|
I like photography, I've always wanted to take cool photos of stuff I see and do, but I also know jack poo poo about photography. My girlfriend bought me an old DSLR (? maybe? How do you tell if it is?) recently as a surprise thing, because I've always made vague noises about wanting a camera that didn't suck/wasn't my cellphone. The camera in question is a Sony "Cyber-shot 5.0 mega pixel" model code DSC-F717. It came with a bag, all the various cords and such, what I think of as a 'normal' sized lens and a really wide lens roughly 4 inches across marked 'wide conversion lens', and a couple of machined alloy adaptors that look like they're meant to let you screw on other lenses. My question is, is this camera any good? Any critical flaws or quirks to watch out for? Where would be the best place to learn/ask about how to use this thing? I don't want to waste it just taking lovely photos on the auto setting like a chump. Slavvy fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Jan 31, 2014 |
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
Gotcha. Wasn't planning on taking any night-time pics anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
I normally hang out around AI and CA so this is a real insight into how non-car/bike people think about cars/bikes. To me it just looks like one of those fancy long-lensed cameras and I can't tell the difference between different brands/styles. My mind is genuinely being blown, I had no idea the styling of this camera is any different/more unusual than any other similar camera.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
I take it the lens being able to swivel on the vertical axis isn't usually A Thing then? What is actually the purpose of that feature? I can't figure out how it would ever be useful aside from taking a picture of something from ground level and not having to lie down to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
I took a picture. Hooray! I've just been using the auto setting for now but I was wondering: what do I do if I'm trying to take a photo of something that's very brightly back-lit, like an object that has the sun right behind it? If I leave it on auto it makes the pic look 'wrong' in that either the object is too dark or the lighting looks strange. Also, what do I change if I want more 'depth' in focus (I don't know the terms so bear with me). For example, you can see the back of the car just on the verge of being blurry and out of focus. How do I set it so the entire car would be in focus but everything further or closer isn't?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Ok, I recognise some of those terms. Don't think my camera has the first one; but since asking that question I've successfully taken a decent photo by autofocusing on a dark area then shifting the camera to the position I actually want. The problem was that it ended up focusing at the wrong distance so it wasn't ideal: You can see how the black bike is somewhat blurry; my autofocus point was the shadowy area between the two.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
So point at the dark area, hold down AE lock, then focus on the bikes by setting the focusing rectangle (don't know the actual term) to the widest setting so the camera auto-focuses on either side of center?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Mine has auto, macro, auto with some settings you can change (looks like a camera with a P next to it), A, S and M. And then on top of that a scene mode that you can then digitally choose between various scene settings. But it's old and (apparently) weird, so who knows!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Geektox posted:P is for program Looking at the owner's manual, that is bang-on. So what should I be shooting with? Manual? Aperture priority only seems useful for taking really deep shots of like a tunnel or what have you and very close up shots of very small objects. Shutter is self-explanatory to me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
I've got an absolutely screaming deal on a used canon eos 1000D (rebel XS in north america?) as my first DSLR. It's pretty plain, comes with one filter, the charger etc and one lens. The price is about half what an entry level DSLR body-only costs retail here. Is this a good first DSLR? I haven't been able to find anything remotely close price-wise. How quickly (if at all) would I 'out-grow' something like this? I'm asking here rather than the canon thread because I'm unfamiliar with the terminology and stuff.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Righto, I hadn't realised it was an obsolete model before looking into it further. What about an 1100d?
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Any example models I should aim for? I am almost completely clueless, I just don't want to buy something I'll get frustrated with when I know what I'm doing later down the line.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Yeah, I realise having an idea of price would be helpful but I'm in NZ and the overwhelming majority of people on this forum are in the states or Europe. Electronics prices here are pretty grossly inflated and cameras seem to be no different, which is why I didn't mention it. Didn't realise there was a thread like that, thanks!
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
You know fuckin' sculptures and poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I too make photorealistic images using my camera. Nah. You need waaaay more post-processing before they look photo-realistic, otherwise that poo poo just looks like real life  Plus lens flares.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:This isn't a question but more so something I wanted to share. Just a reminder of how far digital cameras have come in less than 20 years, not that anybody needed a reminder. What purpose would this have even served when it was new? 640x480 isn't remotely better than film in any way, why would anyone have even bought one? Scanners existed back then.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 11:14
|
|
3.5" floppy
|
I just bought babby's first DSLR, a nikon D3100. It came with the usual 18-55mm lens. I like landscape photography so I want to get a more long-distance orientated lens on the cheap. From what I understand, the lenses for nikon's full sized DSLR's will fit my camera just fine, but they won't auto-focus because they don't have an internal autofocusing mechanism. I'm ideally hoping to get something like this. I want this specifically because I can't be bothered paying four times as much for a new lens I can't use on any full-sized camera I purchase in the future, when I can get an obsolescent lens for gently caress all. How would I go about focusing the lens manually? Is it done by the ring at the front of the lens? Also, from what I understand, because of the smaller sensor in my camera compared to a full-sized one, the focal length works out to be quite a bit longer. I have no issue with this, in fact it would be somewhat beneficial because I would be getting more 'zoom' without paying for more lens. However, would this affect what I see through the viewfinder? As in, could I expect my photo to come out like it looks in the viewfinder, or would the end result be cropped somehow? Finally, would my camera's light-metering and other functions be 'fooled' into thinking conditions are different to how they actually are due to the artificially inflated focal length, somehow?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
Thanks guys, all of this is very illuminating! I do live in NZ and yeah, electronics goods tend to be hysterically overpriced here because of the shipping bottleneck; having looked around, $120 is actually a pretty awesome price. I have the feeling getting one from KEH would work out the same/equally expensive because of shipping.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Oh, don't worry Pablo Bluth, I didn't think you were at all out of line. Having full-frame as an upgrade path is something that, as a Pentax-shooter, I'm jealous of. Everything electronic is hilariously overpriced here, like smart phones and the like. I have to pay 3x the price as north America for tyres for my motorbike. Everything is like that. So yeah, that lens is good value. I just wanted to make sure it would work on my camera and do what I want it to 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 23:18
|
|
are prices way out of line with the rest of the world. I'm getting flashbacks to XTimmy's long-ago request for an old film SLR that did not cost a zillion dollars because apparently Perth's second-hand market is utterly broken.
|
So, reading this, it says that "No AF is an inconvenience, but guess what: Nikon AF cameras still all have an electronic dot (or arrows and a dot) in the viewfinder which tell you when you've got perfect manual focus. It's slower, but just as accurate." What is this referring to? I don't think my camera has this feature, or I wasn't aware of it if it does.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
That was the first result in google  Just had a look, I have the dot. How does it 'know' if you're focused correctly? How is it able to judge that at all? I'm pretty good with technical stuff but cameras are magic to me. Also, where would I buy one of the little rubber eyepiece thingies that goes around the viewfinder? Mine is missing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Jesus christ I just youtube'd my way through dismantling my 18-55 lens because a random tiny semicircular piece of plastic appeared inside the lens today. So many miniscule screws and gears and poo poo. Why was there a loose chunk of plastic in there? What did it do? Why was it slightly greasy? 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
FWIW I'm short-sighted and managed to lose my glasses yesterday. When I was fooling around with my new-to-me lens that has no AF, I constantly found that setting the focus so it looked 'right' to my eye resulted in a blurry, out of focus image. Following the little focus indicator light led to perfectly focused pictures that looked slightly blurry in the viewfinder.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
rawrr posted:A lot of cameras have a diopter to correct for this. Is this the tiny + and - wheel next to my viewfinder?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Lets say I'm a dumbass and walked into trying to take pictures a week ago (I am). What is the purpose of a histogram and how do you use what it shows you to get some sort of result? It's pretty prominently positioned in LR so I want to know what it's for. Googling it just tells me it's a form of chart used in statistics, which I can understand but isn't exactly useful. On a semi-related note: is the 'guide mode' on my camera any use at all? Are the suggestions therein bunk or are they an easy way to get a decent result?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Taking apart my lens I learned that the switch between AF and manual isn't just an electronic button. It mechanically moves a tiny metal shift fork, which engages/disengages a tiny countergear on a little shaft. It is exactly, and I mean exactly like reverse gear in a car gearbox, just tiny. Was quite impressed. Not so impressed with how flimsy the construction of the lens really is.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:This is one thing I absolutely adore about SomethingAwful - a professional mechanic wanders into the Dorkroom with his new camera, and ends up discovering his lens has a gearbox, and is otherwise extremely similar to a late-90's Hyundai. The second hand zoom lens I bought, whilst having no AF, seems to be of considerably higher quality. The end part that moves back and forth has very little play even when fully extended and the general fit and finish seems much tighter. The only irritating thing is that when you operate the focus ring, there is no way of disengaging it from the little screw that's supposed to mesh with a full-sized body, so you can hear the entire geartrain softly whining. It doesn't bother me, but it's strange that it happens and I'd like to play around with a brand new lens of the same make and size to see if it's just how they are or if mine has a missing tooth on a gear somewhere, or something. Can you grease lens gearing somehow? Now that I've taken one apart, the other seems to have similar construction, at least in the broad strokes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
The first eight seem pretty superfluous 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
I have fond memories of being a kid and my parents buying those cheap $20 disposable cameras and taking lots of terrible photos of family poo poo with them. What sort of focal length etc did those have? How did they contrive to make such a tiny lens be effective for both close-ups and sweeping landscapes? I have never used a film camera outside of those so all this is a mystery to me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:They are ~35mm single-element plastic meniscus lenses. The aperture is a little larger than f/16. Shutter is a single spring-loaded blade. Focus is set at the hyperfocal distance which means anything past 6' is mostly in focus. Buy one, shoot it, take it apart; they are really neat inside. Sadly I can't buy one anywhere otherwise I would. This is extremely interesting and informative, though. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Literally just after posting that I mentioned them to my girlfriend and she blithely told me that her mother has like half a dozen of the loving things that have never been used. Trip to the in-laws on the weekend 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:EDIT: On second thought, this is a little too heavy. I saw your original post. Some of them had a really haunting quality but it seems entirely wrong to use those shots for anything, ever, because of the nature of the circumstances. Taking some snaps vs people's dignity seems like a no-brainer to me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:This is pretty much exactly how I feel, however I really don't know what to do when I have class on Monday and my professor wants to see and have me talk about it. Do I tell her no and that the entire project was hosed to begin with or do I show them for the sake of my grade? That's really hard. In your shoes I would probably pussy out and compromise by showing them but complaining loudly that the whole thing was ethically bankrupt all the while.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Is there any way to get a flickr without having a Yahoo account? I don't object to Yahoo but I seem to be completely unable to sign up because the phone verification part is broken.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Right. Are there any decent alternatives to flickr that do the same thing?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Ok so I've signed up to 500px. Is there any way to embed the images in forum posts the way you can with flickr? I can't seem to find any bbcode link or anything.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
Dren posted:you guys might be interested in this This is amazing, holy gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
I got a silk cleaning cloth thing like you get when you buy glasses, is that ok 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Why does red end up processing so poo poo? It looks ok in LR but when the JPEG gets spat out, it looks like arse. Two examples of what I mean: No red, picture looks ok.  Exact same day and place, looks like poo poo. Why is this?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
Didn't touch the clarity slider. Set them both to 'cloudy' because I don't give a poo poo about realism/artistic merit when I just really want the colour of the car to pop. Also lightened the shadows a fair bit because the sun was coming from the wrong direction so you couldn't see half the cars. I'm getting the feeling they're just crap photos that I had to process the poo poo out of.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 06:43
|
|