[panicos81]

hey guys quick question here cause i'm a bit confused.

i've been reading around reviews for a wide angle lens as you may remember from a thread i did and the question is:

the Tokina lens is made for the DX camera and is 11-16mm

the Nikon 14-24mm which is made for the FX does it mean that the equivalent on the DX camera would make it 21-36mm? i mean do they rate it depending on the camera that is supposed to be used? on an FX the tokina would be 7.3-10.6? i'm lost!

[oneintheory]

crop factors are always added on top of zoom. lens zoom is always rated truly, afaik. that'd mean you multiply the upper and lower ends of the zoom range by the crop factor and you have your number. if the tokina is a crop body lens you can't use it on a full frame camera.

[panicos81]

Originally Posted by oneintheory

crop factors are always added on top of zoom. lens zoom is always rated truly, afaik. that'd mean you multiply the upper and lower ends of the zoom range by the crop factor and you have your number. if the tokina is a crop body lens you can't use it on a full frame camera.

so i got it right then. on a DX camera, the tokina is 11-16mm and the Nikon is 21-36 (14-24 x 1.5 crop)

[vachss]

Originally Posted by panicos81

so i got it right then. on a DX camera, the tokina is 11-16mm and the Nikon is 21-36 (14-24 x 1.5 crop)

Nope. Crop factors don't get included in the focal length stated on the lens. The 11-16 has a focal length range of 11mm to 16mm whatever camera body you put it on and the 14-24 similarly has a range of 14mm to 24mm, regardless of body. That said, on a DX body (1.5x in the Nikon world) these lenses will provide the field of view equivalent to that which a 17-24mm and a 21-36mm lens, respectively, would provide on a full frame body.

[The1]

Originally Posted by khaye1

^^ NICE!



thanks...here's the first shot at 100% crop

definitely looks like the sharpness of a 70-200 F4 how are you enjoying it?

And for those chatting about the F4 VS the F2.8, I currently own both (though this is temporary) there is a massive weight difference, but what i didn't realize is that there's a massive size difference. on the shelf they don't look too different, but in the camera bag, it definitely displaces one or two other lenses. So in some ways it makes the camera bag lighter by removing other lenses.

I will not but this lens around my neck, i don't need the back problems, but when it is over my shoulder on a shoulder strap, I don't notice it.

Most of my lenses are 2.8, so i've become spoiled by being able to shoot wider open then F4.

The 2.8 is also nice to have in conjunction with all the other 2.8s because if i'm switching lenses and need to keep a similar exposure, i don't have to make major adjustments, just tweeks here and there. This also carries over to post processing.

I love my F4, but, I didn't use it because i couldn't achieve what i wanted with it, which i could with my 24-70 lens, I wanted something that would compliment it, not fight it.

Also, i never would have bought one new.... the price is brutal!!!

[M_Six]

I get into work this morning and before I even sit at my desk I look out the window and see this really cute blonde walking across the street right towards me wearing a very short, very low cut black cocktail dress. The classic LBD. Way too early in the AM for any formal functions and there's no way she'd be wearing that to class, so I'm thinking she's on her way back to the sorority house after spending the night elsewhere. It was 55F and windy this morning, too, so it must have been a cold walk. My camera was buried in my backpack, so no way to get a pic before she walked out of sight.

Then just a few minutes ago I was walking back from lunch and I saw this nerdy looking kid with a camera around his neck. I saw another cute blonde walking towards him and sure enough, he asked her to pose. I'm thinking she's going to tell him to go pound sand, but no, she starts posing for him right there on the sidewalk.

Maybe I need to wear my camera around my neck more often.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

...
Then just a few minutes ago I was walking back from lunch and I saw this nerdy looking kid with a camera around his neck. I saw another cute blonde walking towards him and sure enough, he asked her to pose. I'm thinking she's going to tell him to go pound sand, but no, she starts posing for him right there on the sidewalk.

Maybe I need to wear my camera around my neck more often.

Carrying a camera is almost like carrying around a guitar case, IME. They initiate contact and start asking what your doing, etc., etc.

If you want to really excite the ladies carry a 500mm lens on a professional looking camera. They ALWAYS comment and want to know what you do with that thing. I'm now convinced that there are genetic markers that draw the ladies to "big equipment."

Dave

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by khaye1

thanks...here's the first shot at 100% crop

It IS very nicely detailed, BUT it'd be even better if you'd shot it at +100 to +200EV and then pulled the levels down in RAW conversion. The further right on the histogram that you expose, without blowing out details, the more dynamic range and details you will preserve.

Dave

[khaye1]

Ahhh, I remember you mentioning that...I'll keep that in mind next time I go out. So +1 on the exposure comp meter then bring it down n pp? I don't fiddle much with post...right now I'm just using iPhoto to make minor adjustment, I do have pixelmator but I haven't played with it as much. Any tips would be great

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by khaye1

Ahhh, I remember you mentioning that...I'll keep that in mind next time I go out. So +1 on the exposure comp meter then bring it down n pp? I don't fiddle much with post...right now I'm just using iPhoto to make minor adjustment, I do have pixelmator but I haven't played with it as much. Any tips would be great

I don't use iPhoto, but I can't imagine that it doesn't allow you to pull the overall level down.

Now keep in mind, I'm really talking about shooting in RAW for maximum dynamic range. If you're shooting straight to jpeg, then you can't push things as far as I do. Your images are good enough that you should really consider shooting in RAW if you don't already.

Shooting in RAW you gain a stop or two of dynamic range, total white balance flexibility and much more flexibility in post processing. By PP, I mean either just RAW conversion in a software like Lightroom, DxO or Digital Photo Pro. I just set levels, contrast and the RGB curve and then crop. Lots of people do way more in Photoshop, but many just do their RAW conversion and that's it.

For nature shots, if you enter contests, you're not allowed to manipulate the image by cloning out stuff you don't want and adding other things, like a light in the eye. So, if you think that you might enter contests in the future, then you minimize your modifications to your nature shots.

Dave

[khaye1]

iPhoto allows you to manipulate the histogram a bit and the exposure levels but I really need to get my hands on lightroom...I shoot raw every now and then but mostly jpeg just because I don't process nearly enough.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by khaye1

iPhoto allows you to manipulate the histogram a bit and the exposure levels but I really need to get my hands on lightroom...I shoot raw every now and then but mostly jpeg just because I don't process nearly enough.

I was much the same and then ended up with a couple of jpegs that I really, really wanted to fix and I couldn't. After that, I established a routine and do everything in RAW and consider the conversion process part of the shoot. I don't regret it at all.

Dave

[scollins]

I shoot RAW+JPEG most of the time, unless I'm worried about capacity. By doing both, I can quickly review the images for focus, composition, etc. via JPEG on my computer. I delete the bad/unsalvageable JPEGs, or key on the RAW files with the most potential. This is particularly helpful when I'm shooting action at 9FPS....

[Weebl]

Originally Posted by khaye1

iPhoto allows you to manipulate the histogram a bit and the exposure levels but I really need to get my hands on lightroom...I shoot raw every now and then but mostly jpeg just because I don't process nearly enough.

If you have kids or are a student then you can get the student pricing direct from Adobe.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by scollins

I shoot RAW+JPEG most of the time, unless I'm worried about capacity. By doing both, I can quickly review the images for focus, composition, etc. via JPEG on my computer. I delete the bad/unsalvageable JPEGs, or key on the RAW files with the most potential. This is particularly helpful when I'm shooting action at 9FPS....

I do the same thing for the same reasons except I don't save any of the in-camera jpegs. Because I "expose right" most are over exposed.

Dave

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by scollins

I shoot RAW+JPEG most of the time, unless I'm worried about capacity. By doing both, I can quickly review the images for focus, composition, etc. via JPEG on my computer. I delete the bad/unsalvageable JPEGs, or key on the RAW files with the most potential. This is particularly helpful when I'm shooting action at 9FPS....

Your camera will shoot 9FPS at RAW+JPEG? I stopped shooting RAW+JPEG because the camera would bog down after just three quick shots.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Your camera will shoot 9FPS at RAW+JPEG? I stopped shooting RAW+JPEG because the camera would bog down after just three quick shots.

The card and the camera have a huge impact on the point where you'll bog. I use a PhotoFast 533x GMonster with my 7D. I've never counted, but I'll often shoot in bursts of three or four and it's usually two or three bursts in before it starts to bog.

Dave

[scollins]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Your camera will shoot 9FPS at RAW+JPEG? I stopped shooting RAW+JPEG because the camera would bog down after just three quick shots.

Nikon D3 with Sandisk Extreme III (30 MB/s) cards baby!

I can run off 15 shots before it bogs down. I could have had the internal buffer upgraded ($500, ouch, but no longer offered) or maybe get some faster cards to help that along.

CF cards are running upwards of 100 MB/s now, with more affordable cards running twice the speed of my current EXIII's. But a 32GB 90 MB/s Sandisk CF is $500! The 128 GB 100MB/s Sandisk is $1,500! My camera won't support a 128GB card though, it maxes at 64GB. I usually use 8GB cards, but I might jump up to 16GB cards to get that 90 MB/s speed. I wonder if I can test one at the camera store to see how much it improves the performance.

But oddly enough, it still only runs 15 RAWs alone before bogging down too.

[oneintheory]

i have 2 16GB Sandisk Extremes at 60 mb/s and an 8GB at 60 mb/s, and i had zero issues shooting sports. i rarely shot in raw+jpeg, but i could do a 15 shot burst with my 7D. obviously jpegs were no issue at all, you can shoot until the card fills.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by scollins

Nikon D3 with Sandisk Extreme III (30 MB/s) cards baby!

I can run off 15 shots before it bogs down. I could have had the internal buffer upgraded ($500, ouch, but no longer offered) or maybe get some faster cards to help that along.

CF cards are running upwards of 100 MB/s now, with more affordable cards running twice the speed of my current EXIII's. But a 32GB 90 MB/s Sandisk CF is $500! The 128 GB 100MB/s Sandisk is $1,500! My camera won't support a 128GB card though, it maxes at 64GB. I usually use 8GB cards, but I might jump up to 16GB cards to get that 90 MB/s speed. I wonder if I can test one at the camera store to see how much it improves the performance.

But oddly enough, it still only runs 15 RAWs alone before bogging down too.

Ah, well the D3 is light years ahead of my T1i. I use Class10 16GB cards. And now with the codec to allow Windows Explorer to display RAW files, it's not such a big deal.

Originally Posted by oneintheory

i have 2 16GB Sandisk Extremes at 60 mb/s and an 8GB at 60 mb/s, and i had zero issues shooting sports. i rarely shot in raw+jpeg, but i could do a 15 shot burst with my 7D. obviously jpegs were no issue at all, you can shoot until the card fills.

Yeah, the 7D has dual processors, right? Another reason to move up to a better body.

[oneintheory]

yeah, dual Digic IVs, if i'm not mistaken.



i want to sell my 1DiiN. i haven't even used it in a while, and i want a 1Diii.

[Weebl]

Mark,
I will use the cheaper Sandisks (up to 30mb/s) and bang away till the buffer is full ~17 shots on high speed plane passes. It takes a good 10+ seconds to fully empty it and I can resume taking shots as the buffer clears. This is with a 40D. I read something once, that appeared to me the biggest difference in speed for cards was downloading them to a computer and that the speed from camera to card was not as great. They tested quite a few different cards in the test.