i bought a new D90 last week and picked up a new SB600 friday. i was playing around with it today and getting used to the flash. my daughters cat cloe is not camera shy one bit. let me know what you think anout these.
1.
2.
3.
4.
new D90 + new SB600
i bought a new D90 last week and picked up a new SB600 friday. i was playing around with it today and getting used to the flash. my daughters cat cloe is not camera shy one bit. let me know what you think anout these.
1.
2.
3.
4.
wow it takes really nice pics. cute cat too
thanks, i was waiting on you to say "what am i looking at" lol.Originally Posted by MikeDubs
Those are really good pics!
'82 TE72 SR5 Sport Coupe
3tc
I got so pumped to see a Defender 90, great pics though!
2007 Charger SRT8
Bolt Ons.....
i LOVE my sb600... gah it will do so many things. wait till you mess with it wirelessly. awesome stuff.
yea i want to get everything to shoot it wirelessly. what all do i need?
you ass holes and your new cameras i want one
reps if i could nice pics
lol......... +10 for you.you ass holes and your new cameras i want one
reps if i could nice pics
a D90 and a sb600
how do i get it to shoot wireless? i have a new d90 and a new sb600.
Chad or kamikaze would be able to tell you better but it should be in menu > flash settings > commander mode. Then you have to set the flash to commander mode by holding zoom and + I think. I don't have my camera here with me so I can't say for sure
super nice, my next thing i want is an external flash. i just saw the SB900 but for 200 more dollars is it really worth it over the SB600?
it's not gonna do much more for you than a used sb800, and if all you have is a D40 50 or 60, it's not gonna do much more than a sb400 will. But I always reccomend starting with a 600
yeah the 900 is a beast and looks really fancy and it's huge and it will make you think it's the shit. but having used a 600 and a 900 for a reasonable length of time, i would suggest a 600, really. i can see where the 900 has potential to put out more light, but unless you're doing professional stuff, you won't really need the extra couple of stops you'll get out of a 900. the ONLY thing i have found so far that i could really use on my 600 is a plug for a wireless transmitter. i can use one 600 with my d200 but i'm not sure i can use multiple or i just haven't figured it out yet.
anyway. long story short: sb600 is well worth the $200... the sb900... not really worth the extra $2-300 unless you're going to be substituting them as full strobes.
but that's all my opinion.
i figured it out. i think you can find anything on youtube.
great shots dude, really. love the lighting and depth of field.
-CH@Dbee
Homie I'm using 3 sb600s with my D200
sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM
i have never shot with the nikon 24-70 but i borrowed a 17-55 2.8 from my boss and i will have to say they are really no difference other than my sigma may be alittle heavier. i love this lens, i am planning on getting a sigma 70-200 2.8 next.
The 17-55 2.8 is the DX equivalent to the 24-70 2.8. Which means that on an FX, or full frame camera, the 24-70 will have the same field of view as the 17-55 does on a DX camera
that went over my head but i was talking about image quality between a nikon lens and a sigma. for the difference in price, i think sigma in most case's are just as good.
Yeah. Sigmas have as much sharpness as anyone is really gonna need. They always have good lenses. I think Chadbee has a 70-200 sigma unless hes sold it already
thats my next one.
OP you may want to hold onto your receipt....nikon is holding a press conference on wednesday. just fyi.
about what???????????
well they only have press conferences when they are going to release new shit.
ok thanks.
ok nevermind, it was announcing the d3s. 5200$. move along.
i want.
~DB4LYFE
07 Honda GD3
Picture look really crisp!! Nice setup.
Sigma is alright. It takes crisp images if you can get it to focus properly (which can be a issue itself). If you want top-of-the-line image quality then use a prime. I own the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, but my Canon 85mm f/1.8 spanks it in terms of image quality and focusing speed.
Like all zooms, the image quality starts to go down the tubes at the very long end. You should only bother if you need the reach AND aperture for low-light action...otherwise there are much cheaper, decent options. One neat thing about a 70-200 f/2.8 is that they are freakin huge and people will get out of your way if when they see you aiming one to snap a photo.
I have heard "Damn, now THAT's a real camera!" more than once while snapping away with this lens, lol.
LOL, Maybe shitty Canon zooms, You must not have played with Nikons 70-200. Tack fucking sharp at 70, and tack fucking sharp at 200. I have images that prove this
None of the zooms I have are top of the line (except maybe my Tamron 17-50).
Your Nikon might very well be better than my sigma, but my sigma probably cost $500+ less than yours did! As such, I can live with a 70-190 usable focal length range :-)
i want the sigma 70-200 2.8
i want that cat
she is pretty huh.
Yeah, I just checked prices... make that $1000 less that I spent on my Sigma! :-)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
