Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Nikon D5000 - how to make the darn thing STAY on center focused?

Reply
Thread Tools

Nikon D5000 - how to make the darn thing STAY on center focused?

 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2013
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 04:57:59 +0000 (UTC), Joe Mastroianni <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
: On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:50:42 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
:
: > Rather than the old trick of pre-focusing, AF lock ,
: > and reframe. Just move the focus point to cover your subject wherever
: > you want it in the frame and shoot. Then push that "OK" button to
: > recenter.
:
: I'll try that new technique.
:
: Although, it certainly is more comfortable to just focus,
: then compose ... rather than compose and then focus.

But the latter is more accurate, on average, especially at wide apertures or
when the subject isn't very far away. Whenever you move the camera, you're
bound to introduce a bit of fore-and-aft motion, and you're relying on the
depth of field to bail you out.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Don Wiss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2013
On 23 Feb 2013, David Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 22/02/2013 23:27, Don Wiss wrote:
>> With your D5000 glass is heavy, and you don't get much in the way of
>> telephoto.


>I found that 4/3 was not /than/ much smaller and lighter than my D5000,
>and it was more expensive than I wanted to pay,


The m4/3 bodies vary in size. Size was not my issue, but weight was. My
Nikon is still a D300, which is heavier than the plastic ones that lack a
focus motor in the body. I do plan to sell off my Nikon stuff, except for
my Nikon 950. For macros its small sensor makes it easier to get the object
all in focus.

> so I got a "bridge"
>camera to complement my D5000. I went for the Sony HX200V, which has a
>zoom range of 27 - 810 mm (equivalent).
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony...ot-dsc-hx200v/
>
>Been quite pleased with it so far, and I've kept the DSLR for when it's
>really needed (not very often so far!).


One option for you would be to get one of the smaller m4/3 bodies and the
Panasonic 7-14 lens. That gives you 14-28 equivalent, which would nicely
fill in under the Sony.

Not that I'm taking many storefront pictures these days, but if there is a
large vehicle parked in front it can be hard to get a picture. Wider makes
it easier.

Don. www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-24-2013
On 23/02/2013 20:27, Don Wiss wrote:
[]
> The m4/3 bodies vary in size. Size was not my issue, but weight was. My
> Nikon is still a D300, which is heavier than the plastic ones that lack a
> focus motor in the body. I do plan to sell off my Nikon stuff, except for
> my Nikon 950. For macros its small sensor makes it easier to get the object
> all in focus.

[]
> One option for you would be to get one of the smaller m4/3 bodies and the
> Panasonic 7-14 lens. That gives you 14-28 equivalent, which would nicely
> fill in under the Sony.
>
> Not that I'm taking many storefront pictures these days, but if there is a
> large vehicle parked in front it can be hard to get a picture. Wider makes
> it easier.
>
> Don. www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).


I still have my Nikon Coolpix 990 (and the original Nikon Coolpix 900)
and you are right that they make excellent macro cameras. They also
have an entrance pupil similar to that of the eye, so you can press them
up against telescopes etc. and take the view through the instrument with
little loss. I still have my D60 DSLR in case the D5000 fails.

Good point about the wide-angle. One of my favourite lenses for the
D5000 has been my Tamron 10-24 mm, so about 15-36 mm equivalent on the
D5000. I could certainly live with 14-28 mm for wide angle,
complementing the Sony's 27 - 810 mm nicely. Thanks for the suggestion!
I've yet to be on a trip where I have both the DSLR and the bridge
cameras, but I did try taking /only/ the bridge camera on a recent trip
to the Netherlands:

http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2012/09...nds/index.html
http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2012/09...bum/index.html

When I'm in town or just want a quick "snap" the iPad 3 camera or even
the Huawei Ascend G300 phone (both 5 MP) suffice.

https://twitter.com/gm8arv/status/30...450625/photo/1
https://twitter.com/gm8arv/status/30...311360/photo/1
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2013
On 2/24/2013 2:48 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> On 23/02/2013 20:27, Don Wiss wrote:
> []
>> The m4/3 bodies vary in size. Size was not my issue, but weight was. My
>> Nikon is still a D300, which is heavier than the plastic ones that lack a
>> focus motor in the body. I do plan to sell off my Nikon stuff, except for
>> my Nikon 950. For macros its small sensor makes it easier to get the
>> object all in focus.

> []
>> One option for you would be to get one of the smaller m4/3 bodies and the
>> Panasonic 7-14 lens. That gives you 14-28 equivalent, which would nicely
>> fill in under the Sony.
>>
>> Not that I'm taking many storefront pictures these days, but if there
>> is a large vehicle parked in front it can be hard to get a picture. Wider
>> makes it easier.
>>
>> Don. www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).

>
> I still have my Nikon Coolpix 990 (and the original Nikon Coolpix 900)
> and you are right that they make excellent macro cameras. They also
> have an entrance pupil similar to that of the eye, so you can press them
> up against telescopes etc. and take the view through the instrument with
> little loss. I still have my D60 DSLR in case the D5000 fails.
>
> Good point about the wide-angle. One of my favourite lenses for the
> D5000 has been my Tamron 10-24 mm, so about 15-36 mm equivalent on the
> D5000. I could certainly live with 14-28 mm for wide angle,
> complementing the Sony's 27 - 810 mm nicely. Thanks for the suggestion!
> I've yet to be on a trip where I have both the DSLR and the bridge
> cameras, but I did try taking /only/ the bridge camera on a recent trip
> to the Netherlands:
>
> http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2012/09...nds/index.html
> http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2012/09...bum/index.html
>
> When I'm in town or just want a quick "snap" the iPad 3 camera or even
> the Huawei Ascend G300 phone (both 5 MP) suffice.
>
> https://twitter.com/gm8arv/status/30...450625/photo/1
> https://twitter.com/gm8arv/status/30...311360/photo/1



Well, "suffice" is the optimal word! Those "bridge cameras" snap much
better shots, as your Netherlands photos clearly attest.

John
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2013
On 25/02/2013 03:09, John Turco wrote:
[]
> Well, "suffice" is the optimal word! Those "bridge cameras" snap much
> better shots, as your Netherlands photos clearly attest.
>
> John


Yes, John, and the DSLR would be better again. I suppose I'm using the
word "suffice" in an engineering context - if the picture is for Twitter
then there's little point in having it greater than, say, 1024 x 768 or
the 16:9 equivalent as the great majority of viewers will be using no
more than that display resolution, and the great majority won't mind the
greater noise in the lower light images. Most will be looking at what
the images show (e.g, that's a great-looking place!) rather than their
technical merit.

Were I asked to do anything serious, it would likely be the DSLR I would
take, but for carrying round on a day's walking it would be the bridge
camera, and for those occasions when I don't have "a camera" with me,
the 'phone and iPad mean that I now have pictures where I would
otherwise not. Oh, and DSLR cameras might not have been welcome at a
recent event where the star of the TV series "Borgen" was in Edinburgh
answering questions:

https://twitter.com/gm8arv/status/29...261121/photo/1

Mind you, you do feel a little self-concious holding up an iPad to take
photos!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b019ch5q
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21322318

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2013
On 2/25/2013 3:17 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> On 25/02/2013 03:09, John Turco wrote:
> []
>> Well, "suffice" is the optimal word! Those "bridge cameras" snap much
>> better shots, as your Netherlands photos clearly attest.
>>
>> John

>
> Yes, John, and the DSLR would be better again. I suppose I'm using the
> word "suffice" in an engineering context - if the picture is for Twitter
> then there's little point in having it greater than, say, 1024 x 768 or
> the 16:9 equivalent as the great majority of viewers will be using no
> more than that display resolution, and the great majority won't mind the
> greater noise in the lower light images. Most will be looking at what
> the images show (e.g, that's a great-looking place!) rather than their
> technical merit.


Personally, I love "super zoom" models. My top one is a Nikon "P500"
(36x optical, 12 megapixels). It was purchased last May (refurbished,
in like-new condition), but, never used.

A Kodak "P850" is my photographic workhorse, although it was introduced
'way back in 2005; it's 12x and 5 MP, and has around 22,000 images to
its credit.

> Were I asked to do anything serious, it would likely be the DSLR I would
> take, but for carrying round on a day's walking it would be the bridge
> camera, and for those occasions when I don't have "a camera" with me,
> the 'phone and iPad mean that I now have pictures where I would
> otherwise not. Oh, and DSLR cameras might not have been welcome at a
> recent event where the star of the TV series "Borgen" was in Edinburgh
> answering questions:
>
> https://twitter.com/gm8arv/status/29...261121/photo/1


In that thumbnail portrait, you bear a striking resemblance to Santa Claus.

> Mind you, you do feel a little self-concious holding up an iPad to take
> photos!
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b019ch5q
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21322318


I haven't watched television at all, in years.

John
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2013
Joe Mastroianni <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:31:16 -0800, Savageduck wrote:


> My 1:2:3 methodology is simple (KISS):
> 0. I let the camera do the exposure metering
> 1. I focus on the subject (half press)
> 2. I compose the picture (pressing to keep the subject in focus)
> 3. I count (if human) to give them time to smile


> A good percentage of the time, the auto-focus picks the wrong
> subject to focus on, especially for mechanical objects.


Using 2. you make *sure* that the focus is behind the object
you focussed on in 1. The more 2., the more behind. (If that
matters depends on the DOF.)

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2013
On 25/02/2013 21:17, John Turco wrote:
> On 2/25/2013 3:17 AM, David Taylor wrote:

[]
>> https://twitter.com/gm8arv/status/29...261121/photo/1

>
> In that thumbnail portrait, you bear a striking resemblance to Santa Claus.

[]
> John


Depending on the time of year, my street response (when appropriate) may
be "God bless you, my son!", or "Ho, ho ho!". A round Christmas-time,
children on the 'bus are often slightly concerned to see me, and do
wonder about Father Christmas!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2013
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <2013022209474525485-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck


>> The same logic in complaining without reading your manual. Just
>> remember, there is a reason the D5000 can be had for $360. You pay for
>> features.


> On the other hand this seems to be a pretty basic feature which one
> would expect even in an entry level camera. Like selling a car without
> the handbrake.


Rather a bargain bottom price car without climate control.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2013
George Kerby <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[...]

> WHY do your posts, and ONLY your posts come in here dated "Monday" and it's
> Wednesday evening Zulu Time?!?


Because the posts were indeed written on the date they carry,
but didn't reach you before Wednesday evening Zulu Time.

Oh. You don't get it yet. Usenet, like email, is NOT a phone
conversation. It's a store and forward medium. Immediate
delivery is not guaranteed, heck, delivery isn't guaranteed.
In case of email, it's "best effort", in case of Usenet, "flood
fill". It's an offline medium. It's not real time at all.

Still no enlightenment? OK. Let's just say that some
component --- in this case on my side --- doesn't (and often
cannot) pull and push usenet postings in near real time, due
to the fact that it doesn't have a connection round the clock.
Syncing is performed when it's opportune.

Any more questions? Ah, yes. No, I don't think a backup
satellite internet connection is worth it just so you get my
postings earlier. After all, you don't read 24/7 either.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
Nion D5000 - how to make the focus STAY on center point focus U vigilance Digital Photography 1 10-12-2011 04:20 AM
Nikon D5000 robert w fischer Digital Photography 1 05-04-2009 05:52 PM
Re: New: Nikon D5000 Get lost Digital Photography 13 04-16-2009 03:04 AM
Re: Nikon D5000 PDM Digital Photography 4 04-15-2009 06:33 PM



Advertisments