PShizzy
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #8 · Preseason NBA with the D3 | |
Joe,
I do shoot the dancers. I just never really post images of them. I'm also quite aware of Yamil's powers to attract random violence. He was actually using my 300 2.8 when he got clocked one time. I ran over to see if he was ok, and he goes "your lens is fine". Not really what I was worried about (well, I didn't want to outright say it. heh). And I believe he called me hoMey, with an M.
Pat, I left mine on normal, and it seems fine. I tried 3D focusing for a minute, but didn't like it for sports.
feharmat, here's whats funny: I used the exact same process on this image that I used on my previous images. There is no "subjective toning" in my process, so that's not the different. And my shots are the exact same settings in camera they were last week. With the exception of Active D-Lighting being set to LOW rather than OFF. So, what I see here is that the Active D-lighting has warmed the image up.
If what you're seeing is that the skintones are a little orange, I agree with you. I think that's just Nikons color rendition vs Canons. But that too is subjective. I'm very used to the Canon look. I'm sure if I was going the other way around, I'd say "oh that Canon looks too blue". This is why I kept the process on all images from each game the same. Everyone can make their own choices on whether they like an image or not.
The images were not meant to sway anyone. They were meant for display, and I like sharing what I do with others. As for my reasons to switch? a few. After countless 70-200 2.8 IS and non IS lenses, on countless bodies, I've come to realize, it's just not a great lens. Good? sure. And from where I sit, the 70-200 on a 1.3x crop is actually a little tight. In fact, the first shot of Shaq here was shot at 70mm. Had I been using the 1D3 and 70-200, I probably would have clipped Shaq, and therefore lost the image. I even considered, at one point, getting the Sigma 50-150, because I needed a wider solution than the 70-200 on a 1D.
So with that in mind, the 70-200 VR and D3 made sense. Considering it's 12mp, if you cropped the D3 to 1.3x crop relative, it would be about 8mp (remember, the 12mp 5D and 8mp mk2 share the same pixel size, so that's how I came to this conclusion with a 12mp D3). 8mp is more than enough, so I can crop if I need it, but the extra wide and the "full frame" look is excellent.
It's only a disadvantage where you need distance, and where you need distance you can use primes like a 300 or 400.
So why am I staying with both? Simple. my 300 2.8 IS and 400 2.8 IS are excellent, on all cameras they've come across. So why would I spend more money (the Nikon glass is pricier) to get lenses that match lenses I'm already happy with. And honestly, the crop factor does help with those distances. 10mp on a 1.3x would be like 15mp full frame.
But with the zooms? No contest. After now having played with a 14-24 and 24-70 in addition to a 70-200, I can honestly say the worst of the bunch is the 70-200 VR, and it still trounces the 70-200 IS. Where it doesn't do well? Vignetting. It's heavy. But not a big deal to me. Also, VR, compared to IS, really doesn't do as well. Maybe I'm just used to the way IS works, but for me, IS is better. I rarely use it though. Panning, weddings, that's about it.
The 24-70, Nikons is just sharper. 14-24 vs a 16-35 is a laughable comparison. Even on the other forums, people are getting adapters to fit a 14-24 onto a Canon. I've yet to hear of anyone trying to fit a 16-35 on anything else. I sure wouldn't.
While the issues with the mk3 float around, I've been lucky, in that both my copies are pretty good. I will say they are "different". One of them likes primes, the other zooms. I have tried countless times to fight this and believe it to be psychosomatic, but no matter what, I end up with one camera on my primes, the other on my zooms. I totally expect Canon to come out with some amazing mk4 and bounce back from the bad PR.
Adopting dual systems, and why: Simple, I've got a lot of lenses that I really don't use, and can sell off. I actually already sold off 2 40D's, and other things. By consolidating from a large collection of Canon lenses and cameras, I've gotten enough to carefully select a set of Nikon glass and cameras. They're not interchangeable, but each will have its own specific uses.
Again, everything I'm saying is subjective. I'm not trying to sell anyone on anything. I'm simply stating my take on the equipment. You can all take it for what it's worth.
Max
|
See ya tomorrow Homey!!
