Will Rickards
Storage Is My Life
Bought the 35mm 1.8 for $260 from B&H with a 52mm tiffen filter kit for $50. There were none at the local best buy. Should arrive in the next couple days.
ddrueding
Fixture
Do they run the risk of damaging other equipment? Or just adverse effects on image quality?
Normally bad filters negatively affect IQ, but poor filter threads filters can also get stuck on the lens or crossthread. UV or protection filters are especially pointless most of the time, and some of the cheap ones are rather awful.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Just image quality, Dave. They can be really, really bad, or they can be half-decent. Always good to avoid them though.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
My best filter uses a brass thread. Much nicer, doesn't get stuck. Expensive though.
I just received a nice and rather expensive nano-coated B+W polarizer. It is very thin and still has a front thread. Construction is rather better than the Hoyas, which also have good glass.
Will Rickards
Storage Is My Life
Well the UV filter was dirty at the edges and won't come clean. So that filter kit is getting returned. I really just wanted the polarizer and UV filter. I wasn't really sure what the neutral density filter was for. I plan to keep the UV on the lens all the time. I have a $15 tiffen on my 70-300mm lens and it seems fine. If not the Tiffen than what?
The lens itself seems fine, it does take low light photos. I'll have to learn more about program auto mode though. Aperature priority ups the iso to something ridiculous. I haven't got that super sharp photo out of it yet. Didn't use the flash at all.
I'll be at a wedding Friday with a chance to use this lens. What tips do you have? Settings to use?
The lens itself seems fine, it does take low light photos. I'll have to learn more about program auto mode though. Aperature priority ups the iso to something ridiculous. I haven't got that super sharp photo out of it yet. Didn't use the flash at all.
I'll be at a wedding Friday with a chance to use this lens. What tips do you have? Settings to use?
ddrueding
Fixture
AFAIK, ND filters just increase the shutter speed.
I think you mean decrease speed, i.e., increase duration.
The purpose is for using wide apertures in bright light. They are more often used for video/motion pictures where you have a fixed or nearly fixed shutter speed. As well ND are good for flowing water.
ddrueding
Fixture
That is what I meant. I wrote it both ways and couldn't decide which meant what I meant. I should have said increase duration.
Sol
Storage is cool
I wouldn't bother with a UV filter. It might help protect the lens in some very rare circumstances (unless you drop your camera a lot I guess in which case, not so rare) but it will definitely reduce the image quality of your photos (sometimes noticeably, often not). And when it comes down to it the 35mm is a really good image qualityrice proposition (Which I guess is why you bought it) so reducing it's performance, even a bit, on the fairly unlikely off chance that you'll break, what is, in the end, a relatively inexpensive lens, seems like a poor trade off.
In your place I would swap the filter kit for a B+W circular polarizer. But I'm a bit anal about image quality and about not dropping my lenses.
rice proposition (Which I guess is why you bought it) so reducing it's performance, even a bit, on the fairly unlikely off chance that you'll break, what is, in the end, a relatively inexpensive lens, seems like a poor trade off.In your place I would swap the filter kit for a B+W circular polarizer. But I'm a bit anal about image quality and about not dropping my lenses.
Will Rickards
Storage Is My Life
The basic MRC polarizer is the least I can suggest. Avoid the thin polarizers unless you really need them for superwide lenses.
ddrueding
Fixture
I've been watching a bunch of time-lapse stuff lately, and this is the best so far.
Will Rickards
Storage Is My Life
Returned the tiffen filter kit, bought the $75 b+w polarizer. Should get it soonish.
Regarding the 35mm 1.8 lens. I normally shoot with the 70-300mm VR lens. I _really_ miss the VR. My first outing resulted in many blurry photos. I thought it would be fine and just use a larger aperture but none of the modes seemed to work like that. My kit lens isn't VR, so I'll definitely look into getting the VR version of that next.
So handheld might be an issue. But the other thing it was doing was forcing higher iso's. I really don't want to use ISO 800 but indoors it practically made me. Am I wrong expecting to be able to use ISO 200 or 400 indoors without the flash? Even in manual mode I couldn't seem to lock the ISO.
The next time I used it however it seems spot on and not very blurry. I guess I was just aware of the lack of VR and it was outdoors and sunny.
So I went and tried to shoot some flowers on the tripod to see if I could get really sharp photos. Tripod or not they looked the same. Still seem not really sharp but pretty good. I'm not sure if this is just that my camera is off by x and the lens is off by x and they are combining in this case unlike with my 70-300mm which seems to be pretty sharp on my camera. Maybe my expectations are too high. Do you think the D40 body is the limiting factor?
Regarding the focal length, 35mm is the perfect length for indoor shots on this camera. I would have to backup too much with the 50mm I think.
So overall getting more satisfied with it then I was initially but still not up to my expectations. I think rather than more lenses, I'll save up for a new body.
PM me if you want links to galleries of some shots to evaluate for yourself.
Sol
Storage is cool
One thing that got me when I got my F1.8 50mm is that I really didn't expect f1.8 to be that much shorter than everything I'd used before in terms of depth of field. You may find that if you've been using the lens at or near f1.8 to try and eek all the speed you can out of it for hand-held shots that there will be a tiny section of the shot in focus and the rest is soft. If you have a tripod definitely try stopping down to f8 and see what you get or maybe even a little further than that for really close up or macro shots.
I went to Paris on the weekend and ended up going through the Louvre with my 50 mostly set on f1.8 and ISO 800-1000 so I could get all my shots hand held (Not allowed to use a flash and didn't think I would be allowed to take a tripod in, next time I'll know you can). A few of my shots seem alright but most are disappointingly soft across most of the frame. I would probably have had better results bumping the ISO up a couple more notches and just living with the noise.
And on the question of ISO 200-400 indoors hand held and no flash, I wouldn't generally expect that to yield great results, no. I suspect a D3s is the solution to a lot of peoples low-light photographic problems, if Nikon would release a D700s I'd be all over it in a heartbeat.
I went to Paris on the weekend and ended up going through the Louvre with my 50 mostly set on f1.8 and ISO 800-1000 so I could get all my shots hand held (Not allowed to use a flash and didn't think I would be allowed to take a tripod in, next time I'll know you can). A few of my shots seem alright but most are disappointingly soft across most of the frame. I would probably have had better results bumping the ISO up a couple more notches and just living with the noise.
And on the question of ISO 200-400 indoors hand held and no flash, I wouldn't generally expect that to yield great results, no. I suspect a D3s is the solution to a lot of peoples low-light photographic problems, if Nikon would release a D700s I'd be all over it in a heartbeat.
ddrueding
Fixture
For indoor shots I'm regularly at 800-1600 ISO. The trick is to get a body that can do that without too much noise.
Sol's comment about the ultra-narrow DOF at f1.8 is also a valid one. It took me some time with the camera on a tripod using the live-view LCD in a zoomed mode to get the DOF where I wanted it @ anything below ~f2.5.
Sol's comment about the ultra-narrow DOF at f1.8 is also a valid one. It took me some time with the camera on a tripod using the live-view LCD in a zoomed mode to get the DOF where I wanted it @ anything below ~f2.5.
It's not a trick; it's a Nikon.
Sol
Storage is cool
Damnit, they actually look pretty cool, and are not insanely priced... Now you have me thinking about what I could do with one and I've definitely already blown my photography budget for this month (and the next few) on a 70-200 VRII and a new laptop...
ddrueding
Fixture
I did need a macro rail, and this looks to do that and more.
More and less. It is really for static studio subjects where you have power and don't need to reorient the camera laterally. For field use (nature photography) it would be rather limited and a hassle to deal with. What works well is to use two focusing rails at right angles to each other. I have an older RRS 200mm rail that is no longer made, but there are Kirk and RRS focusing rails in the 150mm or so range. To be clear the primary purpose is not focusing but placing the lens in the correct position and at the right distance to control magnification without trying to move the tripod by very small increments in the x and y dimensions.
ddrueding
Fixture
Wow. 20CM of x/y control would be pretty awesome.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
What exposure mode were you using? How have you configured your Auto ISO (Max ISO + min shutter speed)? Indoor is often very dim compared to outdoors, and you will have to use much higher ISOs if the room isn't very bright or has sunlight coming in through the windows. I usually use 1600-3200 ISO indoors and always control my shutter speed using shutter priority or manual exposure.
<soapbox> I don't know why so many people are afraid of using higher ISOs. If you need to use 1600 ISO to get the shot, use it. So many novices' pics are sabotaged by insufficient DoF or motion blur / camera shake due to an irrational fear of high ISOs. These days, RAW conversion and noise processing technology is so good that you don't have to worry about it. The D40 was already quite usable at 1600 ISO back in its day, and these days, if you process D40 RAW files through LR3.x or ACR6.x, it actually looks quite good at 1600. </soapbox>
I would guess that you had a lot more light, which meant that your shutter speeds were much faster and your apertures were quite small. No camera shake and lots of DoF.
Probably not. 6 MP is more than enough to get sharp photos on screen. It won't give you sharp prints if you print large, but i assume you're talking about what you see on screen. Feel free to PM me a link to some pics with EXIF info and i can take a look. Better yet, if you can, put your RAW files on dropbox or something and i can try processing them.
There are many factors that could affect perceived sharpness of on-screen images. The camera body / sensor resolution is rarely one of them. Things like how you downsize and resample images for viewing on-screen plays a big role.
Despite what i said above, i do think that there are worthwhile gains to be had by upgrading to a D5100 or D7000. Nevertheless, there's a lot that one can do to maximize the perceived sharpness from any camera's images.
Sol
Storage is cool
Don't forget about the D700, still well over a grand, but a lot less than a D3 for the same sensor. The rumors are that Nikon will announce a D800 and a D4 in August so maybe the D700 and D3(s) prices will drop, especially second hand.
I suspect a D4 with D3s like high ISO performance a slight resolution bump (~18MP), SD&CF and built in GPS would probably tempt me in to spending a fairly stupid amount of money. A D800 with all of the above for somewhat less would be near impossible to resist...
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
You guys have competition now. A monkey from the Sulawesi island took a camera from a tourist and took his own portrait. The following photo is hilarious :
http://blognator.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/monkey_camera_smile-580x817.jpg
Tea must be jealous that her cousin shots better than herself!
http://blognator.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/monkey_camera_smile-580x817.jpg
Tea must be jealous that her cousin shots better than herself!
e_dawg
Storage Freak
If your budget is only ~$400, don't even think of getting an FX body like the D3 or D700. Even a used D700 is ~$2k, and most pro-grade lenses are >$1k. With the new Sony 16 MP sensors in the D5100 and D7000, the noise and dynamic range are quite good (especially if you underexpose and apply +ve exp comp in post-processing) enough that it obviates the need to go to a full-frame sensor for most people.
Another option to think about is to go for a D90 while it's still available. Nikon discontinued production already, but there is still limited stock in the retail channel. The D5100 is ~$700, the D90 is ~800, while the D7000 is much more.
Why would i recommend the D90 as an option when the newer D5100 is available with a newer sensor at the same price or less? 4 reasons: (1) the D90 has a built-in AF motor allows you to use any AF lens, greatly expanding your lens choices, (2) the D90 has a bigger and brighter viewfinder, which helps with composition, manual focusing, etc., (3) dual control wheels and more direct access to functions, and (4) the new 16 MP sensor in the D5100 is only around ~1/3 to ~1/2 of a stop better than the D90, which is a marginal improvement (whereas the D90 is ~3/4 to ~1 of a stop better than the D40).
In other words, you get most but not all of the latest sensor performance, but an otherwise better camera.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Another thing i forgot to address is the prevailing perception that full-frame sensors are the answer to everyone's low-light / high ISO prayers. That's not always true due to a phenomenon called equivalence. It depends on the DoF that you need. Sometimes, you need at least a certain amount of DoF, and due to equivalence, the larger your sensor, the less DoF you will have at any given focal length. If the typical full-frame sensor has a 1-stop edge in performance at high ISO, but you need to stop down 1 stop to retain the same amount of DoF in your shot, then you aren't really ahead now are you?
There are other things to consider besides sensor size, like image stabilization, which is highly effective, especially if subject movement is not a limiting factor. IS/VR is not found on any FF bodies except for Sony, and on very few wide zooms and most primes.
Some real-life examples:
I took this photo in Venice at night using an Olympus E-520. f = 18 mm-e, f/4, 1/4 sec, 1600 ISO. The E-520 has an old 10 MP 1st generation Panasonic nMOS 4/3 sensor, which has about a 2-stop disadvantage at high ISO but with 2-stops more DoF than a FF sensor (click for larger version):
I think it turned out pretty well. I underexposed to preserve some of the highlights from the streetlights, so i had to boost the shadows in post, hence the shadow noise (which isn't too bad, considering). I got the DoF that i wanted front to back, no camera shake even at 1/4 sec due to the built-in IS of the E-520, which works even on the WA zoom that i was using.
Would a FF camera have given me better results? Probably not, at least not until Nikon produced the stabilized FF WA 16-35/VR as you'd have to stop down for the same the DoF.
Another example from the Underground Cisterns of Istanbul. E-520, 18 mm-e, f/4, 1/3 sec, 800 ISO (click for larger version):
Purposely used 800 ISO and underexposed to preserve the highlights, and blended 2 exposures from the same RAW file 2 EV apart to optimize shadow and highlight ranges. Note the 1/3 sec shutter speed, handheld. I braced the camera against a support post while taking the shot, as the IS is only capable of stabilizing down to 1/4 sec at best at 18 mm-e.
If a post wasn't there, or if i didn't have IS, and i needed to drag the shutter for longer than i could normally get a shake-free shot, i would have switched into continuous shooting mode and fired off a dozen shots, picking the sharpest one afterwards. Sometimes, you have to be creative to get the shot when tripods / monopods are forbidden or when you're at the limits of your equipment.
This is all to say that there are many ways to get good (or at least better) shots in low-light. A full-frame sensor is one of many solutions, and is not always the best one.
There are other things to consider besides sensor size, like image stabilization, which is highly effective, especially if subject movement is not a limiting factor. IS/VR is not found on any FF bodies except for Sony, and on very few wide zooms and most primes.
Some real-life examples:
I took this photo in Venice at night using an Olympus E-520. f = 18 mm-e, f/4, 1/4 sec, 1600 ISO. The E-520 has an old 10 MP 1st generation Panasonic nMOS 4/3 sensor, which has about a 2-stop disadvantage at high ISO but with 2-stops more DoF than a FF sensor (click for larger version):
I think it turned out pretty well. I underexposed to preserve some of the highlights from the streetlights, so i had to boost the shadows in post, hence the shadow noise (which isn't too bad, considering). I got the DoF that i wanted front to back, no camera shake even at 1/4 sec due to the built-in IS of the E-520, which works even on the WA zoom that i was using.
Would a FF camera have given me better results? Probably not, at least not until Nikon produced the stabilized FF WA 16-35/VR as you'd have to stop down for the same the DoF.
Another example from the Underground Cisterns of Istanbul. E-520, 18 mm-e, f/4, 1/3 sec, 800 ISO (click for larger version):
Purposely used 800 ISO and underexposed to preserve the highlights, and blended 2 exposures from the same RAW file 2 EV apart to optimize shadow and highlight ranges. Note the 1/3 sec shutter speed, handheld. I braced the camera against a support post while taking the shot, as the IS is only capable of stabilizing down to 1/4 sec at best at 18 mm-e.
If a post wasn't there, or if i didn't have IS, and i needed to drag the shutter for longer than i could normally get a shake-free shot, i would have switched into continuous shooting mode and fired off a dozen shots, picking the sharpest one afterwards. Sometimes, you have to be creative to get the shot when tripods / monopods are forbidden or when you're at the limits of your equipment.
This is all to say that there are many ways to get good (or at least better) shots in low-light. A full-frame sensor is one of many solutions, and is not always the best one.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
A good explanation on equivalence and a thorough discussion on the implications of different sensor sizes, apertures, focal lengths, etc.
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm
ddrueding
Fixture
My SanDisk Extreme Digital CF cards have "90MB/s" printed on them, but copies to the card are never faster than 15MB/s and from rarely exceed 30MB/s using a SanDisk Extreme USB2.0 reader. I'd love to know what it would take to get closer to 90MB/s. What are you guys using?
ddrueding
Fixture
Nope. I don't do much video.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Writing to the card is always slower than reading, although I find 15 MB/s a bit slower than normal. But the question i have is why are you writing stuff to your CF cards? Flash cards are generally meant to be used as one-way devices... as in, shoot images on the card, ingest them into your computer (and backup), put it back in your camera, format the card, then start shooting again.
Not surprised at all that you aren't getting read speeds above 30 MB/s, though. Although the nominal bandwidth spec of USB 2.0 is ~60 MB/s, in practice, is not capable of anything faster than ~35-40 MB/s due to overhead, bus contention, etc.
A new card reader that uses FW 800, USB 3.0, or eSATA. Even still, you're not going to get 90 MB/s. Maybe 75-80 MB/s or so...
Sol
Storage is cool
Alternatively a PCMCIA or PATA to CF adapter which are as cheap as chips (Or actually cheaper since neither option contains any chips).
I have a multitude of CF and other readers. For USB 2.0, the OmniFlash Uno! UDMA is my favorite small one. Reads/writes are capped by the USB 2.0. Writes are about 30MB/sec. and reads are a few MB/sec. faster. The Lexar Dual Slot readers perform well too, though the mechanics are hit and miss. (The USB 2.0 model I had was a mess due to misalignment of the slots.)
There is now a USB 3.0 model. I remove the main part from the ridiculous hinged shell.
There is now a USB 3.0 model. I remove the main part from the ridiculous hinged shell.
I'm thinking about buying one for stills, not video. The primitive lead battery pack is turning me off though. Anybody have problems with SLA in the checked luggage?
ddrueding
Fixture
Not up to a certain size. I don't remember exactly, but it is pretty darn big. Which Gyro were you looking at for stills? I assume you mean handheld?
I was trying to get by with the KS-4, because they are so heavy as it is.