nunatak: my Gitzo's are keepers. but so too are my Benro and Sirui carbon legs. they're all solid.
Gitzo may add an iteration of "finish" to their products over most competitors, but when it comes to the critical functions of weight/support, Gitzo only equals some of their much less expensive Chinese made cousins.
all things being equal, i'd prefer to blow my budget on better glass than pay tribute to a slightly better finished set of legs. JMO.
I have a Gitzo 224 and a Bogen (Manfrotto) 3028 that I purchased at the same time. That combo has worked very well for me through the decades. It has been one of the sturdiest platforms I've used without any play or slop. If I want to use the camera in very low positions I could mount the head to the bottom of the center console and still have the camera in an upright position and not upside down. Very nice combination, but heavy at 5 pounds.
nathantw: Wow. Look at those prices. Yikes!
Don't get me wrong. I purchased my Gitzo 224 in 1983 and have been using it as my main tripod since. It has served me very well and will continue to do so for decades to come. It'll probably outlive me. Using the inflation calculator I paid what came out to about $500 back then. So, yes, these are lifetime types of purchases provided you don't do anything really weird to break them. I just saw these prices for today and to me they're still "yikes." That's expensive.
Wow. Look at those prices. Yikes!
Love the Gitzo I purchased in 1984. Still using it today as my main tripod.
nathantw: I find it interesting that in the old days of film if we had a camera that had an infrared dot on the focus scale all we needed to do was buy a $15 (I'm exaggerating) roll of infrared film and a filter. Then there was Nikon's digital camera, the Coolpix 950 (I think), that did IR really well. Now you can get digital IR from Fuji for $1700. Man, inflation is a b*tch.
You did it yourself? Was it hard?
I find it interesting that in the old days of film if we had a camera that had an infrared dot on the focus scale all we needed to do was buy a $15 (I'm exaggerating) roll of infrared film and a filter. Then there was Nikon's digital camera, the Coolpix 950 (I think), that did IR really well. Now you can get digital IR from Fuji for $1700. Man, inflation is a b*tch.
Peiasdf: Was this back when photographer still have access to Whitehouse or are these staff photographer's work?
Also. I can only imagine how much better the quality would be if a modern FF was used without flash.
I wouldn't douibt if many of these were likely shot with a Leica M.
nathantw: Actually looks good. Thanks for the samples. One tip, though, 85mm is good for closeup portraits and the 24mm isn't.
Barney Britton, you definitely called it. ;-)
Holy smokes, Rishi Sanyal. Did you drink too much coffee? Calm down.
I guess you didn't see what lens I shoot the most with, it was at the end of my post, it's a 24mm lens. Yes, a 24mm lens where people's heads are big and their feet are small in full body closeup photos. Where faces are elongated and noses are Pinocchico-lying large in closeup head shots. You didn't see portraits of people in my gallery (at least I have some photos in my gallery) because I don't post photos of people if they aren't in a public area where they expect to be photograph. I've been shooting with the 24mm for over 30 years so I know that focal length's strengths and weaknesses pretty well. Assuming I'm narrow-minded is, well, ass/u/m(e)-ing.
The example photo of the different focal lengths isn't my photo. I just grabbed the link from a quick search.
By the way, not that you would care what I think, but I like the photos you posted in your example to your prove your point.
Okay, Rishi Sanyal. To each his own. I'm sure your models just love the pronounced noses and elongated faces. When's your next portrait seminar?
I'm sure you already know, but for those that don't here are samples of the differences between focal lengths. http://johncarnessali.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Portrait-Focal-Length-II.jpg
That said, ask me what my favorite focal length is. Go ahead, ask. Yeah, 24mm. It's my most used lens for everything.
Mister Joseph: Another massive lens for my massive FF camera to compliment my other massive lenses.
And don't forget your massive backpack/camera bag and tripod that your massive FF camera kit will need.
Actually looks good. Thanks for the samples. One tip, though, 85mm is good for closeup portraits and the 24mm isn't.
This is really cool. I enjoyed it.
As for using the D810 and sticking out like a sore thumb, he probably wouldn't if he decided to use a small prime lens instead of a hulking giant lens like the 24-70mm f/2.8.
smozes: In my opinion, the Joby SLR Zoom model could've been a better match, since it is smaller. However, it uses an integrated ball head which is not compatible with any other plate.
I was really hoping to just carry the Joby SLR Zoom, and be able to mount my MILC to either it or a CapturePro clip, but because of the the ball head, I can't and had to settle for the Joby Focus, which is huge and clearly meant for professional DSLRs.
I agree that it sags after adjustment, especially if the camera is in the vertical position. I actually wondered how they could call it a "DSLR Zoom" when it didn't do what it was supposed to with a zoom lens.
You are aware you can take the ball head off and replace it with whatever you'd like, right? I use the SLR Zoom and change the head periodically.
What they need is a lightweight tripod that extends out to 4.5' or so. Vivitar had a mini tripod in the 80s and maybe the 90s that did that. It was about 12" or less when folded but extended to almost 5'. The only problem was that it was heavy. Mine recently broke but I was lucky to find another on our favorite auction site. It held at least 2 or 3 pounds too.
If there was a lightweight one, though, I'd try that. As for the ones tested here, I use the Gorilla Pod. The only problem is that it does get unstable when you put a DSLR camera with a lens like a 85mm f/1.4 on it. Frustrating.
Terry Breedlove: Either there are many people posting without reading the article or they just can't understand anything they ever read.
I didn't feel you said anything bad. I just felt bad that perhaps you felt that way (negative) about my comment.
Richard, I wasn't trying to be a d*** about it. Sorry about that.
Steve Jobs was replaced by a Pepsi CEO.
Mrrowe8: Sadly much like the T-Rex , Hasselblad & Leica days have come and gone .. They use to be what ALL real photographers aspired to own as it represented the BEST .. Now however they are in most cases overpriced hipster junk .. If they focused on specialty fields maybe they can inch back into the real world .. But now they are just a dull filler story ..
I shot some photos in a studio the other day. I used the Nikon D810 with a 85mm f/1.4G. Then near the end of the session I used a Hasselblad 553ELX with my favorite 120mm lens. Great camera to use with focusing manually. Ah, a split image rangefinder. How I missed that. Anyway, I used black and white film.
I ended up editing the D810 photo in Lightroom and Photoshop and it came out spectacular. The black and whites that I shot came out just as good. I edited those in Lightroom and Photoshop also. However I had to take extra time to spot out dust and white dots. That was one part I don't miss with film. In the end I printed those out too and they looked just as good as the D810. That made me wonder why I even bothered with the Hasselblad.
So, my point is that in the end we're just after getting the image and the D810 does that job as well as any camera and I kinda want to say as good as a film Hasselblad.