General Photography Chat - Page 67

diskojoe · #**1321** Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 9:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okayyou

I've had that happen before. I'm not a huge fan of the flickr stats, sometimes it is impossible to know who is looking at your photos or how they got there. I'll get 10-100 hits per day from the South Korean search engine http://www.daum.net/. It never tells me what photo people are looking at. I'm hoping the improve the stats with some of the new features they are planning to release this year.

I get a lot of hits from there. The stats can be odd. 1500 in one day is very odd unless you hit explore which is not the case here. I always wonder about when it lists unknown source. I get way to many hits from unknown sources. most likely it is people ripping off my work or linking it to some other website some how. I really dont know.

Tony · #**1322** Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 9:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith

^
If you want a head that pans smoothly than your looking at spending at least 100. The panning head I have for video was I think around 250.

Do you have the manufacturer & model # info?

mr.John · #**1323** Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayreonaut

So I usually get anywhere from 10-70 views a day on Flickr (2 or 3 hundred when I've been uploading), but today I have nearly 1500 (but the most for any one photo is 3). I think somebody went through my entire stream.

you can also play a joke on someone..just click on any photo in flickr then start tapping very quickly on F5, after about a minute the photo will have about 500 views

photoLith · #**1324** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 1:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony

Do you have the manufacturer & model # info?

Sorry, I only have the head and don't know where the tripod for it went. It was my moms way back in the 90s so I doubt it's made anymore. That's how much she paid for it though.

Ramsayfarian · #**1325** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 5:13 AM**

For those of you who might of missed this today, here's a great little rant about photography.
http://blog.photoshelter.com/2012/01...e-photography/

Robert Pence · #**1326** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 12:33 PM**

I have a Bogen (Manfrotto) #3126 fluid head that has shot a lot of video and has been on my heavyweight Bogen #3121 tripod for about twenty years. It wasn't prohibitively expensive then, but that was when I could buy a good tripod under $100.

I mounted a quick-release on it for my video camera. I haven't shot video in several years, but I never shot without a tripod unless I absolutely had to; the steadiness and controlled camera movement make vastly more watchable video than the guys who hand-hold their camcorders and wave them around like a firehose.

More and more, I'm seriously contemplating buying a new digital prosumer camcorder and resuming video. I remember from before, though, that my still photography suffered some neglect during that time.

diskojoe · #**1327** Posted **Feb 7, 2012, 2:21 PM**

Big announcement for all you nikon shooters out there. Yes, the d800 is actually going to be made. Read about it here......

http://www.pcworld.com/article/24937...egapixels.html

mr.John · #**1328** Posted **Feb 7, 2012, 4:11 PM**

imagine going out and shooting 500 raw shots on this thing then trying to download those photos on your computer,my shitbox computer would probably explode in flames burning down my apartment and the entire building with it....not for everyday shooting

diskojoe · #**1329** Posted **Feb 7, 2012, 5:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.John

imagine going out and shooting 500 raw shots on this thing then trying to download those photos on your computer,my shitbox computer would probably explode in flames burning down my apartment and the entire building with it....not for everyday shooting

Definitely not. The is a pros pro camera. Would be amazing for studio work.

photoLith · #**1330** Posted **Feb 7, 2012, 5:47 PM**

Im actually glad I went with the D700. 36 megapixels? My computer would also explode.

diskojoe · #**1331** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 8:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith

Im actually glad I went with the D700. 36 megapixels? My computer would also explode.

Youd be more of a d4 man I would think.

diskojoe · #**1332** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 8:55 PM**

Have I ever mentioned how much I hate being broke?

Yesterday a friend messages me with the sickest deal on some Zeiss Sonnar lenses ever. And I do mean EVER!!!!!!! But even at the huge discount I would get them at I still cant justify the expense. FML!!!!!

To say I am upset is an understatement. He had a 135mm f1.8 and a 16-35 f2.8 for like nothing and I cant afford them. Once again FML!!!!!

ue · #**1333** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 8:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith

Im actually glad I went with the D700. 36 megapixels? My computer would also explode.

Woah, 36? That's insane! Just a couple years ago only the Hasselblad and Mamiya digital backs had that pixel power, and it was for 10s of thousands. Amazing how quick technology is advancing in the digital SLR realm. I hope these 36 megapixels aren't low quality ones because the sensor isn't large enough for it, meaning a bunch of pixels are just jammed together, not really giving a better image (like a lot of 12 or 14 MP point and shoots). Because it is a high end, full frame digital SLR from Nikon, though, I'd assume it isn't low quality imagery.

photoLith · #**1334** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 9:02 PM**

^
I dont know how the higher ISOs are with the new D800. Since they are jamming so many mgpx into that sensor it may look grainy compared to the D700. But, Im sure they thought it all out as Nikon is pretty kick ass so I guess well have to wait and see. But the only people that would need 36mpgx would be studio photographers or people who print crap on billboards. Seriously, who else would need 36? Seems like a waste to me for a pro sumer camera. My first camera was the D70, and it was 6.1 mgpx I think and I blew up pictures as large as 16x20 and they were fine.

diskojoe · #**1335** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith

^
I dont know how the higher ISOs are with the new D800. Since they are jamming so many mgpx into that sensor it may look grainy compared to the D700. But, Im sure they thought it all out as Nikon is pretty kick ass so I guess well have to wait and see. But the only people that would need 36mpgx would be studio photographers or people who print crap on billboards. Seriously, who else would need 36? Seems like a waste to me for a pro sumer camera. My first camera was the D70, and it was 6.1 mgpx I think and I blew up pictures as large as 16x20 and they were fine.

The article stated that the d800 did not have as good of ISO capabilities as the d4 and it was directed more for studio use for like magazines and photoshoots. If you need the high ISO capabilities they recommended to go d4 since it was geared more towards sports and action photography.

giallo · #**1336** Posted **Feb 9, 2012, 1:58 AM**

^That's a deal breaker for me. I'm not looking to replace my D3 any time soon, and if I was, I'd need a camera with a good high ISO performance. I've almost completely stopped using my tripod since I got the D3. It's a dream for handheld night photography. It really does open up a whole new realm of possibilities. Attach the 85mm 1.4, and you can pretty much run with it at night, and still get a clear image.

Ramsayfarian · #**1337** Posted **Feb 9, 2012, 4:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith

^
I dont know how the higher ISOs are with the new D800. Since they are jamming so many mgpx into that sensor it may look grainy compared to the D700. But, Im sure they thought it all out as Nikon is pretty kick ass so I guess well have to wait and see. But the only people that would need 36mpgx would be studio photographers or people who print crap on billboards. Seriously, who else would need 36? Seems like a waste to me for a pro sumer camera. My first camera was the D70, and it was 6.1 mgpx I think and I blew up pictures as large as 16x20 and they were fine.

I wouldn't mind 36 MP, not to go large but to go small. One would be able to crop like a mofo with 36 MP.

Despite liking a good crop, I wouldn't buy this camera even if I could afford it. I'd rather have crisp and clean high ISO than 36 mp. Now if I could get high ISO and 36 mp, I'd be in heaven.

Robert Pence · #**1338** Posted **Feb 9, 2012, 1:20 PM**

I think I'll sit this one out. I can't imagine the file sizes and storage needs for those images, and that's way beyond what I need. The D700 fits me nicely as a walk-around camera at events and for carefully set up tripod shots.

I don't do studio work and I don't intend to be shooting for billboards any time soon. For very large prints, onOne's Perfect Resize 7 and the digital printing technology used by commercial printing shops can produce surprising results. Last year, the local botanical conservatory used a pano of the downtown skyline in a seasonal display that I shot with the D700 and Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens and stitched in Photoshop.

Using Perfect Resize 7 I was able to produce a TIF file that I burned to a disc and delivered to their printer. The resulting display image, about 12 feet long, looked respectable from distances as close as six feet. That's good enough for me.

flar · #**1339** Posted **Feb 9, 2012, 1:37 PM**

16 megapixels, full frame, with high ISO capability would be about perfect for my needs. I've just described the D4 but it's way too expensive for me. I'll probably have to wait at least three years for such a camera to exist at a price point I can afford. In the meantime, I hope people start to upgrade their D700s. I think a lot of people will be sucked in by the D800's high megapixel count.

Robert Pence · #**1340** Posted **Feb 9, 2012, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flar

16 megapixels, full frame, with high ISO capability would be about perfect for my needs. I've just described the D4 but it's way too expensive for me. I'll probably have to wait at least three years for such a camera to exist at a price point I can afford. In the meantime, I hope people start to upgrade their D700s. I think a lot of people will be sucked in by the D800's high megapixel count.

Whether or not people replace their D700s, if Nikon follows their usual pattern they will knock down the prices on them significantly to clear inventory. The D700 was about $3K when it came out, if I remember correctly, and it's already substantially less than that.