|
BonoMan posted:I'm going to take a shot at this if anything to further my own understanding. Just to be nit picky, but it does not change the "focal length". It changes the field of view. 50mm is always the focal length.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
I noticed the 50mm has a very "zoomed in" look, but everywhere I read said that 50mm lenses are the most natural looking so I figured that's normal. Though that's not true for a crop sensor camera like mine? And I'd get a better "natural" look from a ~30mm (35mm?) lens instead? It's not a huge deal, I'd just like to know what's going on. Thanks for the replies.powderific posted:It only matters if you're looking through the lens thinking, gee whiz, I wish I could fit more stuff into this shot. I do sometimes 
BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jan 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
echobucket posted:Just to be nit picky, but it does not change the "focal length". It changes the field of view. 50mm is always the focal length. Ooops yeah. I knew it didn't change the physical focal length since that's the physical lens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I noticed the 50mm has a very "zoomed in" look, but everywhere I read said that 50mm lenses are the most natural looking so I figured that's normal. Though that's not true for a crop sensor camera like mine? And I'd get a better "natural" look from a ~30mm (35mm?) lens instead? It's not a huge deal, I'd just like to know what's going on. Thanks for the replies. Yeah just try to think about it as compensating. You want to go wider to compensate for how the crop factor will reduce the field of view.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I noticed the 50mm has a very "zoomed in" look, but everywhere I read said that 50mm lenses are the most natural looking so I figured that's normal. Though that's not true for a crop sensor camera like mine? And I'd get a better "natural" look from a ~30mm (35mm?) lens instead? It's not a huge deal, I'd just like to know what's going on. Thanks for the replies. Ill just tuck this away here. http://photographylife.com/equivalent-focal-length-and-field-of-view Until you purchase an FX camera it might be best to stick to DX lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I noticed the 50mm has a very "zoomed in" look, but everywhere I read said that 50mm lenses are the most natural looking so I figured that's normal. Though that's not true for a crop sensor camera like mine? And I'd get a better "natural" look from a ~30mm (35mm?) lens instead? It's not a huge deal, I'd just like to know what's going on. Thanks for the replies. Yeah, 50mm is the most natural on FX. 30mm is the most natural on DX. Lucky for you, Nikon has a fantastic 35mm 1.8dx lens that'd be a great addition to your 50.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
powderific posted:Yeah, 50mm is the most natural on FX. 30mm is the most natural on DX. Lucky for you, Nikon has a fantastic 35mm 1.8dx lens that'd be a great addition to your 50. Unfortunately, I don't have the $$$ to get both right now. Double unfortunately, the lens is less than a month old but the store I got it from only has a 7 day return policy on lenses. I guess I can try to sell it on kijiji for like $30-40 below retail. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Jan 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with continuing to use the 50 if it's doing pretty well though. Even with a 35 you'd going to have moments where you wish you could squeeze more into the shot. You may also be able to straight up trade your 50 for a 35DX from someone who's moving to full frame since the 35DX isn't super useable on FX.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Yeah I am going to keep the 50mm and just continue to casually sell it online while still using it. If somebody takes the offer, cool, if not, no big deal. It takes really pretty photos  Thanks again for the clarification.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Keep the 50 around for portraits, shoot a lot of those while you save for a 35.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
The thing is I don't take too many portraits. Those I do take are usually just at social gatherings, and it'd be nice to have a wider angle to get group shots in without standing 100 feet back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:The thing is I don't take too many portraits. Those I do take are usually just at social gatherings, and it'd be nice to have a wider angle to get group shots in without standing 100 feet back. For group photos, the 35mm is a good choice. You should also be aware of how the focal length of a lens affects the perspective of the shot. This video does a great job of explaining it with examples. http://theslantedlens.com/2012/how-lens-focal-length-shapes-the-face-controls-perspective-a-lighting-tutorial/
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
echobucket posted:You should also be aware of how the focal length of a lens affects the perspective of the shot. It doesn't actually. The focal length affects how far you put the camera from the subject, and the distance from the camera to subject affects perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
nielsm posted:It doesn't actually. haha Photography! How does it work?! edit: that was quick. I already found somebody willing to do a straight up trade. He is moving to FX and wants my lens. He lives within walking distance from me 
BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Jan 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:haha Also get a kit lens, they're essentially free (or close enough to free), and they're pretty handy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Also get a kit lens, they're essentially free (or close enough to free), and they're pretty handy. I got the kit 18-55mm one already. Great for outdoor stuff, but can't compete with f/1.8 for indoors 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Kit+35 is a great way to learn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I got the kit 18-55mm one already. Great for outdoor stuff, but can't compete with f/1.8 for indoors Proper flash use would like a word with you 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Musket posted:Proper flash use would like a word with you Probably. Theres about a million accessories I'd like to get but I have to live on the cheap for now
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
For the vast majority of casual shooting I'd way rather do fast prime + available light than gently caress with a flash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I noticed the 50mm has a very "zoomed in" look, but everywhere I read said that 50mm lenses are the most natural looking so I figured that's normal. Though that's not true for a crop sensor camera like mine? And I'd get a better "natural" look from a ~30mm (35mm?) lens instead? It's not a huge deal, I'd just like to know what's going on. Thanks for the replies. The only way to get a truly "natural" perspective is through this lens.  Nothing else will do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
My god the moire on the D600 at 720p/60 is insane. The same shot at 1080/24 is mostly fine. What's the science behind this? Resolution? Frame rate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:My god the moire on the D600 at 720p/60 is insane. The same shot at 1080/24 is mostly fine. What's the science behind this? Resolution? Frame rate? Poor downsampling
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
nielsm posted:It doesn't actually. So it does, excep it doesn't, except it kind of does. That cleared things up splendidly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
To give an unnecessary and undeserved response to a willfully obtuse complaint about an incomplete but not incorrect technical elaboration on some good advice: Focal length and sensor size alone determine your angle of view. The amount of the frame the subject fills is a function of the camera's angle of view and the subject's visual angle, which is a function of the size of the subject and the distance from the camera to the subject. Where you finally end up putting the camera relative to the subject simultaneously determines both the subject's visual angle and the image's perspective. Since echobucket was talking about the BANME.sh's situation with a fixed sensor size (crop), subject size (people), and likely framing (a group or individual portrait), changing focal length would indeed change the perspective by forcing BANME.sh to move the camera relative to the subject. I'll leave deriving the actual equation for camera-subject distance as a function of focal length an exercise for the reader.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:Focal length and sensor size alone determine your angle of view. As long as we’re being extreme pedants here, the mapping function of the lens affects angle of view as well. For 90° vertical field of view, a rectilinear lens would be 12.3 mm, a stereographic fisheye (e.g. Nikkor 15 mm) 14.5 mm, and an equal‐area fisheye (e.g. Nikkor 10.5 mm) 16 mm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Excellent point!
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
I shoot a D80 and D90, and I have a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8. I was shooting some deer at a state park the other day and kind of wished I had a little more reach, so I was thinking about getting a teleconverter. Since my 70-200 is already a Tamron, I was leaning towards the tamron teleconverters, so my big question is 1.4x or 2x? Anyone have an experience with these? I've also heard people talk about the cheap Kenko telecoverters. Obviously the nikon ones are the best, but I would feel silly putting an expensive nikon TC on my inexpensive Tamron zoom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I shoot a D80 and D90, and I have a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8. I was shooting some deer at a state park the other day and kind of wished I had a little more reach, so I was thinking about getting a teleconverter. Since my 70-200 is already a Tamron, I was leaning towards the tamron teleconverters, so my big question is 1.4x or 2x? Anyone have an experience with these? I've also heard people talk about the cheap Kenko telecoverters. Is it silly though? If you ever upgrade that lens, I'll bet you'll wish that you had bought the Nikon version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
I don’t like using teleconverters on zoom lenses, but when I do, I use a 1.4×.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Is it silly though? If you ever upgrade that lens, I'll bet you'll wish that you had bought the Nikon version. Counterpoint: the Tamron ones are like fifty dollars and don't have weird deliberate lens incompatibility issues. Although the Nikon ones are probably a bunch better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Counterpoint: the Tamron ones are like fifty dollars and don't have weird deliberate lens incompatibility issues. Although the Nikon ones are probably a bunch better. Ha, I'm not sure where you are seeing $50 tamron TCs. The ones on Amazon are like $226. The Nikon one is $500. Mightaswell posted:Is it silly though? If you ever upgrade that lens, I'll bet you'll wish that you had bought the Nikon version. Yeah, but I paid $500 for my 70-200 f/2.8. I don't want to spend $500 on a nikon TC for it. echobucket fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Jan 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Counterpoint: the Tamron ones are like fifty dollars and don't have weird deliberate lens incompatibility issues. Although the Nikon ones are probably a bunch better. Counter-counterpoint: I have no idea what I am talking about, so there's that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
echobucket posted:Ha, I'm not sure where you are seeing $50 tamron TCs. The ones on Amazon are like $226. The Nikon one is $500. I seem to remember I got my Tamron 1.4x for about $50, used. The older version with the screw-drive passthrough (which is nice if you're using non-AF-S lenses). I'd look around KEH and whatnot too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
No content here, but just wanted to say that I upgraded to a D7000 this weekend (from a D70s) and hooooooly poo poo. I don't know that it's a hundred times better than my old camera, but it sure feels like it. I still suck composition, exposure, and creativity, but at least I know it's mostly me that sucks now  Coming from the D70, all the controls feel great, having a dedicated button for everything (more so than the D70) is really nice too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
dedian posted:No content here, but just wanted to say that I upgraded to a D7000 this weekend (from a D70s) and hooooooly poo poo. I don't know that it's a hundred times better than my old camera, but it sure feels like it. I still suck composition, exposure, and creativity, but at least I know it's mostly me that sucks now Spend $40 and get this and this and suck less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 09:35
|
|
|
So my D5100 is an F mount, meaning I can technically use any F mount lens in history, but I'll lose features like auto focus and metering, correct? I can deal with manual focus but exactly how much of a pain is losing metering? Basically what I am asking is if I want to experiment with old/cheap lenses from ebay, what's the biggest problem I am going to encounter?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:So my D5100 is an F mount, meaning I can technically use any F mount lens in history, but I'll lose features like auto focus and metering, correct? I can deal with manual focus but exactly how much of a pain is losing metering? http://bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm Basically, you should be able to mount anything except Nikon 1, but most stuff won't meter or autofocus. Krakkles fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
e: ^^^^x2 If you have a smartphone, you can probably use that for metering as there are reasonable metering apps for both ios and android. Over time you'll get a feel for it anyway, we largely 'had to' on film as the meters in all my film cameras were pretty much junk and less accurate than aforementioned smartphone would be  Why are we talking about the cheap kenko TCs and not the PRO300 series Kenko TCs that are actually good quality (subjectively, as good as nikons'), cheaper than Nikon, and not hindered by deliberate lens incompatibility. Also, regarding the discussion about 50mm being 'natural' zoom, I suspect that there is variation on human field of vision, because on 35mm the 50mm lenses always felt slightly too wide angle compared to my eyesight. 50mm on APS-C feels about right for me, maybe ever so slightly zoomed in (maybe ~45mm would be about ideal).
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
BANME.sh posted:So my D5100 is an F mount, meaning I can technically use any F mount lens in history, but I'll lose features like auto focus and metering, correct? I can deal with manual focus but exactly how much of a pain is losing metering? Lack of metering and AF will be your only issues really. The few lenses out there that can destroy your mirror or shutter mechanism are niche lenses you probably wont find yourself wanting. As for a smartphone meter, no. They are wildly inaccurate. Might be useful in a pinch during the day time at noon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:36
|
|