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

KenjiS wrote in post #13871597
Bigger CF cards? USB 3.0 card reader? New computer?

-edit- Wait a minute, you're Tony flipping Stark, you have a flying suit of armor with freaking repulsor beams on it, you mean you cant make a 3D Holographic camera yet?!?!?!?!

monk3y wrote in post #13871609
at 75mb/NEF files... 8GB will only have like 100 shots

Im using 2 32GB CF cards so thats no issue, I also have a USB 3.0 card reader so thats 2/3 Im looking to update my 4 year old MBP sometime this year so that will be solved also

monk3y wrote in post #13872064
that's the 70-200mm VR1 in the pic though... hehe

The VR1 was a nice lens though...

jdizzle wrote in post #13868988
Really? Is it that good?

In a word, Yes.

jdizzle wrote in post #13868988
Really? Is it that good?

Here's a shot I have with a D7K+50/1.8 combo

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

^- like the bokeh out of that lens...

dgrPhotos wrote in post #13873558
Here's a shot I have with a D7K+50/1.8 combo

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

DGR_0099 by Mandrake Photography, on Flickr

Thanks Dan. That looks real good. I wonder how it will resolve the D800.

After a small sell off and two separate pre-orders for the Nikon D800E I have some decisions to make. I'm keeping my last two Canon lenses for now since I would hate to sell them off and then the 5D3 turns out to be a big hit. My only Nikon lens is my Micro-Nikkor and I plan on repurchasing the 50/1.8G. I want to be able to shoot some faster action scene's but I don't want to carry around the 70-200 VR II. That made me appreciate the 135/2 in the Canon world, plus I still prefer fast primes. Do I have to go back to the 70-200 or do I have another option? Decisions, decisions.

Some questions for people who have had the opportunity to use both Nikon and Canon lenses, between these which would you rate as better? Build and optics I mean...

14-24G vs. 16-35L II
24-70G vs. 24-70L (MK II not out yet so cant compare just yet)
70-200G II vs. 70-200L II
85 1.4G vs. Sigma 85 vs. Canon 85 1.2L II

Just curious. Not much resources on Youtube for that sake, and I dont want to bother local camera stores just yet

Tony_Stark wrote in post #13874994
Some questions for people who have had the opportunity to use both Nikon and Canon lenses, between these which would you rate as better? Build and optics I mean...

14-24G vs. 16-35L II
24-70G vs. 24-70L (MK II not out yet so cant compare just yet)
70-200G II vs. 70-200L II
85 1.4G vs. Sigma 85 vs. Canon 85 1.2L II

Just curious. Not much resources on Youtube for that sake, and I dont want to bother local camera stores just yet

I can't comment on the other lenses, but the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is sharper than the Canon version, particularly when wide open at 70mm. The build is very good for both manufacturers (a wash).

16-35G
24-120G
70-200 f/4L IS
85G

Thats my choices PERSONALLY if i could mix and match

The 85L is gorgeous dont get me wrong but id be happier with the Nikon, Cant tell you why because i dont know really...

Tony_Stark wrote in post #13874994
Some questions for people who have had the opportunity to use both Nikon and Canon lenses, between these which would you rate as better? Build and optics I mean...

14-24G vs. 16-35L II
24-70G vs. 24-70L (MK II not out yet so cant compare just yet)
70-200G II vs. 70-200L II
85 1.4G vs. Sigma 85 vs. Canon 85 1.2L II

Just curious. Not much resources on Youtube for that sake, and I dont want to bother local camera stores just yet

- I use the 16-35 F4 VR. It's sharp, has OS, and survives drops.
- The Nikon 24-70 walk all over the Canon for sharpness and focus accuracy. Absolutely spanks it. Also survives drops fine.
- I've used 70-200 V1 Canon, 70-200 V2 Nikon. Based on experience and what i've read they're roughly similar.
- Nikon 50mm F1.8 G vs Canon 50 F1.4/F1.8 - Nikon for sure, for sharpness and focusing ability. Build quality the Nikon is good for a cheap lens.

Overall I find pro grade Nikon lenses fast to focus, sharp, and robust. I have no regrets moving to Nikon, and it would take something earth shattering to make me move back, a massive change in Canons focus system and overall system quality.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #13874994
Some questions for people who have had the opportunity to use both Nikon and Canon lenses, between these which would you rate as better? Build and optics I mean...

14-24G vs. 16-35L II
24-70G vs. 24-70L (MK II not out yet so cant compare just yet)
70-200G II vs. 70-200L II
85 1.4G vs. Sigma 85 vs. Canon 85 1.2L II

Just curious. Not much resources on Youtube for that sake, and I dont want to bother local camera stores just yet

I've used them all, this is my opinion...

14-24G vs. 16-35L II = 14-24G sharper and less distortion but the 16-35 has the more user friendly range IMO.
24-70G vs. 24-70L = 24-70G and it's not even close
70-200G II vs. 70-200L II = Draw, both are great
85 1.4G vs. Sigma 85 vs. Canon 85 1.2L II = 85/1.2 IMO, the other two are comparable.

The only lens in this bunch I wouldn't want is the Canon 24-70L, all the others are really great optically.

I just traded my 16-35mm f/4 VR for a 24-70mm f/2.8G....

and I just realized how effective the VR on the 16-35mm f/4 is for inside shooting I may have been spoiled as I have not yet gotten a good shot with the 24-70mm at shutter speeds below 1/100 damn!!!

I need to try the lens out doors in the coming days...but so far it seems like a pretty nice lens hehe

monk3y wrote in post #13875163
I just traded my 16-35mm f/4 VR for a 24-70mm f/2.8G....

and I just realized how effective the VR on the 16-35mm f/4 is for inside shooting I may have been spoiled as I have not yet gotten a good shot with the 24-70mm at shutter speeds below 1/100 damn!!!

I need to try the lens out doors in the coming days...but so far it seems like a pretty nice lens hehe

Probably just need time to get use to it.

tim wrote in post #13871744
Nikon zooms are awesome. Primes not as awesome.

Check it out on the Nikon site, that's 14 bit uncompressed. You can go for 12 bit compressed which is around a third the size, from memory.

ahhh that's good to know hehe

dgrPhotos wrote in post #13875168
Probably just need time to get use to it.

yeap... I sold my 70-200mm VRII... the 16-35mm range without a partner is almost useless other than landscape so I traded it for a more useful but boring range

I will try and take it out later hehe