Be Excellent To Each Other

If I had the time to spend my life travelling, and could go out at the golden hour every day and knew the weather was going to be exactly what I wanted, then I'd agree. Unfortunately that isn't the case, and most of the time I need to give a picture back some of the colour or oomph that the shitty weather has stolen from it. Or do the opposite if I want to emphasise the bleakness of a scene.

Buy a D5000.

Oh no don't. They're wank.

From what I've read in this thread, you have to keep upgrading Nikon cameras to ones with worse sensors so you can make your lenses work properly - I'll stick with Canon, ta

I'll be buying a Sony next. At least then... [account hacked]

Thrrrrp!

Sing it, Bro!

O/

Hell yeah!

\o

Gnahhhhhh!

Set up tripod, got ducks got boats, got train, got train driver looking at me in this really angry way. Took same shot when he came round again and he still stared, moved to new location and mr glowery is back. Fucker even deliberatly parked his train in the wrong place so it was out of shot when stationary. Kindly old guy who usually does it wouldn't have done that and he went out and bought himself an old school train drivers uniform out of his own pay.

You need to buy a more expensive train driver.

fffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Went through my pictures, got a few nice ones with all lenses, am happy with what I got now thankyouverymuch. Reality is the only way I can get my gear better than this is to buy better £xxx glass (not happening any time soon, I'll just stick with me tripod) and go for a FX body (only if I win the lottery).

We were considering an intervention

Funny thing is I went into jessops today (don't worry, one of my lenses came with no cap) and saw the size of the nikon 70-300 VR that I've been thinking would be one to save up for and it really is too big. I have a sigma 70-300 AF and it must be half the size, plus it would mean a whole new set of filters. Sure the quality may be lower on the sigma (not checked that out yet) but it's light. So that's a no on that one then.

Is the difference that the sigma extends out the end when you zoom, and the nikon does its extending within the existing lens body?

:nods: edit: also no moter

(for bobby ) It's quite a sturdy monster and it's a marked step up in quality from the 55-200 but you would want to use it in a situation where you were stationary all the time and had invested in a high quality tripod, the sigma can be used as a walkabout lens.

I just bought a new lens. Same 55-200mm VR Zardoz has. I was going to buy an old zoom lens but have been outbid on a few, fuck it, it's payday. £144 new from ebay from what appears to be a really good seller.

Such a shame, they're complete wank. Mine just exploded in my face too.

I know they're rubbish, but there's no point putting a good lens on a shitty D5000.

Lenses where the extension is done within the body are larger and heavier, yes - but they have the advantage that filters affix to the front of the body, not to the extension tube. Without that, you can't use circular or graduated filters because they'll rotate as you zoom in and out.

You poor soul. That's the model with the tiny bird inside carving stone with its beak, right?

Larger, sure. Heavier? I'm less sure. Isn't the weight mostly glass, rather than the housing? My Nikkor lens body is made of plastic, for example. In which case the weight saving of the extending lens might be quite modest.

I took my D5000 to a wedding once. They're divorced now.

If you buy cheap arse Nikkor plastic lenses, that's your business, bucko.

You're right though, the weight difference is typically minimal.

You can use them, I've done so on my 18-55mm approximately half the time I've shot with it. It's just rather annoying, as you have to remember to adjust after focusing.

Also, why the hate for the D5000, however tongue in cheek? It's a nice camera! And most Nikkor glass is lush, be quiet Craster!

Whatevs, plastic boy.

What's the deal with UV filters? Lot's of people seem to put them on but is it really just to protect the lens? What's in the camera that'll be bothered by UV?

Protection really.

iirc Before the D5100 came out the D90 was better than the D5000 and not much more second hand and the D3100 had newer guts at the same price or cheaper. It was the ugly stepchild in the line up.
Now the D5100 is out the D5000's rapid price drop makes it a fantastic deal and it's much better than the cannon equivalent in that second hand bracket. (450D)

Protection yes - but if you're taking landscape shots across distance they do an excellent job of cutting out the haze you get from the atmosphere.

I'm quite clueless about filters. I have a UV one on my GF1 that I bought for protection and it's crap (cheap non-coated one that gives internal reflections when I shoot bright lights). I bought a circular polariser for the D5000 but haven't really used it yet for anything more than "ooooh, neat" playing about. I'm unclear if a graduated ND does anything I can't replicate in post (with, if necessary, some exposure bracketing if the high/lo lights are really blown out).

Do you stack a UV filter with your polariser? Or does the polariser remove UV too? Should I buy a UV filter for the D5000, basically?

Consider where you're applying the thirds rule. If 2/3 sky, the polariser will have little effect on the bottom third, so I'd still want to use the UV. If 2/3 land, there will be enough of an effect from the polariser not to need it. Make sense? Note that's with a grad polariser, not a solid one.

"Rules" are for the obedience of Canon users and the guidance of wiser men, like Nikon users.

Right. Yeah, OK, I get that. Hmmm.

But for me the filter is also a lot of use when photographing leaves, grass and rivers. The filter cuts out glare which increases the richness and saturation of colours. This is especially noticable in autumn. It also greatly diminishes reflections in streams and rivers, allowing you to see the bottom. It's perfect for shooting out of closed windows as well, as it neutralises reflection there too - albeit only if you're at a precise angle, and not always completely.

Indeed the polarising filter's strength varies greatly depending on what angle you are to the sun. I think 90 degrees tends to work best. Be wary of using it in low light conditions though, as it will reduce available light by two stops - so not much fun for indoors.

My filter is a Jessops one and is regarded as one of the better ones around, but also reasonably cheap. I think they're anything between £25 and £35 nowadays.

As for graduated filters, I have a hard grad ND9 filter. The 'hard' part refers to the transition between the smoked glass and the clear, indicating that it's a sudden change and so best used for defined horizons. The soft grad has a graduated shift and so can be used more easily in more situations, however the result is less pronounced. The grad numbers run from 3 or so being a very subtle shift to 9 being pretty intense. I find it perfect for making the sky a stormy, oppressive looking one. The scary looking clouds over Three Sisters in the Flickr thread, that look all War of the Worlds, have been filtered this way. The best thing is that aside from darkening the sky it also brings out the contrast and detail. I've also found it useful for darkening the snow when desiring a balanced exposure for the sky. If you slip the smoked glass down fully over the lens you can also use it to gain longer exposures, which is especially useful for flowing water photography.

These things can be done in Photoshop, but not to the same extent and to less dramatic effect. I also reckon that the ND filter will save you from white clipping, while photoshop can only do a limited amount to retrieve information lost this way.

Hope that all helps.

lensrentals have done another fantastic artical - this time about filters.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06 ... ad-filters

I just ordered one of these:

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/premium-8x ... 52mm-17323

I fully realise that it's not going to make great pictures but it's only a fiver looks pretty fun just for messing around with.

No harm for that price, that's nothing at all really.

I suggest you go to the site (http://spamspamspam.html) to find what you need. Their products is really good. Hope you could get the good Camera gear as soon as possible.

I think not.

Going to take my film camera out with me today (canon *spit) because I have shopping to do and it weighs the same as one of my normal lenses.

edit: ahgh no I'm not, need to take my dslr to jessops so I can see what top loading/holster bags fit the damn thing so I can buy on amazon later (big camera is big).

New bag turned up yesterday (Lowepro Fastpack 100). It fits my camera with 55-200mm lens attached and has enough room to fit my Macro lens too (would also work the other way as they're similar in size).

Very well constructed like all my other Lowepro bags and has a separate compartment for anything else you want to take (small packed lunch, phone, ipod etc). Ideal for what I wanted it for, and a bargain at £21.99.

I have the fastpack 200 and I second how awesome they are. Bought a Hama rexton 200 bag for £39 from the london camera exchange (same price as amazon) It was pretty much the only one that would fit my camera as a carry round bag - the biggest top loading bag that I could find was too small.

Canon. Worth every penny!

(I've seen that up for auction before actually, years ago!)

That's £50k!

For a camera lens!

I still umming over £130 for a telephoto. The world's gone mad, I tells ye!

50k starting (17 days to go), the reserve will be 100k, expect it to go for 115k-150k

Madness.

Bad Manners.

from SA.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1107/11071 ... mmacro.asp

Nikon has announced an inexpensive macro lens aimed at entry-level DSLR users. The AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm f/2.8G offers true 1:1 macro in a compact, lightweight package. With its inbuilt silent wave motor it will autofocus on all Nikon DSLRs, including those that lack in-body AF motors such as the D3100 and D5100. It uses an internal focus system with close-range correction to attain a minimum focus distance of just 16cm / 6.4", equating to approximately 5cm / 2" from the front of the lens. It will be available from 25th August, at an MSRP $279.95.

40mm?

fyi there is a AF sigma 50mm that does full macro as well http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-50mm-Macr ... 815&sr=8-4 at £200 second hand