|
Don't forget to get a Pentax ME Super once you've cut your teeth on a baby slr everyone.
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:So random question, the A99 my parents bought has an LCD viewfinder, and the salesmen told us it's nice because you don't have to switch to the back LCD to get video and you don't have to wait for the mirror to move out of the way. There is a mirror, but it's translucent! So I wouldn't call it mirrorless. However, I don't think the mirror actually has to move at all, so there's no "reflex" going on. That said, it's still a traditional DSLR size, and works the same, so it's best described as a dslr unlike your normal mirrorless, which would traditionally have a compact point and shoot style body. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a99 has a nice picture showing lasers shooting autofocus sensors and stuff. e. beaten like someone who was busy making lovely jokes instead of finishing his post.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:So I really was planning on saving up for the 70-200 F4L IS, but that Tamron 70-300 in the OP is kinda tempting..anyone have first-hand experience with it able to share a shot or two from it? How is the VC compared to Canon's IS? The USD vs. USM? Do you need 300mm of zoom? If so the tamron's the best bang/buck right now. If you don't need the extra length, the 70-200 F4L is probably going to be sharper all around (although I'm not sure how the IS stacks up, Tamron's is really, really good).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Has anyone ever been to one of Bryan Peterson's seminars? I went once, and he mentions - over, and over, and over - this flash that he recommends for beginners because it has around 90% of the functionality of the good ones, but at something like $50. Fully manual. It could've been him just recommending it because he's paid to, but I got the feeling he was being honest. I can't remember what it is, but if someone's seen him and knows it, it might be a nice addition to the OP. I remember it being some no-name brand I'd never heard of. Get a yongnuo, it sounds like what you want. I have the 560ii and its a really nice all manual flash for the money.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:With spring coming along nicely and a set of extension tubes on the way my desire to get a flash for macro stuff has reignited. Will I regret getting a Yongnuo YN-468 II and building a DIY flash diffuser for my D5100? I have zero experience with flashes and a limited amount of money in the bank. My plant documentation project would greatly benefit from some better pictures. I got a YN-560ii, it's the single best investment I've made for macro by a wide margin.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
I normally just pop out the little reflector card it has built in. Since I leave it on the hot shoe the flash isn't pointing right at the subject, and the bounce is generally good enough to light it without putting down any really harsh shadows. If I was using direct flash (and someday I should get a flash bracket so I can do that) I would use a diffuser though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:Is the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro worth getting for my D5100. I have a Nikon 55-200 but want something with more reach that can also focus closer up so I can switch to shooting plants without putting on my 35mm. I had this lens before I got the tamron 70-300 VC, and I have to say I wish I had just saved up for the VC from the get go, it's just not very good. Save up for the 70-300 VC. You lose a little macro ability, but to be honest I don't think the macro on the cheaper one is that great anyways, and you only gain ~2 feet of focus distance (basically the cheap one gets you 1:2 magnification, the VC gets you 1:4). The macro mode is not worth the difference in performance at 300mm is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
OnceIWasAnOstrich posted:I'm not sure this is exactly the right place for this, but who knows maybe it is. I need to buy a camera for use in our microbiology lab. There are going to be two distinct uses for it. One will be for taking macro-type shots of tiny things or relatively tiny things. We have a nice Canon point and shoot now that works...terribly for this. Autofocus never focuses on the right thing. The other is taking pictures of various things on top of variably white/blue/UV transilluminators using filters to image the fluorescence. Ideally I would be able to see a preview and operate the camera (including zoom and focus) from a computer via USB/Firewire. My only experience with DSLRs was a Pentax that did absolutely nothing like this. Am I right in thinking I want a DSLR? Does anyone know which cameras are best for being operated remotely like that? I'm not even necessarily stuck on a new camera, I don't need anything fancier than those requirements, but most cameras are cheap compared to the Rolera EM-CCD camera we just bought to stick on our microscope. We have a d7000 that we use (mostly to stick on top of a microscope  ), and we tether it to a computer using some software called ControlMyNikon. It works pretty good, the live preview works pretty well, you can control all the important settings from the computer, and control focus with it. Most lenses have a manual zoom, so there's no way to do that from a computer without building some thing extra. Pretty sure canon dslr's have similar functionality, so either of those brands will work well, so long as whatever body you get is new enough that it has live view (as a quick rule of thumb).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Go to a store and try out all three bodies to see which one feels better. Try out the mirrorless options as well. The nikon will have a newer, nicer sensor than the t3i, which might have better video. Otherwise they'll probably all work for what you want, it's all a matter of preference when you get down to it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
I'd also recommend skipping the 55-250 and saving up for a tamron 70-300 VC if you think you're going to use that focal length a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
Musket posted:In the photo world, hearing something sucks vs actually using it and then being able to say it sucks, is bad. Dont assume Krock or DPreview are the word of god. Kit lenses are fine for what they are. Hey, be fair. Krock loves the 18-55.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:I thought he was all over the superzooms like the 18-200 now. Yeah, but canon doesn't have an 18-200 like nikon does. He made a point about that in his 18-55 review.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:But Canon does have an EF-S 18-200. Well they must not have when krock wrote his review. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
simosimo posted:I thought as much. Facebook?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted: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. Do they have goodwill stores in Canada? Maybe canadian ebay?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
DGK2000 posted:Can I ask how much more zoom you get compared to a 18-55mm lens? I've got the kit lens that came with my Rebel T3 and I found that I just can't get some of those far away shots that I crave. You get a lot. Here's a handy tool to give you an idea of how much it really is. http://tamron-usa.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:The last time I posted in that thread was to bump it back to page 1 because it was literally two days from archives Still better than any of the Olympus threads.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Musket posted:I think you are the odd man out on this, not Nikon. Weirdo Nikon has a backwards lens mount, admit it already.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
Musket posted:YOU'ER BACKWARDS. Honestly I never really noticed. I didn't really notice until I started adapting lenses, and then it was painfully apparent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Yes, if by “left” you mean anticlockwise for a greater focal length. This is true of focus and aperture as well, but don’t quote me on that last one. I think he means counter-clockwise, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted: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. PhaseOne (which owns Leaf and Mamiya Digital) is Danish 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Have a look at the Canon thread (and its title) perhaps What, the thread title talking about the T3? And not talking about the T3i? Really? I hope you stealth namechanged the thread while you could.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Pretty much every range of mirrorless camera seems to be named using some combination of N, X, F and/or 1. Olympus superiority.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:After using a Nikon D5000 and a Canon T4i, I really think for someone just getting started Canon is easier to work with. Most of the stuff is in the Q screen and not in a menu (maybe the 5100/3200 aren't like this?). I also have an unhealthy disliking for the direction that Nikon zooms twist (and rear lens/body caps). So I'd go with the T3i with kit and I do second GoldenNugget, get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 to go with it. Fantastic image quality even though it sounds like poo poo while focusing. This kit should keep you going for a good while as you learn and grow. That's a whole lot of personal preference there. Just go to a store and try the nikon/canon bodies out, and see which one feels better and seems more intuitive to you.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Archer2338 posted:I'm not sure this is the right thread for recommendations, but since this is going to be my parents' DSLR... Drag him to a store and force him to actually try the cameras out to decide what feels better to him instead of forcing you to guess at what his deepest menu desires are.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 17:23
|
|
)? I'm wondering the same. Showed him the Canon S10 point-n-shoot recommended in the gear thread, and he outright said no P&S. I suppose he could be convinced to go down to a digital camera that accepts a lens, but wouldn't that be close enough to a DLSR's weight & price to warrant buying a DSLR anyway?
|
I use a 400mm lens on a 2x crop factor sensor and I still find myself wanting a longer lens sometimes. Otoh this setup is long enough that you get to the point that birds like robins will fly too close to you to focus on 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
My 400/5.6 cost me $40 on ebay.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
The SD1 Merril isn't a bad camera either to be honest. Probalby overpriced for what it is, but leaps and bounds better than the older options
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
A whole year on manual just to get used to the controls? 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Musket posted:Any class that requires a pentax of any kind, is a class worth droppin Yes, there has never been a good photography class ever. *lights k1000 on fire*
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
because cats own, duh
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Redleg posted:Help me wrap my head around my in camera light meter. Understanding exposure sounds like something worth reading for you. In short though, camera meters are trying to expose the scene so that it is on average 18% grey. This is why blacks tend to overexpose and whites tend to underexpose. The different intensities of light is why heavily green scenes do... something. I forget what.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
That shot of the tree has a pretty limited range, so you're not going to fill up the histogram. It's just a question of whether that spike is sitting in the middle or on the high side, and since he's shooting snow you want to be on the high side (otherwise everything will just be grey). Is it better to do it in camera versus in post? Well that's a matter of choice really, but so long as you aren't clipping the highs ore lows you're probably a-ok.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Changing the iso is the only thing that I would assume matters, since generally your dynamic range drops as you boost the iso.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
maybe you should take a picture of the lens you recieved to show it to us. that'd be a little easier to make sense of
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 08:58
|
|
|
Musket posted:40mm is not 35mm nothing wrong with a 40mm pancake.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Benro travel angels are pretty great if you want something lightweight too (their smallest tripod with a manfrotto 496rc2 on it makes for a compact tripod that can still hold a hefty load).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 09:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
The biggest advantage for you would probably be the fact that the d5200 has a more advanced AF system. 39 focus points versus 11, and 9 cross type versus 1. So it should do a better job focusing and tracking airplanes or whatever else. It also has a slightly faster framerate for stills. The d7000 would be another option to look at, it's a bit older body but it's got a faster max shutter speed, weather sealing, support for more lenses, bigger viewfinder, and a bigger battery. Can probably be found for about the price of a d5200 nowadays. I don't know if 30fps is really that important though. The nikon kit lens for those cameras (the 18-55 vr) is pretty good for a kit lens. It's super cheap, lightweight, and plenty sharp at f/8 or so (and if you're shooting airplanes you aren't going to be shooting wide open most likely). No reason not to start with it and figure out if there's something specific you want from your lens that might be better served by something else. For the longer ranges the Tamron 70-300 VC is your best bang for your buck, good build quality, nice range, the stabilization is excellent. These are shots with a d5000 and the Tamron 70-300VC, it's a pretty solid combo if you don't gently caress up and leave your camera in aperture priority instead of shutter priority.  DSC_0799.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_0073.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr If you don't want something heavy a m43 camera might be a good idea, you can get a lot more reach in a smaller package, but a good tripod can make sitting by a runway for a while a lot easier even with a heavy camera. Either way read Understanding Exposure before spending money on a photography class, and give the free lightroom trial a try once you have a camera to mess with.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2013 23:05
|
|