Awhile back DigitalRev did a vid about bad glass on a good body vs good glass on a bad body. Short verdict was good glass always wins.

I would tend to agree.

I would also add, GOOD LIGHT and good glass can produce fantastic results even on the older, less capable bodies. A decent lens and the right light with even a lowly body like a D40 can make some stunning images.

tcole1983 said:
Hmmm my ratio of lens money to body money at this point is about 10:1 and if I ever upgrade my body will be around 4:1...so sticking with lenses here. Now you still have to keep up with the lately technology I think. Several generation newer bodies can do wonder for picture quality from what I have seen, but at the same time putting junky glass on an expensive body seems like a moot point also.

But now for years to come I can still use my glass I have invested in already...and my body is already out of date and needs (or I want to) upgrading.

I am with you as far as my own personal purchases go, tcole.

Only problem for me, is that my money doesn't go as far as my eyes tell me it needs to ;-)

Hmmm my ratio of lens money to body money at this point is about 10:1 and if I ever upgrade my body will be around 4:1...so sticking with lenses here. Now you still have to keep up with the lately technology I think. Several generation newer bodies can do wonder for picture quality from what I have seen, but at the same time putting junky glass on an expensive body seems like a moot point also.

But now for years to come I can still use my glass I have invested in already...and my body is already out of date and needs (or I want to) upgrading.

AA is indeed famous for his landscapes but early in his career, he could not support his family, solely with his creative work. Like many "creative " photographers he did "commercial" photography and like most commercial photographers, he took whatever work he could get and that included portraiture, see Ansel Adams an Autobiography

sevencrossing said:
Do look up his portaits of Albert Bender, Georgia O'Keeffe & Orville Cox, Robinson Jeffers, Mary Austin, Beaumont Newhall, Cedric Wright, Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston

Yes, I have mispoken....what I meant to say, was, his landscapes generally did not include people....and I believe this was quite intentional in sharing the scene as he saw it. It was to my understanding, the importance in his work was on the natural resources in the landscapes and the portraits he did snap were of far less importance. This is only my understanding and I could be in error here as well. But my knowledge is based on discussions from years ago..

Thanks sevencrossing..

msmoto said:
Probably important to understand, Ansel Adams lived in a time which was technologically limited. ........ he made little attempt to photograph people.......Just a few thoughts to encourage more comments :-)

Do look up his portaits of Albert Bender, Georgia O'Keeffe & Orville Cox, Robinson Jeffers, Mary Austin, Beaumont Newhall, Cedric Wright, Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston

Probably important to understand, Ansel Adams lived in a time which was technologically limited. No digital, no computers capable of what we can do today, and most important, his passion was the landscape. While his images are the highest form of photographic art, he made little attempt to photograph people.

If one is a "paparazzi" and is interested in recording life, then the camera's capabilities become very important. The high ISO, rapid frame rates, rapid interchangeability of lenses, and portability of the camera body are in some cases critical. So, in one senses asking which is more important is like asking which is more important in the car...the engine or the transmission....

Just a few thoughts to encourage more comments :-)

For me? I believe in lenses. Fast glass.

I took a note from reading about Ansel Adams some years back and it made sense to me. He said, all other things being equal, the lens is the most important. If it does not get through the glass, you'll never see it on the image.

As an example, I bought the Nikon 70-200mm ED VR II f/2.8 early in 2012. Fast glass. In the middle of shooting a season of local baseball, I could suddenly see very detailed fine dust/dirt particles in my images just as my eye did as the players moved or from the catchers glove. Others were just as amazed at the 'new' images.

Before that I was using an f/4.5 Nikon zoom/tele. Both good lenses, but the VR II f2/8 internal zoom was better from all my reading and seeing it could be f/2.8 through its focal range was something to be said.

I've the same experience with my Micro Nikkor 60mm and two other very good lenses.

Fast glass rules for me as I love hearing people's breath being taken in at the sight of my pictures. :-) It just makes a good camera better.

I'll get a new body in 2013. My investments in glass that I have made will only improve even more then.

Thanks everyone for their posts!!!

Finally a source that answers my questions. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT EVERYONE!!!

THANK YOU!!!

NS1

I second the use of manual focus for video - focus on a target that is set up where you will be, and leave the lens manually focused there. Even if you used full-time autofocus to focus on you after you entered the video, it would still move around slightly as it is trying to find the greatest contrast and will keep searching a little bit for the best contrast. This could really be distracting to viewers of the video, as the focus will continually twitch.

Use a smaller aperture like f/5.6 or f/8, and don't be afraid to add a little ISO if it is necessary. I was really impressed with how the D7000 managed some videos shot at up to ISO 6400, though that is certainly pushing it.

Hi all,

In the D7000 menus, go to

A8 (autofocus)

At autofocus mode, choose AF-F fulltime servo AF

At A8 also allows for 'Area' mode, and depending upon what you are shooting, you might want "Face", or "Wide" or perhaps tracking. Make some tests for which one of the modes works for you.

My best,

Mike

Go to a much smaller aperture than f/4. At that focal length and aperture, say you were about 5' from the lens, your DOF would only be maybe 5-6 inches. Not much wiggle room.

Also, your lens is probably not the sharpest at f/4.

Try f/5.6 or smaller, f/8 would be even better. Manually focus on a dummy object where you will be sitting, and leave it locked there.

One other benefit to this, NOBODY likes to hear or see the auto focus whirring away while they are trying to watch the video. (especially if you are using the on-camera mic) Having enough DOF and a locked focus eliminates this issue.

Unless you are moving, putting a lamp where you will be sitting/standing to focus on did not work for you ? Anything to use as a focus dummy should work.

Hello Everyone,

I am currently new to NR...and absolutely love it =)...

I have already looked around for my answer but no one has been able to provide me the right answer which is weird... I was wondering if one of you gentlemen or lady can help me out here.

I would like to start shooting videos, possible blogs in the future but for now personal videos...

However I am running into autofocusing issues...

Gear...Nikon D7000, 50mm 1.8, 18-55mm 3.5-5.6, and the 70-300mm 3.5-5.6

I have set my video mode to manual and have the correct aperture and shutter value...A- F/4 to get the DOF sharp and the shutter speed to the amount of ambient light that I have available.

I use my tripod obviously to keep camera stable and in place to record myself.

Moving on...

I wanted to know how to focus on the subject being myself...I do have a remote but its only for photos...I have tried to manually focus my 50mm 1.8 but every time i get into the frame I am out of focus. It's been bothering me for quiet awhile and would like to get these videos started.

If you can please provide a step by step guide to getting myself in focus that would be really appreciated.

Thanks in advanced.

NS1

OSusannah said:
Each event/concert/ceremony/formation has its own challenges and I need to get and learn to use a camera that will capture these memories for me. I also do a little video, mostly indoors, low-light.

Get the 85mm 1.8G lens instead. Would be a better choice at this point.

I myself spent a fair amount of time shooting with a D5100 and the D7000. The D3100 which I also shot a lot with, I finally decided it was not a good camera for me even for remote field use. Of the three, the D7000 is the right one I am convinced and the other two I find has some real shortfalls. I also wonder about our quest for that small light and packed with power goal. Recently I did some slideshows from a D200 and the 18-135mm lens and then TRIED to add shots taken from the same trip with a Canon Powershot fairly expensive P&S. The images from the point and shoot were VERY poor compared to the D200. D90, D300, D7000 all are quite a step up but the D5100 is probably currently my pick as the minimum quality point I would trust to an important event.

Just watched this video comparison between d800/5d3 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NuozUxh_tOU

i think he is pretty much spot on - each camera has it's strong points and both of them aren't too far away from each other. Make your decision based on which of those points are important to you.

Maybe since the movie probably started production 2+ years ago?

You are kidding yourself if you think movies studios are not shooting at low ISOs and with full lighting set-ups that probably cost as much as most people's homes.

That is just a slightly different than what most people have laying around. ;)

It is interesting to see what tools people use, but I rarely take it as "one system is better" and just take it for what it is - that is what they had and used for their own reasons that we will rarely ever hear about. I saw one clip for a commercial that used Panasonic GF1 - because it fit in the glove box of a car. No other reason, but that it fit. Sometimes it is as simple as that. Other times it just comes to cost and availability.

That being said, Canon has been doing video- for what, 40 years? Digital since it's beginning. Not surprising if it is better or at a minimum more preferred to work with. Same with Panasonic and both of those systems seem to be preferred by many videographers.

heartyfisher said:
"I just read the Canon post where the Avengers used the Mark II and EOS 7D to shoot several scenes, and in several other cinema movies. Why are all these movies using Canon and not Nikon?"

D800 was not out when they bought the camera gear :-) .. The Canon cameras did have an advantage over the nikon for a few years.. but the D7000 has more than caught up except for the lack of 60 fps.
The D800 has well and truly over taken the current crop of canon cameras .. but who knows what the next crop of canon cameras will be like.

check out this web series on video shooting with DSLRs note that it is a few years old now. http://www.zacuto.com/shootout

Canon still have the advantage though, no doubt Nikon have beaten Canon in some areas.

"I just read the Canon post where the Avengers used the Mark II and EOS 7D to shoot several scenes, and in several other cinema movies. Why are all these movies using Canon and not Nikon?"

D800 was not out when they bought the camera gear :-) .. The Canon cameras did have an advantage over the nikon for a few years.. but the D7000 has more than caught up except for the lack of 60 fps.
The D800 has well and truly over taken the current crop of canon cameras .. but who knows what the next crop of canon cameras will be like.

check out this web series on video shooting with DSLRs note that it is a few years old now. http://www.zacuto.com/shootout

msmoto said:
I mean "Joy Ride"

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/07/joy-ride-the-nikon-d800-promo-video-is-out.aspx/

Watch this, full screen, sound up a little. And as a girl who used to ride a clipped Hayabusa (no top end governor) I can attest, this is one H... of a ride. Lane splitting in ChiTown is terribly illegal, and the wet streets and sport bike mean one's rear wheel is constantly fighting for grip. The rider is obviously a well accomplished pro.

Wow! Great video, absolutely fantastic. Also watched the behind the scenes, and it was all shot with the D800. This makes me want to get the D800 even more. I'm so jealous! :P

The body in EU is too expensive (3,000€) compared to US (2,350€). I find it ridiculous :( It's either I get the D800 and no fast lenses / extra equipment, or get a Mark II / 7D / 60D with fast lenses / extra equipment, and the Mark III is anyways overpriced.

I have recently read, there is a Magic Lantern Firmware for Canon cameras. I haven't read much about it yet, but it seems like it's some sort of extra feature for Canon cameras. Is there anything similar like that to Nikon?

TheMonster said:

You mean the I am Nikon ad?

I mean "Joy Ride"

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/07/joy-ride-the-nikon-d800-promo-video-is-out.aspx/

Watch this, full screen, sound up a little. And as a girl who used to ride a clipped Hayabusa (no top end governor) I can attest, this is one H... of a ride. Lane splitting in ChiTown is terribly illegal, and the wet streets and sport bike mean one's rear wheel is constantly fighting for grip. The rider is obviously a well accomplished pro.

I just read the Canon post where the Avengers used the Mark II and EOS 7D to shoot several scenes, and in several other cinema movies. Why are all these movies using Canon and not Nikon?

msmoto said:
@Mike Gunter... Yes, I agree the quality of video from the DSLRs is phenomenal... the D800 pre-release commercial of the motorcycle in Chicago...an example of the very best.

You mean the I am Nikon ad?

@Mike Gunter... Yes, I agree the quality of video from the DSLRs is phenomenal... the D800 pre-release commercial of the motorcycle in Chicago...an example of the very best.

I suspect the issues arise in the servo zoom, focus, eye level viewing and general handling features. There must be some reason for those $50,000 and up cameras... But, for me, I cannot think of one, ha, ha, ha...

HI Monster

Do be aware. If import, you MAY have to pay additional taxes and you MAY have warranty issues