The Photographers' Corner 2013-2020

[Walt34]

I've been kicking around the idea of renting a Nikon D610 or D800 and a full-frame lens just to see what the difference would be to my D7000 and the DX (crop frame) lenses I have. The larger camera and lens would also be heavier to carry around and that is a factor too. Not to mention the cost.

While DW doesn't have much interest in photography itself she indulges my gear expenses because she loves the results I get at family gatherings and the ability to retouch if needed. But when I mention the cost of the full-frame cameras a I hear "Hmm...."

Has anyone else used both crop frame and full frame cameras and seen a difference that makes the extra expense worthwhile?

 

[seraphim]

Can't help you there, Walt. Never used a full frame digital camera.

 

[Walt34]

Since it was raining for most of the day I found something else to play with. It took 40+ tries with different lighting but I got the "sorta Twilight Zone" effect I was looking for, or perhaps a time warp as in Stargate. One SB-900 on each end of the plastic slinky and -1 with the on-camera flash to light up some shadows.

It took a little gaffer's tape to hold the slinky in place.

 

[mathjak107]

I've been kicking around the idea of renting a Nikon D610 or D800 and a full-frame lens just to see what the difference would be to my D7000 and the DX (crop frame) lenses I have. The larger camera and lens would also be heavier to carry around and that is a factor too. Not to mention the cost.

While DW doesn't have much interest in photography itself she indulges my gear expenses because she loves the results I get at family gatherings and the ability to retouch if needed. But when I mention the cost of the full-frame cameras a I hear "Hmm...."

Has anyone else used both crop frame and full frame cameras and seen a difference that makes the extra expense worthwhile?

the full frame is nice for wide angle shots , the dx is better when we go to the zoo.

marilyn uses a d7000 and i the d800. most of the time we can't tell who took what.

 

[Walt34]

marilyn uses a d7000 and i the d800. most of the time we can't tell who took what.

Thank you. I'll stick with the D7000 then. Or perhaps talk myself into the successor to the D7100.

 

[seraphim]

The Photographers' Corner



Glacier NP

 

[seraphim]

The Photographers' Corner

Since it was raining for most of the day I found something else to play with. It took 40+ tries with different lighting but I got the "sorta Twilight Zone" effect I was looking for, or perhaps a time warp as in Stargate. One SB-900 on each end of the plastic slinky and -1 with the on-camera flash to light up some shadows.

It took a little gaffer's tape to hold the slinky in place.

Lol I'm enjoying these fun experiments you're doing...

 

[explanade]

Thank you. I'll stick with the D7000 then. Or perhaps talk myself into the successor to the D7100.

Rumors of a D7200 later this year.

Also would be leery about buying the D610 because the D600/D610 design is coming up on 2 years so it may also have a successor soon.

D5300 has the same sensor as the D7100, but it's not as prosumer as the D7100 so it won't focus with the older Nikkor lenses nor does it have all the physical controls. You have to go into the menus.

I may get the D5300 to use for couple of years. Maybe by then Nikon will have something like the Sony A7.

 

[Major Tom]

Although I haven't used a full-frame DSLR, my sense is that unless there is a specific reason for wanting full-frame, you're not significantly better off with one.

Possible advantages to full-frame include -

-The ability to print at greater sizes
-The ability to crop more
-The slightly better high iso performance - although this depends on which camera you are comparing it with. APS-C sensors are far from shabby in this regard, and are getting better and better
-The fact that you can get a wider angle of view with your full-frame lenses on a full-frame than on an APS-C body
-The slightly more limited depth of field for a given aperture (if you consider this an advantage)

I think that full-frame bodies were thought of as more of a holy grail before it became apparent that APS-C sensors were becoming pretty darned good. Just my POV, of course, and I'd welcome any other perspectives.

 

[Major Tom]

Also would be leery about buying the D610 because the D600/D610 design is coming up on 2 years so it may also have a successor soon.

This sort of stuff does my head in when I'm deciding what and when to buy. The nice thing is that whatever you get will make images every bit as good in 5 years as it does now. The Canon 20D that I bought in 2005 still works just as well as it did when I first got it. It has been superseded many times since, but the fact that my photo portfolio is mediocre at best has nothing to do with the camera and everything to do with me

 

[explanade]

Oh the D610 gets good reviews. I'm sure it's fine enough.

I wish it had a better focusing system than the D7000 though. The D7100 does, getting the focusing system from the D4.


As for FX in general, the DR and low light performance is still better than DX. But I've also heard comments like you need good technique to get results from FX, so things like using tripods, hyper focal manual focusing, etc.

The D800E is sometimes compared to medium format. Well it's not as big and heavy but the comparison suggests that it's for a deliberate, planned-out type of photography.

 

[seraphim]

The Photographers' Corner

Still using a D200, point and shoot, and iPhone. Might be nice for the improved tech, but still not necessary... It's all in the eye. One has to visualize the image they want...



There's a little resort east of Fairbanks, and they keep these ice sculptures in a refrigerated building. They even have rooms with ice beds lol.

Two highlights closest to edge and the lowest highLight need to be burned in, maybe cropped out - they're too distracting

And if you look in the mirror, you can see the beast - having a martini...

 

[Ronstar]

The Photographers' Corner

Lol I'm enjoying these fun experiments you're doing...

+1. Walt's experiments are turning out some great shots that are very unique.

 

[mathjak107]

Oh the D610 gets good reviews. I'm sure it's fine enough.

I wish it had a better focusing system than the D7000 though. The D7100 does, getting the focusing system from the D4.


As for FX in general, the DR and low light performance is still better than DX. But I've also heard comments like you need good technique to get results from FX, so things like using tripods, hyper focal manual focusing, etc.

The D800E is sometimes compared to medium format. Well it's not as big and heavy but the comparison suggests that it's for a deliberate, planned-out type of photography.

i find i can run my d800 up to 3200 iso before i can see a big difference in noise and sharpness compared to iso 1600 on the d7000 before we look the same. not a big difference in low light ability between the two but enough to make a difference.

after that point it is variable as to subject , lighting and background as to what you get.

but if i use auto iso i max it at 3200 on the d800 and 1600 on the d7000.

 

[Walt34]

This sort of stuff does my head in when I'm deciding what and when to buy. The nice thing is that whatever you get will make images every bit as good in 5 years as it does now.

That's the thing too. I've not come near exhausting the capabilities of the gear I have. And I keep a Sony Betamax in the basement solely to remind myself not to go chasing the latest gizmos. Perhaps I'd best go take another look at it.

mathjak, I've also concluded that ISO 1600 is the practical limit for the D7000. By the time the noise is taken out too much detail is gone.

 

[Nodak]

I can't take credit for any of these pics but they are so good I had to post this.
30 Photos Of North Dakota That Will Make You Want To Move There

 

[Major Tom]

mathjak, I've also concluded that ISO 1600 is the practical limit for the D7000. By the time the noise is taken out too much detail is gone.

For the sake of providing an alternate viewpoint, I sometimes wonder if we photographers (pros and enthusiasts alike) put more stock in certain things than the average viewer does. While digital noise in images is not as unattractive as it used to be, I agree that it doesn't look as nice as does grain in film. Having said that, I wonder if we think about noise too much. If you're shooting in a low light situation at high ISO, it's quite possible that it's presence could even add some ambience or at least, IMO, not detract from the image.

This picture was taken in the fairly low light of a bar. It was shot at 1600 ISO on a Canon 20D - a crop camera with an APS-C size sensor. On top of that, the camera is 9 years old and has old sensor technology. Granted, it's not a 100% full-size image, so benefits from the noise reduction that happens when you downsize an image for the web. I admit that I'm making this point rather sloppily by not posting a 100% crop, but my general point is that here is an image shot at 1600 ISO from a 9 year-old camera (with older technology in the sensor) and to my eyes, it looks fine -

This camera probably has about the same amount of noise at 1600 ISO that a modern body does at, say, 6400 or even 12800 ISO. That was a wild guess. Perhaps someone else knows from experience how much of a difference in stops there is between the maximum usable ISO of older cameras vs the modern ones?

On this body, the noise at 3200 ISO is very noticeable but, depending on the image, still not objectionable. It tends to look pretty good in black and white, of course.

In other words, what I'm saying Walt, is that if you leave the noise in, you get to keep the detail as well, and maybe the whole combination won't look that bad? Just a thought, and I hope I'm not being objectionable.

 

[Major Tom]

A few years ago, a friend of mine wanted a headshot. She is a DJ at a local station, a pursuit that she absolutely loves. She's a bit of a music nerd, and a happy soul. I wanted to shoot her in the control room of the station, surrounded by all the equipment, and create a sense that she was in her element and completely happy there - surrounded by the thing she loves doing.

It's not an approach that I'd normally use for a portrait, but I rented an extreme wide-angle lens so that the station equipment would almost look it was wrapped around her. IIRC, it was a full-frame 8mm lens and even on the crop body I was using, gave a very wide angle effect. It did caricaturize her features somewhat but I think it did so in an appealing way and even more important - she liked the picture. To me, she looks like a happy music geek, completely in her element.

There are only two things I'm not completely crazy about in this shot. Firstly, I have never been able to get exactly the black and white conversion that I wanted. The distribution of tones looks a bit lacklustre to my eyes, and not quite crisp and punchy enough. Secondly, this was shot with the lighting already present in the control room. It's not bad, but I wouldn't mind trying it again with some strobist techniques - perhaps with the light focused mainly on the subject and less so on her surrounding environment, for a slightly more dramatic effect.

Aaah well - I will never, ever take the perfect photo!

 

[Walt34]

In other words, what I'm saying Walt, is that if you leave the noise in, you get to keep the detail as well, and maybe the whole combination won't look that bad? Just a thought, and I hope I'm not being objectionable.

Not objectionable at all! What we all want is perfect clarity at ISO 10 million. And we won't be happy until we get it.

Seriously, I think digital cameras are terrific. I remember shooting with Kodachrome 25. And now we complain about a bit of noise at 1600.

 

[Walt34]

There are only two things I'm not completely crazy about in this shot. Firstly, I have never been able to get exactly the black and white conversion that I wanted. The distribution of tones looks a bit lacklustre to my eyes, and not quite crisp and punchy enough. Secondly, this was shot with the lighting already present in the control room. It's not bad, but I wouldn't mind trying it again with some strobist techniques - perhaps with the light focused mainly on the subject and less so on her surrounding environment, for a slightly more dramatic effect.

Given the objective and the constraints you had to work with I think it came out great. Can't help with the punchiness on the B&W since I'm not very good at that either. Re highlighting her, how about the radial filter in LR or a similar effect in Photoshop? Almost a vignette effect, but not as pronounced.

 

[Walt34]

Shot some at the railroad roundhouse in Martinsburg, WV, one of the few remaining. Locally it is something that many people are trying to preserve but of course money is tight.

And tried to do one in B&W. Playing with the color sliders in LR does a lot with the B&W.

 

[seraphim]

The Photographers' Corner

Not objectionable at all! What we all want is perfect clarity at ISO 10 million. And we won't be happy until we get it.

Seriously, I think digital cameras are terrific. I remember shooting with Kodachrome 25. And now we complain about a bit of noise at 1600.

+1

How many of us shoot for prints anymore, anyway? And I can't remember the last time I shot anything other ISO 100. I was just lamenting that GIMP doesn't have a CYMK mode, then realized I really don't need it, anymore.

Tom makes an excellent point.

 

[seraphim]

 

[Walt34]

View attachment 18755

A bit darker and it'd be a good opening for a horror movie set in the South. At least that's my first impression.

 

[Major Tom]

Shot some at the railroad roundhouse in Martinsburg, WV, one of the few remaining. Locally it is something that many people are trying to preserve but of course money is tight.

And tried to do one in B&W. Playing with the color sliders in LR does a lot with the B&W.

Those are interesting. The relatively limited color palette almost makes them look like a color illustration from a book. Did you use HDR at all, or some other post-processing technique?

They look very much like the pictures of buildings you would see in an archival database. Good job!