Forum
»
More General Categories
»
Misc.
» Official Misc Photography Crew, Part V "Do you even shoot?"
04-01-2017, 11:22 AM
#1831
Well, I now have a dilemma/decision to make. So, my insurance is going to cover my stolen gear (Nikon D750, 24-120mm, & 70-200 f/2.8) minus the $1k deductible. I could just re-purchase what I had as I was completely happy with it. I'm no pro and only shoot my kids sports (volleyball, softball, soccer) and family chit. However, with Nikon's D500 now out I'm starting to re-think that.
When I bought the D750, I thought that going to fx would have more advantages than what I'm actually realizing. So, going to a crop sensor shouldn't be that big of a deal. Picking up the faster shot rate I would probably like more than the downfalls of the crop sensor. You agree?
Now, as I'm looking, the Canon 7d mkii is pretty similar to the d500. Most reviews have the d500 winning by a pretty wide margin, but at a pretty large cost (money wise).
So, are the advances in the D500 worth the extra $500? (can actually pick up the 7d at a $1k savings from grey market sites).
When I bought the D750, I thought that going to fx would have more advantages than what I'm actually realizing. So, going to a crop sensor shouldn't be that big of a deal. Picking up the faster shot rate I would probably like more than the downfalls of the crop sensor. You agree?
Now, as I'm looking, the Canon 7d mkii is pretty similar to the d500. Most reviews have the d500 winning by a pretty wide margin, but at a pretty large cost (money wise).
So, are the advances in the D500 worth the extra $500? (can actually pick up the 7d at a $1k savings from grey market sites).
You don't have to be great to start, but you have to start to be great.
Quote
04-01-2017, 03:15 PM
#1832
Originally Posted By litljay⏩
*disclaimer: i dont own a d500, im a d800 owner, but I follow the nikon DSLRlens tech and news closely*
Well, I now have a dilemma/decision to make. So, my insurance is going to cover my stolen gear (Nikon D750, 24-120mm, & 70-200 f/2.8) minus the $1k deductible. I could just re-purchase what I had as I was completely happy with it. I'm no pro and only shoot my kids sports (volleyball, softball, soccer) and family chit. However, with Nikon's D500 now out I'm starting to re-think that.
When I bought the D750, I thought that going to fx would have more advantages than what I'm actually realizing. So, going to a crop sensor shouldn't be that big of a deal. Picking up the faster shot rate I would probably like more than the downfalls of the crop sensor. You agree?
Now, as I'm looking, the Canon 7d mkii is pretty similar to the d500. Most reviews have the d500 winning by a pretty wide margin, but at a pretty large cost (money wise).
So, are the advances in the D500 worth the extra $500? (can actually pick up the 7d at a $1k savings from grey market sites).
When I bought the D750, I thought that going to fx would have more advantages than what I'm actually realizing. So, going to a crop sensor shouldn't be that big of a deal. Picking up the faster shot rate I would probably like more than the downfalls of the crop sensor. You agree?
Now, as I'm looking, the Canon 7d mkii is pretty similar to the d500. Most reviews have the d500 winning by a pretty wide margin, but at a pretty large cost (money wise).
So, are the advances in the D500 worth the extra $500? (can actually pick up the 7d at a $1k savings from grey market sites).
My thoughts based upon "only shoot my kids sports and family chit":
- get a d500
- superior sensor tech
- superior autofocus system (both faster and more accurate)
- superior FPS (10 fps vs 6.5fps, almost in the league of pro sports tog DSLRs like D5)
- flash sync port
- NFC
- Bluetooth
- illuminated buttons
- x1.5 crop factor of DX gives more focal length out of your telephoto lenses
D750 will have a bit more dynamic range and slightly cleaner images in theory at high ISO and I believe is a better camera for video.
For your key needs - high fps, excellent AF, etc, I'd go with the D500 every day of the week. As for lenses, again based upon your described needs, I'd grab a 35mm 1.8 nikkor prime (very cheap and excellent) for family stuff and maybe a 50mm OR 85mm prime also for headshots and then spend the rest of your budget on the best zoom telephoto lens you can buy for the money as that seems to be where you get the most usage.
If anything is unclear or you'd like more opinions just let me know.
edit: I plan on buying a D500 as my 2nd body once I can justify "needing" it
04-02-2017, 02:55 PM
#1833
Originally Posted By havoNI⏩
Yeah but with the DR in that scene, there isn't a raw file in a world that would have pulled the highlights all the way down. I took a total of 5 exposures, and blended 3 just for the dynamic range I did have (Canon 6D).
Sounds like you did what you could within the restraints of the scene and your printing requirements, which is fair enough you can't magic away a woodland, just showing what I'd have done myself more in regards to framing. The points on post being taking too far is definitely true but with a solid original RAW file you can get the most out of an image and make it shine whilst keeping it looking real and not overcooked.
Architectural and Interiors Photography | Fine Art Landscapes
| www.codylere.com | instagram.com/codylerephoto
-SP-
*Misc Photography Crew*
- M0tibation
- dis' gon b gud
-
- M0tibation
- dis' gon b gud
- Join Date: Mar 2010
- Location: Rapid City, South Dakota, United States
- Posts: 4,433
- Rep Power: 36,403
-
04-02-2017, 08:32 PM
#1834
Misc photography crew
Chicago crew
Polski crew
Throw keys on bench to claim it crew
6'2" 193lbs crew
#MMGA
- LieutenantGains
- Registered User
-
- LieutenantGains
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2013
- Posts: 6,303
- Rep Power: 84,603
-
04-02-2017, 08:58 PM
#1835
Originally Posted By havoNI⏩
Thank you.
*disclaimer: i dont own a d500, im a d800 owner, but I follow the nikon DSLRlens tech and news closely*
My thoughts based upon "only shoot my kids sports and family chit":
- get a d500
- superior sensor tech
- superior autofocus system (both faster and more accurate)
- superior FPS (10 fps vs 6.5fps, almost in the league of pro sports tog DSLRs like D5)
- flash sync port
- NFC
- Bluetooth
- illuminated buttons
- x1.5 crop factor of DX gives more focal length out of your telephoto lenses
D750 will have a bit more dynamic range and slightly cleaner images in theory at high ISO and I believe is a better camera for video.
For your key needs - high fps, excellent AF, etc, I'd go with the D500 every day of the week. As for lenses, again based upon your described needs, I'd grab a 35mm 1.8 nikkor prime (very cheap and excellent) for family stuff and maybe a 50mm OR 85mm prime also for headshots and then spend the rest of your budget on the best zoom telephoto lens you can buy for the money as that seems to be where you get the most usage.
If anything is unclear or you'd like more opinions just let me know.
edit: I plan on buying a D500 as my 2nd body once I can justify "needing" it
My thoughts based upon "only shoot my kids sports and family chit":
- get a d500
- superior sensor tech
- superior autofocus system (both faster and more accurate)
- superior FPS (10 fps vs 6.5fps, almost in the league of pro sports tog DSLRs like D5)
- flash sync port
- NFC
- Bluetooth
- illuminated buttons
- x1.5 crop factor of DX gives more focal length out of your telephoto lenses
D750 will have a bit more dynamic range and slightly cleaner images in theory at high ISO and I believe is a better camera for video.
For your key needs - high fps, excellent AF, etc, I'd go with the D500 every day of the week. As for lenses, again based upon your described needs, I'd grab a 35mm 1.8 nikkor prime (very cheap and excellent) for family stuff and maybe a 50mm OR 85mm prime also for headshots and then spend the rest of your budget on the best zoom telephoto lens you can buy for the money as that seems to be where you get the most usage.
If anything is unclear or you'd like more opinions just let me know.
edit: I plan on buying a D500 as my 2nd body once I can justify "needing" it
I'm guessing most of you think the extra money for the D500 is worth it versus the 7D of the Canon? A 70-200 f/2.8 will be the #1 lens purchase and then I was thinking the 24-70 f/2.8 and call it a day.
On the Canon side:
7D - $1k
70-200 f/2.8 (non is) - $1300
24-70 - $1700
Total = $4k
Nikon:
D500 - $2k
70-200 VRII - $2k
24-70 - $2k
Total = $6,000
So, going the Canon route you essentially end of with the 24-70 for free. However, you lose:
1. superior autofocus
2. wifi (can get adapter and this is important to me)
You don't have to be great to start, but you have to start to be great.
04-02-2017, 10:40 PM
#1836
Originally Posted By M0tibation⏩
Just my 2 cents but I've noticed some of the armchair critics on forums don't seem to realize that trying to compress too much DR into the final exposure looks fake.
Yeah but with the DR in that scene, there isn't a raw file in a world that would have pulled the highlights all the way down. I took a total of 5 exposures, and blended 3 just for the dynamic range I did have (Canon 6D).
Yeah our eyes can discern more highlight and shadow detail than a single exposure without bracketing or grad filters but you're not seeing anywhere near the shadow detail some images display when standing there looking at a sunset or sunrise and your brain knows it. It ends up look fake and flat.
04-03-2017, 02:23 PM
#1837
Originally Posted By litljay⏩
I'd be speaking out of place if I was talking about Canons, I'd go with the body + 70-200 2.8 + 35mm 1.8 prime (150 USD roughly new) to get started and see how you get on before dropping another 2k on a 24-70
Thank you.
I'm guessing most of you think the extra money for the D500 is worth it versus the 7D of the Canon? A 70-200 f/2.8 will be the #1 lens purchase and then I was thinking the 24-70 f/2.8 and call it a day.
On the Canon side:
7D - $1k
70-200 f/2.8 (non is) - $1300
24-70 - $1700
Total = $4k
Nikon:
D500 - $2k
70-200 VRII - $2k
24-70 - $2k
Total = $6,000
So, going the Canon route you essentially end of with the 24-70 for free. However, you lose:
1. superior autofocus
2. wifi (can get adapter and this is important to me)
I'm guessing most of you think the extra money for the D500 is worth it versus the 7D of the Canon? A 70-200 f/2.8 will be the #1 lens purchase and then I was thinking the 24-70 f/2.8 and call it a day.
On the Canon side:
7D - $1k
70-200 f/2.8 (non is) - $1300
24-70 - $1700
Total = $4k
Nikon:
D500 - $2k
70-200 VRII - $2k
24-70 - $2k
Total = $6,000
So, going the Canon route you essentially end of with the 24-70 for free. However, you lose:
1. superior autofocus
2. wifi (can get adapter and this is important to me)
04-03-2017, 02:34 PM
#1838
Originally Posted By Dominik⏩
I agree with the points both you and motibation are making but I'd say it really comes down to what the photographer envisioned creating in their mind when they looked at the scene before clicking the shutter, I dont think there should be any true wrong way of editing a photograph, sometimes a true to life edit works where very little is done and other times what I refer to as the "500px frontpage edit" suits the scene (semi-hdr, clarity, saturation, large dof, low pass sharpening etc). My main critique of the photo was regarding the treeline which I stand by, but if op (or their client if paid) is happy with the end result thats really the only thing that matters at the end of the day.
Just my 2 cents but I've noticed some of the armchair critics on forums don't seem to realize that trying to compress too much DR into the final exposure looks fake.
Yeah our eyes can discern more highlight and shadow detail than a single exposure without bracketing or grad filters but you're not seeing anywhere near the shadow detail some images display when standing there looking at a sunset or sunrise and your brain knows it. It ends up look fake and flat.
Yeah our eyes can discern more highlight and shadow detail than a single exposure without bracketing or grad filters but you're not seeing anywhere near the shadow detail some images display when standing there looking at a sunset or sunrise and your brain knows it. It ends up look fake and flat.
I try to keep my thoughts to myself unless asked for critique, which op did last page so I felt it ok to weight in as long as its explained well enough.
04-03-2017, 04:32 PM
#1839
I just received my first ever large(ish) print (aluminum, 30x20) and I have got to say if you have a photo/photos that you really like PLEASE print it/them. They are dead on your computer or smartphone but come to life once you are able to touch them.
"I want…I can…I will" - toe-pickin' guitar player Tony Melendez
*Misc Entrepreneur Crew* http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=160254601
04-03-2017, 05:04 PM
#1840
Originally Posted By havoNI⏩
There isn't, but there are fundamentals. Obviously many lean towards realism, and in many divisions i.e. science, that's the primary goal.
I agree with the points both you and motibation are making but I'd say it really comes down to what the photographer envisioned creating in their mind when they looked at the scene before clicking the shutter,
I dont think there should be any true wrong way of editing a photograph,
sometimes a true to life edit works where very little is done and other times what I refer to as the "500px frontpage edit" suits the scene (semi-hdr, clarity, saturation, large dof, low pass sharpening etc). My main critique of the photo was regarding the treeline which I stand by, but if op (or their client if paid) is happy with the end result thats really the only thing that matters at the end of the day.
Even so, photography is not just a depiction of the actual scene, but also an art. In that instance, there are no rules or limitations. And like its painting predecessor, the sky is the creative limit.
That said, its the client that dictates the final results – even if he wants trash, he's the boss. In that, I think we can all agree.
I try to keep my thoughts to myself unless asked for critique, which op did last page so I felt it ok to weight in as long as its explained well enough.
🎥
Site oldest post: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=172072283&p=1540411941&viewfull=1#post1540411941
Filmmaker Thread: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=165304201&p=1534834621#post1534834621
04-04-2017, 05:04 AM
#1841
Originally Posted By KRANE⏩
Agreed mostly.
There isn't, but there are fundamentals. Obviously many lean towards realism, and in many divisions i.e. science, that's the primary goal.
Even so, photography is not just a depiction of the actual scene, but also an art. In that instance, there are no rules or limitations. And like its painting predecessor, the sky is the creative limit.
That said, its the client that dictates the final results – even if he wants trash, he's the boss. In that, I think we can all agree.
As I see it critiques are part of the profession, and should be expected by any true artist. In fact, even the harsh critiques can be constructive at times.
Even so, photography is not just a depiction of the actual scene, but also an art. In that instance, there are no rules or limitations. And like its painting predecessor, the sky is the creative limit.
That said, its the client that dictates the final results – even if he wants trash, he's the boss. In that, I think we can all agree.
As I see it critiques are part of the profession, and should be expected by any true artist. In fact, even the harsh critiques can be constructive at times.
In regards to my point that "there shouldn't be any true wrong way of editing a photograph", I should elaborate that I mean within the loose limitations of what looks good to the vast majority of viewers, if you heavily overcook an image to the point it looks like you are on acid viewing it then I think we'd all agree that its a terrible edit unless you are one of these new age modern art bull****ers who somehow draws meaning from a turd. I mean it in more in the terms of a photo could be given 20 different looks by 20 different skilled editors and all of them could work in their own way, whilst looking tastefully and professionally done, I don't believe you should limit yourself by sticking to pure reality of a scene. Of course certain genres of photography like photojournalists or scientific togs are bound by the ethics of their professions and should do minimal to no post.
As far as critique goes, especially on non photography forums I believe the its best not to critique others work unless they ask for it, or imply they are newer to the game and you can give a helping hand. There is both the issue of subjectivity of peoples artistic opinion and even more so that a lot of togs react defensively to unsolicited critique.
04-04-2017, 05:08 AM
#1842
Do any of you brahs use Redbubble or something similar? I have a few people inquiring about canvas/prints but I don't have time to have it shipped to my house then individually shipping them out…
Any suggestions would be appreciated!
Any suggestions would be appreciated!
04-04-2017, 07:18 AM
#1843
Originally Posted By havoNI⏩
I'll add Art Appreciation 101:
Agreed mostly.
In regards to my point that "there shouldn't be any true wrong way of editing a photograph", I should elaborate that I mean within the loose limitations of what looks good to the vast majority of viewers, if you heavily overcook an image to the point it looks like you are on acid viewing it then I think we'd all agree that its a terrible edit unless you are one of these new age modern art bull****ers who somehow draws meaning from a turd. I mean it in more in the terms of a photo could be given 20 different looks by 20 different skilled editors and all of them could work in their own way, whilst looking tastefully and professionally done, I don't believe you should limit yourself by sticking to pure reality of a scene. Of course certain genres of photography like photojournalists or scientific togs are bound by the ethics of their professions and should do minimal to no post.
In regards to my point that "there shouldn't be any true wrong way of editing a photograph", I should elaborate that I mean within the loose limitations of what looks good to the vast majority of viewers, if you heavily overcook an image to the point it looks like you are on acid viewing it then I think we'd all agree that its a terrible edit unless you are one of these new age modern art bull****ers who somehow draws meaning from a turd. I mean it in more in the terms of a photo could be given 20 different looks by 20 different skilled editors and all of them could work in their own way, whilst looking tastefully and professionally done, I don't believe you should limit yourself by sticking to pure reality of a scene. Of course certain genres of photography like photojournalists or scientific togs are bound by the ethics of their professions and should do minimal to no post.
One man's trash is another man's treasure. Consider that the first photographers were avante garde artist which would break all the rules. An expressionist paintings for example. Some of these represent the world's most expensive paintings and sell for tens of millions of dollars.
So from a purely artistic point of view, anything and everything is acceptable once its caught on, and photography is no exception. That doesn't mean we have to like it, just be able to appreciate it.
As far as critique goes, especially on non photography forums I believe the its best not to critique others work unless they ask for it, or imply they are newer to the game and you can give a helping hand. There is both the issue of subjectivity of peoples artistic opinion and even more so that a lot of togs react defensively to unsolicited critique.
As long as you put your work out there for people to see, there will be critics. If you can't deal with that heat, its best to "get out of the kitchen" now.
🎥
Site oldest post: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=172072283&p=1540411941&viewfull=1#post1540411941
Filmmaker Thread: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=165304201&p=1534834621#post1534834621
04-04-2017, 07:32 PM
#1844
Originally Posted By Dominik⏩
Hey buddy, that rock deserved to die and you know it. I'm even thinking of moving to New York city so she can be my mayor.
Just my 2 cents but I've noticed some of the armchair critics on forums
Originally Posted By CorgiBrah⏩
I would want to at least see the initial quality of the prints before having them shipped directly out to people. There are also numerous other things you can do to make a strong impression on people, such as:
Do any of you brahs use Redbubble or something similar? I have a few people inquiring about canvas/prints but I don't have time to have it shipped to my house then individually shipping them out…
Any suggestions would be appreciated!
Any suggestions would be appreciated!
Sign the print.
Include a note with the print, thanking them.
Have nicer packaging.
Make sure the printer isn't including advertising or using branded boxes.
I'm a professional reseller, shipping is really easy to do. The key is to have consistent volume (like 5 per month) so that supplies can be purchased in large enough qualities to drive the price down. If you're looking to sell more prints, putting in the effort will help with word of mouth advertising. If you or anyone else needs shipping advice, I'm happy to help.
Originally Posted By KRANE⏩
Modern Art is garbage devoid of any talent or meaning. The only use is to waste government grants and launder money.
I'll add Art Appreciation 101:
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
Originally Posted By litljay⏩
The D500 is going to be far superior to the 7D in low light. For things like indoor volleyball and night games, I would want the D500. Plus you can eventually get a 200-500mm, which is a stupidly fun lens.
Thank you.
I'm guessing most of you think the extra money for the D500 is worth it versus the 7D of the Canon? A 70-200 f/2.8 will be the #1 lens purchase and then I was thinking the 24-70 f/2.8 and call it a day.
On the Canon side:
7D - $1k
70-200 f/2.8 (non is) - $1300
24-70 - $1700
Total = $4k
Nikon:
D500 - $2k
70-200 VRII - $2k
24-70 - $2k
Total = $6,000
So, going the Canon route you essentially end of with the 24-70 for free. However, you lose:
1. superior autofocus
2. wifi (can get adapter and this is important to me)
I'm guessing most of you think the extra money for the D500 is worth it versus the 7D of the Canon? A 70-200 f/2.8 will be the #1 lens purchase and then I was thinking the 24-70 f/2.8 and call it a day.
On the Canon side:
7D - $1k
70-200 f/2.8 (non is) - $1300
24-70 - $1700
Total = $4k
Nikon:
D500 - $2k
70-200 VRII - $2k
24-70 - $2k
Total = $6,000
So, going the Canon route you essentially end of with the 24-70 for free. However, you lose:
1. superior autofocus
2. wifi (can get adapter and this is important to me)
The 70-200 VRII has bad focus breathing. People seem to be happier with either the new Tamron 70-200 or the 2.8E FL ED VR. The Tamron will save you $700 over the VRII and doesn't have focus breathing problems. Though keep in mind I haven't used any of the 70-200's and have no interest in owning any of them for my use.
04-04-2017, 07:37 PM
#1845
Originally Posted By Inavan⏩
In regards to the 70-200's, focus breathing is fixed on the nikkor 70-200 FL but its pricing is full retard (2800 US I believe?) whereas you can get the Tamron SP for 1100 and the newer Tamron G2 for 1300, from all the reviews I've seen the G2 performs at about 95+% as compared to the nikkor FL for under half the price and is the go-to for everyone bar those who require the absolute best for their professional work or have cash to burn.
The 70-200 VRII has bad focus breathing. People seem to be happier with either the new Tamron 70-200 or the 2.8E FL ED VR. The Tamron will save you $700 over the VRII and doesn't have focus breathing problems. Though keep in mind I haven't used any of the 70-200's and have no interest in owning any of them for my use.
The cheaper Tamron SP is apparently a great lens but its main downside is AF is noticeably slower than the G2, nikkor vr2 and nikkor FL
04-04-2017, 08:16 PM
#1846
Originally Posted By havoNI⏩
Nothing wrong with the critique and my comment wasn't directed at anyone in here. I used to spend a lot of time on other photography forums.
I agree with the points both you and motibation are making but I'd say it really comes down to what the photographer envisioned creating in their mind when they looked at the scene before clicking the shutter, I dont think there should be any true wrong way of editing a photograph, sometimes a true to life edit works where very little is done and other times what I refer to as the "500px frontpage edit" suits the scene (semi-hdr, clarity, saturation, large dof, low pass sharpening etc). My main critique of the photo was regarding the treeline which I stand by, but if op (or their client if paid) is happy with the end result thats really the only thing that matters at the end of the day.
I try to keep my thoughts to myself unless asked for critique, which op did last page so I felt it ok to weight in as long as its explained well enough.
I try to keep my thoughts to myself unless asked for critique, which op did last page so I felt it ok to weight in as long as its explained well enough.
I've had people email me links to "Top 50," "best," etc. lists of landscape photos and the HDR fetish does my head in. Sure it's beautiful but it's so far from reality I can't process it as a photography anymore — it's digital art. The Milky Way bursting out of the sky like fireworks, every square inch of shadows that were almost in full silhouette looking completely lit up — it's fake. I've been at this for over 20 years and have been to some beautiful places. I know what can be experienced standing there and what is a gross distortion of reality. I realize with a two dimensional medium you need a little artistic license to compensate for the viewer not being there but some people take it way too far. And they're doing it because it's so easy. Bracket a boatload of exposures and let software do the rest.
My problem is it gradually changes a person's perception of what is real. Beautiful images no longer make the average couch potato who would only explore the world from a tour bus go "OMG, WOW!" because they've seen thousands of images on ******** that were so fake it becomes to standard for impressing them rendering reality somewhat boring.
04-04-2017, 09:29 PM
#1847
Originally Posted By Inavan⏩
The misc has such discriminating taste. Who knew?
Modern Art is garbage devoid of any talent or meaning. The only use is to waste government grants and launder money.
🎥
Site oldest post: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=172072283&p=1540411941&viewfull=1#post1540411941
Filmmaker Thread: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=165304201&p=1534834621#post1534834621
04-05-2017, 05:10 AM
#1848
Originally Posted By Inavan⏩
PM'd and repped.
I would want to at least see the initial quality of the prints before having them shipped directly out to people. There are also numerous other things you can do to make a strong impression on people, such as:
Sign the print.
Include a note with the print, thanking them.
Have nicer packaging.
Make sure the printer isn't including advertising or using branded boxes.
I'm a professional reseller, shipping is really easy to do. The key is to have consistent volume (like 5 per month) so that supplies can be purchased in large enough qualities to drive the price down. If you're looking to sell more prints, putting in the effort will help with word of mouth advertising. If you or anyone else needs shipping advice, I'm happy to help.
Sign the print.
Include a note with the print, thanking them.
Have nicer packaging.
Make sure the printer isn't including advertising or using branded boxes.
I'm a professional reseller, shipping is really easy to do. The key is to have consistent volume (like 5 per month) so that supplies can be purchased in large enough qualities to drive the price down. If you're looking to sell more prints, putting in the effort will help with word of mouth advertising. If you or anyone else needs shipping advice, I'm happy to help.
04-05-2017, 07:49 AM
#1849
Originally Posted By Inavan⏩
Hey buddy, that rock deserved to die and you know it. I'm even thinking of moving to New York city so she can be my mayor.
I would want to at least see the initial quality of the prints before having them shipped directly out to people. There are also numerous other things you can do to make a strong impression on people, such as:
Sign the print.
Include a note with the print, thanking them.
Have nicer packaging.
Make sure the printer isn't including advertising or using branded boxes.
I'm a professional reseller, shipping is really easy to do. The key is to have consistent volume (like 5 per month) so that supplies can be purchased in large enough qualities to drive the price down. If you're looking to sell more prints, putting in the effort will help with word of mouth advertising. If you or anyone else needs shipping advice, I'm happy to help.
Modern Art is garbage devoid of any talent or meaning. The only use is to waste government grants and launder money.
The D500 is going to be far superior to the 7D in low light. For things like indoor volleyball and night games, I would want the D500. Plus you can eventually get a 200-500mm, which is a stupidly fun lens.
The 70-200 VRII has bad focus breathing. People seem to be happier with either the new Tamron 70-200 or the 2.8E FL ED VR. The Tamron will save you $700 over the VRII and doesn't have focus breathing problems. Though keep in mind I haven't used any of the 70-200's and have no interest in owning any of them for my use.
I would want to at least see the initial quality of the prints before having them shipped directly out to people. There are also numerous other things you can do to make a strong impression on people, such as:
Sign the print.
Include a note with the print, thanking them.
Have nicer packaging.
Make sure the printer isn't including advertising or using branded boxes.
I'm a professional reseller, shipping is really easy to do. The key is to have consistent volume (like 5 per month) so that supplies can be purchased in large enough qualities to drive the price down. If you're looking to sell more prints, putting in the effort will help with word of mouth advertising. If you or anyone else needs shipping advice, I'm happy to help.
Modern Art is garbage devoid of any talent or meaning. The only use is to waste government grants and launder money.
The D500 is going to be far superior to the 7D in low light. For things like indoor volleyball and night games, I would want the D500. Plus you can eventually get a 200-500mm, which is a stupidly fun lens.
The 70-200 VRII has bad focus breathing. People seem to be happier with either the new Tamron 70-200 or the 2.8E FL ED VR. The Tamron will save you $700 over the VRII and doesn't have focus breathing problems. Though keep in mind I haven't used any of the 70-200's and have no interest in owning any of them for my use.
Originally Posted By havoNI⏩
Thanks guys.
In regards to the 70-200's, focus breathing is fixed on the nikkor 70-200 FL but its pricing is full retard (2800 US I believe?) whereas you can get the Tamron SP for 1100 and the newer Tamron G2 for 1300, from all the reviews I've seen the G2 performs at about 95+% as compared to the nikkor FL for under half the price and is the go-to for everyone bar those who require the absolute best for their professional work or have cash to burn.
The cheaper Tamron SP is apparently a great lens but its main downside is AF is noticeably slower than the G2, nikkor vr2 and nikkor FL
The cheaper Tamron SP is apparently a great lens but its main downside is AF is noticeably slower than the G2, nikkor vr2 and nikkor FL
I didn't notice/know/care about focus breathing on my previous 70-200 vrii, though now reading about it, maybe I should?
For financial/insurance reasons, I may be stuck purchasing another D750 unless I want to lose however much they depreciated my camera. My insurance has basically "gap" insurance rider that will pay for the depreciation on any items to get back to replacement value. So, depending on how much they depreciate the value of the camera, I may not want to make up the difference. If they don't depreciate it at all, I'll cough up the extra $200 and go with the D500 kit. Unless I can get them to take the D500 as the direct replacement, which may be a stretch.
I'm also curious how they are going to handle the price of the 70-200 lens. I purchased a refurbished model direct from Nikon USA when they were having a sale on their refurbished items. So, if that option is not available, I'll purchase new and likely pay $400 more than I had originally paid.
You don't have to be great to start, but you have to start to be great.
04-05-2017, 10:19 AM
#1850
This is the picture I used for my first 30x20 metal print. It's my friend testing his kart before his race.
Before The Race
by
tete_rs
, en Flickr
Before The Race
by
tete_rs
, en Flickr
"I want…I can…I will" - toe-pickin' guitar player Tony Melendez
*Misc Entrepreneur Crew* http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=160254601
04-05-2017, 04:58 PM
#1851
New toys came in today
Misc photography crew
Chicago crew
Polski crew
Throw keys on bench to claim it crew
6'2" 193lbs crew
#MMGA
- LieutenantGains
- Registered User
-
- LieutenantGains
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2013
- Posts: 6,303
- Rep Power: 84,603
-
04-05-2017, 06:31 PM
#1852
Originally Posted By litljay⏩
If you weren't bothered by the focus breathing before, I don't see what you should be bothered now. The caveat would be if you're planning to sell the lens during the next year. The focus breathing is undesirable and the new model is causing the lens to depreciate at a faster rate than it has in the past. So instead of waiting to sell the lens, I would immediately sell the lens after receiving the replacement.
Thanks guys.
I didn't notice/know/care about focus breathing on my previous 70-200 vrii, though now reading about it, maybe I should?
For financial/insurance reasons, I may be stuck purchasing another D750 unless I want to lose however much they depreciated my camera. My insurance has basically "gap" insurance rider that will pay for the depreciation on any items to get back to replacement value. So, depending on how much they depreciate the value of the camera, I may not want to make up the difference. If they don't depreciate it at all, I'll cough up the extra $200 and go with the D500 kit. Unless I can get them to take the D500 as the direct replacement, which may be a stretch.
I'm also curious how they are going to handle the price of the 70-200 lens. I purchased a refurbished model direct from Nikon USA when they were having a sale on their refurbished items. So, if that option is not available, I'll purchase new and likely pay $400 more than I had originally paid.
I didn't notice/know/care about focus breathing on my previous 70-200 vrii, though now reading about it, maybe I should?
For financial/insurance reasons, I may be stuck purchasing another D750 unless I want to lose however much they depreciated my camera. My insurance has basically "gap" insurance rider that will pay for the depreciation on any items to get back to replacement value. So, depending on how much they depreciate the value of the camera, I may not want to make up the difference. If they don't depreciate it at all, I'll cough up the extra $200 and go with the D500 kit. Unless I can get them to take the D500 as the direct replacement, which may be a stretch.
I'm also curious how they are going to handle the price of the 70-200 lens. I purchased a refurbished model direct from Nikon USA when they were having a sale on their refurbished items. So, if that option is not available, I'll purchase new and likely pay $400 more than I had originally paid.
I own a D750 and would not want to end up with another one. The camera has already had 2 recalls and is prone to early shutter failure. The speculation is that Nikon will be announcing a replacement for it sometime this year. Once the replacement shows up there will be a flood of gray market cameras pulling prices down. The D750 is not a camera you want to be holding onto for the long term. If it wasn't for the flippy screen, I would have switched to a D810 a while ago.
For the type of shooting you're looking to do, the D500 will be better than the D810 or D750. If I was in your position I would pay the extra $200 for the D500. You're likely to "make" the $200 back within a year due to different rates of depreciation between the D500 and D750.
04-05-2017, 06:35 PM
#1853
Originally Posted By Tete⏩
I bet the high contrast looks awesome on metal. Nice job! Only problem is I'm out of reps.
This is the picture I used for my first 30x20 metal print. It's my friend testing his kart before his race.
04-05-2017, 06:50 PM
#1854
Matanuska Glacier at sunset (Alaska)
Bills crew / Bud Light crew / extra onion crew / M&P crew / lcp2 crew / ap3 crew / Trump crew / mcdonalds app crew / cat-owner crew / Tin Cup crew / self-checkout crew / country music crew / RIP snails crew / 214CE crew
04-05-2017, 07:08 PM
#1855
Originally Posted By Inavan⏩
Long time Nikon user here and I can't remember recalls in the 2000s like we're seeing today.
I own a D750 and would not want to end up with another one. The camera has already had 2 recalls and is prone to early shutter failure.
I think QC took a nose dive in 2011 with the tsunami which directly impacted the Sendai plant. D800 came out with left side AF issues. D600 with oil splattering over the sensor. D810 and D610 addressed those issues but they should never have happened in the first place.
04-06-2017, 12:45 AM
#1856
Originally Posted By friesbruh⏩
Very nice. Is it natty?
Matanuska Glacier at sunset (Alaska)
🎥
Site oldest post: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=172072283&p=1540411941&viewfull=1#post1540411941
Filmmaker Thread: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=165304201&p=1534834621#post1534834621
04-06-2017, 06:03 AM
#1857
Originally Posted By Dominik⏩
I suffered the D600 oil spot fiasco, Nikon gave me the only option of sending it to England (another country) to get the sensor sorted with a turnaround time of 4 weeks. Luckily amazon were superbros and did a full return/refund and had a D800 shipped to me all within 4 days of my first contacting them about the issue. Ofcourse the D810 came out 6 months later which I felt really ****ed over by as the D800 prices tanked overnight. If it wasnt for the 5-6 thousand pounds of glass and insane performance of the sony sensors in the Nikons I'd jump ship in a moment.
Long time Nikon user here and I can't remember recalls in the 2000s like we're seeing today.
I think QC took a nose dive in 2011 with the tsunami which directly impacted the Sendai plant. D800 came out with left side AF issues. D600 with oil splattering over the sensor. D810 and D610 addressed those issues but they should never have happened in the first place.
I think QC took a nose dive in 2011 with the tsunami which directly impacted the Sendai plant. D800 came out with left side AF issues. D600 with oil splattering over the sensor. D810 and D610 addressed those issues but they should never have happened in the first place.
Also I wasn't feeling you were singling anyone out in this thread RE your post half a page back, just wanted to emphasise I am not one to give my opinion on others styles of editing without being asked.
04-06-2017, 07:37 AM
#1858
Originally Posted By Inavan⏩
The bigger concern for me is the amount of depreciation they're going to apply to the equipment. I bought the kit D750 in November of 2015, so just 17 months ago. The current price for the kit is exactly the same as I paid back then. I don't have the foggiest idea of how they depreciate a camera or lens.
If you weren't bothered by the focus breathing before, I don't see what you should be bothered now. The caveat would be if you're planning to sell the lens during the next year. The focus breathing is undesirable and the new model is causing the lens to depreciate at a faster rate than it has in the past. So instead of waiting to sell the lens, I would immediately sell the lens after receiving the replacement.
I own a D750 and would not want to end up with another one. The camera has already had 2 recalls and is prone to early shutter failure. The speculation is that Nikon will be announcing a replacement for it sometime this year. Once the replacement shows up there will be a flood of gray market cameras pulling prices down. The D750 is not a camera you want to be holding onto for the long term. If it wasn't for the flippy screen, I would have switched to a D810 a while ago.
For the type of shooting you're looking to do, the D500 will be better than the D810 or D750. If I was in your position I would pay the extra $200 for the D500. You're likely to "make" the $200 back within a year due to different rates of depreciation between the D500 and D750.
I own a D750 and would not want to end up with another one. The camera has already had 2 recalls and is prone to early shutter failure. The speculation is that Nikon will be announcing a replacement for it sometime this year. Once the replacement shows up there will be a flood of gray market cameras pulling prices down. The D750 is not a camera you want to be holding onto for the long term. If it wasn't for the flippy screen, I would have switched to a D810 a while ago.
For the type of shooting you're looking to do, the D500 will be better than the D810 or D750. If I was in your position I would pay the extra $200 for the D500. You're likely to "make" the $200 back within a year due to different rates of depreciation between the D500 and D750.
I did talk to the adjuster yesterday and I mentioned to him about how they would handle the way I purchased the lens (refurbed on sale), and his comment was they take the retail price and depreciate from there. If that's the case, I should be more than fine financially…I would think.
Originally Posted By havoNI⏩
Jump ship to where if you had the chance? Canon? Sony?
I suffered the D600 oil spot fiasco, Nikon gave me the only option of sending it to England (another country) to get the sensor sorted with a turnaround time of 4 weeks. Luckily amazon were superbros and did a full return/refund and had a D800 shipped to me all within 4 days of my first contacting them about the issue. Ofcourse the D810 came out 6 months later which I felt really ****ed over by as the D800 prices tanked overnight. If it wasnt for the 5-6 thousand pounds of glass and insane performance of the sony sensors in the Nikons I'd jump ship in a moment.
Also I wasn't feeling you were singling anyone out in this thread RE your post half a page back, just wanted to emphasise I am not one to give my opinion on others styles of editing without being asked.
Also I wasn't feeling you were singling anyone out in this thread RE your post half a page back, just wanted to emphasise I am not one to give my opinion on others styles of editing without being asked.
You don't have to be great to start, but you have to start to be great.
04-06-2017, 09:30 AM
#1859
Originally Posted By litljay⏩
Honestly at the moment Sony, they seem to have come out of nowhere with first class DSLR's that can compete with Canon and Nikon at the high end of the market, they just lack in the selection of quality native lenses along with their build not being suitable for VERY rugged treatment/weather (I do mostly coastal photography so am prone to getting soaked or slips on rocks with the camera eating the impact). Also another big factor would be the current high end Sonys eat batteries like fat kids eat cake.
The bigger concern for me is the amount of depreciation they're going to apply to the equipment. I bought the kit D750 in November of 2015, so just 17 months ago. The current price for the kit is exactly the same as I paid back then. I don't have the foggiest idea of how they depreciate a camera or lens.
I did talk to the adjuster yesterday and I mentioned to him about how they would handle the way I purchased the lens (refurbed on sale), and his comment was they take the retail price and depreciate from there. If that's the case, I should be more than fine financially…I would think.
Jump ship to where if you had the chance? Canon? Sony?
I did talk to the adjuster yesterday and I mentioned to him about how they would handle the way I purchased the lens (refurbed on sale), and his comment was they take the retail price and depreciate from there. If that's the case, I should be more than fine financially…I would think.
Jump ship to where if you had the chance? Canon? Sony?
Don't mistake my annoyance at Nikon as a company and their past decades QA/support with disliking their products, the D800/(810) to me is the closest thing to perfect of a camera I could ask for, built like a brick, intuitive and natural in the hand, amazing image quality, amazing dynamic range, amazing recover-ability of shadows, lens selection is superb both Nikkor and 3rd party. Its just when you drop four figures or more for a camera body you should expect a premium service, both in terms of what you initially receive and in terms of after sales service and help, it probably has something to do with a breakdown in communication between Japans HQ and Europe/NA HQ's but the issues with the new releases and half assed recalls of the past 5 years have really impacted customer confidence.
I've massive hopes for the D810's successor, I dream of a few more FPS, bit more MP, couple stops more DR, some better video support, good port connectivity, BT/WIFI, and a movable touch screen (no really this would be amazing for landscape togs and itll save my neck getting ****ed up with weird viewing angles on tripod) if they did the aforementioned then it would sell like hotcakes. If they somehow manage to ****up however I will be holding onto my cash and looking towards the A7RII lines next successor instead.
04-06-2017, 10:22 AM
#1860
Originally Posted By Inavan⏩
It looked amazing. My friend bought it on the spot (charged cost only he's been really supportive). I read about wood and metal prints but I decided I needed to see what the fuss was all about so in February I went to WPPI and I was sold immediately but it wasn't until now that I had a photo I reaaaaaally liked.
I bet the high contrast looks awesome on metal. Nice job! Only problem is I'm out of reps.
"I want…I can…I will" - toe-pickin' guitar player Tony Melendez
*Misc Entrepreneur Crew* http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=160254601
Bookmarks
- Digg
- del.icio.us
- StumbleUpon
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts