|
Thirty-two times zoom! edit: wow, that really didn't make a lot of sense at the beginning of a new page.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
ante posted:Thirty-two times zoom! What do you mean, it's always good times explaining that an 11-22 and a 200-400 are both technically "2x zoom."
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Honestly, while simplified, the dude who did the drawings probably made the easiest-to-understand version of this always-confusing explanation that I've ever seen. I might add some text to it and throw it in the OP or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:What do you mean, it's always good times explaining that an 11-22 and a 200-400 are both technically "2x zoom." A coworker asked me about this, and it was honestly the first time I ever really understood what they meant on those cameras with 3x / 5x zoom. It was the first time I ever gave it thought. Trying to explain focal length to him was a frustrating exercise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:A coworker asked me about this, and it was honestly the first time I ever really understood what they meant on those cameras with 3x / 5x zoom. It was the first time I ever gave it thought. Trying to explain focal length to him was a frustrating exercise. I recall seeing point & shoots with stickers like "28mm!" or "24mm!" which I guess was like the widest the lens went? poo poo makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Was probably marketed as a "bigger number is better" Was probably 24mm equivalent as the widest focal length on that tiny sensor, but people buying those cameras are the types that buy the one with the biggest number and the most stickers pre-applied.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I recall seeing point & shoots with stickers like "28mm!" or "24mm!" which I guess was like the widest the lens went? poo poo makes no sense. Probably actually the most tele, given the small sensor sizes. I have an oldish P&S that has a 5mm-35mm range. Also that way higher number = more better. If they were advertising the widest focal length, then smaller numbers would be "better", and that's just too confusing for most advertising. Edit: Just for more proof, the first hit on Amazon for "point and shoot digital camera" has a 5mm-25mm range. Arcsech fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
Arcsech posted:Probably actually the most tele, given the small sensor sizes. I have an oldish P&S that has a 5mm-35mm range. Why comes my 50X zoom says 100mm on it but this 2500$ 70-200mm that I bought cause the guy on dpreview said I should be ashamed to own a DSLR without one doesn't look as far away?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Why comes my 50X zoom says 100mm on it but this 2500$ 70-200mm that I bought cause the guy on dpreview said I should be ashamed to own a DSLR without one doesn't look as far away? Because 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Focal length = focal length, regardless of format. But focal length X gives a different field of view on a small sensor point and shoot than it does on m4/3, than it does on APS, than it does on 35mm, than it does on 120, than it does on 4x5, etc, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Yeah, but when someone's fawning over the perspectives of my pictures taken with a FF, telling him that I've used a lens with a certain focal length won't help him trying to replicate it, tho. So I'll be telling him about an adjusted focal length. Good job perpetuating stupidity I guess. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Alright, the first post is edited. Thanks, Wild EEPROM, for the image!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Why comes my 50X zoom says 100mm on it but this 2500$ 70-200mm that I bought cause the guy on dpreview said I should be ashamed to own a DSLR without one doesn't look as far away? Jesus loving Christ that instantly took me back to the country. Read it with a drawl and everything. "gently caress it, I'll just buy my camera at Walmart"
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Good job perpetuating stupidity I guess. All this different sensor size business doesn't help. They should advertise FOV over focal ranges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Well, what? If I'm all about "I took this with a 35mm", they might rent/buy one and then are surprised that they've a different field of view. My main problem with it is that it ends up confusing the people it was meant to help more than helping them. Partly because the vitriolic 20 page arguments that spring up whenever anyone asks an innocent question about crop factors on internet forums are ridiculous, and everyone has to argue about crap like whether or not you apply crop factor to fstop because of DOF and "FF looks better at the same ISO" so even if your exposure calculation is exactly the same, it's still behaving like a lens with a smaller aperture and blah blah blah. So then some new camera owner walks away more confused than ever because nobody can just say "16-19mm is a wide angle lens on your camera, 20-24mm is a moderate wide, and 10-15mm would be ultra wide, cheers!" - Instead they think an f/1.8 lens isn't good for shooting in low light on their camera because someone on the internet told them it's really an f/2.8 lens so they got ripped off when they bought it. Crop factor has become a good excuse for pedants to be pedantic 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Crop factor has become a good excuse for pedants to be pedantic
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
I'm trying to decide between two options right now for my first camera: New Deal (Canon Bundle): T3i body with kit lens EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 DC UV/NPL/C8D 3 piece Filter kit 58mm Canon Prixa Pro 100 Printer & 50 sheets of paper Total: All are new parts - $497 after rebate Or replace the 75-300mm with: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens for $104 more Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Image Stabilizer Telephoto for $38 more Used Deal: 40D Body - $194 (used) Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 $290 (from HK, new) or (from US, used) Total: $490 Similar price point, but it seems like I get a lot more value for my money with the new deal. I imagine that the Tamron is a better quality lens, but would the bundle deal be too much of a compromise there? Any thoughts? DanManIt fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Mar 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
sign me up for the 40D package. Much larger body with a magnesium frame and 6.3 fps continuous, as well as Canon's "professional" UI. The Tammy is awesome besides it sounding like angry bees. This is actually the first DSLR combo I started with. Absolutely no regrets at all. It's much cheaper now than it was when I got it too. Seems like a no brainer to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
My only question is how's the higher ISO performance of the 40D vs the T3i? Went with one of those rebate/printer combos with the T3i a while back, and while I like it, I do get pretty envious of the build of the 40D. Probably my biggest complaint with the T3i is even at ISO 800 you'll start to get grainy. Even if you do go with the T3i combo, sell the kit lens and get the Tamron anyway. That lens is so good it's a joke for the price. *edit* Looking at KEH they have 40Ds for what they would take a T3i sell price for. Am I crazy for thinking that might be an upgrade? Took the kids to a photographer that took some stunning photos with the 40D, but I guess the sensor may be a pretty big step down. Bob Mundon fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Mar 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
I don't know about the T3i, but the 40D is good at 800, bad at 1600. I never relied on it to shoot low light, to be fair. Being my first DSLR, I wasn't concerned about low light capability more than how to become a better photographer and get comfortable with DSLR controls. ISO performance is a slippery slope. Before you know it you own a 5DIII.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
The bundled printer and filters are a big turn-off for me. There has never been a printer bundled with anything (camera, computer, whatever) that was worth a drat. They only bundle poo poo they need to get rid of, find a different deal if you really want a T3i.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:The bundled printer and filters are a big turn-off for me. There has never been a printer bundled with anything (camera, computer, whatever) that was worth a drat. They only bundle poo poo they need to get rid of, find a different deal if you really want a T3i. I have a t4i I'd be willing to sell with Battery grip, 70-300 III, and kit lens. Round abouts the same price, if you are interested
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Soulex posted:I have a t4i I'd be willing to sell with Battery grip, 70-300 III, and kit lens. Round abouts the same price, if you are interested If interested please to be taking to the other thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:The bundled printer and filters are a big turn-off for me. There has never been a printer bundled with anything (camera, computer, whatever) that was worth a drat. They only bundle poo poo they need to get rid of, find a different deal if you really want a T3i. Canon Pixma Pro 100 is a good printer though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:If interested please to be taking to the other thread. Absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
DanManIt posted:I'm trying to decide between two options right now for my first camera: I have your second setup now, 40D, Tamron 17-50, and a 70-300 IS USM. I shot with it all Saturday afternoon, then Sunday was asked by a friend to shoot with her T3i, and the difference in your hands and to your eye is pretty remarkable. I kept having to doublecheck the screen on the T3i, sure I was underexposing because the viewfinder was so dark and small. It's not bad to hold, but it doesn't feel substantial like the xxD line does. It puts all the options where you can get to them and has everything up on the back screen, though. I haven't shot with the 75-300, but it has a reputation for being garbage. I would say either of the other options would have to be better, and paying $38 for IS is absolutely worth it on your long lenses. I can shoot the 70-300 IS USM at 300m handheld at 1/60 and it's sharp if I am thinking about it. Any faster than that and it's amazing handheld. The IQ of the 55-250s aren't as good as the 70-300, but they're a fair bit cheaper, and that's not nothing. They're all better than the 75-300, as I've read. Huxley fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Huxley posted:I have your second setup now, 40D, Tamrom 17-50, and a 70-300 IS USM. I shot with it all Saturday afternoon, then Sunday was asked by a friend to shoot with her T3i, and the difference in your hands and to your eye is pretty remarkable. I kept having to doublecheck the screen on the T3i, sure I was underexposing because the viewfinder was so dark and small. It's not bad to hold, but it doesn't feel substantial like the xxD line does. It puts all the options where you can get to them and has everything up on the back screen, though. The STM 55-250 is optically superior to the 70-300, although the mk1 & mk2 are not
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
I picked up a D5200 and a Tamron 70-300 non-VC lens a couple months ago. My main interest is aviation photography, and in the time I've used it, I've run into a couple things. One, bad chromatic aberration. I've learned how to do away with most of this in post-processing but it's so bad in some photos that I'm faced with either a tremendous amount of detail work to remove it or some degradation of image quality or coloring just to get rid of it quickly. Second, the overall sharpness of photos. I'm still learning (and still have some reading to do in Understanding Exposure), but I feel like I could be getting better base sharpness that requires less tinkering in RAW mode or with Unsharp Mask. The following crop of one of my recent photos is a good example. No retouching, shot at 125mm, 1/1000, f/5.6, ISO 125, shutter priority mode.  Even at 1/1000 it feels like the lack of built-in VC on the lens is giving my shots too much softness but maybe it's also an autofocus issue or just using an incorrect aperture setting. I've been using Shutter Priority because it's one less setting I have to adjust with each plane as available light changes with passing clouds etc but maybe I should be going for Aperture Priority? Or perhaps just full Manual mode and sucking it up? Plus of course the CA is out of control in this particular image. I know some of that could be corrected with a higher quality lens with better glass... would a lens hood or a filter help this as well? I use neither currently - this was a used lens off KEH and didn't come with a hood, and I didn't bother to pick up a filter yet. I'm currently looking at a Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD since they have a $100 rebate going on right now. I'm hoping the supposedly better glass and autofocus plus the added VC will help all around, but any suggestions on things I could do to improve quality on my end would be great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Yes, you definitely need to be using a hood. Shoot in Aperture priority, set at f8. Put your ISO at 400 and try again, this should keep your shutter speeds nice and high.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Which airline's 787 is this? I dig it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Gotta be a 747 engine test aircraft, the 787 doesn't have that many feet!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Gotta be a 747 engine test aircraft, the 787 doesn't have that many feet! Didn't realized that the 747 also had the fins on the nacelle, I thought that was exclusive to the 787. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Yeah, the 747-8 Intercontinental (passenger) and Freighter both have the same GEnx engine as the Dreamliner. Lufthansa's one of the only operators of the passenger version so it's not that common to see one. Anyway thanks for the tips. It only occured to me as I was typing my post that the higher f-stop was probably costing me some sharpness. Still learning! I'll be picking up a hood soon too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Corkscrew posted:Anyway thanks for the tips. It only occured to me as I was typing my post that the higher f-stop was probably costing me some sharpness. Still learning! I'll be picking up a hood soon too. In the meantime you can find a paper cup and cut out the bottom or roll up a piece of paper or something to get pretty much the same effect, just ghetto style.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
I've had the luxury of being able to borrow a Nikon D3200 or a D3100 whenever I please but now I'm looking to buy my own (first) DSLR. I'm pretty much decided on a Nikon as I enjoy using them and I can interchange equipment with the Nikon owners I know. My budget is around £500 which gets a new D3100 with 18-55mm kit lens and a 55-300mm lens (which I've used and love for bird photography). Before I bite the bullet and dive in are there any reputable UK based sellers where I might be able to snatch up a deal on a similarly priced, mid-range, second hand camera?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
I've heard a lot of good things about these two. http://www.mifsuds.com/ http://www.ffordes.com/ Not as cheap as Keh but you don't run the risk of being hit by customs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Beige posted:I've had the luxury of being able to borrow a Nikon D3200 or a D3100 whenever I please but now I'm looking to buy my own (first) DSLR. I'm pretty much decided on a Nikon as I enjoy using them and I can interchange equipment with the Nikon owners I know. No idea of UK sellers (if you're patient you might find a good deal on ebay like I did), but a lightly used D7000 shouldn't run you too much more than a new D3100, and is within your price range, assuming my idea of quid-dollar exchange rates is anywhere close. Edit: 1USD is still ~.60GBP? That's what it was when I was first introduced to the concept of foreign money back in the '90s. Assuming they aren't massively overpriced over there, you should be able to get a D7000 from a store within your budget. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 18:38
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
After digging up and playing with my parents' old Praktica BMS Electronic, I've been looking for a nice, affordable (<£350, preferably <£300) starter DSLR for myself. - something that'll last a good few years of traveling with moderate use indoors and out (moderate weatherproofing may be needed?). Uses will include: -Landscapes (Mountains and poo poo) -Portraits -Pictures of dog -Pictures of cars I've been looking at the Nikon D3100 or D3200 and the Canon EOS 1100D w/ lens kits (mostly just due to the price), but that's buying from new and I'd much prefer to grab a second hand mid-range camera + lens for around the same price. Any idea where I can grab a bargain in the UK? e; Pretty much like what Beige asked but cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
GoodbyeTurtles posted:After digging up and playing with my parents' old Praktica BMS Electronic, I've been looking for a nice, affordable (<£350, preferably <£300) starter DSLR for myself. - something that'll last a good few years of traveling with moderate use indoors and out (moderate weatherproofing may be needed?). If you want weathersealing, Pentax is really the only cheap option. Look for a used K-30, though they may be on the expensive side. You could also look for a used k-7 or k-20. They should be a little cheaper. You'll want the DA 18-55 WR. The WR means the lens completes the weathersealing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
Don't buy the 1100d. It is a bad camera. It is also known as the t3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 19:53
|
|