tsomers 0 Posted April 23, 2011 I already loved my Nikon d40, but since getting in to the watch thing I had to buy a new camera to take pictures of my watches. So here are some photos messing around with my new light box. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMLSI 0 Posted April 23, 2011 Looks good. I have D5000 and my Dad has the D7000. Quite a nice camera for the money. What lens do you have? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Member X 91 Posted April 23, 2011 Is the D7000 the new one that's supposed to be almost as good as the D300? I want a D700 and comprehensive 2.8 setup but bank balance says no Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tsomers 0 Posted April 23, 2011 Lens was just kit lens from my d40 I am going to try my 50mm today. Yes, some say the d7000 is better then the d300. Well that is what Ken Rockwell says. I want a 18-55 f2.8 too, I have a 70-200 f2.8 but hard to do macros with that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Luto 0 Posted April 23, 2011 Is the D7000 the new one that's supposed to be almost as good as the D300? I want a D700 and comprehensive 2.8 setup but bank balance says no In most ways its better I'd say. At least 1 stop better ISO performance (and about 1 stop lower than a D700), the best video capabilities in the Nikon range too and though it isn't marketed as a pro-grade body, its still metal and is decently water resistant. AF and metering systems are updated too. I haven't owned a D7000 but have come close and would be my body of choice on DX format. That said I prefer my D90 over a D300s but the D700 kicks ass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Luto 0 Posted April 23, 2011 Lens was just kit lens from my d40 I am going to try my 50mm today. Yes, some say the d7000 is better then the d300. Well that is what Ken Rockwell says. I want a 18-55 f2.8 too, I have a 70-200 f2.8 but hard to do macros with that. The Nikon one is 17-55 and is considered the best DX telephoto zoom. However, its big, heavy and costs a fortune. Get a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non VC) and it comes very close to the image quality of the Nikon), in a lens thats far cheaper, small and light (though not as solid build quality but still good). The 70-200 is next to useless for macro because of the large min focus distance. Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105 are proper macro lens that aren't too expensive (I use the Sigma). But you could consider other cheaper alternatives too (like diopters, extension tubes etc). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tesmith2112 0 Posted April 23, 2011 Nice watch, looks like one I sold recently . The pics are good, however you could have done a better job buffing off that big finger print on the first pic. lol Also, you're using a light box? It doesn't look like the light is being filtered, it almost looks like you're not using a light box. Also, how is your white balanced and ISO configured on your camera? The tones seem a bit too warm, I personally thing watches photograph better in cool tones. Sorry if it sounds like I'm nit picking, but that's just my opinion. I'm certainly on the lower end of the photography talent on this site. I have a Canon T2i. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baldrick 1 Posted April 24, 2011 I already loved my Nikon d40, but since getting in to the watch thing I had to buy a new camera to take pictures of my watches. Why did you 'have' to buy a 'new' camera to photograph your watches, surely a new lens would have been the better choice, allied to some more experimentation with photographing your subject, you bought a new camera but still don't have an appropriate lens Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tsomers 0 Posted April 24, 2011 Yes Tesmith and I should of cleaned it first. Didn't help I had some drinks in me when I took photos. I have a lot to learn. Baldrick had to have an excuse to buy a new camera the d40 was too slow for my sports photos of my son. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baldrick 1 Posted April 24, 2011 Ahhh, you yielded to your inner desires to have a new toy, doesn't make you a bad person LESSON: 1 Do not expect great results from any camera when you're 3 sheets to the wind Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Member X 91 Posted April 24, 2011 Is the D7000 the new one that's supposed to be almost as good as the D300? I want a D700 and comprehensive 2.8 setup but bank balance says no :( In most ways its better I'd say. At least 1 stop better ISO performance (and about 1 stop lower than a D700), the best video capabilities in the Nikon range too and though it isn't marketed as a pro-grade body, its still metal and is decently water resistant. AF and metering systems are updated too. I haven't owned a D7000 but have come close and would be my body of choice on DX format. That said I prefer my D90 over a D300s but the D700 kicks ass. Cool, thanks for the info! I just want to be able to shoot handheld in lowlight without a flash and without having more noise than a death metal concert Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baldrick 1 Posted April 24, 2011 You don't necessarily need lots and lots of resolution to shoot good watch photos, just an understanding of light, a good tripod, a good static subject and a good light source, a little care when preparing and a little thought regarding the subject ALL SHOT WITH A 6mp CAMERA AND TAMRON 24-135mm ZOOM LENS ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
