Welcome to the IHoP v.2

[///M5 2,833]

No Bulb mode?

For long exposures don't use a flash, but a flash light.  Paint what you want quickly and see.  Takes a bunch of tries, but for what you want to do there it will be way better than even a $500 hot shoe option.

Btw, the stock on board flash is basically pointless.  There is a reason most real cameras don't even include one.

[///M5 2,833]

Still curious what brought you so strongly to Nikon.  At a segue in lens buying myself and know you shop like I do, so I want to know to help either rationalize what I am about to spend or to stop it.

[dem beats 1,223]

Flash on a body is only useful if you difuse it massively or bounce it.  For an in body flash you can diffuse it.  Make a little box with a flat sheet of paper or super thin white cloth and out it in front of the flash.

 

This will create a much better light.  

 

I cannot express to you the importance of learning how flashes work. F-stoppers is a great start.  So is the strobist.

 

B&H have a ton of free workshop classes you can see on YouTube.  

[dem beats 1,223]

 

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

[dem beats 1,223]

14 hours ago, ///M5 said:

Matt this might help.  It is for XL and bigger frames, but normally frames scale.  Finding an Ice Cream Truck in L may be a good start for a test ride.

And yes there are more in that spreadsheet, and no it is not something you can download.  I am an odd size and shop like an idiot so that is all my dumbass.  Long ETT and low standover are your friends.  Standover not that big of a deal.

I would try to find a 170mm and 190mm Q factor to compare.  The ICT will be 190 and I think the Pivot Le Fat you rode is a 170mm...but I will have to Google to check.  The ICT may be too slack, but holy hell can it go through shit.  I test rode one and rode through 18" deep mud.  Got all nasty lol

The guy I use for my gym equipment gave me the name of a dude here in Maple Grove at a trek shop.  Maple grove cycle.

 

I'm going to head there in just a few moments.

 

I don't understand anything on that spreadsheet.

[topgun 262]

5 hours ago, ///M5 said:

No Bulb mode?

 

We taking photos of lighting?  

[///M5 2,833]

2 hours ago, topgun said:

 

We taking photos of lighting?  

Lightning tubes baby

[dem beats 1,223]

No Better info at the Trek store.

[///M5 2,833]

Perhaps we ahould go shop together

[///M5 2,833]

Go ride q surly and or a scott big ed

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

 

[sandt38 448]

9 hours ago, ///M5 said:

Still curious what brought you so strongly to Nikon.  At a segue in lens buying myself and know you shop like I do, so I want to know to help either rationalize what I am about to spend or to stop it.

I obviously looked around online and did as much comparison shopping as I could. There are a ton of sites that will straight up compare models from a technical standpoint. In almost every regard the Nikon won the straight up comparison. Another big thing for me was the fact that Nikon is pressing forward with newer/better design features. Many of the mid level consumer models (which was really my target) are trickled down from the previous year's professional lines. It was obvious to me that the Nikon bodies are vastly superior to their Canon bretheren. In one case I saw the D3300 vs the T5 (a straight entry level comparison) with a "why is it better" column for both models. The D3300 had roughly 20 pluses and the Canon had one. This was fairly common with the body comparisons.

As far as glass, I just tried reading what i could about it. It appeared to be a 50/50 split. Something I have also found is that Canon glass adapters to the Nikon bodies do not offer AF motor control while adapters for so many others offered contacts for auto focus. Why is that? Because the glass is so similar that there really is no reason to cross them. It isn't like a Zeiss where there are worlds of difference between the final outcome.

According to a friend of mine's wife (the guy who just lost his son to the OD), who is a professional photographer and has been for 35 years, the glass is so close between Nikon and Canon today as not to worry about it. She said don't swallow what a lot of sites are pushing without focusing on the advertising on the site. Adapting options allow you to use the other companies lenses and she says AF doesn't matter a whole lot to her. She suggested since I was unsure what I wanted to shoot, that I buy the body I want, then grab glass to suit as you learn what you are doing and what you will need. She told me that in the professional market you are a fool if you don't buy a Nikon body. In the consumer market that same thought process stands. Historically the 2 manufacturers have been neck in neck, but over the past 5 years Nikon has advanced by leaps and bounds over the same old repackaged Canon equipment from the previous year.

For what it is worth, from my research she was right.

I decided on the Nikon because of this. I only expect to see better glass from them in the near future... and from what I gather, if I grab glass from the past 5 years or so, it is a toss up... older than 5 years Canon glass will be better. Not sure how to date glass, so I'll focus on the here and now.

[sandt38 448]

10 hours ago, ///M5 said:

No Bulb mode?

For long exposures don't use a flash, but a flash light.  Paint what you want quickly and see.  Takes a bunch of tries, but for what you want to do there it will be way better than even a $500 hot shoe option.

Btw, the stock on board flash is basically pointless.  There is a reason most real cameras don't even include one.

I get that. I am using an external source (in the case of this last set, a flashlight) and just hitting it for a second to pick up little details, like the Sennhieser label on the headphones, or the KT88 label on the tubes in my earlier shots.

But I tried to divert the flash effect by focusing it away from the tubes, but if you look you can see the wall in the reflection of the tube.

6 hours ago, dem beats said:

Flash on a body is only useful if you difuse it massively or bounce it.  For an in body flash you can diffuse it.  Make a little box with a flat sheet of paper or super thin white cloth and out it in front of the flash.

 

This will create a much better light.  

 

I cannot express to you the importance of learning how flashes work. F-stoppers is a great start.  So is the strobist.

 

B&H have a ton of free workshop classes you can see on YouTube.  

I get that flash is difficult... or I guess I should say, something that needs to be mastered. If you look, there are very few pics that I use flash in. I understand how it can create a harshness or wash out a shot. At this stage, I do not understand how to tame it enough, and I would prefer not to use it. However, I thought in these shots I have a unique opportunity to experiment. But now I see I need to do more research.

[sandt38 448]

6 hours ago, dem beats said:

I cannot express to you the importance of learning how flashes work. F-stoppers is a great start.  So is the strobist.

Saved both, thanks.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

Duuuuuuuuuuude

 

 

[MKader17 332]

2 hours ago, ///M5 said:

Perhaps we ahould go shop together

[dem beats 1,223]

2 hours ago, ///M5 said:

Perhaps we ahould go shop together

I would like that I think.  

 

We can wear matching smedium bike shorts

[dem beats 1,223]

2 hours ago, sandt38 said:

I obviously looked around online and did as much comparison shopping as I could. There are a ton of sites that will straight up compare models from a technical standpoint. In almost every regard the Nikon won the straight up comparison. Another big thing for me was the fact that Nikon is pressing forward with newer/better design features. Many of the mid level consumer models (which was really my target) are trickled down from the previous year's professional lines. It was obvious to me that the Nikon bodies are vastly superior to their Canon bretheren. In one case I saw the D3300 vs the T5 (a straight entry level comparison) with a "why is it better" column for both models. The D3300 had roughly 20 pluses and the Canon had one. This was fairly common with the body comparisons.

As far as glass, I just tried reading what i could about it. It appeared to be a 50/50 split. Something I have also found is that Canon glass adapters to the Nikon bodies do not offer AF motor control while adapters for so many others offered contacts for auto focus. Why is that? Because the glass is so similar that there really is no reason to cross them. It isn't like a Zeiss where there are worlds of difference between the final outcome.

According to a friend of mine's wife (the guy who just lost his son to the OD), who is a professional photographer and has been for 35 years, the glass is so close between Nikon and Canon today as not to worry about it. She said don't swallow what a lot of sites are pushing without focusing on the advertising on the site. Adapting options allow you to use the other companies lenses and she says AF doesn't matter a whole lot to her. She suggested since I was unsure what I wanted to shoot, that I buy the body I want, then grab glass to suit as you learn what you are doing and what you will need. She told me that in the professional market you are a fool if you don't buy a Nikon body. In the consumer market that same thought process stands. Historically the 2 manufacturers have been neck in neck, but over the past 5 years Nikon has advanced by leaps and bounds over the same old repackaged Canon equipment from the previous year.

For what it is worth, from my research she was right.

I decided on the Nikon because of this. I only expect to see better glass from them in the near future... and from what I gather, if I grab glass from the past 5 years or so, it is a toss up... older than 5 years Canon glass will be better. Not sure how to date glass, so I'll focus on the here and now.

That's so wrong I cannot even.

 

Sony bodies and sensor DESTROY everything. By light years.

 

As for glass. Nikon is a decade behind and lie about their focal length.

 

 

 

[dem beats 1,223]

In practice that difference he is talking about is a billion trillion Light years and it's shit that Nikon can't even get the focal lengths right.

 

Canon is actually developing new glass technology. Nikon doesn't produce sensors and they aren't making waves in glass.  They spend their R and D money to get T Swift and Ashton Kutcher(sp) to shlep the products they make well, low cost lens swapable systems. 

 

They don't deal with inovation so their low cost bodies do have amazing features.

[dem beats 1,223]

I actually think you got the right body for that dollar.  But if you ever turn this into more than entry level equipment you hamstrung yourself.

[dem beats 1,223]

3 hours ago, sandt38 said:

Saved both, thanks.

Watch those B & H vids too.

 

I have learned so much from those sites.  I don't have enough flashes to really practice but I'm getting there.

 

[dem beats 1,223]

Digital Rev even States this is as sharp as primes in the same range.  Unless you need lower f or closer minimum focus length or macro.

 

Nuts.

 

 

[///M5 2,833]

Seth I didn't ask to argue, I was curious and hopeful as I am REALLY close to spending $2k on a lens and wanted to make sure it made sense.

That being said I have to comment on a few points.

-Nikon glass is 10 years behind and they aren't updating it anytime soon, that being said their kit lenses may be even better than the Canon's but they are both useless junk so that is irrelevant.

-I've been to at least 25 professional photographers for portraits or interviewing for portraits the last 5 years.  100% of them shoot Canon.  Not a single shoot a Nikon.

-Besides portraits, sports are the second hardest thing to shoot (akin to birds in flight etc).  Look at the sidelines and see the Canon bias.

-And last and very important.  NEVER compare consumer models.  Every new one always leap frogs either, but you want to compare prosumer models at least.  The adjustments on consumer models are maddening in comparison.  Here you will also find that the important specs Nikon lacks on.  Sure they win on ISO performance, but meh, that helps in .001% of your pictures so focusing on features that matter is a better idea.

 

Either way thanks.  You helped me feel great about grabbing a 70-200....almost.  Perhaps I should buy Matt some beer on a soccer day to complete convince myself a prime isn't necessary.

[///M5 2,833]

It is real interesting to see their marketing machine work.  Obviously they market what new users want to buy which will strengthen the brand.