Reading mode: Light Dark

Adios Canon. Hola Nikon. Lens recommendations?

Go to last post
Ok, thanks for the info. I think you might be over-analyzing the situation though. I'm an old man with a new camera. There is a learning curve, and I am on that curve at a very early stage. I don't expect to become even adept for at least another 10,000 shots or so.

But I was quite happy with these shots, and many more I didn't post here. I'm not a pro selling photos for a living, like you perhaps? Certainly if I was a pro, all these photos would be in the garbage can by now and I'd be looking for a new job.

Thanks again for your input.
 
sqlmonkey said:
Ok, thanks for the info. I think you might be over-analyzing the situation though. I'm an old man with a new camera. There is a learning curve, and I am on that curve at a very early stage. I don't expect to become even adept for at least another 10,000 shots or so.

But I was quite happy with these shots, and many more I didn't post here. I'm not a pro selling photos for a living, like you perhaps? Certainly if I was a pro, all these photos would be in the garbage can by now and I'd be looking for a new job.

Thanks again for your input.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, I think you did fine. The D750 is an advanced camera with an advanced AF system that will take time to really understand and get the feel of. Give it time, and you will understand what you can expect, and adjust accordingly. Before acquiring mine, I had been shooting with a Canon crop-sensor with 9 AF points, so this was a huge leap. That said, it is a brilliant camera, and I predict you are in for a lot of fun as you learn.

As an aside, those blue eyes of his are spectacular. He will make the ladies swoon when he gets older.
 
Haha.. thanks Albert. My 18 year old has the same problem with his eyes and girls.



aaeb00803bf34f2598bb502d7cf4436a.jpg
 
TOF guy said:
chuxter said:
Your new camera and lens are back-focusing. Look closely and you will see in 3-of-4 shots that the eyes are not in sharp focus...but things beyond the eyes are in focus. The other shot appears blurred?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
First, I'm not trying to insult the poster; I'm trying to help. I understand that the kid is on a swing. I have taken pictures of kids on swings:



331d9e0d6bfb4225a1f33c0e9b7c76a2.jpg

Here is what I saw:



c029dda1380c48ab8a174e02ff440b22.jpg

The only thing around the eye that looks sharp is the tiny vertical line in the tear drop. It is a reflection of something [pole, post, tree, etc] and is greatly reduced in size, thus "sharp".
TOF guy said:
I don't see it.
Click to expand...
Do you now?

 
Here is what I see. Focal plane is maybe half an inch behind the eye, not "critically" sharp but far sharper than the ears or nose, and plenty sharp viewed at full screen. That isnt necessarily a fault of the camera though, we dont even know where the focus points were, it may have locked exactly where it should have. Even if it missed the eyes by half an inch, thats pretty good for such a close target at f3.5 on FF.
 
chuxter said:
TOF guy said:
chuxter said:
Your new camera and lens are back-focusing. Look closely and you will see in 3-of-4 shots that the eyes are not in sharp focus...but things beyond the eyes are in focus. The other shot appears blurred?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
First, I'm not trying to insult the poster; I'm trying to help. I understand that the kid is on a swing. I have taken pictures of kids on swings:

331d9e0d6bfb4225a1f33c0e9b7c76a2.jpg

Here is what I saw:

c029dda1380c48ab8a174e02ff440b22.jpg

The only thing around the eye that looks sharp is the tiny vertical line in the tear drop. It is a reflection of something [pole, post, tree, etc] and is greatly reduced in size, thus "sharp".
chuxter said:
I don't see it.
Click to expand...
Do you now?
Click to expand...
What I see is that you posted a photo at an equivalent f/7.5, virtually ensuring it would all be in focus, if anything was, while his was f/3.5. Not quite the same.

As an aside, your image was not in critical focus either, but it is hard to judge since the 1/160 was clearly not fast enough to freeze the action.
 
Last edited:
Albert Silver said:
chuxter said:
TOF guy said:
chuxter said:
Your new camera and lens are back-focusing. Look closely and you will see in 3-of-4 shots that the eyes are not in sharp focus...but things beyond the eyes are in focus. The other shot appears blurred?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
First, I'm not trying to insult the poster; I'm trying to help. I understand that the kid is on a swing. I have taken pictures of kids on swings:

331d9e0d6bfb4225a1f33c0e9b7c76a2.jpg

Here is what I saw:

c029dda1380c48ab8a174e02ff440b22.jpg

The only thing around the eye that looks sharp is the tiny vertical line in the tear drop. It is a reflection of something [pole, post, tree, etc] and is greatly reduced in size, thus "sharp".
Albert Silver said:
I don't see it.
Click to expand...
Do you now?
Click to expand...
What I see is that you posted a photo at an equivalent f/7.5, virtually ensuring it would all be in focus, if anything was, while his was f/3.5. Not quite the same.
Click to expand...
I don't participate in equivalence discussions. :-(
Albert Silver said:
As an aside, your image was not in critical focus either, but it is hard to judge since the 1/160 was clearly not fast enough to freeze the action.
Click to expand...
I agree. The natural light was dim but beautiful. Swing was not moving much. I had her mom put her there because she was hyperactive; all other attempts were terrible.

D300 doesn't look good beyond 800 ISO. 1/160 second was enough for the camera but not for her. She was in constant motion. I had the rig on a monopod and was using a flash for fill. My point was that I understand how difficult it is to capture an active kid on a swing.
 
chuxter said:
D300 doesn't look good beyond 800 ISO. 1/160 second was enough for the camera but not for her. She was in constant motion. I had the rig on a monopod and was using a flash for fill. Mypoint was that I understand how difficult it is to capture an active kid on a swing.
Click to expand...
Chuxter,

I disagree with this, having used a D300 extensively for most of the past 8 years or so. A D300 can produce decent results up to around 1600 or so, given decent conditions. Sure, there's a bit of noise, and it certainly increases significantly above that that, but it can be mostly eliminated with good PP skills. So, to say it's limited to 800 or below, which is essentially what you're saying, is wrong, IMHO.

Of course, YMMV, and others may very well agree with you, but that's my feelings on it. And if it comes down to a bit of noise and getting the shot, or no noise but not getting the shot, either, well....

Sam
 
greenmanphoto said:
chuxter said:
D300 doesn't look good beyond 800 ISO. 1/160 second was enough for the camera but not for her. She was in constant motion. I had the rig on a monopod and was using a flash for fill. Mypoint was that I understand how difficult it is to capture an active kid on a swing.
Click to expand...
Chuxter,

I disagree with this, having used a D300 extensively for most of the past 8 years or so. A D300 can produce decent results up to around 1600 or so, given decent conditions. Sure, there's a bit of noise, and it certainly increases significantly above that that, but it can be mostly eliminated with good PP skills. So, to say it's limited to 800 or below, which is essentially what you're saying, is wrong, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Every photographer has a different threshold for noise. You are being condescending:
  • I have at least as much experience w/ the D300.
  • I have good PP skills, including NR.
greenmanphoto said:
Of course, YMMV, and others may very well agree with you, but that's my feelings on it. And if it comes down to a bit of noise and getting the shot, or no noise but not getting the shot, either, well....
Click to expand...
That may be the difference between an amateur and and a professional? :-0
 
drivecancel said:
chuxter said:
Get a 50mm f/1.4. That has been the standard 35mm lens for at least 60 years. That part is easy. The hard part is deciding whether to get the:
  • Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D @ $269 [B&H]
  • Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G @ $447 [B&H] [only AF with screw-drive bodies]
  • Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM Art @ $949 [B&H]
  • Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus @ $3990 [B&H] [manual focus]
The Nikkor D or the Sigma Art would be my choices.
Click to expand...
Should include the Sigma 50mm non-Art here too, sharper wide open than both the 50mm 1.4G and 1.4D, also wonderful bokeh!

48a35da0f78443f0a1e5ced10ae06bac.jpg
Click to expand...
That Bokeh is NOT wonderful. It's jagged, and harsh, like the 50 1.8D.
 
sqlmonkey said:
Really? There is only one stationary shot and to me, that looks in focus. The others are on a swing and at the bottom of a slide. He was moving a million miles a minute and I was pretty happy to get some pretty sharp shots. Not perfect I agree, but I really can't blame the equipment. Like I said, I've been using Canon all my life and I feel like a newbie with a Nikon having just taken a few hundred shots so far. Anyway, thanks for your input.
Click to expand...
Cameras and Lenses can both be off in focus. I suggest doing what I did, and get yourself a spydercal, and fine tune focus your nikon lenses. My 50mm F1.4G for example, was back focusing almost an inch at 3 feet! Every time I would focus on the leading eye, the back eye would be perfectly in focus every time. I spent just 2 or 3 hours fine tuning my staple lenses, and each one except for my 85 1.4 needed some small adjustment.

Even if your lenses are on dead-center-focus, it is a good piece of mind knowing that missed focuses were a matter of technique, not a camera or lens issue.
 
CptAmerica said:
sqlmonkey said:
Really? There is only one stationary shot and to me, that looks in focus. The others are on a swing and at the bottom of a slide. He was moving a million miles a minute and I was pretty happy to get some pretty sharp shots. Not perfect I agree, but I really can't blame the equipment. Like I said, I've been using Canon all my life and I feel like a newbie with a Nikon having just taken a few hundred shots so far. Anyway, thanks for your input.
Click to expand...
Cameras and Lenses can both be off in focus. I suggest doing what I did, and get yourself a spydercal, and fine tune focus your nikon lenses. My 50mm F1.4G for example, was back focusing almost an inch at 3 feet! Every time I would focus on the leading eye, the back eye would be perfectly in focus every time. I spent just 2 or 3 hours fine tuning my staple lenses, and each one except for my 85 1.4 needed some small adjustment.
Even if your lenses are on dead-center-focus, it is a good piece of mind knowing that missed focuses were a matter of technique, not a camera or lens issue.
Click to expand...
That depends on your subject and the camera.

If your subject is static you can adjust your focus. If your subject is dynamic even if you adjust your focus it would depend on your camera shutter lag and how fast the lens react especially if your subject moving towards you. Even at slow speed of 5mph (316800 inches per second) the lag of .0044 (D800e) would already offset .4" while you are tripping the shutter not even considering the lens. If your DOF is 1 (.5 in the front of the focus point and .5 in the back) inch focusing on front eye will give you sharp focus on the back eye.
 
SushiEater said:
CptAmerica said:
sqlmonkey said:
Really? There is only one stationary shot and to me, that looks in focus. The others are on a swing and at the bottom of a slide. He was moving a million miles a minute and I was pretty happy to get some pretty sharp shots. Not perfect I agree, but I really can't blame the equipment. Like I said, I've been using Canon all my life and I feel like a newbie with a Nikon having just taken a few hundred shots so far. Anyway, thanks for your input.
Click to expand...
Cameras and Lenses can both be off in focus. I suggest doing what I did, and get yourself a spydercal, and fine tune focus your nikon lenses. My 50mm F1.4G for example, was back focusing almost an inch at 3 feet! Every time I would focus on the leading eye, the back eye would be perfectly in focus every time. I spent just 2 or 3 hours fine tuning my staple lenses, and each one except for my 85 1.4 needed some small adjustment.
Even if your lenses are on dead-center-focus, it is a good piece of mind knowing that missed focuses were a matter of technique, not a camera or lens issue.
Click to expand...
That depends on your subject and the camera.

If your subject is static you can adjust your focus. If your subject is dynamic even if you adjust your focus it would depend on your camera shutter lag and how fast the lens react especially if your subject moving towards you. Even at slow speed of 5mph (316800 inches per second) the lag of .0044 (D800e) would already offset .4" while you are tripping the shutter not even considering the lens. If your DOF is 1 (.5 in the front of the focus point and .5 in the back) inch focusing on front eye will give you sharp focus on the back eye.
Click to expand...
 
CptAmerica said:
SushiEater said:
CptAmerica said:
sqlmonkey said:
Really? There is only one stationary shot and to me, that looks in focus. The others are on a swing and at the bottom of a slide. He was moving a million miles a minute and I was pretty happy to get some pretty sharp shots. Not perfect I agree, but I really can't blame the equipment. Like I said, I've been using Canon all my life and I feel like a newbie with a Nikon having just taken a few hundred shots so far. Anyway, thanks for your input.
Click to expand...
Cameras and Lenses can both be off in focus. I suggest doing what I did, and get yourself a spydercal, and fine tune focus your nikon lenses. My 50mm F1.4G for example, was back focusing almost an inch at 3 feet! Every time I would focus on the leading eye, the back eye would be perfectly in focus every time. I spent just 2 or 3 hours fine tuning my staple lenses, and each one except for my 85 1.4 needed some small adjustment.
Even if your lenses are on dead-center-focus, it is a good piece of mind knowing that missed focuses were a matter of technique, not a camera or lens issue.
Click to expand...
That depends on your subject and the camera.

If your subject is static you can adjust your focus. If your subject is dynamic even if you adjust your focus it would depend on your camera shutter lag and how fast the lens react especially if your subject moving towards you. Even at slow speed of 5mph (316800 inches per second) the lag of .0044 (D800e) would already offset .4" while you are tripping the shutter not even considering the lens. If your DOF is 1 (.5 in the front of the focus point and .5 in the back) inch focusing on front eye will give you sharp focus on the back eye.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
chuxter said:
greenmanphoto said:
chuxter said:
D300 doesn't look good beyond 800 ISO. 1/160 second was enough for the camera but not for her. She was in constant motion. I had the rig on a monopod and was using a flash for fill. Mypoint was that I understand how difficult it is to capture an active kid on a swing.
Click to expand...
Chuxter,

I disagree with this, having used a D300 extensively for most of the past 8 years or so. A D300 can produce decent results up to around 1600 or so, given decent conditions. Sure, there's a bit of noise, and it certainly increases significantly above that that, but it can be mostly eliminated with good PP skills. So, to say it's limited to 800 or below, which is essentially what you're saying, is wrong, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Every photographer has a different threshold for noise. You are being condescending:
  • I have at least as much experience w/ the D300.
  • I have good PP skills, including NR.
Click to expand...
No, I wasn't being condescending. And yes, every photographer has a different tolerance level for noise, as does their client, if they're a working photographer. As I said, YMMV. If you have good skills, then good for you. I never claimed otherwise.
chuxter said:
chuxter said:
Of course, YMMV, and others may very well agree with you, but that's my feelings on it. And if it comes down to a bit of noise and getting the shot, or no noise but not getting the shot, either, well....
Click to expand...
That may be the difference between an amateur and and a professional? :-0
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But, I'm pretty certain a professional would do what is necessary to get the shot, even if that means pushing the ISO. I know that in the film days, I did just that when it was necessary. Otherwise, it meant nothing to tell my editor, "I saw the shot, but it was too dark for my film. But I can DESCRIBE it to you!"

And yes, THERE I was being condescending.

Sam
 
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