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-929.html)

^^^ For prime lens shopping, the best advice I got was, use your kit lens at 35mm for a couple of days, and 50mm for a couple of days and see which ones you like better. I found that 50mm was too tight for me. Because of crop lens, the 35mm itself acts like 50mm.

I use the prime lens mainly for portrait or night time photography. The 1.8 aperture comes in really handy in these situations. I find the 18mm to be good for day time landscape photography where smaller F stop is needed.

I am sure you meant FOV here= Field Of View :)
For me, the FOV at 50mm on my D7000 suits better for portraits than that on my D810. But then I can get a bit closer to the subject when shooting with it to get the FF advantage and IQ from my D810 sensor. As an all purpose lens, I have 24-120 F4 which I rarely use though.

Just saw one of my field reports getting published on NR. The link here : http://nikonrumors.com/2016/01/23/ur...d-report.aspx/

I am not sure if the combination is worth it. They are packing two old lenses in the kit.

If it's the 1200D, I suggest the combo below:
http://www.canon.co.in/personal/prod...anguageCode=EN

Congratulations re Nikon Rumors.

Re: 50 mm for portraits - D7000 over D810? Surprised :-)

Btw, with practice, tracking with the 200-500mm has become easier, even with the AF system of the D7100. With newer/more powerful AF bodies, things should be much better. And since I started working out a bit, the lens seems as light as my old 70-300mm VR lol.

Hi Nilanjan,

A friend is keen on upgrading from his 70-300VR to a better lens for wildlife. He will be using it on his D7100 and wants to stick to Nikon. So the available options are the the AFS 200-500VR and the AFS 80-400VR.

Since you've extensively used both in the wild, would appreciate your quick comparo between the two on the below points:

AF Speed
AF Accuracy
Sharpness
VR Effectiveness

Thanks in advance!

They are more or less equal re all these aspects, the difference is marginal - not worth splitting hairs about.

The main difference is that the 80-400 is a more flexible/ one size fits all lens, and also lighter and easier to carry and handhold. The 200-500 is larger and heavier, a more specialised lens.

I wouldn't even touch a Dxxx for portraits with the likes of D810 in my possession. I might get a 85/1.8 for portraits. I was just talking about my preferred FOV.

A question for dSLR gurus who are familiar with the aperture equivalence argument.

Attach 50mm F/1.8 to a FF dSLR and manually set it at F/1.8 - ISO200 - 1/100sec.
Attach 25mm F/1.8 to a m4/3 mirrorless and manually set it at F/1.8 - ISO200 - 1/100sec.

Now point both cameras from the same vantage point towards the same frame, and click. Do note they will have same FOV.

Will both cameras take similarly exposed images or does the FF camera take 2 stop brighter image than the m4/3 camera?

The FF has an effective aperture of 50/1.8 = 28 mm. The other lens has it at 25/1.8=14mm. So the FF should be overexposed by 2 stops.

You mean the 50mm F/1.8 allows 4 times more light than 25mm F/1.8 lens?

I agree FF receives 4 times more total light than m4/3 because it has 4 times more surface area. But is the intensity of light falling on both sensors different?

Exposure will be same. Depth of field will be different. Noise will be appx 2 stops worse given same sensor technology.

Edit: this is an ideal question for DPReview. You will get 1000 responses. And have 100 people arguing :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmjeCchGRQo

Apologies if it has been already shared before.

I believe the intensity ( amount of light falling per unit area ) would be slightly higher on the FF.

The FF sensor area is 3.5 times that of the 4/3rd, whereas the total light falling is 4 times.

I agree, and here is why...

Let me slightly change the lens specs to make the math simpler.

We know aperture diameter = FL/f-stop

If I shoot the same frame from same distance using FF and m4/3, this is what happens:

FF using 200mm - F/4 = Aperture -> 50mm dia -> total light is PI*625
m4/3 using 100mm - F/4 = Aperture -> 25mm dia -> total light is PI*156.5

By shooting the same frame from same distance using same F-stop, MFT gets only 25% of the light. But m4/3 sensor only has 26% surface area of FF. So the light density remains roughly same, so exposure is same.

Now let's look at ISO for the noise calculation. Noise depends on pixel density.

Resolution => image size
image-size/sensor-size = pixel density. [and FF is 4 times larger area]

If the resolution is kept same, m4/3 will have 4 times more pixel density, which means 2-stop more noise.

But, m4/3 rarely has the resolution of FF cameras. When FF has 24MP, same gen m4/3 has 16MP. So it is more like 1 stop more noise.


The m4/3 sensor has 26% of FF sensor area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_T...d_aspect_ratio

Would be appx 1.6X more noise, maybe a little less in practical terms.

A DX sensor has 1.5x times more noise than a similar FX sensor - theoretically.

What it means when shooting: when using a FX body, I put auto ISO limit at ISO 6400, when using a DX body, I put auto ISO limit at ISO 3200.

ISO 3200 shot from a DX. The DX shot required a lot more effort to process.


ISO 6400 shot from a FX