May 22, 20169 yr And of course, Nikon still makes a great camera and lens system. Not saying anything different.
May 22, 20169 yr 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.
May 22, 20169 yr If a prime was better for anything I would have themat this point. Or at least rent them for shoots. They don't have as fast of an AF. If they have a wider aperature maybe, but the 70-200 turns into a 140-400 for a song. I purchased 6k worth of lenses for <3k. I'm ready to come down and bring fat whitey whenever. It's heavy. That's the downside. But it's a shit load lighter than 2 primes and all the extra room that would take.
May 22, 20169 yr 70-200 non-IS used $820 - new $1250 (65%) 135 f2 used $735 - new $1000 (73%) 70-200 IS II $1650 - new $1950 (84%) I don't know if I "need" IS. Indoors I can use my 50mm when light is a problem so the shutter speed is down. I do know though if I choose that route the first time I go out I will want the shutter speed help. 3-4 stops of light is HUGE.
May 22, 20169 yr The 135 is probably not really a good solution for me since I shoot a crop. Would work with an extender but that is an extra $400 and nothing lower than 135mm and with extension at 2.8. Makes me wish I had a FF...but then my other crop lenses would be a waste.
May 22, 20169 yr 54 minutes ago, sandt38 said: 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. Weird. I've never seen it do anything like that. It lets you select the pictures...but you do have to check the boxes. I love how it grays out what is already imported. Huge time saver when you aren't diligent with the transfer and edit.
May 22, 20169 yr 17 minutes ago, dem beats said: If a prime was better for anything I would have themat this point. Or at least rent them for shoots. They don't have as fast of an AF. If they have a wider aperature maybe, but the 70-200 turns into a 140-400 for a song. I purchased 6k worth of lenses for <3k. I'm ready to come down and bring fat whitey whenever. It's heavy. That's the downside. But it's a shit load lighter than 2 primes and all the extra room that would take. You work Wednesday nights?
May 22, 20169 yr 39 minutes ago, sandt38 said: 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. I'm super chill! The information you were given is incorrect. It's not opinion, because it's measurable. I'm going to try to show you the evidence is all. I could not care a bit of you just said "I picked Nikon because I'm loyal to the brand my friends use." If my friends shot Nikon I would have probably gone that route in the beginning because I didn't research anything and just purchased what my wife wanted. She had a mild glass investment so I didn't bother looking at options. For you the debate is over. Just shoot what you have and be happy! I can still say for still life a nice Zeiss or similar lens and these entry to prosumer Nikons are perfectly suited.
May 22, 20169 yr I have one correction to my post above too. The store in the mall that takes pictures uses Nikon. They also use a Tamron zoom though.
May 22, 20169 yr I tried to shoot the boys playing soccer yesterday with the Tamron zoom and it definitely is requiring that i expedite my lens purchase. Thing won't focus for shit. 70 out of 80 pictures are fucked by the focus being off. Little shits move to fast for it.
May 22, 20169 yr 17 minutes ago, ///M5 said: 70-200 non-IS used $820 - new $1250 (65%) 135 f2 used $735 - new $1000 (73%) 70-200 IS II $1650 - new $1950 (84%) I don't know if I "need" IS. Indoors I can use my 50mm when light is a problem so the shutter speed is down. I do know though if I choose that route the first time I go out I will want the shutter speed help. 3-4 stops of light is HUGE. If the ISii just had better IS I wouldn't have made the purchase. It does have much better IS and the panning setting is amazing. The reason for that lens is it's focus speed and ability. The cheater toggle is amazing, but even leaving it in close range mode it's still faster to resolve focus than all the rest and at 2.8 in a room I need to be accurate.
May 22, 20169 yr 8 minutes ago, ///M5 said: You work Wednesday nights? I can get down there. Wednesday is my travel day. I can cut the stops short.
May 22, 20169 yr 2 minutes ago, dem beats said: If the ISii just had better IS I wouldn't have made the purchase. It does have much better IS and the panning setting is amazing. The reason for that lens is it's focus speed and ability. The cheater toggle is amazing, but even leaving it in close range mode it's still faster to resolve focus than all the rest and at 2.8 in a room I need to be accurate. The choices are non-IS or IS II, IS I is a waste. Downgrade compared to non-IS optically, but II cured that
May 22, 20169 yr 1 minute ago, dem beats said: I can get down there. Wednesday is my travel day. I can cut the stops short. Aidan's game is at 5:45 if it isn't raining. Sort of the perfect environment for me to test the 70-200 on my crop. Need to figure out how to combine a bike shop stop with some picture taking.....and drinks, lol
May 22, 20169 yr 2 hours ago, ///M5 said: The choices are non-IS or IS II, IS I is a waste. Downgrade compared to non-IS optically, but II cured that I was more comparing the70-200 ISii to the primes in that range. The primes do not focus as quickly or as accurately in my experience.
May 22, 20169 yr 2 hours ago, ///M5 said: Aidan's game is at 5:45 if it isn't raining. Sort of the perfect environment for me to test the 70-200 on my crop. Need to figure out how to combine a bike shop stop with some picture taking.....and drinks, lol I'll fill a camelback with bourbon, we can shoot some pics, get wasty pants, then ride bikes. AKA blackout on the boat and use the extender to check out local talent on the sneak.
May 22, 20169 yr I desperately need to sleep better. Averaging 5.5 hours is going to kill me at some point.
May 22, 20169 yr Not at all surprising: http://nypost.com/2016/05/22/biggest-loser-fed-us-illicit-drugs-to-lose-weight-ex-contestants/
May 22, 20169 yr 7 hours ago, ///M5 said: Weird. I've never seen it do anything like that. It lets you select the pictures...but you do have to check the boxes. I love how it grays out what is already imported. Huge time saver when you aren't diligent with the transfer and edit. 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.
May 22, 20169 yr 7 hours ago, dem beats said: I'm super chill! The information you were given is incorrect. It's not opinion, because it's measurable. I'm going to try to show you the evidence is all. I could not care a bit of you just said "I picked Nikon because I'm loyal to the brand my friends use." If my friends shot Nikon I would have probably gone that route in the beginning because I didn't research anything and just purchased what my wife wanted. She had a mild glass investment so I didn't bother looking at options. For you the debate is over. Just shoot what you have and be happy! I can still say for still life a nice Zeiss or similar lens and these entry to prosumer Nikons are perfectly suited. 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.
May 22, 20169 yr You are right. Entry level DSLR and lens stuff from Nikon is awesome. You said you may want to grow with this so I'm telling you the pitfalls. I'm not giving you an opinion, just hard data. I realize I shouldn't have let a human present it. I provided the link at the end of this so you can really dive deep. The story doesn't end so well for Nikon.... Canon makes better pro and prosumer products. Tony is also more into shooting birds. Hence his love zoom and crop sensors. He also repeatedly mentions the place he gets the data. He didn't just come up with it, it's lab tested. http://www.dxomark.com/ Cool website for raw info.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.