|
ExecuDork posted:Pablo Bluth is assuming you will eventually upgrade to a "full-frame" DSLR with a sensor the same size as a frame of 35mm film (24x36mm - the 35mm refers to the total measurement across the width of the film strip covering the sprocket holes on both sides). You might or might not eventually make that upgrade, but in the meantime enjoy shooting your camera.
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:05 |
|
|
Oh, don't worry Pablo Bluth, I didn't think you were at all out of line. Having full-frame as an upgrade path is something that, as a Pentax-shooter, I'm jealous of.  I had a quick look at Aukland's Gumtree site for "Nikon Lens" and  are prices way out of line with the rest of the world. I'm getting flashbacks to XTimmy's long-ago request for an old film SLR that did not cost a zillion dollars because apparently Perth's second-hand market is utterly broken.What is up with Oceania's used camera market?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Let me tell you about a bunch of retards called Olympus and a 4/3 lens that has "140-600mm" written on it. Not joking. There's an olympus superzoom with some absurd numbers printed right onto the lens, like 24-600 or something. Sony advertises the rx10 and rx100 as their full frame equivalent focal lengths, but in a less obviously false way than olyumpus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:There's an olympus superzoom with some absurd numbers printed right onto the lens, like 24-600 or something. This was a 70-300 they were trying to fancy up by including the crop factor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
That's very confusing - who were Olympus marketing that to? The tiny number of people who are very familiar with 35mm-SLR lenses but have recently bought, and not yet used, an Olympus 4/3 DSLR? The usual !!!5X ZOOOOOMM!!!! I see on lots of bridge cameras and P&S at least makes sense in that an object in the image will appear 5x larger at maximum zoom-in compared to maximum zoom-out, so it's based in a real experience a user might have. Distorting focal lengths seems like a total waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:This was a 70-300 they were trying to fancy up by including the crop factor. Was it otherwise bad or overpriced for what it was? I'm just imagining some marketing guys sitting around;  How are we going to get people to buy this mediocre / overpriced 70-300mm? Well, because of crop factor it is actually a decent / reasonably priced 140-600mm
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:That's very confusing - who were Olympus marketing that to? The tiny number of people who are very familiar with 35mm-SLR lenses but have recently bought, and not yet used, an Olympus 4/3 DSLR? yeah but how many X is that zoom?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:Was it otherwise bad or overpriced for what it was? It seemed like their version of the Sigma one, based on the handling, and sweet mother of god was it overpriced. And hey guess what, it still is. The focal length scale is 70-300, but the little blue box you can barely see on the right-hand side there was proclaiming 140-600.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Hey, don't forget about crop factor when thinking about your f-stop number, too!
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Oh, don't worry Pablo Bluth, I didn't think you were at all out of line. Having full-frame as an upgrade path is something that, as a Pentax-shooter, I'm jealous of. Everything electronic is hilariously overpriced here, like smart phones and the like. I have to pay 3x the price as north America for tyres for my motorbike. Everything is like that. So yeah, that lens is good value. I just wanted to make sure it would work on my camera and do what I want it to 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I had a quick look at Aukland's Gumtree site for "Nikon Lens" and I think it's mainly to do with there not being much gear floating around down here, and also people paying stupid retail prices for new gear, and expecting a big return when they resell. It is slowly changing with grey market importing from SE Asia and also a strong second hand market in places like Japan where shipping to Oceania is not horrendous, and the dollar being strong always helps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:Hey, don't forget about crop factor when thinking about your f-stop number, too!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Oh here's another, the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 which as a massive 25-400mm focal length actual focal length: 9.1-146mm
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
I actually don't mind it so much on compacts/fixed lens cameras because even if you know the sensor size, sometimes its difficult to figure out what the crop factor/35mm equivalent is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
So, reading this, it says that "No AF is an inconvenience, but guess what: Nikon AF cameras still all have an electronic dot (or arrows and a dot) in the viewfinder which tell you when you've got perfect manual focus. It's slower, but just as accurate." What is this referring to? I don't think my camera has this feature, or I wasn't aware of it if it does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
 #7 I think some cameras have the arrows indicating you are close in one direction or the other, others just have the dot that lights up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
If you use an older screwdrive lens (for example the 50mm f/1.8D or the 135mm f/2 DC), it doesn't have an autofocus motor inside, and they use an in-body motor to do the focussing Cheaper Nikon DSLRs (the D3000, D5000 series) don't have that in-body motor. Thus, if you use an older screw drive lens on these, you won't get autofocus. However, in the viewfinder, you get a little dot that shows up when you are in focus. In the newer bodies (D5200 and newer, I think), it also comes with little arrows that tell you which direction to rotate the focus ring, then the dot shows up when you are in focus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So, reading this, it says that "No AF is an inconvenience, but guess what: Nikon AF cameras still all have an electronic dot (or arrows and a dot) in the viewfinder which tell you when you've got perfect manual focus. It's slower, but just as accurate." What is this referring to? I don't think my camera has this feature, or I wasn't aware of it if it does. He's right, but don't listen to Ken Rockwell. Ever. But yes as others have said you get a green dot (on the far left I think?) when the AF module thinks you're focused correctly, and on pro-series bodies (D1,D2,D3, etc), there are two arrows which even show you which direction you're out of focus (near/far).
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
That was the first result in google  Just had a look, I have the dot. How does it 'know' if you're focused correctly? How is it able to judge that at all? I'm pretty good with technical stuff but cameras are magic to me. Also, where would I buy one of the little rubber eyepiece thingies that goes around the viewfinder? Mine is missing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:That was the first result in google The exact same way it knows when to stop the normal autofocus motor/screwdrive. It still has all the systems and coding to focus those lenses, it just lacks the screw.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:That was the first result in google http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus#Phase_detection I think your camera is using contrast detection, phase detection is used more often on mirror-less cameras.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus#Phase_detection You have that backwards. Well, not completely, because on-sensor phase detect is a thing now. And contrast detect is only done on the sensor, so it would only tell you if things are focused in liveview mode on a DSLR. When looking through the viewfinder on an SLR, a bit of the light around where the AF points are gets split by another mirror into dedicated phase detect sensors. Even if the camera can't change the focus in the lens, it can still tell if the areas that land on the AF points are in focus or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Are there any decent free Lightroom alternatives for doing basic newb-level adjustments?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Your camera's bundled software should be able to do basic RAW adjustments and stuff. If you don't have the CD it should be up for download on the company's website.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Are there any decent free Lightroom alternatives for doing basic newb-level adjustments? Exactly this discussion is happening in this thread right now: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3053912&pagenumber=108#lastpost I use Darktable, but there's other options like rawtherapee or whathaveyou: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format#Free_and_open_source_software
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Are there any decent free Lightroom alternatives for doing basic newb-level adjustments? I dunno about "decent", but depending on your operating system there are a few not-Lightroom options. *reads further down this thread* Oh, hey, in the PP thread my post from a while ago has been dug up! ExecuDork posted:Links to the programs I found a while ago in my procrastination-y search for LR alternatives. GIMP is the open-source alternative to Photoshop, and if they haven't fully implemented RAW functions in the current release you can download a plugin that will let it work with the RAW photos from your camera. I don't think of it as an alternative to LightRoom, though, because to me Photoshop (which I don't have) and LightRoom (which I do) represent the same underlying program optimized in opposite ways - PS is for getting really detailed with edits to one image at a time, LightRoom is for more basic adjustments to a bunch of photos. I tend to work wtih my photos in blocks of a few dozen at a time, so I use LR every time I feel like working on my photos, and open GIMP about once a month, or less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
I used Gimp for my images for a couple of years and it really loving sucks. Lightroom is totally worth the money if you're going to edit photos with any regularity. Occasionally I wish I had Photoshop too but for 90% of stuff I care about LR is enough. Also its file management is pretty worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
You can always subscribe to photo version of the creative cloud for $10 a month if you don't want to throw the $150 at lightroom all at once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I used Gimp for my images for a couple of years and it really loving sucks. Lightroom is totally worth the money if you're going to edit photos with any regularity. Occasionally I wish I had Photoshop too but for 90% of stuff I care about LR is enough. Also its file management is pretty worthwhile. gimp is poo poo. Darktable is not. I don't really do any serious 'editing', just post-processing (maybe this says more about where I am on the photography skill hierarchy than anything else), so I stick to darktable. Comparing LR and gimp is like comparing LR and (a poo poo version of) photoshop. LR = Darktable as far as I'm concerned
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:No, the situation is more complex than that. Fuckin' save up a few hundred more and get a D7000 and use every AF lens Nikkor ever made. You'll pay more for the body but you'll make it up on cheap screw-drive film lenses. Your still need a fast 18-35mm, but you can get a '90s Nikkor battleship of a 70-300mm f/5.6 for $100, as opposed to the self-motorized all-plastic Sigma 70-300 that goes for $150. It's only f/5.6 but gently caress it, the D7000 has the ISO range to make it work well enough for newsprint. SoundMonkey posted:Let me tell you about a bunch of retards called Olympus and a 4/3 lens that has "140-600mm" written on it. Not joking. big scary monsters posted:I used Gimp for my images for a couple of years and it really loving sucks. Lightroom is totally worth the money if you're going to edit photos with any regularity. Occasionally I wish I had Photoshop too but for 90% of stuff I care about LR is enough. Also its file management is pretty worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 12:32
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Why are there so many 70-300 lenses by a variety of companies? Is there some math that comes up when you want a 300 tele whereby with the number of elements you end up with you bottom out at 70? I just don't get why 70 seems to be minimum FL for these so often.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
Presumably if you go any wider than 70 on a zoom that tops out at 200 or 300mm, it gets really bad distortion. There's a Nikon 18-300 kit lens, and it's really bad, and not because it's a kit lens -- the optics just don't work out if you go less than 70mm on a long zoom. Edit: yeah, it's the math. Compare the 70-300:  And a couple of 18-35s:  I can't explain the optics, but yeah, it's a thing. 70mm is the widest you can go with a 300mm zoom without the image quality going to poo poo or the price going to "too much for newspapers", it's limited by physics. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Because normal zooms go up to 70.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Are there similar reasons for certain lengths/multiples being very common? One thing that always confuses me is that there is nothing (or next to nothing) around 200 and 300 that isn't exactly 200 or 300, while 100mm seems incredibly rare, with 85, 90, and 105 being the most common around 100. Or is it just that manufacturers round more on the longer end, and actually most 300s are really 315 or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
junidog posted:Are there similar reasons for certain lengths/multiples being very common? One thing that always confuses me is that there is nothing (or next to nothing) around 200 and 300 that isn't exactly 200 or 300, while 100mm seems incredibly rare, with 85, 90, and 105 being the most common around 100. Or is it just that manufacturers round more on the longer end, and actually most 300s are really 315 or something? Frankly most lens sizing is tradition. Nikon makes a 105mm because that's what they have always made, people buy 300mm lenses because that is what's available. In the modern era of computerized design I highly doubt there's any actual restrictions on what focal lengths and lens formulas but there's also no reason to redesign stuff that works. 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
You also have to keep in mind that people like K*Rock would lose their poo poo if Nikon made a 24-100 and a 70-200, because it's redundant or whatever. Nikon's first version of the 18-200mm has such bad distortion that DPreview re-ordered like 3 test lenses, because they thought they were getting bad copies and no one would release such a distorted lens. I think it's slightly better with the VR2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
Pretty sure a lot of focal lengths on the long end are approximate. I think recall seeing some comparison of a few zooms and primes that were supposedly at 300mm, and there was a big variation in the actual FOV.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Also p much all of the 70-200 shift focal length with focus. Also Nikon does make a 24-120/4 VR IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
junidog posted:Are there similar reasons for certain lengths/multiples being very common? One thing that always confuses me is that there is nothing (or next to nothing) around 200 and 300 that isn't exactly 200 or 300, while 100mm seems incredibly rare, with 85, 90, and 105 being the most common around 100. Or is it just that manufacturers round more on the longer end, and actually most 300s are really 315 or something? A lot of the more "classic" focal lengths such as the 50mm f1.8, various speeds of 135mm, 28mm F2.8 etc. had simple optical designs that just about anyone could do well and do cheaply.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:05 |
|
|
Just wanted to post to say that Adorama's customer service has been terrible. Sent me a defective flash, which I contacted them and they requested I contact Nikon to get a repair estimate. Unfortunately they gave me Blackmagic's phone number for service. They have a 30 day return for products so I sent it back in, however I am still losing about $20 in shipping from the process. Even if Nikon could fix it, its lovely to make a customer wait for an undetermined amount of time and play phone with two companies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 00:11
|
|
