Recent content by MissingMan

I'm certainly tempted with the 20mm and will probably buy it when I sell my video camera that doesn't get used :-) Thanks for your help Mike.

That's a very nice job indeed. You've pushed the Milky Way further than I would have but the masking is excellent. I think that because my camera wasn't level (it was pitch black) the need to rotate the image brought in quite a lot of softness. I shall brush up on my technque, whack up the ISO...

Thanks. I'm happy pushing the D700 to higher ISO's, but I've never really regarded that as any difference from just changing the exposure in Lightroom. I can make the milky way look reasonable, but not with any chance of being able to combine a foreground full of trees :-(

Hi Mike Yes, 14th at T&P Here's a Dropbox link to a folder of 16 photos - numbers 669 and 670 are the RAW files that the above came from: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/l0z6j20opnju18z/AABgpQ9aq5d9-4EzeKMc2JbJa?dl=0 Feel free to play with the others :-) As far as a bigger aperture goes, I...

How are you not blowing out all of the sky from the lights in the distance? I assume that this is two photos but even so, I can't see how the milky way background is staying dark. Thanks for any help.

I'm compiling a photo book for my golf club, and I can do all of the arty stuff but I'm struggling with some slightly adventurous night photos. I get the basic idea of photographing the Milky Way, namely an ultra-wide lens with a big maximum aperture, 30 second exposure, whack up the ISO and...

I have the Rode Filmaker Kit: http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/rode_rodelink-filmmaker-kit - In budget and superb. Ah... just noticed it's £250 + VAT.

You are of course factually correct. However, from my "real world" position, FX means wider than DX. I know it doesn't, I know you can buy a 10mm lens for a DX camera, really I do... but to me that isn't the issue. Please just accept that '1' stands as a valid reason for me.

There are some good reasons for moving from DX to FX (and vice-versa), but none of them are "because my images will improve". For me, I shoot FX for two reasons: 1 - Because I can always crop but I can't add what I didn't shoot. 2 - I came from 35mm and the focal lengths are ingrained in me.

I think it's fair to say that if the D750 had an AF-ON button I would have bought one, and then I would have regretted it because what I really wanted was a used D4.

An interesting comment and chances are that the answer would be "no" when looking at the same image taken as a test. The difference, and this certainly would be true when comparing to a D5 or D500, is that getting the image at all is what you're paying for. I've shot a fair amount of sports and...

I don't think the D750 is a dog (whatever that means) but when I tried one it felt like a toy. The flippy-out screen was asking to get smashed, and the lack of "AF-ON" for almost £1500 is a joke.

Couldn't agree more with the above post. I have the 18-35mm and it is astonishingly good considering the price it can be had for. The lightness is an added bonus. The only thing that might have tempted me to the 16-35 would be if I were using a DX body as well as my FX one, because that extra...

My limited experience of the 200-500 is that I wouldn't want to hand hold it at all. I use mine for golf and cricket, so a monopod works well and weight isn't much of an issue. Autofocus is reasonably quick, but by no means fast IMHO. I chose the Nikon over the other two because I think that...

I've not posted images on here before, it's not my kind of thing, but I do like this photo of a friend of mine at a golf day. Taken on my 200-500 Nikon and D700.