Nikon D750 & D780

Went to a wedding at the weekend, the first for a number of years certainly the first since I took up photography, and thought I would observe closely how the pro tog went about things. In the main she seemed to cope quite well until
the mandatory group photos where she seemed to get more than a little stressed. I decided to not add to her stress and avoided taking more than a couple of the group shots. I decided after a couple of shots that upon review photos of
everyone not looking at me but sort of past me (looking at pro) looked a little odd so set about concentrating on the reportage style shots of people milling around and chatting. Overall quite pleased with the results and caught some of the atmosphere
of the occasion, but it made me realise why some togs use a second shooter as I'm sure the were many interesting shots that due to concentrating on the formals she completely would have missed.
My favourite shot of the couple I took was during a quite moment whilst they were waiting for the official tog to sort out her equipment before taking some interior shots.
Reflectivemomentwatermark-2.jpg by Andy Foakes, on Flickr
 
AndyFo said:
Went to a wedding at the weekend, the first for a number of years certainly the first since I took up photography, and thought I would observe closely how the pro tog went about things. In the main she seemed to cope quite well until
the mandatory group photos where she seemed to get more than a little stressed. I decided to not add to her stress and avoided taking more than a couple of the group shots. I decided after a couple of shots that upon review photos of
everyone not looking at me but sort of past me (looking at pro) looked a little odd so set about concentrating on the reportage style shots of people milling around and chatting. Overall quite pleased with the results and caught some of the atmosphere
of the occasion, but it made me realise why some togs use a second shooter as I'm sure the were many interesting shots that due to concentrating on the formals she completely would have missed.
My favourite shot of the couple I took was during a quite moment whilst they were waiting for the official tog to sort out her equipment before taking some interior shots.
Reflectivemomentwatermark-2.jpg by Andy Foakes, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Thats a great shot!

I know what you mean - our friends got married and they had 2 togs, but even then I got some extra pics that they added to the album (as they asked me to take a few pics). So much going on at weddings, even with multiple togs, you can miss great captures like yours.
 
Its my 1st attempt, any good ? Thanks for the tip for Phlearn too.
I know there are some traces and its as I said, a rough 1st attempt.

Agay Plage 7 Removed tree by Graham, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Livin The Dream said:
Didn't you say that the MacBook packed up? Remember you considering replacing earlier in the year, is it fixable?
Click to expand...
Well my new MBP's arrived. Not used LR yet but I have to say the screen is nothing short of stunning. I didn't think you could get much better than the 5k iMac but the new one on the 15" MBP's is unbelievable. Everything has so much pop, it's so life like and has so much depth. You feel as though you could just reach into the screen. The detail is incredible. Even my crap photos look amazing :LOL:

Still not made up my mind on the new keyboard though o_O
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Well my new MBP's arrived. Not used LR yet but I have to say the screen is nothing short of stunning. I didn't think you could get much better than the 5k iMac but the new one on the 15" MBP's is unbelievable. Everything has so much pop, it's so life like and has so much depth. You feel as though you could just reach into the screen. The detail is incredible. Even my crap photos look amazing :LOL:

Still not made up my mind on the new keyboard though o_O
Click to expand...

Screen is nice but not having had one before, seems not much better than others I’ve used. Must say that it only wows me if I ramp the brightness to about 80% or above, which for normal use I think is too bright. Anything below just makes it feel like any other screen??
 
Last edited:
Livin The Dream said:
Screen is nice but not having had one before, seems not much better than others I’ve used. Must say that it only wows me if I ramp the brightness to about 80% or above, which for normal use I think is too bright. Anything below just makes it feel like no other screen??
Click to expand...
Which MBP do you have? This is way better than my 2012 MBP, better than the retina MBP and I'd say better than my 5k iMac in terms of looking real to life. Like all Macs though I've had to calibrate it as they crush the blacks straight out the box.

As for luminance I always set it to 100cd/m2 or as close as I can.
 
Have the mid range model, 256gb SSD rather than the 512 version, 15 inch.

I calibrate using an X-rite i1 Display which is set at 120 cd/m2 but more recently I ramp it higher as it's pretty dull at that. What are you calibrating with? I haven't recalibrated since I've had it though (6 months) so should really.
 
Livin The Dream said:
Have the mid range model, 256gb SSD rather than the 512 version, 15 inch.

I calibrate using an X-rite i1 Display which is set at 120 cd/m2 but more recently I ramp it higher as it's pretty dull at that. What are you calibrating with? I haven't recalibrated since I've had it though (6 months) so should really.
Click to expand...
x-rite i1Display Pro. So yours is the 2017 model with the P3 wide colour display? I’m surprised you’re not finding it better than other screens. Mine’s fine at 100cd/m2 tbh.
 
Livin The Dream said:
Yes. Same calibration tool then, how often are you doing yours?
Click to expand...
Tbh I just tend to do it when I first get the computer and then probably once/year after that. I know they say every month but I’ve never seen a change after a year let alone a month.

Going to have a play with the new LR tomorrow so am interested to see if it’s any quicker.
 
So the hood of the 2.8e fits the VRII even though Nikon say they are not compatible.

Might be because of the petal shape.
 
Woohoo! My body is incoming from Nikon, had the invoice from them last night so hopefully will be despatched and on its way back to me for the weekend. I've missed it :D:banana:
 
KitsuneAndy said:
Last wedding of the year done and delivered, phew.

Got loads of family pictures to edit now :)
Click to expand...

Lucky you we still have quite a few left yet our last one this year is on the 27th of December. Looking forward to finishing this year off and grabbing a couple of weeks in the sun, before it all kicks of again in mid January.
 
f/2.8 said:
Lucky you we still have quite a few left yet our last one this year is on the 27th of December. Looking forward to finishing this year off and grabbing a couple of weeks in the sun, before it all kicks of again in mid January.
Click to expand...

I build websites for people through the winter :)

Well, as of last month that was my idea. Now I have enough websites to do to keep me busy until Feb!

I still have the day job 4 days a week, for now.
 
So for anyone debating whether to upgrade from the 2.8 VRII to the E Version, here are my early thoughts:

Weight and size:
On paper the 2.8e is a bit shorter and a bit lighter - but not anything you can really notice in the real world.

Build:
VRII is better built. The zoom ring is better damped and everything just feels a bit tighter and a bit more high quality. It's not that the 2.8e is bad quality, but it just does not feel as solid.

The hood on the 2.8e is nicer - its a much better shape, less flimsy and allows you to place your lens face down without any wobble. However, even though Nikon says it doesn't - it fits straight on the VRII.

Handling:
This is where it gets interesting and becaomes a very personal thing!

The VRII is more front heavy, and in this respect the 2.8e actually does feel lighter and better balanced when being held. Also the foot on the 2.8e is smaller and rests in the palm of your hand much nicer. Its only by a small amount but it does make the 2.8e feel better to handle if you have the foot attached. The VRII has a much nicer feeling zoom, the 2.8e feels rather slack with little resistance at all. Yes its really easy to turn with the tip of your finger, but I much prefer a bit more resistance - again, this may be the other way round for other users. You can probably get a different foot for the VRII. The 2.8e foot does not fit in the VRII.

The 2.8e has the buttons on the lens, but never used them and you have to hold them down to keep them activated.

The placement of the zoom!! So this is the biggest change and for some it will be great and for others not so great!!

Holding the lens, without zooming etc the 2.8e is no doubt a better balanced lens, mainly due to the shift of weight. BUT, when I started to use it to shoot (in a comfortable holding position) my fingers/part of my hand rested on the focus ring and after getting some out of focus shots I tested at home and could clearly see me applying a slight bit of movement to the focus ring. This was the same in A/M and M/A and I tried another copy of the lens just to make sure it was not copy dependent, but it's just how it is!

Of course there are ways around this, and you can hold it differenty, but when using a 2k lens you want to use it/hold it in a comfortable position!

So overall, both lenses are great, but I would highly recommend handling the new 2.8e before parting your cash. I know that some reviews from the likes of 'Fro' and the 'angry photographer' have said that its a much better lens, but I can't agree with them.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
I build websites for people through the winter :)

Well, as of last month that was my idea. Now I have enough websites to do to keep me busy until Feb!

I still have the day job 4 days a week, for now.
Click to expand...

Well they say a change is a good as a rest. A lot of our local venues are offering really strong prices for December weddings so December is now quite a busy month for us. This week we have booked a couple of weddings for next December, one of those was for the 27th so we will have weddings right up until the end of next year too.
 
JJ! said:
So for anyone debating whether to upgrade from the 2.8 VRII to the E Version, here are my early thoughts:

Weight and size:
On paper the 2.8e is a bit shorter and a bit lighter - but not anything you can really notice in the real world.

Build:
VRII is better built. The zoom ring is better damped and everything just feels a bit tighter and a bit more high quality. It's not that the 2.8e is bad quality, but it just does not feel as solid.

The hood on the 2.8e is nicer - its a much better shape, less flimsy and allows you to place your lens face down without any wobble. However, even though Nikon says it doesn't - it fits straight on the VRII.

Handling:
This is where it gets interesting and becaomes a very personal thing!

The VRII is more front heavy, and in this respect the 2.8e actually does feel lighter and better balanced when being held. Also the foot on the 2.8e is smaller and rests in the palm of your hand much nicer. Its only by a small amount but it does make the 2.8e feel better to handle if you have the foot attached. The VRII has a much nicer feeling zoom, the 2.8e feels rather slack with little resistance at all. Yes its really easy to turn with the tip of your finger, but I much prefer a bit more resistance - again, this may be the other way round for other users. You can probably get a different foot for the VRII. The 2.8e foot does not fit in the VRII.

The 2.8e has the buttons on the lens, but never used them and you have to hold them down to keep them activated.

The placement of the zoom!! So this is the biggest change and for some it will be great and for others not so great!!

Holding the lens, without zooming etc the 2.8e is no doubt a better balanced lens, mainly due to the shift of weight. BUT, when I started to use it to shoot (in a comfortable holding position) my fingers/part of my hand rested on the focus ring and after getting some out of focus shots I tested at home and could clearly see me applying a slight bit of movement to the focus ring. This was the same in A/M and M/A and I tried another copy of the lens just to make sure it was not copy dependent, but it's just how it is!

Of course there are ways around this, and you can hold it differenty, but when using a 2k lens you want to use it/hold it in a comfortable position!

So overall, both lenses are great, but I would highly recommend handling the new 2.8e before parting your cash. I know that some reviews from the likes of 'Fro' and the 'angry photographer' have said that its a much better lens, but I can't agree with them.
Click to expand...
Interesting write up, thanks. I always take the foot off when hand holding.
 
snerkler said:
Interesting write up, thanks. I always take the foot off when hand holding.
Click to expand...

Yep me too - but I will have to re-think using my BR strap as thought it would be better off on the tripod foot!

The zoom/focus issue might not be a deal breaker for some people - but having seen a few posts online, it will be for some!
 
JJ! said:
Yep me too - but I will have to re-think using my BR strap as thought it would be better off on the tripod foot!

The zoom/focus issue might not be a deal breaker for some people - but having seen a few posts online, it will be for some!
Click to expand...
Can you not turn the tripod foot so that it's on the top of the lens and attach it that way, or does it get in the way? I turn the foot round on my Tamron 150-600mm as it's not a quick process taking it off.
 
JJ! said:
So for anyone debating whether to upgrade from the 2.8 VRII to the E Version, here are my early thoughts:

Weight and size:
On paper the 2.8e is a bit shorter and a bit lighter - but not anything you can really notice in the real world.

Build:
VRII is better built. The zoom ring is better damped and everything just feels a bit tighter and a bit more high quality. It's not that the 2.8e is bad quality, but it just does not feel as solid.

The hood on the 2.8e is nicer - its a much better shape, less flimsy and allows you to place your lens face down without any wobble. However, even though Nikon says it doesn't - it fits straight on the VRII.

Handling:
This is where it gets interesting and becaomes a very personal thing!

The VRII is more front heavy, and in this respect the 2.8e actually does feel lighter and better balanced when being held. Also the foot on the 2.8e is smaller and rests in the palm of your hand much nicer. Its only by a small amount but it does make the 2.8e feel better to handle if you have the foot attached. The VRII has a much nicer feeling zoom, the 2.8e feels rather slack with little resistance at all. Yes its really easy to turn with the tip of your finger, but I much prefer a bit more resistance - again, this may be the other way round for other users. You can probably get a different foot for the VRII. The 2.8e foot does not fit in the VRII.

The 2.8e has the buttons on the lens, but never used them and you have to hold them down to keep them activated.

The placement of the zoom!! So this is the biggest change and for some it will be great and for others not so great!!

Holding the lens, without zooming etc the 2.8e is no doubt a better balanced lens, mainly due to the shift of weight. BUT, when I started to use it to shoot (in a comfortable holding position) my fingers/part of my hand rested on the focus ring and after getting some out of focus shots I tested at home and could clearly see me applying a slight bit of movement to the focus ring. This was the same in A/M and M/A and I tried another copy of the lens just to make sure it was not copy dependent, but it's just how it is!

Of course there are ways around this, and you can hold it differenty, but when using a 2k lens you want to use it/hold it in a comfortable position!

So overall, both lenses are great, but I would highly recommend handling the new 2.8e before parting your cash. I know that some reviews from the likes of 'Fro' and the 'angry photographer' have said that its a much better lens, but I can't agree with them.
Click to expand...

Quite interesting. I think that Nikon had their hand forced into an update a couple of years ahead of time as the Canon version is considered better and Tamron have closed the gap. There were also a couple of high profile togs ranting about the focus breathing. What sounds most disappointing of all is a reduction in build quality. This lens, along with the 24-70, are the staple lenses of most working professionals and so they really need to be right and stand up to demanding use.

It doesn’t sound great for a £2k lens but personally, given the choice, I’d plumb for whichever has the best optics and learn to get used to the other niggles. Looking at the comparisons, there seems a good improvement in the optics, especially at the long end, where many will gravitate towards. The old version was no slouch but optics are really what matters IMO.
 
Livin The Dream said:
Quite interesting. I think that Nikon had their hand forced into an update a couple of years ahead of time as the Canon version is considered better and Tamron have closed the gap. There were also a couple of high profile togs ranting about the focus breathing. What sounds most disappointing of all is a reduction in build quality. This lens, along with the 24-70, are the staple lenses of most working professionals and so they really need to be right and stand up to demanding use.

It doesn’t sound great for a £2k lens but personally, given the choice, I’d plumb for whichever has the best optics and learn to get used to the other niggles. Looking at the comparisons, there seems a good improvement in the optics, especially at the long end, where many will gravitate towards. The old version was no slouch but optics are really what matters IMO.
Click to expand...
I agree that the optics are definitely better, but it depends on the user I guess. I'm only a hobbiest and if something bugs me I'll tend not to use it.
 
snerkler said:
I agree that the optics are definitely better, but it depends on the user I guess. I'm only a hobbiest and if something bugs me I'll tend not to use it.
Click to expand...

I do wonder whether they’ve cut back on metal like seems to be the common theme nowadays to reduce weight and a little cost but an improvement in optics. The Tammy isn’t as well built but is more than adequate. The two previous editions are built like tanks. I hated the ergonomics of Nikon when I moved over but soon got used to it. I’d buy the new one.
 
Livin The Dream said:
I do wonder whether they’ve cut back on metal like seems to be the common theme nowadays to reduce weight and a little cost but an improvement in optics. The Tammy isn’t as well built but is more than adequate. The two previous editions are built like tanks. I hated the ergonomics of Nikon when I moved over but soon got used to it. I’d buy the new one.
Click to expand...
I’ve not tried the new one so might not have an issue with it anyway, but I can’t afford it so don’t want to try it in case I’m tempted ;)
 
snerkler said:
I’ve not tried the new one so might not have an issue with it anyway, but I can’t afford it so don’t want to try it in case I’m tempted ;)
Click to expand...

If I had a VII I wouldn't change, but given the choice of the two, I'd go for the newer optic. If I wasn't getting married, I'd have one probably :eek:
 
Without scrolling endless pages of stuff I've missed has anyone brought or tried the 24-70 new sigma art
 
Livin The Dream said:
Quite interesting. I think that Nikon had their hand forced into an update a couple of years ahead of time as the Canon version is considered better and Tamron have closed the gap. There were also a couple of high profile togs ranting about the focus breathing. What sounds most disappointing of all is a reduction in build quality. This lens, along with the 24-70, are the staple lenses of most working professionals and so they really need to be right and stand up to demanding use.

It doesn’t sound great for a £2k lens but personally, given the choice, I’d plumb for whichever has the best optics and learn to get used to the other niggles. Looking at the comparisons, there seems a good improvement in the optics, especially at the long end, where many will gravitate towards. The old version was no slouch but optics are really what matters IMO.
Click to expand...

Not for me though. I would rather have something that I feel comfortable using and not have to hold it awkwardly and still maybe miss a shot.

Only get 1 chance when sitting at a cross country fence!!

The optics on the 2.8e were good, but no better than the F4 TBH. But I don’t pixel peep anymore!
 
I think looking at the test charts and test images online the 2.8e is optically better, but in the real world I’m not sure it’s going to make a massive difference.

The focus breathing of course is now gone, so that could be a big thing for some.

I guess it all comes down to if you think the extra bit of IQ and lack of focus breathing is worth it for a lens that costs a fair whack more and is not built as well.

I’m not saying it’s a bad build, but I have had the VRII, 2.8e and F4 all together and it comes 3rd imo. Not everyone will agree with me, but I have had the choice of all 3 and have come away with the VRII.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top