What camera are you shooting with?

x2 on the 85mm! Picked it up used for $300 and it's becoming my favorite lens.

 

Previously had a Canon XT and T2i but have been out of the game for almost 3 years. Picked up a new Canon SL1 last week and love it. Feels good to have a SLR again.

 

Switching to Fuji. Let me know if anyone wants to buy some Nikon gear I'll tell you what I've got for sale.

 

I just picked up one of those last week.

I'm planning a trip to visit my folks, and hit Carlsbad Caverns on the way back.
Some time that week, I want to see if I can get a time-lapse of the Milky Way crossing the sky. I got that Tokina based on the recommendation of the guy who took this shot....

 

I shoot a Nikon D3200. This nikon is my first DSLR camera so I am still trying to figure everything out. Took me a while to get myself to spend $400+ on a digital camera with how advanced cell phone cameras are getting. But the Nikon D3200 is worth the money and great for beginners.

 

UPGRADED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Forgot about this post.
Since posting the above, I added a few lenses... Tamron 70-300, Ronkinon 8mm, and Tamron 200-500.
I also added an SB400 and SB800.
Changed the shoulder bag out to a Case Logic backpack.
It has some wasted space, but ads the convenience of a lens cradle, and there's a couple of curious velcro flaps on the sides about halfway down the zippers.... when closed, they block the zippers so only the camera may be retrieved from the pack.

Then a few weeks ago I decided to give the 3100 and the two plastic-mount lenses to my wife. Also gave her the Sigma 610 flash (She'll have to learn to manually set exposure when shooting bounce) and the shoulder bag.

Replaced with Nikon D7100 and 18-140 kit lens. I'm keeping the 700-300... if she needs more than 200 she can borrow it. I also added a Tonkina 11-16 to cover the gap between the Nikon's 18 (which is pretty badly distorted anyways) and the 8mm.

The Tonkina is a nice lens. I don't know why, but I did not expect AF and for it to be a CPU lens... I guess I was expecting another Ronkinon.
The AF/MF is not on a switch... it's on the focusing ring itself... pull toward the body or push away.
I'm a little disappointed that it is a "G" lens, but that's not really important as it has to go on a crop-sensor DSLR and can't really be used on a film camera, so I'm always going to have the aperture setting available on the camera.

 

Iphone 5s

Das what i want

 

I still use my phone far more than the Nikon, simply due to the convenience, but probably 75% of what I shoot with the phone are things for work, and many I would have simply drawn a picture, like equipment layout in a cabinet or cable pinouts.

You're going to really like the 3200. It has some limitations, but most all can be worked around manually. There are some AF lenses that won't AF, and non-CPU lenses, of course you have to do everything manually.
The higher end cameras can run automatically in some of these situations, and the 7000/7100 can even be programmed with the base information from a non-SPU lens to allow shooting in aperture priority, so you get live metering.
In-camera HDR? Mehh... I'd prefer to do it manually in Lightroom.
The 7x00 has an internal interval timer, and can do double exposures.
The 3200 will accept a Vello interval timer in it's remote shutter release port, and the thing is only like $50... there's no way to do double exposures in the 3200, though software can stack images.
There's a few more buttons, and an LCD display that shows the basic information displayed on the main screen, so it can save battery life.
One of the cooler options is a "preview" button that closes the aperture down and filters the incoming light to simulate what the actual picture will look like, including depth of field.
Again, "nice" but not super important.

As Buzzard said above, the 7x00 is a great camera to grow into.
But the 3200 will take pictures that look just as good.

 

Just recently picked up a Sony HX 300 w/ 50X lens. Excellent capability for the <$400 price tag. Bought it mainly for fishing videos and quick, jump out long range hand held shots. I still have my Canon 50D with various lenses for serious wildlife. And there's my old Pentax Spotmatic 35mm with various lenses and filters. The 1968 Spotmatic still outdoes them all for clarity if you want to old school it...

 

I saw. GLWS.

My buddy has the same camera, and it is wayyyy over my head.

 

Rich, you're going to love that lens. If it's not razer sharp and you bought it new exchage it for another it. It's good as nikon but needs saturation added. There's a Tamron mid range zoom lens that's really good too that is about 1/2 or 1/3 the price of nikon as well. I have it written down somewhere if you want the info.

 

Absolutely.
I really haven't put the 18-140 through its paces yet, but I've used the two Tamron's extensively on the 3100, and had a lot of fun with the cheapie Ronkinon 8mm.

Every time I take the Tamron 70-300 out I am more impressed with it. The Bokeh is bad, but damned if it isn't SHARP at the focal point.
Jury is still out on the 200-500... but I've only tried using it for moonscapes, often with a 2x, and on the 3100 it's fully MF, on the 7100 it won't AF with a TC attached, "infinity" seems to not be, and the moon is too bright to zoom in and fine tune the focus in live view.
But samples I've seen online comparing the Tamron 200-500 to Canon lenses, set to 300mm, it is solidly between and on the high end of the comparison between the E-glass and the standard 300mm.

But that's all my fault. The times I've had it out I've rushed myself for whatever reason. Last time out, trying to get the moonset behind LA, I took my wife with me, and that ended up pushing me about 20 minutes later than planned so I had no time to really set the shot up and test different things out. Due to haze, the whole shoot ended up going into the bit bucket... but arriving 20 minutes earlier would have given me a good 10 minutes to shoot before the moon dropped into the dusty yellow haze.

Tamron 70-300 @ 300:
This was taken from about a half mile away from the observatory.



And the same lens, switched to macro:




Here's the 200-500 with a Tamron 2x TC:
Hand held, but braced on a fence...




And my entry for the weekly competition this week, the Tokina 11-16 at 15mm. I did no sharpness correction in LR, just tone balancing.

 

My new years resolution was to take less pictures with my phone, and more with my camera. So I pack my camera with me everywhere. It has worked out so far.

 

24mp and a 7100 is a bit much for emailing pictures of a contractor's fuckup to my boss.

 

Yeah, for work it makes sense. I don't need pics for work, I was just using my phone because it was easy. But I would look at them later, terrible.

 

Oh ya... I rarely take personal shots with my phone.... never anything I intend to look good, though I did take a few shots at the observatory to text to my wife to let her know I'd be home late.
Other than that, it's just an "info" shot like "Found this shopping, want?"

 

Here's a pic with the tokina 11-16. I did put it through a sharpening filter, but the original large RAW pic has even more detail than this. Has an amazing depth of field. I'll try and look for the info on the tamron lens at some point. I did a lot of research on it. But yesterday my propane hot water heater actually exploded (!!) just a little- but still exploded. Everything is a little disorganised right now.

Darn. I don't know why it's reducing the size of the image. I'll try again later.

 

The forum software does some compression if uploaded as an attachment.
If you do a direct IMG link from offsite, it'll load full size, then display compressed with the option to expand.

You're loading through the gallery and I think that's the max size.


Seems that all of the wide angle lenses have an incredible DoF, which is good because it's hard as hell to pin down the focus on a fisheye.

 

The wider the lens, the greater the dof, and vice versa. (all other factors being equal. distance to subject is usually closer with a wide than a tele so that's a large factor, as well as the obvious aperture and the distance from subject to background, etc.)

 

yep