Close-up filters
- Thread starter NTP66
- Start date
frankyrivera
FUP&A Member
I shoot using a nikon d7000 with the crop sensor and I love it great iso shots even at 1600 good size but once that big 2.8 lens goes on wether it's a portrait zoom or a macro it gets too heavy quick. It's got a great burst mode the body has motors for focus and the flash menus have commander mode built in. It does HD video while not the best but u can lol. Good luck and remember to spend your money on good glass
NTP66
New member
I know I took my own thread into a different direction, but while I'm here, is there any value to the SB-700 over the SB-400 from a purely amateur perspective? I only see using a flash in one instance - indoor family photos, and am not sure I need the power or flexibility of the SB-700. Am I being cheap? Maybe, but I figured I'd ask anyway.
That being said, I've also been looking at the Yongnuo YN-468 II and YN-565EX, both of which appear to be iTTL compatible. I'm only interested in using this as a pop-up flash replacement, and don't need commander/wireless capabilities.
That being said, I've also been looking at the Yongnuo YN-468 II and YN-565EX, both of which appear to be iTTL compatible. I'm only interested in using this as a pop-up flash replacement, and don't need commander/wireless capabilities.
Last edited:
Clamagore
New member
I'm with you, and it wasn't my intention to make a distinction between FX and DX. It's only that some of the newer consumer level DX cameras, which unfortunately don't offer the build quality or the features of the D300, are still what I recommend to novices. Like I said, the D300 is a fine camera, the best DX camera Nikon has ever made IMO, and it is capable of making superb images. Still, unless you need the features, construction, and greater lens compatibility (many people do, but most don't) the newer consumer level DX cameras simply offer better imaging technology, which can be especially valuable if you're dealing with weird lighting.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Clamgore:
The D7100 will take any lens that the D300 will take. It DOES have the AF servo, unlike the other Dx000 or Dx100 models.
It trumps the D300 in every category except for build quality and buffer. Nikon has positioned it oddly between the D300 and D600 with better features than both but a price tag close to a D90 or whatever. I am pretty much sold on getting one, but it begs the question why not just chomp down and move to the D600.
So they have priced a fairly high end camera at the prosumer price level that rivals many of their current and near current pro models. My only hesitation is the body style and build quality, but then again I have had a D50 since it was released and never put a mark on it.
The D7100 will take any lens that the D300 will take. It DOES have the AF servo, unlike the other Dx000 or Dx100 models.
It trumps the D300 in every category except for build quality and buffer. Nikon has positioned it oddly between the D300 and D600 with better features than both but a price tag close to a D90 or whatever. I am pretty much sold on getting one, but it begs the question why not just chomp down and move to the D600.
So they have priced a fairly high end camera at the prosumer price level that rivals many of their current and near current pro models. My only hesitation is the body style and build quality, but then again I have had a D50 since it was released and never put a mark on it.
Bill, like I said, most of my shooting is outdoors in any weather. I need a pro body with the better weather stripping and the ability to handle difficult situations. If you are indoors 90% of the time, and don't have to carry it through the jungle, it would probably be better to go to the 7100. Moving to the 600 takes more thought about what you shoot. Like I said though, I do believe the 6 and 700 allow you to shoot at a crop factor at higher FPS most likely because of the buffer. Also look into the build of the 600 before you jump. I had thought I heard when it came out it was geared as a consumer level FF.. Not that it may or may not matter to you.
frankyrivera
FUP&A Member
The 400 is too short plus the bounce capabilities are priceless. Ideally you want the flash as far away from the lens as possible. I would do the 700
NTP66
New member
I lost the long reply to this a few minutes ago, so here's the short version: I've narrowed it down to either the SB-700 or the Metz 52 AF-1, which I'm actually leaning towards. It's hard to find somebody who has owned both units that can compare the two, but Metz has been in the game for a long time, and German quality is a desirable feature to me. They're both basically the same price, so I really just have to pull the trigger on one...
Clamagore
New member
I know, the choice between the D7100 and D600 isn't simple, and Nikon certainly hasn't made it easy for the consumer. I think they want people to be confused.
A few years ago, my motivation to switch to FX was driven mainly by two things. The first was low-light/high-ISO performance, but these days, the difference between FX and DX isn't what it used to be, and DX has little to apologize for. The other was to take full advantage of the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 and 85 f/1.4 lenses, two of my all-time favorites. I think the latter scenario"”the desire to use certain full-frame lenses and maximize their intended use"”has remained one of the most relevant factors when deciding between FX and DX. Now, in terms of aquarium photography... for any given macro lens, the 24MP DX camera can be used to create more tightly-cropped shots compared to the 24MP FX camera.
I think if I was starting out today, with a stronger interest in macro/aquarium photography than portrait, landscape, and ultra wide-angle photography"”and didn't want to spend a ridiculous sum"”the D7100 would be my choice. On the other hand, if macro/aquarium photography was super important to me and I wanted the best results, I'd try to find some way to justify a D800.
I really didn't care for the 14-24 that I had. Does your's feel like sand is in the gears when you zoom? I also didn't like how they "fisheyed" the front lens, though I've seen there's a mount for adding filters now. It was very sharp though. Since I'm crop body, I went with the Tokina 12-24 f4. It really is a sweet little lens.
You need to post some of your stuff. We don't only post fish stuff here.
Clamagore
New member
I haven't had any problems with mine, but I have read about some lenses binding up, so I'm not surprised. Sorry you had grit in yours, bummer.
For me, it's the lens that helps create my favorite images, and the main reason I bought an FX camera. I never travel without it! While I haven't posted anything to Flickr in a while, if you're interested, here are links to my photostream and a set of 14-24 images...
all photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/factisfiction/
14-24:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/factisfiction/sets/72157630737248016/
frankyrivera
FUP&A Member
Holy crap your an artist with a lens
Clamagore
New member
Thanks for the compliments! As a creative outlet, photography has been a tremendously rewarding hobby, and keeping a reef tank appeals to me in a similar way. I think it’s the art/science connection and the use of composition, light, and color. Either way, since I’m only filling my tank this week, what a loooong way I have to go!
Clamagore
New member
One of a close-up lens' shortcomings, especially a simple one, is that it will produce more chromatic aberration (CA), which you can see at the light/dark transition zones.
But with this image, the depth of field is extremely shallow--maybe a couple millimeters? Even with a world-class macro lens, most of the image would still be blurry. If you can stop-down the aperture more, you'll increase the depth of field and cut back on the CA.
But with this image, the depth of field is extremely shallow--maybe a couple millimeters? Even with a world-class macro lens, most of the image would still be blurry. If you can stop-down the aperture more, you'll increase the depth of field and cut back on the CA.
NTP66
New member
Yeah, I was shooting at f/5.6 because I was in a bit of a time crunch. The CA I'm not terribly worried about because there are a number of ways to correct it. I took a few other shots at f/9, but they weren't very sharp. I wasn't expecting much, so if I can grab some better shots with a little more time, great. If not, no big deal.
Similar threads
