Got a Nikon? Share your thoughts and photos here or ask a question! (III)

afoton wrote in post #16649076
There is more to ISO than noise. There is loss of details and loss of dynamic range. D200 is best at ISO 100, I use it much higher if I have too. How far up you will go before some of the high ISO issues become too severe, depends on the picture and your expectations.

As you allready have the camera, I will advise you to do some tests yourself. That will probably teach you more about your camera than what you can read on the net.

Thank you for the reply, i was wondering if the D200 has any ability with ettr and higher Iso speeds that would sucsessfuly lower the noise, like being able to use a speed of 400-800Iso and through ettr and ec, actualy achieve an equaly clean file sutch as 100-200Iso, i know this is quite common and used susessfuly with canon cameras.

P.

S.n.a.f.u. wrote in post #16645435
Nikon menus suck...

I think you meant that you don't like them. to say they suck is falsehood. they are no harder to navigate than any other system out there

Pagman wrote in post #16650947
Thank you for the reply, i was wondering if the D200 has any ability with ettr and higher Iso speeds that would sucsessfuly lower the noise, like being able to use a speed of 400-800Iso and through ettr and ec, actualy achieve an equaly clean file sutch as 100-200Iso, i know this is quite common and used susessfuly with canon cameras.

Of course more exposure will make a high ISO exposure better. Remember that a +2-exposure at ISO 400, a +1-exposure at ISO 200 and a 0-exposure at ISO 100 actually is the same exposure, and the noise will be about the same. But ettr at ISO 100 will be even better. High ISO is not the source for noise, less exposure is the source. High ISO is just for amplifying a less exposure so it looks like a normal exposure.

Ettr is also the only way to keep the dynamic range, but that is the case for all value of ISO, so ISO 100 will allways be better, as long as you can use it (don't need smaller aperture and shorter shutter speed).

been a while since i've posted. Happy Chinese New Year!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/hyogen82/122426​99824/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/hyogen82/122422​72015/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/hyogen82/122422​68965/

afoton wrote in post #16652007
Of course more exposure will make a high ISO exposure better. Remember that a +2-exposure at ISO 400, a +1-exposure at ISO 200 and a 0-exposure at ISO 100 actually is the same exposure, and the noise will be about the same. But ettr at ISO 100 will be even better. High ISO is not the source for noise, less exposure is the source. High ISO is just for amplifying a less exposure so it looks like a normal exposure.

Ettr is also the only way to keep the dynamic range, but that is the case for all value of ISO, so ISO 100 will allways be better, as long as you can use it (don't need smaller aperture and shorter shutter speed).

Thank you for that, so if i select auto iso but keep it limited to 200 iso, and add 1 stop of + ec then this should provide about as clean and full dynamic range as possible in the camera?

P.

I was in a hurry to catch a beautiful sunset to test out my new "hipster" Nikon DF camera. I was slightly too late. The camera literally accidentally took an automatic hipster double exposure shot also.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/rodizzle/122545​53046/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/rodizzle/122544​17234/

Nice. That lens is absolute gold on a FF body for its price, isn't it?

Just got back from a short trip.

Taken looking down on the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon a few minutes after sunset. 30 second exposure at F16 and 200 ISO. Shot with a Nikon D600 and Samyang 35mm F1,4 lens.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …55229792@N03/12​255990304/

brettjrob wrote in post #16655458
Nice. That lens is absolute gold on a FF body for its price, isn't it?

It does absolutely great on both my DF and D800. I even sold my 16-35mm.

Hi! I currently shoot a Canon 40D. Mainly just family shots, vacations, etc. Most of my home shots are in less than desirable lighting. I also shoot my son's basketball and track events. Finally, my daughter's vocal music events are particularly challenging for me, with trying to shoot black dresses along with spotlighted faces. My lenses are the Canon 17-55 2.8 EF-S for home, travel, general use, and the Canon 100 2.0 for basketball and music events. Regarding general photography, I particularly struggle with outdoors, brightly lit high contrast scenes.

So, in replacing my camera, what I'm looking to improve is low light functionality as well as DR, without a stripped down AF system.

With Canon, in my price range, my choice looks to be either the 70D or the 6D. But, I sacrifice one of my priorities with either choice, and neither offers the DR of Nikon it seems.

On the Nikon side, would it be recommended that I go D7100 or D610? Also, can I get recommendations for a walk-around lens with adequate low light capability and an equivalent of my 100 2.0?

Thanks!

JH1984 wrote in post #16657520
Hi! I currently shoot a Canon 40D. Mainly just family shots, vacations, etc. Most of my home shots are in less than desirable lighting. I also shoot my son's basketball and track events. Finally, my daughter's vocal music events are particularly challenging for me, with trying to shoot black dresses along with spotlighted faces. My lenses are the Canon 17-55 2.8 EF-S for home, travel, general use, and the Canon 100 2.0 for basketball and music events. Regarding general photography, I particularly struggle with outdoors, brightly lit high contrast scenes.

So, in replacing my camera, what I'm looking to improve is low light functionality as well as DR, without a stripped down AF system.

With Canon, in my price range, my choice looks to be either the 70D or the 6D. But, I sacrifice one of my priorities with either choice, and neither offers the DR of Nikon it seems.

On the Nikon side, would it be recommended that I go D7100 or D610? Also, can I get recommendations for a walk-around lens with adequate low light capability and an equivalent of my 100 2.0?

Thanks!

The D610 all day. The 7100 is a great camera, but full frame is full frame for low light and better DR. You'll need to look at the 135mm F2 or the 100mm 2.8 VR.

smythie wrote in post #16651953
I think you meant that you don't like them. to say they suck is falsehood. they are no harder to navigate than any other system out there

You're completely right. to me they suck! I am not a Nikon person that doesn't meant the camera is any less competent because I don't like the menus or button layout.