|
Protons posted:The need for this lens comes from my wife attending a graduation ceremony for her friends. She was seated in the middle of the auditorium and her stock lens couldn't focus on her friends that far away. The pictures turned out blurry and unfocused. What sort of lens should we get for taking pictures of people or things at slightly over average to medium ranges? The best possible advice: Sit closer next time. The next best possible advice that also meets your budget is a 55-300VR (adorama has 2 available in used from $214). You could get a refurb 55-200VR for $134. I have both lenses. I kind of hate the 55-200. AF is slow, the VR is not great, as mentioned it's dark indoors, plus I don't think 200mm is actually all that far. I've never really been happy with it. I feel like it compromises on so much stuff and in the end the reach really isn't there. Besides reach, the 300 has a couple of perks over the 200. It's got VRII instead of original VR (4 stops instead of 3 stops) and it's got a bit better image quality. For the money I think the 55-300 is a no brainer. If you're willing to drop more cash another option is the 18-300. It's a nice lens for someone who doesn't want to mess with changing lenses and isn't super concerned with image quality.
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
Protons posted:Lets say I bumped the budget up to $400. Would that open more options? You might want to research lens options yourself. Look at adorama.com and bhphotovideo.com. They have a nicely categorized web store. You can search for telephoto zooms that with a Nikon mount. You will want lenses that can autofocus on bodies without a built in autofocus motor (also called a screw drive). Nikon denotes such lenses as G (for gelded) or AF-S. Older lenses without an internal focus motor that can use the screw drive motor are called AF-D. Even older lenses with no autofocus capability at all are called AI or AIS. Once you find some lenses in your price range google around for some reviews. Be sure to read more than just Ken Rockwell, who will come up near the top for every search for a review of Nikon gear. His reviews can sometimes veer off into hyperbole and never come back. They're not useless but they should be taken with a grain of salt and you should seek the input of other reviewers as well. There is a painful reality that applies to taking photos of an event while seated in the audience that you should be made aware of. Even if you have an amazing camera with a $3000 zoom on it and an aisle seat some dumb old lady in front of you will lean into the aisle and block you from getting a single decent, clean shot for the duration of the event so she can take 100 pictures of the heat noise on the 3cm sensor of her Kodak Potatocam set to 20x digital zoom. Later, she won't be able to print them when she goes to Walmart. You have three options for a good photo: get there early and paparazzi it up from the front row, run up to the front when the important thing happens and take a picture then, or ditch the whole idea and enjoy the event as a spectator who will grab a photo of their friend/child/mom after the event is over and there is an opportunity to take a photo without imposing. Notice that none of the three options involved buying a telephoto zoom lens. Dren fucked around with this message at 05:21 on May 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
404notfound posted:I'm pretty sure Ken Rockwell made up that "gelded" thing, because he's weird like that. And I think all it means is that there's no manual aperture ring on the lens, and has nothing to do with the autofocus capabilities. gently caress! He got me!
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
Far and away the most offensive thing about Ken is that he has so much amazing photo gear and the only pictures he can be arsed to take for his articles are awful snapshots, mostly of his ugly children.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
Does anyone besides me have a 1 series cameras and care about how poor the off camera flash support is?
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
I have a J1 and can confirm that it is head and shoulders above point and shoots. Enough so where I consider it a pretty good value at its current prices. The AF is good and the image quality is way better than I expected. I don't think the system is underrated. The lack of control dials stinks. The available lenses are mediocre. Maybe if Nikon releases a really great body with a regular sized hotshoe and all the firmware perks of the higher priced DSLRs along with a kickass pancake lens and some reasonably priced wide primes I'll change my mind. I think that mft and fuji-X are better mirrorless camera systems. If your sister plans to grow in her photography and acquire lenses buy into one of those systems. If all you want is something better than a point and shoot the J1 is fine. Dren fucked around with this message at 19:21 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
copen posted:
I demand you reshoot this with both lens caps off and the aperture lever jammed wide open with some putty or something. I still have that worthless little lens hood. Almost 4 years!
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Musket posted:My walk around is 18-55 and 135 DC, no need for anything else really. Once in awhile i toss a 50mm f2 in the bag. I had an order on adorama for a 135 DC about 2 years ago that never got fulfilled.  Tell me how much you love it.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Musket posted:I love it. A lot. Lately though ive been ignoring the DC and using mostly as a tele. I dont do many portraits these days. Do you have any sample portraits with it? I ended up getting a sigma 50-150 instead. It's a great lens but man I wanted that 135. That lens is an old dream, though. These days when I get my gear lust on I lust for a great mirrorless system.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Your friend should get the 35mm f/1.8G. It is also the answer to if I could only have 1 dx lens.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
The d7k sensor is so good. I haven't done the math but I imagine a used d7k + 35 1.8 isn't too far off your budget. Unless you HAVE to have the 2.8 (you don't if you have the nicer sensor) get a secondhand 18-55 kit lens and stop it down a bit if you really need those focal lengths. The better AF, better sensor performance, and 100% viewfinder on the d7k are so good. Those are the features that will really set it apart for you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Did you at least get the newer 18-55 with vr?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Flotzilla: Buy these: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=orderHistory&A=details&Q=&sku=435207&is=REG http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=orderHistory&A=details&Q=&sku=242758&is=REG Put camera in mirror lock up mode. Take off lens. Pull out a swab and put a bit of the cleaner fluid on it. Swab all the way across the sensor with one side of the swab, then back with the other. Put the lens back on. Take a picture of something bright, like the sky, at ƒ/16 and check for dust spots. If there are still dust spots, repeat with a new swab. It might be a good idea to try and swab out the body itself if you notice a lot of dust in there that's just gonna fall on the sensor in a couple of days. This is how I clean my D40 and D7000. It works well. Dry swabs + solution is cheaper than pre-moistened swabs. VelociBacon: I agree with Musket that the most important place to spend photobux is glass. The D7k has some nice to haves over the D200. Bigger LCD, full viewfinder coverage, sensor with really nice iso 1600, and better AF system are the ones that come to mind. Still, glass really is the most important thing. If you really wants all those focal lengths then that's where you should spend your money. You should definitely consider the 35mm ƒ/1.8 so you can get a taste of the wonderful IQ that primes have. The tamron is not for me. There are so many good (and not absurdly expensive) primes available in that range and I'd rather have those. If you're going to shoot at night you'll really want a tripod. The best thing to do is buy as much of this stuff used as you can (or rent it) so that you can get a feel for what you really want. Dren fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
I view sensor cleaning the same way as changing the oil on my car. It's just part of the cost of ownership. If you change lenses dust is going to get in there.1st AD posted:That's a lot to spend on a sensor cleaning, especially when I can take it to a repair center for a professional cleaning in a dustfree environment for not that much more.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Like mr despair said, ISO does not vary from sensor to sensor. ISO 400 on one camera is the same exposure as ISO 400 on another camera. Where sensors differ is in the quality you get at various ISO levels. The general rule is that newer sensors and physically larger sensors (full frame as opposed to crop) have higher quality high ISO. The newest crop sensor cameras (Nikon calls these dx) have very usable ISO 1600. I'm not quite sure what the latest full frame sensors (Nikon calls these fx) are capable of but I'm pretty sure they look great even as high as 25,600. The good news about exposure is that if you practice with setting exposure manually (with the camera's in viewfinder meter to help you) you can quickly get to the point where you can guess at exposure pretty drat accurately.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
VRII makes a big, noticeable difference. Take a 300mm with VRII and shoot w/ VR turned off and on using the same settings. Perfect, crisp shot vs jittery mess. VRI is much less noticeable except for the the space machine sounds some of the lenses make when it's turned on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted: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. On the D7000 the 50mm is not a 35mm equivalent. Like the D5100, the D7000 has a crop sensor. However, unlike the D5100 the D7000 has an AF motor so the 50mm will autofocus on the D7000.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Die Zombie Die posted:Alright so ISO affects speed at which the exposure is written on the card/film. So lower ISO will give crisper shots, but is best for stationary objects where it becomes more about detail. Any movement will create blur. Higher ISO will be best for subjects in motion where you want to capture the action without blur. Generally. Or am I just way off the mark. This is super wrong. Go to your local bookstore tonight and read the chapter about exposure and the relationship of ISO/shutter/aperture in two or three photography books.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
I was trying to suggest that you could pop by the bookstore, read the first chapter of a book, and be set. Your understanding of ISO is like what shutter speed does but not quite and it would take a bit of effort to correct it. Here is a quick reference about exposure that I wrote for a friend who borrowed my D40 for a trip and formatted into a single page. Earlier when I posted I didn't think I had it on this computer but I did. Maybe it will help you. You should do more reading than this to really understand what's going on as this glosses over the finer points. code:A point of reference is the sunny 16 rule. The sunny 16 rule is that on a sunny day a proper exposure is ƒ/16 at 1/125th with ISO 100. ISO 100 isn’t a setting on the D40 but I included it on the chart anyway so lets use the chart to find an equivalent exposure. First, move up a stop from 100 to 200. Now to maintain an equivalent exposure move down a stop on the shutter speed from 1/125th to 1/250th. You now have an equivalent exposure of ƒ/16 at 1/250th with ISO 200. Each of these settings, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO comes with tradeoffs that affect the picture that is produced. The camera will happily choose them all for you if you like but it's good to understand what they do in case you need or want to control the tradeoffs. Aperture Higher*: Increased depth of field (DOF). This means more stuff besides the thing you focus on will be in focus. You would want a big aperture number for a landscape shot. ƒ/16 is as high as you should go. Higher apertures let less light into the camera and may require slower shutter speeds or higher ISOs to get a proper exposure. Lower*: Decreased DOF. This means less stuff besides the thing you focus on will be in focus. A lower aperture lets in more light. You might choose a lower aperture so that you can increase the shutter speed and avoid motion blur. You might choose a very low aperture to create a photo where your subject is in focus and the background is out of focus. * Higher ƒ numbers are referred to as smaller aperture. Lower ƒ numbers are referred to as larger aperture. Aperture is a measure of how open the diaphram at the back of the lens is, lower ƒ numbers being more open and letting more light in to the sensor. See: http://www.google.com/search?q=lens+diaphragm&tbm=isch Shutter Higher: Faster shutter speeds let in less light and stop motion for pictures of fast moving things. To take a picture of a car going 50 or 60 mph (or from a car going 50/60mph) choose a shutter of 1/1000 or 1/2000. Lower: Slower shutter speeds let in more light but could cause motion blur. For a person who is walking shutter speed should be 1/125 to avoid blurriness. While handholding the camera it is recommended that the shutter speed be faster than the reciprocal of the focal length (1.5 times the reciprocal of the focal length on a DX camera like the D40) to avoid the effect of any shakiness from your hands. For 18mm that’s 1/30 or faster. For 55mm that’s 1/100 or faster. ISO Higher: Brighter picture, lower image quality. The D40 has its best image quality (IQ) at ISO200. The IQ is good through ISO800. ISO1600 is ok but I don’t recommend it. Always keep the ISO as low as possible. Lower: Darker picture, better image quality. The D40 has several modes you can use: P: Program Auto. Camera chooses aperture and shutter speed. A: Aperture Priority. Allows you to control the aperture. Camera chooses ISO and shutter. S: Shutter Priority. Allows you to control the shutter speed. Camera chooses ISO and aperture. M: Manual. You choose shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. Ignore all camera modes except for P, A, S and M. When operating the camera in P, A, or S mode you may control the overall exposure of a picture by holding down the +/- button behind and to the right of the shutter button and rotating the thumb wheel. This way you can make the picture brighter or darker. When operating the camera in A or S mode rotating the thumb wheel will change the aperture or shutter speed. When operating the camera in P mode rotating the thumb wheel will switch between equivalent exposure modes with different aperture and shutter speed combinations. M mode works similarly. The thumb wheel controls the shutter and the thumb wheel with the +/- button controls the aperture. The ISO setting is normally only accessible through a menu. I have bound it to the Fn button. If you hold the Fn button while rotating the thumb wheel the ISO will change. This time, however, each click is one stop. You may not want to control the ISO setting manually. The D40 has an option called Auto ISO. It can be accessed through the menu item that looks like a pencil. It is setting #10, ISO auto. The auto ISO control lets you choose a maximum ISO. 1600 is an ok choice for this setting. You may also choose a minimum shutter speed. This is useful to avoid motion blur. You should set it at 1/60 or 1/125. In auto ISO mode the camera can choose ISOs between the normally selectable ISOs, like 1250 or 640. Auto ISO is most useful with P or A mode. After you take a picture it will appear on the LCD for you to review. To see pictures you have taken press the playback button, it looks like a play symbol and is located to the upper left of the LCD. You may zoom with the zoom buttons, also located near the LCD. An important feature during review is the ability to press the Up button on the directional pad to see some information about the picture you’ve taken. Pressing up will cycle through the regular picture, some information about the exposure, highlights (areas of overexposure will blink), and a histogram. The important features are the highlights and the histogram. The highlights will tell you if there are areas that are “blown out”, that is, they are so bright that they are pure white and cannot be recovered in editing. The histogram will let you know if you have a good exposure. A good exposure will have most information in the center to right of the histogram. Too far to the left is underexposed and you should brighten things up. Too far to the right is overexposed and you should darken things a bit. Dren fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jun 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Yeah they're not equivalent they are just side by side to save space.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
About a year ago I came to accept that I cannot afford to chase the bokeh dragon into FX nice prime territory. The 35mm 1.8G has nice bokeh if you take pictures of things that are no taller than 1 ft. Or you can get an NEX and freelens like this duder http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogvon/. And there is always the truth, if you are ready to accept it, that there are lots of neat pictures to be taken that don't include pretty bokeh.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
I assume you mean same subject size in the frame, not same framing. It would be impossible to get the same framing with two different lenses. The short answer is that longer lenses, wider aperture and bigger sensors give "better" bokeh. But if you say it that simply on a forum somewhere there is a good chance you will be crucified because bokeh is a lot more complicated than that. For starters, the term "bokeh" actually refers to the quality of the out of focus area not just that there is one. The quality of the out of focus area can depend a lot on the construction of the lens. You've probably seen the way far away points of light that are out of focus are transformed into big, surreal circles. The shape that those points of light take actually depends upon the image circle which is typically created by the lens diaphram. A different lens construction can yield very different bokeh. For instance, a mirror telephoto lens creates donut bokeh like in this picture:  You can alter the image circle on your lens by putting a cutout in front of your lens and focusing past it. This is how people create music note shaped bokeh, or heart shaped bokeh. I played with it once, here is the cutout on the lens and the picture I made:   Lenses regarded for their really nice bokeh have more aperture blades resulting in a more perfect circle being created by the lens diaphram. The result is smoother, creamier bokeh. There are probably other important characteristics as well, I'm not well versed on the particulars of what gives a lens "great" bokeh. When thinking about bokeh it's important to realize how wide apertures, bigger sensors and longer lenses contribute to the bokeh in a shot. The simplest effect to wrap your head around is the effect of a wider aperture. As you open up your aperture the depth of field decreases, increasing the amount of background blurriness. Focal length is a bit trickier. To really understand its effect we need to also talk about subject distance. Lets say you have a 35mm lens @ ƒ/2 and your subject is a person 10 ft away from you. Now say you want to take a shot of that same person with a 200mm lens @ ƒ/2 but have them be the same size in the frame. To do so you would need to be ~57 ft away from them. If that makes sense to you now consider what happens to depth of field. Using the calculator here we can see that if we were using a D4 the DOF at 10 ft, 35mm ƒ/2 would be 3.02ft. The DOF at ~57ft, 200mm ƒ/2 would be 2.95 ft. If not for the loss of precision in the subject distance the DOF would be the same. But you probably intuitively know (and unfortunately I don't have sample images to show off this effect) that you'd hardly see any bokeh on the 35mm shot whereas you'd probably see some nice, dramatic bokeh on the 200mm shot. So what is the deal? If the DOF is the same then why would there be great bokeh on the 200mm shot but not on the 35mm shot? The answer is that the telephoto magnifies things that are in the background. This includes things like distant out of focus points of light. They're tiny in the 35mm shot but actually quite large and noticeable in the 200mm shot. Here is some insane 200mm ƒ/2 full frame bokeh   Sensor size plays a role in the apparent depth of field as well. If we keep subject distance and aperture constant but vary the focal length to achieve the same field of view, we see that a larger sensor has a smaller depth of field than a smaller sensor. E.g. Take a 50mm ƒ/2 lens @ 10 ft subject distance on a full frame body. DOF is 1.45 ft. Take the equivalent 33mm ƒ/2 @ 10 ft on a crop factor body (using nikon crop factor of 1.5). DOF is 1.99 ft. So the full frame guys have a big advantage when it comes to sweet sweet bokeh. But small sensors aren't all bad. Using a teeny tiny sensor can be dead useful for video since there is so much DOF that stuff never goes out of focus. Hence why point and shoots and cell phones are easier to use for taping your kid's birthday party than your DSLR which will constantly need to adjust for focus if you use a wider aperture. Dren fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
On the topic of bokeh, would someone care to write up why lenses designed for DSLR bodies work well for freelensing/tilt-shifting on mirrorless bodies and include the proper terminology? I believe the reasoning goes like this. Lens mounts are designed to leave a specific distance between the rear lens element and the sensor (I think there is a name for this, not sure what). DSLRs have a larger rear element -> sensor distance than mirrorless cameras due to the mirror box. This means that if you sit a DSLR lens right in the mirrorless mount without an adapter, the rear element will be too close to the sensor to properly focus. But you can tilt the DSLR lens and when you do so one side of the image cast onto the sensor will be at the correct rear element -> sensor distance and be in focus but the other side will be severely out of focus. The DSLR lens on a mirrorless body gives more latitude for tilting than it would on a DSLR body. This is especially true for full frame lenses with large image circles on mirrorless cams with crop sensor. I'm sure I got some of that wrong so someone please correct me. Also, anyone know if someone makes one of these for Nikon F to Nikon 1?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:But the depth of field is… not the same? You can make out the same level of detail in both photographs, but that’s not what depth of field means. There's not actually infinite DOF @ 2.5m 14mm ƒ/8. If we had a 457MP 35m sensor and a 14mm lens capable of providing that much detail we could crop to 16MP to get a 400mm equivalent shot of the background. When we did we would see that the DOF was not, in fact, infinite. The math doesn't just explode into infinity when a wide angle lens is involved. The DOF goes far enough that for practical purposes (sharpness at resolutions that camera sensors can resolve) it is considered infinite. Edit: I actually came here to post that if you freelens with an F mount lens and a nikon 1 you need to hold the lens hilariously far away from the body in order to get anything in focus at all. Something like an inch and a half. Maybe that's why there is no cheapo t/s adapter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
krooj posted:Check whether the lenses are D-type or older. If they are, you will need a body with screw drive AF. A used D7k is always a good idea, as it will support basically anything. Looking at amazon I see d90 for $630 and d7k for $900. At those prices it's a little tough but I'd say the d7k is $270 better than the d90. D7k has better AF, the sensor is way way ahead in terms of ISO performance, I believe the AF motor is faster/better which will matter if those lenses you have are D lenses, supports tons of old lenses, 100% viewfinder coverage, weather sealing (but not weather proof, I hiked with mine and got caught in a downpour a few weeks ago, took pictures anyway but kept it mostly under my coat and it was fine). It really depends on your budget but the d7k is a much better camera than the d90. The 35 1.8G is a bad rear end lens for the money, you should get it no matter what you get.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
toggle posted:I'm looking to get a wide angle zoom lens, like the Nikon 12-24. But, it's really expensive...what are alternatives I can look at? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3125105&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=157#post418220954 will do $400 shipped in US
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
I wish they would leak the only thing I have cared about since I heard it's full frame, the price. Only two more days, right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Having watched the video ads it appears the target market is handsome unshaven guys with trust funds who take month long photo safaris. I'm surprised it's not $4k. I was faintly holding out hope for it to be under $2k but oh well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I dunno man if I had a trust fund to blow I wouldn't be messing with anything less than a medium format body to separate myself from the plebes Point but that dude seemed too well dressed to be a broke dude who takes long photo safaris. Maybe he's having a mid-life crisis and has sold off some investments.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
What is the deal with d600 refurbs do they still have the sensor issue?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
did someone say eat chain http://loopthetube.com/#ZQ2rOtyZyLU&start=3.239&end=4.377
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
nerd_of_prey posted:I am also considering buying a D7100, just waiting get the guts to pull the trigger. If you want to eventually be in the FX system then do not buy a D7100. Save your money and buy what you want. If you're actually on the fence about it rent the bodies and check them out. I've rented lenses from lensrentals.com before and they have the bodies available for a fraction of the cost of buying them. d7100 $67 + shipping for 5 days: http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/cameras/nikon-d7100 d610 $90 + shipping for 5 days: http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/cameras/nikon-d610 fwiw, I think the low light iso performance on the d7000 is totally fine. If you get a speedlight (sb700 is the low end one now I think) it will do more for your photos than  high iso performance.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
The D610 is too expensive so you're gonna drop $1200 now and $2000 a year from now instead of saving up and only spending $2000? PS - The Fuji X cameras have some kickass ISO3200 for a bit cheaper price point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
I think what you'll find after you try some of the consumer zooms is that, for anything indoor at least, you'd prefer trying to stand closer over using them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
If you're on a crop sensor (you said d7000/7100, right?) and you're buying these lenses yourself you should own a 35mm f/1.8G instead of a 50. 35mm f/1.8G is best current gen lens for the money other than maybe the 18-55 kit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
p sure the 50's are all FX. There is a cheap one, about $100, with no AF motor. Mine rarely leaves the shelf.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
50mm on DX (crop) is a bit tight. To compare focal lengths on crop and full frame you need to multiply the focal length by the crop factor. On Nikons the crop factor is 1.5 (on Canons it's 1.6). So the 50mm lens on crop will give the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a full frame camera. The full frame effective length is called the effective focal length (efl). The effect is that 50mm on crop is a little tight for shots of people (I assume this is what you take the most pictures of as a photojournalist). You'll probably find that you have to back up a bit more than you like or that it's not really usable at all indoors (where there's not room to back up). 35mm, on the other hand, is ~50mm full frame equivalent. So if you like 50 on FX you'll dig 35 on DX. The 35mm ƒ/1.8G is a balls awesome lens for the price, to boot. If you're gonna be working on FX cameras then by all means use the 50. fwiw, I actually prefer something a little wider than the 50mm efl, something like 35mm or 40mm efl. On DX that is served fairly well by a 24mm. Dren fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Apr 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Nah, the 50/1.4 is FX and pretty expensive. The 50/1.8G is DX, cheap, and awesome - AF motor included. Ah, forgot they made that one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Is it worth it to upgrade from my d90 to the d7000? The 7000 is about 600 dollars, and the high ISO performance and af zones should be an improvement. Yep.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:The main thing I'm worried about with the D7000 over my D90 is that the D7200 may come out soon and the D7100 will drop in price to D7000 levels very quickly. D7000 - price you find attractive, available right now, way better than D90 D7100 - might go down in price if/when a future camera exists, marginally better than D7000 in not particularly meaningful ways get the D7000 and be happy today
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 18:32
|
|