The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.

[Knuckledragger]

I for one have less than no interest in a 24MP APS-C sensor. The Megapixel war is as bad as the loudness war, IMJO. I'd much rather have a 12MP full frame sensor. In fact, I made use of one a couple weeks ago.

The country's oldest continually operation town hall.

The door to the above.

Poker players. The guy on the right is a pretty damn good photographer himself.

Using my manual focus Nikon E-Series 75-150mm F/3.5 zoom.

Have you been drinking? You look blurry.

35mm F/2, 0.4sec, ISO1600.

Not a spectacular shot, but truly a spectacular automobile.

[Salt Peanuts]

I doubt megapixel war will end anytime soon, though Canon looked like they were ending it when they released G11 and s90.

What I want is to find a 5d2 for real cheap - maybe I should start going around estate sales.

[Cankin]

Eric Fossum expects APS-C to top off at 100 MP.

[Cankin]

After looking at samples of A77, I'll stick with my D7000

[Voltron]

I think he does that on purpose. He takes pictures of things not particularly photogenic, and then wants people to comment on how good they look.

At least he's not making up girlfriends anymore.

I generally resist temptation to respond, but the Shit Lilies got to me.

[shellylh]

I have been thinking of getting a macro lens lately. I know the Nikon 105mm is supposed to be the shit but don't want to spend 1K. Some complain that you have to get too close with the Nikon 60mm (scaring bugs away) so I have been thinking about the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and Tokina 100mm f/2.8. Anyone have any experience with either of these lenses (or just Tamron/Tokina lenses in general)?

[crappyjones123]

shelly, have you considered an extension tube? i just got one to play around with for the nex 5 - just wanted to see what it did and whether i enjoyed looking at pictures of things that up close. the ones with electronic contacts get expensive but the one i got is just an empty plastic shell - cost me $10. couldnt really not give it a try even if i never use it again. while not really a macro lens, it just moves the lens farther away from the sensor resulting in vaguely similar results. havent had much time to play around with it but initial toying around yielded some surprising results. following were shot with the nex 5 + zeiss 35mm. all hand held in piss poor light so shutter speeds were ~1/30 secondsish.

[shellylh]

I have read and thought about reverse lenses and extension tubes and think I would rather go with a macro lens even if just go with something like the new Nikon 40mm f/2.8 lens to go cheap.

[morphsci]

I absolutely love my Nikon 60 mm macro. While it is true you have to be closer to get comparable magnification compared to the 105, it has a better edge to edge flatness of field, less edge aberration and is capable of superior sharpness IMO. My opinion is based upon side-by-side comparisons for imaging of mammalian skulls. I have used it for macro imaging of live subjects capable of movement and have never felt exceptionally hindered by the need to be slightly closer.

Edited August 27, 2011 by morphsci

[shellylh]

Ok... maybe I should keep an open mind on the 60mm.

[Iron_Dreamer]

On APS-C the 60mm isn't too unreasonable (in terms of having to get close), especially if you get the newer AF-S version, which focuses internally (and hence does not grow in length as you focus closer). The AF-S 60 macro is also excellent at normal and even infinity focus, so if that would be a useful focal length for you, I'd go for it.

The Tamron and Tokina options both get great reviews from users. I've not used either. It's safe to say that the Tokina would be better built. Sigma also makes some great macro lenses (50, 70, 105, 150). Their 70mm is possibly the best looking lens I've ever seen in empirical tests.

The macro lens I use is the Sigma 150, which is fabulous both for macro and general telephoto use. I've taken great landscapes, portraits, and close-ups with it. I'd highly recommend it, but it's probably too long on DX. On FX, the focal length is very useful for a variety of subjects.

[Cankin]

I'm not sure about the 105mm 2.8D, but the 105mm 2.8G is one amazing micro lens. Take a look at DxO Mark and Photozone.de

[Jon L]

Sigma also makes some great macro lenses (50, 70, 105, 150). Their 70mm is possibly the best looking lens I've ever seen in empirical tests.

I currently have the Canon 100 L Macro but would have no qualms about still recommending Sigma 70 Macro, even over Canon. That Sigma 70 is something else for Macro but also very useful length on crop for all kinds of uses. Before buying, however, I would google around to make sure your particular camera body has no issues with the Sigma. My 550d simply did not work in live view with Sigma, and live view is actually quite useful for Macro.

I use extension tubes, too, and they are great. But you get very little control over size of objects in the frame as there is a very small range of distance where the extension tube/lens can focus. So you can end up with larger-than-you-wanted object sizes in the frame, cutting off sides, etc. Autofocus also works VERY slowly/poorly, basically unuseable with extension tubes, and here is where a true macro lens has a large advantage if using AF. I do use MF most of the time, but there are times AF comes in handly in Macro, especially if the subject is moving.

Then there's the whole greater-than 1:1 Macro world with extension tubes on true macro lenses, reversed lenses, etc. Fun stuff but now tripods become absolutely mandatory and lighting more crucial.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Jon L

[Iron_Dreamer]

Nikon bodies have fewer issues in general with Sigma lenses, especially ones like the 70mm which are screw-driven.

[Asr]

Travel pics from a trip to Seattle last week/end. The weather was really nice - no rain and unexpectedly warm (75-ish average every day for the 5 days I was there). I think I'm officially all traveled out for the year now.

#1 - Museum of Flight

#2 - Argosy boat cruise

#3 - someone's tiny dog at a bar I hopped into one night - and as far as bar experiences go, that night was unexpectedly awesome btw (there was a Canadian, a South African, and another guy from Minnesota I think - plus 2 sassy female bartenders)

#4 - downtown at night

#5 - Pacific Science Center

#6 - I forgot the camera was on a long exposure at the Space Needle and destabilized it accidentally

#7 - Mt Rainier from the Space Needle

#8 - sunset over Puget Sound, from the Space Needle

#9 - Kerry Park

#10 - Experience Music Project & Sci Fi Museum

Edited August 28, 2011 by Asr

[Iron_Dreamer]

I like the space needle night shot, Steve!

[Dreadhead]

So what's the ruling these days for a quality point and shoot that's still small etc? My wife wants something with the baby coming.

[n_maher]

So what's the ruling these days for a quality point and shoot that's still small etc? My wife wants something with the baby coming.

Canon S90/95 is probably a good bet.

[Dreadhead]

Thanks for the feedback Nate. I was looking at the S95 or the SD4000 IS and I'm leaning towards the IS just because it's smaller and cheaper. That said the S95 does look sweet and the image quality is better.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Dreadhead

[morphsci]

I love my s95. It is plenty small enough and the picture quality is very good. If I really want better I have to break out one of the DSLRs. The way I look at it is that those pictures are once-in-a-lifetime events so I want a camera that I will have with me but that is still capable of taking great pictures in less-than-perfect conditions. If you do decide on the s90/95 make sure to spend the extra bucks on the Franiac grip.

[falkon]

[Asr]

Some pics from this weekend, from a local air show that I was able to attend for free. I rented the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 for the occasion and it worked out ok, but as things turned out, it was a bit on the short side.

I like the space needle night shot, Steve!

Thanks Peter, was pretty hard to get that one aligned actually - almost all of my other attempts came out slightly crooked (I was using a Gorillapod Focus, which I got after you mentioned, earlier in this thread).

Edited August 29, 2011 by Asr

[falkon]

http://www.eoshd.com...-ii-nikon-d7000

I seriously doubt the validity of this but if it's a step forward at all from the NEX-5, I'll bet it surpasses the 7d and D7000.

edit: Nevermind, took a look at the raws and it's still far behind the D7000. It just uses very aggressive NR.

Edited August 29, 2011 by falkon

[Salt Peanuts]

^ Which is bit disappointing considering the sensor in D7000 is at least one-year-old at this point (and 7D is what, two-years-old at this point?).

I still wonder how much bigger NEX bodies would have been if they'd included in-body stabilization, allowing for lenses to be smaller. Their lens size still kills the idea they're far more portable than other APS-C sensor interchangeable-lens cameras (not that they could ever reach the size of m4/3 lenses).

Edited August 29, 2011 by Salt Peanuts

[grawk]

You can mount m43 lenses on it with a fairly small adapter. And the wide kit lens is pretty darn small. I've also carried the nex5 with the 18-55 mounted in a jacket pocket that I definitely couldn't have carried a dslr in.