Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The DSLR Thread (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/11582-dslr-thread-920.html)

Here you have some shots with the New Nikkor 200-500 f5.6. He has also compared it with Siggy 150-600 sports. All in Chinese though.
A sample of a heavy crop from one of the images.



Visit here and the latest shot on page:9:Birdnet

I shoot big mammals, am not a birder. I don't need extreme reach, but I understand why some birders might like such extreme crops. Whatever lenses I buy, at lease one camera body will be a full frame. But most important:

1. Nikon 1 image quality will be a downgrade even from my 2 year old D7100. 1.5X crop has a decent balance between reach and image quality (noise, depth of field), but not 2.7X crop. I am willing to sacrifice reach for better IQ when I upgrade.

2. If you put a f/2.8 lens on a 2.7x crop sensor, it becomes a f/7.5 lens in terms of equivalent depth of field.

3. I have been playing with the D810 and D750. Once you get a taste of blood, it is difficult to be satisfied with a smaller sensor, unless it is at least as good as that of the D7100 (for a second body).

Thanks. Looks very interesting. Waiting for more reviews to come up, especially detailed comparisons.

I've just started. Here are a couple of pics which I like personally.

Camera: Canon 1200D.
Location: Goa, where else?:D

Thanks. I am slowly getting inclined towards the Tamron. Will keep a watch on the price in Amazon.

Here is another very detail technical review of the same .
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/619-tamron70300f456fx

Regards,
Rajat

I have a Canon 550D with the stock 18-55 lens. I tried to take long exposure shots in daylight and no setting gave me a decent shot. All I got was white pics. Is it the limitation of the lens, camera or my knowledge of equipment?

Long exposure worked absolutely fine in evenings and night but in daylight the highest aperture value, with lowest ISO also gave me ultra bright white pics.

EDIT: I also read about ND filters or polarizers. Are these the only solutions to taking long exposure shots in daylight?

That basically means, you just have too much light. You will need an ND filter to reduce the light intake into the camera.

As @Ampere mentioned, you have too much light. The only way to do LE in daytime is by cutting down the light using ND filters. The good ones (which will give you ability to restrict more stops of light) are very expensive. For starters, pick up a 10-stop welding glass and experiment with it. If you like the results and are interested in this genre you can invest more in it.

Yeah I just edited my post as I had read about the same. So I guess that's the only way, hmm, thanks!

Now the other limitation of the equipment that I encountered during my latest trip. There was so much to shoot, so much to cover but without a wide angle lens I was left at the mercy of my gopro. Gopro shot some amazing video and at 60fps I can take a pic from the best frame but before I indulge in another lens I have a dilemma.

So far I haven't really encountered any other limitation, I think I have a fair understanding of the different settings, have been able to successfully experiment with the Manual mode and got some amazing night/evening shots when Auto was only giving me high ISO pics. So what's the most recommended next step, buy another lens? If yes, which one?

Now there are prime lenses also that I read about. Is there a combination of prime & wide angle lens?

I'm not a fan of zoom lenses as I don't wish to capture birds/animals or moon shots. So where should I start looking?

Lastly, should I be considering getting rid of my 550D and getting an EVIL camera instead? They do everything that a DSLR does and are less bulky. Since I haven't invested in DSLR lenses yet, should I think about going the EVIL way?

For videos I've got GoPro so still images is what I'm interested in, be it from EVIL or DSLR.

Since you have not invested in lenses, you can look at change to EVIL/Mirrorless. Even I shoot with a 550D. Been sticking to it for some years now. But, I have invested in quite many good lens and for the moment am happy with the body.

If you need anything less bulky, mirrorless is the way to go.

+1 to that and dont under estimate mirrorless. The olympus 4/3rd system is also worth considering and it has the fastest AF of mirrorless and their lenses are absolutely stunning.

Fuji has wonderful series except they are stuck in 2013 still. They need a new sensor and may even need some serious thinking about improving their current series. The camera is good but very very slow in all aspects.

Sony is the leader and will continue to be the leader. Comes with some investment. As Ampere said, i current have a lone Fuji X-e2 that i paid less than 18K. But the lenses i have are absolutely niche that i am not even thinking of paying upwards to get a body. The lenses does matter. I build a collection to use it in Mirrorless. I have the 75mm Summilux, 50mm Canon 0.95, Sonys 35mm, and the zeiss unbelievable 135mm APO lens.

Cameras make a difference but the lenses on any of these cameras makes the images stand out.

But for the type of picture you will be shooting i think it wont make a huge dent on final DOF. At these focal lenghts even F11 is wafer thin.

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-1-118/
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/ni...goes-moon.html

The second link has comparison of size :)

Read up on how to take panorama shots. Basically it means that you take a number of shots offset by around 1/2 frame. Then use software to "Stitch" the panorama. Properly taken, the panorama stitches seamlessly. I use Microsoft ICE, a free software which make stitching panorama practically idiot proof.

Here is one such shot

Which kind of photography do you see yourself doing ? Choice of equipment will depend on that.

E.g.: For landscape, you need wide angle + zoom lens
For portraits you need 80mm - 200mm focal length

And so on. I would suggest that you upgrade only when you start hitting limitations of current gear.

Yes, but these would usually be super expensive. Prime lens have just one focal length. That focal length ranges from 10mm to even 800mm.

Then tell me, why use a prime lens at all. Why wouldn't one get a lens with varied focal length than just ONE focal length?

The aperture. Aperture in a Prime starts at a point where Zoom's cant. Well most zoom's.
Also, the price advantage.

Prime lens have very simple mechanisms. This results in less distortion as compared to zoom lenses.

Simpler construction allows for large apertures (as condor mentioned), at all levels of quality/cost combinations.

E.g: 50mm 1.8 lenses from Nikon/Canon are available starting from 9k. 1.8 is not available on any zoom lens from Nikon and even 2.8 is only available on 24-70, 70-200, 17-55. All these zooms cost 1 lakh+.

You had asked about wide angle. In that range, Primes are quite expensive. Those are primarily targeted at professional users.


OT : For 35k, one can buy Nikon 50mm 1.2. With this lens, DOF is so narrow that sometime one eye is in focus but other one is not.