|
windex posted:I concur this is a good option but if you can splurge and want something 50mm like, the 80D at $1099 and EF 35mm f/2 IS USM at $550 is a nice option if you like the 50mm field of view and the 35mm f/2 IS USM is a great lens for APS-C or FF bodies (e.g. you will keep it for as long as Canon supports the EF mount). The nifty fifty is a little telephoto-esque on APS-C. But the 17-50 will shoot 35mm at f/2.8 as well as giving you a wide option and a little bit of tele.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:But the 17-50 will shoot 35mm at f/2.8 as well as giving you a wide option and a little bit of tele. but it's a sigma. so it probably won't auto-focus for poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
I've gone through 3 sigma lenses and they all had inconsistent auto-focus. The optics were wonderful but if you're missing focus more than half the time it's no fun. My favorite cheap Canon lens for APS-C has to be the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 pancake. The auto focus works, it's reasonably fast, sharp, and easy to carry around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
akadajet posted:I've gone through 3 sigma lenses and they all had inconsistent auto-focus. The optics were wonderful but if you're missing focus more than half the time it's no fun. plus it's ~35mm equiv (the best focal length) and those cunts at nikon haven't made a cheap aps-c 35mm equiv
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Anyone else read this and see less a technology problem, and more a potential for hurt feelings? It sounds like everyone here means well, but is she really asking someone who "doesn't care" about photography to lug around an extra device while they're learning how to be a mom, just so grandma can get photos in her nerd file format? The daughter was the one asking her mom (the photographer) for suggestions, who then in turn asked me and some others on a facebook photography group, so she (the daughter) is wanting and willing to carry around something extra. It's not that unusual to all of the sudden want a better camera even if you are not into photography when you have a kid - I have several friends who asked me for suggestions when they were expecting or shortly after their kids were born, and although I was into shooting film before having my daughter, that was when I got my first "nice" digital camera since I wanted to take nice photos of my kid. Although for me it ended up different since that is what got me into photography in a big way and not just wanting to take kid photos like I had initially expected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
yeah i figured it might be something like that, your first post was just kinda vague on it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
My wife and I have been talking about getting a DSLR for a while and decided to buy the T6i black friday bundle from Best Buy. I read through this thread and have skimmed a few others and am 1/2 way through Understanding Exposure. As per the thread I bought a cheap 50mm and have been taking lots of pictures to try to get a feel for what lens/setting does what as all I've ever used is a point and shoot and mostly cell phone photos for the last few years. I've taken probably 2000 pictures just messing around. I'm so used to taking 5 of everything to try to get decent focus on my phone camera that I'm taking way too many shots of the same thing. For fun and goon shaming I uploaded some lowlights of my first week. https://www.flickr.com/photos/curbjumpinss/albums/72157677275561845 Does this mean I have to learn photoshop? Does my shutter have a life expectancy and is there any maintenance I need to do besides cleaning the lenses?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
One easy tip to instantly improving your photos by a few degrees is to turn on the little marker in your viewfinder that tells you whether your Horizon is straight or not. Check it before taking every photo. Swapping lenses means you'll eventually pick up dust particles on the sensor, so if you start seeing speckles on your images you might want to learn how to clean that yourself. Dust on the far end of your lens is unlikely to ever show up on images, so don't worry too much about constantly cleaning that end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:horizon indicators Lol, in most places outside of the US and Canada there are no straight lines in structures and even internal walls or comparing one building to the next is pitched off center from "level", so the horizon indicator is useless. Ideally, learn to find the lines in your frame that stand out the most and use the viewfinder frame lines to keep aligned to them (it's usually the lines in the center of the frame or the ones on the far edges, depending on which have more contrast). Or do the bokeh whore thing where you just shoot so wide open you can't even see the background in every shot. edit; vvv yes, the horizon indicator is useless because nothing is level. windex fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
You seem to be talking about the various overlays that put straight lines in the viewfinder, not the horizon indicator.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Apparently that's a T6s feature 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
How mean of them. It feels like sometimes they keep the simplest of things for the higher end models. You can fix it easily enough in post using Lightroom and similar at least, you just lose a bit of resolution due to rotation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
windex posted:Lol, in most places outside of the US and Canada there are no straight lines in structures and even internal walls or comparing one building to the next is pitched off center from "level", so the horizon indicator is useless. It doesn't matter - still shoot level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
windex posted:edit; vvv yes, the horizon indicator is useless because nothing is level. But the camera can be level, and that's what the horizon indicator is indicating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Sorry I forgot the computer does all the things right and learning composition is bad? What the gently caress. If you are going to fix the lines up in post anyway shoot it right the first time, don't instruct people to shoot level unless the contents of the frame are (hint: they almost never are, unless as noted you are shooting architecture in the US and Canada, with some notable exceptions).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Jesus Christ. Look at his example photos and you can see there's several there where you can see the damned Horizon in them which isn't straight. An on camera tool would've fixed that, or do you think they're included for a joke and that people spend the time aligning their cameras for the sheer gently caress of it? At the very least it'll put you in a good starting place. Last I checked I don't come from the US and we didn't complain about our entire world being crooked either. There's a good reason your attitude has gotten you run out of other threads in this forum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
windex posted:Sorry I forgot the computer does all the things right and learning composition is bad? Maybe don't instruct people to not shoot level then. Do you see people walking around with their heads tilted when looking at something that isn't level? Perhaps let's tilt the camera when shooting a hill? Using the in camera level as a starting point will be a good place to start in terms of advice for a beginner who just posted shots that were all tilted and asked for advice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
I fixed what I could sorry to start a derail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
my turn in the barrel posted:I fixed what I could sorry to start a derail. Not your problem, we just have varying ideals on what bad advice is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
I appreciate the feedback because it's something I don't really pay attention to when framing. I'll try turning the grids on in my VF so I remember to verify it. The one with the crazy horizon was because I was focusing on the grass being level and ignored the horizon completely. I got a lens pen and a Rocket air blaster on order from amazon. They were running some Cyber monday deal where if you order a camera accessory you got 50 5x7 prints with free shipping for prime members so I figured I'd grab them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
windex posted:Not your problem, we just have varying ideals on what bad advice is. i think it's pretty much unanimously agreed upon here what bad advice is homeslice
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
in fact who cares about straight horizons, just tilt that poo poo and d u t c h a n g l e your way to a pulitzer
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
Speaking of dutch angles, I took this last weekend
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
my turn in the barrel posted:Speaking of dutch angles, I took this last weekend This was the most eye catchy line to me, because of the contrast with the curtain and the proximity to the center of the frame:  It's also the line that flattens out the top of the car. It's a lot closer to correct than you think it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
my turn in the barrel posted:] You will probably have more fun with Lightroom. It has all the important functions and it also organizes your photos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
What's the best (or least-bad) free program for working with my RAW files? I've been using one called RawTherapee. It's worked fine for me, but I also only have small knowledge of a few ideas like saturation and contrast, so even the basic editing panel has many more sliders than I understand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:What's the best (or least-bad) free program for working with my RAW files? I've been using one called RawTherapee. It's worked fine for me, but I also only have small knowledge of a few ideas like saturation and contrast, so even the basic editing panel has many more sliders than I understand. If you can't spare the 10 bux a month for lightroom and photoshop then just shoot jpeg.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Get Lightroom now, you'll get it someday anyways and kick yourself for not doing it sooner. Even if you eBay an ancient copy of lr3/4, get Lightroom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies. I should clarify that I'm fine with buying something, even if I'd prefer free. However, I can't justify going for software that rents for $120 per year, for what is a very very casual part-time hobby of mine. And yes, I'm aware you can go monthly and there are free trials and sales and whatnot, so no need to start a derail about Adobe licensing. I will look into buying an old boxed version, but if anyone has suggestions for other apps, I'd appreciate that too. Also, I'm using Windows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
windex posted:This was the most eye catchy line to me, because of the contrast with the curtain and the proximity to the center of the frame: In the 1966 movie each villain is shot with their own dutch angle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Windex you're terminally loving stupid and completely incapable of understanding any subtlety in a point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Oh poo poo this minor informative indicator is telling me I'm not level so I must be composing wrong because I'm a moron who can't accept multiple streams of information at once to help me choose my composition
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Maybe after they develop the technology to prevent you from taking pictures that aren't level they can use it to prevent windex from posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Windex I thought you don't even use a viewfinder? You should start posting more pics than words because your words are loving dumb. People in this thread would do well to ignore him if you don't want a crippling handicap when starting out with photography.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
windex posted:Lol, in most places outside of the US and Canada there are no straight lines in structures and even internal walls or comparing one building to the next is pitched off center from "level", so the horizon indicator is useless. Lol, straight lines in structures in the US and Canada.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Thanks for the replies. I should clarify that I'm fine with buying something, even if I'd prefer free. However, I can't justify going for software that rents for $120 per year, for what is a very very casual part-time hobby of mine. And yes, I'm aware you can go monthly and there are free trials and sales and whatnot, so no need to start a derail about Adobe licensing. If you care enough about photography that you shoot in RAW and you post to a photography forum, then just get Lightroom. There's also the chance that not using some lovely freeware hack will encourage you to take more photos too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Maybe after they develop the technology to prevent you from taking pictures they can use it ftfy
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
my turn in the barrel posted:Speaking of dutch angles, I took this last weekend And the picture is good, too. Lutha Mahtin posted:Thanks for the replies. I should clarify that I'm fine with buying something, even if I'd prefer free. However, I can't justify going for software that rents for $120 per year, for what is a very very casual part-time hobby of mine. And yes, I'm aware you can go monthly and there are free trials and sales and whatnot, so no need to start a derail about Adobe licensing. This is going to provoke howls of laughter, but Corel Aftershot is an alternative to Lightroom and the Adobe Subscription Business Model. It's also considerably cheaper than $120 and you buy it outright rather than subscribe. I bought the previous version (2.0, current is 3.0) about 2 years ago because it came bundled with Corel's video-editor. I've played around with Aftershot for like 2 hours total, a long time ago, so I can't tell you much about it except it's similar (but not the same) in basic layout and workflow options as Lightroom version 3, which is what I'm still using most of the time. Presumably there are tradeoffs in features between Corel and Adobe, things like noise reduction or cloning out dust / hair / ugly people presumably work differently and therefore might be better in one or the other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:However, I can't justify going for software that rents for $120 per year, for what is a very very casual part-time hobby of mine.  if it's very very casual then whatever just shoot jpegs and be done with it. if you care at all about what you're doing you can afford 120 a year for quality software.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
If only there was a way to try and or possess full versions of software for free. Ah well, one can only dream.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:35
|
|