The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.

[agile_one]

Whoa ... great hands, Jeff. Were you shooting shutter priority? Manual? Auto focus with track, or manual focus on a spot? Always educational to see how people get the great shots.

[The Monkey]

Those are awesome, Jeff.

[VPI]

Whoa ... great hands, Jeff. Were you shooting shutter priority? Manual? Auto focus with track, or manual focus on a spot? Always educational to see how people get the great shots.

Manual setting, adjusting aperture according to light conditions. Servo Autofocus of the 5D mkII as I never took the time to figure out the 1D mkIV before heading out the races so it stayed in the truck.

[VPI]

in raw image quality, maybe, but the Nikon control scheme, you know, isn't crap. actually, looking at the top hits of a google search, the 60D only seems to come ahead in reviews amongst people who really care about video, for the most part (excluding reviewers who are heavily invested in either company's system). the D7000 is a really killer camera. i would agree that buying a Nikon just because an old lens is sitting around isn't a great way to go about it.

Yeah, I am sure they can both be used to do more than most photographers could ever get from them. I was just going off of Shutterbug and Popular Photography mags that come to my iPad as I have no experience with either.

[Cankin]

If image quality is important to you, get D7000 over 60D

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/663%7C0/(appareil2)/680%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Nikon

[crappyjones123]

after the poor luck with the used nokton lens, i ended up buying a new one. opened the box just now and found the lens to have faulty assembly. the barrel rocks back and forth at the aperture ring. was on the phone with photovillage and the guy asked me to tighten the screws around it to see if that fixes it but they are as tight as can be. second lens i have to send back but at least the replacement was fairly smooth. sigh. have to wait for another week now. fantastic lens though.

[Asr]

Let's see what the case photo experts would take:

- Nikon D300S body at 1262 euros. I could use it with an old AF Nikkor 35-80mm 1:4-5.6D that came with a F70 which is 14 years old now. I know the lens isn't very good, so other lenses may be considered.

- Nikon D7000 + AFS 18-200VR II kit at 1513 euros. Good reviews but concerned for the overexposing comments. The lens isn't very good for what I've read, so perhaps it's a better idea going for the body and considering another lens.

Makes it any sense going nuts for a D700? I could get the body at about 2500 euros, and see how it fares with the lens I already have.

I used to take lots of pics years ago and I've never found a camera that I loved more than the Pentax Super-A I got in the 80's. This would be my first DSLR camera, and while I know a bit about taking pictures with a SLR, I have 0 experience with DSLR. For digital I've only had a couple of P&S.

As an owner of the D300s and D7000 right now (though I've been looking sell the D300s for a while now), I have to say the biggest difference between them is probably their size/weight more than the specs. The D300s' bigger size & heavier weight made it just a little too annoying for me to use as a transportable camera, prompting me to seek out something smaller & lighter - the D7000. There are some key spec differences too of course - the one most noticeable to me was 39 AF points on the D7000 vs 51 AF points on the D300s. Most of the other spec differences didn't really matter much to me.

I'm not sure I'd advise getting a lens to cover everything between medium-range and telephoto - IMO it makes more sense to get separate medium-range and telephoto lenses to optimize the quality of both.

Peter/Iron_Dreamer owns the D700 and I suspect he'll be along later. It's an FX full-frame DSLR though and you'll want to have full-frame lenses to take advantage. Not sure a full-frame DSLR is really necessary for someone new to DSLRs either considering how expensive they are right now - if you really want to get into full-frame, I'd probably suggest waiting until they get less expensive.

[Torpedo]

Great pics Jeff, incredible hands

Thanks for the input guys. I really don't need a FF, but if I get back to photography, I'd like it to be a similar experience as I had when shooting film. When asking the question here I just wanted to know if you had personal experiences with any of those possible choices, or an educated opinion about image quality/results. I got interesting input.

I think my best bet would be having a few of those cameras in my hands and if they allow me, shooting a few pics to get an idea of their quality. Maybe the K-5 is a better idea than I thought. The sensor seems to rate very highly and the body is completely weatherproof, plus I have a few glasses I might use.

The D90 seemed another good alternative, if anything just a bit dated by the D7000.

[aerius]

I think my best bet would be having a few of those cameras in my hands and if they allow me, shooting a few pics to get an idea of their quality.

Definitely. If there's a trade show, larger camera store, or even a photographer's group meetup near your area, go and use the opportunity to try out everything you can get your hands on. Bring some memory cards & lenses and give the cameras a full workout.

[Cankin]

The D90 seemed another good alternative, if anything just a bit dated by the D7000.

I was deciding between D90, D7000 and 60D just last month. I have a Canon 28-80 and Sigma 24-70 (Nikon mount) so I was looking at a new body only.

I went to Henyrs to try them out and 60D didn't impress me at all. The camera doesn't feel as sturdy as D90 and D7000, probably because of the flip-out screen. It may be a good feature when taking video but I can't image what would happen if the camera is dropped while the screen is in the "out" position. I don't like the control layout too, everytime I try to press the multi-way controller at the back, my thumb scroll the control dial.

Between D90 and D7000, the later feels more sturdy probably because of the weather sealed metal housing. Beside build quality, AF is a difinitely faster and the dynamic range provided by D7000's sensor (made by Sony) is way ahead than Canon offerings in this price range.

D7000 is the best choice for me, even though it is almost $200 more expensive than 60D, D7000 represents more value in my opinion. I'd also suggest you to try them yourself, you might find 60D more comfortable if you have bigger hands. Beside camera bodies, take a look at lenses, flashes and other accessories which you're most likely to buy from both Nikon and Canon. Look at the system as a whole offered by both compaines.

[Knuckledragger]

Hasselblad ships 200-megapixel H4D-200MS camera for $45,000

[falkon]

Both cameras are great, although I'll have to give the edge to the D7000 for image quality and features overall.

But the decision should be based on the lenses you plan on getting and the money you plan on spending on them.

What kind of shooting do you do the most? Indoor? Outdoor? Sports? Wildlife? Portrait? Do you like zooms or primes?

To give you an idea, here are the lenses that are unique for each manufacturer:

Nikon 18-200mm VRII (most versatile zoom; best single lens solution; Canon equivalent is terrible) - $600

Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX (best normal prime on a crop sensor; works with some vignetting on full frame; No decent Canon equivalent in the same price range) - $200

Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S IS (best normal/wide zoom for crop sensor; L lens sharpness; ONLY normal zoom with IS; Nikon equivalent does not have IS) - $1200

Canon 50mm f/1.8 (the nifty fifty; nothing comes close for price/optical performance ratio) - $100

Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S (cheap 50mm prime with AF-S/USM) - $220

Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S (only mid-range normal prime with modern design and AF-S/USM; Canon's alternative has micro USM and is extremely dated) - $450

Canon 17-40mm f/4L (L lens build and quality at mid range price; Nikon has no equivalent lens) - $800

Canon 70-200mm f/4L (only GREAT long zoom at mid range prices; Nikon has no equivalent) - $700

[Torpedo]

Cool, thank you very much for the lenses summary. I like primes better. For Pentax I have a 70-210 zoom, a 28mm and a 50mm (full frame, A mount all). At some point I considered a macro, but the place where I made my residency had a Nikon with macro and annular flash, so I didn't get it. Then film was outdated a few years later.

For starters I could live with a luminous good 50mm (or its equivalent for cropped sensor) or a 30-140 all purpose zoom.

I used to shoot outdoors and also indoor portraits, however I could end up getting a macro for detailed surgery and documentary photos, which very likely would require an annular flash. BTW, do modern AF systems really work on macro pics? I always ended up on manual focus with those.

[Currawong]

I use the original Nikon 18-200mm and the 35mm, the latter on my camera most of the time for indoor shots. As long as there are no or few straight lines involved, the 18-200 is quite a good all-round lens where there is a lot of light. I use it outdoors when I have no idea whether I'm going to be shooting a close-up of my daughter or a scenic view.  I'm glad I didn't go with anything bigger than the D7000, as the combination was heavy enough as is.  I tried the D300s in store and knew it was going to be too much weight in the end.  

I've been thinking lately to add the 24mm alongside the 35mm as indoors I feel I want just a bit greater field of view.  However, there are the 17-35mm f2.8D ED and 17-85mm f2.8G ED lenses I noticed which would possibly make for good indoor and scenic kit, trading off not too much for flexibility.  Then there's the 24mm f1.4G ED if I want to go for broke but the thought of buying a $2k lens for a camera that cost half as much is rather scary, though I'm sure it would be end-game as far as indoor shooting would be concerned and it would likely rarely be off the camera.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Currawong

[falkon]

If you plan on using a 50mm equivalent prime most of the time, your only way to go is the Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX unless you want to spring for the 35mm 1.2L.

For an all purpose zoom, it's either the Nikon 18-200mm (27-300mm effective) or IMO, the better option is the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 EF-S IS (27-88mm).

Unfortunately, I have very little experience doing macro so I can't comment too much on that. I know the Canon 100mms both L and non-L are good. I have done AF on macro and it works well for me although I'd bet that Nikon's AF system is slightly superior (unless you sprung for the 7D).

Edited June 1, 2011 by falkon

[Dreadhead]

not that I'm as experienced but mentioning macro the 105mm Nikon is an incredible lens.

Also the 18-55 Nikon kit lens is a good one in many people's opinions though it feels like a toy.

[Cankin]

not that I'm as experienced but mentioning macro the 105mm Nikon is an incredible lens.

x2

http://front4.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/Compare/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/261/(lens2)/340/(lens3)/346/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikkor/(brand2)/Zeiss/(brand3)/Canon

[morphsci]

I do a lot of macro imaging in my research and it was no contest going with a Nikon system. As mentioned the 105 is incredible and the 60mm still has the flattest field of any 35mm macro lens AFAIK.

[Asr]

Pics from my Memorial Day extended-weekend trip to NYC (5 days). The weather was perfectly sunny & warm and fortunately it never rained. Man, wish I lived in NYC - every time I go back, I love it more! Truly the greatest city on the planet. Didn't hit everything I wanted to see but did get to most - night view from the Empire State Building [1], Museum of Natural History [2], almost a full tour of Central Park [3], Ground Zero [4], the Brooklyn Bridge [5-6], Times Square [7-8], Park Row/City Hall [9], the High Line [10], evening cruise on the Circle Line 42 [11-12], and The Met [13]. The guys in pic #7 asked me to take a pic of them, so I did.

I took my D7000 w/ Nikon 16-85 and Tokina 11-16, the ultra wide-angle of the Tokina came in especially handy on a lot of shots. I took so many shots on this trip (over 800), I had to buy a new camera battery on the 4th day of the trip. Thank goodness for awesome stores in NYC like J&R. J&R was huge, wasn't expecting they'd take up an entire block!

Was such an awesomely fun trip I'm thinking about going back again this summer and already started checking flights....

(Un-modified in-camera JPGs; shot in RAW+JPG. Will post some pics from the RAWs later on.)

Edited June 1, 2011 by Asr

[Jon L]

A couple of heavily cropped shots today, not macro.

IMG_1559 by drjlo1, on Flickr

IMG_1526 by drjlo1, on Flickr

Edited June 3, 2011 by Jon L

[Iron_Dreamer]

I figured you were somewhere in that crowd shooting away, Jeff, while I watched the race on Speed. Nice for sure, much better shots than the ones you got last year.

As for Torpedo, I don't think you can go wrong with the top crop cameras from Nikon, Canon, or Pentax. It would be more about which lens system you want to buy into, and which control layout you prefer. As much as I love my D700, it is a committment, both in size to lug around, and cost. But if you want insane low-light capability and extremely malleable RAW files, there's nothing better for the price.

[Torpedo]

I figured you were somewhere in that crowd shooting away, Jeff, while I watched the race on Speed. Nice for sure, much better shots than the ones you got last year.

As for Torpedo, I don't think you can go wrong with the top crop cameras from Nikon, Canon, or Pentax. It would be more about which lens system you want to buy into, and which control layout you prefer. As much as I love my D700, it is a committment, both in size to lug around, and cost. But if you want insane low-light capability and extremely malleable RAW files, there's nothing better for the price.

Thanks for the comment. Now I have to do my homework and visit a few stores. Hopefully I can find some D700 to fiddle a bit with, so I know better how troublesome could be lugging around with it.

The more I consider it for size/cost/performance it seems the K-5 should be a terrific camera, but the glass availability here and its cost could be a problem. OTOH choices for macro photo seem to favor Nikon. Ah decisions

[revolink24]

What kind of macro photography are you planning on doing? I really enjoy my Pentax SMC 100mm WR f/2.8 Macro.

[Torpedo]

Shoots to show lesions inside the mouth, details from surgeries like the relations of a nerve with surrounding tissues... In the most demanding ones as if you wanted a stamp to fill the whole frame.

[revolink24]

The only issue I have with the Pentax is that the focus isn't internal, it gets around 70% longer when focused 1:1 vs. infinity. Other than that it's been great.

Something you might want to look for is a dedicated macro ring flash. Pentax sells one in the form of the AF160FC, but it is very expensive. Not sure what the other brands have to offer on that front, but it's something to keep in mind.