[rawr]

I guess the Nikon AF failed on this one.

Interesting.

Like the D800/D810, the D750's metering system should let it read faces and feed face information into the AF, no matter the mode (optical viewfinder or live view). Pic related:



Looks like Nikon still has to master that.

[neostyles]

D600/D610 weather sealing does not impress. Open the battery or SD card doors and look at the poor sealing - thin gaskets, gaps in the gasket coverage, almost no pressure applied by the flimsy doors to maintain the seal.

It impressed me. For some reason back when i picked up my first camera in 2012, i thought that weather sealing was exclusive to pentax for some reason. I took it for a walk in the rain the other day for like an hour. Got pretty wet but had no trouble. and then there was this. I am a professional idiot. Dont try this at home lol. We had something like a small typhoon and i walked around campus shooting video

You Tube

You Tube

This is just about the worst it even rains here in cali. It handled it without any trouble. The proof is really in the pudding as those quite a bit older than me would say I wouldn't really see why something so small and light as a 40mm prime would need to be. On my d600 that lens at f 2.8 or something and at maybe iso 2000 would be good enough for anything. Point im trying to make it that when you combine awesome iso performance of full frame with a fast lens, that equals a whole lot of light and i doubt your shutter speeds would really dip below a level that requires shake reduction. But there are quite a few nikon primes that have image stabilization
Nikon Prime Lenses that have image stabilization

There are quite a few low light images on my flickr and all done with my 50mm which isnt stabilized. No problem at all. In fact, night and day between my k20 which was stabilized (in body no less.) I found i could comfortable do handle held shots at even 1/30th of a second.

Yep, thats the lens i was thinking about the, the 40mm. it's tiny. i would be surprised if it even broke 150 grams.. Most aps c bodies are so small too. You are talking about a fraction of the weight of nikon. With the 40mm it weighs a mere 730 grams or something. Nikon d600 + 24-85 gives you Over 1100 grams which is where you would think shake reduction. Hence, why the lens itself is image stabilized. Great shots too! I especially love the one in the middle.

[Rondec]

It impressed me. For some reason back when i picked up my first camera in 2012, i thought that weather sealing was exclusive to pentax for some reason. I took it for a walk in the rain the other day for like an hour. Got pretty wet but had no trouble. and then there was this. I am a professional idiot. Dont try this at home lol. We had something like a small typhoon and i walked around campus shooting video


This is just about the worst it even rains here in cali. It handled it without any trouble. The proof is really in the pudding as those quite a bit older than me would say I wouldn't really see why something so small and light as a 40mm prime would need to be. On my d600 that lens at f 2.8 or something and at maybe iso 2000 would be good enough for anything. Point im trying to make it that when you combine awesome iso performance of full frame with a fast lens, that equals a whole lot of light and i doubt your shutter speeds would really dip below a level that requires shake reduction. But there are quite a few nikon primes that have image stabilization
Nikon Prime Lenses that have image stabilization

There are quite a few low light images on my flickr and all done with my 50mm which isnt stabilized. No problem at all. In fact, night and day between my k20 which was stabilized (in body no less.) I found i could comfortable do handle held shots at even 1/30th of a second.

Yep, thats the lens i was thinking about the, the 40mm. it's tiny. i would be surprised if it even broke 150 grams.. Most aps c bodies are so small too. You are talking about a fraction of the weight of nikon. With the 40mm it weighs a mere 730 grams or something. Nikon d600 + 24-85 gives you Over 1100 grams which is where you would think shake reduction. Hence, why the lens itself is image stabilized. Great shots too! I especially love the one in the middle.

I don't think you have a clue how good APS-C has gotten over time. These are couple of shots over the weekend shot at iso 12,800 with a K5 II body.





I chose not to clean up the noise, but it would be very easy to do.

This was iso 10,000 shot with the DA *55 at f1.4 1/30 second exposure on a K3.



The reality is that you can do one stop better on full frame cameras than you can on APS-C. That's about it. But APS-C has come a long way. If you need equivalent depth of field to APS-C, you get no additional benefit with full frame, because you have to stop your lens down.

I would like full frame some day. My wife does portraiture and weddings professionally and full frame offers better options for subject isolation. You have the option to print bigger (if you print), but in the end, it isn't about gear. Very few people can truly say "the only reason I got 'x' photo was because I had 'y' camera body with me." It just doesn't happen. The gear is the least important part of the equation. You just want it to not get in the way so you can achieve your vision.

By the way, that DA 40 is an awfully fun to use, even though it is so small.

[Winder]

Vincent1825, on Flickr

I chose not to clean up the noise, but it would be very easy to do.

This was iso 10,000 shot with the DA *55 at f1.4 1/30 second exposure on a K3.



The reality is that you can do one stop better on full frame cameras than you can on APS-C. That's about it. But APS-C has come a long way. If you need equivalent depth of field to APS-C, you get no additional benefit with full frame, because you have to stop your lens down.

Let's look at the shot taken at ISO 10,000 with the DA* 55mm.
The softness is partial do to the noise and to the the fact that the DA* 55mm is soft at F/1.4.

Had that image been shot with a FF body and 85mm lens what would the difference be? Let's keep the ISO at 10,000 so we have apples to apples there. Say we are using the D750 or D610 which also has a Sony 24MP sensor, but its a FF. At the same ISO the larger sensor is going to give you less noise and a cleaner image. With the 85mm we stop it down to keep DoF the same, but what does that do? Well, stopping down gives you a sharper image. The Nikon 85mm F/1.8G is actually really good at F/2 and the 85mm F/1.4G is really, really good at F/2. People always say that you "have to stop down", but you want to stop down because that gives you a sharper image.

The second point is that 85mm+/- is not just considered the best portrait length for FF. If I pick up my Contax 645 it the 80mm F/2. If you go with Pentax its the DA 70mm and the FA 77mm. If you are a M4/3 shooter, they call the 75mm F/1.8 their portrait lens. The Fuji 56mm and the Pentax 55mm are optically great lenses, that give the same FoV as an 85mm lens, but they don't actually render like an 85mm lens. Its just not possible for a 55mm lens to render like an 85mm. I love my 85mm lens for the way that it renders the subject and isolates them, but on my K-3 I really need to be outside where I have room to work. The working distance is not ideal.

For people who shoot landscapes, there is no reason to go FF unless you want to print really big. You are focused at infinity, you have no subject to isolate, you don't want the background blurred out. You are working off a tripod and can adjust shutter to keep ISO at base. I understand why landscape photographers don't see a need for a FF camera given the quality of APS-C. What I don't understand is why the landscape photographers think everyone needs what they need. For portraits its more about the glass and working distance, bokeh, sharpness, color/skin tones. 85mm on a FF is a great working distance. 80mm on a 645 is even better.

[Rondec]

Let's look at the shot taken at ISO 10,000 with the DA* 55mm.
The softness is partial do to the noise and to the the fact that the DA* 55mm is soft at F/1.4.

Had that image been shot with a FF body and 85mm lens what would the difference be? Let's keep the ISO at 10,000 so we have apples to apples there. Say we are using the D750 or D610 which also has a Sony 24MP sensor, but its a FF. At the same ISO the larger sensor is going to give you less noise and a cleaner image. With the 85mm we stop it down to keep DoF the same, but what does that do? Well, stopping down gives you a sharper image. The Nikon 85mm F/1.8G is actually really good at F/2 and the 85mm F/1.4G is really, really good at F/2. People always say that you "have to stop down", but you want to stop down because that gives you a sharper image.

The second point is that 85mm+/- is not just considered the best portrait length for FF. If I pick up my Contax 645 it the 80mm F/2. If you go with Pentax its the DA 70mm and the FA 77mm. If you are a M4/3 shooter, they call the 75mm F/1.8 their portrait lens. The Fuji 56mm and the Pentax 55mm are optically great lenses, that give the same FoV as an 85mm lens, but they don't actually render like an 85mm lens. Its just not possible for a 55mm lens to render like an 85mm. I love my 85mm lens for the way that it renders the subject and isolates them, but on my K-3 I really need to be outside where I have room to work. The working distance is not ideal.

For people who shoot landscapes, there is no reason to go FF unless you want to print really big. You are focused at infinity, you have no subject to isolate, you don't want the background blurred out. You are working off a tripod and can adjust shutter to keep ISO at base. I understand why landscape photographers don't see a need for a FF camera given the quality of APS-C. What I don't understand is why the landscape photographers think everyone needs what they need. For portraits its more about the glass and working distance, bokeh, sharpness, color/skin tones. 85mm on a FF is a great working distance. 80mm on a 645 is even better.

I think the biggest issue with the photo is that there isn't enough depth of field (not fixed by going full frame), that it is at too high iso (fixable on full frame as long as I don't need at least equivalent depth of field), and maybe some is due to softness of the DA *55 at f1.4.

If I had had a full frame and shot with an 85mm at f2 and iso 10,000 and 1/30 second exposure (assuming that I need at least this much depth of field) then I'm going to get a crap result, because I can't hand hold 85mm at 1/30 second without stabilization, I just can't do it. Even if the 85mm is sharper at f2, it just won't do me much good.

Oh well, I could try to talk myself into believing that full frame would fix all of my photographic woes, I just don't believe that it would.

[Winder]

I think the biggest issue with the photo is that there isn't enough depth of field (not fixed by going full frame), that it is at too high iso (fixable on full frame as long as I don't need at least equivalent depth of field), and maybe some is due to softness of the DA *55 at f1.4.

If I had had a full frame and shot with an 85mm at f2 and iso 10,000 and 1/30 second exposure (assuming that I need at least this much depth of field) then I'm going to get a crap result, because I can't hand hold 85mm at 1/30 second without stabilization, I just can't do it. Even if the 85mm is sharper at f2, it just won't do me much good.

Oh well, I could try to talk myself into believing that full frame would fix all of my photographic woes, I just don't believe that it would.

The let's assume the you are using a Pentax FF with the same 24mp sensor and the Sigma 85mm. Now you have a stabilized 85mm lens. You get cleaner ISO at 10,000 and by stopping down to f/2 you get a sharper image, or you stop down farther to F/2.8 for more DoF and keep the noise the same, but get a sharper image. Now let's print that image at A3+. The FF has 2.33x the surface area of the ASP-C. Even if they both 24MP sensors have the same S/N ratio at 10,000 ISO, that noise and all of the lens defects are going to be magnified more in the APS-C image to reach final output and will be more visible. This is why lenses like the Olympus 35-100 F/2 were more expensive than their FF counterparts. Lenses designed for smaller sensors have to be sharper and resolve more detail to handle the greater magnification needed to enlarge the image. A M4/3 has to have its surface area increased by a factor of 4 just to match the size of the original capture of a FF sensor. The DA 70mm F/2.4 is more expensive than the 75mm F/2.8 645 lens for a couple of reasons. You would think that economies of scale and smaller format would make the DA 70mm cheaper, but it doesn't. The DA 70mm has to be significantly sharper than the 75mm 2.8 AL to match IQ for large print. People seem to just want to isolate sensor size as though that is the only variable in the discussion.

Image quality is a combination of focal length, aperture, subject distance, ISO, & sensor size..... and a dozen other variables line lens quality, rounded aperture blades, coatings..... Final output matters. If all my images are going to be exported to 8-bit JPEGs for web viewing then M4/3 is way more camera than I need.

Nobody is claiming FF will make you photography better, but there seems to be several people on this forum who have made it a goal to convince others that they don't need FF. I guess I should start going around telling everyone that they don't need APS-C and that M4/3 is more than enough. Size obviously matters. If it didn't nobody would shoot medium format or FF.... or even APS-C.

I see people download 36MP RAW files from IR, then export them out to 8-bit JPEGs at web resolution and say "look! its no better than my K-7" No $H!T. For those people, FF is a total waste of money.

[normhead]

Nobody is claiming FF will make you photography better, but there seems to be several people on this forum who have made it a goal to convince others that they don't need FF. I guess I should start going around telling everyone that they don't need APS-C and that M4/3 is more than enough. Size obviously matters. If it didn't nobody would shoot medium format or FF.... or even APS-C.

The guys claiming you need Full Frame outnumber the guys claiming you don't by about 10 to one, and tend to be totally tools of FF camera makers marketing. And in any case, they're both wrong. The simple answer is depending on your shooting style, you might benefit from Full Frame. Or it might seriously cramp your style. Anyone who does one side of the equation without the other is a troll.

But really, when you see people promoting absolute idiocy, like you can't do narrow DOF or subject isolation on APS-c and a pile of other inaccurate claims, really, shut up, take a hike, take a long walk off a short dock, go play on the train tracks, who needs that stupidness?

You have to ask yourself, what kind of person comes on a website, tells people they can't do what they do every day with their own cameras, and expects to have any credibility?

The people who most actively spread the FF cool aid, are those who've swallowed the bait, hook line and sinker, and instead of going out and taking the kick ass pictures, they should now be able to take, try and convince the rest of the world they made the right choice. It gets tiring.

You seem to be saying it's alright for idiots to go on and on about how everyone needs a Full Frame, and there's something wrong with people saying "wait a minute here". The Pentax Forum is not the domain of Full Frame marketers. SO, you find that offensive. But then, your characterization of APS_c folks as people who just don't know what you know is pretty low as well.

I see people download 36MP RAW files from IR, then export them out to 8-bit JPEGs at web resolution and say "look! its no better than my K-7" No $H!T. For those people, FF is a total waste of money.

What? Now you want to get into an argument over who says the stupidest stuff, FF shooters or APS-c shooters. What's the benefit of that?

What's wrong with you?

But if you really want to get into lets do is. I'll dig up all the insanely stupid stuff said by people promoting FF and you find all the bad stuff said by those defending APS-c. Problem is, it's all stupid. We'll see who is the least informed. Quit feeding the flame.

Just kidding, while I'm sure you'd love to do that as witnessed by the above quote, I have no desire to waste my time in such an endeavour.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-01-2014 at 12:19 PM.

[Rondec]

The let's assume the you are using a Pentax FF with the same 24mp sensor and the Sigma 85mm. Now you have a stabilized 85mm lens. You get cleaner ISO at 10,000 and by stopping down to f/2 you get a sharper image, or you stop down farther to F/2.8 for more DoF and keep the noise the same, but get a sharper image. Now let's print that image at A3+. The FF has 2.33x the surface area of the ASP-C. Even if they both 24MP sensors have the same S/N ratio at 10,000 ISO, that noise and all of the lens defects are going to be magnified more in the APS-C image to reach final output and will be more visible. This is why lenses like the Olympus 35-100 F/2 were more expensive than their FF counterparts. Lenses designed for smaller sensors have to be sharper and resolve more detail to handle the greater magnification needed to enlarge the image. A M4/3 has to have its surface area increased by a factor of 4 just to match the size of the original capture of a FF sensor. The DA 70mm F/2.4 is more expensive than the 75mm F/2.8 645 lens for a couple of reasons. You would think that economies of scale and smaller format would make the DA 70mm cheaper, but it doesn't. The DA 70mm has to be significantly sharper than the 75mm 2.8 AL to match IQ for large print. People seem to just want to isolate sensor size as though that is the only variable in the discussion.

Image quality is a combination of focal length, aperture, subject distance, ISO, & sensor size..... and a dozen other variables line lens quality, rounded aperture blades, coatings..... Final output matters. If all my images are going to be exported to 8-bit JPEGs for web viewing then M4/3 is way more camera than I need.

Nobody is claiming FF will make you photography better, but there seems to be several people on this forum who have made it a goal to convince others that they don't need FF. I guess I should start going around telling everyone that they don't need APS-C and that M4/3 is more than enough. Size obviously matters. If it didn't nobody would shoot medium format or FF.... or even APS-C.

I see people download 36MP RAW files from IR, then export them out to 8-bit JPEGs at web resolution and say "look! its no better than my K-7" No $H!T. For those people, FF is a total waste of money.

You've just assumed a camera that as of yet doesn't exist. I was arguing with Neostyles about his D600/D800 versus current APS-C cameras. I don't think that you have defended his assertion that his Nikon full frames offer "several stops improvement" in the high iso department over APS-C cameras. Beyond which, as far as I know, Nikon does not offer an 85mm lens with stabilization and I know they don't offer a full frame camera with in body image stabilization. I understand that you are defending full frame and that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that Neostyles assertions (a) that in body stabilization is relatively worthless and (b) that his camera is several stops better than anything Pentax offers, is just not true.

I agree that there are benefits to full frame. If Pentax can figure out in body image stabilization and keep the size of the body down, they could have a killer set up. I would probably buy one with f2.8 zooms and a wide angle prime. But that camera doesn't exist yet.

[LeeRunge]

95% of people couldn't tell if a shot came from a D750, K3, Sony A7, Nikon D7100 etc. 75% probably couldn't tell if it came from a point and shoot or iphone without exif.


The photographer is the best piece of equipment available. If the images suck, upgrade that part.


FF still is a better tool for shallow DOF. ISO and DR differences are pretty negligible from 100-6400 ISO these days. Fast AF is great for a few things but most photography doesn't require it. I'd rather have reliable focus in the dark.

[Winder]

You've just assumed a camera that as of yet doesn't exist. I was arguing with Neostyles about his D600/D800 versus current APS-C cameras. I don't think that you have defended his assertion that his Nikon full frames offer "several stops improvement" in the high iso department over APS-C cameras. Beyond which, as far as I know, Nikon does not offer an 85mm lens with stabilization and I know they don't offer a full frame camera with in body image stabilization. I understand that you are defending full frame and that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that Neostyles assertions (a) that in body stabilization is relatively worthless and (b) that his camera is several stops better than anything Pentax offers, is just not true.

I agree that there are benefits to full frame. If Pentax can figure out in body image stabilization and keep the size of the body down, they could have a killer set up. I would probably buy one with f2.8 zooms and a wide angle prime. But that camera doesn't exist yet.

I'm not defending Neostyles or his position. Ever since he said he had ran out of things to take pictures of I stopped reading his posts. Since he doesn't have anything to take pictures of, he doesn't need a camera.

[neostyles]

^
This is why i went to ff inititally. For portraits but the increase in sharpness has been phenomenal too. Most of the pros use ff anyway. Almost every single pro photographer who came to our class used a 5dmk3. I would think that a big sensor just gives you more to work with. But im by no means an expert of any sort. Try doing those shots in low light though. Everything on my flickr besides a few sky shots from a month ago (i believe) was done hand held. And with a lens that weighs 100 grams less than your k5iis. For aps-c, you would probably need a telephoto or something. But yeah try doing low light shots, handheld with a set up that weighs around 1300 grams.. Almost double the weight of a k5iis.

Ever since he said he had ran out of things to take pictures of I stopped reading his posts. Since he doesn't have anything to take pictures of, he doesn't need a camera.

Just lol. I wasnt even sure whether i wanted to respond to this.. But what the hell.. while it may be true that i don't shoot nearly as much as i used to, i still do what i love to dude. Plus, im not gonna be stuck in this boring photographic wasteland forever. Gonna move to a big city, probably sj that has a lot more going on there. Yes, i guess, i should just sell my gear because at the moment i don't live in a photographic goldmine at the moment. That would be a great idea considering that my gear would probably run be around $2500 at the moment and i have no income at the moment. As photographers, one of the things we do is make the ordinary...look unordinary? I got lots of practice with this in class when we would go out and shoot for around half an hour and we would be limited to campus.

Now is it true that most of what is posted here doesnt have quite the awe factor than what it is i do? Yes, of course (still i am very proud of what i have accomplished with so little .) I would hard pressed to do something anywhere near alot of the stuff people post here. But that hasn't stopped me from shooting. I just pick up my camera whenever i go out. It's instinctual. Photography has always sort of been my escape of sorts.

[Rondec]

^
This is why i went to ff inititally. For portraits but the increase in sharpness has been phenomenal too. Most of the pros use ff anyway. Almost every single pro photographer who came to our class used a 5dmk3. I would think that a big sensor just gives you more to work with. But im by no means an expert of any sort. Try doing those shots in low light though. Everything on my flickr besides a few sky shots from a month ago (i believe) was done hand held. And with a lens that weighs 100 grams less than your k5iis. For aps-c, you would probably need a telephoto or something. But yeah try doing low light shots, handheld with a set up that weighs around 1300 grams.. Almost double the weight of a k5iis.

I guess I'm not taking your point. I thought full frame was supposed to be equivalent size or smaller for "equivalent lenses." Most of the time I shoot hand held, but if I really want the best results, a tripod is the best way to go -- particularly if you are shooting landscape. Your argument really seems to be in favor of APS-C. Your full frame set up is too heavy to really use effectively and you are really struggling with it. If you only had a smaller, cheaper APS-C set up, you would be in good shape.

[akanarya]

there is no one size fits all solution, so it is nonse to continue the discussion.

come on d750 owners, more reviews please

[Winder]

there is no one size fits all solution, so it is nonse to continue the discussion.

come on d750 owners, more reviews please

How about this:
Nikon D750 internal reflection.... Always use a lens hood.

You Tube

You Tube

Nikon D750 internal reflection issue?: Nikon FX SLR (DF, D1-D4, D600-D800) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

[normhead]

I took it to Lewis Ginter Gardenfest of Lights last night with the 50 1.8 shot wide open all night. Overall it did very well in extremely challenging conditions. A few times it was hunting for focus under very low light but mostly it was pretty quick to focus.

This was a pic that took a while to find focus. Mrs Bassie was backlit by the blue LED Christmas lights, her face was pretty dark.



But mostly I shot things like this and the camera did very well.



What can I say. This camera is like a Ferrari both in performance and cost. Most people don't commute in a sports car but I guess it is nice if you can afford it. Got another month before I have to decide what to do.

What are you comparing it with?