since color can be manipulated in post so easily to be whatever you want. What I do know is that the Nikons (generally) have great low light performance and dynamic range.
JadedWriter
Member
Yeah for the most part I've been perfectly fine with the colors my Nikons get, I tweak the shit out of them any how so what's the point. If you want excellent out of camera stuff get a Fuji.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I might also suggest fiddling around with the vibrancy slider, and definitely check out the camera profiles at the bottom. (Standard, vivid, landscape, portrait, etc).
Also, google around for free camera presets for Lightroom.
When you have a standard look that you like, save those settings as a preset, so you can apply them with one click to your future photos.
jongkookie
Member
I personally think it's the opposite... Canons in the hands of amateurs have a shitty "dreamlike" undersaturated look.
Of course anybody worth their salt isn't gonna be using the standard color profiles to begin with. My D3200 for example is on the neutral picture profile since it gives me more control over light and color in the post-process stage whereas the D5500 I use at work is on vivid since I don't have time to edit.
It's all a matter of how you use it imo. If you complain about stuff being shitty off camera then something ain't right, unless of course it's intentional(like mine).
Yup, the 70-210 is literally a beast in performance and weight. Performance wise, it's ridiculously good... I can only hope it'll retain that quality when I switch to FF in the future. Weight on the other hand... man, IIRC it weighs about 6 pounds with my D3200. My shoulder would usually hurt at the end of long shoots with it lol.
I have a 1.8 85 but from some unknown brand called Opteka, it works nice and all but the focus is fncked up(it's confirmed in the viewfinder but it's blurred on the actual shot) and the aperture ring is sluggish so I've stopped using it and have used my 70-210 instead.
Of course anybody worth their salt isn't gonna be using the standard color profiles to begin with. My D3200 for example is on the neutral picture profile since it gives me more control over light and color in the post-process stage whereas the D5500 I use at work is on vivid since I don't have time to edit.
It's all a matter of how you use it imo. If you complain about stuff being shitty off camera then something ain't right, unless of course it's intentional(like mine).
Yup, the 70-210 is literally a beast in performance and weight. Performance wise, it's ridiculously good... I can only hope it'll retain that quality when I switch to FF in the future. Weight on the other hand... man, IIRC it weighs about 6 pounds with my D3200. My shoulder would usually hurt at the end of long shoots with it lol.
I have a 1.8 85 but from some unknown brand called Opteka, it works nice and all but the focus is fncked up(it's confirmed in the viewfinder but it's blurred on the actual shot) and the aperture ring is sluggish so I've stopped using it and have used my 70-210 instead.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Do the camera bodies you use have the ability to set a custom focusing profile for that lens?
Oh it's an AF-S and a D lens. I know D has been used to refer to screw drive AF, but it has nothing to do with that and just means the lens transmits distance info for the flash and metering.
This is what it looks like. Very early AF-S hence the weird look.
Edit: Think that confused me as well because I can't find the non AF-S 28-70. The 35-70 and 24-85 f2.8-4 were both screw drive though.
JadedWriter
Member
I know all about the 28-70 2.8 since I've looked for that quite often. I thought you were talking about a AF-S 35-70. The 28-70 is a beast of a lens from what I've seen of it. I would want one to save a bit on buy a 24-70, but it's old, rare, and from what I've heard the AF motor tends to burn out on them which is all kinds of expensive to repair. For some odd reason I can only find that as an import from Japan on Ebay usually.
Is it bad that I normally just shoot in the standard color profiles? I tweak an ungodly amount in lightroom any way so it's never really bothered me. I've never heard of Opteka and you can probably tweak the AF fine tuning in the camera, but the Nikon one isn't that expensive.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
No. If you're shooting RAW, it doesn't matter. Only Nikon's RAW processing software can read the profiles you set in-camera. Lightroom just approximates what it thinks those settings should look like, and that's only if you manually change the camera profile. Everything defaults to Adobe Standard on a normal import anyway.
Sorry. Got everything wrong >_>
I quickly googled the 28-70 and thought I saw one AF-S and one without, but the abbreviations were just in a different order and I missed the AF-S.
Silent wave motors sounds like a common problem with older lenses. I remember hearing by design they have a limited lifespan. Haven't heard much about Canon USM failing, but Pentax had a lot of issues with early models.
Kinda unrelated, but were there really no fast standard zooms by Nikon released between the 35-70 (1987) and 28-70 (1999)? Such a big gap. Minolta and Canon both released their 28-70/2.8 in 1993 and Pentax in 1994.
If you don't mind getting a DX lens without VR then the 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 is a pretty good deal at ~100$ used. It is a little faster than the kit lens, was decently reviewed and has proper SWM autofocus. Not a huge step over the 18-55 in image quality though.
JadedWriter
Member
Probably not and based on the way modern Nikon updates their lenses that's a logical gap. I remember hearing that the AF-S 80-200 as well has AF motor life span issues.
jongkookie
Member
Nope, if you're getting good results out of it then I see no reason why you need to use another profile or whatever. I actually switch to standard when I'm shooting white people(pun very intended lol) since the greys/undersaturation really screw with their skin tone and more often than not they turn orange even with just a tiny raise of vibrance and saturation.
The Opteka was a cheap lens, you can get it new for $100 IIRC but I got the lens from a friend for free who didn't want it anymore lol. The lens itself is MF actually and I don't remember if I can tweak the AF on a D3200. It's actually a decent lens but I wouldn't go out of my way to buy one.
Yeah but it would be useless once I switch over to FX in a few months. That's pretty much the only reason why I'm looking for one. If I had to buy a DX lens I'd most definitely the get 18-35mm Sigma Art instead but again it'd be useless on an FX body.
JadedWriter
Member
Yeah if you're going FX then get an FX lens, otherwise you're just throwing money out the window. It's getting to the point where I just want to sell all of my DX gear, lenses and camera and call it a day. I use my D600 so much more now these days, just sucks that I really can't do landscape stuff yet with it.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Why not? IIRC, you should have enough to do so.
JadedWriter
Member
The 50mm is okay at it, but it can only get so wide and I wouldn't exactly classify that or a 70-200 as a walk around lens.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 47027
- Off-Topic Community Archive