|
NinetySevenA posted: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? I'm assuming you mean the F-mount version of that lens, since the link is for A-mount. Either way it's probably complete trash, although cleaning it up and seeing if it works could be a good way to kill a few hours. I imagine whatever kit lens you got with the camera is still better.
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
NinetySevenA posted: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 current Nikon kit lens is actually quite capable, it will be better than the Magnicon.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Thanks for the quick replies. I'll stick with the kit for now.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
NinetySevenA posted:I have now gotten it to work with the new camera. I had to lock the aperture at the minimum. Locking the aperture at the minimum value, at least on "modern" Nikon lenses, allows the camera to control the aperture. At least that's my experience.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
NinetySevenA posted:Thanks for the quick replies. I'll stick with the kit for now. By all means play with it and see if it's any good and have fun, I just meant that no, it is almost certainly not better than your kit lens. The Meat Dimension posted:Locking the aperture at the minimum value, at least on "modern" Nikon lenses, allows the camera to control the aperture. At least that's my experience. Yeah, without locking the aperture at maximum you'll get the ever-wonderful "fEE" error, since unless the aperture ring is at maximum (smallest aperture), the camera doesn't have control of the entire aperture range (it can only stop down as far as whatever the aperture ring is set to, for mechanical reasons). To the best of my knowledge there are no more than two Nikon lenses that have an electronically controlled as opposed to mechanically controlled aperture (just the T/S ones I think). SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 07:43 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
The Meat Dimension posted:Locking the aperture at the minimum value, at least on "modern" Nikon lenses, allows the camera to control the aperture. At least that's my experience. The problem was the part of the lens that changed the aperture did not move far enough to click the part that said is was the aperture minimum on the camera body. It refused to take pictures otherwise. edit: \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ yeah, sorry, I meant to say I'll stick with the kit. NinetySevenA fucked around with this message at 09:01 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Just use your kit lens.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
Sorry about getting some terms screwed up, I think of aperture as 1/x instead of just the value on the lens. Is it safe to think of aperture like that? 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
I don't know what you even mean by that. Aperture is a measurement of how much light can get through the lens, the values on the lenses let you be able to compare the light you can get on to the sensor.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
I get what he's saying. 1/ 1.4 is a bigger number than 1/22, and f/1.4 would physically be the larger aperture. I got tripped up on the same thing. Especially when someone would say to use a bigger aperture. The bigger, actual aperture or a bigger aperture number?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:I get what he's saying. 1/ 1.4 is a bigger number than 1/22, and f/1.4 would physically be the larger aperture. I got tripped up on the same thing. Especially when someone would say to use a bigger aperture. The bigger, actual aperture or a bigger aperture number? This is the way I think of it too, and I think this way is more connected to what's actually happening. I can see how people would think of it the other way though, and it would be safer to say "wider" or "narrower" aperture, which is much less ambiguous.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:1/ 1.4 is a bigger number than 1/22, and f/1.4 would physically be the larger aperture. That is how I think of it, thanks for putting it into better words then I did just now. This isn't the first time I flipped maximum and minimum around. Cripes. The Meat Dimension fucked around with this message at 22:30 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
The Meat Dimension posted:Sorry about getting some terms screwed up, I think of aperture as 1/x instead of just the value on the lens. Is it safe to think of aperture like that? It's really just for the best if you just know which words mean 'wide aperture' and which mean 'narrow aperture'. It IS confusing when you're first starting out, but considering it's one of the more important concepts to get your head around, it's worth spending a bit of time getting it right. Also, something I wish I'd thought to look up earlier on when I first started and was trying to just do it from memory, but aperture stops go in multiples of 1.414 (well technically multiples of the square root of 2), hence f/2 -> f/2.8 -> f/4 etc (for whole stops, at least). Sometimes you can see weird aperture numbers on lenses because the actual number was rounded differently and/or 'creatively' from the six-decimal-place version.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
The discussion on the previous page about diffraction limits was fascinating. Now I have some questions: 1. I have a 6D. It looks like f/11 is fine, but at f/16 the image starts to lose sharpness because the circle of confusion becomes larger than the individual pixels on the sensor. Is that basically accurate? 2. If that's true, does it mean that I should avoid using f/16 or narrower to make most effective use of the camera and lens? I understand that a smaller final image (like a web image or printed 4x6) and farther viewing distance mean that this diffraction limit is less of an issue. 3. On the other end of the aperture spectrum, I've learned that most lenses lose sharpness when used wide open, like f/1.8. Because of that, people often recommend stopping down a couple stops from maximum as a starting point. In other words, it sounds like with my nifty fifty f/1.8 lens I should use f/2.8 - f/11, without going wider or narrower than that range. Does that sound reasonable? Thank you! Preggo My Eggo! fucked around with this message at 23:15 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
runlegosleeprepeat posted:The discussion on the previous page about diffraction limits was fascinating. Now I have some questions: 1. Pretty much. There are online calculators for this sorta thing. 2. That's true of pretty much all softness/aberrations, because you can obviously see fewer details in a small image. 3. That sounds vaguely reasonable but one of the dumbest possible things to do in photography is start setting up a bunch of rules and stuff, and also most fiddys are pretty acceptable even wide open so it's not like it's going to ruin your photos or something, and you might like the effect. Conversely, if you have way too much light for what you're trying to do (like if you're trying to do waterfall shenanigans in blazing sunlight), stopping down as far as it'll go will also not ruin your image.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
That crazy lens rentals guy (Roger Cicala) set up a series of tests that demonstrated that yes, f11-22+ will produce a softer image initially, but sharpen better in software from RAW. So don't be scared of narrow apertures if you're in a situation that you need to use them.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Thank you both. This really helps.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
I think I've settled on the d3100 as a birthday present, but do any of you know of any places that do refurbished with at least a year's warranty?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
To pile on to the D3200 chat, I just got one and I'm having a lot of fun with it despite the fact that I know nothing about photography. I just point it at things, take lots of bad photos and try to make sense of the manual to figure out where I went wrong. One of the reasons I bought it was because I love taking pictures of things like insects and hatching birds and other small things I have to be right on top of to see properly, like this adorable, blurry little guy. Unfortunately AF isn't much help here because it picks up the nest instead of my subject, and it's almost certainly because I'm doing a simple thing in the stupidest possible way. What might that thing be?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Looking at it, I'm going to guess you got way too close, and the bird is closer than the minimum focus distance of your lens. You should take a small step back, and then maybe use a fixed AF point to tell the camera to focus on whatever is in the center of the frame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Yeah use single point AF and specify the point manually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Thanks! Sadly that's one problem I can't fix in this one case but I'll remember it for later. This nest is in a tight spot with pretty much no clearance. I'll give the manual AF point a go tomorrow when the siblings emerge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
I picked up the d3200 and returned the d3100. Poor guy at LCE sounded unusually sad and sympathetic over the phone, when I said I'd decided to return it he said "oh, well I'm sorry to hear that" like he was consoling me over the death of a family pet. Got new camera, not bothered. Brand new, 2 years warranty and last one in the shop, so i'm glad I lucked out on the price and on happening to spot it. Officially I don't 'get' it until my birthday next month but  anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
I bought a Nikon D3200 with the kit lens. So far, most of my pictures have been of NYC streets or parks. What lens would you best recommend for this, or should I just stick with the kit lens for now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
im an orange posted:I bought a Nikon D3200 with the kit lens. If you keep with streets & parks (and NYC is obviously an excellent place for that!), rather than a lens you could get a tripod, an intervalometer/remote control, and a set of neutral density filters. This would let you take long exposures (longer than the 30 second maximum* built into the D3200) and time-lapse videos, both of which are popular (and to me, quite good) ways to shoot streets & parks. Tripod thread Long exposures thread - the ND filters are so you can shoot really long exposures during the day Time lapse thread Buy a cheap Chinese Intervalometer like this one * I don't have a D3200 and I've never actually handled one. But the internet tells me its native maximum exposure length is 30s, much like most DSLRs If by "streets & parks" you really mean PEOPLE (who happen to be on the streets or in the parks), you'll probably want a nice "normal" prime, something with a big wide maximum aperture and a focal length around 35mm. The AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G seems to get recommended pretty much every page. Street photography thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:The kit lens will be good for this for a long time. Streets, parks, and other close-to-medium-distance landscapes are really well suited for something with a focal length of 18-55mm, and that variable aperture shouldn't get in your way too much since you're shooting mostly outdoors during the day, from the sounds of things. Thank you for the recommendations!! Very helpful. I'm interested in photographing streets and buildings as well as people. I was initially mostly interested in photographing people living their lives with NYC as the backdrop, so I may purchase your recommended lens when I have the fund. To be honest though, it's intimidating pointing a DSLR in people's faces. Some people get awkward or defensive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
You'll get over it pretty quickly. Just don't be a creep or a perv and nobody will mind you at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Both the 35mm and 50mm primes are great with the D3200. It's such an amazing starter camera.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
The 50 mm will let you get closer shots on the street without actually being right up in peoples faces, and it's a nicer lens IMO. I originally had the 50 but traded it in for the 35 because 50 mm on a crop sensor was a little too zoomed for a lot of indoor things. Walk around with your kit lens set on 35mm for a while, then do the same with 50mm and see which you prefer. Or save up a little bit more for the Tamron 17-50 2.8.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
im an orange posted:To be honest though, it's intimidating pointing a DSLR in people's faces. Some people get awkward or defensive. Of course he works in the UK, so people in NYC might react differently. But at the very least it clarifies from a legal standpoint if you take a really great shot, whether or not you have permission to sell it / display it. Also I am massively jealous of you having NYC as a playground. Search tumblr or flicker for NYC or city and at least 50% of it will be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:
Dont worry about NYC and focus on your place. If you feel you have nothing to shoot at home, you aint lookin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
im an orange posted:I bought a Nikon D3200 with the kit lens. 35mm f/1.8, and trade in the body (and two or three Benjamins) for a D7000. Musket posted:Dont worry about NYC and focus on your place. If you feel you have nothing to shoot at home, you aint lookin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 22:11
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:Seconded. One of my college classmates confined himself (well, his camera) to his house for a semester, made some amazing pictures of the crap on top of his fridge. * spoiler: this will not happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:Looking at it, I'm going to guess you got way too close, and the bird is closer than the minimum focus distance of your lens. You should take a small step back, and then maybe use a fixed AF point to tell the camera to focus on whatever is in the center of the frame. There's barely enough room above the nest for the adult bird to stand, never mind to shove my huge camera, so if I backed up any farther the inside of the nest would be completely obscured by the sides of it. I tried out a single-point AF and that helped on this three-day-old (centre) and its younger siblings (each side):  That little bit of nest crud between me and the bird probably confused the AF a bit, and I won't pretend it's even a good picture, but it's a marked improvement! flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
For most people, myself included, a macro lens with a longer working distance is prefered - if you don't have to get so close you don't spook the itty-bitty critters as much. But in this case, a wide-angle macro with a shorter working distance is what you want. Something like a 28mm macro will also be a relatively small and light lens, at least compared to something big and heavy in the 100mm neighbourhood. I'm not a Nikon shooter, but a bit of googling and my hazy memory suggest you might be able to find an old manual-focus macro (does Nikon call them "micro"? That's going to complicate searching, with lots of non-hits about micro-4/3 cameras...) for not too much money. Maybe $100? Or get some of those close-up macro filters to fit your lens and try that - they let you get closer, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
The Nikon kit has a minimum distance of 0.9m if they have the newest one, I don't know how much more closer you can focus with a DSLR jammed into some tree branches without poking the birds with the lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
I have a stupid newbie question: Why are telephoto primes so much more expensive than telephoto zooms? It seems like less moving parts would make it less expensive or difficult to manufacture, but there must be something I'm missing here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:I have a stupid newbie question: you're probably comparing consumer grade telephoto zooms with pro grade telephoto primes. there are pro grade telephoto zooms too and they also cost a shitload of money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Dren posted:you're probably comparing consumer grade telephoto zooms with pro grade telephoto primes. there are pro grade telephoto zooms too and they also cost a shitload of money. I guess what I am asking is why there don't seem to be any consumer/prosumer grade telephoto primes. I get that there's no way I'm going to be able to get a 300mm f/2.8 for cheap, but why can I get the (truly excellent, I own one) 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 from Sigma for ~$900 but even the Nikon 300mm f/4 (which I've also used and is great but very hard to call "better" than my Sigma) is a ~$1500 lens, and there's really no other telephoto prime alternatives in the sub-$1,500 range from any manufacturer (at least that fits Nikon F-Mount, I don't know about Canon) Are my needs (wildlife photography, particularly birds) just that specialized so I'm not seeing the bigger picture here of the market for such lenses being very limited? EDIT: As opposed to primes like the 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 (and f/1.4), etc, which are all consumer or prosumer lenses and are relatively cheap. Kenshin fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
Kenshin posted:I guess what I am asking is why there don't seem to be any consumer/prosumer grade telephoto primes. I get that there's no way I'm going to be able to get a 300mm f/2.8 for cheap, but why can I get the (truly excellent, I own one) 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 from Sigma for ~$900 but even the Nikon 300mm f/4 (which I've also used and is great but very hard to call "better" than my Sigma) is a ~$1500 lens, and there's really no other telephoto prime alternatives in the sub-$1,500 range from any manufacturer (at least that fits Nikon F-Mount, I don't know about Canon) The cost and complexity of manufacturing glass elements increases exponentially with size.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 18:34
|
|