|
So I stumbled across this lens at mom's as her and her boyfriend are going through stuff to sell: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55f35ai.htm It's worth about $100, but I'm wondering if I should sweet talk her into giving it to me or try for a family discount. According to Ken Rockwell it's a pretty good lens, wondering if I could get some use out of it. I've already got a 50/1.8G so I'm not sure what this does that that one doesn't, other than easier manual focus, and forcing me to go full manual since my D5100 can't talk to it at all.
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
I'm pretty dumb, what does metering mean?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
So that's needed for Aperture priority or Shutter priority. The only way to use an old dumb lens is full manual. Right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
So on my D5100, do I only have two choices for Auto-ISO, always or never? On full auto I guess I'd like auto ISO, but in other modes probably not? It just seems silly that in all the settings it shows a manual ISO but it never uses it. Is this the firmware bug that Ken Rockwell mentions on this page under the Manual exposure section?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
Musket posted:Its not a bug its not a firmware defect its an intended "feature". If you turn auto ISO on, the camera assumes you the USER knows how to turn it off when you swap modes. Ken Rockwell is just bitching to bitch. If he had his way, every camera would be able to read user minds. After more expirimentation it turns out it does do Auto ISO in Auto mode even if Auto ISO is turned off. The UI is pretty stupid, because with Auto ISO turned on, I can set the ISO in a manual mode and it shows on the camera screen, but it still flashes Auto ISO on the viewfinder so it's not clear what's going on. It seems like I should be able to adjust Auto ISO from the info menu, and not the system menu, but oh well. Between this and "Understanding Exposure" my catte photos are looking better than ever.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Please post examples, tia.   First was taken with my poo poo rear end $10 tripod that barely supports the weight of my camera. Not sure what's going on with focus in the second, it's like the right side of his face is in focus but the left isn't?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
Went to a camera store with my mom with the expectation of her getting into a D5100 like me, but ended up looking at a D7000 and then a Sony A77 (which she finally got). I was thinking she would walk out with a D5100 + 35/1.8 for $800, and she walked out with the A77 with 16-50/2.8 kit + LR for $1900. WELP. I did handle the D7000, and I felt a little jealous of the nicer viewfinder, but I think I like that the 5100 is ligher, even if it does mean I've got a plastic body vs a sealed metal body. And I couldn't figure out any of the buttons either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
The Nikkor 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 are both pretty great, and only $200 a piece. I couldn't decide which one I wanted more, so I bought them both. I've got the D5100 + 18-55 kit + the two primes plus another longer zoom I was talked into at the store, and I'm quite happy with it all, but this is also my first camera and I'm pretty dumb about photos in general.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Those are two pretty quality lenses. Wait, does the D5100 have a drive screw? Unless you got the 50 1.8G? No drive screw, I've got the G model of both.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
I've got both the 35 and the 50 for my D5100. The 35 is way better for cattes. I can frame a cat from 4 or 5 feet away, whereas with the 50 I'd have to be 10-15 feet away. I went to a cat sanctuary and I kept the 50 on whenever I was outside, but switched to the 35 when I got inside. For messing around in my apartment the 50 is pretty much useless. With the 35 I can walk closer to the subject if I want to, with the 50 I can't always back up far enough.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
I mapped the function button to ISO on my 5100, but auto ISO is a bitch. At least it will still go into auto ISO in auto mode even if auto ISO is turned off. Or at least on the 5100, I'm not sure if it works "as intended" on the 5100 or a firmware bug.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You can't do it that way: auto ISO increases ISO above the base you select. God damnit this auto ISO stuff is like voodoo. Glad I just turned it off.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
You should maybe try posting your question here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3531746 To me it sounds like you're trying to record some science type stuff, and they might have better idea how to do it there. If I'm totally off base the never mind.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
I took this on my honeymoon back in December on a train between Minneapolis and Portland. We were going through a pitch black tunnel, with the only light present being that coming from her iPad. I had the camera an Auto because I was a babby that hadn't read Understanding Exposure yet, but I pointed the camera in her direction and this is what I got: I guess my point is that the D5100 has pretty awesome low light performance. E: Just checked, according to EXIF that's only ISO 6400, lol. At HI2 or HI3 you'd be blinded based on the glare from the tunnel wall. FISHMANPET fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
It can't drive the manual focus lenses very well, for that you have go to up to the D7000 or D7100, and you're looking at over $1000 to move into that. No offense to your wife, but I'm guessing she's shooting in Auto mode?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
The problem is that there aren't good cheap long lenses in the vein of cheap close primes. The 55-200 VR is probably the best bet, and is the most in line with the quality of the body. But neither that nor the 18-55 you have are that great because they have a fairly small aperture. The 55-200 only does f5.6 at it's farthest reach, and that means you need to compensate with a slower shutter speed or higher ISO. Slow shutter speed is probably what's leading to blurriness, not lack of focus. (Well, there's always the comedy option.) So, I know about the aperture-shutter speed-ISO triangle, and how they all interact. I'm also not a very expert photographer, I mostly take catte pictures. But that's how I know what's going to happen in the enviroment you're describing. Has your wife read Understanding Exposure? She should read Understanding Exposure. Until she understands that basic triangle she's going to have a hard time using any lens.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
copen posted:The only true answer is to own both. Truth right here. D5100 + 35/1.8 + 50/1.8 and I'm set. I carry around my kit and a 55-300 lens they talked me into buying when I got the body, but I never use them.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Those lenses are both $200 new and should be super easy to find. They're also both super great. I've got the D5100 and 35mm is perfect for cat pictures, on your body the 50mm should be the same equivalent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Waaaat, I thought D7000 was full frame. And AF doesn't matter, the 50/1.8 and the 35/1.8 both autofocus on any body, unless you get an older model.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Well poo poo, yeah, if you've got the D7000 than buy the AF-D.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Nope nope just shut up, buy as many lenses as you can right away. For maximum effect do it before even choosing a camera, so I guess in that regard it's too late for Die Zombie Die, so I guess he'll just have to take your advice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Do longer lenses get more bokeh than a short lens on the same aperture
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
So a shot of my cat with my 35mm at f1.8 would have less bokeh than the same shot at f1.8 with my 50mm but me standing farther back (aka same framing)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
I didn't realize that the f number was related to the focal length of the lens, I just knew lower f number = MORE BOKEH. So that explains why longer lenses have bigger f numbers, because you'd need an enormously wise lens for an f1.4 at 500mm.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
Realtalk porn always looks so blown out so the aperture is pretty small. You want all the genitals in focus at the same time anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
Does the kit 18-55 come with a lens hood?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
So, the Tamron 10-24 I found on Craigslist didn't pan out because the guy had already sold it. But I'm still half looking for a wide angle lens. Are there any others I should be looking for that will work with my D5100 (aka they should probably be able to auto focus). Still pissed I didn't grab the Tamron 10-24 I saw for $250 a while ago.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
I read a few things online that said the same thing you did, and I just snagged one on Ebay for $300. 10mm here I come!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Processing is the only thing that really scares the crap out of me. Who the hell knows if this slider should be .2 or .3, etc etc. So I just cover my ears and say lalalala and shoot in RAW and then don't even look at the pictures after I take them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:There's no reason to be intimidated about post-processing. It's as much art as science, and a lot of it is going to be very subjective. The fact that it's an art is my problem. What is a good image. What do any of these knobs have to do with that. I end up just being disgusted at what comes out of the camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 18:28
|
|
so I can focus on making pretty images that make me happy instead of obsessing about whether something should be at +5 or +10 or maybe -5 because that looks good and wait have I... you get the point
|
I was at my local store to get a tripod yesterday and they had a used SB-600 with all the accessories for only $200. So tempting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
So, thoughts on Nikon flashes? The op says the SB-400 is pointless, but it looks pretty good to me if I just want something easy to do bounce flash. K-rock says the SB-300 is poo poo because it's not the SB-400, but the SB-400 may or may not be discontinued and thus harder to get.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
So is this one of those times where K-rock is just talking out of his rear end?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
I just want click buttan get bounce flash. The SB-600/700 is so big and daunting for such a seemingly simple task.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
See, I don't really want to get into any studio stuff. Things I want to shoot:
I've got a ton of friends with studio setups that shoot models and such, and I just don't have any interest in going down that road.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Is there a new version of the 18-55mm kit lens? I was at Target and for the hell of it looked at the D3300 they had on display with kit lens, it had a "II" on it and also a button (that I couldn't figure out what it did).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If it's as cheap and good as the 35.... Lol nope $800.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
f/1.8 is going to get you Bokeh no matter what. Wide lens are often used for landscape but can have other uses. You could do some weird portrait stuff I guess but portraits seem to be bigger with longer lenses and having the photographer back away. I've got a wide lense and I used it to take one silly picture of a hotel room and otherwise just closeups of buildings (that are terrible because my photography is terrible).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:The 28-80 3.3-5.6G is sharp as all hell and has a relatively good close-focus distance. I'm on a crop sensor and it's what I mostly use when I don't know what I'll be shooting. Wait I'm I reading this right? That lens will work on a body without an AF motor built in, like my D5100?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
OK, So AF-S is what works on dumb babby bodies like mine.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 22:53
|
|