SamDoe1

Sure, if the sensor wasn't a standard APS-C form factor I'd agree but it is. The glass may be optimized for color and stuff but sharpness should be uniform regardless of sensor.

Projectors are opposite of camera lenses and are designed to work with a fixed, known source that is often proprietary right?

Sarlacc

Not proprietary at all.

Mandy I'm not denying the software end. I think a lot of the correction is coming from that.

Sarlacc

Mandy should be "and"

typing quickly between takes on set.

Sarlacc

And to clarify. The projectors I'm talking about special ones are for rental house and techs. They show a chart that shows sharpness, color shift, clarity, etc from edge to edge, corner to Corner.

is300eater

Sarlacc

The 10-24 showed up today.

What a fucking idiot....look at how the moron packed it, or didn't, I should say.

AND there is a big ass dust spot on the inside of the rear element, which shows up in the images.

Asked him for a refund plus the cost to ship it back, we'll see how this goes...

10-24 by David Speck | Photobucket

jupitersolo

fucking idiot!

asianspec

iTrader: (1)

damn what an idiot.

Sarlacc

I was out for the evening but he got back to me apologizing...He thinks this is a USPS insurance issue (yeah right)
and while he was apologetic he says he doesn't think he should have to pay for packaging/shipping to return the lens because he didn't do it....I wrote back saying I dont think he was trying to rip me off, but the lens wasn't packed properly, and I want this resolved with in the 30 paypal window. And I thin he very much is responsible for packing/shipping as it wasn't packed properly in the first place.

We'll see what he replies with tomorrow. They dude has 46 positive sell ratings on fred miranda, no negatives...but I can't believe the guy thought his packaging was acceptable.

Mizouse

Nicks2001tl

Before a recent trip bought a 24mm pancake and a 10-18 wide for my canon. Used both only a handful of times and ended up taking over 95% of my shots with the Sigma 17-70 contemporary. Hated this lens at first but ended up very satisfied with the results.

I wanted a nice walk around lens and the sigma 17-70 fits the bill. Still looking at the canon 15-85 for the extra range, maybe later.

Sarlacc

Awesome. So, the idiot mailed the package through Staples via USPS. So, when the dumbass kept saying he insured it with USPS...what he means is he insured it through Staples and their 3rd party crap. Which has horrible online reviews. And of course to make a claim I have to fill out an online affidavit.

To have Fuji clean the lens is about $170 including shipping and tax...and is a 2 week turnaround. And for that price I could buy the lens brand new.

I'm not sure why some people are so stupid and obnoxious.

I sold 2 lenses on fredmiranda (where I bought this from ) and somehow one of the lenses arrived to buyer with shit on the rear element. Wasn't there when I shipped it, but I didn't question or hesitate, I instantly issued a partial refund as a payment with enough to pay for shipping. Easy. No fuss. He's happy and I'm out a little cash to make him happy. Whatever.

This guy...this guy is wanting to drag this shit out.

Mizouse

Sarlacc

I guess for every good experience...eventually comes a clusterfuck

jupitersolo

It's not your worry to get this shit done. I'd place claim to PP asap. If he fucks around, you get your money back and keep the lens.

asianspec

iTrader: (1)

I agree with Jup.

Sarlacc

Getting my money and keeping the lens doesn't feel honest. Im not trying to rip the dumb fucker off. But I'm playing game for the moment. If shit isn't resolved by the middle of next week he'll see what a bitch I can be.

Now, I won't feel bad about filing a claim, and holding the lens hostage until he PP's me packaging and shipping costs (PP as a gift of course).

But I'll play by his rules for the moment so I'm not the bad guy.

jupitersolo

Just mean, that I've seen people say that sellers have tried to screw them. PayPal returns money and seller never sends fund to have it shipped back.

For how he shipped it and is trying to blow if off on you to file claim, I wouldn't be waiting.

Sarlacc

Dipshit realized the smart move is to refund my money and pay for shipping for a return.

He "thought long and hard about it" and a partial refund of $170 (the cost to ship to Fuji and clean it) was unacceptable. Which is good because if he was going to offer me a partial refund to keep the lens it was going to be more than that.

Now lets see if he honors his word. Or I'll dispute through paypal so fast it'll make his head spin.

And of course if his claim with that shitty insurance goes any where, that sack of crap actually comes out ahead anyway. But hopefully they deny his dumbass, as its really his fault for doing such a shitty packing job.

Sarlacc

Tired of dealing with this tool over a refund. I opened a dispute on PayPal and escalated it.

The guy is an idiot who refuses to take responsibility for his actions.

CCColtsicehockey

Ok I know this section says lens discussion but I didn't see a general discussion thread on the first page. I admit that is as far as I looked. This is somewhat lens based question in a way though.

I have decided it is finally time to upgrade my camera body. I have been shooting with my D300 since it came out. I hope to make this upgrade around Christmas time this year so I am beginning to do my research. With the D500 out now and being an obvious upgrade to my D300 that is where I have been thinking of going. At the same time I wonder if while making an upgrade I wonder if I should consider going to FF. I primarily shoot car, landscape, and my dogs playing. I occasionally do a little bit of landscape from time to time when looking for something new to shoot. One of the primary reason I am also looking to upgrade is I would like to be able to try my hand at some video work. I don't know if or how much I will do with but it is something that interests me. Not sure if wanting to do this works better FF or with Crop or doesn't matter.

Currently I have mostly DX specific lens but also a couple FX lens too. DX are 10.5mm Fisheye, 12-24 f/4, 17-55mm, 17-55 f/2.8 and 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5. FX are 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200 f/2.8.

If I go full frame I could sell the 10.5, 12-24, 17-55, D200, and D300 to cover most of the cost of a FX 24-70 VR which I believe should cover about the same range as my 12-24 and 17-55 currently cover. I would lose the fisheye but honestly it was a gimmick that after about 2 year of use I no longer used much.

Looking to hear suggestions and recommendations. The cost of the D500 is about the max budget I would like to spend so that puts it at about $2000 + tax.

jupitersolo

D500 is a speed demon, I've been shooting one since the day after it was released. Have about 25,000 on the shutter. If you don't need a speed demon, walk past it.

Sound like a D750 is what you want. Or a used D800/e. Which is still a killer effing camera.

Word of wise, you'll get about 20% less for your gear than you think it's worth, if selling on second hand market. Why less, if you try and trade in to get the new gear.

Sarlacc

Yeah...whatever you're expecting to sell you gear for, especially Nikon...lower it, a lot. I just went through selling all my Nikon gear, and apparently so are many people. The value isn't there.

pttl

Like Jup said if you don't need the speed of the D500, then you should move into FF. Based on what you shoot the FF D750 would do anything you want and do it with ease. I have the 750 and even though it is slower than the D500 it is not "slow". I can still capture birds flying without too much trouble. If I had the focus system of the D500 it would be easier....but the focus system is why I (hopefully) will eventually get a D500 to ADD to my 750.

Also - don't forget to look at Tamron for a 24-70 2.8 WITH vibration reduction. It will save you some serious bucks and cost you almost nothing in IQ.

jupitersolo

Also on the 24-70mm, if you don't plan on doing major video. I would skip it and find a use 24-70mm. IQ wise, they are not much different. And you save money for another lens.

CCColtsicehockey

Used to shooting drifting at some car events but I haven't done that in years and don't forsee getting back into it at all. The only speed related thing I would be shooting now is my dogs. They don't stay still must and I would love to shoot them running and my new one that I am training to dock jump. Not sure if any of that would be too much for the D750 to keep up with or not.

Not expecting to get too much for my gear. Did a quick scan on ebay for completed auctions of my current gear and figured I could get about $2000 for the 3 DX lens and the 2 bodies. If I can cover the cost of the new 24-70mm lens which should be the equal to my 17-55mm that I used for about 70% of my shooting I am not sure I would need to cover any other lenses to start with along with the other two FX lens I already have. Probably would add an 85 or 105 prime down the road if I went FF. Having less glass sound nice honestly for traveling. If I can't cover the cost though of that lens completely then lens cost starts creeping into the cost limit I have set for making an upgrade in either direction and then DX seems like the cheaper upgrade.

Did you mean the non VR 24-70mm? I have always stayed with all Nikon glass reading that nothing else out there could really compete with the IQ. Is this still true or not so much anymore?

I am not really sure how much I would do with video yet as currently don't own anything besides my cellphone or a point and shoot that shoot video and neither do it great so I don't even bother.


Between the D500 and D750. A few things that draw me to each.

D500 - Button layout very similar to my D300 which I loved how the control were setup, Faster AF would definitely mean no speed issues, better low light than my D300 but not best
D750 - Much better low light use with FF, built in flash for triggering other strobes for shooting cars, better depth with FF
Both - Articulating LCD Screen (May not end up being as big of a deal but seems like this will be useful for shooting cars when camera is either low to the ground or high above.)

For those of you that have used both which has better build quality and weather sealing? The magnesium body of the D300 felt like a tank. I honestly like that solid feeling and lighter cameras of friends I have used like the D7000 and D7100 seem so light they make me feel they might not be built as well. The control wheel on the D300 with buttons on top of it for ISO, WB, and Quality were also nice. They seemed to be kept that way for the D500 and D810 but the D750 does not seem to have that and makes more use of some buttons having dual purpose from taking a quick look. I could be wrong though.

From a video standpoint will either work better than the other or about even?

I also will be planning to get the grip for which ever I get as I fust feel the camera feels better in hand with the lower grip added. Hopefully both have functioning dials on the shut grip.

jupitersolo

If you want what the D300 is, inside and out of the camera, then it's the D500. It is the D5 with a cropped sensor. D500 has 4K video at 30. The thing I love about D500, the ISO button has been moved to the next to shutter button, that is a brilliant move!

As as afa your dogs, you'll still be able to capture them with a D750.

Yes, I'm talking about the Nikon 24-70mm non VR.

SamDoe1

I personally would go full frame. The low light performance alone is worth it. Also, the FF images just have a different look to them (DOF difference) that makes them look a lot more appealing to me. I'm not that well versed in Nikon but seems like you have plenty of recommendations from others. The values of Nikon and Canon equipment has been pretty dismal for the past year or two because there are tons of people jumping ship to mirrorless. If you want to play with video, buy a Go-Pro and see if you even like it before basing your SLR decision on it. Could be a costly mistake that you regret.

Also, hit up the used market. With the values of equipment down, you can probably snag an excellent condition 24-70VR for a lot less than new. I haven't bought any new gear (other than accessories) in forever, just excellent condition used stuff and it has saved me a fortune.

jupitersolo

Forget the VR 24-70mm if you're not going to seriously be doing video. I'm seeing used 24-70mm going for 1k. IQ wise the VR is not worth the$$$ for stills. And if you go with a D750 you can shoot higher ISO and not need VR.

Also seeing D750 going used for $1500. Look at the buy and sell at fredmiranda.com

Sarlacc

I would also look at the Tamron 24-70...it rates as being, ever so slightly, better than Nikons lens. If you're looking to save money.

is300eater

and the Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 (USD version) is highly rated too

jupitersolo

He already has a Nikon 70-200mm

is300eater

oops, I missed that part

pttl

I love mine.

CCColtsicehockey

Still doing my research between the two of these cameras. It is becoming harder to justify the cost of having to buy all new lenses with what it seems I will get for my current gear. I would be lucky to be able to get enough to grab a used Nikon 24-70 or a new Tamron 24-70.

Is the image quality and depth of field I will get from FF that much better? I have never shot with FF before so I have no idea I guess of what I am missing besides what I read online and look at in pictures.

Been also trying to decide if I would miss having my Fisheye and 12-24mm wide angle. I primarily used the wild angle when I did real estate photography for my dads business. He has now retired so I am not sure I would need either of them. It would reduce my kit to 24-70mm, 70-200, and a 50mm prime.

On the other side I happened on this deal last night which is a lot of included for free. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...mera_body.html I know a grip adds bulk for some reason ever since I picked up one for my 300 it never comes off. I just like the added control it gives in my opinion. I really also have no SD cards to start with as I have about 8 CF cards.

Planning to go hold each camera today at Best Buy if they will let me since they have both in stock and are much closer than any actual camera store is to me. I hope to make my decision in the next week or so in hopes to maybe get everything in my hands before my long holiday break where I will have lots of time to shoot with whatever I choose.

CCColtsicehockey

Continuing to my above post but I have also thought of if I go FF to see if I can do it in my budget and keepy D300 setup as well. Anyone see anything on this listing to prove this isn't a new D750 and is instead refurbished? Any reason I wouldn't get my warranty buying through Walmart? Seems like a really good deal. https://www.walmart.com/ip/Nikon-24.3-MP-1543/39604132?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=2080&ad id=22222222228027842320&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=m&wl3=55428 090671&wl4=pla-91485217991&wl5=9009919&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl1 0=113506094&wl11=online&wl12=39604132&wl13=&veh=se m

There is also a used Tamron Tamron 2.8 on Fred Miranda for 700 and between the two I would only be $200 over budget which I could deal with.

pttl

There isn't anything in the ad indicating it is refurbished. The only think I'd be wary of is if it is a USA model or an import (gray market) model. However in the ad it does say it has a 1 year limited mfg warranty so that would lead one to believe that it is a USA model.
$700 for a Tamron 24-70 2.8 Ci VC is a nice price, if the lens is in good physical and working condition.

CCColtsicehockey

Here is the Tamron listing. Would you believe the wording? Is that warranty anything good for it?

CCColtsicehockey

Also noticed once I looked at the listing on a computer that it wasn't sold by Walmart but rather someone selling through Walmart.com. Reviews stated they had received grey market products instead of regular ones.

What is anyones opinion of Nikon Refurbished vs New for cameras?

pttl

i don't see the link to the Tamron listing.

I'd feel better about the Nikon refurb as opposed to the Walmart item. I think if the camera is factory refurbed it comes with a Nikon warranty.