Reading mode: Light Dark

Waiting for d70 upgrade? Here's a photo and info.

Go to last post
... maybe some flowers too.

Glass glass glass...... see you back on the lens forum Kerry!
--
Marabou Muddler
 
Cassandra said:
Maybe I can get the neighborhood cat to pose for me. The tree rats
don't hold still long enough! Meanwhile here's a goose giving me
the raspberry. :D
Click to expand...
Cassandra has got both a duck AND a goose AND the FRONT ends of both.... Does that qualify for membership? ;-p

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
brush tailed possum.

at the moment i am in new zealand where they are destroying the local habitat at a phenomonal rate. the photo was taken in sydney australia.
Kerry Pierce said:
Nurgles:P said:
and then i remembered this
Click to expand...
What kind of critter is that? Don't look like no tree rat I've
ever seen...

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Click to expand...
--
mostly snapshots with the occasional photo that i am 'almost' happy with:
http://imageevent.com/the_yattering
 
Too bad I ain't got a brush tailed possum or even a lowly raccoon pic. Surely that would qualify me. ;)

Cassandra
Kerry Pierce said:
Cassandra said:
Maybe I can get the neighborhood cat to pose for me. The tree rats
don't hold still long enough! Meanwhile here's a goose giving me
the raspberry. :D
Click to expand...
Cassandra has got both a duck AND a goose AND the FRONT ends of
both.... Does that qualify for membership? ;-p
Click to expand...
 
Kerry Pierce said:
I agree. I was all set to buy the 10d, when the d70 was announced.
The 10d was, and still is, a good camera. They're all good. Why
people continue with the brand X vs Y stuff is not only silly, it's
absurdity in the extreme.
Click to expand...
Sorry Kerry, but the questions about X vs Y -brands are for forums likes this, specially if one is new to DSLR's.

Is was (and still are) new to DSLR's, well "old" in SLR's for some years ago. I needed some input about X and Y - brand for some time ago. The only place I could go, were here on X and Y -forum. It helped me a lot. All the answars in X and Y -forum were right, which I saw when I "played" with X and Y.

What I'm saying is, that the forum also are made for beginners to D70, not only for the semi-pro's users.
--
Micra
http://www.pbase.com/ibolesen

 
Kerry Pierce said:
Cassandra has got both a duck AND a goose AND the FRONT ends of
both.... Does that qualify for membership? ;-p
Click to expand...
Well... The fact that she is one of the best shooters around here probably doesn't mean much... On the other hand, a duck and a goose shots certainly should help... I guess we could arrange that membership...
Cheers!
 
Although I see myself as being more an advanced (read: slow) learner than an accomplished shooter. :D

Cassandra
Mikhail Bogdanov said:
Mikhail Bogdanov said:
Cassandra has got both a duck AND a goose AND the FRONT ends of
both.... Does that qualify for membership? ;-p
Click to expand...
Well... The fact that she is one of the best shooters around here
probably doesn't mean much... On the other hand, a duck and a goose
shots certainly should help... I guess we could arrange that
membership...
Cheers!
Click to expand...
 
Kerry Pierce said:
SverreE said:
At the moment I like very much to take portraits and I'm sure a
70-200mm should be perfect for this. However I like the idea of
using the same lens to try to catch a bird or two... The 80-400
have this flexibilitie but if I'm not going to get happy with this
lens in the 70-200 range then it's not a good idea. I'm also
living in Norway where its pretty dark half of the year - may be
2.8 is a good idea for that reason?

Forgot but I also going to buy the SB800...
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like you've got it figured out very well, Sverre. I
love my 80-400, but there's no way it will give you the flexibility
for portraits that the 70-200 will give you. So, show us some pics
when you get a chance!
Click to expand...
Do you think a f/2.8 WITHOUT VR is a better option than the 80-400 VR for my needs? Or is 70-200VR 2.8 best, 80-400VR second and 80-200 2.8 or the Sigma 70-200 2.8 third?

Thank you for your excellent advice so fare!

Sverre
 
Sure I can't interest you in a gull?



Or a swan?



Oh well here's a duck



Regards,
David

P.S. Can't help it, I finally got small web space! (But no more pict's for 3 weeks, got to send D70 to get backfocus fixed.)
Kerry Pierce said:
DavidLan said:
Okay how about a hungrey meerkat?
Click to expand...
Dunno, David.

We can't be bending the rules now, for every nice guy that comes
along, you know. I'm afraid we're gonna have to insist on a duck or
a cat or something.... :-)

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Click to expand...
--
http://davidlan.smugmug.com/
 
SverreE said:
Do you think a f/2.8 WITHOUT VR is a better option than the 80-400
VR for my needs? Or is 70-200VR 2.8 best, 80-400VR second and
80-200 2.8 or the Sigma 70-200 2.8 third?
Click to expand...
If you're wanting to do a lot of portrait shooting, I don't think the 80-400 would work well for that, Sverre. I used it a lot for candids and it works well in that environment, with decent lighting, but I wouldn't choose it for normal portrait work. It's 1.3 stops slower than the other listed lenses, at 80mm, plus it probably has a longer minimum focus distance, than any of the others. If you're willing to work at 20ft or so from your subject, the MFD wouldn't be an issue, but you still don't have the lens speed.

The 70-200vr is probably the most versatile for portraits, unless you're willing to work with support all the time. Using support and flash/fill flash, the 80-200 or the Sigma 70-200 would work fine. AFAIK, the Nikkors have a slight edge for color and contrast over the Sigma, but they should, because they cost more. :-)

So, really, it comes down to how much you want to spend and how much emphasis you put on rather subjective things such as bokeh, color and contrast and AF speed.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
I think the duck was just hungry and was thinking he'd try my fingers!
Kerry Pierce said:
DavidLan said:
Sure I can't interest you in a gull?
Click to expand...
The gull is pretty good.
Kerry Pierce said:
Or a swan?
Click to expand...
The swan is kinda like a big duck....
Kerry Pierce said:
Oh well here's a duck
Click to expand...
That's not one of those FAKE ducks now, is it? Mikhail is rather
particular about that stuff....

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Click to expand...
--
http://davidlan.smugmug.com/
 
Kerry Pierce said:
SverreE said:
Do you think a f/2.8 WITHOUT VR is a better option than the 80-400
VR for my needs? Or is 70-200VR 2.8 best, 80-400VR second and
80-200 2.8 or the Sigma 70-200 2.8 third?
Click to expand...
If you're wanting to do a lot of portrait shooting, I don't think
the 80-400 would work well for that, Sverre. I used it a lot for
candids and it works well in that environment, with decent
lighting, but I wouldn't choose it for normal portrait work. It's
1.3 stops slower than the other listed lenses, at 80mm, plus it
probably has a longer minimum focus distance, than any of the
others. If you're willing to work at 20ft or so from your subject,
the MFD wouldn't be an issue, but you still don't have the lens
speed.

The 70-200vr is probably the most versatile for portraits, unless
you're willing to work with support all the time. Using support and
flash/fill flash, the 80-200 or the Sigma 70-200 would work fine.
AFAIK, the Nikkors have a slight edge for color and contrast over
the Sigma, but they should, because they cost more. :-)

So, really, it comes down to how much you want to spend and how
much emphasis you put on rather subjective things such as bokeh,
color and contrast and AF speed.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Click to expand...
--
Sverre
 
Thanks for your thoughts. I couldn't agree more. Can you recommend any photography and post processing books?
Kerry Pierce said:
You want better photos? Spend the money by upgrading your lenses,
tripod and perhaps on photography classes. Buy some books on
photography and post processing and learn how to make better photos.
Click to expand...
 
bao nguyen said:
Thanks for your thoughts. I couldn't agree more. Can you recommend
any photography and post processing books?
Click to expand...
Hi Bao,

Off the top of my head, John Shaw's books are excellent. Peterson's Understanding Exposure is pretty good. Ron Reznick's and John Shaw's ebooks are excellent. Martin Evening, Katrin Eismann and Deke McClelland have excellent books on photoshop.

There are many others as well, depending on what level and type of book that you want, such as Ansel Adams' series of books.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top