Teila Day

Teila Day

Lives in United States FL, United States
Has a website at www.teiladay.com
Joined on Apr 5, 2005

Comments

Total: 423, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ecka84: This is nice :D
At last, something to compete with 85/1.2, kind of.

Definitely good to see Nikon doing something to keep the lens lineup "fresh".

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 07:44 UTC
In reply to:

Studio1138: Sure wish they had put in IS.

"Just buy the 105 VR macro, then you can add perfect handheld close up eyeball portraiture to your repertoire.."

You lose more than a stop of light wide open to (1) make it easier for the camera to AF (2) make it easier for you to manually focus with a brighter viewfinder compared to a f2.8 lens and (3) you lose at least a stop of light if you have the older lens and would rather open the lens up as opposed to raise the iso or lose shutter speed. In addition to all of that, the difference in background rendering between f/2.8 and f/4 can be very noticeable as I've demonstrated many times. Likewise, the difference between f/2.8 and f/2 *or wider* can also be very noticeable.

I would've gladly paid extra had my Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro (fav of mine) offered stabilization. The lack of is/vr isn't something that's been detrimental-- but I have groaned more than once over not being able to use a tripod where I was positioned and being short on shutter speed and already at 3200 iso...

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 00:05 UTC
In reply to:

tobicy68: This or 85/1.4 or 50-100/1.8?

this.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 23:39 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Question for studio portrait photographers in particular:

"... This new NIKKOR lens is ideal for professional and advanced enthusiast photographers, especially those capturing portraiture, from in-studio fashion to a golden hour engagement session on the beach"

How often to you shoot portraits at f/1.2 or f/1.4?

Shoot it no differently than you would any other lens of this range of focal length 85-135mm that offers f/2 or wider. You take into consideration the conditions and what you're trying to capture and plan accordingly. Is there room to shoot at f1.4? You betcha! New Orleans, Louisiana; 5 ladies sitting on a curb at dusk in the French Quarter awaiting a cab. At 50ft. away, you're talking about a DOF of about 6ft. and maybe a shutter of 'round 1/125th after raising the iso to 500 or so... stabilization would come in handy here so you don't have to stabilize the camera on some disgusting trash receptacle that smells somewhere between beer and urine... But that would be one of the realities of shooting in the street at dusk. :)

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 23:37 UTC
In reply to:

Nikonandmore: I have the feeling, just about all lenses now are "Leica" and MF price range. Sony, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon.. amazing! I don't understand how these manufactures survive to sell enough of these or how people manage to have money to feed this price frenzy. It will only take cell phone sensors, lenses and technology to get a bit better FOR ONE to buy DSLRs anymore. This market is dead and at these prices, sinking faster and faster. Costs 10 grand (or more) these days to buy a pro/enthusiast grade body and 2 or 3 lenses. Sorry, but this and it's pricing momentum is all becoming absurd. And mind you, these new lenses are all mass produced in 3rd world countries and with more and more dubious quality control. Long gone are the "Made in Japan" days with solid products made with extremely qualified manual labor, excellent quality control AND real long-term post sales support! Indeed Leicas start looking really affordable..

Nikonandmore... and you've totally overlooked the reality that scores of people simply do not find $10k (or more) for a camera kit, $800k for a mortgage, $280k for a sports car, or $150 for a dinner-for-two; "expensive". What is or isn't expensive is relative to one's income. What is true however, is that for anyone running a photo-related business, $10k shouldn't be "expensive" to a business that cares more about making money than MTF charts, DXO, edge sharpness, and all that other goobly-goop that typically has little-to-nothing to do with actually being profitable.

10 years from now... cell phones still won't compel me (and most others) to give up shooting with a much larger sensor. "This market is dead and at these prices, sinking faster and faster" .... said the Ford to the Ferrari... ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 23:15 UTC
In reply to:

Studio1138: Sure wish they had put in IS.

... and lose over a stop of light when shooting general portraiture? I agree with others that in 2016, the lack of stabilization is indeed a sore point, even when shooting at 3200 iso, indoors, at f/2; where stabilization might let the photographer stop the aperture down two stops, which can make a noticeable difference in the noise one has to deal with in post. Tripods work wonders but aren't always practical in certain confines.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 22:59 UTC
In reply to:

Studio1138: At this price, it should have VR AND a lens calibration puck like the Sigma Art lenses.

Hmm... so some of you are saying that we'd see noticeably better bokeh if the 400 f2.8, 300 f2.8 and 200 f2 didn't have VR? The bokeh is just too easily altered today in post, however I appreciate subtle differences in bokeh; I just don't think leaving the VR off was a good trade off and I don't even remotely believe better quality bokeh was the real reason for it irrespective of what Nikon might say ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 22:39 UTC
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: Not being sarcastic at all. At last, a lens with "endearing character." I haven't seen the word "character" used to describe a lens in forever it seems like. Thank heavens Nikon continues to release lenses that are more attuned to the needs of art than they are to commerce.

Smiler... actually the "kids" in the 18-25 group are mostly shooting digital Apple/Nikon/Canon or another readily identifiable digital brand/cell phone/tablet and rarely printing anything at all. The older photographers are definitely not using lenses from their youth because those lenses are by and large horrible on today's digital bodies and devoid of modern lens coatings. However, you do have the "glad to be alive" part right.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 22:00 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: This is nice :D
At last, something to compete with 85/1.2, kind of.

I've shot the stew out of the Canon 85 1.2, Nikon 85 1.4, and the Zeiss 100 f/2 makro (which I love)... given then choice between this new 105 and the fast (and competent) 85, I'd take the 105. I also shoot fast lenses in this range mostly at f2. When the ink hits the paper, they all do well; I wouldn't say Canon had a leg up.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 21:53 UTC
On article Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review (505 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stuckabroad: Nice review, keep up the good work.
I do find all the negative comments bizarre. I'm lucky enough to own one of these (D3 packed up) and, genuinely, it's magnificent.
I'm rank amateur so can someone please explain why I'd shoot iso 100 when i can shoot between 3000-12000 and get a better quality photo? This seems to be the main criticism.
My daughter plays county cricket and I was shooting handheld in overcast conditions with a 300mm. f10, 1/1000 with the iso cranked up. I don't go higher than A4 and I would defy anyone to criticize the quality.
Later the same day I was taking photos of my son in a school play. The high iso allowed me to get photos my D3 would never get and the autofocus is staggering, even in the dark.
About 99% of the time I don't shoot RAW (quite frankly I've got better things to do with my life) so I want the shot there and then. With a half decent lens even someone as untalented as myself is going to shine.
BTW, the battery. 4000 shots so far, same charge. Wow.

You really need to get the "HDR" stuff out of your head, since the most useful reasons for being able to recover up to 5 stops or so, has absolutely nothing to do with the stereotypical HDR "look". I don't think most D5, 1Dx, etc., are being bought by "pros" shooting sports or reportage; which brings us to another point. These camera aren't "sport" cameras- but rather fast shooting cameras that are used in a myriad of situations that exploit their strengths whether that be sports, action portraiture/life style, industrial use, scientific use, etc.. More DR would definitely help a lot of actual owners/would-be-buyers of these cameras whether those buyers shoot sports/reportage or not.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 04:01 UTC
On article Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review (505 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stuckabroad: Nice review, keep up the good work.
I do find all the negative comments bizarre. I'm lucky enough to own one of these (D3 packed up) and, genuinely, it's magnificent.
I'm rank amateur so can someone please explain why I'd shoot iso 100 when i can shoot between 3000-12000 and get a better quality photo? This seems to be the main criticism.
My daughter plays county cricket and I was shooting handheld in overcast conditions with a 300mm. f10, 1/1000 with the iso cranked up. I don't go higher than A4 and I would defy anyone to criticize the quality.
Later the same day I was taking photos of my son in a school play. The high iso allowed me to get photos my D3 would never get and the autofocus is staggering, even in the dark.
About 99% of the time I don't shoot RAW (quite frankly I've got better things to do with my life) so I want the shot there and then. With a half decent lens even someone as untalented as myself is going to shine.
BTW, the battery. 4000 shots so far, same charge. Wow.

Rishi, now you're speaking my language. There is no such thing as "properly exposed". People will often assume something is underexposed, when in fact the light, or lack thereof, actually depicted the light as it actually was. The flip side is that often "properly exposed" per the light meter, is boring, and a bit of a push, etc., can make things pop. It's all a subjective exercise.

Best in photography to you Rishi

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 04:05 UTC
On article Nikon D500 versus D750: Which one is right for you? (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joed700: Lens Choice...although you can always use FF lenses on DX sensors, you can comprise IQ with some lenses. A crop sensor basically can magnify the imperfections of a lens that's designed for FF. It's always better to get dedicated lenses for DX bodies.

Joed700... You buy FF glass because better build, faster apertures & usability.

(1) faster apertures help the AF irrespective of what aperture you have selected. (2) fast aperture helps you manually focus with a brighter viewfinder since you and the AF focus the lens always with the widest aperture before the camera stops down to the selected aperture. (3) The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 can be *very* obvious as I've illustrated over the years. This difference is often 'night and day' if you're shooting portraiture, etc., on location. Translation? You're paying a lot more, because in many cases, you're getting a lot more for your money in practical performance that you can readily notice (less AF "hunting", easier manual focus, and the difference a full stop can make).

The 18-200 lens against 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8? Colour accuracy difference + IQ difference that persists no matter what DXO reports. :)

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 03:59 UTC
On article Nikon D500 versus D750: Which one is right for you? (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joed700: Lens Choice...although you can always use FF lenses on DX sensors, you can comprise IQ with some lenses. A crop sensor basically can magnify the imperfections of a lens that's designed for FF. It's always better to get dedicated lenses for DX bodies.

Joed700, can you please show a practical example of just how much "better" using a DX lens over a FF lens on a DX sensor really is? I'm of the opinion that the Nth degree measuring isn't compelling. What is compelling are the lens choices and versatility you get with the FF lenses. I advocate people not buying into the DX lens line unless they're only going to shoot DX.

ZJ24... I agree. The FF lenses on DX sensors generally perform excellently because they are excellent on crop just as they are on FF.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2016 at 22:14 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: Prices actually seem reasonable for what these lenses are. They make Leica prices look absurd. Although I wonder why the 40-80 is so much more expensive than the 75-150.

JackM, but taking a photograph, then simply printing it isn't the reality most of us are dealing with. We're typically dealing with taking a photograph, post processing it, sometimes 'till the file is about to scream, then printing it a bit large, after having cropped a bit. That's more of a realistic scenario for many photographers, and for a lot of photographers shooting primarily for pay.
Let me be clear... the Nikon D810 is a strong performing camera and easily a MF replacement for things such as catalog shooting, etc.. However, there are still areas of photography that I'd rather have a larger sensor... especially those times when I'm hand holding a lens, and trying to eek out as much shutter speed as possible, while keeping the iso as low as possible.... I'll take a larger sensor every time in that situation, especially when I'm trying to minimize the DOF.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 01:07 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: If Phase One is full frame, then the new Hasselblad X1D is something like an APS size of medium format??

Marty4650, FF is simply in respect to whatever format/size you happen to be discussing as it relates to the closest film negative size.

1Dx digital camera? Then FF is based on 35mm negative size.
6x4.5 digital MF kit? Then FF is based on the respective 645 negative size.
*6x7 digital MF kit? Then FF is based on the respective 6x7 negative size.
*6x9 digital MF kit? Then FF is based on the respective 6x9 negative size.
*5x4 digital LF kit? Then FF is based on that respective film negative's size.

(* no such thing I know)

The phrase "FF" is relative, just like the word "fast". Leica's 50mm Noct. F/.095 is considered "fast" (gross understatement). But so is a 600mm f/4 lens. It's all relative.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2016 at 00:52 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Saxon: Lord, are we now calling not-quite-6x4.5 "full frame medium format" because of the 33x44 sensor? So obnoxious and misleading. If we've got to call a medium format full frame I'd say it ought to be 6x6. Maybe 6x7, but that's starting to get into the "specialty camera" territory (which 6x9 and larger definitely is). If it turns out these lenses don't cover full 6x4.5 I'm going to roll my eyes pretty hard.

landscaper1, I appreciate what you're saying and I agree that it doesn't make sense to call something FF if it doesn't cover at least the same minimum area of the standard that it's measured by. Perhaps articles would be more clear if they just start stating the % of the film size in relation to the respective film format being discussed; 6x4.5, 6x7, etc.. (e.g. "The 645Zii sports a 250mp sensor that generates a frame that's 1.2% *larger* than a 645 film frame...")

Can't hurt to dream right? ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2016 at 00:34 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Can someone explain to me what's the difference I will see beside higher resolution between this camera + 80mm f/2.8 and a A7R II + 55mm Otus.

Max print size would be different but what else? Thanks

fmian... I suppose if you think the typical $500 medium format film camera sold today is a good deal then rock on... and that's in addition to having to send your film in to be processed along with a lot of hand written notes, buying film, storing film, loading film, mailing and picking up processed film. That's not impressive, it's a pain in the rear is what that is. A 100mp sensor means that we're that much closer to finally getting large format film performance in a medium format form factor (or smaller). It's not about egos.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 23:31 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Saxon: Lord, are we now calling not-quite-6x4.5 "full frame medium format" because of the 33x44 sensor? So obnoxious and misleading. If we've got to call a medium format full frame I'd say it ought to be 6x6. Maybe 6x7, but that's starting to get into the "specialty camera" territory (which 6x9 and larger definitely is). If it turns out these lenses don't cover full 6x4.5 I'm going to roll my eyes pretty hard.

Lars V, The Hy6 (remember that one?) was prepared for such backs though. Too bad those guys didn't get in bed with Canon, Apple or Ricoh years ago. Rollei, Leaf, Sinar... What a mess!

"A medium format SLR camera for the discerning user, the Rollei Hy6 was developed in Germany with full cooperation of premium digital back manufacturers, and is at home with either film or digital capture. The "Hy" stands for 'hybrid', and the Hy6 was designed with the future thinking that 48 x 48mm digital backs would one day be obsolete. Indeed, there are now 56 x 56mm backs, and this size cannot be incorporated into the bodies of competing popular Japanese-made medium format SLR cameras. The Hy6 is the only modern AF medium-format SLR which can accept this larger size."

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 23:07 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: Prices actually seem reasonable for what these lenses are. They make Leica prices look absurd. Although I wonder why the 40-80 is so much more expensive than the 75-150.

JackM, "normal" size is a size relative to the sensor. For example take the sensor dimensions and divide each side by a number typically between 270 and 300 (ppi) and you get a pretty good real-word idea of how large you can print while still getting a stellar print. Divide by 300 and that cuts straight to the chase. Do the same for each 50mp sensor, print at the same size, then compare the print.

Why do people keep thinking that you need to print "big" to see the difference in resolution? Try taking shots in the opposite direction. Small. Take a shot of a bees face using a 100mp MF sensor. Then take the same using a Nikon D810. Crop the frame to around 16x24".... and see the difference in detail.

Larger sensor affects everything from light falloff to the transition quality from in focus to out of focus areas. We're also talking about an entirely different aspect ratio as well.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 22:51 UTC
In reply to:

fotopizza: For sure you get a Pentax 645 Z for these prices, but Pentax is a system without any leaf shutter lenses, and the existing lenses are not flawless in terms of IQ- only some of the lenses keep up with the 50 MP sensor, which is fixed, with no chance to upgrade, since Pentax 645 is, opposite Phase One or Hasselblad, not a modular system. The lens pricing of these lenses here seems absolutely ok- a Rodenstock HR-W 32mm lens is 6000€, so the prices stated here seem very ok.

fotopizza... actually you "upgrade" the Pentax 645Z , by buying the next version, which usually costs considerably less than buying a single Hasselblad medium format digital back. At least with the Pentax, you can buy *two* entirely new medium format cameras, thus get new materials, new electronics, new weather sealing, new UI, for less than the price of a single Hasselblad digital back.

How's that for "upgrading"? ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 21:28 UTC
Total: 423, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »