Nikon D750 & D780

snerkler said:
Fuji and Sony do 35mm but I've not seen a 50mm one. Fuji have a couple of attachable lens converter thingies that can make the X100 either a 28mm or 50mm but they're not cheap. They do say there's no loss of IQ but you're adding extra glass so not sure how true this is.
Click to expand...
Canon need to put a FF sensor in their old Canonet Rangefinder body... okay that’s 40mm (not sure if all of them were) but closer...
 
snerkler said:
Fuji and Sony do 35mm but I've not seen a 50mm one. Fuji have a couple of attachable lens converter thingies that can make the X100 either a 28mm or 50mm but they're not cheap. They do say there's no loss of IQ but you're adding extra glass so not sure how true this is.
Click to expand...
What about a merril
 
snerkler said:
Fuji and Sony do 35mm but I've not seen a 50mm one. Fuji have a couple of attachable lens converter thingies that can make the X100 either a 28mm or 50mm but they're not cheap. They do say there's no loss of IQ but you're adding extra glass so not sure how true this is.
Click to expand...

Been through the whole Fuji range (just about), fixed lens with converters and interchangeable lenses. Nice cameras but I was never keen on the files. I much prefer the Nikon files. Never had a Sony, only one that appeals is about £3.5k or something daft like that and I could have a Leica for that :D
 
markgodley said:
Does anyone know roughly if you were to shoot a couple at 70mm how far away you'd been to get them in frame like this:
https://2dhnizrxqvv1awj231eodql1-wp...p-content/uploads/2013/06/couples-posing1.jpg

Just trying to work out how much DOF i'd have shooting at f4.
Click to expand...
Probably trial and error on a shot like that, if I were taking the shot I would be taking a few and moving the couple further forward from the background as their is a slight incline behind them, doing this you could get some decent DOF at f4
 
markgodley said:
Does anyone know roughly if you were to shoot a couple at 70mm how far away you'd been to get them in frame like this:
https://2dhnizrxqvv1awj231eodql1-wp...p-content/uploads/2013/06/couples-posing1.jpg

Just trying to work out how much DOF i'd have shooting at f4.
Click to expand...

If I have enough time and I'm being ultra clinical, I make sure their eyes are on the same plane and shoot pretty square to them for a shot like that. Easily done with some thought if that's the final result you're after, just take the time to line them up beforehand. Quite often see Mr Brenizer and the like shooting very wide open 85mm multiple people portraits at weddings where you really must be clever with people placement.

But here's an example where I made a complete hash of it in the spur of the moment recently, shooting the 58 at 2.2 indoors and getting too close :( (the moment just happened so took it)

37293415441_3b2ea129c4_b.jpg
 
photogwannabe said:
As a family snap it's pretty well priceless!
Click to expand...

Yup, I don't beat myself up. It happened spontaneously right there and so happened to
raise the camera and kinda got it. It doesn't always have to be technically perfect.

And the other record captured is big sis' ridiculous fake tan as per her hand!
 
Last edited:
wibbly said:
Been through the whole Fuji range (just about), fixed lens with converters and interchangeable lenses. Nice cameras but I was never keen on the files. I much prefer the Nikon files. Never had a Sony, only one that appeals is about £3.5k or something daft like that and I could have a Leica for that :D
Click to expand...

I would want the A9. It's the only mirrorless camera that has no black out (as far a I know). But it's 3k+ before any lenses and I'm not affording that anytime soon!!!
 
JJ! said:
I would want the A9. It's the only mirrorless camera that has no black out (as far a I know). But it's 3k+ before any lenses and I'm not affording that anytime soon!!!
Click to expand...

But you can have an 850 for that! Didn't the DxO scores look truly awesome yesterday, best sensor ever tested...
 
Livin The Dream said:
But you can have an 850 for that! Didn't the DxO scores look truly awesome yesterday, best sensor ever tested...
Click to expand...
Yeah, 100/100. However, I find that slightly odd when noise handing isn't sparkling. I know after downsampling it will be very good, but even so to score it 100 when the noise handling is shy of the D810 is a bit odd to me. I must admit, I'm a bit disappointed that noise handling isn't as good as the D810, especially considering the D810 isn't as good as the D750.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...Sony-A7R-II-versus-Nikon-D810___1177_1035_963
 
snerkler said:
Yeah, 100/100. However, I find that slightly odd when noise handing isn't sparkling. I know after downsampling it will be very good, but even so to score it 100 when the noise handling is shy of the D810 is a bit odd to me. I must admit, I'm a bit disappointed that noise handling isn't as good as the D810, especially considering the D810 isn't as good as the D750.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...Sony-A7R-II-versus-Nikon-D810___1177_1035_963
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I'm not convinced by the DXO noise scores, looking at actual shots the D850 looks noticeably cleaner than the D810, and that's even at 1:1. Looks comparable to the A7RII to my eyes.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.1312927631284066&y=-0.9790009973890715
 
snerkler said:
Yeah, 100/100. However, I find that slightly odd when noise handing isn't sparkling. I know after downsampling it will be very good, but even so to score it 100 when the noise handling is shy of the D810 is a bit odd to me. I must admit, I'm a bit disappointed that noise handling isn't as good as the D810, especially considering the D810 isn't as good as the D750.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...Sony-A7R-II-versus-Nikon-D810___1177_1035_963
Click to expand...

I suspect that the difference in the real world will be negligable. Still, looks an awesome camera.
 
Livin The Dream said:
I suspect that the difference in the real world will be negligable. Still, looks an awesome camera.
Click to expand...
Yeah, just posted results from actual shots, looks very impressive to me. Have downloaded the actual RAWs so will have a play in LR later and look what it's like after downsampling etc. But at 1:1 on DPR it looks better than the D810, and comparable to the A7RII.
 
JJ! said:
I would want the A9. It's the only mirrorless camera that has no black out (as far a I know). But it's 3k+ before any lenses and I'm not affording that anytime soon!!!
Click to expand...

I think it’s the Rx1R Sony I’m thinking about. Fixed 35mm lens. Something small and bijou! Have tried an a7 a couple of times and never really liked the feel, guessing the a9 would be similar.
 
snerkler said:
Yeah, just posted results from actual shots, looks very impressive to me. Have downloaded the actual RAWs so will have a play in LR later and look what it's like after downsampling etc. But at 1:1 on DPR it looks better than the D810, and comparable to the A7RII.
Click to expand...

Are the RAWS on DPR for download?
 
I take the DxO scores with a little pinch of salt. Odd that the 600/610 are better in some respects which in the field, they're simply not.
 
Brazo said:
According to DXO D600>D750>D810/800>D850

I suspect though once downsampled the D850 will offer the best noise free results.
Click to expand...
Yeah, which is why I'm taking DXO with a pinch of salt. Thos shots from DPR certainly don't show what DXO say, the D850 looks noticeably better than the D810 to me. IIRC most reviewers have said that the D850 has less noise as well haven't they?
 
markgodley said:
Does anyone know roughly if you were to shoot a couple at 70mm how far away you'd been to get them in frame like this:
https://2dhnizrxqvv1awj231eodql1-wp...p-content/uploads/2013/06/couples-posing1.jpg

Just trying to work out how much DOF i'd have shooting at f4.
Click to expand...

Probably not much help but, the photo above of the couple was done with an 85mm lens at 1.8. This is quite cropped. The original has them full length with probably double the headroom. I was probably about 20 feet away.
 
I'm still following this years rut. I was out this evening and I wasn't expecting any rain being woefully unprepared (had left my trouser in the car and the cameras rain cover at home). Turns out a backpack rain cover can double up as a cover for the lens and camera too! It was really poor light at ISO4500 f4 1/200 but impressed the D750 got the shot ok. It's not as sharp as I would like but still ok.


All Photos-274 by -Rob - Nikon-
 
snerkler said:
Yeah, which is why I'm taking DXO with a pinch of salt. Thos shots from DPR certainly don't show what DXO say, the D850 looks noticeably better than the D810 to me. IIRC most reviewers have said that the D850 has less noise as well haven't they?
Click to expand...

I think people read into dxo what they want to but it's a good yard stick. Any high scoring sensor will deliver A1 results.
 
So expensive dilemma....

Equestrian portrait work, 70-200 2.8 or 85mm 1.4g. Or get a 85mm 1.8g and Tamron 70-200 or older used 70-200 Nikon.

Nikon 85mm 1.4g looks like a great lens and much lighter than a 70-200. I already have the f4 70-200.

Is the 1.4g that much better than the 1.8g?
 
JJ! said:
So expensive dilemma....

Equestrian portrait work, 70-200 2.8 or 85mm 1.4g. Or get a 85mm 1.8g and Tamron 70-200 or older used 70-200 Nikon.

Nikon 85mm 1.4g looks like a great lens and much lighter than a 70-200. I already have the f4 70-200.

Is the 1.4g that much better than the 1.8g?
Click to expand...
f1.4 vs f1.8 is more about rendering that sharpness, and that of course is very subjective. The f1.4 renders beautifully imo, but is it worth it over the f1.8G? Only you can decide. I'm a big fan of the Sigma 85m f1.4 EX DG which is considerably cheaper than the Nikon, especially if bought used.
 
Horses have long noses and are you certain you will need 1.4 for these portraits?
 
Peter123 said:
Horses have long noses and are you certain you will need 1.4 for these portraits?
Click to expand...

Nope won't need 1.4, but as snerkler mentioned it's the rendering that's most important here. Would never shoot a horse at 1.4 unlese I was focussing on just an eye or something!
 
JJ! said:
So expensive dilemma....

Equestrian portrait work, 70-200 2.8 or 85mm 1.4g. Or get a 85mm 1.8g and Tamron 70-200 or older used 70-200 Nikon.

Nikon 85mm 1.4g looks like a great lens and much lighter than a 70-200. I already have the f4 70-200.

Is the 1.4g that much better than the 1.8g?
Click to expand...
I would compare the two 85's on same site reviews so for example check them both out on dxo or I quite like photography life.

I actually think the 1.8 is fractionally sharper but the 1.4 has better rendering.
 
I’ve got a 1.8 85mm and it’s a beauty of a lens. Sharp and good renedering.

Would I swap for the 1.4, well yes I probably would for the rendering, however that would probably be for my own eye rather than the real world difference the 1.4 to the 1.8 makes.

I’d probably go for the 85mm 1.8 & 70-200 Tamron simply for more flexibility in your situation.
 
JJ! said:
So expensive dilemma....

Equestrian portrait work, 70-200 2.8 or 85mm 1.4g. Or get a 85mm 1.8g and Tamron 70-200 or older used 70-200 Nikon.

Nikon 85mm 1.4g looks like a great lens and much lighter than a 70-200. I already have the f4 70-200.

Is the 1.4g that much better than the 1.8g?
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends what you want from equestrian portraits. I would have thought the 70-200 f2.8 would be a more versatile lens being able to do both portraits and action. The 85mm would be more limited to portraits. I've tried a 85mm f1.8 for wildlife portraits (Puffins from a few feet away) and didn't find it that good for wildlife. AF was slower than I was expecting considering its a fast prime.

A 70-200 and 85mm could be a good combo but then a 70-200 and 1.4TC would be another good option if you wanted more focal length for shows where you can't get close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top