Jump to content
Top Shelf Aquatics

Roger's Nikon Adventure


TheKleinReef

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I've never attempted multiple exposures on my D800, but your image inspired me to try my hand at fine art.

 

i haven't tried to do it in camera. i used photoshop cs6 to do it.

i'm interested to see what you come up with. I like how the two pictures can tell a story when put together.

Link to comment

i haven't tried to do it in camera. i used photoshop cs6 to do it.

i'm interested to see what you come up with. I like how the two pictures can tell a story when put together.

 

I remember seeing one of your videos of you expressing your interest in photography, surely a D610 will aid in tapping into your creative side. Definitely try out the in-camera features.

 

I may need to setup a Flickr account soon! And eventually 500px.

Link to comment

 

I remember seeing one of your videos of you expressing your interest in photography, surely a D610 will aid in tapping into your creative side. Definitely try out the in-camera features.

 

I may need to setup a Flickr account soon! And eventually 500px.

 

it's trickier in camera, and i don't think it looks as good as when created with layer masks in CS6. i'll probably try it eventually though.

 

go Nikon! D610 is on my list to upgrade to when I go fx.

 

it's awesome! have you looked at the D750? ermahgerd.

Link to comment

yea, that sounds very nice but kind of pricey. i am hoping D610 will drop in price more now that D750 is out =P

 

i think it already dropped $100. but i can see it dropping a bit farther.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
Christopher Marks

Interesting results!

 

My Fujifilm X-T1 has an electronic viewfinder and a double exposure mode that I've been meaning to experiment with more. I gives you a live preview of the first exposure overlaying the viewfinder, so you can carefully frame the second exposure to match, and then it saves the two blended together.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
TheKleinReef

which lens do i want next?

 

70-200mm f2.8 VR II ($2500) mainly sport photography

20mm f1.8G ($800) landscapes & astro-photography

or

macro 105mm f2.8 ($900) macro

Link to comment
TheKleinReef

Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro Lens for Nikon $371

Hmm. I've seen a lot of other lenses that are comparable options to these nikon lenses. But the nikon fanboy inside of me would have trouble investing in other glass.

I'll have to do some real research on other brands before commiting.

Link to comment
TheKleinReef

 

what kills me with a lot of macro lenses, this one included, (and my 40mm macro), is that they're not internal-focused. the nikkor 105mm however, is.

I always end up hitting my tank glass with it, and i'd run into the same exact problem with this one. the fact that i can keep the camera right up to the glass and shoot 6"-12" away without having to worry about colliding with the glass is a huge perk to me...

 

although, the reviews are pretty good on this lens

Link to comment

Nikon makes a very nice lens. You'll have to decide if it's worth the 500+ extra dollars. With the 100mm, you might not feel the need to get so close to the front of the tank. Just thought it might save you some cash and give you comparable results (as it sounds like you have some more lenses to buy).

Link to comment

105mm - Unless you shoot a ton of macros (or portraits if you like that focal length) skip the 105, it's not that useful for much else and it's pretty pricey and the alternative options are much cheaper and very good.

 

20mm 1.8 - If you're going to go baller on a wide angle then go all the way and get the 14-24mm f2.8 - you don't need 1.8 for astro work.

 

70-200 VRII - how much sports stuff do you shoot to justify it? I have the 80-200mm f2.8 ($1000 vs 2500) and with the high ISO performance of modern cameras it works just fine to counteract VR since sport isn't my profession.

 

FWIW if I still used Nikon gear my lens combo would be:

 

14-24mm f2.8

50mm f1.4

90mm f2.8 (Tamron)

135mm f2 (a million times sexier than the 105mm IMO)

300m f2.8

 

I've not answered your question have I? The reason is because only you will know what you need next, what are you missing from your current set up? There needs to be a reason for buying a lens else it just ends up collecting dust. :)

 

All that being said I'd take the 70-200 if I was forced to choose one of those.

Link to comment
TheKleinReef

Nikon makes a very nice lens. You'll have to decide if it's worth the 500+ extra dollars. With the 100mm, you might not feel the need to get so close to the front of the tank. Just thought it might save you some cash and give you comparable results (as it sounds like you have some more lenses to buy).

 

This is true. but i do know that the 5" working distance with the 40mm isn't enough. Since i have a 20" deep tank and in most spots i have about 10" in between the glass and the closest rock/coral.

Link to comment
TheKleinReef

105mm - Unless you shoot a ton of macros (or portraits if you like that focal length) skip the 105, it's not that useful for much else and it's pretty pricey and the alternative options are much cheaper and very good.

 

macro is originally what got me into photography, and i always tend to gravitate towards it whenever i'm out shooting. that's why this lens is much more of a want than a need. :D

 

20mm 1.8 - If you're going to go baller on a wide angle then go all the way and get the 14-24mm f2.8 - you don't need 1.8 for astro work.

 

I thought about that i really did. that's also on my list, but it's more on the pricey side.

 

70-200 VRII - how much sports stuff do you shoot to justify it? I have the 80-200mm f2.8 ($1000 vs 2500) and with the high ISO performance of modern cameras it works just fine to counteract VR since sport isn't my profession.

 

well i'm a collegiate coach, and I'm surprised how much the media department needs me to get pictures. i have a 24-120 f4 now and it's just not doing the job well. my dad has the old 75-200m f2.8 (i think that's what it is, it's about 8 years old) and man that thing was really fun and easy to shoot with, i'm assuming the new 70-20mm f2.8 would be just as awesome.

 

FWIW if I still used Nikon gear my lens combo would be:

 

14-24mm f2.8

50mm f1.4

90mm f2.8 (Tamron)

135mm f2 (a million times sexier than the 105mm IMO) who makes this one?

300m f2.8

 

I've not answered your question have I? The reason is because only you will know what you need next, what are you missing from your current set up? There needs to be a reason for buying a lens else it just ends up collecting dust. :)

 

All that being said I'd take the 70-200 if I was forced to choose one of those.

 

i'm missing:

a wide angle lens for the sky

a crisp sport/performance lens

an FX macro lens. (the one i have now is DX and i find it annoying to work with a lot of the time).

 

thanks for all the input guys! it;s helping a lot! :D

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recommended Discussions


×
×
  • Create New...