|
The "no flash" rule is pretty good, but most people (in my experience) don't know how to turn theirs off, and don't think about it until after the shot anyway. "Did my flash go off? Oh, sorry, I don't know why it did that" gets old quickly, and given the general cluelessness it's probably just easier to say "no photos" than to have dozens of accidental flashes going off. Weirdly, in northern Manitoba I've been told "no pictures!" in bars and restaurants. If you pull out a camera, a server is right on you politely telling you to put it away before you can turn it on, even a phone. I haven't discovered the reason for it, yet, though I speculate it has something to do with the large First Nations (aka "Indian" or "Native American") population. But that's a wild guess. Getting back to "My First DSLR", my first DSLR is getting a little long in the tooth. Does anybody have any recommendations for where to send a Pentax K10D for a Clean/Lube/Coolant Flush? I'm in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada if that makes a difference.
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Ethanfr0me posted:I'm looking at a Pentax K-II as my first dslr. I have some nice old manual Pentax lenses and I like the compatibility feature, along with the weather sealing. Does anyone have a K-II or have an opinion on it? You mean K-5II, right? Pentax's current flagship is the sequel to the widely-considered-excellent (I don't have one, yet, but I want one) K-5. At the moment, there are two K-5II - the normal one and the K-5IIs, which costs about $100 more and has had its anti-aliasing filter amputated; the trade-offs inherent in that difference are immaterial to most photographers in most situations, but there are reasons to go either way. A K-30 will also meet your stated wants of compatibility and weather sealing, for considerably less money. In fact, Pentax's (Ricoh's) current marketing strategy places weather sealing prominently in their advertising. My understanding is the weather sealing on pretty much all current and recently (within the last 2 years or so) discontinued DSLRs is about the same - that is, pretty drat good. Off the top of my head, I'd say you'd get good weather sealing on K-7 and K-5, but probably not on K-m, K-x, or K-r. All Pentax DSLRs are fully compatible with all* K-mount lenses, going back to the first K-series lenses from the 1970s. * There are some lenses that are marked or claimed by sellers to be K-mount but have a problem when mounted on autofocus cameras (including all Pentax DSLRs). But if it says "PENTAX" on the lens, it will fit on a Pentax DSLR. We can get into a discussion about this in the Pentax thread (of course it's not in archives! Canikoneers have such short attention spans).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
I don't know enough about current prices to judge that side of it, but both lenses are pretty narrow on a crop sensor - APS-C is called "crop" because the sensor is smaller than the old standard of 35mm film. But this is only relevant if you're used to a 35mm camera. A 50mm lens on a 60D will provide a view too narrow for things like pictures of your friends sitting at a dinner table indoors. I suggest you get a wide zoom, like the kit 17-55mm lens. Also quite cheap, and rather useful.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Go to a store and fondle the cameras. Each manufacturer's cameras feel different, you will most likely discover that you like the way one camera mashes against your face better than others. This is important. An upper-market ("prosumer") second-hand body that's 3-4 years old can be had for the same price as a new entry-level body, and will have some nice features. Things like how far into the menus you have to dig to turn something on vs. a dedicated button, or weathersealing, or built-in wireless control of flashes, or two control wheels. For Nikon, one difference between entry-level and a step or two up is the ability to auto-focus some lenses, due to the placement of the autofocus motor inside the body - some Nikon AF lenses don't have a motor, so the body has to supply the force. EDIT: I'd take the $300 used body over the $600 kit - you can get the kit lenses (or better) for that $300 difference, and since you already know you're going to be shooting food, you could put the money towards a good flash and a macro lens.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Here's my Flickr, so criticize away. Remember, I'm basically self-taught from the moment they shoved a camera in my hands when I got the job: http://www.flickr.com/photos/94568078@N05/ I dunno if this is the right thread either, but you invited criticism from anywhere in your photostream, so here's a little: (I'm posting small pics so as not to fill this thread with images, and to encourage others to click through to your flickr. Also, this is entirely my own opinions.)  IMG_8109 by Middleshoes, on Flickr This is good. Good timing, good position, good composition all around. My only problem with it is the shadow around the player - obviously you used a flash, the gym was probably pretty dark and you needed to keep your shutter speed up. You say you have no money, but what about post-processing software? What are you using to edit your shots?  IMG_5094 by Middleshoes, on Flickr "Decent but not outstanding". The comment there about a polarizer is good, you can pick one up for less than $100 and it will come in handy in lots of places. Composition-wise, GET LOW. LOWER. There's something about getting right down so the subject is at eye level or higher that makes lots of different subjects very interesting. For this car-show Mustang, I'd have liked to see this same shot but from about a foot closer to the ground. Getting wide and up close is also good, really emphasizes some things - you could make the front tires seem enormous, or the Pony emblem, or the custom license plate.  IMG_3613 by Middleshoes, on Flickr This is tricky. I like the subject matter, I like the bokeh. But something is missing. Maybe it's the lighting? You probably had to shoot this in the middle of the day, when this kind of thing would really benefit from some subdued, low-angle, red-orange light (i.e. golden hour, where everything always looks wonderful!). I know approximately nothing about lighting, but perhaps some fill flash, or a shade? Post some shots that you have some feelings about (I just picked more-or-less at random from your photostream) in PAD if you haven't already.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
The Golden Hour was pretty much my first sperg-out as a photographer. "Ah man, the sun's going down. Pretty soon I won't have enough light to take any pictures at all. Might as well head for home." *10 minutes pass* "Holy crap! This is awesome! *holds down shutter button, fills memory card with 100's of near-identical poorly-composed images of boring landscapes*
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I met my mom's boyfriend's grandson today (so, uh, potential nephew?) and he was having quite a bit of fun taking pictures P&S. I'm wondering if it's possible to get a really cheap older DSLR for him to play with? Like body + lens for a couple hundred bucks? I saw him moving around to take pictures of me from all sorts of different angles and I felt the need to teach him about the golden triangle. Musket posted:D40 and a kit lens. Anything with a 6 megapickle sensor is going to be capable of producing images suitable for printing at sizes large enough to make good christmas/birthday/mother's day/whatever presents - 8x10 or 11x14 will be fine for showing off a budding photographer's growing skill and enthusiasm. What I'm suggesting is throw in a gift certificate to his local print shop if you gift him a camera - you'd be guaranteeing yourself a place as "best quasi-uncle" for at least a few years.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Understeer posted:Need some first DSLR advice. My wife and I want to move past the pan and scan for family use. Should we simply pick up something like a T4i with the 18-55 kit lens and be done with it (to start?). Or, is it worth looking at something a generation or two older with a couple lenses for the around the same cost like this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00CCGZ9L0/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?qid=1371224876&sr=8-3&pi=SL75 The most important comparison between the cameras you listed - Canon T4i vs. Nikon D3100 - is HOW THEY FEEL. Seriously. Go to a camera store and pick up each of those cameras and take some practice shots. Even if there's no memory card in it, the act of handling the camera and playing with it will massively inform you about what you want in a camera. Some cameras just feel better in your hands. A very similar two-lens starter kit is available from any of the four main DSLR manufacturers, and it's a good place to start (once you decide which brand fits your fingers best). Any DSLR will easily meet your typical shooting conditions - children, travel snapshots, airplanes are all very standard kinds of things to photograph, don't worry about any camera falling down on any of those. Just get what feels right (honestly, I can't emphasize this enough - PICK UP THE CAMERA) and start shooting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Musket posted:No, really... Show me an American camera company that does cameras right. Ill wait. Show me an American camera company. Aren't they all Japanese (consumer-to-professional level) or German (weirdo overpriced status-symbol cameras riding a decades-out-of-date legacy reputation)? Plus Hasselblad, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Kodak Chitin posted:Polaroid Mightaswell posted:Vivitar Star War Sex Parrot posted:RED (if we're including cinema cameras), who I just noticed is headquartered up the street from me. I need to get a job there!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
That leads to a further show-me challenge: show me a camera or photography forum that isn't utterly terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Tenacious J posted:I'd looking to get into photography and birding in particular 55mm is useless for birds. Every manufacturer sells a 2-lens kit these days, with something like that 55-250mm zoom in addition to the 18-55mm. 200-250mm is a good starting point for birds, if you find yourself really enjoying trying to get shots of birds you'll start lusting after more reach pretty quickly. If you are set against second-hand, find a 2-lens kit. Six months or a year from now you'll know what you want next (e.g. longer glass, a flash, whatever). If your budget really has to be held under $600 (I'm just picking that number because it's nice and round, and close to the first kit you posted), my advice is 1) Go to a camera store (or big-box electronics store like Best Buy) and fondle the cameras. The most important feature, bar none, of any camera is that you WANT TO HOLD IT IN YOUR HANDS. If it's not in your hand, it's not going to get used. Find the manufacturer with the ergonomics you like best. 2) Find a used camera body or camera+lens deal. Look for something 2-3 years old. Budget about $400 for this. 3) Find a long lens, such as that Tamron 70-300 already mentioned, also used, and spend $200. 4) Shoot birds, discover the unique feeling that is a mix of satisfaction and frustration when you figure out just how far you can crop an image and still have something that looks half-decent. Step 1 is important. If you decide you love the Nikon (for example), we can narrow in on some choices. Off the top of my head, I know the Minolta AF 70-210 "Beercan" is a very well regarded lens in exactly the right focal length range a budding naturalist would want, and sells for less than $100 - freeing up budget for a slightly newer/nicer Sony DSRL body. There are other examples, but they rely on first knowing which manufacturer you feel most comfortable with.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
I'm not the person to ask about Canon, so I don't know how old that 20D might be. In any case, glad to hear you went and... touched... some cameras. Don't worry about the UV filter, they don't usually cost enough to worry about either way, just take it off and put it in a box. Making a decision now comes down to how you, personally, feel about the money. Enjoy!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Fair point, I like to overemphasize the ergonomics point because so often I see people (not so much here, but other places on the web, especially Facebook) getting obsessive about long lists of features and counting megapickles and spinning irrelevant anecdotes about their uncle's opinion about some bridge camera from 8 years ago. It's completely subjective, and you are quite correct that there are teams of talented designers working to make sure the cameras they help to make are objects people actually want to buy. It's pretty hard to buy a bad camera anymore, I think. I think there's a beercan for sale in the Buy/Sell thread. EDIT: I don't know if it got through by hint and subtlety (probably it did), but Sony bought Minolta's camera business in the early 2000's, so the Sony Alpha mount is the same as Minolta's Autofocus mount from the 90's. Check locally for Minolta Maxxum cameras for sale (Craigslist, Kijiji, Gumtree, garage sales, whatever). Film is fun and there are some decent (mostly not "great", but "decent") lenses that can be picked up for effectively pocket change. The beercan is the most prominent example, but there are solid staples like Nifty Fifties (50mm f/1.7) and 28/2.8 (28mm f/2.8) floating around that will be quite nice on a modern DSLR. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for somebody to get drunk and pick up one of those ridiculous 650mm f/8 el-cheapo superteles (usually advertised as 650-1300mm because they come with a crappy 2x teleconverter) and shoot stalker pics of their neighbour's cat making GBS threads in the rosebushes. It's gonna be me, I can tell. I'm going get to drunken eBaying one day, and it's going to be ugly.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
Musket posted:KEH has them for cheaper than the Ebay. Tell your drunkself to at least buy the cheapest one you can. I've already got a date lined up for me, a bottle (or two), and KEH.com. The theme was going to be "The Merlot of Minolta", but knowing *that* I might need to come up with other options (and restraint. Definitely need to find some restraint. Self-control and Discipline have agreed to not be around that night, so I'll have to look around for something else). ***** I downloaded the K-5 owner's manual (because I just bought one  ), and browsed it a bit. The part about shooting video mentions that if the temperature gets too high during video the camera will shut down.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Tenacious J posted:So does that mean the only setting you ever really fiddle with is aperture? As in, set the zoom, set the aperture, take the picture - is that common? I just got my camera but assumed there were many different settings that you needed to balance at all times for the best picture, I didn't think it was so simple - am I missing something? It really is quite simple - I pretty much never "calculate" anything. Most of my shooting is in Av (aperture priority), with ISO set to something reasonable; I like 200. I'll set the aperture, often f/8 because my kit zoom lens is terribly soft any wider than that, then just shoot. I'll watch my shutter speeds, and if I think they're getting too slow (or, rarely, too fast - there's no point in shooting at 1/4000 outside of a few rare situations) I'll adjust the ISO upwards. When I switch lenses I'll set a different aperture, for example I have a 28mm f/2.8 that's quite sharp at f/4, and when shooting with my 105mm f/2.5 macro I tend to fiddle with the aperture for each shot. You should be able to set up the control wheel(s) for your camera, the default setting (e.g. rear or only wheel adjusts aperture when in Av mode) is usually good but I set the front wheel on my K10D to adjust ISO when in Av (the default was nothing). This way I can quickly move up my ISO when (for example) I move from shooting up at something (like a bird in a tree, very bright background) to down at something (like a bug on a flower, darker background) and keep my shutter speed up without needing to open up the aperture - this might be specific to my holy-crap-that's-soft kit zoom, but the principle is still useful I think. My shooting order-of-operations is typically Compose, adjust zoom (or zoom à pied), double-check aperture and ISO, check shutter speed, adjust if necessary, re-compose (small movements, I like to try to avoid cutting off feet or I'll move a little to cut down on flare), shoot. Then, because I'm a hopeless spray-and-pray fool, shootshootshootshootshootshootshootshoot heywheredidthebirdgo??
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Here's some unasked-for advice for anyone who has just picked up their first DSLR. First, get ahold of the many-times-aforementioned Understanding Exposure. When you think you've got a handle on the exposure triangle, grab your camera and dive into the menus. - Turn off the beeps. All of them. Nobody else needs to know you've achieved focus confirmation. - Turn off the flash. No, try again - make sure it's actually loving turned off and WILL NOT pop up because the camera thinks its little GN-13 pop-up will be able to correctly expose both the lurking-in-shadows presenter and the big PowerPoint screen from 20 metres away. - Learn what ALL the buttons do. You don't need to know what your program line is, but you do need to know that if you push *that* button a menu full of poo poo you don't care about is going to open up, but if you push *this* button you can change your ISO (which you now understand thanks to Petersen). This post brought to you by that jackass at the back of the room using his weak-rear end pop-up flash and his way-too-dark kit zoom on his clearly new-to-him DSLR all through the opening presentation of the scientific conference I'm at. Kit zooms certainly have their place, but that place is not the back of big dark room without any external flash.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
Bartleby posted:Oh man, I had this just yesterday for the first time, the beeping at least. But generally I am horrified that this slide capturing is now becoming a big thing. Every presentation, and every loving new step on a slide. And all the iPads being wielded too. gently caress you all. This is getting away from "My first DSLR" territory and into "Tales from the Conference", but yes, absolutely. I don't know why every, or any slide has to be photographed, just pay attention to the drat presentation and if you really want to ponder it later, ask the presenter for a copy of their PowerPoint slides. I've also seen people (thankfully not at this conference) walking around the poster presentations, just photographing every poster regardless of whether or not the author / presenter is standing right there!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Carlton Banks Teller posted:Today I bought way more camera than I've ever come close to holding (a used Pentax K100D) for a required class. Thanks for this thread, from its first post down through the subsequent replies. The aperture/ISO/shutter speed breakdown in the OP is one of the most clear and concise on the web that I've found all day and just might get me through my first assignment. Congratulations, the K100D is a fine camera that will teach you the basics of photography if you're willing to learn. Musket posted:Any class that requires a pentax of any kind, is a class worth droppin Wild EEPROM posted:Someone will show up with a 1d. EDIT: Why are there so many cat-based avatars?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Left of the Dial posted:Hey all. I shot 35mm film for several years, then had to stop after film became too expensive and I no longer had access to my school's darkroom. I'm thinking about picking up a used DSLR - but my budget is pretty tight. Think $500 or so. Would a Nikon D200 for $250 and and the 35mm f/1.8 for $160-200 or so be a bad choice, or should I get a newer, but less well-built body? I'll leave it to the Nikon-shooters to comment on durability of various bodies.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Can you tell us more about these classes? My encounters with descriptions of "Photography for Beginners" classes, never having taken one myself, are mostly about how it was a waste of time and the idiot sitting next to you kept insisting on P-means-Professional while their camera beeps out focus confirmation and other idiocy with every ham-fisted shot. Sounds like you got a good one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:I'm partial to the K-5 because that's what I own, and I am a huge Pentax fanboy. The kit 18-55 zoom is my most-used lens, it's a very useful range and it's by no means a bad lens. Plus it's not at all expensive. Pick one up, you'll find yourself using it. You might be able to find a K-5 2-lens kit with the 18-55 and 50-200 kit zooms, for well under your budget, leaving room for a nifty fifty - you won't need a DA-50mm/1.8 if you can find a F-50 or FA-50mm lens (at either f/1.8 or f/1.4) second-hand for about the same money. PentaxForums are currently advertising K-5 II for $599 as a "black friday" deal, or the K-5 II with the 18-135mm kit superzoom (which is actually apparently a quite good lens - and the weathersealing is good enough that people do silly things like bury their camera with one mounted, dig it up, and go shooting) for $799. For budget-price longer glass (i.e. birds) the Tamron 70-300 is highly recommended around here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
I spent the first year with my DSLR shooting JPG because 1) I wasn't doing much at all in terms of post-processing and 2) the file size is so much smaller, so it took up less card and harddrive space when I'd go out and "spray and pray" at birds and whatnot. Then I forgot to take the white balance out of some indoor/tungsten setting from the night before, and shot a ton of birds at a wetland in full, bright, mid-day sunlight. Blue blue blue blue blue. *sigh* Now I shoot RAW and pretend it matters on the 99% of my shots that are edited in 3 seconds (auto-WB, auto-tone, rotate, crop).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
By all means, find a way to play with light that lets you figure out the effect on X of changing Y. Learning to use a flash is mostly a matter of actually using it and seeing what happens. Several hours per week of photo-fun will get you past the steep early part of the learning curve in short order, start posting your stuff in the Dorkroom.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
However you do it (I've got a pair of Sigma 530DG Supers, the build quality seems OK but the owner's manual and controls are incomprehensible), GET WIRELESS FLASH. It's loving amazing how goddam fun it is to get half-drunk and go shooting with the flash just-out-of-frame in your left hand and your wobbly blurry eye pushed up against the viewfinder, right hand fumbling for the button.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:What say you? Take many pictures, post them in the Dorkroom.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
I ran right into that with My First DSLR. I didn't think enough about what "crop factor" means, and one of my first lenses was a 35-80mm kit lens from a mid-90's AF SLR. That's not a very useful range on 1.5x crop APS-C. 28mm is slightly wider than normal, 35mm is actually a little tighter. That's why kit zooms for APS-C DSLRs are almost always either 17 or 18mm at the wide end. That's reasonably wide, and quite nice for landscapes and other "zoom out" shots. I know nothing about Sony DSLRs (paging Bob Socko) but a working camera with a useable (if not particularly useful) lens for $120 doesn't seem too bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Pentax SMC FA-35-80mm f/4-5.6 (silver). The IQ on that lens is fine, nothing special. It's just your typical small-and-variable aperture, not-very-useful-on-crop, plastic-fantastic mid-90's SLR kit zoom lens. One of the reasons I bought it was the eBay seller was claiming to donate some fraction of the proceeds she received to cancer research as part of some challenge with her friends or coworkers. It looks good and performs alright on my ZX-7, less so on my K-10D or on my K-5. Last year I did a head-to-head comparison between that lens and the equivalent F- lens (again, Pentax - please nobody get confused about Nikon here - I own no Nikon gear at all), mounted on both my ZX-7 and my Z-70. I swapped the lenses between the bodies a few times (and shot with my SMC F-28/2.8 - once again, a fine piece of gear I'm very happy with) and took back-to-back pictures of the same subjects on the same film, which was expired Kodak Gold 400, hilariously misspelled "Zodak" in the Kijiji ad that led me to the Z-70. The two lenses (to nobody's surprise) were indistinguishable, as were the camera bodies once I got past the small differences in handling (mode selection, control layout). tl/dr: There's nothing inherently wrong with 90's AF kit zooms, as far as my experience goes. They just tend to be an awkward focal-length range on crop DSLRs, with lame maximum apertures. EDIT: the FA cost me less than $50, including shipping. The F was part of a kit that included the Z-70, 6 rolls of film, and a small bag in good condition, for $60. If you need glass but have very little money, these lenses are an option.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
I'll put my voice out there in favour of choosing based on literally feel - ergonomics matters. Very few cameras will feel really bad to any person these days, but some will feel noticeably better, and that might be enough for the camera to be in the hand rather than in a bag or left at home a month later. Maybe not, of course, but a camera that feels good (rather than merely acceptable) in my hand is a joy to use and I'm much more likely to have it ready to shoot, which is the main feature of importance of any camera. Also, this thread needs a bump so I can feel better about myself by offering long-winded advice to people I'll probably never meet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
46mm is an usual size, smaller than the filter ring on most lenses. You might be able to find a 49mm, 52mm, or 55mm filter for about the same price (or even less) because those are much more common sizes. Then get a step-down ring* that goes from that size filter to your 46mm lens-filter-diameter. Then you'll be able to use the filter on other lenses, too. * I get confused by the step-up/step-down thing, so check that what you get allows you to mount your bigger filter on your smaller lens. EDIT: Everything I said about what "you" will be able to do applies to your friend you're buying this for, obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
The bundled printer and filters are a big turn-off for me. There has never been a printer bundled with anything (camera, computer, whatever) that was worth a drat. They only bundle poo poo they need to get rid of, find a different deal if you really want a T3i.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Seconding the Pentax recommendation - neither Canon nor Nikon will get you weathersealing at that price range. Second-hand K20D run around $250 - $300 USD in North America (less if they've got higher shutter actuation counts), I'm guessing a similar price in the UK / Europe. You can often get a lens with it. There's this ad on PentaxForums, K20D with 18-55 WR - exactly the kind of thing that will let you take (most of) the pictures you're talking about, and can stand up to the weather in Britain: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...-condition.html PF Marketplace posted:1. Pentax K20D in Like New condition. Shutter count less than 2500. I am offering this one with a Mint (used 5 times) Pentax DA 18-55mm WR. Both comes with Original box, manuals and everything it came when new. Asking $360 + Shipping. I will also include one aftermarket battery (only charged 5 times) According to Google, $1 USD is £0.60, so $360 is £217 and shipping would probably run to about £30. Other weathersealed Pentax bodies that you might be able to find under your budget (with that lens - get either the 18-55 WR or the 18-135 WR if you suddenly find yourself able to stretch your budget a bit) are the K10D, K-30, K-7 and if you're exceptionally lucky a K-5. All are fine cameras, and you wouldn't be unhappy with any of them. I don't know of any UK-specific deals, but KEH.com (based in Georgia, USA) has an excellent reputation (for things like returns, general customer service, and a very conservative rating system - their "BGN" (Bargain) is a fully-functional item with minor (extremely minor) cosmetic-only flaws, like the little tiny scratches any camera will get on the bottom around the tripod mount. Shipping is pricey, yes, but not utterly terrible. All of this goes out the window if you have some good, overriding reason to go with either Canon or Nikon (or Sony! Don't forget Sony - and I think Olympus makes / made some weatersealed DSLRs), such as a friend with lenses to share with you or you just plain love the way a Canon or Nikon camera feels in your hands.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
You are making fine choices, don't worry. Pentax is great for old manual glass, there's endless variety. I'm in a somewhat similar position, my next lens purchase will be more than I've spent on anything to date - at least $700 - which is a strange thought for me. So, naturally that means my next lens purchase won't be any time soon.  What have you been shooting? Subject matter largely determines lens lust, I think.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
im an orange posted:I bought a Nikon D3200 with the kit lens. If you keep with streets & parks (and NYC is obviously an excellent place for that!), rather than a lens you could get a tripod, an intervalometer/remote control, and a set of neutral density filters. This would let you take long exposures (longer than the 30 second maximum* built into the D3200) and time-lapse videos, both of which are popular (and to me, quite good) ways to shoot streets & parks. Tripod thread Long exposures thread - the ND filters are so you can shoot really long exposures during the day Time lapse thread Buy a cheap Chinese Intervalometer like this one * I don't have a D3200 and I've never actually handled one. But the internet tells me its native maximum exposure length is 30s, much like most DSLRs If by "streets & parks" you really mean PEOPLE (who happen to be on the streets or in the parks), you'll probably want a nice "normal" prime, something with a big wide maximum aperture and a focal length around 35mm. The AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G seems to get recommended pretty much every page. Street photography thread
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
For most people, myself included, a macro lens with a longer working distance is prefered - if you don't have to get so close you don't spook the itty-bitty critters as much. But in this case, a wide-angle macro with a shorter working distance is what you want. Something like a 28mm macro will also be a relatively small and light lens, at least compared to something big and heavy in the 100mm neighbourhood. I'm not a Nikon shooter, but a bit of googling and my hazy memory suggest you might be able to find an old manual-focus macro (does Nikon call them "micro"? That's going to complicate searching, with lots of non-hits about micro-4/3 cameras...) for not too much money. Maybe $100? Or get some of those close-up macro filters to fit your lens and try that - they let you get closer, too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Back in the day the third-party (fourth-party, fifth-party; the 80s were full of shady companies slapping brand names on random objects emerging from obscure factories) lens makers made a ton of 400mm primes. I have one in Minolta MC mount for my X-700 that says "Bushnell" on it and has a maximum aperture of f/6.3. In choose-your-obsolete-manual-focus-mount similar lenses sell for around $100-$200 (plus shipping charges that will make you hate courier companies). My lens is pretty crappy - it's got the reach, but flares like hell, is crazy fuzzy from "wide"-open to about f/11, and has weird dark shady areas on the lens (presumably it's dirty, probably in some internal, hard-to-reach places). But it's still good fun and occassionally I get lucky with it. (yes, that's a reference to its phallic nature. People *will* make disparaging comments about your genitals if you walk around with a 400mm prime). Cheap, brand-of-the-week supertelephoto primes and zooms are still out there. Google "Phoenix Supertelephoto" for one prominent example. Your choices are basically 1) Old MF supertele primes from the 80's, in various 80's SLR mounts; 2) Current el-cheapo supertele primes, typically 400mm-500mm and f/8 (or worse); 3) Current el-cheapo supertele zooms, like the Phoenix. Note the charming habit of sellers to include a crappy 2X teleconverter (and often some useless accessories like a poo poo tripod that can't even hold the weight of the big stupid lens, and a blower/brush to put scratches and crud on your sensor). The 2X TC means that 650-1300mm lens is marketable as a 1300-2600mm lens! WOW! So much bigger than that junk you saw that professional carrying in that National Geographic documentary! Never mind the f/16 FIXED aperture that becomes f/32... For a bit more budget - say, the $800-$1200 range you might find a great deal on an older and possibly banged-up 300/2.8 or 400/4 depending on mount, brand, and model upgrades; Sigma seems to re-design their 70-200/2.8 every few years, I don't know if they've done anything similar with their 400mm-500mm-600mm primes but if somebody is on an upgrade path they might be willing to unload one for not too much money. Maybe. Or there are legacy pro-grade long primes, like the SMC-A-300/4 in Pentax K, that seem to go for about $500. I don't know why nobody seems to be making good (as opposed to "excellent") long primes these days, in new glass there seems to be only the two extremes of the market, cheap junk and top-end pro gear. Presumably the various camera companies figured that anybody serious about birds/wildife/stalking will eventually spring for the $5000+ pro gear and it's not worth the effort to build them a staircase of long lenses as an upgrade path. That, and the wide perception among photo newbies that zoom > prime, always. EDIT, because I'd rather type here than be productive: At the very long end there's not much to compare, but it seems like zooms are more expensive than primes at similar focal lengths. In Pentax (because I'm most familiar with them) there's the new HD-560mm/5.6 that seems to sell for about $7000. For the same money (and a lot of patience lurking on eBay and other places) you can get the no-longer-in-production FA* 250-600mm/5.6, a constant aperture zoom that lacks some of the features of the new lens (current-generation multicoating, weathersealing, ultrasonic-motor-driven AF, a few ergonomic considerations) and is only available used; when I compare two objects and one is new and the other is second-hand, I mentally add 50-100% to the second-hand item's price to estimate it as new - under that consideration, the used, 20-year-old zoom is a more expensive item than the new prime, reflecting increased complexity of design and construction. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Something like this, only useder and cheaper? The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the magnifying filter set - pick up a set in the filter diameter of your kit zoom lens and go hog wild! Seriously, you can generally get a +1/+2/+4 set for like $30.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:In the cheap-super-tele debate, note that the Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 (push/pull zoom, autofocus, reasonable build quality) is pretty respectable up to 400mm if you stop down even a tiny bit, and you can get them for $200-250 (or at least that's what I paid for mine). Also, macro photography is fun. It's just fun, always. Everybody should have at least one macro lens to play with on days when you feel like getting up close and personal with anything, really.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Another Pentax-user here. In my opinion, Pentax has three features that I find very attractive: 1. Weathersealing. The K-500 doesn't have this, but pretty much every other Pentax from the last few years does. The K-30 has it as one of its major selling points, so I think I'm not the only one who likes the idea of using a camera in the rain. You need to pair the weathersealed body with a weathersealed lens to really take advantage of this, and I don't know of any older lenses (prior to the DA- series) that are weathersealed. Having said that, I've taken plenty of shots in rain, snow, mist, blowing sand, blowing debris with non-sealed lenses and I've never had any problems. 2. In-body image stabilization. Canon and Nikon put it in (some) lenses, Pentax and Sony put it in the bodies. This helps, again, with the old glass because that cheap old lens gets to benefit from some modern image-stabilizating tech. There are trade-offs here, but overall I like this feature even if I don't really notice a big improvement in my shots. 3. Massive backwards compatibility. As you know, any current Pentax DSLR can mount lenses going back to the introduction of the K-mount (1975) without any modifications to either lens or camera, and back a few more decades with a simple screw-mount adaptor for M42 lenses. The downsides to Pentax, if you think of it from a I'm-sticking-with-this-brand-now perspective (which, as an aside, is dumb - can anybody accurately predict their personal situation 5 years from now when you might want to jump to some new and awesome thing?), are: 1. A somewhat limited availability of the newest lenses from the third-party manufacturers (chiefly Sigma and Tamron). Those companies produce their lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts first, then look at Pentax / Sony / Olympus. Sometimes a particular Sigma or Tamron lens won't be available in K-mount. 2. No current "full-frame" option (i.e., the sensor is the same size as a frame of 35mm film, 24x36mm) and the only suggestion of a future FF option from Pentax has been layers of rumours. FF vs. APS-C is a debate that pops up from time to time around the Dorkroom. 3. Sneering backhanded damning-with-faint-praise insults from the CaNikon faithful. But that's not really a big deal. For $1000 you can get yourself set up with a really nice Pentax DSLR kit - something like a K-5II (or IIs - same camera, slightly different set of filters over the sensor) with a couple of good lenses. From a bit of poking around, it looks like a K-50 with the two-lens kit (18-55 / 50-200) can be had with room to spare for any accessories you might want. And yeah, spend some time on the reviews on PentaxForums.com, despite some of the whining and weirdness they're generally useful, especially the in-depth reviews.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 18:54
|
|