General Photography thread

Jack Straw said:

The first one (portrait orientation), I need to scroll a little, but the second one is in full view. Do you need to scroll for both of my last two photos or just the first one? Have you tried holding down the Ctrl key and pressing the + or - key to change the size of what you see? Thanks for the thumbs-up by the way.

Click to expand...

Jack Straw said:

That's an awesome combo. I'm looking at the 24-70 lens for general use to replace my 18-105. All the reviews are superb. Sharpest ever lens of this type apparently? I look forwards to your thoughts when you come back, along with some photos on here.

Click to expand...

Jack Straw said:

My Nikon d7100 is set on RAW quality. I then tweak them in Photoshop's "Camera Raw". I'm thinking of investing in a d810 full-frame. I would be hoping for sharper pictures with the difference in spec. and of course the price. Any thoughts from anyone would be most welcome.

Click to expand...

Oxy McFloppie-Tish said:

I need to scroll vertically and horizontally on both - they are 2496x3254 and 2339x1537, and my screen is 1920x1200 (ie. bigger than most). My tablet resizes them, but I still need to scroll vertically.

Yes, I can manually change the browser zoom (and back again), but when did you last see a website with a picture that required that?!

I think "presentation" is part of the process, and exporting it at an appropriate size is just a final step after any other tweaks. Hope that sounds constructive!

Click to expand...

Jack Straw said:

Thanks Oxy. How are these now?

Click to expand...

Triggaaar said:

What would you want the 24-70 for, specifically? What focal lengths and apertures do you need, and when do you need them?

You shouldn't need a d810 for pin sharp images, your d7100 should already be plenty good enough for that. What lenses are you using? If you're not satisfied with the sharpness you're achieving then look at your post processing (I trust you are adjusting the sharpness), how you hold the camera (ideally a good tripod) and your shutter speed, and your glass and aperture.

Click to expand...

Jack Straw said:

My current all-purpose lens is a Nikkor 18-105mm which is cheap and cheerful. The 24-70mm is apparently the bee's knees so I thought this would be a good upgrade as I'm looking at getting the best kit I can afford and the reviews suggest that the d810, especially with this lens, will give better results than the d7100 but I need to be fully convinced before I purchase.

Click to expand...

Triggaaar said:

I'm sure the d810 is great, I use a d800 and a d700. The d800 allows for more cropping when needed, and it would allow stupid size enlargements, but the d700 is still perfectly good and sharp. If you have plenty of money, the d810 will be great, but don't fool yourself into thinking you need it.

I have the 24-70 too, but I used it for weddings where I needed 24mm and needed at least f2.8 (I keep it as backup now, as I use f1.4 primes). It is a sharp lens, and you can notice it when shooting f2.8 against lesser zooms, but when shooting landscapes etc at f8 - f11 I don't notice it being any better than the f4 24-120, which I'll use as a walk around lens (and that has VR, which the 24-70 doesn't). The old 28-70 f2.8 was also very sharp, but if you need 24mm for work, then you need 24mm. That's why I asked what you would be shooting, and at what aperture.

When I was buying the D700 over 5 years ago, I was reading all the reviews from Thom Hogan (Landscape pro and Nikon expert) and I remember him saying something along the lines of 'if your pictures aren't sharp enough, it's not the camera, it's you'. Your d7100 is capable of some incredibly sharp photos, I'm sure. I think sharpness is often over-rated too. The digital age has spawned all these pixel peepers trying to spot some sharpness difference between equipment (I'm guilty too). People don't focus as much of colour or contrast attributes.

So... if you need f2.8, and that's the right focal length for you, I would recommend it. But if you're shooting at f5.6 or higher, and could benefit from a bit more zoom length, something like the 24-120 might be more suitable.

I'd suggest you try and plan out your long term requirements. Will you ever want really want sharp, wide aperture lenses, in which case you'll be wanting primes. Or will the 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8s be all you need? etc.

Click to expand...

Oxy McFloppie-Tish said:

This guy's worth looking at: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm

He's very opinionated, and some of it is arguable, but it's a good read. Some fascinating articles.

Click to expand...

brightn'ove said:

While his technical information about lenses etc is sound, his opinions on jpegs are (imo) wrong.

Click to expand...

Triggaaar said:

I'm sure the d810 is great, I use a d800 and a d700. The d800 allows for more cropping when needed, and it would allow stupid size enlargements, but the d700 is still perfectly good and sharp. If you have plenty of money, the d810 will be great, but don't fool yourself into thinking you need it.

I have the 24-70 too, but I used it for weddings where I needed 24mm and needed at least f2.8 (I keep it as backup now, as I use f1.4 primes). It is a sharp lens, and you can notice it when shooting f2.8 against lesser zooms, but when shooting landscapes etc at f8 - f11 I don't notice it being any better than the f4 24-120, which I'll use as a walk around lens (and that has VR, which the 24-70 doesn't). The old 28-70 f2.8 was also very sharp, but if you need 24mm for work, then you need 24mm. That's why I asked what you would be shooting, and at what aperture.

When I was buying the D700 over 5 years ago, I was reading all the reviews from Thom Hogan (Landscape pro and Nikon expert) and I remember him saying something along the lines of 'if your pictures aren't sharp enough, it's not the camera, it's you'. Your d7100 is capable of some incredibly sharp photos, I'm sure. I think sharpness is often over-rated too. The digital age has spawned all these pixel peepers trying to spot some sharpness difference between equipment (I'm guilty too). People don't focus as much of colour or contrast attributes.

So... if you need f2.8, and that's the right focal length for you, I would recommend it. But if you're shooting at f5.6 or higher, and could benefit from a bit more zoom length, something like the 24-120 might be more suitable.

I'd suggest you try and plan out your long term requirements. Will you ever want really sharp, wide aperture lenses, in which case you'll be wanting primes. Or will the 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8s be all you need? etc.

Click to expand...

Smirko said:

Anyone recommend where to get prints/canvasses etc printed up - local or on the web etc - Thanks

Click to expand...