Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
I'm looking at either a 5100/5200 or 7000/7100 body. Both use the same sensor...
TheEmrys wrote:For my money with Nikon, I'd be hard pressed to go against the D5200. Its just so versatile. Great body with excellent features. Not sure if the D7100 AF and weather sealing is worth what... $500 more?
Don't underestimate the usefulness of a swing out screen. I don't think I could use a body that didn't have it now.
Also, for my needs, I think I'd be more apt to go for a Tamron 70-200 than a Sigma. Everything I've read says the Tamron has better IQ at 2.8 than just about anything out at the focal length. Might be worth looking into. Actually, I remember where I read that at. Kurt Munger did a review comparing both of them to the Sony G lens. Tammy won and the Sigma didn't fair so well.
http://www.kurtmunger.com/70_200mm_f_2_8compid210.html
w00tstock wrote:You might want to consider a used nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 vr1 if you can find one. Great lens for dx cameras and around $1300.
I would personally rather have the lower fstop than the better vr of the 70-200f4 since you will be capturing motion.
SecretSquirrel wrote:Indoors, 50-100mm, f/5, ISO 1600, 1/100 seemed to be the most common. The ISO is obviosly the best my old D70s can do, and they are grainy. That was with the 18-200 lens, so the f/5 will vary a bit along the 50-100mm range. Going to the 5k/7k series would get me into the 1/400 range with the same lense and less noise in the picture. A f/4 would get me in the 1/600 range and an f/2.8 would let me back off the sensativity a bit.
ludi wrote:Even down at f/3.5 I've lost good pictures because AF picked a target on the subject's body that was too far forward of their torso, and voila, a limb is fully in focus but the face is not.
End User wrote:ludi wrote:Even down at f/3.5 I've lost good pictures because AF picked a target on the subject's body that was too far forward of their torso, and voila, a limb is fully in focus but the face is not.
Single-point AF or manually selecting a focus point would be better options.
End User wrote:ludi wrote:Even down at f/3.5 I've lost good pictures because AF picked a target on the subject's body that was too far forward of their torso, and voila, a limb is fully in focus but the face is not.
Single-point AF or manually selecting a focus point would be better options.
ludi wrote:Even down at f/3.5 I've lost good pictures because AF picked a target on the subject's body that was too far forward of their torso, and voila, a limb is fully in focus but the face is not.
Airmantharp wrote:End User wrote:ludi wrote:Even down at f/3.5 I've lost good pictures because AF picked a target on the subject's body that was too far forward of their torso, and voila, a limb is fully in focus but the face is not.
Single-point AF or manually selecting a focus point would be better options.
I generally use just the center AF point on my 60D, and focus-recompose about half the time. But I'm not shooting action/sports, which is a completely different ballgame!
Sure, there's some tuning that can be done (only use one or a few sensors instead of all of them), but when the subject is moving and you are moving it can be impossible to get you subject all in focus with such shallow depth of field.
Another reason for using full-frame for action; more light to allow faster shutter speeds at smaller apertures brings needed flexibility. Just need to win the lottery first!
SecretSquirrel wrote:Looking through photos from this year, if I had to pick on lens it would probably be the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8. Kind of an odd zoom range when put on a DX body, but it covers the most common range I found myself shooting at.
ludi wrote:I know you're on Nikon gear, but just for comparison, my 7D can get less-grainy shots at ISO-3200 than what my 40D could do at ISO-1600. ISO-6400 is then about equal. So, upgrading the body to newer sensor technology will buy about the same advantage as a couple F-stops.
w00tstock wrote:Like End User said, ALWAYS pick your focus point or go to single focus and frame your shots. Please keep cropping to a minimum, this is after all why we have zoom-able lenses and legs+feet. The only time you should think about auto focus with a dslr (imo) is in video and even then iffy.
But Ludi did bring up something to mind in regards to DOF, cheerleading is generally spread out so in order to get the whole squad in focus you would need to step down very far (f11+) with any lens past 100mm. That means a midrange zoom would probably be best. However on DX you really only get the 17-55 which for you wont be the one lens to rule them all if you take many shots out at 100mm.
I would probably recommend the 24-70 fx lens so you get your reach (105mm) and get great bokeh (f2.8 ).
As far as body goes, get the one that feels the best. Do keep in mind the d5200 does not have the info display on top that you might be used to from your d70 as well. Both body's are going to get you more than enough ISO range.
TheEmrys wrote:What lens(es) do you usually use at f/5? If you are shooting wide open or down a stop on an f/4, you may be able to move to a 70-200/2.8 Tammy or Sigma, and then shoot at f/3-4 (not sure what stops you have available in camera) and get the wide focus and speed you are looking for.
Any chance you could try out a Sigma and Tammy to compare how they do on your current body, knowing that your new body will perform even better? You might even be able to sit somewhere around f/3.5, ISO800-1600 for the cheer events. With either of those lenses, that would be a pretty nice place to be, if you can get your shutter where you need it to be. Shoot, wide open might work as well.
For what you are doing, I think this is a perfectly appropriate time to pursue a good 70-200/2.8. At ~$1300 for the Sigma, it might be the right move for you now.
w00tstock wrote:As far as body goes, get the one that feels the best. Do keep in mind the d5200 does not have the info display on top that you might be used to from your d70 as well.
SecretSquirrel wrote:On a 24 megapixel image I would consider a 16mp or even 12mp crop to be perfectly acceptable and it would effectively double the length of your lense. Otherwise I'd rather a 12mp sensor with today's sensor tech than a 24mp one. For the same size, the lower resolution sensor will get much more light per pixel. Same reason FX sensors are so nice, they just make the sensor bigger for the same resolution.
Even with sports shots, I frame the shot a good bit. I don't have a whole lot of focus points on the D70s, but I'll happily set the focus off to one side, or especially the top to get a nicely composed image. I almost never let the camera pick the focus, though I was pretty impressed with the AF tracking on the D800
TheEmrys wrote:What lens(es) do you usually use at f/5? If you are shooting wide open or down a stop on an f/4, you may be able to move to a 70-200/2.8 Tammy or Sigma, and then shoot at f/3-4 (not sure what stops you have available in camera) and get the wide focus and speed you are looking for.
Any chance you could try out a Sigma and Tammy to compare how they do on your current body, knowing that your new body will perform even better? You might even be able to sit somewhere around f/3.5, ISO800-1600 for the cheer events. With either of those lenses, that would be a pretty nice place to be, if you can get your shutter where you need it to be. Shoot, wide open might work as well.
For what you are doing, I think this is a perfectly appropriate time to pursue a good 70-200/2.8. At ~$1300 for the Sigma, it might be the right move for you now.
TheEmrys wrote:I didn't realize you were on a hyperzoom. I think a 70-200/2.8 would be the perfect speed and range for you. Any reason why you would go with the 50-150 over the 70-200? I believe the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD is a FF lens (with a ton of alphabet soup... really Sigma, get it together). At ~$1300 new, it is $300 more than the 50-150, but you are getting, imo, a much better range. 200mm @ f/2.8... sounds like it would be great to get isolated shots of your daughter. Couple it with good AF Tracking and it could be pretty special. And the AF is pretty quick. You'd have to sort through a few bad shots, but with good bursts, you may get some winners.
Voldenuit wrote:Superzooms like the 18-200 are just nasty pieces of junk that shouldn't be in any self-respecting DSLR user's kit bag.
Captain Ned wrote:Voldenuit wrote:Superzooms like the 18-200 are just nasty pieces of junk that shouldn't be in any self-respecting DSLR user's kit bag.
For serious photography, I agree. That said, if I'm at Disney, or any other park like that, and looking only for family shots, on goes the superzoom. Means I don't have to pack a big bag.
Captain Ned wrote:Voldenuit wrote:Superzooms like the 18-200 are just nasty pieces of junk that shouldn't be in any self-respecting DSLR user's kit bag.
For serious photography, I agree. That said, if I'm at Disney, or any other park like that, and looking only for family shots, on goes the superzoom. Means I don't have to pack a big bag.