|
xcore posted:Just got notification that my first ever DSLR has been delivered. That sounds like a ballin' kit to start out with. ...just don't drop the 50mm.
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Or shake it too hard..
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Or shake it really hard, maybe the buzzing will stop
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
I met my mom's boyfriend's grandson today (so, uh, potential nephew?) and he was having quite a bit of fun taking pictures P&S. I'm wondering if it's possible to get a really cheap older DSLR for him to play with? Like body + lens for a couple hundred bucks? I saw him moving around to take pictures of me from all sorts of different angles and I felt the need to teach him about the golden triangle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
Not sure if this is the best place to ask this, but I have a basic question about focal lengths and crop sensors. I heard that if you're getting a 50mm for a crop sensor body (like my D5100) you're better off getting a 35mm, since due to the crop it really functions as something like a 50mm (30mm times the 1.5 crop factor gets you about 52.5). I'm wondering if this only refers to the amount of a scene you'll be able to get in frame, or if it also affects lens distortion? I've been reading Scott Kelby's Digital Photography Book (Vol. 1) where he recommends a focal length from about 85mm to 100mm as the sweet spots. If I were to get a new lens with the specific intentions of using it for portrait photography, would I still be looking for something in the neighborhood of those ranges, or would I actually be looking at something in the neighborhood of 55 to 70ish (85/1.5 and 100/1.5)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
Boneitis posted:Or shake it really hard, maybe the buzzing will stop If you shake it too hard, you’ll kill the bees that power the autofocus. If you drop it, the bees will escape. The Dark Wind posted:Not sure if this is the best place to ask this, but I have a basic question about focal lengths and crop sensors. I heard that if you're getting a 50mm for a crop sensor body (like my D5100) you're better off getting a 35mm, since due to the crop it really functions as something like a 50mm (30mm times the 1.5 crop factor gets you about 52.5). I'm wondering if this only refers to the amount of a scene you'll be able to get in frame, or if it also affects lens distortion? I've been reading Scott Kelby's Digital Photography Book (Vol. 1) where he recommends a focal length from about 85mm to 100mm as the sweet spots. If I were to get a new lens with the specific intentions of using it for portrait photography, would I still be looking for something in the neighborhood of those ranges, or would I actually be looking at something in the neighborhood of 55 to 70ish (85/1.5 and 100/1.5)? The “lens distortion” you’re talking about is caused by how close you are to the thing you’re photographing, not any property of the lens itself. Don’t limit yourself to to 55–70 mm, though. You won’t find many lenses in that range. 50 mm and 85 mm are more standard focal lengths.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If you shake it too hard, you’ll kill the bees that power the autofocus. This is God's honest truth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
Also don't let your dog eat it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I met my mom's boyfriend's grandson today (so, uh, potential nephew?) and he was having quite a bit of fun taking pictures P&S. I'm wondering if it's possible to get a really cheap older DSLR for him to play with? Like body + lens for a couple hundred bucks? I saw him moving around to take pictures of me from all sorts of different angles and I felt the need to teach him about the golden triangle. D40 and a kit lens. The Dark Wind posted:Not sure if this is the best place to ask this, but I have a basic question about focal lengths and crop sensors. I heard that if you're getting a 50mm for a crop sensor body (like my D5100) you're better off getting a 35mm, since due to the crop it really functions as something like a 50mm (30mm times the 1.5 crop factor gets you about 52.5). I'm wondering if this only refers to the amount of a scene you'll be able to get in frame, or if it also affects lens distortion? I've been reading Scott Kelby's Digital Photography Book (Vol. 1) where he recommends a focal length from about 85mm to 100mm as the sweet spots. If I were to get a new lens with the specific intentions of using it for portrait photography, would I still be looking for something in the neighborhood of those ranges, or would I actually be looking at something in the neighborhood of 55 to 70ish (85/1.5 and 100/1.5)? You are talking about this? http://www.lesjones.com/2011/06/15/effect-of-lens-focal-length-on-portraits/ if so, then yea you want to avoid 17mm for portraits in my opinion. Its a matter of look and feel and not a hard rule. Ive shot plenty of portraits on crop sensors with 35mm lenses all the way up as far as 300mm, you will be fine. Just rememeber that wider lenses will give you that odd look you see in teh example photos in the link above. On crop bodies I still prefer an 85mm 1.8 through 200mm range for portraits. Going over my LR data, most of my portraits are done with an 85mm 1.4 and a 70-200 zoom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
Exactly, and to elaborate, I think there is a lot of confusion between distortion due to flaws in the lens, either intentional as seen in a fisheye or just an artifact of production, and perspective distortion, which is the result of the relative distance between objects and the lens. A 17mm doesn't by nature make someone look like they have a big nose. The impression of a big nose comes from the fact that in order to fill the frame, you have to get very close to them, which means that relative to the lens there is a much more significant distance between their nose and face than there would be from further away. If you stood further away and then cropped the image down, the perspective would appear as though the image had been shot with a longer lens. So what that means is that it's germane to consider the "crop factor" when considering a focal length's likelihood of perspective distortion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
The simple answer: 50mm on crop will work great for portraits because you can get a fast, high-quality, bokehs-out-the-rear-element lens for  2. Also it will be about the right field of view for getting heads at snapshot distance or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I met my mom's boyfriend's grandson today (so, uh, potential nephew?) and he was having quite a bit of fun taking pictures P&S. I'm wondering if it's possible to get a really cheap older DSLR for him to play with? Like body + lens for a couple hundred bucks? I saw him moving around to take pictures of me from all sorts of different angles and I felt the need to teach him about the golden triangle. Musket posted:D40 and a kit lens. Anything with a 6 megapickle sensor is going to be capable of producing images suitable for printing at sizes large enough to make good christmas/birthday/mother's day/whatever presents - 8x10 or 11x14 will be fine for showing off a budding photographer's growing skill and enthusiasm. What I'm suggesting is throw in a gift certificate to his local print shop if you gift him a camera - you'd be guaranteeing yourself a place as "best quasi-uncle" for at least a few years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Another inexpensive option is the Nikon D50 for one reason only, cheaper AF-D lenses will work with it in AF mode. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Yeah, if you like Canon you can pick up a 30D for under $200 as well usually, plus maybe another $200 for a nifty fifty + 18-55 kit lens. That's my current setup and it works pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Musket posted:Another inexpensive option is the Nikon D50 for one reason only, cheaper AF-D lenses will work with it in AF mode. i had a Nikon D50 as my first DSLR, and it's a really nice camera. only downside is shoddy low light performance, but what can you do with an 8 year old body.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
How much of an upgrade would this be compared to my Canon Rebel kit lens? http://frederick.craigslist.org/pho/3841943418.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
It wouldn't be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 11:03
|
|
|
timeandtide posted:How much of an upgrade would this be compared to my Canon Rebel kit lens? Man, I really wouldn't trust craigslist for anything camera related. It just seems too easy to get ripped off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Man, I really wouldn't trust craigslist for anything camera related. It just seems too easy to get ripped off. You could just look up what things are worth before you buy it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:You could just look up what things are worth before you buy it. I suspect he was speaking more to gear that has something wrong with it, but may not be immediately obvious when you try it before you buy it. A CL seller has no obligation to deal with you once the sale is made. There's no feedback or warranty or anything so there's nothing you can do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Need some first DSLR advice. My wife and I want to move past the pan and scan for family use. Should we simply pick up something like a T4i with the 18-55 kit lens and be done with it (to start?). Or, is it worth looking at something a generation or two older with a couple lenses for the around the same cost like this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00CCGZ9L0/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?qid=1371224876&sr=8-3&pi=SL75 I'm going to pick up Understanding Exposure to learn a thing or two, but it will likely be an auto-only affair or close to it for my wife. Subjects will be our child and travels. I'd also like to take a stab at photographing airliners at the airport.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Vykk.Draygo posted:I suspect he was speaking more to gear that has something wrong with it, but may not be immediately obvious when you try it before you buy it. A CL seller has no obligation to deal with you once the sale is made. There's no feedback or warranty or anything so there's nothing you can do. Yup, exactly. I was burned before on Craigslist buying a washer and dryer. Washer worked great, the dryer shat out on us two weeks later. Buyer beware, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Understeer posted:Need some first DSLR advice. My wife and I want to move past the pan and scan for family use. Should we simply pick up something like a T4i with the 18-55 kit lens and be done with it (to start?). Or, is it worth looking at something a generation or two older with a couple lenses for the around the same cost like this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00CCGZ9L0/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?qid=1371224876&sr=8-3&pi=SL75 The most important comparison between the cameras you listed - Canon T4i vs. Nikon D3100 - is HOW THEY FEEL. Seriously. Go to a camera store and pick up each of those cameras and take some practice shots. Even if there's no memory card in it, the act of handling the camera and playing with it will massively inform you about what you want in a camera. Some cameras just feel better in your hands. A very similar two-lens starter kit is available from any of the four main DSLR manufacturers, and it's a good place to start (once you decide which brand fits your fingers best). Any DSLR will easily meet your typical shooting conditions - children, travel snapshots, airplanes are all very standard kinds of things to photograph, don't worry about any camera falling down on any of those. Just get what feels right (honestly, I can't emphasize this enough - PICK UP THE CAMERA) and start shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:
This is so, so much the truth. The "right" first camera/DSLR for anyone is the one that feels best in your hands. Have a play with the thing, flick through the menus, try it in landscape and portrait orientation, caress it, feel it - both you and the missus - then pick the one that feels like an extension of your hand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
efcso posted:This is so, so much the truth. The "right" first camera/DSLR for anyone is the one that feels best in your hands. Have a play with the thing, flick through the menus, try it in landscape and portrait orientation, caress it, feel it - both you and the missus - then pick the one that feels like an extension of your hand. Nikon lenses being righty-loosy, lefty-tighty will always feel goofy as all hell to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Nikon lenses being righty-loosy, lefty-tighty will always feel goofy as all hell to me. Nikon lenses don't mount/dismount that way at all. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Nikon lenses don't mount/dismount that way at all. They mount that way, the caps screw on and off that way, the zoom works that way. It's completely opposite to what anyone opening things in the US (dunno about other country's standards) has grown accustomed to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:They mount that way, the caps screw on and off that way, the zoom works that way. It's completely opposite to what anyone opening things in the US (dunno about other country's standards) has grown accustomed to. I guess this is true but I never really associated it with tightening or loosening things, just "this is how you mount a lens on a Nikon". It was only weird for about a day coming from a system that mounts the other way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Nikon lenses being righty-loosy, lefty-tighty will always feel goofy as all hell to me. I think you are the odd man out on this, not Nikon. Weirdo 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Musket posted:I think you are the odd man out on this, not Nikon. Weirdo Nikon has a backwards lens mount, admit it already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Nikon has a backwards lens mount, admit it already. YOU'ER BACKWARDS. Honestly I never really noticed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
Musket posted:YOU'ER BACKWARDS. Honestly I never really noticed. I didn't really notice until I started adapting lenses, and then it was painfully apparent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
Don't Nikons have rear end-backwards zoom as well? As in you turn the lens left to zoom?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Headhunter posted:Don't Nikons have rear end-backwards zoom as well? As in you turn the lens left to zoom? Yes, if by “left” you mean anticlockwise for a greater focal length. This is true of focus and aperture as well, but don’t quote me on that last one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Yes, if by “left” you mean anticlockwise for a greater focal length. This is true of focus and aperture as well, but don’t quote me on that last one. I think he means counter-clockwise, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Commie bastard 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Boneitis posted:Commie bastard No, really... Show me an American camera company that does cameras right. Ill wait.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Musket posted:No, really... Show me an American camera company that does cameras right. Ill wait. Show me an American camera company. Aren't they all Japanese (consumer-to-professional level) or German (weirdo overpriced status-symbol cameras riding a decades-out-of-date legacy reputation)? Plus Hasselblad, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Show me an American camera company. Aren't they all Japanese (consumer-to-professional level) or German (weirdo overpriced status-symbol cameras riding a decades-out-of-date legacy reputation)? Plus Hasselblad, I guess. PhaseOne (which owns Leaf and Mamiya Digital) is Danish 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Show me an American camera company.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 18:07
|
|
