|
I think it was a slightly more cut down version than my beloved D50 and came out not long after it. Everything is so much better now, from the viewfinder to autofocus points, but I love the fact that if you can use a camera of that age and you pick up any of the current gen DX series, you'll be at home with it in minutes. That's seriously impressive and proves how well they think out cameras these days (I'm sure the other systems are similar, but I remember grabbing both an Olympus and Canon DSLR back years ago and not being able to take good photos with them out of sheer frustration of not understanding how their systems worked. Even on fully auto the Olympus was giving me these awful blue casts over everything that I still don't understand to this day...)
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Even on fully auto the Olympus was giving me these awful blue casts over everything that I still don't understand to this day This can happen if you take photographs while you're feeling sad
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
I mean. I'm just dipping my toe in so I'm sure if I'm into this I'm gonna get something more up to date but free is free. Is there a good (non video) tutorial of all the buttons and garbage? And am I gonna be able to get by with what I want to shoot with the kit lense or do I need something better asap?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
The D40 is a fine camera if you're just starting out, plus it has a 1/500 flash sync speed that's pretty unique these days. Ken Rockwell loves his D40 more than almost any other camera, so his guide is probably an OK place to start. Just ignore his opinions about JPEG versus raw and shoot raw. The kit lens is plenty good on the D40's sensor, don't worry so much about gear right now.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
feigning interest posted:This can happen if you take photographs while you're feeling sad Ah, it must've had the immensely powerful Emotion Engine from the Playstation 3. Technology, eh? e: didn't spot the original D40 post... I still refuse to part with my D50 and I'd rather take it out on a risky shoot than take my new body. You can take great pictures with those cameras still, and if you decide to upgrade you'll find you have a camera you know how to use and does an even better job at focusing and in lower light.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
The only problem is the flash is stuck open. Is that an expensive fix? I've just been holding it down and it throws the zap (?). Is that acceptable?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Grandmaster.flv posted:The only problem is the flash is stuck open. Is that an expensive fix? I've just been holding it down and it throws the zap (?). Is that acceptable? Google the manual, it's probably available online in PDF form. See if you can just disable the flash via a button even if the flash is up. Otherwise, the repair, depending on what is wrong with it, might not be worth it considering how old the d40 is.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Thinking it might be time to get a flash unit for my ME Super because indoors in the evening it's hard to get an acceptable exposure. Any recommendations for something relatively inexpensive, preferably that would also be useful on my K50 too? I don't know jack or poo poo about flashes.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Thinking it might be time to get a flash unit for my ME Super because indoors in the evening it's hard to get an acceptable exposure. Any recommendations for something relatively inexpensive, preferably that would also be useful on my K50 too? I don't know jack or poo poo about flashes. There's a lighting thread but for something cheap and manual can't really go wrong with whatever the newest model of Yongnuo is these days, or go and pick up like an old Vivitar at a thrift shop or something.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Thinking it might be time to get a flash unit for my ME Super because indoors in the evening it's hard to get an acceptable exposure. Any recommendations for something relatively inexpensive, preferably that would also be useful on my K50 too? I don't know jack or poo poo about flashes. This is my go to cheap small flash. Costs $60, has two auto and one full power manual setting, takes has a tilting head for bounce and fits in a jacket pocket. If size is not an issue then go for whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Anyone have any tips for getting the best shots I can of some Lego stuff with an iPhone? It's all I really have access to right now. Mostly any lighting tips would be appreciated. I find it really hard to put light on something that small. My current attempts have either blown the whole thing out with light or made it way too dark. Also, are there any apps out there anyone knows of that would help with something like this? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:Anyone have any tips for getting the best shots I can of some Lego stuff with an iPhone? It's all I really have access to right now. Mostly any lighting tips would be appreciated. I find it really hard to put light on something that small. My current attempts have either blown the whole thing out with light or made it way too dark. Also, are there any apps out there anyone knows of that would help with something like this? Thanks. Are you trying natural light? Window light? I'm not sure what you've got available to you for lighting.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:This is my go to cheap small flash. Costs $60, has two auto and one full power manual setting, takes has a tilting head for bounce and fits in a jacket pocket. If size is not an issue then go for whatever. Thanks, that looks nice. I'm going to see what's available in used equipment too, but I'll keep that amazon link in my pocket.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Are you trying natural light? Window light? I'm not sure what you've got available to you for lighting. Tried window light and using various light sources throughout the house. i'll probably try some natural light this weekend. I'll be using a back drop.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
HPL posted:The D40 is nearly jurassic in digital camera years. It was one of the first affordable "not useless" consumer-level DSLRs, which is why there are so many of them around. That said, even the lowest, cheapest new DSLR today will beat the everliving snot out of it. It's also a great camera that takes nice pictures.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:Tried window light and using various light sources throughout the house. i'll probably try some natural light this weekend. I'll be using a back drop.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
At the risk of asking an incredibly subjective question, what do you look for in an upgrade? I have an EPL5 and just noticed the sale price of the OMD EM10. My main reasons for considering it are the features like more control dials (I'm tired of menu diving) and the built-in panorama stitching and HDR. The viewfinder and other features are a nice bonus. I'm not a "photographer" by any means but I find myself enjoying it less as I get more experienced and rely less on automatic settings. I can pseudo-justify it by saying it's my last upgrade ever since it has everything I'd want, and that I can sell my EPL5 to make up some of the difference, but on the other hand it doesn't offer much in the way of better performance.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
I look for something that solves or lessens a shortcoming I've identified in my current setup. IE: at the moment I feel like I don't have the resolution in my d7k to crop my bird photos into usable sizes, so I'm looking at upgrading the body to one with a higher resolution sensor.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I look for something that solves or lessens a shortcoming I've identified in my current setup. IE: at the moment I feel like I don't have the resolution in my d7k to crop my bird photos into usable sizes, so I'm looking at upgrading the body to one with a higher resolution sensor. Is that cheaper or better than investing in longer glass? Higher resolution doesn't always mean better image quality at a crop. You're gonna hit the wall in terms of cramming more pixels into an APS-C sensor.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
dakana posted:Is that cheaper or better than investing in longer glass? Higher resolution doesn't always mean better image quality at a crop. You're gonna hit the wall in terms of cramming more pixels into an APS-C sensor. I already have glass I'm happy with for the time being and I'll get a lot more out of a new sensor which will be behind every shot I take rather than a lens which I'd only take out when shooting birds.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
I got tired of missing about s stop of DR to fit scenes.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Flickr changed their homepage photo stream layout again. Much nicer now. Have they always had the Magic View option in Camera Roll? It does some kind of crazy photo recognition and categorizes all your photos by subject matter. Does a drat good job, too. A few funny mistakes but otherwise pretty accurate.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
I think that might be new, I agree it's pretty cool and is about 50/50 between scarily accurate and complete nonsense. I like it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Flickr changed their homepage photo stream layout again. Much nicer now. I'm liking most of the new Flickr changes, except that when someone posts multiple photos at once, the thumbnails to switch between them still overlap the first photo. Now that they've introduced a margin, I wish they'd use it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
What would cause a particular lens on a particular camera to overexpose consistently by 4 stops? I have a Nikon 35mm f/2 on my d600 and that's what it's doing. Changing shooting mode doesn't change this behavior, changing metering mode doesn't change it. I need to dial in -4ev of exposure compensation to get a reasonable exposure. Other lenses don't do this, just this one. Maybe the aperture isn't stepping down properly? Edit: So odd. If I hold down the aperture preview button and take the picture while I'm holding it, it's exposed properly. If I don't do that, it's overexposing. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 19:04 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:What would cause a particular lens on a particular camera to overexpose consistently by 4 stops? I have a Nikon 35mm f/2 on my d600 and that's what it's doing. Changing shooting mode doesn't change this behavior, changing metering mode doesn't change it. I need to dial in -4ev of exposure compensation to get a reasonable exposure. Look for oil on the aperture blades. The 35mm f/2 AF is infamous for this problem, and it makes things sticky.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Also, does it look exposed properly if you switch to manual aperture on the lens?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Look for oil on the aperture blades. The 35mm f/2 AF is infamous for this problem, and it makes things sticky. There is something that looks like that. Is there a way to fix it?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There is something that looks like that. Is there a way to fix it? I would just send it off to Nikon for service. They can apparently fix it for less than $100. Trying to DIY it is probably not worth the risk.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There is something that looks like that. Is there a way to fix it? I've had this done at KEH, it's $135 flat IIRC plus shipping and it's pretty quick service. Double check if Nikon is cheaper, but it's a solid alternative.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
I have what is perhaps a very OCD question, but: Here are four images of some birds. They were taken with the same lens, at the same focal length, at roughly comparable ISO, with different camera bodies, in different lighting conditions. Let's start with these two: These were taken with a Canon XSi, a 12MP DSLR from 2009:   Detail is good in these. Resolution isn't spectacular, but individual feathers are easy to pick out and overall the details appear very clear. Cool. This image was taken with the same cheap lens (Canon EF-S 55-250 IS II) - but on an a6000.  It has good detail, too. But are 2x the MP and much better sensitivity on paper leading this image to wipe the floor with the others? It's debateable, but I think it looks a little sharper overall. Then, this image.  It's also taken with the a6000 / 55-250 combo. But it doesn't seem to match the others in image quality. Sure, the lighting isn't as good, but the ISO is pretty close to the others. What happened here? I'm feeling a little paranoid because this one was taken after I had to clean a fingerprint off of my a6000 sensor. I used Eclipse Liquid and a sensor swab, so I don't think it should be a problem, but lots of my pictures have been coming out like this since the cleaning. Is this concern just due to overly picky pixel-peeping, lack of critical focus, the a6000's resolution overcoming the lens, or does it look like there might still be some smudge residue on the sensor filter? Assuming that this is something that one could even determine by looking at images rather than the hardware.
SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 05:47 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
It mostly looks like you missed focus combined with compression not agreeing with what you wanted. You can always just inspect and reclean your sensor, but maybe take it to a professional if you're worried that you might damage it this time.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
dear god why was there a loving fingerprint on your sensor?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:dear god why was there a loving fingerprint on your sensor? Changing lenses outside on a rough trail, just slipped in my hands. It was just the very slightest contact between the optical filter and my left ring finger, but enough to leave a perceptible mark. It happened when I was going out to take landscape photos with a wide angle lens, but realizing that I would want to photograph some wildlife on the way up the hill. Could have just taken two bodies, but I wanted to travel light. Could have just taken one drat lens and do what I set out to do, but no. I had to bring the zoom along, just in case.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
There are so many variables at play here. Hand-holding blur, subject motion, focus off just a touch, moving after you've locked focus, where focus is locked, lighting conditions, web compression, ISO, editing... There is nothing glaringly wrong. I think the focus is maybe just off a touch, plus the main subject is in shadow and backlit with shittier light than the other photos. Your sensor is fine.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Focusing on the 0 using the liveview screen: Focusing on the 0 using the viewfinder:  I read (whether true or not) that it is not unusual to have discrepancy between both modes as they use different methods of focusing but loving hell that is quite a bit off isn't it? Taken with a 50mm (75mm equivalent) at f1.8 from around 50cm away and there is 6cm difference in focus. Should I just send it to Nikon and hope it's not expensive? Edit: Pretty sure it's a body problem as the issue seems to persist with other lenses
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Did you try the AF fine tuning in the menus?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
I've changed lenses in the middle of a wildly violent mosh pit full of sweaty people and still not got a fingerprint on my sensor.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Beige posted:Focusing on the 0 using the liveview screen: You should be using the middle of that target sheet to focus on (the big fat black rectangle all by its lonesome) and not the edge. Right now you could be hitting anything in that area with the phase detect sensors
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
404notfound posted:Did you try the AF fine tuning in the menus? The D3100 doesn't have that unfortunately. I just tested the same lens on a D3200 and it's perfectly focused in liveview and through the viewfinder. So my D3100 is the problem  timrenzi574 posted:You should be using the middle of that target sheet to focus on (the big fat black rectangle all by its lonesome) and not the edge. Right now you could be hitting anything in that area with the phase detect sensors I'm afraid the problem persists but thanks for the heads up.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 18:39
|
|