|
Seconding the Rocket Blower. I use mine for other stuff besides my camera, like blowing the crumbs out of my keyboard, and freaking out the cat. They're cheap and useful, just get one even if you only ever use your camera in Mr. Despair's crazy clean-room / abandoned mine.CLAM DOWN posted:Hi thread, I recently got a Nikon D3400 for my first foray into DSLR photography and absolutely love it, I'm learning a ton and having fun!
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:If your lens didn't come with a rear cap, you can buy them for a couple of dollars each. They'll be universal for any lens that fits the mount on your camera, so, if you buy a second lens that comes with a rear cap, you can swap it to whichever lens isn't currently mounted. Yup. Buy a pack of several on eBay or Amazon, don't go for the cheapest available. If they cost $1 each, they probably don't *quite* fit right and you'll get frustrated with back caps either falling off or being way to difficult to take off. I bought a bunch a couple of years ago for like $2/each, they're fine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
InFlames235 posted:I have no idea what this means :p. Based off Amazon it looks like it comes standard with an 18 - 55mm lense. A polarizing filter is pretty much the only filter that accomplishes something that can't be done in post-processing - it removes reflections from non-metallic surfaces such as glass, polished wood, and water. This can let you see through glass or water (under the right circumstances) and it changes the way the sky and some natural surfaces (e.g. ice) look in photos. Read up on polarization to get an idea of how this works. There are two types of polarizing filters for cameras, circular and linear. Linear polarizers can interfere with the autofocus system in DSLRs and are mostly not made anymore for this reason - you can still find them second-hand because they were very popular in the 1980's before autofocus became completely standard. I'm quite happy with the neck strap that came with my camera, though I have to say I almost never wear it around my neck - mostly I wrap it around my wrist and let the camera dangle from my arm. The memory card isn't really an accessory, because you need one to take actual photos, so yeah, get one of those. The usual advice is a well-known brand and from an internet seller (e.g. Amazon) because bricks-and-mortar stores charge a ridiculous high price on things like that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Fuji's fine now, even pretty high-end in some circles. But good previous experience with a brand - even decades ago - is a fine reason to stick with that brand. When the T7i drops presumably the prices on the T6i will also come down. If you're happy to wait a big, I'd get the T6i from Amazon in a little while when that happens.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
InFlames235 posted:Guys, I did it. Great! Congratulations! Now take a poo poo-ton of photos and post stuff in threads in the Dorkroom. Not the garbage, but the I-think-this-might-be-OK stuff, and we'll help you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I'm trying to figure out how to take better pictures with my K-r + kit lens without breaking the bank, mostly just pictures of the baby and of crafts for the blog. There are times where it seems like I have to choose between a too-dark picture and flash glare. Because I don't know anything about photography I've been trying to take a crash course, but I'm a little confused about the relative merits and cost effectiveness of a lens vs flash vs putting an extra lamp on the table. I have a budget of about $60, maybe $100 if the impact is so amazing my wife will forgive me, and it seems like my options are roughly: Your K-r should have a wireless option for flash - my K-5, similar in age, certainly does. This lets you set up a separate flash that's triggered by a signal from the pop-up on your camera. Look in the menu for W with a lightning bolt next to it. To use this you obviously need a compatible flash unit. I've got a pair older Sigma flashes, EF-530 DG SUPER, that work this way. The user interface on these Sigma units is terrible, but I can set them up in wireless slave mode. Any Pentax-compatible flash from the past 5 or 8 years should do this just fine. With the camera set to wireless flash and the pop-up UP, and the flash set to wireless slave, I can shoot with a flash illuminating my scene but held at a position that won't result in that glaring on-axis flash you're struggling with. I just hold the flash in my left hand, pointed in the rough direction of my subject, and shoot half-blind (because I can't see my left hand so sometimes it's pointing the wrong way - the half-bottle of wine that's often in me when I do this doesn't really help). PerniciousKnid posted:Does the type of 560 matter? It looks like they're all around $60. To make a compatible flash work - like a Yongnuo for Pentax - wirelessly you need your camera and the flash, and some way to get them both pointed in the right direction after you've set them both up to talk to each other. Some gaffer tape and a stick might work, depending on what you're trying to do. Set the flash to bounce off of something reasonably colourless and reasonably shiny - your standard off-white wall or ceiling works well. A sheet of paper, a lampshade, or a window (at a shallow angle) can also work, and will give you some interesting effects to play with. You can also mount the flash on your camera (keep the pop-up DOWN, obviously) but tilt it at the ceiling or rotate the head to the side to bounce off a wall. Modern flash units are very capable and flexible devices, you should find a quick and easy way to get pictures you're much more happy with by playing around with a new flash for an afternoon. The flash is going to poo poo out a big ball of light that's going to bounce off everything it touches, which is pretty much everything in the room. The middle of that ball of light is what's most important, so point the flash at that bounce surface so it will bounce off and splash all over your subject. Something to diffuse it might be useful but that light is going to diffuse all over the place anyways if your bounce surface is anything other than an actual mirror.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
The D3200 is a fine camera, and will be a step up in some important ways from an iPhone - most importantly, the ability to take precise control of one's photography using the manual features of the camera. Once you get used to specifying things like ISO and aperture it's hard to go back to something that tries to make those decisions for you. Plus, the wonderful things that come with being able to swap lenses. Used is a great way to get a DSLR, but if your wife wouldn't be happy with a second-hand present from you I guess you'll need to stay with new. To get started, you (your wife) will need the camera body, at least one lens, a memory card, and at least one battery and a charger. All of those things except the memory card come with most new cameras unless you specifically opt for a body-only purchase. You won't need more than one battery unless you take only videos or exclusively use live-view mode - one great feature of nearly all DSLRs is enormous battery life compared to any device that needs to keep a screen lit up to use it. The 'kit zoom' lens that comes with a D3200 will be fine for a trip and general shooting. I'm not particularly familiar with Nikon but I know people here will be able to suggest some cheap-and-good lenses that might be good for you / your wife / your trip to Ireland.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
You did well. $200 for an up-and-running 2-lens setup (I'm assuming you also got the necessary stuff like a battery and charger, and a memory card - or you already had one) is a good price. The next time somebody wanders in here with a simple question and a tight budget, please re-post your story (just that one line is fine) when one of us illiterate monkeys starts talking about $2000+ setups as the minimum necessary. Seriously, you did great, as long as you use your camera! Now post some pictures in the threads around here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of the weathersealing on my Pentax. It's one less thing to worry about - I don't care if it's a bit drizzly or if I put my camera down on wet vegetation (I do this every drat day - I'm working in wetlands this month!). I love having water-resistant electronics - I can wash the dirt off my phone's screen in the sink. I can drop my camera in a snowbank to make an instant tripod.Hdip posted:How often will you be wanting to stand in the rain taking photos? ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 03:39 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
I very much doubt you'll regret that lens. If you do, you're only out $80 which is practically zero in photography money. Go play with it as soon as it arrives, and worry less.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
RedMagus posted:Question that's open for all: do you delete your "bad photos"? I always worry that I'll think a photo is crap and delete it, then later find out I could of made a small edit and turned it to gold. There are always several ways to do anything in Lr. I don't really use collections, but I use the star ratings, colours, and keywords. I go through a set of photos, typically all the shots I took one day. Anything obviously bad gets 1 star. Then I filter to show only 1-star photos and I delete that poo poo. Not "remove from catalogue", DELETE. There's no point in polishing a turd that's out of focus, motion-blurred, and miss-exposed. No "small edit" is going to save it. My off-site backup is 94% full, I have no room for that nonsense. I *should* use keywords more, but what I do is add them just before export after editing a bunch; it would be more useful to add keywords before or during editing. Colours help me track my own intentions. Once a photo has been edited, exported, and uploaded to my Flickr, it gets to be green. Red is for photos I really want to edit, either sooner or as a reminder to myself to put some additional effort into editing that one. Blue is for multi-photo effects, like panoramas or dyptichs I can do after exporting from Lr. The other colours get used when I'm narrowing down on one photo out of a few for things like submitting an entry into a photo contest.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
While we're on the topic of workflow, I had an interesting conversation with a professional photographer at a music festival this summer. I was volunteering as a campground host so I had backstage (but not on-stage) access when I wasn't on duty. Friday night's finale was a mostly-South-American band that had brought along their own (Canadian) photographer on their North American tour; he was hanging out at a picnic table behind the stage on Saturday afternoon, editing his photos (many taken from on the stage - he had better access than me). I introduced myself and asked him to tell me about his work - most people are happy to talk about their jobs, especially if they like their job - because I could see he was using LightRoom on his laptop. His workflow is completely different from mine. "Brad" (not his real name) dumps the photos off his camera onto his computer, then imports them into Lr. I didn't see him do this so I don't know if he puts each import into a collection or tags them or what he does at import. Once the photos are in, he starts going through them, one at a time. Every photo gets edited - he barely uses the Library view, and stays in Develop. He works on each individual photo until he's happy with it, then moves to the next, always in Develop. At the end, he goes to Library and filters for photos that received no edits at all - and those are the ones he deletes. If it wasn't good enough for him to work on the first time he saw it, it's not good enough at all. This workflow combines both parts of my two-step sort-first, edit-later approach, and for somebody on a tight schedule - Brad's gotta get those photos up on the band's Facebook page (and other places) ASAP - it seems pretty efficient. Notably, he's much better at avoiding spray-and-pray shooting. In his hundreds of photos from the previous night, nearly every one was unique in composition and subject. He takes one Good Enough shot, then moves on. None of his photos that I saw were even a little bit bad, from a quick technical point of view - always in focus, properly exposed, little or nothing to distract in the background (the extreme high contrast of stage lighting - well-lit performers with no-light backgrounds helps here), and solid compositions. Unlike mine, which are 1/3 delete immediately, 1/3 work-on-this-later (bursts and duplicates galore!), and 1/3 not-bad-enough-to-kill. He looks at each photo once, I see the shots I will eventually upload several times, usually separated by weeks or months, and I see a bunch of photos I will never upload multiple times each, too. He's prioritizing his own eyes-see-something-new time, which I think is a really interesting point of view. Dunno if I can do what he does, but it was a fun conversation. EDIT Annath posted:Oh, and my camera is a Pentax K-50 that came with two lenses, a "DA L 18-55mm WR f3.5-5.6mm" and "50-200mm WR" so hopefully it's good. Go out and shoot. Just shoot. Like, everything. See it, shoot it. Especially in lovely weather. Your camera and lenses are weather sealed (that's what the WR means in the names of those lenses; the body is weather sealed, too, they just don't put that in the name). The glass is NOT fragile. The metal, plastic, and other materials are TOUGH. You will NOT damage your camera. Get outside, shoot stuff. DO NOT put your camera into a case or a bag or the pocket of your jacket - keep it IN YOUR HAND and shoot shoot shoot. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Oct 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Annath posted:So I went on a walk down to the river behind my house Awesome. Caryna posted:Slightly off-topic: Picking/rejecting images is the actual "editing" while making changes to the image is "processing". That's why you won't see a photo editor at a magazine working their butt off in Photoshop. But then again, so many people, especially in fashion, use "airbrushing" when they mean "photoshopping" Hilariously, Adobe has a major stick up their butts about using words like "photoshop" in non-approved ways. Maybe fashionistas are just especially sympathetic to Adobe's grammatical difficulties? InternetJunky posted:how do you run out of storage space these days?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Most of those examples you posted are entirely do-able with pretty much any camera. The night landscapes and time-lapse videos need a tripod, but don't stress the limits of a camera because you can set a long exposure - multiple seconds, for example - and have a narrow aperture and low ISO that any lens/camera combination can manage very good image quality through. Low-light is only a problem if you also need high shutter speeds and low-noise; high-noise comes from high ISO, though spending money helps. Spending money is also how you get lenses with good optics even wide open, and with wide maximum apertures (think low numbers after the F - like F/1.8) that allow those fast shutter speeds and low-noise, low-ISO shots. Your examples are mostly urban, too, which means you can scavenge some useful light from things like neon signs, streetlights, and building lights, so low-light on a city street is quite a bit brighter than low-light inside a dark building, or in a rural area. I have no opinion on DSLR vs mirrorless, because I think you'll be able to take photos like those with pretty much any system. So my advice is partly not serious: go unique! Get a decent mirrorless and an adaptor for one orphan manual-focus lens line. Then make a name for yourself as the lunatic that shoots all night long on a NEX with a half-dozen Yashica lenses from the 1980's.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
SimplyCosmic posted:Thanks. I'd like to have a D7XXXX, but it's outside of my current budget. Get the D5600, shoot to your heart's delight, post pictures in whatever suitable thread here in the Dorkroom. Be happy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Yeah, on my t3i it's effectively 80mm, I'm just so used to shooting with a big, wide, deep field rather than a compressed one so it's weird trying to find that same vibe. Why are you looking for "that same vibe" from a completely different lens? Get better at changing lenses, that's why you have a camera with that feature.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Nobody ever mentions Pentax. It's the red-headed stepchild of the DSLR world. So I'm gonna let my inner fanboy out for a few minutes here. Pentax has a bunch of features going for it that are relevant for bird photography.
Weather sealing means you don't worry about the damp leaves you're pushing through, stalking that elusive bird. Stabilization helps squeeze a slightly faster shutter speed out and maybe not have a blurry mess with a too-slow shot. And backwards compatibility opens your shopping to a wide range of used gear that lets you choose a combination of focal length and maximum aperture beyond (some of) the restrictions on price imposed by concerns about autofocus mechanisms. $600 is not a big budget for bird photography. A $600 pair of binoculars will be pretty goddam great for birding, but no body+lens combo is going to have anything like those bino's brightness and reach. It's difficult to compare, though, because of course the camera can capture the image - the point, obviously. For $600 you could probably find a Pentax K-5 or K-5 II plus a manual-focus telephoto lens of 300 or 400mm and "OK" max aperture (f/5.6, rather than f/4 or even f/2.8 for really good glass, but miles ahead of the f/8 maximum that cheap, lovely superteles on eBay come with). KEH.com is a good place to look for used gear, in my opinion and in my experience. For Pentax, pentaxforums.com has a pretty good marketplace and good, in-depth reviews of pretty nearly every body and lens you can get for the Pentax system. A quick look on KEH shows me a K-5 for about $300 and a few lenses that either zoom to about 300mm or are primes at 300mm for between $150 and $300. So you could get that reach for your budget. If you pursue bird photography, you WILL discover that no amount of reach is sufficient. The bigger lenses will call to you...
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Warheart525 posted:Oh, and is there anything I should know about lens/camera care and maintenance that's not super obvious? Others have already answered your "what should I lust after" questions, so I'll tackle this one. No It's all obvious. In fact, your camera is probably tougher than you think, and can handle a bit of wetness, a few knocks, and just generally being treated like "life happens".
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Anybody know anything about Minolta adaptors? I was looking at upgrade lenses for my Pentax k-r and found out my Dad had an old Minolta with a couple manual lenses. I think like a 50mm, a 100m, and a 2x lens. That "weird little bifocal circle" is indeed an aid for manual focusing. You "work" the lenses by twisting the rings on the lens body - a prime lens will have 2, one for focusing (probably bigger, and obvious, and located near the middle of the lens), the other for aperture (thinner, and right up against the camera body). Zoom lenses may have a third ring, for controlling focal length, or may be "one-touch" and have a ring that controls focus (by rotating) and zoom by sliding along the length of the lens. Adjusting aperture does not appear to do anything, because even though you are changing the size of the aperture setting the aperture itself doesn't physically close down to the selected size until the shutter button is pushed and the mirror flips up. With the lens off the body you can see it work by moving the aperture lever - it's sticking out of the lens and interacts with parts inside the camera body when mounted. Your lenses might say "automatic" on them somewhere, because this action is automatic. It has nothing to do with focus. Even older lenses lacked this feature, and moving the aperture ring caused obvious darkening or brightening of the image when looking through the viewfinder. To put those lenses on your K-r you'd need an adaptor that included it's own glass lens to allow focusing at infinity, in addition to the necessary shape and moving parts to physically connect one side to a Minolta MD-mount lens and the other to a Pentax KAF-mount body. That adaptor is almost certainly quite expensive assuming you can find one for sale, and every additional piece of glass in a camera system has a chance to degrade image quality - not that those old Minolta lenses are likely to be stellar performers in any case.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
The good news is your K-r can wear and happily shoot with any K-mount lens going back to the invention of the K-mount in the early 1970's, and further back with cheap and readily available m42-mount adaptors for screwmount lenses. Push the magic green button and you don't have any issues with light metering. Pentax built in the backwards compatibility on purpose, and I love them for it. Browse the marketplace at PentaxForums.com, some lovely old M Series lenses routinely show up for quite reasonable prices. Real quick breakdown, from old to new:
For cheap lenses, look for M- and A-Series manual focus lenses. Except for some fairly rare stuff like the big supertelephotos, you'll have tons of options for under $200. I picked up a M-50/1.7 and a M-135/3.5 for $100 for the pair from a local seller a few years ago, and my K-5 has no trouble with them. I've also got a F-28/2.8 I got for $120 and a couple of rather cheap FA-series consumer zooms. A large number of third-party brands were slapped onto lenses with K-mounts, I'm especially fond of the old Vivitar Series 1 line of macro lenses. Some of those lenses came with film cameras, often a body and two zooms for like $60. Like your father, sometimes people clean out part of the house and discover an old film SLR and decide to get rid of it for cheap. Sometimes people are completely loving delusional and think their 30-year-old consumer-grade mass-produced paperweight is worth as much as it cost them in 1989, leaking batteries notwithstanding. learnincurve posted:Heresy! Minolta beercan lenses are the greatest lenses in the world! ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 20:47 on May 31, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Those are some very good photos. Cross post a handful of your favourites to the wildlife thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
wargames posted:But compared to canon or nikon doesn't pentax lag behind in terms of auto focus? doesn't pentax do image stablize in body not in lens? I don't know about the autofocus, but yes, Pentax puts image stabilization in the body. That means every lens on a Pentax DSLR is stabilized. When you put a lens on a Pentax DSLR it recognizes the lens and sets the image stabilization accordingly, so it's not like you'll be shooting at 55mm with image stabilization appropriate for 18mm. I know this because if I put on a lens it doesn't recognize, like some old manual-focus lens (Pentax has EXCELLENT backwards compatibility - which means lots of good, cheap lenses on the second-hand market), my camera will ask me about the focal length. The trade-off between a mirrorless and a DSLR is the DSLR has an optical viewfinder (mirrors, prisms, basically: lots of heavy glass on top) while the smaller, lighter mirrorless always sends the view to the screen. This makes for a difference in battery life, with a DSLR you can turn off instant review (the image appears on the screen after a shot) and shoot all drat day with little battery drain - keeping a LED screen lit up is the main power drain on any electronic device, spinning autofocus motors and keeping the light-meter going are trivial in comparison. Any mirrorless is going to be burning battery power any time it's turned on. Modern cameras with modern batteries are significantly better at this so don't take this as suggesting your camera will have a dead battery by the time you get to the good viewing spot. The "correct" camera for any person depends on a huge number of factors, most of which are very personal and subjective. Given your main use, going up a mountain, I would also suggest you look at small, light mirrorless cameras.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Those cameras seem to be significantly above your previously-stated budget. How do you feel about used? You could find whatever previous versions of those cameras (what was the Sony camera in 2016 that the current A6300 replaced?) on the second-hand market and get 95% of the features for 50% of the cost.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
I am quite interested in whatever followup about your K70 you're willing to share. I spent a bit of procrastination time last week thinking about my next camera, I hadn't been lusting over gear for a while and it felt like that was missing from my life (also missing: disposable income. But I have much practice in ignoring such concerns). I've got a K-5 that I want to send for servicing because I've been using it (and thoroughly enjoying it) for a while. I dug into PentaxForums.com and figured out the K70 is most probably the appropriate successor for me, though the KS-2 was a decent second choice / lower-cost option. If I get off my rear end and actually seriously start considering a new-to-me camera, hearing about your experience would be very useful. In any case, enjoy! And post your pictures here in the Dorkroom, in whatever thread is appropriate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
wargames posted:K70 got, along with a 18-135mm and a 50 f1.8 I also did a day of shooting. Good stuff. Keep shooting, keep posting pics, have fun. Sooner or later I'll think of a question for you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
tribbledirigible posted:the 35mm (really a 53mm) A prime lens with a 35mm focal length ALWAYS has a focal length of 35mm. It never changes, you can put that lens on a "full-frame" camera, a DSLR with an APS-C sensor, or stick it with duct-tape to your phone with its teeny-tiny sensor. Still a 35mm lens. The comparison to "full-frame" is not technically incorrect, but it is pointless and just confusing for anybody (i.e. most people) who did not spend several years shooting 35mm film on a non-digitial SLR. I *did* spend several years shooting almost exclusively on 35mm film on my Minolta X-700, and a bunch of other people in here did something similar, but that 35-is-really-53 nonsense is totally useless for somebody without that muscle-memory history of squashing a piece of 70's or 80's magnesium against their nose. Terms like "normal" and "wide" apply to the field of view, which yes changes with sensor size ('crop factor') and focal length. But again, the comparison back to the gold standard of "full-frame" is as pointless and confusing as if the usual comparison was to field-of-view for a given focal length on your great-grandfather's wooden-box 8x10.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:there's generally good reason those ranges are used in the first place. Paper sizes, film formats, and digital camera sensor sizes illustrate this well. A long time ago, like before World War II, professional photogs shot on a narrow range of cameras that used a fairly restricted range of film formats (or glass plates). What we today call "large format" perfectly match the paper sizes that result from direct-contact printing, where there is no magnification of the film image. That's why picture frames are readily available in 8x10 and 5x4 inches even though nearly all consumer cameras (and many professional cameras) in the past 50 years have shot film or used digital sensors with dimensional ratios not equal to 5:4. "35mm" film is named that because that's the full width of the strip of film including sprocket holes; the actual image size is 24x36mm, a ratio of 3x4. "Full-frame" digital sensors have a wafer of silicate that's equal to that size, and various other digital formats are different sizes but quite often the same ratio - APC-C is smaller but also 3x4, for example. But it's bloody difficult to find a picture frame in that ratio; I'm personally fond of printing my photos at 8x12 inches, though I can only find a single brand and style of frames for that (without matting). I don't know but I suspect that way back in the early days of 35mm film, the 1950's and 1960's as many professionals switched from large- and medium-format cameras to 35mm SLRs, lens designers made decisions that resulted in a bag of primes consisting of 28/35/50/85/105mm (with some tweaks, like 55mm). Those decisions might have been based on ease of setting up a production line at a factory for creating and assembling parts that go into making a 28/2.8 or a 50/1.7. Factors that would have been important to those decisions, like factory down-time while re-tooling, are completely irrelevant today but nobody has broken away from old habits - why 28/2.8 and not 25/2.5? Or 75/1.7 instead of 85/1.7? The one exception I know of is the move from 105mm to 100mm for long macro lenses, showing there's not some major optical or mechanical barrier to that kind of change. The field of view at 28mm on a 35mm SLR is "wide"; smaller focal lengths are "very wide" or "ultra wide", but how different is 25mm, really? It's noticeably wider, yes. So why did the old lens designers not produce lenses in 25/35/45/55mm ? Why 70-210 (or 70-200, or 80-200) for everybody's favourite tele-zoom, and not, say, 100-250 from the beginning?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
pseudorandom posted:After digging through wikipedia, it appears it is based on math. lampey posted:There are some more wrenches to throw in towards understanding focal length and field of view. My main complaint was the "really 53mm" comment, because there's no way a 35mm lens magically transforms into a 53mm lens when attached to a different camera. But I hadn't realized the extent of variation in what appear to be fixed-focal-length lenses. Helen Highwater posted:You mean 3:2. 3:4 would be 24x32mm or 27x36mm. Whoops. Thanks for that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2018 14:10
|
|