The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.

[Knuckledragger]

WHAT THE FUCK DID THEY DO TO FLICKR.

[MexicanDragon]

They probably broke it, but I hear they're also doing free 1TB of storage.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/20/4349442/yahoo-unveils-the-new-flickr-with-one-terabyte-of-free-space

**BRENT**

[The Expanding Man]

I'm looking at getting a macro lens for my D7000.

 

I want it to double as a portrait lens, and be FX compatible for future proofing.

 

I have my eye on the Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro.

 

Any thoughts?

[agile_one]

I've got the Tokina 100 2.8 macro and like it a lot on the D600.  For portrait on DX, you may find a bit long, unless you just do head and shoulder shots or have room to step back.

[shellylh]

I have the Tokina 100 2.8 and like it but have mostly just used it for macro (and mostly in manual focus).  There are couple of times when it has had trouble focusing (I don't remember if this was auto or manual focus though) but it was fine once I focused on something else and came back.  

Edited May 21, 2013 by shellylh

[Salt Peanuts]

WHAT THE FUCK DID THEY DO TO FLICKR.

THIS.

Just noticed it since I had been ridiculously behind on going through my photos so I hadn't gone to flickr for few days. I guess this is the result of recruiting all those iOS people.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Salt Peanuts

[Jon L]

EOSD2376 by drjlo2, on Flickr

 

Just got this Marumi DHG 77mm CPL, but I haven't opened the seal due to second thoughts, especially how it has noticeable flare compared to something like top-line B&W (see link below).  I hate flares in filters.  Anybody have experience with Marumi, B&W, Nikon CPL, or any other thoughts?  

 

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?art=115&roz=23

[Salt Peanuts]

I've used both Marumi Super DHG, and B&W CPL (MRC, iirc).  I don't remember having any flare issues but I didn't use them that often so its entirely possible I didn't use them under problematic situations.

[Salt Peanuts]

Finally got a chance to look into the changes at flickr and below are what I've figured out.

 

• Everyone gets 1 TB of storage
• Another TB of storage will cost you $499.99/year (no, that's not a typo)
• Getting rid of ads will cost you $49.99/year (unless you have a grandfathered recurring Pro account)
• There are no more Pro account (so no unlimited storage, etc, for ~$25/year)
• If you have a recurring Pro account, you're grandfathered in and can continue to get the benefits for ~$25/year
• If you have a non-recurring Pro account, you're SOL.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Salt Peanuts

[Knuckledragger]

• If you have a non-recurring Pro account, you're SOL.

This is me. allofmyrage.jpg

[Cankin]

Is there monthly upload quota for free accounts??

 

I don't have any problems with new UI but I'd say 99.99% users want old UI back.

 

http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633547442506/

[Salt Peanuts]

This is me. allofmyrage.jpg

It looks like they're working to trying to let those with non-recurring Pro account sign up for a recurring account.

https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633549071436/#reply72157633533344529

 

 

Is there monthly upload quota for free accounts??

 

I don't have any problems with new UI but I'd say 99.99% users want old UI back.

 

http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633547442506/

 

There does not appear to be monthly upload quota anymore.  I'm sure I'll just get use to the new UI in time, but I much preferred when I could see multiple photos of my contacts and I could choose which ones I wanted to see larger.  As it is, one photo from my contact takes up most of the screen, forcing me to scroll through if I want to see more photos.

[agile_one]

Someone in a Fuji Forum I check started a "RIP flickr" thread bitching about all the changes.  Responses are running 50% agreeing v 50% not agreeing.

 

Not sure I can link there, but here's a try.

 

I thought the was interesting ...

 

Analogue people simply can not accommodate change—they are stuck in time. Darwin was right. Flickr is not dead, only the users stuck in version 1.0 are dead. Same with those who can not handle X-Trans, Adobe subscriptions, or Facebook changes. They have no place in this digital world. They are the same people who maintained that buggy whip factories were an entitlement when the horseless carriage took hold. There are no entitlements for users of free services. 

We live in an extremely exciting world where change is not only constant, but drastic and dramatic. Adjust, or natural selection will relegate you to Dodo-bird status. Technological and information progress and redesign will not go away. Fight it and perish, embrace it and let it empower you.

 

Realize that for most "free" services, you are not the customer—you are the inventory that is offered to the buyer of advertising.

[nikongod]

I'm looking at getting a macro lens for my D7000.

 

I want it to double as a portrait lens, and be FX compatible for future proofing.

 

I have my eye on the Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro.

 

Any thoughts?

 

I have a Tamron 90F2.8macro. So not the same, but I do have a complaint that I think applies to most macro lenses when used as portrait lenses:

 

AF is very slow. At normal portrait range (7-20ft), your subject could die of old age before the lens focuses.

If you leave the lens set to "full range" and it hunts grab a beer and come back later. 

If your subject is moving (I like to shoot street) it is almost hopeless. 

The above is slightly exaggerated. 

 

That being said, the 90 is incredibly sharp any way you shoot it. 

 

If you are shooting macro ALWAYS manually focus. Murphy's law dictates that whatever you want to focus on will be between focus points. If it happens to be exactly at a focus point there wont be enough contrast to focus... sometimes the old fashioned way is easier. 

 

Fucking Flickr. 

[Currawong]

I've been thinking about upgrading to the D600 lately, even though I'll have to buy new glass. I have been endlessly pondering something like a 17-55 anyway, as that would cover most of what I shoot. However, there is a s/h D800 going for <$2k. Should I go for it?

[grawk]

flickr let me renew my pro account for 2 years for $44.  So I did.

[Cankin]

I've been thinking about upgrading to the D600 lately, even though I'll have to buy new glass. I have been endlessly pondering something like a 17-55 anyway, as that would cover most of what I shoot. However, there is a s/h D800 going for <$2k. Should I go for it?

 

<$2K is a good price, most second hand D800 I've seen are ~$2200.

 

As for lens, did you look at Tamron 24-70mm VC?

[Salt Peanuts]

FWIW, a used or refurbed D600 can be had for $1500-$1600.  $2K for D800 seems bit low ($2300 has been the average over on FM, as well as being the refurb price), anything wrong with it and what's the shutter count?

Edited May 23, 2013 by Salt Peanuts

[Currawong]

Cankin: I've been wary of 3rd party lenses. I gather the D800 has even had issues with primes, so I suspect I need to be very careful with lens selection.

 

Salt Peanuts: They didn't have any refurb D600s here. The pros for the D600 are not having to learn a new button layout upgrading from the D7000, but I hate the button layout! The D800 seems slightly more sane, or maybe more insane. I suspect the low price may be due to the Japanese market and the focus on the new and latest, which is the D800E. The shop is reputable (a chain, but staffed by experienced people who know their stuff). I will ask them about shutter count and condition. I didn't notice any of the usual red text used for noting problems on the tag with the price.  What kind of shutter count is considered good or bad?

 

Lenses still bug me. What would be awesome would be something like the 17-55 but smaller. I don't *need* the pixels -- it's tempting me to simply cheat and go for a wider rather than narrower lens, eg: a 20mm prime and just crop madly when I can't get as close as ideal. As usual, I had plenty of fun with a friend's 14-24 in Tokyo. Not a single picture needed more than the RAW Boost effects to look great. It's too damn heavy though. I want one the size of the 10-22mm lens. If an FX 10-22mm lens existed that was the same size as the DX one and only started to obviously distort below 16mm (like the 14-24) I'd probably nab it in an instant. It's the trips out to the park and the like where I'd like up to about 55mm or more.

[Salt Peanuts]

I forgot you are in Japan.  FWIW, D800's shutter is rated to 200K so I wouldn't worry too much about it, unless it's already near or over 100K.  Most of the ones I've seen on FM been around 7K or below.   Getting one from a reputable shop is better (at minimum, better peace of mind) than picking one up from a random individual so there's that.  D600/D7100/D7000 button layout doesn't bother me, though I do wish they had separate a AF-On button like D700/D800 along with lever for changing metering.  The ISO button location doesn't really bother me either (still not great, though better on D600 than D7100/D7000), especially since you can set it up so you can change ISO without ever touching that button.

 

Out of curiosity, which chain store is it?

Edited May 23, 2013 by Salt Peanuts

[Cankin]

Except my 50mm 1.8G and 35mm 1.8G DX all my other lenses are third party but I'm using D7000 so I can't say for sure for D800.

 

I had Tamron, have Tokina and Sigma. The downside I've noticed with Sigma is that both zoom ring and focus ring turn to the "wrong" size.

 

10-22mm is a Canon right? If you want a ultrawide zoom for FX with about the same size, Tokina 17-35 FX is a good lens but it's heavy because it has metal barrel.

[Salt Peanuts]

He probably meant Nikon 10-24 DX.  Having a lighter/smaller lens at similar aperture & angle of view is one of the benefits of using DX/APS-C body.

[Currawong]

Out of curiosity, which chain store is it?

 

Kitamura. Not sure about other stores, but the one in the city is full of middle-aged to old guys who have obviously been into photography a long time. 

 

I did probably mean the 10-24. I always get the zoom lenses screwed up. If I type 12-24 I mean 14-24.

 

I think the solution may be to take an SD card with me and take a bunch of test shots at the store with different lenses that they recommend. I guess it's always going to be a case of:

 

Light-weight.

Sharp.

Can zoom.

 

Pick two.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Currawong

[crappyjones123]

Come on now...use your legs to zoom. Prime lenses all day.

[nikongod]

Come on now...use your legs to zoom. Prime lenses all day.

 

This. 

 

Except I'm not sure that there are any ultrawide DX primes. 

 

14mm is the widest *commonly available* rectilinear prime I know of in SLR mount.

 

That being said, the 21-23mmFOV from putting a 14mm lens on a DX body is a pretty fun FOV.