|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:The 18-135 has a faster and pretty much silent autofocus. You can also override the autofocus at any time by moving the focus ring. The downside is that the focus ring isn't mechanically hooked to anything, so it has a sloppy feel to it. I'd actually been thinking about getting the 18-135 despite having the 18-55 already. It'd be a snype up from what I currently have, especially with the quiet AF. One TINY thing to note is that focus-by-wire lenses (the ones with the non mechanically linked focus rings) are a pain in the rear end if you're doing video and are doing manual focus pulls, since the actual focus movement isn't necessarily all that linear or repeatable on focus by wire (especially if you got past one of the 'stops' for near and infinity).
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I'd actually been thinking about getting the 18-135 despite having the 18-55 already. It'd be a snype up from what I currently have, especially with the quiet AF. I borrowed my buddies NIKON 18-135 for a few weeks when he got his D80 (YEARS AGO) and I liked it. For me its a good general use lens for anyone just starting out or wants to not lug around the holy trinity of glass. With today's ISO performance the slow apertures wont hold you back much at the wide end anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
I don't think there's really a modern lens out there today that is objectively "bad". Maybe not the best for the money, but even the worst modern lens will hold it's own, especially for someone who's just starting out. You really have to start pixel peeping to see the differences.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I don't think there's really a modern lens out there today that is objectively "bad". Maybe not the best for the money, but even the worst modern lens will hold it's own, especially for someone who's just starting out. You really have to start pixel peeping to see the differences. This is the honest truth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:You really have to start pixel peeping to see the differences. Can we agree that this is a wasteful worthless effort. Just take some pictures. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Some lenses are objectively sharper than others, but the difference to most people is negligible. Not to mention people talk about how awesome some exotic and expensive 85mm 1.2 is, then shoot wide open and miss focus anyway. I for some reason must shoot wide open always and I probably have shittier pictures than someone with a kit lens because of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:Some lenses are objectively sharper than others, but the difference to most people is negligible. Not to mention people talk about how awesome some exotic and expensive 85mm 1.2 is, then shoot wide open and miss focus anyway. Gotta get that bokeh I recently started using my 35/1.8 at 2.8 or 3.5 around the house and I feel pretty dirty for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Gotta get that bokeh This is the sort of thing you shouldn't think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I don't think there's really a modern lens out there today that is objectively "bad". Maybe not the best for the money, but even the worst modern lens will hold it's own, especially for someone who's just starting out. You really have to start pixel peeping to see the differences. It's my impression that when you're spending the  for more expensive lenses where you're mostly getting the performance at the fringe use cases, like at the corners at the widest apertures, or extreme contrast of subjects or even for zoom at the widest or longest ends of the length. That's not to say there aren't other improvements in general though.Set the lens to f/8 and go hog wild.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
I didn't shell out no two hundred dollars to set my 35 at no f/3.5  Instead I spent it to get exacting sharpness on Taters nose while his eyes stay just a tad soft. God drat it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
Eegah posted:I didn't shell out no two hundred dollars to set my 35 at no f/3.5 To hell with face detection, I'd pay good money for "eye nearest the camera" detection.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:To hell with face detection, I'd pay good money for "eye nearest the camera" detection. The OM-D will do that (it can do either nearest eye, or you can force select left or right eye).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
Is it hard to just put the focus cross hair on the eye, focus then recom..... oh, i forgot where i was
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Musket posted:Is it hard to just put the focus cross hair on the eye, focus then recom..... oh, i forgot where i was Is it hard to manual focus? Is it hard to shoot film Is it hard to use an external light meter? Is it hard to load sheet film and shoot 4x5? Just because something is easy and more convenient doesn't make it a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
There's an eyelash in my viewfinder. It doesn't show up in photographs. Should I be concerned and how would I go about removing it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
beergod posted:There's an eyelash in my viewfinder. It doesn't show up in photographs. Should I be concerned and how would I go about removing it? Try using a rocket blower or compressed air canister.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
Like remove the lens and blow the air into the camera?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
beergod posted:Like remove the lens and blow the air into the camera?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
beergod posted:Like remove the lens and blow the air into the camera? That depends on where the eyelash is located. Viewfinder, prism box, focusing screen, mirror?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
This is why you just always use Live View.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
Eegah posted:This is why you just always use Live View. This is a Wrong Opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
There's something amazing about a nice viewfinder. I just ordered a Sony a850 off eBay, and one of the main reasons was because of its giant viewfinder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
I don't shoot Nikon but I'll just leave this here. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-D5100-16-2-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Only-/150985303396
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
Is there a big difference going from a 250mm shot to 300mm? I have a Canon EF-S 55-250mm lens and was wondering if getting the Tamron SP 70-300mm would be an improvement? I would mainly be shooting wildlife with that lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
The OP is probably more helpful than any guide or manual I've read yet, if only I could find more helpful-practical advice rather than empty factual instructions [i'm a newbie, don't quote f-stops at me just yet!] Brought a Nikon D3100 about a month ago now and absolutely loving it, as usual the internet tells me how to do stuff right, first time around. Loving the challenge of manual mode. Using the newbie kit lens [18-55mm]. I think my next lens will be macro as I love getting close up images with amazing sharpness. Got a tripod yesterday too, so can tell this is going to be a great little hobby to invest in. Here's a question, more so about law I guess [UK]. I like to write informal reviews about food/restaurants and I like to photograph what I eat and possibly the surroundings if there are no people in the shot. I've been using my iPhone 4 for a quick snap, but now I will possibly bring the SLR. The iPhone was ok to take snide images because it's quick and easy, but I can imagine the camera will draw attention. I did some very brief googling, but I was wondering where do we stand with photography such as this? It's not of people, merely objects that I am about to devour, or places. I tried a place today but felt, I dunno, guilty/ naughty for even attempting to take a few shots? MAYBE THEY THINK I'M A TERRORIST? Arrest that man, he's taking pictures of cookies. Certainly interested to hear the score.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
If you're on public grounds you can tell anyone to gently caress off. http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/ evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Mar 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
The worst that can happen is that you'll get kicked out of wherever you're eating. Most places couldn't give a gently caress however.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Peever posted:Is there a big difference going from a 250mm shot to 300mm? I have a Canon EF-S 55-250mm lens and was wondering if getting the Tamron SP 70-300mm would be an improvement? I would mainly be shooting wildlife with that lens. I think the difference between 250-300mm is negligible, however the difference between that 55-250mm EF-S and nearly any other zoom in that range is going to be noticeable. It's a decent lens I suppose, but compared with the Canon 70-300mm USM or that Tamron VC is night and day. (I've only used the Canon, by the way, but have heard awesome things about the Tamron). If you plan to do wildlife, the benefits of a better overall zoom lens will be worth it to you, such as faster focusing and better IS. edit: Oh yeah, and get ready for them to get much heavier than that 55-250. Something that may be a consideration for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Headhunter posted:The worst that can happen is that you'll get kicked out of wherever you're eating. Most places couldn't give a gently caress however. I thought as much. Also, is there a a good desktop photo sharing site that's got more of a social thing going for it? I love flickr and it's sets, but I find it's more of a museum than a community/place for inspiration. Love the hell out of instagram for it's snap and tag abilities. Maybe i'll just keep uploading my junk to flickr and somewhere, somehow someone might stumble across my wittle snaps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
I'm selling something in SA Mart that might be appropriate as a first DSLR, but I don't wanna link it in this thread if that's gonna be a problem. Anybody got a problem?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I'm selling something in SA Mart that might be appropriate as a first DSLR, but I don't wanna link it in this thread if that's gonna be a problem. Anybody got a problem? If you link it anywhere in Dorkroom it has to comply with the buy/sell thread rules ideally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
simosimo posted:I thought as much. I'm only just getting into this stuff myself, but 500px seems pretty neat to me. Not sure how social it is, since most of the comments on pictures just seem to be "cool picture, please check out my stuff," but the flow layout you get every time you first open the site is nice to look at and (at least to me) full of amazing pictures. It's good for getting a sense of what people like, if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
simosimo posted:I thought as much. Facebook?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
simosimo posted:Also, is there a a good desktop photo sharing site that's got more of a social thing going for it? I love flickr and it's sets, but I find it's more of a museum than a community/place for inspiration. Love the hell out of instagram for it's snap and tag abilities. What? People who hate the "social thing" hate flickr for that reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
simosimo posted:The OP is probably more helpful than any guide or manual I've read yet, if only I could find more helpful-practical advice rather than empty factual instructions [i'm a newbie, don't quote f-stops at me just yet!] Shop owners will kindly tell you to gently caress off. More and more are getting fed up with food photos. Its not as bad when its a cellphone or a tiny crappy point and shoot, most find DSLRs as crossing the line. Recently (saturday) I watched 3 people asked to kindly put their cameras away by wait-staff. One protested, manager kindly told them to leave. There is a movement to curb this type of distracting photography within the food world. Be mindful of it and dont be a jerk when asked to put your camera away. As for where to share your boring food photos? we have a thread in here where you will be mocked accordingly (if you dont shoot 120/4x5)and you should probably just stick to facebook/tumblr/flickr as your social sharing sites.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Musket posted:More and more are getting fed up with food photos. Its not as bad when its a cellphone or a tiny crappy point and shoot, most find DSLRs as crossing the line. Recently (saturday) I watched 3 people asked to kindly put their cameras away by wait-staff. One protested, manager kindly told them to leave.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Who the gently caress does that when people shoot the food they just ordered? Places that are fed up with the commotion of it all. I can name dozens of places ive eaten, local and not that have flat out told patrons to put their cameras away and eat. May not be a major distraction at Applebees but it is when its a place that seats less than 20. The advice is to be mindful of your surroundings and not be an insufferable tool with a camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Haha. If you mind my 30s of pointing a flashless DLSR at the food I just bought chances are I don't want to eat where you work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
There was an article about this in the Guardian just last week. Turns out you can even take food photography courses. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2013/mar/11/food-photography-is-it-ok?INTCMP=SRCH And this is the original one with the actual debate. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2009/jul/27/manners-etiquette-modern-camera Really I wouldn't bother with anything other than a camera phone with flash turned off. sweek0 fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Haha. If you mind my 30s of pointing a flashless DLSR at the food I just bought chances are I don't want to eat where you work. Chances are those places dont need your business either. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 17:50
|
|