Axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum) - Leucistic

    Newer Older

    Can you see the bones in the feet? And the blood vessels in the gills?

    silvieishon, Richard473, adriana.rh, and 1 other people added this photo to their favorites.

    1. John P Clare 35 months ago | reply

      Thanks Matthijs! I saw you commenting on Jack Goldfarb's Ensatina photo about the Nikon D800. I'm trying to get hold of one myself. Very hard to come by. Despite what most people say, it really is similar to the D7000 - the main difference is the big increase in resolution.

    2. Matthijs Hollanders 35 months ago | reply

      Hi John. I actually just ordered the D700 today after it dropped $500. I'd say the difference between D800 and D7000 (or any FX vs DX) is rather huge. Aside from the obvious difference in sensor size, the two handle lenses completely differently. That's not to say that photos with a D7000 can look identical to those taken with a D800/700, but you'll need different equipment to do the same thing. I didn't go with the D800 because 36MP is not only not worth $800 extra for my purposes, but those megapixels will clog any hard drive FAST.

    3. John P Clare 35 months ago | reply

      I used to shoot Nikon film SLRs before digital (this is going back to the late 90s). Focal length does change a bit on full frame versus cropped, I'll grant you that, but my statement about the D800 is more related to the pixel pitch - it's almost identical to the D7000 in that respect. I almost bought a D700 when it came out - great camera and a smart choice, especially cost-wise. One aspect that I don't think about a lot is that on full frame, 105mm is a lot closer to a rattlesnake than on a cropped sensor :).

    4. Matthijs Hollanders 35 months ago | reply

      I was shooting film up to one week ago (long story short, I'm moving abroad and that was the last class), and I LOVED my 24mm on film. I never put it on a DX camera anymore after the first time; it just wasn't wide enough. I went with a D700 because I can use the 24mm on it as opposed to going with a D7000 + extra wide angle lens (i.e., Sigma 10-20 or 8-16). Aside from dynamic range, ISO is also at least one stop better on a D700 vs D7000. To be honest though, the main reason I went with a D700 is that the lenses I own were not DX-only lenses and I wouldn't have to buy an extra wide angle lens. Re: 105mm, I sometimes feel it's too tight when photographing large stuff. All in all, both cameras are amazing and after post-processing no one can tell what a shot was taken with.

    5. John P Clare 35 months ago | reply

      Where are you moving?

    6. Matthijs Hollanders 35 months ago | reply

      Back to the Netherlands, where I moved from 7 years ago.

    7. John P Clare 35 months ago | reply

      Wow, how come you're moving back?

    8. Matthijs Hollanders 35 months ago | reply

      High school will end and university is practically free.

    9. John P Clare 35 months ago | reply

      Ah. Makes sense. You know I'm from Ireland, right? Moved to the US in 2005.

    10. Matthijs Hollanders 35 months ago | reply

      I didn't know that. Looks like you've made the most of salamandering.

    11. Scott Wahlberg 33 months ago | reply

      That's amazing. Good work, John!

    12. John P Clare 32 months ago | reply

      Thanks Scott!

    keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts