Yes

Has anyone else heard about the recent uproar about a photographer's heavily doctored shot of the Milky Way featured by National Geographic? Some pretty damning evidence has come out of it, and mounds of criticism. First, the photographer is initially implicating an intern she worked with for the "snafu". So far, NatGeo has been mum on the incident. The picture should have never made it past the editors, many are saying.

Good article with analysis.

saw that eariler. pretty crazy. Lady throws an intern from a decade ago under the bus, but then says that she is not throwing her under the bus. then throws out there that her father just died, which sucks, but has nothing to do with a photo that was edited years ago.

agracer said:

---

Yeah, I'd really like to get that Z6, but being it's 1st gen., the AF is not great for action (right now, firmware update could fix that...??), and 2x the cost of a D7500 I should probably just get a D7500 and look at mirrorless next summer once Nikon's g2 camera's have come out and sell the D7500.

---

Well....after trying a D7500 and D500, I decided to go Full Frame and get a Z6 from B&H today. Should be here tomorrow...I'll post once I have a chance to use it this weekend. At least I won't have to AF Fine Tune my back focusing 70-200 anymore!

My A 6000 arrive today. Got the sigma Wide angle lens that's very popular, and looking at getting Sony's version of the nifty 50. Getting ready for Ireland next week

Fuji's about to wreck my wallet and announce the GFX 100 a little over a week from now.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Fuji's about to wreck my wallet and announce the GFX 100 a little over a week from now.

---

I just bought the Sony 50 mm lens and took a couple of pictures with it yesterday. I was trying out the new animal eye auto focus setting on my Sony and thought it did pretty well. It isn't very expensive and was well reviewed by lots of people.

Blue Duck said:

---

I just bought the Sony 50 mm lens and took a couple of pictures with it yesterday. I was trying out the new animal eye auto focus setting on my Sony and thought it did pretty well. It isn't very expensive and was well reviewed by lots of people.

---

Congrats. It appears to perform well. I need to start adding more Sony/emount glass and really considering the Tamron 28-70, 2.8.

I've been looking at a couple of new lenses and have read a lot about this one. I already have the 24-105/4 so I think that'll work for now. I'm torn between a landscape geared lens or a super zoom like the Sigma 150-600. I am going to pull the trigger on the 85/1.8 prime and then decide which way to go on the next one.

Quote:

---

really considering the Tamron 28-70, 2.8.

---

I have one and really like it.

Super zooms are almost always trash.

That's the only reason I haven't bought it yet. Sony has a 100-400 that gets great reviews. My dilemma is between that lens and maybe a 1.4 converter or the Sigma. I know you aren't a big fan of converters but I do like the thought of being able to reach out a little more in some situations.

My other choice is a landscape lens. The Sony GM 16-35 seems awesome but there are a couple of wider options that only stop down to f/4. How much difference am I going to notice between the f/2.8 and f/4 for a dedicated landscape lens?

Blue Duck said:

---

That's the only reason I haven't bought it yet. Sony has a 100-400 that gets great reviews. My dilemma is between that lens and maybe a 1.4 converter or the Sigma. I know you aren't a big fan of converters but I do like the thought of being able to reach out a little more in some situations.

My other choice is a landscape lens. The Sony GM 16-35 seems awesome but there are a couple of wider options that only stop down to f/4. How much difference am I going to notice between the f/2.8 and f/4 for a dedicated landscape lens?

---

I use a canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5 lens for landscapes and am happy. IMO f2.8 won't gain you that much but a heftier price tag. I use a tripod in low light/night shots.

I have the Sony 12-24 f4 lens instead of the 16-35GM and enjoy it, the only bad part is my filter holder won't fit on the 12-24 because of the bulbous front element.

I've been looking pretty hard at that lens, the zeiss 16-35/f4 and the 24/1.4 GM. I already have a 24-105 so I don't know if I would notice a big enough difference to justify the 24 prime lens. The other 2 both get good reviews everywhere I look, it's just a tough decision.

Thats what I am concerned about, the low light and early night time stuff. I don't do much astrophotography but might be interested in trying one day so I'm trying to cover all my bases. Tamron has a 17-28/2.8 that's supposed to come out soon that has me intrigued so I may just wait.

Z6 just showed up at my office....know what I'm doing at lunch today...

Unfortunately I realized last night I did not order a XQD card reader which is needed to update the firmware.

dubi said:

---

Blue Duck said:

---

That's the only reason I haven't bought it yet. Sony has a 100-400 that gets great reviews. My dilemma is between that lens and maybe a 1.4 converter or the Sigma. I know you aren't a big fan of converters but I do like the thought of being able to reach out a little more in some situations.

My other choice is a landscape lens. The Sony GM 16-35 seems awesome but there are a couple of wider options that only stop down to f/4. How much difference am I going to notice between the f/2.8 and f/4 for a dedicated landscape lens?

---

I use a canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5 lens for landscapes and am happy. IMO f2.8 won't gain you that much but a heftier price tag. I use a tripod in low light/night shots.

---

Outside of a few unique situations you're probably not going to be shooting landscapes at 2.8 too often. Get you a good tripod and shoot f8 or f11. What kind of landscape are we talking about, wide vistas, coasts, etc?

I'd say wide vistas might cover most of my situations.

If you're not familiar with hyperfocal distance you need to be for landscape shooting. Basically allows for foreground and background to all be in focus. I have an app called hyperfocal pro that will calculate this for me. And you're going to want sharpness which you'll usually get best 2-3 stops below your lens' widest aperture. So in my opinion, for a landscape lens, focus more on sharpness at that sweet spot, not necessarily the fastest (widest) aperture. Just my $.02.

Sweet Kitten Feet said:

---

If you're not familiar with hyperfocal distance you need to be for landscape shooting. Basically allows for foreground and background to all be in focus.

---

Now you tell me i have to do more than just pushing the button?

You should all probably completely ignore that teleconverters even exist.

Quote:

---

I've been looking at a couple of new lenses and have read a lot about this one. I already have the 24-105/4 so I think that'll work for now. I'm torn between a landscape geared lens or a super zoom like the Sigma 150-600. I am going to pull the trigger on the 85/1.8 prime and then decide which way to go on the next one.

---

I've had an 85 in both Canon and Sony and neither was useful to me so they were both sold. I used the big Sig on my a7R3 but the keeper rate wasn't high enough for me to justify keeping it. I ended up with the FE 100-400 G and love the lens. I do occasionally use it with a 1.4X with good result. Only in the best of light however.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

really considering the Tamron 28-70, 2.8.

---

I have one and really like it.

---

Canon mount, correct?

Quote:

---

Outside of a few unique situations you're probably not going to be shooting landscapes at 2.8 too often. Get you a good tripod and shoot f8 or f11. What kind of landscape are we talking about, wide vistas, coasts, etc?

---

Completely agree. I personally don't shoot landscapes where the 16-35, f4 won't meet my needs.

Guitarsoup said:

---

You should all probably completely ignore that teleconverters even exist.

---

Know how I know you don't shoot little birds?

Teleconverters have their purpose, but admittedly it's not on cheap or superzooms. They are usually designed for use on high end telephoto prime lenses, sometimes a specific lens. I would definitely not use one on a standard zoom lens. I tried once just for grins, it didn't turn out pretty. Even a decent 70-300 or 100-400 zoom is not ideal for a TC use. My 1.4X TC practically lives on my 500mm prime lens with little, if any, degradation in image quality. I would not recommend a TC either unless you dabble into high end telephoto work. You've been warned. Just my .02 cents worth.

For landscapes, I use a Canon 6D full frame camera and either the 16-35mm f4 or the 24-105mm f4. I just don't think the extra stop of light with f2.8 is all that necessary anymore with modern sensors. I have a Canon 10-22mm that I haven't used in quite a while, because I rarely use an APS camera for landscape anymore. If I do Milky Way or astrophotography, a Rokinon/Samyang manual focus wide angle is the lens of choice. In that instance, the extra light and better corner performance does come in handy at a reasonable price.

Going to an air show this weekend. Can yall give me some spark notes on camera settings? D7000, 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. Thanks.

reddog90 said:

---

Going to an air show this weekend. Can yall give me some spark notes on camera settings? D7000, 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. Thanks.

---

For jets and other fast moving aircraft, as fast of a shutter speed you can manage would be great. 1/2000 at least I would say. I did the Houston airshow last fall and when the Blue Angels did high speed crossings, I would pan with one until they passed each other. The one I was not panning with still had a little blur at 1/2000 shutter speed. And I would use shutter priority mode on your camera to maintain the selected speed.

For older prop planes, many people prefer a bit of blur in the propeller as opposed to a frozen one. That helps to indicate the movement of the prop. That means about a max of 1/250 shutter speed. Play around with what setting looks good to you on review of your LCD. You need good panning skills in that case.

Just curious, what air show?

ETA: If I could, I would try to use a longer lens if possible. Much of the action can be pretty far away from the crowd. For Canon shooters, the 100-400 zoom is pretty much considered the ideal air show lens. Something similar for Nikon should be considered. I saw several Nikon photographers in Houston using the 200-500.

Liking the Z6 so far. Shot my son's track meet and soccer game yesterday with some good results.

Used the FTZ and 70-200/2.8 VRI. It would seem to lose focus at times then grab it back again, but some of that could be me not used to the new camera. Also, in extended HI frame rates (12+) there was definite viewfinder screen lag and that likely contributed to a few missed shots. It did grab him one time running between two players and kept him in focus the whole time even when the other players were in the way.

I used the kit 24-70/F4 Z lens at the track meet as well and I got a lot more keepers with that lens.

Really pleased I don't have to screw with AF-Fine tune on my 70-200 anymore!!!

labmansid said:

---

reddog90 said:

---

Going to an air show this weekend. Can yall give me some spark notes on camera settings? D7000, 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. Thanks.

---

For jets and other fast moving aircraft, as fast of a shutter speed you can manage would be great. 1/2000 at least I would say. I did the Houston airshow last fall and when the Blue Angels did high speed crossings, I would pan with one until they passed each other. The one I was not panning with still had a little blur at 1/2000 shutter speed. And I would use shutter priority mode on your camera to maintain the selected speed.

For older prop planes, many people prefer a bit of blur in the propeller as opposed to a frozen one. That helps to indicate the movement of the prop. That means about a max of 1/250 shutter speed. Play around with what setting looks good to you on review of your LCD. You need good panning skills in that case.

Just curious, what air show?

ETA: If I could, I would try to use a longer lens if possible. Much of the action can be pretty far away from the crowd. For Canon shooters, the 100-400 zoom is pretty much considered the ideal air show lens. Something similar for Nikon should be considered. I saw several Nikon photographers in Houston using the 200-500.

---

Excellent advice above. Be mindful if it is very overcast you will need more exposure time.

Also single point focus is a good idea for tracking a fast airplane.

Great info, thanks. Barksdale in Shreveport. Unfortunately these are the lenses I have and I don't have time to rent something bigger online.

So AF-C (AI Servo for you) and single point?
Use VR on my 70-200?

Been looking at getting into photography but just haven't had a chance. Wife and I have a trip coming up that we could use a good camera (currently just use iphones). A buddy of mine is offering to sell me a barely used Nikon D5600 for $200 with some lenses and stuff.

From some research, it seems like a pretty good introductory camera. Anybody used one or thoughts on this transaction?

reddog90 said:

---

So AF-C (AI Servo for you) and single point?

---

Yes, for a Canon user.

I have found using single point focusing has greatly improved my airplane and bird photos.

Quote:

---

Use VR on my 70-200?

---

I am not familiar with VR? Nikon term?

dubi said:

---

Quote:

---

Use VR on my 70-200?

---

I am not familiar with VR? Nikon term?

---

VR = Vibration Reduction.

I wouldn't think it would be useful here. You're going to be swinging that lens pretty quickly, so it may actually work against you here...