|
casa de mi padre posted:My church group used my photos for a bake sale flyer without permission, do I need to file a separate lawsuit for each little old lady who violated my copyright? Absolutely. They owe you a shitload of lemon squares.
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Hughmoris posted:I am interested in getting into photography beyond my old P&S camera. Looks like Canon has a refurbished Canon T3i with a 18-55mm IS lens kit for $394, which is looking very appealing. Any thoughts on that price and bundle? Have a look at the Canon thread (and its title) perhaps 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
As evidenced by the fact that both Canon and Nikon have, at some point, made a camera called the D60. Although in this day and age I don't think too many people are talking about the Canon D60 any more.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:Thanks very much for that, that's very useful. Seriously don't feel bad, stage lighting is some of the most challenging conditions under which I've ever shot (and I've done a drat lot of it). Feel free to shoot me a pm if you have specific questions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Here's some unasked-for advice for anyone who has just picked up their first DSLR. This is all God's honest truth. If you need focus-confirm, set your camera to focus-priority AF, or look for the green dot in the viewfinder. Also bear in mind that your popup flash, firing at Full Retard power levels, is only supposed to work for subjects 10-15 feet away. If that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Why wouldn't you take a photo with your iPad if you already had it on you at a conference and were too lazy to ask for the Powerpoint presentation? Because you look loving ridiculous taking a picture with a device nearly as large a clipboard.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
Carlton Banks Teller posted:It's more my budget that requires it, class just requires a DSLR. Lucky for me, I don't know enough about cameras to feel slighted! Don't worry, you will 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
The D90 is really nice, but if you're having trouble finding one, yes the D200 is also a good option (that's what I've been shooting on for the past five years or whatever).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:Thanks- I was reading exactly that article earlier. I also spent the afternoon dicking around and it looks like my camera underexposes by about 1ev already so I've compensated for that. Funnily enough the k-rock suggests doing the exact opposite to improve dynamic range: ...and this is why we don't listen to K-Rock for anything other than Nikon lens specifications. I know a great number of people who keep their camera at +0.3 at all times, just because meters tend to be a little conservative and don't want to blow things out. Camera meters may be better now and this may be useless, but I still do.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
rexelation posted:Anybody has any experience with close-up filters? I'm thinking about picking up a set to take some macros for fun. What should I look out for? If I'm on a budget but stay with the reputable brands like HOYA and Vivitar I should be fine yeah? They kinda suck but they're also an absurdly cheap way to get into doing macro stuff. I bought a set of bullshit Kenko ones and got some relatively passable shots.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2013 09:19
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You should mosdef get a 35 instead. I get this weird facial tic and urge to commit violence whenever people talk about a "normal" lens, but as a 35 1.8-haver I can confirm that this lens is an absurdly good value for your money, a great after-kit-lens purchase, and looks real nice on a crop sensor. If your camera body has screw-drive though, the 50 1.8D is still worth picking up later if not just due to how absurdly cheap it is used and how ridiculously sharp it is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Ramms+ein posted:I just received this from keh.com for my Canon 30D I'm not Canon guy, but that looks like a lens that should be perfectly compatible with the 30D, maybe Tamron puts its alignment marks in a weird place? Not that this is a Good Idea all the time, but sometimes it doesn't hurt to just gently turn the bayonet around until it slides in on its own (and locks in the appropriate direction).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Protip: Nikon lenses have the electrical contacts at the top, Canon at the bottom. There's your markings. Also Nikon's contacts are little springy pins, I think Canon just uses flat contacts on the lenses. ...and the mechanical aperture lever should have been a tip-off.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Ulysses S. Grant posted:
The Tamron would probably end up being a useful thing to have though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:I see the recommendation in the OP for a kit lens replacement is the the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC. Any particular reason the non-VC is favored over the VC model? I seem to recall the non-VC has better optics and the VC isn't worth it at those focal lengths for the extra amount they charge.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
Obsolete posted:I'm looking to upgrade an ancient, filthy Nikon D70. I priced out some stuff on KEH and I think I'm about ready to go for it. Thought I'd stop in and ask if everything looked good here: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the choices you have made, if wide-angle is a thing for you. Consider a VR kit lens also, while not that wide, they're a great value for your dollar.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
Musket posted:Shockingly not as bad as you think. I had a D50 for a long time as it was the last good Dxx body with an AF-Screw. The D70s might beg to disagree, but the D50 is pretty solid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
Musket posted:Wasnt good. It was ok if you pretended the video feature didn't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Corkscrew posted:Just so I'm not going insane... Amazon seems to think than a Tamron 70-300 (model A17NII) is incompatible with the D5200, but the Tamron site itself seems to disagree. Which is right? If the Amazon page has a picture of the back of the lens you can find out pretty easily (by seeing if there's a screw drive). Or just call up KEH and ask them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:The crop factor, as in these 1.5 and 1.6 numbers, are how much smaller the APS-C sensors are in diagonal. Just as a side note in case dude was going to look stuff up, the fact that they're called APS-C actually bears almost no relation to the ill-fated APS film format, other than the fact that APS was still sort of a thing in the early days of decent-sensor-size digital, and a 1.5-1.6x crop just sorta happens to be about the same sensor size as the APS-C frame size. Other than that the two things have nothing to do with each other, it was just a convenient sensor size.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:And even if the first party crop lenses don't have quite the selection, you can find some really good 3rd party ones that go with any brand (once I replace my cheap zoom, all my lenses will either be Sigma or Tamron, who needs brand names). This is true but also sometimes the first-party option is the legit best option regardless of brand name.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:Thank you for the recommendations. Being water-proof isn't very important, since I don't SCUBA or snorkel, but it would be useful for an accident - I'd just keep it away from the water, then. Water resistant would be nice, though; with weather proofing, I'd still be fine in rain? I do go out in the rain sometimes. Yeah, nothing digital other than a few purpose-built point & shoots are going to be like reliably waterproof to the point you can immerse them entirely in water (unless you get an enclosure for infinity dollars), but Pentax's weathersealed bodies/lenses are more than good enough to go shooting in the rain or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Yes, your camera does well at jpegs, so what? The point isn't that the basic jpeg in camera is good enough, but it is inherently limiting. If you take snapshots or journalistic type shots, that's fine, but your camera can't, not ever, make selections, sharpen some, blur others, bring up the shadows and dial back the highlights. And, you can't edit jpegs well to do those things, either. Raw is simply more flexible, it has all the data, not all the data your camera's small processor thinks is important, which is less than half the data. I shoot JPEG almost 100% of the time, including paid shoots. I might switch up to RAW if I know something's going to be a huge pain in the rear end later, but most of the time it ain't worth it (for me). I can push/pull JPEGs nearly a stop before it looks like poo poo, and if I have to do more than that, it means I'm an idiot who should have switched to RAW for those shots / should have checked his WB / should have looked at the image on the LCD / etc. So basically shoot whatever works best for what you're doing. Indeed, Fuji does JPEG really well, but I also never recall saying, at any point in my life, "Nikon's JPEG engine ruined this picture."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Sure, there are reasons to shoot jpeg, and they're not unworkable. But to say, "I'm in no way limited by jpeg," as he did, is simply a factually incorrect thing to say. Jpeg is much more limited, in every way. I should qualify that statement I guess. I am in no way limited by JPEG when shooting the type of photos I usually shoot. Primarily it's a convenience thing (card/disk space, etc), but even if I shot raw all the time my cold storage bill would only be a couple bucks more a month. RAW vs. JPEG chat is probably the most tedious thing ever other than brand warrior-ing, but to the person who originally asked the question, go shoot in some challenging conditions and see what benefit there is for you, then decide how many cares you have.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
snappo posted:RAW makes a difference when you need to boost exposure, recover shadows and highlights, change WB, process colors, etc. Your test demonstrates that if you don't plan on processing your photos, then shooting straight to JPG will save you lots of time and disk space. Other than severely blown highlights you can usually squeeze a stop or so of adjustment out of any of those things, and if you need to fix it by more than a stop, your image probably has bigger issues than what format it's saved as.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
I wish I could emptyquote both those posts at once. EDIT: I was already strongly considering emptyquoting Musket's post.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Arcsech posted:I'm getting an old Canon DSLR from a friend for free as my first non-P&S camera since I mentioned I was thinking about getting one and he offered since he hadn't used it in years. It's old as hell but it'll most certainly be enough to get you started.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Sounds like a horrible waste of time. Sounds like something interesting to do once in a while if you happen to remember, but it sounds needlessly long and tedious as a learning exercise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:10000 pictures at an average of 25MB is only 250GB. Given disk sizes these days... v ...plus on-site backups, plus cold storage, plus request fees for cold storage, forever. I'm sure I'm in the minority but I do most of my work on a laptop and while disk space isn't a huge concern for me in TYOOL 2014, I'd also rather not burn it for no reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 03:15
|
|
v
|
Lucid Nonsense posted:Posted this in the Sony thread, but it seems this one gets more traffic. Anyone have some advice? I can't contribute much other than "28-80 is in no way wide angle".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted: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. If you mean the Nikon 35-80 4-5.6, it's also probably objectively one of the worst pieces of poo poo Nikon has ever let out the door.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Paco de Suave posted:http://honolulu.craigslist.org/oah/pho/4290627031.html That's more of a medium-telephoto zoom lens, so for 'everyday photos', no, it is probably not what you want, you want like an 18-55 or something. Luckily those are nearly free.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
Kenshin posted: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. This is pretty much the reason I have no desire for full-frame, if 200mm feels too short on crop, it's sure as hell not going to get any better on full frame.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
I really need to put "Seriously, buy used gear" somewhere in the thread title. KEH LN and EX+ grade stuff is effectively the same as buying it new, even down to manuals and poo poo often. I'd feel a lot better about saying this if KEH's site wasn't so godawful.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Honestly, while simplified, the dude who did the drawings probably made the easiest-to-understand version of this always-confusing explanation that I've ever seen. I might add some text to it and throw it in the OP or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
ante posted:Thirty-two times zoom! What do you mean, it's always good times explaining that an 11-22 and a 200-400 are both technically "2x zoom."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:A coworker asked me about this, and it was honestly the first time I ever really understood what they meant on those cameras with 3x / 5x zoom. It was the first time I ever gave it thought. Trying to explain focal length to him was a frustrating exercise. I recall seeing point & shoots with stickers like "28mm!" or "24mm!" which I guess was like the widest the lens went? poo poo makes no sense.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Crop factor has become a good excuse for pedants to be pedantic
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Soulex posted:I have a t4i I'd be willing to sell with Battery grip, 70-300 III, and kit lens. Round abouts the same price, if you are interested If interested please to be taking to the other thread.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Popup flashes are great for fill outdoors if you don't want to lug around a real one Yeah, I dunno why you'd put a popup flash there either, it's a perfectly good spot for an ambient light sensor to assist with auto-WB  
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 22:44
|
|