sandt38

FWIW, you really need to get over the Nikon hate. I can look at DXO and it constantly shows that you clearly have an unsubstantiated bias.

Interesting. DXo mark score on the Tamron is 21, while the Nikkor is 30. The Nikkon dominates in sharpness 21mp vs 15mp, and really measures better in every category besides chr abber.

The MKi is actually 190.

the prime 55 1.8 would have rocked this. unfortunately these flowers don't stay in bloom long.

Need bokeh... shit.

Stop drinking and typing, Sean.

White balance, contrast, tone, everything has an "auto" adjustment.

Interestingly the Canon 70-200 does not show up on the site. http://www.dxomark.com/lenses/brand-nikon/launched-between-1987-and-2016/mount_type-Canon_EF-Canon_EF_M-Canon_EF_S/focal-from-70-to-200/aperture_max-from-0.95-to-36/lens_use_case-lens_telephoto/lens_zoom-zoom/sensor_brand-Canon#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=global The Nikons, less the MKI, do http://www.dxomark.com/lenses/brand-nikon/launched-between-1987-and-2016/focal-from-70-to-200/aperture_max-from-0.95-to-8/lens_zoom-zoom/sensor_brand-Nikon#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=global

I watched that guy and have to say he didn't win me over. He complains about how much better everything about the 50mm Nikon lens is then he says "But it costs $150 more". First, in the listings he shows it is $116 different. Second, then he goes and talks about the 70-200 that Canon offers for $2400 is so much better than the $1800 Nikon offering is. He uses another manufacturers lens and says it is representative of the Nikon lens, then he goes and mentions for just a second that Nikon has a MKI that is "roughly" measuring in at 190. Can we see that lens? He then goes on to show us some bigger lenses that Nikon has where you have to add an adapter to make it reach out as far as the Canon, and that makes the Nikon more expensive than the Canon. These are $6,000-$12,000 lenses, I doubt people spending that money really care about a $400 difference in price. So, it's OK for Canon to cost $600 more and be better, but when Nikon is better they are too much more expensive, and that's why you don't switch? He fails to compare the high end lenses as well, which I found rather suspect. Effectively what I got from this guy is he loves the Canon 70-200 and that the Nikon is not as good. That's cool. But the fact that the inferior 50mm lens (according to him) costs $115 less and this one lens that he spends most of this video discussing is why he sticks to Canon seems narrow minded. There is far more to a camera than a single lens, unless all you do is shoot the same shot over and over again. A more expensive lens had better be a better lens! I think he should point out that he is a portrait photographer. That lens excels at that, it is the best in his price range, so he chooses it. In the end, he checks the boxes for me again. Nikon bodies own Canon in every aspect but the AF. Everything else is better on the Nikons, including sharpness and dynamic range, which is a big deal for landscapes and macros. Landscape and wildlife Nikon wins. I don't like portraits, I don't like people (misanthrope!), I don't shoot sports, and for what I want to shoot, Nikon suits me better than the Canon will... FWIW that was his conclusion as well.

I have to select uncheck all at the bottom before selecting what I want individually. May be a setting for that, but I haven't looked yet. Not a fan of their auto correct settings. I'm going to download a few tutorials on it.

Matt, chill out. I am just repeating what I researched. Your opinion may vary. For me Nikon just seemed like the better fit. Sony was not in the running at all. My research was simply between Nikon and Canon. From what I heard and saw, the above was true. Lightroom acquired. Now to figure out how to use it. Irritation #1: Import. I selected 2 photos to import and it imported my entire folder of images. That is pucking annoying.

Saved both, thanks.

I get that. I am using an external source (in the case of this last set, a flashlight) and just hitting it for a second to pick up little details, like the Sennhieser label on the headphones, or the KT88 label on the tubes in my earlier shots. But I tried to divert the flash effect by focusing it away from the tubes, but if you look you can see the wall in the reflection of the tube. I get that flash is difficult... or I guess I should say, something that needs to be mastered. If you look, there are very few pics that I use flash in. I understand how it can create a harshness or wash out a shot. At this stage, I do not understand how to tame it enough, and I would prefer not to use it. However, I thought in these shots I have a unique opportunity to experiment. But now I see I need to do more research.

I obviously looked around online and did as much comparison shopping as I could. There are a ton of sites that will straight up compare models from a technical standpoint. In almost every regard the Nikon won the straight up comparison. Another big thing for me was the fact that Nikon is pressing forward with newer/better design features. Many of the mid level consumer models (which was really my target) are trickled down from the previous year's professional lines. It was obvious to me that the Nikon bodies are vastly superior to their Canon bretheren. In one case I saw the D3300 vs the T5 (a straight entry level comparison) with a "why is it better" column for both models. The D3300 had roughly 20 pluses and the Canon had one. This was fairly common with the body comparisons. As far as glass, I just tried reading what i could about it. It appeared to be a 50/50 split. Something I have also found is that Canon glass adapters to the Nikon bodies do not offer AF motor control while adapters for so many others offered contacts for auto focus. Why is that? Because the glass is so similar that there really is no reason to cross them. It isn't like a Zeiss where there are worlds of difference between the final outcome. According to a friend of mine's wife (the guy who just lost his son to the OD), who is a professional photographer and has been for 35 years, the glass is so close between Nikon and Canon today as not to worry about it. She said don't swallow what a lot of sites are pushing without focusing on the advertising on the site. Adapting options allow you to use the other companies lenses and she says AF doesn't matter a whole lot to her. She suggested since I was unsure what I wanted to shoot, that I buy the body I want, then grab glass to suit as you learn what you are doing and what you will need. She told me that in the professional market you are a fool if you don't buy a Nikon body. In the consumer market that same thought process stands. Historically the 2 manufacturers have been neck in neck, but over the past 5 years Nikon has advanced by leaps and bounds over the same old repackaged Canon equipment from the previous year. For what it is worth, from my research she was right. I decided on the Nikon because of this. I only expect to see better glass from them in the near future... and from what I gather, if I grab glass from the past 5 years or so, it is a toss up... older than 5 years Canon glass will be better. Not sure how to date glass, so I'll focus on the here and now.

In retrospect I wish I had pulled back to include the buttstock a bit more and left the barrel closer to the top right of the image.

I need to figure out how to make the flash less obtrusive. I flashed a smaller light off the back wall to make the Senn emblem show up (tubes thread on a Headphone forum, plus the HD600s kick ass), but the back wall shows up in the top black of the 6V6 tubes. Maybe it is just an inherent evil of the ultimate goal of the image. IIRC this is a 30sec exposure... maybe 25, but no less. I have a flexeril/Woodford combo working on my brain right now, so I am feeling too rubbery to take another shot. Played a bit with perspective on my "trophy" rifle tonight as well. Shitty background (my summer blanket), but I was interested on how my focal length played with the image...

Yes, I know I should have used an F12 or so. But cool pic. No editing other than shrinking it.

Ray Manzerek Died Yesterday. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ray-manzarek-doors-keyboardist-dead-at-74-20130520

Awesome!

Oh wow. OK, they were shot with a crop, right?

Waist up (1/2 body) at 5 feet sound about right?

I've been eyeballing them. Kitted out how I want it, it is just under $18,000 brand new off the lot. Killer deal for a great rig. Great friend!

I'm not understanding why you guys love autofocus so much. Touchscreen is off on mine. I don't care anything for it. I know, almost without looking at the body, exactly where all my manual adjustments are.

Killer rig. There are some really nice mower decks available for those units too.