|
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? If you're shooting stuff that doesn't move it's easy enough to put the camera in manual mode, take a few shots, and adjust the exposure using your histogram, but any stuff that requires rapid changes in any setting on the camera is going to suck. None of the automated modes will work, so you're stuck with M. Having done this very thing with my D5100 (I have a few AI Nikkors and even some pre-AI stuff) the results look exactly the same as they do with modern lenses and the inconvenience of it isn't worth it. If you really want to do this sort of thing, it pays to grab an older film body like an FE or something so that the system is actually useful for practical photography.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Manual focusing is pretty bad in the tiny viewfinder, guess-and-check exposure isn't really any worse than regular manual mode (especially on a one-dial body, since the lens has an aperture ring).
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
I would avoid getting the pre-AI lenses. AI lenses will meter on (I think) any body and that will at least save you a few seconds in getting to the right ballpark, exposure-wise. And the pre-AI lenses are ugly fuckers too, so another point against them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure AI lenses only meter on bodies with focus motors, but it might still be worth it for the MUCH smoother focus ring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
AI lenses (without CPU) will meter on cameras that have the AI sensing tab on the lens mount. It just so happens that the lack of AI tab on the lens mount is what makes it safe to mount unconverted pre-AI lenses on D5xxx, D3xxx and D40 series, so it's both a blessing and a curse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Manual focusing is pretty bad in the tiny viewfinder, guess-and-check exposure isn't really any worse than regular manual mode (especially on a one-dial body, since the lens has an aperture ring). It is, of course, easier on a full-frame groundglass with a split prism or something, but in any but the shittiest lighting conditions, manual focus on a crop body isn't really that hard once you put in a bit of practice. ...I say this as someone who uses a D200, maybe the lower end bodies have worse viewfinders?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
The crop bodies in general have tiny viewfinders, so yeah focus is a lot harder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
Lenses are hard.  I will probably just stick to the AF-S DX variety, but I was hoping I might be able to grab an older macro lens for under $100.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Lenses are hard. The older 55mm Micro AI-S is quite well regarded to this day, although if you want to get all  it's not actually a macro lens, since it can only do 1:2 without the PK-13 extension tube.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Yeah, the entry level bodies have significantly smaller viewfinders, and they only have an on/off focus confirmation dot rather than the arrows + dot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Yeah, the entry level bodies have significantly smaller viewfinders, and they only have an on/off focus confirmation dot rather than the arrows + dot. Even the D200-range bodies don't have the arrows, when I saw that on my wife's D1H I was like  .The D1H, with its glorious 3.74 megapixels, beats the D200 in quite a few aspects actually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Lenses are hard. Don't forget you often set a macro lens to manual focus and move ever so slightly to focus. As an inexpensive intro to macro, it might be a good buy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
If you're looking for an old lens that can macro, get the metal 28-85 3.5-4.5. This one: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2885af.htm I got it for $35 on KEH in outstanding condition. You can switch it to macro mode at 28mm and it works pretty well, and at that price there's really no complaining to be had.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Lenses are hard. If you prefer your lenses a little softer, allow me to direct you to the Pentax megathread 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:If you prefer your lenses a little softer, allow me to direct you to the Pentax megathread THEM BE FIGHTING WORDS
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:THEM BE FIGHTING WORDS drat...nine minutes? You're losing your edge, Mr. Despair.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:drat...nine minutes? You're losing your edge, Mr. Despair. I was eating dinner 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
nielsm posted:AI lenses (without CPU) will meter on cameras that have the AI sensing tab on the lens mount. It just so happens that the lack of AI tab on the lens mount is what makes it safe to mount unconverted pre-AI lenses on D5xxx, D3xxx and D40 series, so it's both a blessing and a curse. I have successfully mounted non AI lenses on a D700 and D200. Depending on the lens, sometimes the aperture ring doesn't always press on the AI tab.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
I'm not sure the D5100 doesn't have arrows + dot with a manual focus lens. On my D60 the exposure... bar... thing turns into a focus aid when you go into manual focus mode. Imagine my surprise when I got a D300  . I don't know what the gently caress is wrong with Nikon sometimes, but it's really bizarre that the entry level gets things like manual focus aids, the mid-level gets things like programmable custom settings on the control dial, while the almost pro cameras get neither. As for a macro lens, the 55mm is supposed to be great, but they are actually getting kind of expensive (they seem to be well over $100 on ebay anyway), and the 18-55 VR kit lens actually gets almost as close (1:2 for the macro lens, 1:2.7 for the kit, I believe). The one thing the macro lens gets you is the privilege of being able to pay about $60 additional for an extension tube that gets you to 1:1. At that point you've spent about $200 though and are probably better off saving just a bit more for the 40mm DX macro, or a used Tamron 90mm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:...I say this as someone who uses a D200, maybe the lower end bodies have worse viewfinders? I would get a used Tamron 90 over any old tank, TBH. Unless you need it for a fixed setup. I have an older 28-70/3,5 and it usually gets me close enough. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Jan 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 10:09
|
|
|
I've had my D80 for about 5 years now, and it's served me pretty well. However, I've always thought about possibly upgrading to something else some day. Lately, I had someone talking to me about cameras and such, and mentioning to me how old and outdated my D80 is. I know it's a little aged, what with mine being 5 years old and all I guess, but I don't know if it's outdated. But I did start to wonder a bit, and think on it a little. I haven't been keeping up enough with camera technology is recent times, so I don't really know exactly what's good right now. What he suggested to me, was that if I wanted to replace my D80 and get something a bit more modern, I should get a D7000. I honestly don't know if it's any better or not. I mean, I can compare the specs side by side, and see that it has some more features, and can do certain things a bit better. I have no idea of image quality though. Sure, I'd get a better picture size at 16mp compared to 10 on my D80, so that's something at least, but what about sensor quality? How does the image quality on the D7000 compare to the D80? If I did upgrade, I'd have to try to sell my D80 for some money to help put towards whatever it is I'd get. I have no idea how much I could actually manage to get for it these days (a possible number estimate on that would be helpful). It'd feel pretty weird actually parting with it though, I've just had it for so long. The D7000 does fall within my price range, and I really couldn't afford anything more than what it costs. Basically, I have a 5 year old D80, wondering if I should upgrade, is the D7000 a good replacement, and is it worth it for me to possibly try to replace my D80 with a D7000 or something else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
D7000 is basically better than the D80 in every way. Get it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:D7000 is basically better than the D80 in every way. Get it. On the other hand there should be coming a D7100 or D7200 some time soon, so if you wait until that the D7000 will probably get cheaper, and of course no worse a camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
If you can wait a bit you'll be able to snag one from someone unloading to upgrade, or get the new one. There have been no leaks yet (?) but it's already starting to get discontinued.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
DaJe posted:I've had my D80 for about 5 years now, and it's served me pretty well. However, I've always thought about possibly upgrading to something else some day. Lately, I had someone talking to me about cameras and such, and mentioning to me how old and outdated my D80 is. I know it's a little aged, what with mine being 5 years old and all I guess, but I don't know if it's outdated. But I did start to wonder a bit, and think on it a little. I haven't been keeping up enough with camera technology is recent times, so I don't really know exactly what's good right now. I upgraded from a D80 to a D90 and noticed a big improvement. On the D80, when I shoot at ISO 1600, it's pretty unusable. On the D90, ISO 1600 was noisy, but usable. To me the "quality" of the noise seemed to get better. Of course, then my D90 had a failing power supply board and had to go to the shop, so I've been stuck using the D80 for a few months again. Frustrating. So going to the D7000? That should night and day compared to the D80 in terms of high ISO performance. Oh, and one more thing, the D7000 is weather sealed and has a metal body instead of plastic. echobucket fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Jan 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
DaJe posted:I've had my D80 for about 5 years now, and it's served me pretty well. However, I've always thought about possibly upgrading to something else some day. Lately, I had someone talking to me about cameras and such, and mentioning to me how old and outdated my D80 is. I know it's a little aged, what with mine being 5 years old and all I guess, but I don't know if it's outdated. But I did start to wonder a bit, and think on it a little. I haven't been keeping up enough with camera technology is recent times, so I don't really know exactly what's good right now. Do you use or plan to use older af-d or ai-s lenses? If the answer is no and you don't care about the other prosumer features (extra buttons and weathersealing) the d5200 is out now and should be a step above the d7000 in image quality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Even the D200-range bodies don't have the arrows, when I saw that on my wife's D1H I was like The D3000 and some others turn the exposure meter into a focus adjust meter if you put them into aperture/shutter priority modes. This might only work with non-AF-S lenses however.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
I can certainly wait a bit, that's no problem. I'm not in too much of a rush to get something new, though I will be traveling to Australia in April, and if I did get something it might be nice to try to do it before then. I guess if I did get the D7000 when it's cheaper, I still won't be on the edge of new camera technology coming out, but hey, I'll still have something better than what I have right now, right? Though that would probably make selling my D80 harder by that point, but maybe I shouldn't worry about trying to do that anyway (though the extra money would help). As for the ISO, that's actually one thing I would love to have better about my D80. Based on my own experiences with it, and seeing what other people talk about, and then also what other people do with their cameras, yeah the ISO on the D80 can sort of suck sometimes. I mean, it doesn't look bad, but it feels very limited in how far you can push it. It can only go so high before it starts to become real noticeable and quality drops, especially compared to what everything else can do. So honestly that would help me a lot as it's always been an issue for me. I have no particular plan to use older lenses. I like being able to if I have to, but I don't really need to I guess (I have used some before). I do like my D80 having the built in focusing screw though, if that's why I'd have to worry about older lenses. I just love have fast my 50mm f/1.8 works with that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Maybe I'm funny, but at a certain point I just keep an old digital camera rather than sell it. You're basically fine with the D80 now, is it worth tossing up on Ebay and getting less than $200 for it (minus fees, minus shipping, ect)? I kept my D50 for a give no crap camera, and sometimes I use it to set up a photo booth at parties. To me I have more photo-fun running it into the ground rather than get a few bills for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Maybe I'm funny, but at a certain point I just keep an old digital camera rather than sell it. You're basically fine with the D80 now, is it worth tossing up on Ebay and getting less than $200 for it (minus fees, minus shipping, ect)? I really regret selling my Rebel 300d for this reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
I've had an Olympus E500 for five years now, and I'm looking to upgrade to either a D3100 or a D3200. The D3200 is about £100 more expensive. Does anyone more qualified than me know whether the upgrade is worth it? The camera shop is offering me ~£100 for my old camera (with two lenses), so I feel I can justify the extra expense (If it is worth it). To make me even more confused, the D5100 is similarly priced to the D3200. I'm finding the comparing confusing, so help is appreciated. Thanks 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
junto a la luna posted:I've had an Olympus E500 for five years now, and I'm looking to upgrade to either a D3100 or a D3200. The D3200 is about £100 more expensive. Does anyone more qualified than me know whether the upgrade is worth it? The camera shop is offering me ~£100 for my old camera (with two lenses), so I feel I can justify the extra expense (If it is worth it). To make me even more confused, the D5100 is similarly priced to the D3200. The 3200 isn't a whole lot different from the 3100 apart from a higher megapixel count (14.1 vs 24.2), a better live view screen and I think a bit faster burst speed (4fps vs 3fps). I've had my 3100 for two years now and it's served me perfectly well, even if I am looking for an upgrade now. Basically I think it comes down to whether or not the extra 100 quid is worth having 70% more room for cropping, which will depend on what you shoot (it is in my case as I mostly shoot dogs playing, which is drat near like bird watching when it comes down to little Chihuahuas). The 5100 just got an upgrade (the 5200), which is why it's at a discount. Its pixel count is similar to the 3100. ---- All this macro talk reminds me that I have this here bellows thingamabober laying around somewhere:  My dad gave it to me, he's probably had it since the 70s and I don't think he used it. I made a couple test shots when I first got it...  But it's so damned frustrating to use I more or less gave up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Eegah posted:The 3200 isn't a whole lot different from the 3100 apart from a higher megapixel count (14.1 vs 24.2), a better live view screen and I think a bit faster burst speed (4fps vs 3fps). I've had my 3100 for two years now and it's served me perfectly well, even if I am looking for an upgrade now. Basically I think it comes down to whether or not the extra 100 quid is worth having 70% more room for cropping, which will depend on what you shoot (it is in my case as I mostly shoot dogs playing, which is drat near like bird watching when it comes down to little Chihuahuas). Stop the lens down (shoot at f/16 or f/22 or something) and use a flash (ideally not teh onboard flash, it won't really have the reach), it'll make it less frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Maybe I'm funny, but at a certain point I just keep an old digital camera rather than sell it. You're basically fine with the D80 now, is it worth tossing up on Ebay and getting less than $200 for it (minus fees, minus shipping, ect)? Nah, that's actually the thing with me. I sort of somewhat feel attached to this D80, and don't necessarily want to sell it. It would be helpful to have any sort of extra money from being able to sell it, but part of me doesn't want to get rid of it, even if I would like something else to use, something newer. I've had it for 5 years now, and it's the first camera I was truly serious with. I had a D40 before this, but I only kept it for a year before upgrading, and I didn't do as much with it. I guess I'll have to think a bit on this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Went to a camera store with my mom with the expectation of her getting into a D5100 like me, but ended up looking at a D7000 and then a Sony A77 (which she finally got). I was thinking she would walk out with a D5100 + 35/1.8 for $800, and she walked out with the A77 with 16-50/2.8 kit + LR for $1900. WELP. I did handle the D7000, and I felt a little jealous of the nicer viewfinder, but I think I like that the 5100 is ligher, even if it does mean I've got a plastic body vs a sealed metal body. And I couldn't figure out any of the buttons either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
So I just got this thingo from a garage sale for $5 because I knew that vintage Nikon SLR's can go for a lot of money, and lenses aren't cheap at all either, so I figured that worse case scenario, this will look great on a bookshelf. The question is this: IS IT REALLY WORTH AS MUCH AS EBAY SAYS IT IS?!  Camera is in perfect working order, and the lens looks like it could be brand new. eBay is saying that the lens used is ~$500 and the SLR camera body is worth around $100... Did I basically hit the lotto with this find?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:So I just got this thingo from a garage sale for $5 because I knew that vintage Nikon SLR's can go for a lot of money, and lenses aren't cheap at all either, so I figured that worse case scenario, this will look great on a bookshelf. The question is this: IS IT REALLY WORTH AS MUCH AS EBAY SAYS IT IS?! KEH sells that lens for $235 (and has a reputation for selling quality, working items, so they're probably going to be able to sell for more). They don't have the body in stock, but based on what they're selling an F4 for, $100 sounds about right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
I had no trouble selling an F3 in worse shape than that for $150 on craigslist. Nice find!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
Thanks! My brother-in-law works for a residential/commercial garbage removal service and he found a bunch of video cameras (Sony DXC-327's with Canon PH12x7.5B's), camera cases, Manfrotto tripods, a Rosco Alpha 900 fog machine, all kinds of other TV studio-esque goodies. eBay says they're all worth craploads of money, and I know that the video camera body and lenses are worth lots, but I'm not sure what the actual demand is on them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Buy film shoot, that F3.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 03:24
|
|