DSLRUsers.com

On Sunday, at the SBS blues jam, Bindii took some time to familiarise herself with a Nikon, playing with my virginal D300.

Here's a few of her shots:


ISO 3200, Sigma 10-20, 10mm, 1/25, f/6.3






ISO 3200, Sigma 10-20, 10mm, 1/13, f/6.3






ISO 3200, Sigma 10-20, 10mm, 1/13, f/6.3






ISO 3200, Sigma 10-20, 20mm, 1/13, f/6.3






ISO 3200, Nikkor 85 f/1.4, 1/40, f/3.2




Full size images are here

I'm sure she'll offer her comments in due course.

There's that red lighting again

Well done Bindii. Nice images. Was that a guest appearance by Eric Clapton? Oh no, it's Gary.

Who's the old guy playing the bass?

fretless... nice!

mmm... there's clearly a significant problem with the d300... might have to think twice about an upgrade if thats the kind of image I'm likely to get... now... back to my beloved brickwalls....


Mj.

Lol... I can't focus to save my life... well one would think that looking at those shots...

must be the camera... *grins*...

jdear wrote:fretless... nice!

I couldn't work out whether it was fretless or whether motion blurr had blurred out the frets ...there did seem to be vague fret like markings on the neck. Whatever...but I need to get me a set of those fluro green strings...who the hell makes those?

There is a starkness to these pictures that could only result from a D300

man she must really love that high iso as it seems that's the only thing she wanted...

Bindii wrote:Lol... I can't focus to save my life... well one would think that looking at those shots...

must be the camera... *grins*...

Actually I'm far more concerned with the nasty tendancy for the d300 to expose a bearded chap in a hawaiin shirt in every frame... fine up to a point, and if you like that sort of thing... but some wedding photags and come to think about it quite a few macro photags, might be a tad alarmed.

PiroStitch wrote:man she must really love that high iso as it seems that's the only thing she wanted...

Lmao... we were trying to see how the noise levels would be on it.. *nods*...

and it was dark.... and scary...

a bit like my mind really..

Mj wrote:
Actually I'm far more concerned with the nasty tendancy for the d300 to expose a bearded chap in a hawaiin shirt in every frame... fine up to a point, and if you like that sort of thing... but some wedding photags and come to think about it quite a few macro photags, might be a tad alarmed.

Rotflmao....

jdear wrote:fretless... nice!

It's a '77 P, and a very nice instrument to play. I've had it for probably 20 years now.

PiroStitch wrote:man she must really love that high iso as it seems that's the only thing she wanted...

She couldn't work out how to change the setting.

nice works!

but then again given the recent media release to hype up the mighty D300, I was expecting more...

Reacting pretty well in red lights.

And I would want that PRS more, I think that is a McCarty (not sure if it's the actual name) model, plays like a dream indeed.

G'day

This may get me banned, but isn't there something in the FAQ that goes a bit like ...

"The concept is that you may post a few images - perhaps up to three or four "

... I ran out of fingers on my right hand and had to use my thumb as well when counting the number of images in this post. Just as well though, I thought the fifth image was best, I gotta buy myself one of those 85mm primes.

Take care
Bob in Bull Creek

The golden rule - He that has the gold, makes the rules.

BullcreekBob wrote:This may get me banned, but isn't there something in the FAQ that goes a bit like ...

"The concept is that you may post a few images - perhaps up to three or four "

Bob,

I think that applies to Image Reviews and Critiques forum.

One thing that has me thinking, rather than the number of images, is the images themselves. While they were taken with Gary's camera, Sue was the photographer. Wouldn't that mean she owns the copyright of the images? I'm sure she's given Gary permission to use them.

ATJ wrote:One thing that has me thinking, rather than the number of images, is the images themselves. While they were taken with Gary's camera, Sue was the photographer. Wouldn't that mean she owns the copyright of the images? I'm sure she's given Gary permission to use them.

So I can sue right?

lucky for Gary I can be paid off...

Lmao...

Bindii wrote:So I can sue right?

You are already.

BullcreekBob wrote:G'day

This may get me banned, but isn't there something in the FAQ that goes a bit like ...

"The concept is that you may post a few images - perhaps up to three or four "

Bob,

The following para says

FAQ wrote:Perhaps you're experimenting with a new technique, or demonstrating a technique to the rest of us. That's fine: posting what is necessary to demonstrate the new technique is perfectly acceptable too.

This can include a new technique, or samples from a new camera, such as here. And yes, it applies mainly to the I&C area, but regardless, the intent is to prevent ego posts, and to keep things usable.

In this instance, there were just 5 images. 5 is our upper limit, and if you occasionally go beyond the 4 guidelines you've mentioned, you're unlikely to get jumped on.

Experimentation, etc often demands that the limits be waived, btw: I did some side-by-side shots with the D200 last night. I want to see what they look like, and I may then post some comparisons. They, too, may go beyond 4 images, but again, with good reason.

And oh yes, I nearly forgot.

When you run the forum, and as I can see you've noted, the golden rule may also apply.

I thought the fifth image was best, I gotta buy myself one of those 85mm primes.

Yep. They're worth their weight in ... glass??

The golden rule - He that has the gold, makes the rules.[/quote]

Bindii wrote:

ATJ wrote:One thing that has me thinking, rather than the number of images, is the images themselves. While they were taken with Gary's camera, Sue was the photographer. Wouldn't that mean she owns the copyright of the images? I'm sure she's given Gary permission to use them.

So I can sue right?

lucky for Gary I can be paid off...

Lmao...

We need to talk.

ATJ wrote:One thing that has me thinking, rather than the number of images, is the images themselves. While they were taken with Gary's camera, Sue was the photographer. Wouldn't that mean she owns the copyright of the images? I'm sure she's given Gary permission to use them.

She told me that she wanted to see them, so what better way?