food

[ccting]

Equipment:
Kodak easyshare CX7530 point (bought in 2003 by my wife)and shot camera without hotshoe, YN560 with optical sensor on.
No post production.
Non-adjustable shutter speed and aperture.

100_2149.jpg
Q1: Do you think i have done a good lighting with 1 speedlight, handheld?
Q2: Do you think this food is delicious? Why?
Q3: Do you think this camera has advantage over my D5100? Why?

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by ccting

Q1: Do you think i have done a good lighting with 1 speedlight, handheld?
Q2: Do you think this food is delicious? Why?
Q3: Do you think this camera has advantage over my D5100? Why?

Umm, sure.

Q1: Yeah, you did a good job with the lighting, especially considering the flash was likely in manual and the camera would have been a touch confused by it all.

Q2: Maybe, though I'd be hard pressed to tell what it is. Not really a question for a photography forum, though.

Q3: Well it's probably smaller, and doesnt need a macro lens to get this close. Besides that, not much. The image isn't particularly sharp at larger sizes and the focus isn't spot on. At anything other than base ISO, the D5100 will blow it out of the water.

I think the bigger issue is why you have such a hate on your D5100. Every time youre posting about something, you're basically ask us to confirm your unfounded frustrations with it. If you dont like it, replace it; that's not a decision we can make for you.

[ccting]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Umm, sure.
....

Dear OsmosisStudios, thanks for your reply.. I like D4 every much, and I think it is a very cost effective camera model. Maybe others think D4 is an expensive unit, but for long run, it saves a lot of money.

[sk66]

I agree with OS.
And I also think the D4 is NOT a cost effective camera. Quite the opposite. Yes, it is *better* in every aspect than the D5100, but there is no picture the D4 can take that can't be taken with the D5100 with proper planning/technique.

[ccting]

Hmm.. I think for those who owns very less lenses, D4 does save money because of the ability to use Fx, Dx, Nx and other X lenses, and adjustable cropped factor.. Then we need no buy as many lenses.. It quite not cost effective for those who owns lots of lenses.

And you can adjust the camera remotely, get the pictures instantly remotely..I think you will save a lot of time, effort and trouble and money too for those communication devices..I think if i am a journalist who capture war photos, it will save my life too ;D

Again, this is my perception.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by ccting

Hmm.. I think for those who owns very less lenses, D4 does save money because of the ability to use Fx, Dx, Nx and other X lenses, and adjustable cropped factor.. Then we need no buy as many lenses.. It quite not cost effective for those who owns lots of lenses.

What is Nx? What other "X"s are there? There's FX (Full-frame), DX (APS-C) and now CX (NIkon 1). The D4 also doesnt have "adjustable" crop factor: it works at FX unless you put a DX lens on it, in which case you have the option of shooting with or without the crop factor. I dont understand your argument about quantity of lenses.

Originally Posted by ccting

And you can adjust the camera remotely, get the pictures instantly remotely..I think you will save a lot of time, effort and trouble and money too for those communication devices..I think if i am a journalist who capture war photos, it will save my life too ;D

Again, this is my perception.

You can adjust any Nikon camera remotely and get the pictures remotely by shooting tethered with CaptureNX. The D4 has been announced with a new WT wireless plug-in, that allows you to go without a cable, but those have been around for a while for the D300/s and D700 in the form of a battery grip. A journalist that captures war photos doesnt have a wifi connection that this system needs: they'd have to have a satellite phone, and at that point might as well just be tethered.

The D4 is an expensive item. It will NOT "save" you money. That's just ridiculous.