|
Then I don't know what to do at all 
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
The problem is that there aren't good cheap long lenses in the vein of cheap close primes. The 55-200 VR is probably the best bet, and is the most in line with the quality of the body. But neither that nor the 18-55 you have are that great because they have a fairly small aperture. The 55-200 only does f5.6 at it's farthest reach, and that means you need to compensate with a slower shutter speed or higher ISO. Slow shutter speed is probably what's leading to blurriness, not lack of focus. (Well, there's always the comedy option.) So, I know about the aperture-shutter speed-ISO triangle, and how they all interact. I'm also not a very expert photographer, I mostly take catte pictures. But that's how I know what's going to happen in the enviroment you're describing. Has your wife read Understanding Exposure? She should read Understanding Exposure. Until she understands that basic triangle she's going to have a hard time using any lens.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Protons posted:Then I don't know what to do at all Upload some of the "blurry" pictures, preferably with exif data intact or at least telling us what settings used. It'd also be nice to know what lenses you already have. Understanding exposure owns too, everyone should read it once. Finally, if you want a long lens consider saving up a bit more and finding a used tamron 70-300 VC, it'll be nicer than the really cheap nikon zooms and it's only around 300 or 350 used if you look around last I checked.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
Amazon Marketplace has the 55-200 at just over $100 used right now, which is a pretty good price. The VR will compensate for two or three extra stops of shutter speed, so the small aperture isn't too bad if you're not aiming for that sweet, sweet bokeh or doing low-light stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
Protons posted:No. I made drat sure that if I was doing to drop $500 on a camera then she wasn't going to use point and shoot auto mode. Protons posted:I don't think she has a problem with manual focus, and might even prefer it. Protons posted:Then I don't know what to do at all evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 09:54 on May 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 09:50
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Upload some of the "blurry" pictures, preferably with exif data intact or at least telling us what settings used. It'd also be nice to know what lenses you already have. Understanding exposure owns too, everyone should read it once. Here are some of the blurrier pictures. I'm not sure what settings were used, so I'll have to ask. I will assume that it was taken with the portrait mode and the lens was focused as far as it could. http://imgur.com/wtb1lEI,BJz18HA,qReYCTo,KnDcmzq
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 10:48
|
|
|
Is there a way for you to upload the images without the exif being stripped? Not sure if this is something imgur-related or if whatever software you used to resize the image stripped it out, but having the exif intact will tell us pretty much everything we need to know about why it looks the way it does.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 11:54
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Is there a way for you to upload the images without the exif being stripped? Not sure if this is something imgur-related or if whatever software you used to resize the image stripped it out, but having the exif intact will tell us pretty much everything we need to know about why it looks the way it does. Could put the original JPG or NEF files on Dropbox.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 12:03
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Is there a way for you to upload the images without the exif being stripped? Not sure if this is something imgur-related or if whatever software you used to resize the image stripped it out, but having the exif intact will tell us pretty much everything we need to know about why it looks the way it does. Whether or not the software strips EXIF, Imgur most certainly does.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
Protons posted:Here are some of the blurrier pictures. I'm not sure what settings were used, so I'll have to ask. I will assume that it was taken with the portrait mode and the lens was focused as far as it could. Not so much blurry really, just soft as hell. Seems to be more technique than a camera issue. Also a 250bux to spend on a new lens is not very much if you are looking for good optics. 55-200 is good for outdoor use or cranking the ISO high indoors but honestly its a band-aid and not a fix. This hobby works by the "More you spend the better it is" guideline when it comes to camera bodies and glass. Spend 250, realize its not the results you want, resell at a hit, buy more expensive glass on top of that. Its not a road you want to go down.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Re: Protons The 55-200 VR is a good lens for the money so long as you realize it's cheaply made, the VR isn't the greatest, it takes forever to rack its entire focal range and it's worthless indoors.  DSC_6886 by jankyangles, on Flickr 55-200 with a D3100. I've since sold it for the aforementioned Tamron 70-300 is has much better build quality, farther reaching and much better image stabilization. It's still not great indoors for obvious reasons and it's MUCH heavier. Paid $450 for it with a $100 mail in rebate new in box. You could probably snag one for 3 bills if you wanted to go spelunking in used gear sites. You're basically stuck buying pricier lens with built in AF motors because the D3xxx cameras don't have the AF screw in the body. Edit: vvvv There ya go. Maker Of Shoes fucked around with this message at 17:30 on May 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
You don't even have to dig, there's several for 320 or so on amazon used right now. e. Also tamron's rebates are processed quickly and easily from what I remember, if you decide to buy new. When I did it last year they were handling the rebates in house, and it was a 2 or 3 week turnaround from when I mailed in the stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Protons posted:Here are some of the blurrier pictures. I'm not sure what settings were used, so I'll have to ask. I will assume that it was taken with the portrait mode and the lens was focused as far as it could. Portrait mode isn't generally going to produce good results at that distance, portrait mode assumes that the subject in question fills about 2/3 of the frame, and may even adjust the auto-focus technique based on that. Being closer would probably have helped too. Assuming the goal is to capture the person making whatever speech/whatever is going on there, a longer lens really would have been suitable in this situation. If the goal is to capture the overall ambience, then I wouldn't worry so much about getting small details in small objects (relative to frame size) too much. As to reasons why it might be blurry: The lighting looks awful in terms of how bright it is, I doubt there was enough light for the camera to use the best AF sensors, and it was probably borderline with the secondary sensors (usually f/8 capable on higher priced nikons, but on a d3000 they may even be f/5.6 with f/2.8 or f/4 as a limitation for using the more accurate sensors. f/e: indeed, f/5.6 is the limitation for AF on the d3000, I can't find what the 'good' sensor is, but it's the one in the center of the frame, so always use that if you can... AF *is* something that the d3000 is subpar in (same AF module as the D40 & D70, 11 points with 1 of them a good 'cross' sensor), compared to newer models, that doesn't mean it's useless, just that there are limitations there to be worked around/with. Without the EXIF we can't tell what the ISO, shutter speed or the aperture was, but chances are that the aperture will be full open, and the shutter speed still fairly low, VR has probably kept the image from looking a total mess tbh. The image doesn't look grainy, so I'm going to assume that ISO is somewhere 100-400, as the d3000's older sensor will start to get grainy looking at 800. But you should really have been shooting at 800, perhaps even 1600 and getting rid of grain at the PC stage. I don't know what software was used to get the image to a jpeg - SybilVimes fucked around with this message at 17:35 on May 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:e. Also tamron's rebates are processed quickly and easily from what I remember, if you decide to buy new. When I did it last year they were handling the rebates in house, and it was a 2 or 3 week turnaround from when I mailed in the stuff. 2 weeks for me. Very pleasant experience.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
I guess without seeing the EXIF I'd have to guess that those are almost certainly the kit lens' f/5.6 in available light, forcing a low shutter speed. Cranking up the ISO might help if it's not already cranked (I didn't really check for noise) but I don't think the D3000 is any sort of magical ISO machine like today's sensors. VR would definitely help, but you're still opening up your kit lens to its widest which will almost always soften the photo a little. Just my two cents. Photography on a tight budget is usually a war between price and quality.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I guess without seeing the EXIF I'd have to guess that those are almost certainly the kit lens' f/5.6 in available light, forcing a low shutter speed. Cranking up the ISO might help if it's not already cranked (I didn't really check for noise) but I don't think the D3000 is any sort of magical ISO machine like today's sensors. VR would definitely help, but you're still opening up your kit lens to its widest which will almost always soften the photo a little. Just my two cents. Photography on a tight budget is usually a war between price and quality. You basically hit the nail on the head. Also VR wont help if they are moving subjects.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Protons posted:The need for this lens comes from my wife attending a graduation ceremony for her friends. She was seated in the middle of the auditorium and her stock lens couldn't focus on her friends that far away. The pictures turned out blurry and unfocused. What sort of lens should we get for taking pictures of people or things at slightly over average to medium ranges? The best possible advice: Sit closer next time. The next best possible advice that also meets your budget is a 55-300VR (adorama has 2 available in used from $214). You could get a refurb 55-200VR for $134. I have both lenses. I kind of hate the 55-200. AF is slow, the VR is not great, as mentioned it's dark indoors, plus I don't think 200mm is actually all that far. I've never really been happy with it. I feel like it compromises on so much stuff and in the end the reach really isn't there. Besides reach, the 300 has a couple of perks over the 200. It's got VRII instead of original VR (4 stops instead of 3 stops) and it's got a bit better image quality. For the money I think the 55-300 is a no brainer. If you're willing to drop more cash another option is the 18-300. It's a nice lens for someone who doesn't want to mess with changing lenses and isn't super concerned with image quality.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Cranking up the ISO might help if it's not already cranked (I didn't really check for noise) but I don't think the D3000 is any sort of magical ISO machine like today's sensors. It's not, same sensor as a d200 IIRC.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Ugh I got really excited over those prices and thought there's no way... and of course there's no way, I forgot about the whole DX thing
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Just a reminder that I have a 80-200 F/2.8 for sale in the sales thread along with a 17-50 f2.8 as well hint hint.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Lets say I bumped the budget up to $400. Would that open more options?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:It's not, same sensor as a d200 IIRC. If the D3000 has the same sensor as the D200 then it's spotty at best above ISO800. you can still make use of 1600 it if it's well enough lit and you run it through Lightroom noise reduction but it won't be ideal. At any rate, it's certainly preferable to not getting the shot at ALL. I won't make many suggestions but that shot looks like it was begging for a 70-200 but that is WAY WAY WAY out of Protons' price range, or the 80-200 which is still a great lens and may be approaching his $400 price point, but finding one for $400 still seems like winning a lottery. e: Oh or maybe not since there is one for sale right now for $400 on SA  Oh how I lusted after that lens when I still had a Nikon body.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Protons, I don't know how knowledgeable your wife is about photography in general, but if she hasn't yet I would seriously suggest picking up a copy of Understanding Exposure. Check your local library perhaps too. http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Photographs-Camera/dp/0817439390 I don't mean to sound like a know it all or anything, but it sounds like your wife doesn't really understand the relationship between Aperture, ISO, and shutter speed. Throwing a better lens at the problem will only fix the limitations that the kit lens places on her photography, but it would be better if she understood WHY a faster aperture will help or how it affects the final outcome of the photo. I just about guarantee that if she reads nothing but the first three or four chapters of that book she will feel much more comfortable figuring out why her photo looked off just by looking at the settings and WHY a better lens will or won't fix the problem 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Protons posted:Lets say I bumped the budget up to $400. Would that open more options? The tamron 70-300 VC is the king in the under 400 range. King. (Musket's lens for sale is nice too but it won't autofocus on a d3000, pretty sure it's screw drive).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
Dren posted:The best possible advice: Sit closer next time. This really is the best solution and costs nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
Protons posted:Lets say I bumped the budget up to $400. Would that open more options? Tamron VC is a good choice at the sub400photobux level. As Marty put it, reading up on why the photos didnt turn out is cheaper and more benefit in the long run than throwing money at a faster lens in most situations. Getting Understanding Exposure is a good start.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
Protons posted:Lets say I bumped the budget up to $400. Would that open more options? You might want to research lens options yourself. Look at adorama.com and bhphotovideo.com. They have a nicely categorized web store. You can search for telephoto zooms that with a Nikon mount. You will want lenses that can autofocus on bodies without a built in autofocus motor (also called a screw drive). Nikon denotes such lenses as G (for gelded) or AF-S. Older lenses without an internal focus motor that can use the screw drive motor are called AF-D. Even older lenses with no autofocus capability at all are called AI or AIS. Once you find some lenses in your price range google around for some reviews. Be sure to read more than just Ken Rockwell, who will come up near the top for every search for a review of Nikon gear. His reviews can sometimes veer off into hyperbole and never come back. They're not useless but they should be taken with a grain of salt and you should seek the input of other reviewers as well. There is a painful reality that applies to taking photos of an event while seated in the audience that you should be made aware of. Even if you have an amazing camera with a $3000 zoom on it and an aisle seat some dumb old lady in front of you will lean into the aisle and block you from getting a single decent, clean shot for the duration of the event so she can take 100 pictures of the heat noise on the 3cm sensor of her Kodak Potatocam set to 20x digital zoom. Later, she won't be able to print them when she goes to Walmart. You have three options for a good photo: get there early and paparazzi it up from the front row, run up to the front when the important thing happens and take a picture then, or ditch the whole idea and enjoy the event as a spectator who will grab a photo of their friend/child/mom after the event is over and there is an opportunity to take a photo without imposing. Notice that none of the three options involved buying a telephoto zoom lens. Dren fucked around with this message at 05:21 on May 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Dren posted:You will want lenses that can autofocus on bodies without a built in autofocus motor (also called a screw drive). Nikon denotes such lenses as G (for gelded) or AF-S. Older lenses without an internal focus motor that can use the screw drive motor are called AF-D. Even older lenses with no autofocus capability at all are called AI or AIS. I'm pretty sure Ken Rockwell made up that "gelded" thing, because he's weird like that. And I think all it means is that there's no manual aperture ring on the lens, and has nothing to do with the autofocus capabilities.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
Ken Rockwell spends way too much time thinking about testicles. ... is what you should take away from this discussion. ... and is actually god's honest truth. ... according to me, at least.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
Using the affiliate link below to buy Ken Rockwell's testicles from Amazon allows Ken Rockwell to both support his family and buy new testicles. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
404notfound posted:I'm pretty sure Ken Rockwell made up that "gelded" thing, because he's weird like that. And I think all it means is that there's no manual aperture ring on the lens, and has nothing to do with the autofocus capabilities. gently caress! He got me!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
A photo from where you were sitting would not have been no matter what gear you used unless you had professional-grade sports or bird watching gear. For a situation like that if you wanted a good photo, you should have just sat up front or taken it from the aisle.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Ken Rockwell spends way too much time thinking about testicles. He had his Testicals "Gelded" brah.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:A photo from where you were sitting would not have been no matter what gear you used unless you had professional-grade sports or bird watching gear. For a situation like that if you wanted a good photo, you should have just sat up front or taken it from the aisle. At 24MP i could have cropped it down to 12mp in size with a 70-300 VR at 1600 iso nbd, so no you dont need a 600mm F4 VR and a D4 to take good telephoto shots. Now its a good idea to take advantage of moving about when its allowed.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Musket posted:He had his Testicals "Gelded" brah. If he did, he violated the primary point, and did it AFTER reproducing.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Musket posted:He had his Testicals "Gelded" brah. That "phallus hide" grip he installed on his D1h wasn't actually from an elephant at all!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
PREYING MANTITS posted:That "phallus hide" grip he installed on his D1h wasn't actually from an elephant at all! It was an F100. Don’t ask me why I remember this. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 08:45
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It was an F100. Hahaha, I must admit I'm rather glad to be wrong about that. I felt bad enough remembering what I did of that whole debacle.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It was an F100. Because the F100 is a baller rear end camera.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
PREYING MANTITS posted:That "phallus hide" grip he installed on his D1h wasn't actually from an elephant at all! Let us also remember that Ken Rockwell has an unironic webpage on his site about how aliens visited Europeans because they found Native Americans to be too savage and primitive to understand science. Yep, it's on there somewhere. Also the D1H is still actually a good camera in TYOOLASJC 2013, my wife uses one (that I got for $125 in this very forum), and it actually outperforms my D200 in several areas.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 09:25
|
|
