The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.

[grawk]

[Dreadhead]

^Very cool Dan. What did you take it with?

[CarlSeibert]

Damn, Peter. Your work is beautiful.

[grawk]

That was a nex5 in panorama mode. I use it and the iphone about 50/50 for my pictures.

Peter's work IS amazing.

[Iron_Dreamer]

Thanks so much, everyone. Always good to know it's not just in my head.

 

Here's a couple more, from last weekend.

 

 

 

[roadtonowhere08]

I am envious of your white balance and exposure.  You nail every shot, every time.  There are great photos, and then there are windows to where the photographer is at that moment.  Your shots fall into the latter category.

[Iron_Dreamer]

Well, you are seeing elements of selectivity (in what I choose to showcase) and post-processing at work. I try my best to nail every shot, and work to find what suits each best. Momentum has been good lately.

[nikongod]

I think I'm finally figuring out how to take portraits. 
 

NYC 2015 Easter Parade by Lord Nikon 12, on Flickr
 

Fire Hydrant Portrait by Lord Nikon 12, on Flickr
 

NYC 2015 Easter Parade by Lord Nikon 12, on Flickr
 
The trick for people is to use the 14mm lens, and get less than 2ft away. With this technique failure is impossible. 
 
For fire hydrants, you should make some noise while at a distance of approximately 30-45ft so as not to startle the creature. Then approach slowly and in silence never breaking eye contact even for an instant. The fire hydrant can see your trepidation. If you need to look at your camera to adjust settings the Fire Hydrant knows and is laughing at you. Anyways, once you get to within shooting range of the fire hydrant, crouch down low so that you are at its eye level, and in one smooth motion bring your camera to your eye and fire. The Fire Hydrant will make a funny face if you wait too long to take its picture. I once heard a fire hydrant mutter something along the lines of "like a tourist who gets all his friends together, clears the sidewalk, and then starts to look for the camera app on his phone" to a photographer. 
 
Seriously, Easter parade photos are up on my Flikr page. 
Click for all the photos
 

Guggenheim NYC by Lord Nikon 12, on Flickr

[crappyjones123]

Not a lens I would ever think to pick for portraiture but great images, Ari.

[grawk]

Those are fantastic Ari.

[naamanf]

I am thinking of replacing my old Nikon D80 with a Samsung NX1 and the 16-50 f/2-2.8 ED OIS lens. For the price the NX1 looks pretty hard to beat and from what I have read Samsung plans to keep it up to date for a while with firmware upgrades. Any suggestions before I pull the trigger? Only negative that I can see is the only fully functionally lenses available are Samsung lenses.  

Edited April 6, 2015 by naamanf

[crappyjones123]

I don't know much about that body except that it does fantastic low light video. And BH is offering a $200 instant discount along with 4% rewards (always comes in handy for the extra battery. 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081854-REG/samsung_ev_nx1zzzbzbus_nx1_digital_camera.html

 

Looks like a fun body.

[Iron_Dreamer]

I used the NX-1 a bit at CES. I liked a lot about it, and Samsung does have some compelling lens options, including pancakes.  The main drawbacks I see at this point are poor resale on Samsung gear (at this point), H.265 video compression (apparently a bitch to edit at the moment, but should be a boon in the future).  The AF was as good as the best mirrorless I've tried, which is to say that it's still not good enough for fast moving subjects (IMO).

 

If you're looking for high-qualiy video and stills in one body, the only other option to consider would be the Panasonic GH4.  If you just want a high-performance crop body for stills, and aren't as concerned with video, I would get a D7100 or D7200, as they have a great sensor and AF performance, and more lens choices.  If you're going mirrorless to keep it small, I'd look at either Fuji (X-E2 or X-T1) or Olympus (EM5-II).

[Jon L]

DSC09378BW by drjlo1, on Flickr

[Salt Peanuts]

I used the NX-1 a bit at CES. I liked a lot about it, and Samsung does have some compelling lens options, including pancakes.  The main drawbacks I see at this point are poor resale on Samsung gear (at this point), H.265 video compression (apparently a bitch to edit at the moment, but should be a boon in the future).  The AF was as good as the best mirrorless I've tried, which is to say that it's still not good enough for fast moving subjects (IMO).

 

If you're looking for high-qualiy video and stills in one body, the only other option to consider would be the Panasonic GH4.  If you just want a high-performance crop body for stills, and aren't as concerned with video, I would get a D7100 or D7200, as they have a great sensor and AF performance, and more lens choices.  If you're going mirrorless to keep it small, I'd look at either Fuji (X-E2 or X-T1) or Olympus (EM5-II).

 

In regards to EM5/EM5-II, I found its single AF (AF-S for Nikon) to be fast enough (especially with 45/1.8 lens) to get "action shot."  Its focus tracking, on the other hand, is rather poor.  Also, the Olympus menu system is horrendous.

[Iron_Dreamer]

Yeah, Oly menus are kinda nuts, but for the most part, one a good camera is set up, there shouldn't be that much menu diving going on. I agree that a number of mirrorless have good single AF, but continuous is where the problems lie.

[naamanf]

Deciding what to get is killing me. Starting to think I should stick with Nikon and invest more in FX lenses. Then that leaves me with getting a D750 or D7200, is the full frame sensor worth almost twice the price for a hobbyist that likes taking pictures of his kids and beer? 

[crappyjones123]

I am a big proponent of buying used photography gear. The price of entry is considerably lower. For about the cost of renting (sometimes less, sometimes a little more), you can get rid of the gear if you don't find it agreeing with you and try something else. 

[Iron_Dreamer]

I would say no, naaman. At this point, I would only deal with the size and cost of FX to accommodate specific needs, like printing extremely large, shooting fast action in very low light, extremely low light or thin DOF video, astrophotography, etc.

For general purpose photography, even a D7100 will serve you extremely well, with the 7200 having a few nice features, but extremely similar performance. Used 7100's are really cheap right now.

[n_maher]

Deciding what to get is killing me. Starting to think I should stick with Nikon and invest more in FX lenses. Then that leaves me with getting a D750 or D7200, is the full frame sensor worth almost twice the price for a hobbyist that likes taking pictures of his kids and beer? 

 

If you can wait it'll be interesting to see if Nikon updates the 810 in the not too distant future and if so, what that does to D750 prices.  

[Duggeh]

The sun came out today and I picked up the 1Ds I bought a little while back. My right arm now looks like I got it from Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

 

 

I like it a lot though. I don't see myself restocking on 35mm film after I use up what I have.

(The exif on those photos is misleading. The lens was an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 )

Edited April 12, 2015 by Duggeh

[naamanf]

So I picked up the D7200 and a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4. I really want a fast almost every situation lens. Wondering if a fixed 2.8 17-50 or 24-70 would be better?

 

Or take them back and get the D750 and the Nikon 24-70 2.8? Team overkill. 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Honestly, that is exactly what I would go for if needing a general purpose DX lens. The Nikon 17-55 is large, heavy, expensive, has no VR, and isn't sharp in the corners on 24MP bodies. The 24-70 is larger, heavier, more expensive, and an awkward focalfocal range on DX.

[n_maher]

^^^ Makes good sense to me.  The only counter-point I'd offer is that the 7200 shoots well enough at higher ISOs that my choice for a do everything lens would have been the 18-300 VRII from Nikon.  It's only a few ounces (~2) more than the SIgma, covers way more range and is only a stop (ish) slower.  Granted, it's almost double the cost of the Sigma but I can't imagine a scenario short of ultra-wide-angle where it wouldn't cover it.  My 18-200 has been on my last two bodies (D80 and D7000) 99% of the time and I've only put the 12-24 on there occasionally for fun and forcing me to use it.

 

Oh, I guess my other pieces of advice would be to get the D750 since that's what I'm targeting early next year.

[Jon L]

So I picked up the D7200 and a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4. I really want a fast almost every situation lens. Wondering if a fixed 2.8 17-50 or 24-70 would be better?

 

Reviews say Sig 17-70 has pretty poor IQ at the 70 mm end, which then kind of evaporates the extra reach advantage over the sharper Sig 17-50, which also has constant f/2.8 aperture.