General Photography Chat - Page 57

bulliver · #**1121** Posted **Jul 30, 2011, 1:06 AM**

Not sure about the D200, but my D90 can trigger the SB-600 off camera.

photoLith · #**1122** Posted **Jul 30, 2011, 3:16 AM**

I personally hate flash and rarely if ever use it. Cameras today have such good high ISO capabilities that you really dont need a flash in most situations. I used the D200 from 2005 until just a couple months ago and I bought an SB-600 but used it on maybe a handful of occasions. The built in flash works almost as good as a shoe mount flash, except you cant take it off the camera and put the flash in different positions but you really only use that kinda stuff in model shoots. If I were you, I wouldnt waste my money on an external flash and instead get a good low light lens, a 2.8 or lower.

Ramsayfarian · #**1123** Posted **Aug 1, 2011, 8:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photolitherland

I personally hate flash and rarely if ever use it. Cameras today have such good high ISO capabilities that you really dont need a flash in most situations. I used the D200 from 2005 until just a couple months ago and I bought an SB-600 but used it on maybe a handful of occasions. The built in flash works almost as good as a shoe mount flash, except you cant take it off the camera and put the flash in different positions but you really only use that kinda stuff in model shoots. If I were you, I wouldnt waste my money on an external flash and instead get a good low light lens, a 2.8 or lower.

While I agree that today's high ISO saves a lot of shots. I'd have to disagree with the rest of your post. For me flash photography has added a new element to photography for me. Whilst I'm a big fan of ambient light, there's something inherently cool about modifying and shaping a strobe to get the results that you want.

To the original poster, I would buy an external flash if I was you, and google Joe McNally and David Hobby aka The Strobist. They're two of the best external flash users around. The Strobist has a ton of how-to information on his blog. Well worth the visit. But be warned, flash photography can become addictive.

photoLith · #**1124** Posted **Aug 1, 2011, 1:52 PM**

If it were me though I would just chose natural light over a flash. But to each is own.

bulliver · #**1125** Posted **Aug 1, 2011, 2:57 PM**

I used to feel that way as well, but I've gotten right into flash photography. It really has limitless possibilities. And it is really not an either/or proposition. Ambient works best for some shots, and flash for others. Especially for portraits...in dull flat light a little shot of flash will make the portrait so much more intriguing.

Also agree with Ramsayfarian about checking out David Hobby's strobist 101 and strobist 102. Great info...and Joe McNally's 'Hot Shoe Diaries' is great as well, though it is more for inspiration than a strict howto book.

Ramsayfarian · #**1126** Posted **Aug 1, 2011, 4:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photolitherland

If it were me though I would just chose natural light over a flash. But to each is own.

Well if it works for you, that's all that matters. Personally, I find relying on ambient light a tad limiting, but that's me.

Ramsayfarian · #**1127** Posted **Aug 1, 2011, 4:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bulliver

I used to feel that way as well, but I've gotten right into flash photography. It really has limitless possibilities. And it is really not an either/or proposition. Ambient works best for some shots, and flash for others. Especially for portraits...in dull flat light a little shot of flash will make the portrait so much more intriguing.

Also agree with Ramsayfarian about checking out David Hobby's strobist 101 and strobist 102. Great info...and Joe McNally's 'Hot Shoe Diaries' is great as well, though it is more for inspiration than a strict howto book.

McNally's has some videos that are pretty informative, but unfortunately you have to pay for those. I signed up for a month's membership on Kelby's training site and powered through most of them. I also took in McNally's workshop when he was in town last year. It was amazing to watch him work.

flar · #**1128** Posted **Aug 1, 2011, 5:19 PM**

I'm mainly interested in existing light photography too, but there are many types of photography that aren't possible without flash and lighting. Seems like there is a lot to learn and understand about lighting techniques. I might get into it someday, but now I'm happy to continue with what I'm doing.

diskojoe · #**1129** Posted **Aug 2, 2011, 2:10 PM**

using ambient lighting is great if you have perfect timing. but in a busy world this is typically not possible and using flash can give you lighting possibilities when natural light is not available. its good to know how to use both but flash is expensive.

ue · #**1130** Posted **Aug 3, 2011, 7:22 PM**

Does anybody know why 8X10 inches is the standard print/frame size for that range of prints/frames? Cameras are made to print to a 4X6 inch-like resolution, which means with 8X10 inch sizes, the photo needs to be cropped (sometimes in unflattering ways). Why wasn't 8X12 inches made the standard for that range? It's not like it's going to take up that much more space on your walls. I find it stupid how an extra 2 inches and the frames cost more on average and there is a lot less selection.

Okayyou · #**1131** Posted **Aug 3, 2011, 8:19 PM**

check out some of the answers here

diskojoe · #**1132** Posted **Aug 4, 2011, 8:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ue

Does anybody know why 8X10 inches is the standard print/frame size for that range of prints/frames? Cameras are made to print to a 4X6 inch-like resolution, which means with 8X10 inch sizes, the photo needs to be cropped (sometimes in unflattering ways). Why wasn't 8X12 inches made the standard for that range? It's not like it's going to take up that much more space on your walls. I find it stupid how an extra 2 inches and the frames cost more on average and there is a lot less selection.

Resize the photo and just add a 1 inch black border on the top and bottom and BOOM perfect artistic print with no cheese matte bordering needed. this way you also do not lose any of the original image.

diskojoe · #**1133** Posted **Aug 4, 2011, 8:32 PM**

LENS QUESTION:

so im thinking about possibly picking up a new lens soon but Im kinda drawn between which to buy.

Its between a sigma 28-70 f2.8 ex or a rokinon 85mm f1.4.

I like the sigma and it has AF where the 85mm is fully manual. But id really like to have a 85mm f1.4 too.

what do you guys think?

Ramsayfarian · #**1134** Posted **Aug 4, 2011, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by diskojoe

LENS QUESTION:

so im thinking about possibly picking up a new lens soon but Im kinda drawn between which to buy.

Its between a sigma 28-70 f2.8 ex or a rokinon 85mm f1.4.

I like the sigma and it has AF where the 85mm is fully manual. But id really like to have a 85mm f1.4 too.

what do you guys think?

I'm a huge fan of primes and fast glass, but I'd take the 28-70 over the 85. I have Tamaron's 28-70f2.8 and it's on my camera more often than not. Only if I need some extra width or more zoom does it come off my camera.

Okayyou · #**1135** Posted **Aug 4, 2011, 9:20 PM**

I think it depends on what you already own. The 85 mm is going to be pretty niche. If you are lacking a wide to mid range zoom get the 28-70.

I use a 17-55 and 70-200 as my bread and butter. While I still love my 135mm prime, there is certainly some redundancy with the 70-200.

flar · #**1136** Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 12:29 AM**

I wouldn't buy a 28-70 on cropped sensor. 28mm is not nearly wide enough, it's almost a normal lens. Tamron makes a 16-55 f2.8, but 55 isn't that long, especially when you can get a fast 50mm for cheap and 2.8 isn't that fast either, barely faster than the common f3.5 at the wide end of most zooms.

I've heard the Rokie gives superb bokeh. It's manual focus, which some can live with, some can't. Some think 85mm is an odd focal length on crop sensors. Kingofthehill uses an 85mm I think, it seems to work for him

As usual, try before you buy.

diskojoe · #**1137** Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 1:43 PM**

currently i have a sony 18-70 3.5 -5.6, sigma 70-210 f2.8 and a minolta 50mm 1.7. I wanted to upgrade the mid range with the sigma 28-70 f2.8. I had seen the tamron 28-70 f2.8 and heard lots of good things about it but the sigma I saw is $100 less and still about equal. It has a 9 blade aperture too. not sure what the tamron has. Honestly I would have preferred a 17-70 but they do not make one with a fixed aperture. that would be too perfect.

Those rokinon 85's do have nice bokeh. i think sabotai uses one of the nikon versions. down side to that lens is there isnt even a focus chip in the sony version. from what ive been reading only the nikon version comes with the chip. its not that i really need this but it makes things simpler.

flar · #**1138** Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 1:56 PM**

The Nikon version probably has a chip like the ones I installed on my old primes. Lacking a focus motor, there is nothing that can make a manual lens autofocus. The chip allows the lower end cameras to measure exposure and control the aperture with the command wheel. The higher end cameras (including D7000) allow you to program the camera to use manual lenses without a chip.

All Nikon cameras have a built-in focus indicator: you turn the focus ring until the light comes on.

diskojoe · #**1139** Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 2:35 PM**

yeah i know what they are for after your great examples you showed. i was disappointed that the other versions didnt come chipped.

mr.John · #**1140** Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flar

The higher end cameras (including D7000) allow you to program the camera to use manual lenses without a chip.

All Nikon cameras have a built-in focus indicator: you turn the focus ring until the light comes on.

so what your saying is I wouldn't need to make any modifications on a old manual focus lens to make it work with a d7000, this would work great with an ultra wideangle lens where focus is unimportant, just set it at infinity and shoot away. Any old Nikon fisheye (prime) lens you can recommend?