|
ScienceAndMusic posted:So what is the consensus of RAW versus Jpeg?
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Until you start to edit more than just cropping a picture... Musket, are you seriously trying to imply that that photo wouldn't have been possible with RAW? Yes, you can take great photos with JPEG. But why limit yourself with it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
I wish I always had ideal shooting conditions or time to adjust my settings to get things right the first time! Unfortunately, wildlife (particularly birds) don't work on that sort of schedule. So RAW is needed. I don't always need to make big adjustments to the pictures, but I do often enough that I cannot imagine being tied down to JPEG. Use what works for you I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I never understood choosing based on ergonomics. Modern DSLR bodies have decent ergonomics regardless of brand. I have pretty small hands, started with a 40D which is a huge camera. Despite shooting Canon, Nikon bodies feel better in my hands. But I don't care because having expensive lenses to borrow from friends has helped me way more than a camera that feels nice in my hands. I know it's not a popular opinion here, but choosing a camera manufacturer based on how a camera feels is a silly thing. I agree with you. I didn't even bother trying Canon out, not because I'm biased against them, but because most of my friends use Nikon and therefore have lenses that they let me borrow. It pretty much made my decision for me and I have no regrets.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Musket posted:Theres no real reason to consider crop over full frame. What? No no no no. If you're doing a lot of wildlife photography or sports photography using telephoto lenses then there is absolutely a good reason to go with a crop sensor. Unless of course you've got a completely ridiculous budget for even larger telephoto lenses. Especially in this thread for people new to dslr photography, that is terrible advice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Redleg posted:I picked up a Pentax red ring DA 55-300 ED WR and tried getting pictures at 300mm. 55mm pictures are impressively sharp compared with my other lenses, but all the 300mm shots are really blurry. I have shutter speed at 1/320 and I am stabilizing against a post. I have read suggestions to turn off noise reduction and image stabilization but have not tried that yet. Any ideas on things I can do to get detail at 300mm? What f-stop are you shooting at 300mm?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Both the 35mm and 50mm primes are great with the D3200. It's such an amazing starter camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
I have a stupid newbie question: Why are telephoto primes so much more expensive than telephoto zooms? It seems like less moving parts would make it less expensive or difficult to manufacture, but there must be something I'm missing here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Dren posted:you're probably comparing consumer grade telephoto zooms with pro grade telephoto primes. there are pro grade telephoto zooms too and they also cost a shitload of money. I guess what I am asking is why there don't seem to be any consumer/prosumer grade telephoto primes. I get that there's no way I'm going to be able to get a 300mm f/2.8 for cheap, but why can I get the (truly excellent, I own one) 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 from Sigma for ~$900 but even the Nikon 300mm f/4 (which I've also used and is great but very hard to call "better" than my Sigma) is a ~$1500 lens, and there's really no other telephoto prime alternatives in the sub-$1,500 range from any manufacturer (at least that fits Nikon F-Mount, I don't know about Canon) Are my needs (wildlife photography, particularly birds) just that specialized so I'm not seeing the bigger picture here of the market for such lenses being very limited? EDIT: As opposed to primes like the 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 (and f/1.4), etc, which are all consumer or prosumer lenses and are relatively cheap. Kenshin fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
grack posted:The cost and complexity of manufacturing glass elements increases exponentially with size. Oh yeah, that makes sense, but doesn't a big zoom lens have more glass elements (and moving parts!) inside it? (I am completely willing to accept that I have no idea the relative complexities between a prime and a zoom and don't really have any idea what I'm talking about)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Others have answered, but here's an example: Yeah, I guess it's a bit easier on the Canon side of the equation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Musket posted:It doesnt make it go faster. screw you I love my red D3200 and I'm really, really hoping the D7200 will be available in red. :P
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Medieval Medic posted:Really? I had to get mine in red because black was out of stock. Some days I wonder if people see me more as a tourist than an amateur photographer. I don't really care what people see me as and I like red. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Looks like Pentax really went with candy-apple red. Nikon's red color is more of a dark metallic. I like 'em both.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Musket posted:If you want to ensure your camera is never stolen, buy a Pentax. (buy gear insurance, you nitwits).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Musket posted:None of this will happen. But if it did, your gear insurance would cover most of the replacement cost. So buy it and stop treating the camera like its a newborn baby. Go rough it up like a good whore. That said, what are the Dorkroom-approved gear insurance places?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Huh, interesting. Will-do, since I've already got pretty drat great renters insurance. (I honestly had no idea it could cover equipment that I travel with)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I think you'll be a lot happier with Nikon's ergonomics vs Canon's, but I don't understand why you think a prime lens is going to be a better idea than an entry level zoom. If you are going to be using the camera as something to take vacation photos with, I'd think you would want a lens that is going to give you more flexibility... not to mention that it's easier to travel with just one lens that's already attached to the body. I dunno, when I got my D3200 I had the kit lens and the 35mm f/1.8G and almost all I ever used was the 35mm until I started buying other lenses. Zooming with my feet didn't really bother me, and I feel like it made me think about framing a lot more.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:How did it make you think about framing more versus a zoom lens? I'm going to give you both a tip, 35mm is a focal point that is available on the kit lens. If the camera is being used for vacation photos, a zoom is more practical, and it's likely you'll want something wider than 35mm. Use the kit lens at first and if after a while you think you'd really like a prime, get it then. Well, it helps that the 35mm f/1.8G is simply a far, far better lens at 35mm than the kit lens is at 35mm. As a newbie I think it helped to have one less thing to think about or adjust, really. As I've become more comfortable with my camera I've actually started using my kit lens more, but only in situations where I'm using it wide-angle (18mm and thereabouts). I still far prefer to use my 50mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/1.8G for walkabout photography over the kit lens.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Dren posted:qft Like I said it wasn't that it was the restriction so much as it was one less thing for me to worry about as I learned all the technical stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:70D , 50 1.4 @ F2 - You definitely don't need a 200mm f/2 Yep. I was going to say, my Nikon D3200 with the 50mm f/1.4 lens produces beautiful bokeh on portraits, usually around f/2 as well. I know that full frame and medium/large format can produce way better, but you can totally get good bokeh on portraits for not too much.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Yep. Newer cameras are better at autofocus and are less noisy at high ISOs. I'm just using a D3200 but with a 1.4 or 1.8 lens I can get usable (not what I'd call great) pictures in that sort of lighting conditions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
I can see why that would be useful for landscapes and pictures of inanimate stuff but if you're shooting moving subjects like wildlife or sports there are very few times you'd ever want to be using that setting.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Didn't the title of the Canon thread used to be "DON'T BUY THE T5"?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Not a terrible mistake and the D3300 is a great starter DSLR (I'm only just outgrowing my D3200 after taking probably close to 10k pictures with it in the last year) That said I'd highly recommend (if it fits your shooting needs at all) that you pick up the 35mm f/1.8G lens for it sometime soon. You should be able to find it pretty cheap on a deal (maybe next week!)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Yup, nothing beats some direct experience.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Haggins posted:If I was just getting photography today, I probably would get a mirorless system. It's more compact and good glass can be had for cheap (compared to DSLR). It also offers plenty of room to grow and there is no reason you can't get professional quality results from the cameras. In fact, a lot of pros and people from here have switched and I've yet to hear any regrets.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Yeah based on all that info, you should be getting a Fuji mirrorless and shoot in JPEG.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
Anything but that camera, it's not good (also known in the Americas as the Rebel T5). I'm sure someone can make a good Canon starter recommendation (if your friend has Canon and is willing to loan you lenses you might as well) but don't get that one.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 20:45
|
|