Lovely, have you tried anti-colic bottles like Mam/Dr Browns? Used Dr Browns for Amelia and got Mam for impending arrival.Havent had a chance to do much recently as eva has colic and doesnt settle very well most of the time. she seems to be getting better at the min so fingers crossed.
heres looking at you by Mark Kingston, on Flickr
almost a smile by Mark Kingston, on Flickr
stillness by Mark Kingston, on Flickr
Have I stumbled into Mumsnet by mistake?
I used my 70-200 on Saturday and think it's time to use it more often.
I would just focus on the rider rather than the horse tbh
f2.8 and 1/320 though Andy. I tend to shoot at f8 and 1/640 min which would put my ISO up to around 4000 and with those settings I'd be complaining about the light too
Would the D500 be instead or or to accompany the D750? If it's to accompany it then I'd be looking at the D850 instead of both giving you both full frame and reach. When downsampled the noise level on the D850 is comparable to the D750 and better than the D500
f2.8 and 1/320 though Andy. I tend to shoot at f8 and 1/640 min which would put my ISO up to around 4000 and with those settings I'd be complaining about the light too
f2.8 and 1/320 though Andy. I tend to shoot at f8 and 1/640 min which would put my ISO up to around 4000 and with those settings I'd be complaining about the light too
Would the D500 be instead or or to accompany the D750? If it's to accompany it then I'd be looking at the D850 instead of both giving you both full frame and reach. When downsampled the noise level on the D850 is comparable to the D750 and better than the D500
ISO 12800 1:1 crops (Resized to match res of D500 i.e. 5568 x 3762)
D850
D850 by TDG-77, on Flickr
D750
D750 by TDG-77, on Flickr
D500
D500 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Edit: Hmm they're very blurry. Here's a link to the crops if you're interested, shows the difference in noise much more clearly
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/e2svczry1t2y0hq/AAAr1k9nSTla1ZflCSCUKVzEa?dl=0
f2.8 and 1/320 though Andy. I tend to shoot at f8 and 1/640 min which would put my ISO up to around 4000 and with those settings I'd be complaining about the light too
Would the D500 be instead or or to accompany the D750? If it's to accompany it then I'd be looking at the D850 instead of both giving you both full frame and reach. When downsampled the noise level on the D850 is comparable to the D750 and better than the D500
ISO 12800 1:1 crops (Resized to match res of D500 i.e. 5568 x 3762)
D850
D850 by TDG-77, on Flickr
D750
D750 by TDG-77, on Flickr
D500
D500 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Edit: Hmm they're very blurry. Here's a link to the crops if you're interested, shows the difference in noise much more clearly
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/e2svczry1t2y0hq/AAAr1k9nSTla1ZflCSCUKVzEa?dl=0
I can't see much/any difference between the D750 and D850 tbh after downsampling, but this is why we need to see for ourselves. I wish I could afford the D850 though
Here's the D850 vs the D750 resampled to 6000 x 4000 and corrected the WB a bit better. I think noise levels are pretty similar, the D750 is slightly 'smudgier' to my eyes and probably due to the AA filter. Appearance of noise is very subjective though
I can't see much/any difference between the D750 and D850 tbh after downsampling, but this is why we need to see for ourselves. I wish I could afford the D850 though
Edit, misread your post
And the D850 is £2650 grey. You'd have to seriously want a D850 to trade in two new-ish high end cameras and £750 for one
Have I stumbled into Mumsnet by mistake?
I used my 70-200 on Saturday and think it's time to use it more often.
Now I've got the original back and two Amazon spares. Should do me for a while!
Do you mean the 24-70mm f2.8? The 24-70mm has always seemed to split opinions, and I think it's because it's a high price pro lens and as such you would expect stellar IQ, which imo it isn't. That's not to say it's not good, it is, in fact it's very good, it's just not stellar as the price might suggest. It's not a patch on my 70-200mm f2.8 VRII for example. I've had two now, but always decided to keep my 24-120mm f4 instead as I prefer the flexibility and I couldn't see any noticeably difference in sharpness between the two, even stopped down. Where the 24-70mm wipes the floor with the 24-120mm is in focus speed and build quality, of and obviously it's a stop faster. The 24-70mm is a tank, and AF speed is lightning quick.
Though not all Sigma Art lenses are of the same sharpness either - its certainly (in tests / reviews) better than the Sigma Art 24-70 f/2.8
Though not all Sigma Art lenses are of the same sharpness either - its certainly (in tests / reviews) better than the Sigma Art 24-70 f/2.8
I don't know one way or the other, but any form of compression that discards data is something I'd avoid. So based on that I'd suggest 12 bit lossless would be the way to go. I did a non scientific test one my D810 between 12 & 14 bit lossless, other than file size I couldn't really see any differences. However, like most things it depends on what you need/want and shooting conditions (the more demanding then having more data to work with "may" help).
Though not all Sigma Art lenses are of the same sharpness either - its certainly (in tests / reviews) better than the Sigma Art 24-70 f/2.8
The Art 24-70 hadn’t registered on my radar at all!
I don't know one way or the other, but any form of compression that discards data is something I'd avoid. So based on that I'd suggest 12 bit lossless would be the way to go. I did a non scientific test one my D810 between 12 & 14 bit lossless, other than file size I couldn't really see any differences. However, like most things it depends on what you need/want and shooting conditions (the more demanding then having more data to work with "may" help).
As frame rates are irrelevant to me, I stayed with 14 bit lossless
Thanks, I think I'll try the 12 bit and see what it's like. It's only for sports that I'd do this, and DR is not as important so hoping that 12 bit, or even compressed won't make much difference. I wouldn't use it for landscapes etc though
_DSC0376