|
Seconding the Pentax recommendation - neither Canon nor Nikon will get you weathersealing at that price range. Second-hand K20D run around $250 - $300 USD in North America (less if they've got higher shutter actuation counts), I'm guessing a similar price in the UK / Europe. You can often get a lens with it. There's this ad on PentaxForums, K20D with 18-55 WR - exactly the kind of thing that will let you take (most of) the pictures you're talking about, and can stand up to the weather in Britain: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...-condition.html PF Marketplace posted:1. Pentax K20D in Like New condition. Shutter count less than 2500. I am offering this one with a Mint (used 5 times) Pentax DA 18-55mm WR. Both comes with Original box, manuals and everything it came when new. Asking $360 + Shipping. I will also include one aftermarket battery (only charged 5 times) According to Google, $1 USD is £0.60, so $360 is £217 and shipping would probably run to about £30. Other weathersealed Pentax bodies that you might be able to find under your budget (with that lens - get either the 18-55 WR or the 18-135 WR if you suddenly find yourself able to stretch your budget a bit) are the K10D, K-30, K-7 and if you're exceptionally lucky a K-5. All are fine cameras, and you wouldn't be unhappy with any of them. I don't know of any UK-specific deals, but KEH.com (based in Georgia, USA) has an excellent reputation (for things like returns, general customer service, and a very conservative rating system - their "BGN" (Bargain) is a fully-functional item with minor (extremely minor) cosmetic-only flaws, like the little tiny scratches any camera will get on the bottom around the tripod mount. Shipping is pricey, yes, but not utterly terrible. All of this goes out the window if you have some good, overriding reason to go with either Canon or Nikon (or Sony! Don't forget Sony - and I think Olympus makes / made some weatersealed DSLRs), such as a friend with lenses to share with you or you just plain love the way a Canon or Nikon camera feels in your hands.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Don't buy the 1100d. It is a bad camera. It is also known as the t3. Good to know! ExecuDork posted:Seconding the Pentax recommendation - neither Canon nor Nikon will get you weathersealing at that price range. Second-hand K20D run around $250 - $300 USD in North America (less if they've got higher shutter actuation counts), I'm guessing a similar price in the UK / Europe. You can often get a lens with it. Going to ask around to see what some of my photographer friends have in terms of lenses that they'd be willing to share / donate, but it's looking like I'll be going Pentax simply because of the standard weatherproofing. Nevertheless, I'll be dropping into my local camera place to get a feel for the different cameras and see where that leaves me. I'll also keep my eyes open for any K10D's, k-30's, k-7's or K-5's going cheap! Thanks for the help, I'll post here with the results. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Don't buy the 1100d. It is a bad camera. It is also known as the t3. What's wrong with it? I know a few people with it. I just bought a used T1i/500D is that worse?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
smooth.operator posted:What's wrong with it? I know a few people with it. I just bought a used T1i/500D is that worse? It's not so much that it's a terrible camera in and of itself, just that it's a gimped camera to fit into an ultra low price point. The T3 (and now the new T5) are what Canon makes so they can sell a DSLR at a lower price than everybody else in the electronics section at wal-mart. It's made for moms and dads who just found out they need a DSLR to get pictures of their toddler that are remotely in focus, really only want it for that purpose, and aren't willing to drop more cash on something better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:It's made for moms and dads who just found out they need a DSLR to get pictures of their toddler that are remotely in focus, really only want it for that purpose, and aren't willing to drop more cash on something better. Dammit, I've become one of them!  I have a baby on the way.  What lens should I buy for it to immortalize my future progeny?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
smooth.operator posted:Dammit, I've become one of them! Depends on your price range and how you plan to do your shooting really. Available light? Flash? The new STM 18-55 kit lens is optically much better than the previous versions, and can be had white box (was seperated from a camera kit) for around 120-130$ on ebay. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non IS version) is well regarded around here as a faster all around zoom - it will lose the IS, but have a faster constant aperture, for some extra cash & weight. I think those go for around 350$ If you want something longer in a standard zoom, the new 18-135 STM is also optically much improved over the previous versions, and has a lot more range than the 18-55. You can get white box versions of those for 310-330$ on ebay. The new sigma 18-200 Contemporary has gotten some decent reviews and is much longer range. It won't be as sharp as any of the others (sacrifices for such a huge zoom range) , but is an all in one. 400$ If you go with one of the 18-55's and one something longer later, the new 55-250 STM is also pretty drat good. 300-350$ If you get one of the slower zooms and want a faster prime, the old standby nifty fifty is cheap (99$) and fast (f/1.8) , but the AF on it is slow and kinda meh. The new 40 STM is slower (f/2.8) but the AF is much better, it's optically fantastic, and its only 150$ That will still be 2 stops faster (2.8 vs 5.6) than the 18-55's on the long end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
I own both the 18-135 and Tamron 17-50 and can tell you both are great choices. I personally would recommend the Tamron because the constant aperture is really nice and if you need to zoom past 50, you should either move closer or get a zoom lens like a 70-300 or something. As mentioned, it really depends on what you want to shoot. If it's just for kid pictures, I would go with the Tamron hands down. The depth of field you can get from that lens wide open is a lot better than the others. Also, since it's a baby, you can get relatively close and not have to go crazy with the ISO when inside. Also, don't use the pop up flash. It's horrible, and I don't know why they keep putting them on DSLRs. I'm currently saving to get my Sigma 120-300 2.8. I also have a kid on the way (May) and that means expenses will go up, and I will be buying my son toys instead of me getting toys. Which I am perfectly fine with. I need to sell my older camera and lenses, and that would do well to help finish paying off my 70D as well as get ready for a nice little "Welcome to the World" present for my son.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Soulex posted:I own both the 18-135 and Tamron 17-50 and can tell you both are great choices. I personally would recommend the Tamron because the constant aperture is really nice and if you need to zoom past 50, you should either move closer or get a zoom lens like a 70-300 or something. Popup flashes are great for fill outdoors if you don't want to lug around a real one  Edit: on the newer bodies (including your 70D) they also serve as wireless controllers for external flashes. and can still be added to the output if you want, so you can put a light high and to the side for main, control it with the onboard flash, and still use the onboard for a little fill as well. timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Popup flashes are great for fill outdoors if you don't want to lug around a real one Yeah, I dunno why you'd put a popup flash there either, it's a perfectly good spot for an ambient light sensor to assist with auto-WB  
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:The Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non IS version) is well regarded around here as a faster all around zoom - it will lose the IS, but have a faster constant aperture, for some extra cash & weight. I think those go for around 350$ Soulex posted:I own both the 18-135 and Tamron 17-50 and can tell you both are great choices. I personally would recommend the Tamron because the constant aperture is really nice and if you need to zoom past 50, you should either move closer or get a zoom lens like a 70-300 or something. Thanks for the tips. I'll look into the nifty fifty or 40 STM first and then move on up to the Tamron. I don't think I'll need the zoom just yet. Seeing as I'm just starting out I want to get the basics down before I really drop a load of cash on this hobby. Also, Soulex congrats on the kid!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Thanks! You can't go wrong with a nifty fifty to be honest. It's a lens I need to get (I'm actually going to get a 85 or something) but it's a really good one to start out with. It forces you to learn the difference between zooming with your feet and zooming with zooming with a lens. They both have their advantages and disadvatnages but learning how to do it with your feet with REALLY help you learn how to compose things differently and give overall better photos if you can get close. Examples here: http://photos.simark.net/zoom-with-your-feet-or-change-your-lens/ As shown, zooming is important if you physically can't get to a location or the subject is far away and you want to get as much of it in frame and focus as possible. Like sports. I don't mind putting my body on the line to get a photo, but I'm not going to risk my set up getting ruined by taking a two footed tackle by trying to get out on the pitch. I'd actually more than likely be escorted off by security before something like that happened. How much money are you looking to spend on a camera? I may have missed your post. I'm going to be putting my camera up for sale this week (the person I was going to sell it to locally skimped out and drug me along). SO if you are, check the buy/sell thread. If not, I'm sure someone else will want it. Canon t4i, kit lens, battery grip, and canon 70-300 III. It's my second camera, and I love it, I just had to upgrade because of the buffer, fps, and a few other things that make sports photography and video a little bit frustrating. I would again totally recommend that Tamron though. I bought it here, so people are willing to offload it. It's cheaper too than that one person said. It's about 250 used or so shipped. Though you'll get a lot of sharper images with that nifty fifty. If you're looking into getting really big into photography, there are books of course, but youtube is free and lets you see things in real time. Everyone here can tell you the basics as well, but the BEST way to learn is to go out and shoot. Just shoot like crazy! Also, keep your RAWs in a hardrive or something. Case in point, I recently just tried to consolidate all of my finished products to send to my parents. Sadly, the final versions are gone. Thankfully, people here told me to keep my originals so I did. Now I can go back and re-edit the photo, which is a lot better than not having anything at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Yeah, I dunno why you'd put a popup flash there either, it's a perfectly good spot for an ambient light sensor to assist with auto-WB I wondered what that was. Soulex posted:Thanks! quote:Like sports. I don't mind putting my body on the line to get a photo, but I'm not going to risk my set up getting ruined by taking a two footed tackle by trying to get out on the pitch. I've also taken a baseball to the nuts (1B missed the pickoff throw from shortstop and I caught it on the bounce, not off the bat, thankfully). Best way to shoot football is to follow one team enough that they know you and the players/coaches/wise elders with field passes on the sidelines will step in front of you to protect you from a guy getting tackled over the sideline. If that's not possible, at least stay close to the TV guy and step behind him and let him take the hit. 
Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 19:26
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:Best way to shoot football is to follow one team enough that they know you and the players/coaches/wise elders with field passes on the sidelines will step in front of you to protect you from a guy getting tackled over the sideline. If that's not possible, at least stay close to the TV guy and step behind him and let him take the hit. Also if you ever want to shoot sports, learn to shoot with both eyes open. In fact learn to do that anyways, it comes in handy. The little mental twitch to shift focus between eyes takes a bit of getting used to though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Also if you ever want to shoot sports, learn to shoot with both eyes open. In fact learn to do that anyways, it comes in handy. The little mental twitch to shift focus between eyes takes a bit of getting used to though. This! It's the same thing like shooting a gun. Keep both eyes open so you can identify and watch for your target and follow it. It does take some getting used to, but it is so invaluable it's crazy. Delivery McGee posted:
Luckily nothing like that has happened to me yet. I'm currently just following one team and they all love it. Apparently they had been looking for a photographer for years. Sucks I leave in September, but at least they'll have something before I leave. I used to play for the team and It's great because my coach would make fun of me when I would mess up passes or marking someone. Only had one goal scored when I was a defender when I was on the pitch, but he based my performance during practice, where I'm not going to tackle or go as hard because they are my teammates. The biggest "gently caress you" was my first appearance. My assistant coach was in charge of the second team where I played. He subbed me on and coach told him "I thought you wanted to win, why did you put him on?" Our first corner, I almost scored a header, but had it blocked. Second corner right after that I lose my marker and ref blows for a foul against a scuffle in the box. 5 minutes later, I catch up to someone on a break and block his one on one. The Assistant coach was pretty after that.So I show up with my camera, he sees the pictures and says "I finally found something you're good at!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
I picked up a Pentax red ring DA 55-300 ED WR and tried getting pictures at 300mm. 55mm pictures are impressively sharp compared with my other lenses, but all the 300mm shots are really blurry. I have shutter speed at 1/320 and I am stabilizing against a post. I have read suggestions to turn off noise reduction and image stabilization but have not tried that yet. Any ideas on things I can do to get detail at 300mm?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Redleg posted:I picked up a Pentax red ring DA 55-300 ED WR and tried getting pictures at 300mm. 55mm pictures are impressively sharp compared with my other lenses, but all the 300mm shots are really blurry. I have shutter speed at 1/320 and I am stabilizing against a post. I have read suggestions to turn off noise reduction and image stabilization but have not tried that yet. Any ideas on things I can do to get detail at 300mm? What f-stop are you shooting at 300mm?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Redleg posted:I picked up a Pentax red ring DA 55-300 ED WR and tried getting pictures at 300mm. 55mm pictures are impressively sharp compared with my other lenses, but all the 300mm shots are really blurry. I have shutter speed at 1/320 and I am stabilizing against a post. I have read suggestions to turn off noise reduction and image stabilization but have not tried that yet. Any ideas on things I can do to get detail at 300mm? It would be helpful if you could post a picture with intact EXIF data that we could see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Redleg posted:I picked up a Pentax red ring DA 55-300 ED WR and tried getting pictures at 300mm. 55mm pictures are impressively sharp compared with my other lenses, but all the 300mm shots are really blurry. I have shutter speed at 1/320 and I am stabilizing against a post. I have read suggestions to turn off noise reduction and image stabilization but have not tried that yet. Any ideas on things I can do to get detail at 300mm? I bet you still were over the shutter speed rule of 1/focal length to not show shaky stroke-hand. The other issue is that if your lens is 5.6 at the 300mm end, it probably isnt optically its best until f8-11. Post your photo with EXIF data intact please.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
I deleted those without thinking . It was dusk so I used a wide open aperture and that probably explains the blurriness. I tried a few test shots this morning using a narrower aperture (f11-20 range) using ISO to compensate. IMGP4369 by RedlegSA, on Flickr IMGP4390 by RedlegSA, on FlickrThey look much sharper then the first I tried. Main goal with this lens is to get livestock photos without scaring them off, which happens when using a lens under 55mm. Also hoping to get wildlife shots as there are tons of critters in a massive public hunting area near me that I like to hike in. Is the sharpness there normal or is my technique lacking something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Redleg posted:I deleted those without thinking They seem OK to me. We are talking an inexpensive zoom with inexpensive optics so its not going to be the sharpest tool in teh shed, but still good enough. One thing you may try is to up the sharpening in Lightroom to about 20-30 with the slider. You hit diffraction limit at f18 and crept up on it at f16. Apertures near f16 on APS-C size sensors will start to get soft at about f16. Going over this fstop increases softness  You may be able to fix this in PS with the Camera Shake Tool http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/reduce-camera-shake-induced-blurring.html Musket fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Redleg posted:I deleted those without thinking F/16 is a little extreme, you shouldn't have to stop down quite so much even with a less expensive telephoto. Try in the f8-f10 range.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Thank you! The terminology helps quite a bit (was not aware of diffraction limit or have seen it but didn't understand how it applied). This also impacts my default to 16 in sunny conditions - I am reading articles that show this isn't the best default.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Redleg posted:Thank you! The terminology helps quite a bit (was not aware of diffraction limit or have seen it but didn't understand how it applied). This also impacts my default to 16 in sunny conditions - I am reading articles that show this isn't the best default. A word about Sunny 16. Its an old rule thats good to know when your metering system fails or you lack any true way to get an accurate meter reading, but you dont need to use f16 just because its sunny outside. Those goat pics would have been good at f8/f11.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Redleg posted:Thank you! The terminology helps quite a bit (was not aware of diffraction limit or have seen it but didn't understand how it applied). This also impacts my default to 16 in sunny conditions - I am reading articles that show this isn't the best default. Yeah, Sunny 16 was developed for 35mm film, and that capture size has a diffraction limit of f/22 An APS-C sensor has a diffraction limit of approximately f/16. The practical upshot is that at f/16 and smaller you're going to see the image start to blur regardless of what you do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
Diffraction limit is a function of sensor density too. A 6MP and a 24MP sensor don't have the same limit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
Yeah, my 6D has a diffraction limit of approximately f/11, so I don't see how a recent(-ish) APS-C sensor does f/16. --edit: The 7D's around f/7.1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
 IMGP4533 by RedlegSA, on FlickrI think I am getting the hang of it, getting better pictures from this lens with practice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
I wrote a thing about buying cameras while traveling, hong kong edition Tips for buying camera stuff in Hong Kong i. Places to buy things (and places not to buy things) ii. Warranties iii. Things to watch out for i. Places to buy things The best places to buy camera things in Hong Kong depend on whether you want new or used. New: You have a few major choices: - Broadway and Fortress are the main electronics shops in HK. Think Bestbuy. Prices are high, but the stores are reputable and plentiful. - Computer centers: There are 2 in Wan Chai (Hong Kong side) and 1 in Sham Shui Po (Kowloon side). The prices are lower than Broadway and Fortress, but the lower prices may be because the products are grey-market imports, the sales people are pushier, and many do not speak English. - The tourist traps. These are usually in Tsim Sha Tsui (Kowloon side) or Causeway Bay (Hong Kong side), and often feature large neon signs of camera brands but no store name, way more employees than a store of that size should need, and less frequently, a money exchange place next door and a big tax-free sign. Don't come to these. They prey on tourists, often pass off grey-market goods as HK goods, and rumors are that many are affiliated with organized crime. Besides, there is no sales tax on cameras in Hong Kong anyways. - Stanley Street in Central (Hong Kong side): There are many stores here. Tin Cheung (a smaller camera chain) operates a store here, and the prices are good for most of the stores in this area. - Lan Kwai Fong in Central (Hong Kong side): More tourist oriented than Stanley Street, but you can still find some decent prices. - All Good Friends in Tsim Sha Tsui (Kowloon side). This is pretty much the mecca for used photography gear. Everything you can imagine, products you have only heard about in legends and stories (several NIB noct nikkor 58mm f1.2, for example), and floor to ceiling gear. You should make a trip here even if you don't buy anything. The prices aren't spectacular, but the selection is. For reference, I was looking at the older Nikon 80-200 F2.8D, and prices ranged from about 6200HKD to 12000HKD (about $800 to $1420 USD), depending on condition and location. A new D7100 ranged from 7100HKD at a computer center to 7888 at a different computer center to 10000HKD at Fortress. Know what you want, know the price you want to pay, and be prepared to walk away. ii. Warranties Warranties are an issue with buying in Hong Kong. I'm not too familiar with every company, but I know that Nikon lenses Should have worldwide warranty (but often don't), and Nikon bodies are only warrantied where you buy them (plus a small allowance for travel). However, many stores sell what is known as "water goods". These are grey market goods, often from other parts of Asia, and are sold without any warranty from Nikon or Canon or whoever, since they are from outside of the region. Legitimate stores will ask you if you want to purchase these or if you want the Hong Kong version, while less trustworthy places will not. You have to decide if saving a few dollars is worth the warranty, but I personally don't recommend it. Some stores will offer a "1 year store warranty" with these grey market goods. Don't bother, these are worthless. Particularly if you're a tourist who doesn't plan to return to Hong Kong for a long time. iii. Things to watch out for In addition to the above, you should watch out for several things: - Bargain. Places like Broadway have higher prices, but leeway to bargain. The computer centers have a lower price, but less room to bargain. Try it anyways, and be prepared to walk at any time. - Fakes. Many places will sell fake SD and CF cards. I don't recommend buying these cards anywhere except for legitimate stores (such as Broadway, Fortress, and Tin Cheung). Programs exist to test cards, and I highly recommend testing every card, even if you purchase the cards from a legitimate store. - Branded accessories are often as expensive as Canada/USA. Things like blackrapid camera straps are often not cheaper in Hong Kong. - Expect pushy service. It's the norm in Hong Kong. - Final sale. Expect all sales to be final. Most reputable places offer some kind of exchange policy, but most do not offer any refunds. - Usual caveats; try before you buy, try as many as you need, use your own body or lens when testing, don't buy UV filters, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Awesome and informative post there Wild EEPROM! My takeaways: - Do visit All Good Friends for the awesome selection and to nerd out on the gear - Do not buy anything camera related in Hong Kong
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Any downsides to buying this Tamron lens on ebay? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-AF-17-50mm-F-2-8-XR-Di-II-LD-IF-Lens-For-Canon-L096-/300899542459?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item460f02a5bb It's from HK, but way cheaper than anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
You're not going to get a warrantee and it potentially fell off a boat, the usual issues with cheap poo poo from HK. This seller seems to also have some issues with shady dealings or sending wrong items, so buy at your own risk. E: For what it's worth, you can get it used from Keh for only a little more, or take your chances on a used auction on ebay. Karasu Tengu fucked around with this message at 03:39 on May 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
DanManIt posted:way cheaper than anywhere else Elliotw2 posted:You're not going to get a warrantee and it potentially fell off a boat, the usual issues with cheap poo poo from HK. This seller seems to also have some issues with shady dealings or sending wrong items, so buy at your own risk. ding ding ding
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
I recently bought my first DSLR: a Pentax K-50 with the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 DA WR kit lens. I initially took some awful photos and then read Understanding Exposure and began taking less awful photos. I then bought 2 used Pentax manual primes, a 50mm f/2 and a 28mm f/2.8. These lenses are lots more fun to use than the kit zoom although sometimes I forget that the kit lens is worth $450 which sounds hilariously expensive as someone new to the hobby (I know, I know). Yesterday I ordered a Pentax 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens and started reading Exposure and Understanding the Histogram. I also got a tripod and a lowepro camera bag, spare batteries, and various knick-knacks. I'm having lots of fun learning photography. I think I've more-or-less exhausted the inexpensive used Pentax prime options, so my next purchase will likely be something pretty expensive, but I'm going to try to get as much mileage as I can out of my trio of cheap-but-sharp primes. Am I making Good Choices? My main struggle right now is that I have astigmatism. I feel like I can't really tell when stuff is focused in the viewfinder despite upgrading to a magnifying eyecup and adjusting the diopter slider. I have to rely on the focus-detection indicator but it's kinda hit-or-miss. I'm going to have my vision prescription updated soon and hope that solves the problem.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
You are making fine choices, don't worry. Pentax is great for old manual glass, there's endless variety. I'm in a somewhat similar position, my next lens purchase will be more than I've spent on anything to date - at least $700 - which is a strange thought for me. So, naturally that means my next lens purchase won't be any time soon.  What have you been shooting? Subject matter largely determines lens lust, I think.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Geology posted:I recently bought my first DSLR: a Pentax K-50 with the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 DA WR kit lens. I initially took some awful photos and then read Understanding Exposure and began taking less awful photos. I then bought 2 used Pentax manual primes, a 50mm f/2 and a 28mm f/2.8. These lenses are lots more fun to use than the kit zoom although sometimes I forget that the kit lens is worth $450 which sounds hilariously expensive as someone new to the hobby (I know, I know). Yesterday I ordered a Pentax 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens and started reading Exposure and Understanding the Histogram. I also got a tripod and a lowepro camera bag, spare batteries, and various knick-knacks. I'm having lots of fun learning photography. It sounds like you've been making good choices. There are still some cheap options, even at the telephoto end. There's a takumar 135mm f2.5 lens that looks pretty good and not super expensive. But it really depends on what you want out of your lenses. Unfortunately, once you leave 135mm or so, the lenses start getting expensive whether you like it or not.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
I bought a 50mm f1.4 from here that I love, but its fussy compared with the autofocus models. There is a focus peaking feature on the K30 model I have, and should be on your K50. If you use live view (display the frame on the LCD screen), the areas in focus will show in high contrast. For shallow depth of field shots I have been using focus peaking with good success. This should help with challenges you face with focusing hopefully. The 18-135 is a great all purpose lens, like if you are in an environment where shots are unpredictable. I have a DAL 18-55 and DA 55-300WR plus my older 50mm for lenses and they all get used. The manual 50mm is slower to use so I usually use it for things I plan to shoot, with the other two for walking around. I plan to replace the DAL with the type you have sometime. Here is a wide open shot that I like using the 50mm and focus peaking  IMGP3922 by RedlegSA, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Does spot metering use the same point as the point focus? If I selected a point to focus with, will it meter for that point also?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Spot metering is generally the circlish area you see through the viewfinder, it basically meters for the dead center of the frame rather than trying to balance it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
I recently bought a Nikon D3200, I also have an old Nikon film camera. It has on it a Magnicon 28-70 AF lens. ( http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Magnicon-MC-28-70mm-F3.5-4.5_lens252.html ) I have now gotten it to work with the new camera. I had to lock the aperture at the minimum. Would this be a better lens to use rather than the kit lens that came with the camera? The Magnicon lens is pretty dirty, is there some information on taking care of lens'?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 05:53
|
|
