Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: reader
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
Aug 27, 2016 16:55:14   #
MMC I am interested in the steps you took to adjust the photo. It looks much better.
Go to
Aug 27, 2016 16:50:00   #
RG Thanks for the tutorial
Go to
May 23, 2016 11:53:48   #
From Southern California, I welcome the rain and go out in it to relish the feel. Thanks for capturing the day.
Go to
May 6, 2016 08:23:34   #
Linckinn wrote:
I have the previous model (ZS-40), and it is fabulous. Whenever I travel or for almost any around home shoot I go on, I take camera and whatever lens seems best for the occasion, and then have the ZS-40 right in my pocket covering from 24 to 720 mm for all shots outside of whatever lens I took. I therefore have pretty much all shots covered, without carrying multiple lenses and switching.

Photo quality is excellent for such a small camera, and it shoots raw and has a viewfinder allowing more stable holding of the camera.

I would assume the 50 is as good.
I have the previous model (ZS-40), and it is fabul... (show quote)


Me too :thumbup:
Go to
May 5, 2016 08:17:22   #
BlackRapid
Go to
Apr 20, 2016 12:24:58   #
Thank you
Go to
Apr 20, 2016 12:16:52   #
I read that the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro does not have a lens collar. Does that also mean one is not available from a third party? So if you use a tripod you must mount it at the camera body. Is that correct?
Go to
Apr 18, 2016 23:48:13   #
Thanks. Cape Cod is so beautiful. My favorite is Down the Road
Go to
Apr 18, 2016 19:05:19   #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
It really depends on your intended use. A term every accomplished macro photographer cares about is MWD, or minimum working distance. At 1:1, a 105 is about 6.5", a 60 mm is about 3.5". Your chances of getting a 1:1 shot of an insect with a 60mm lens are much less than with a 105. If your goal is shooting close-ups on a tripod, you may be ok with a 60, or an 80. Most of us shoot hand-held, so that means the shortest would be 90-105.
Thank you. Is that a reason why some use a 150 or 200 macro? To get a greater MWD?
Go to
Apr 18, 2016 18:45:11   #
Are there considerations for choosing which Full Frame Macro lens to purchase for use on a Nikon APS-C camera?
Because of the restricted Field of View, would you choose to purchase a 60 or 80 MM lens instead of a 105?
Or do you simply change the distance from the subject?
Hope that makes sense.
Go to
Apr 18, 2016 11:18:40   #
Sounds like a good plan. Let us know what you choose and why.
Go to
Apr 12, 2016 14:01:47   #
I have a D7100 with the kit lenses and was looking to upgrade and for more reach. I was considering all the same lenses and the 300 f4 with a tc. Given my current lenses (the kit lenses, including a 55-300 DX), I chose to go with the refurbished newer 80-400 lens from Nikon. Actually waiting for delivery this week.

My thinking was to go with the added flexibility of the wider zoom range and what I perceive as faster, sharper reports and examples than some of the longer zoom lenses. Reports are that I should be able to hand hold, which is what I expect to want/need, especially for BIF.

I can add a 1.4 tc to gain even more reach.

While I am learning digital photography this will be all I need. If I still have lens envy after two years, I may go with the Sigma 150-600 Sport for dedicated tripod use.

Just my conclusions.
Go to
Apr 4, 2016 22:15:39   #
I have been looking at the 80-400 vs the 300 f4, both VR. Probably either one with the 1.4 tele-converter. The 300 looks like it is sharper. Your thoughts? Will I miss the additional reach or is the additional sharpness worth it for BIF?

On a D7100.
Go to
Mar 27, 2016 14:47:49   #
How about the Panasonic FZ200? On sale, constant f2.8.


Grandpa wrote:
I can't always take my DSLR and equipment with me so I am looking for a bridge camera with a decent zoom and fast recovery time since a shoot a lot of sports activities. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I also would like to have the option of jpeg or raw or both.
Go to
Mar 25, 2016 18:02:39   #
Bozsik wrote:
I wasn't intending to go to the bottom. I was there a month or so ago. The flower blossoms open at later dates due to the elevation differences. They had a pretty good bloom this year, but it was much exaggerated as a Super Bloom. There were a lot of flowers in spots, but not the variety of species I am afraid that would have been exciting.

I am sure I will find something to shoot though... :thumbup:



I looked up the North Table Mountain Ecological Preserve. One year when I have the time, I hope I can go take a wildflower tour. I've put it on the list.

Have fun on both trips.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.