|
Geology posted:I love my red K-50 and collection of decades-old k-mount primes. Only complaint is that it is quite bad for video due to whatever phenomenon causes moving objects to look like wobbly jello. You may want to turn off shake reduction for videos. That is usually the cause of the wobbliness.
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
Geology posted:I love my red K-50 and collection of decades-old k-mount primes. Only complaint is that it is quite bad for video due to whatever phenomenon causes moving objects to look like wobbly jello. If you mean this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANHPJPM0dPs&t=0m22s It's called rolling shutter, and you can read about why it happens here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
If you want to ensure your camera is never stolen, buy a Pentax. (buy gear insurance, you nitwits).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Musket posted:If you want to ensure your camera is never stolen, buy a Pentax. (buy gear insurance, you nitwits).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:I've pretty much accepted that at some point during my travels around the world my camera will be stolen, whether taken when I'm not looking (less likely, I am paranoid about keeping my gear in physical contact with myself at all times) or taken as I get mugged (more likely). None of this will happen. But if it did, your gear insurance would cover most of the replacement cost. So buy it and stop treating the camera like its a newborn baby. Go rough it up like a good whore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Musket posted:None of this will happen. But if it did, your gear insurance would cover most of the replacement cost. So buy it and stop treating the camera like its a newborn baby. Go rough it up like a good whore. That said, what are the Dorkroom-approved gear insurance places?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:I'm not exactly delicate with my gear. Ask your renters insurance agent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Musket posted:Ask your renters insurance agent. Yeah - this would be a rider for special expensive stuff on your rental or homeowners insurance. Just go to wherever you already have that from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Musket posted:Ask your renters insurance agent. This. I pay like $25 a year for 100% no deductible insurance on my D800 and 24-70mm. Covers accidental damage or it being stolen, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Huh, interesting. Will-do, since I've already got pretty drat great renters insurance. (I honestly had no idea it could cover equipment that I travel with)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Huh, interesting. Will-do, since I've already got pretty drat great renters insurance. (I honestly had no idea it could cover equipment that I travel with) READ THE FINE PRINT AND READ THE FINE PRINT AND READ THE FINE PRINT of what your coverage will not in fact cover. READ THE FINE PRINT.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
The Pentax K50 is here... I'm packing for the honeymoon so no time for an effortpost, but: 1. Even just dicking around in auto mode, it's taking good pictures with pretty much no effort. 2. The red looks super cool in person. I'll find the appropriate thread for Ireland pics when I get back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Looking to plunk down on an entry-level DSLR and I have an idea of what I'm looking for, would appreciate any advice. I go on out-of-CONUS vacations about once every 1-1.5 years and take a bunch of photographs while I'm there with whatever I have on hand. This is usually a <$200 point-and-shoot or a higher-MP iPhone, but a friend let me borrow her Nikon D3100 for a recent trip to Thailand and I fell in love with it. The lens was the stock one, but it worked really well [by my layman's estimation] for portraits, street pics, and landscapes, though the lack of a wide-angle lens was evident on my wider shots. My spouse and a couple of friends have cobbled together a budget to buy me an entry-level DSLR for my birthday - it doesn't hit NIB prices by far, but I think I can get goon-recommended Canon gear within either the $500 established budget or $600 if I kick a bit in myself. Looking to buy: Canon T3i with stock Canon 18-55mm IS II lens and Sigma 30mm f/1.4 as a better option for more fixed shots. Budget: $500 preferred. $600 max. Painfully low, I know, but it's what I've got to work with. Photo gear already purchased: Nikon CoolPix S3100 (summer 2011) - bought for international travel pics, used for that and general all-purpose things but I haven't touched it in at least two years because the lack of options when shooting frustrates me pretty easily. What you plan on using your purchase for: travel photography, portraits, local sights (some street, mostly landscapes) What you find limiting about what you have now: It's an economy point-and-shoot. Optimal settings still produce fairly drab images that aren't nearly as wide/focused/detailed/etc. as I'd like for whatever situation I'm shooting. I might as well just use my smartphone. Ballparking by eBay prices, I'm assuming I can find a used T3i with the stock lens for ~$350 and the Sigma lens for ~$200, putting me at $550 or so. Also, I've been told to avoid low-end Nikon DSLRs because of plastic internal parts that aren't as durable as other brands, but I don't know how accurate that advice is. Does this seem like a good entry kit, or am I missing something? Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Buy from keh instead of eBay unless the difference is massive. Thought about mirrorless at all?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Considering it. I didn't know mirrorless was a thing until about an hour ago after I'd finished cross-posting on other platforms for DSLR advice and started looking into reviews, comparisons, objections to DSLR, etc. of different models. I keep seeing the Canon EOS-M mentioned as a less bulky and roughly equivalent alternative for people who normally shoot DSLR and it looks much more affordable, but I know only what I've read up on so far. I've also seen new higher-end compacts mentioned, but those are way out of my budget and I don't know how much I'd care for them regardless of price. Gonna continue reading about mirrorless. DSLR with a 35mm prime lens still appeals to me, but the memory of carrying the 27.4oz of the Nikon D3100 around my neck (only had the strap and lens cap, no bag) for a week does make weight a consideration - the T3i would be between 20 and 33 ounces depending on whether I had the Canon or Sigma lens attached. e: going through the goon thread on mirrorless, still hyped on less weight but the LCD controls on a lot of the models are a turn-off and I want the ability to shoot subjects in motion, something it seems DSLRs are handily better than mirrorless for. zgrowler2 fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jul 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Go fondle some cameras at a store, first off. You had a good experience with a Nikon, so that's good - a Canon will handle a bit differently (lens mounts / dismounts the other way, for one thing). Weight is unavoidable for a DSLR. You can reduce it a bit by choosing particuarly small & light bodies and lenses (pancake lenses come to mind) but there's no real comparison with a tiny mirrorless or a P&S you can stuff into a pocket and forget about. That's why there's so much discussion about straps and bags and so forth around here (e.g. Straps thread). Mostly, you just get used to it. I walk around with my camera in my hand and a couple of lenses in a shoulder bag, and it's fine for me. A big part of that is just doing it enough times that it doesn't feel like a big deal anymore. I'm not sure there's a big difference between a good mirrorless system and a similar-price DSLR for any subject, there are plenty of trade-offs between those two options. Lots and lots of people buy mirrorless systems to shoot their kids running around, I don't think they really fall down when it comes to moving subjects. Full manual control seems to be what you're after (and to that I say: good!) and you can get that on any DSLR and most above-entry-level mirrorless cameras.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
There's a camera shop on the south end of town that opens up at 9am tomorrow; I'll go see what they have on hand. I looked up the Canon set I listed above on keh/B&H/etc. and it's pretty out of my budget range compared to Nikon, so I'm eyeing the following: Nikon D5100 (grade LN-) w/ battery, charger - $352.00 used (keh) Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens - $197.00 new (B&H) That's $549.00 for the body and a prime lens, will need to buy a strap/bag separately. If I got those two pieces, later on I might get a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom lens if I feel like I need it, but I think starting out with a fixed focal point lens will help my shots more. Also, $45 for a Sigma macro lens is pretty awesome. Will probably make a decision sometime tomorrow evening. Thanks for the tips!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
zgrowler2 posted:...but I think starting out with a fixed focal point lens will help my shots more. Be careful with this idea. Primes have their benefits, but they won't make you generally better, so much as practice with one will make you better at getting photos that look good when done with that lens. Do you have something in mind that you would like to photograph with those 35mm lens you are looking at?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
zgrowler2 posted:Nikon D5100 (grade LN-) w/ battery, charger - $352.00 used (keh)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
I've been very pleased with my Pentax so far, but one thing I've not yet figured out. If I shoot someone against a backdrop of the overcast sky, the subject will be too dark. This is even if I aim directly at the subject when focusing/metering. I'm using auto mode because it's easy. What's the best way to get the subject properly exposed if they're too far for flash? I could try playing with a set ISO and use aperture priority like in my SLR, but it seems like it would still underexpose the subject by using a shorter shutter. Suggestions? Can this even be solved?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
Use spot metering and put the spot on what you want exposed properly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
zgrowler2 posted:but I think starting out with a fixed focal point lens will help my shots more I think you'll be a lot happier with Nikon's ergonomics vs Canon's, but I don't understand why you think a prime lens is going to be a better idea than an entry level zoom. If you are going to be using the camera as something to take vacation photos with, I'd think you would want a lens that is going to give you more flexibility... not to mention that it's easier to travel with just one lens that's already attached to the body.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I think you'll be a lot happier with Nikon's ergonomics vs Canon's, but I don't understand why you think a prime lens is going to be a better idea than an entry level zoom. If you are going to be using the camera as something to take vacation photos with, I'd think you would want a lens that is going to give you more flexibility... not to mention that it's easier to travel with just one lens that's already attached to the body. I dunno, when I got my D3200 I had the kit lens and the 35mm f/1.8G and almost all I ever used was the 35mm until I started buying other lenses. Zooming with my feet didn't really bother me, and I feel like it made me think about framing a lot more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Zooming with my feet didn't really bother me, and I feel like it made me think about framing a lot more. How did it make you think about framing more versus a zoom lens? I'm going to give you both a tip, 35mm is a focal point that is available on the kit lens. If the camera is being used for vacation photos, a zoom is more practical, and it's likely you'll want something wider than 35mm. Use the kit lens at first and if after a while you think you'd really like a prime, get it then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:I've been very pleased with my Pentax so far, but one thing I've not yet figured out. If I shoot someone against a backdrop of the overcast sky, the subject will be too dark. This is even if I aim directly at the subject when focusing/metering. I'm using auto mode because it's easy. RTFM 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:I've been very pleased with my Pentax so far, but one thing I've not yet figured out. If I shoot someone against a backdrop of the overcast sky, the subject will be too dark. This is even if I aim directly at the subject when focusing/metering. I'm using auto mode because it's easy. It can absolutely be solved. Use exposure compensation. Push it up to +1.0 or so and try it. What that does is tells the camera to deliberately overexpose the image compared to the recommendation from the light meter, in this example by one full stop. This will blow out the bright sky - you'll get what's called "clipped highlights", or white areas that stay white no matter what you do in post-processing. But it's the sky, and the subject of your photo is not the sky, it's that person's face. Play around with different combinations of ISO/Shutter speed/Aperture and exposure compensation, because not all overcast skies are the same brightness. But you should be able to work out a reasonable starting point for any given situation. I like to shoot in Aperture Priority (Av), but exposure comp should work in any mode except full manual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:I've been very pleased with my Pentax so far, but one thing I've not yet figured out. If I shoot someone against a backdrop of the overcast sky, the subject will be too dark. This is even if I aim directly at the subject when focusing/metering. I'm using auto mode because it's easy. The sky is really bright, and there's a lot of it, so the metering system is compensating for that and making the rest of the scene, i.e., your friend, really dark. You can use the exposure compensation dial to tell the camera, "I know you want this exposure, but I want it to have an extra stop or two anyway," or you can use spot metering to target just your friend and use that to calculate the exposure, ignoring the sky. The camera wants everything to even out to a medium shade. So if you're shooting something that's supposed to be black, the camera might try a longer exposure than is needed, and for something that's supposed to be white, it will underexpose a bit. Your eyes/brain are a lot smarter than the camera in these situations, so you don't actually see anything wrong when you're just looking at it. You just have to learn to recognize these situations where the camera might get tripped up and then compensate accordingly. You can also sidestep these issues entirely by using an external light meter with incident metering (the camera's built-in system is reflective metering), but walking up to your subject, holding up a light meter to take a measurement, and then walking back to where you want to take the picture is not always convenient or feasible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:How did it make you think about framing more versus a zoom lens? I'm going to give you both a tip, 35mm is a focal point that is available on the kit lens. If the camera is being used for vacation photos, a zoom is more practical, and it's likely you'll want something wider than 35mm. Use the kit lens at first and if after a while you think you'd really like a prime, get it then. Well, it helps that the 35mm f/1.8G is simply a far, far better lens at 35mm than the kit lens is at 35mm. As a newbie I think it helped to have one less thing to think about or adjust, really. As I've become more comfortable with my camera I've actually started using my kit lens more, but only in situations where I'm using it wide-angle (18mm and thereabouts). I still far prefer to use my 50mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/1.8G for walkabout photography over the kit lens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:Be careful with this idea. Primes have their benefits, but they won't make you generally better, so much as practice with one will make you better at getting photos that look good when done with that lens. Portraits and isolated subjects, mostly. I'll be on a college campus as a grad student for the next two years and there will be plenty of opportunities. I'm also a huge fan of bokeh and would prefer to get a lens that allows for that when the shots are properly composed. That said, a friend of mine who works in electronics at the local Target says that they've got a clearance deal going on the AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G for $79. If that checks out (fingers crossed they have one attached to a display camera), I may get the 18-55mm kit lens and the 50mm prime. I'd still get 30mm shots (albeit not as good) with the kit lens and I'd have more options at the same price range. evil_bunnY posted:That's a great combo (whether you start with the kit or the 35). Do look into M43 though. You can get most of the way there in terms of performance in a package that's half the weight and size. Interesting! I'll take a look at those later, thanks. RangerScum posted:I think you'll be a lot happier with Nikon's ergonomics vs Canon's, but I don't understand why you think a prime lens is going to be a better idea than an entry level zoom. If you are going to be using the camera as something to take vacation photos with, I'd think you would want a lens that is going to give you more flexibility... not to mention that it's easier to travel with just one lens that's already attached to the body. The prime lens is more for walkabout since I'll be spending most of my time for the next couple of years on a college campus where I can properly frame most of my shots at closer distances without a need for wide-angle. As for vacation stuff, though, you're right. I went back through my Thailand photos late last night to see where I actually shot in 35mm and most of the larger areas (e.g. Ayutthaya) were around 18-20mm with a lot of objects shot at multiple focal lengths for contrast. Same thing with photos taken in transit. The kit lens would be better in those situations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:How did it make you think about framing more versus a zoom lens? I'm going to give you both a tip, 35mm is a focal point that is available on the kit lens. If the camera is being used for vacation photos, a zoom is more practical, and it's likely you'll want something wider than 35mm. Use the kit lens at first and if after a while you think you'd really like a prime, get it then. qft I never really got the whole "oh you are restricted to one focal length. really makes u think." advice. Yeah, if you are restricted to 35mm you'll have to get creative to make a shot work and/or just give up because it's not there. But with the 18-55 you can leave it at 35 all of the time. Then if you really need to you can go a bit tele or a bit wide. Plus, being a bit tele or a bit wide gives a shot a different look which opens up creative opportunities that aren't available with the 35. The 35 prime is a great lens. It's sharp, the large maximum aperture is nice indoors and it's a good lens for pictures of people who are relatively close to you. But for vacation if I could only have one lens I'd take the kit. Fwiw if I'm on vacation or w/e and I can only have one lens I take the 10-24.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Dren posted:qft Like I said it wasn't that it was the restriction so much as it was one less thing for me to worry about as I learned all the technical stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
zgrowler2 posted:Portraits and isolated subjects, mostly. I'll be on a college campus as a grad student for the next two years and there will be plenty of opportunities. I'm also a huge fan of bokeh and would prefer to get a lens that allows for that when the shots are properly composed. The ideal subject size for bokeh w/ the 35 is roughly action figure or coffee cup size. You could get some bokeh with an uncomfortably close portrait of an adult sized head but then you'd have an uncomfortably close portrait of a head. If you want bokeh for portraits either do it in post or save your money and buy a full frame camera.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
zgrowler2 posted:Portraits and isolated subjects, mostly. I'll be on a college campus as a grad student for the next two years and there will be plenty of opportunities. I'm also a huge fan of bokeh and would prefer to get a lens that allows for that when the shots are properly composed. Sounds like you have an idea of what you are after, but I ask because of this... Dren posted:The ideal subject size for bokeh w/ the 35 is roughly action figure or coffee cup size. You could get some bokeh with an uncomfortably close portrait of an adult sized head but then you'd have an uncomfortably close portrait of a head. 35mm is really on the wide end of doing portraits. It works if your idea is more "street" type stuff where you are getting a persons whole body in the shot. But if you want a sort of head and shoulders portrait, you'll need to get really close. While a fixed lens will sort of force you to be more creative with the limitations of zooming with your feet, you can only zoom so much with your feet. I'd go with the others who have mentioned sticking with the kit lens at first. You can dial to 35mm and walk around for a week and see if you like the focal length but want more bokeh and general image quality. You may end up preferring 50mm, and the kit lens will let you try out 50mm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
A kit lens is a great first lens because it lets you actually decide what focal lengths you like. I ended up using mine mostly at 50mm, so I ended up buying a 50mm prime for instance. You're not going to magically be better at photos simply from not having a zoom lens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
zgrowler2 posted:Portraits and isolated subjects, mostly. I'll be on a college campus as a grad student for the next two years and there will be plenty of opportunities. I'm also a huge fan of bokeh and would prefer to get a lens that allows for that when the shots are properly composed. As it's been said, 35mm is a pretty poo poo focal range for portraits in general. It's also not a great focal range for bokeh (which I have to add is a gimmick that is going to lose its novelty quick with you if you start getting more interested in different types of photography). Yeah the 35mm prime has an f1.8 aperture, but the wider a lens is, the wider the depth of field it's going to have. Since your DSLR sensor is going to be bigger than the sensors in phones and point-n-shoots you are going to be able to get a plenty narrow-enough depth of field at 50mm / f5.6 to separate your subject from their background as long as they aren't all up in that poo poo. Also the 'technical stuff' is really loving easy. If you want a tip on how to really understand that stuff in about 2 minutes, put your camera on aperture priority and set it at your largest aperture (Smallest number, because the aperture is a ratio), and then point it at a bunch of objects of varying brightness. Each time you point it at a different object, note the change in shutter speed. (Cliffnotes - the brighter the object, the faster the shutter speed) Now change your aperture to the smallest setting it will go to (the largest F number because, once again, its value is actually a ratio) and then point it at those same objects. Once again note the shutter speed. (Cliffnotes - as before, the brighter the object, the faster the shutter speed, but you will notice that your shutter speeds are much slower this time around because the smaller aperture lets less light in, so the shutter has to compensate and remain open for a longer period of time in order to let the appropriate amount of light in). If this doesn't already make total sense to you, I have a feeling you'll understand how it works pretty much immediately once you practice it in person. Once you're done pointing it at the objects of varying brightness, then try changing your ISO setting and pointing it at those objects again. Notice the difference. Congrats, now you understand the 3 main elements of exposure, and you can move on to a more complicated part of photography- the zoom ring on a lens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
The thing about bokeh for portraits is unless you want to drop a good chunk of change you're not gonna get great portrait bokeh. You basically need a full frame body with like a 85mm or a 135 ƒ/2 and if you want a full length portrait with tons of delicious bokeh you need a 200mm ƒ/2 which makes beautiful pictures but costs more than my car is worth. I mean yeah you can get by with a 50mm on an FX body and if you don't mind your bokeh being kind of gross you can shoot a head and shoulders portrait with a far away background using the 35mm ƒ/1.8G wide open on a crop body. Or you could play with mirrorless cameras and tilt shift adapters for old, cheap manual lenses. But if you want that hot hot bokeh you have to drop some serious cash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
I dropped 270bux on my 58mm noct-nikkor and its bokey is better than yours, and i use it on a mirrorless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
You can get plenty of OOF areas with a Crop sensor and a fast 50.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You can get plenty of OOF areas with a Crop sensor and a fast 50. Yeah, I mean obviously all the above poo poo HELPS, but you can do perfectly good low-DoF portraits with whatever your brand's (70/80)-200 2.8 happens to be, on a crop sensor. Wide open, longest practical focal length, at minimum focus distance. So yeah a 200mm f/2 on a full frame body would certainly give you great results but it's kinda dumb to say you NEED that to do this kinda thing. ...although if we want to start dickwaving about depth of field, I'm gonna have to get some large format dudes in here to take everyone to school 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:large format dude mods?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:29
|
|