|
Delivery McGee posted:Best way to shoot football is to follow one team enough that they know you and the players/coaches/wise elders with field passes on the sidelines will step in front of you to protect you from a guy getting tackled over the sideline. If that's not possible, at least stay close to the TV guy and step behind him and let him take the hit. Also if you ever want to shoot sports, learn to shoot with both eyes open. In fact learn to do that anyways, it comes in handy. The little mental twitch to shift focus between eyes takes a bit of getting used to though.
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
DanManIt posted:way cheaper than anywhere else Elliotw2 posted:You're not going to get a warrantee and it potentially fell off a boat, the usual issues with cheap poo poo from HK. This seller seems to also have some issues with shady dealings or sending wrong items, so buy at your own risk. ding ding ding
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
NinetySevenA posted:I recently bought a Nikon D3200, I also have an old Nikon film camera. It has on it a Magnicon 28-70 AF lens. ( http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Magnicon-MC-28-70mm-F3.5-4.5_lens252.html ) I have now gotten it to work with the new camera. I had to lock the aperture at the minimum. Would this be a better lens to use rather than the kit lens that came with the camera? I'm assuming you mean the F-mount version of that lens, since the link is for A-mount. Either way it's probably complete trash, although cleaning it up and seeing if it works could be a good way to kill a few hours. I imagine whatever kit lens you got with the camera is still better.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
NinetySevenA posted:Thanks for the quick replies. I'll stick with the kit for now. By all means play with it and see if it's any good and have fun, I just meant that no, it is almost certainly not better than your kit lens. The Meat Dimension posted:Locking the aperture at the minimum value, at least on "modern" Nikon lenses, allows the camera to control the aperture. At least that's my experience. Yeah, without locking the aperture at maximum you'll get the ever-wonderful "fEE" error, since unless the aperture ring is at maximum (smallest aperture), the camera doesn't have control of the entire aperture range (it can only stop down as far as whatever the aperture ring is set to, for mechanical reasons). To the best of my knowledge there are no more than two Nikon lenses that have an electronically controlled as opposed to mechanically controlled aperture (just the T/S ones I think). SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 07:43 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
The Meat Dimension posted:Sorry about getting some terms screwed up, I think of aperture as 1/x instead of just the value on the lens. Is it safe to think of aperture like that? It's really just for the best if you just know which words mean 'wide aperture' and which mean 'narrow aperture'. It IS confusing when you're first starting out, but considering it's one of the more important concepts to get your head around, it's worth spending a bit of time getting it right. Also, something I wish I'd thought to look up earlier on when I first started and was trying to just do it from memory, but aperture stops go in multiples of 1.414 (well technically multiples of the square root of 2), hence f/2 -> f/2.8 -> f/4 etc (for whole stops, at least). Sometimes you can see weird aperture numbers on lenses because the actual number was rounded differently and/or 'creatively' from the six-decimal-place version.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
runlegosleeprepeat posted:The discussion on the previous page about diffraction limits was fascinating. Now I have some questions: 1. Pretty much. There are online calculators for this sorta thing. 2. That's true of pretty much all softness/aberrations, because you can obviously see fewer details in a small image. 3. That sounds vaguely reasonable but one of the dumbest possible things to do in photography is start setting up a bunch of rules and stuff, and also most fiddys are pretty acceptable even wide open so it's not like it's going to ruin your photos or something, and you might like the effect. Conversely, if you have way too much light for what you're trying to do (like if you're trying to do waterfall shenanigans in blazing sunlight), stopping down as far as it'll go will also not ruin your image.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:You could build your own cheap, slow, highly aberrated telephoto prime with a couple of stock spherical lenses, a toilet paper tube, and a hot glue gun. Or a paper towel tube, some foil, and a pin. I saw a thing once about a dude who managed to find two slightly different sized paper towel tubes and made a (push/pull) zoom pinhole lens.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
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).flakeloaf posted:Something like this, only useder and cheaper? If you're dead-set on a dedicated macro lens, the Nikon 40mm f/2.8 DX is cheaper than this and has a very, very low working distance (at 1:1 at least). Oddly, I haven't found this to be an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:This is why I'm a big fan of the colour pink. All of my most steal-able stuff would be various shades of pink if I could have my way. Nobody ever steals the pink lab cart, the pink labelling tape, the pink-ribbon-tied-on tools and instruments and books and wires and on and on and on. Pink is the anti-theft. Red just looks good. And ANYTHING is better than matte black for any object you can put down on the ground outdoors and instantly lose. Sadly stoners have been using the pink lighter trick since time immemorial, and it doesn't really work anymore, people still steal them. Just very slightly less. Now "lighters with pictures of buff dudes without shirts" is the new way to not get your lighter stolen (by dudes who aren't into that, at least). Not so much an option for cameras I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:And stoners will steal anything, so there's not much point worrying about that. Only if it's edible.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You can get plenty of OOF areas with a Crop sensor and a fast 50. Yeah, I mean obviously all the above poo poo HELPS, but you can do perfectly good low-DoF portraits with whatever your brand's (70/80)-200 2.8 happens to be, on a crop sensor. Wide open, longest practical focal length, at minimum focus distance. So yeah a 200mm f/2 on a full frame body would certainly give you great results but it's kinda dumb to say you NEED that to do this kinda thing. ...although if we want to start dickwaving about depth of field, I'm gonna have to get some large format dudes in here to take everyone to school 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:large format dude mods?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Yeah, for sure. lol if you think i'd either make or enforce a rule that involved me having to count how many threads an image was posted in
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:
But enough about your posting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
theloafingone posted:That price range would seem to fit a used Tamron 70-300mm VC USD. Not sure about Nikon's offerings in that range though. The 70-300 VR (the Nikon one) is middlin and costs way too loving much for what it does. Go with the Tamron VC used.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
zgrowler2 posted:As an update, very pleased with the Pentax K-30. took it out for a few test shoots around town and the kit lens does real well. Bought a Vivitar Series 1 v3 70-210mm to accompany it and that lens is gorgeous. Heavy, imperfect, but gorgeous. There's something about manual focus that resonates with me. I guess there's no reason you COULDN'T use a zoom, but most people used relatively short primes (fiddys, 28s, etc). It can be cool for like REALLY TINY stuff, but the working distance is hilariously small, as is the DoF. It's certainly worth blowing $10 on a reversing ring and giving it a shot, but don't count on it being your breakthrough into the world of macro.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:A nice big 500 or 600 series external flash (aka "speedlight" aka "flashgun") can burn stuff pretty nicely, but a pop-up on a DSLR has a guide number of like 13, no? Do they typically get hot enough to light paper on fire? I'm not talking singe, or leave a brown quasi-burn-mark on the business card or whatever, I mean flames. Absolutely not. It's perfectly fine on popup flashes. I mean hell, one time I was trying to use my SB800 to light a tiny piece of flashpaper that was literally resting directly on the flash head, and I ended up having to sharpie a black dot on it before it'd work. And that's paper that is specifically intended to burn. Yes, the bigger speedlights do generate a decent amount of heat, just for a very, very short period of time. Having said that, having dark red gel pressed directly onto your flash head is still a stupid idea.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Wikipedia and Snapsort confirm the sensor on the D5100 is bigger than the D3100. Same for the D5200 vs D3200. Though only by fractions of a millimeter If you have a 1.6x crop, it probably means you have a Canon sensor, which you should really donate to your local museum of pre-WW2 antiquities.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Animal posted:Thanks, I am reading about the Pentax and will definitely take it into consideration. Ignore all included accessories that aren't lenses or lens hoods. I'd go with the Nikon bundle, and I say that not because I love Nikon so much, but because that Tamron is VERY often recommended in here and you'll likely hang onto it. There's nothing specifically wrong with the 55-250 but it doesn't really stand out much. A bag and a memory card are things you buy after, once you work out, say, what poo poo you need to fit in your bag.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
"Don't use back button for autofocus" crew checking in. I mean do if that's what makes you happy but it's not some critical pro-tip.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:None of it matters. Back button has more versatility, but if it's awkward, it's not worth it. It's unlikely to make enough difference to overcome the physical discomfort it causes you. Try both and use whichever method pisses you off the least. There's no objectively correct answer.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:+1 - I was glad when Canon started adding the AF-ON button, because I like not feather holding the shutter in ai servo, but for one shot I'd rather it just be on the shutter. So now best of both worlds instead of switching back and forth. It's also kinda handy in some situations where something unexpected happens and you just mash the shutter down all the way for basically "start shooting as soon as the AF gets a lock."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:I was leaning more towards the $100 side of things for the lense, this thing should work with the camera and seems decent. I quite like that lens but for the love of god get a used one from KEH, it shouldn't be more than $60 and there are millions of them. Use the rest of the money to get used fiddy or 35 1.8. Like seriously the 18-55 kit lens is common enough that I got mine for cost-of-shipping (which ended up being eight dollars.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Get the nifty-fifty. You won't regret it, certainly not at that price. Also check out the 70-210 f/4, which is some kind of inexplicably great screw-drive lens. Not nearly as easy to find, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
Dren posted:The 35mm 1.8G is a great lens at a great price. It's quality is top notch and nothing else in the dx lineup even comes close to it in terms of value. The 50mm 1.8 AF-D is just ok in terms of quality. The focus speed isn't as fast as I'd like thanks to the screw drive motor (I have a D7000) and it will miss focus a lot at 1.8 on subjects that move. I'm not a big fan of the focal length either. 85mm or longer would be better for a posed portrait and 35mm or shorter is better for indoors/everyday type stuff. But for ~$100 it's not very expensive to get one to play with. This probably has more to do with the D7000 than it does with the lens. (Ask me about the D2x drive screw being so goddamn fast it's been known to damage the screw drive coupling on cheap lenses)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I ended up grabbing it as I'm sure I could always sell it on for a similar price if I find I don't get on with it as well. I have a real basic Nikkor 70-300 f5-5.6 (from memory) but will keep my eye out for that 70-210 f4 if I see one at the right price. Thanks! Pretty sure yours is a 4-5.6, unless they've made some weird one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Sorry, was a typo. Yeah 4-5.6. It seems pretty bottom barrel when it comes to bigger zooms, but hey it takes photos at least. I don't tend to use it much, but should probably experiment more. They're not great but they're not complete trash either.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Get a not-quite-newest m43 body for peanuts, and either a wideish fast prime or a normal zoom. Yeah, moderately-old Panasonic bodies are so cheap they're pretty much giving them away in cereal boxes now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:Basically, an expensive lens that is probably better but not noticeable to most. The main thing probably being that one covers a full-frame sensor and the other doesn't, though. Additionally the nanocoating on the Nikon ultrawides is literally witchcraft.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Dren posted:Don't rush out and buy a macro lens though, the 18-55 might be good enough as is and you might be able to make due with a reversing ring. Don't use a reversing ring with an 18-55 unless you find yourself feeling not as suicidal as you'd like. Also since there's no aperture ring on that you're gonna be holding it open with your finger if it's reverse-mounted. The Nikon 18-55 can get surprisingly close though, like by no means "macro", but it can focus pretty close.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Thanks for the information on the lense differences. I've not used an SLR since I retired the Minolta (35mm film) from active use, so probably 25 years. Lots of learning to do I'm sure. It's hard to say because I don't know the actual size of the things that dude is taking pictures of, but that doesn't look like SUPER X-TREEM MACRO or anything. Bear in mind the manual focus ring on the 18-55 is trash, but you can use it, and the manual focus rings on most AF lenses are pretty bad. That said, if you decide later that you want sweet manual focus close-up shots, there's a billion cheap options for Nikon (the old 55mm micro nikkor in its various incarnations, etc). Macro diopters ("close up filters") are also actually pretty useable if you aren't expecting miracles from them (and you won't be, if you're coming from a P&S.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Fair point on the size. That's a 1/64 scale ship - the deck planks are 1/8" wide. The sled pieces (red painted wood) that the carronades (cannon) are mounted on are 1/16" thick. Yeah that's not THAT small, you could probably get away with the 18-55 and cropping, or blow a whole $15 on a set of close-up filters on eBay.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:You're going to see a big jump in quality and ease-of-use for your model ships, Locator, with just that 18-55. Have fun with it, post pictures in the Dorkroom, shoot lots and lots and it will be lots of fun. Awaiting the Model Sailing Ship Megathread - 1/64 The Size, 1/16th The Fun!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:On-line is the way to buy memory cards. EBay for the thrills, NewEgg or Amazon for reliability and the joy of posting snarky reviews. I'm not entirely sure this is true since even goddamn Amazon themselves have sold counterfeit cards on more than one occasion (and that was just the times someone noticed.) There is still a use for brick & mortar stores, and this is one of them. It's not bad for CF, slightly worse for SD, and a complete loving nightmare for MicroSD.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:I actually got a counterfeit CF card from Amazon a few months ago, at least they were easy about replacing it with a better one. Also I'm always kinda wary of flash memory companies that don't actually have their own semiconductor fab (or don't have an ironclad agreement to exclusively use one brand of chip) and just buy the excess from other people's production lines (lookin' at you, Kingston), since it's entirely possible their standards may 'slip' a little if none of the good manufacturers have anything to sell them on the cheap.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
NeuralSpark posted:It didn't seem all that different skill-wise from opening a Mac Mini or the like. I didn't know you needed four putty knives to open a Canon 50 1.4 (Seriously have PTSD after trying to open an early C2D Mini)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:mods, tia You forgot Hoya or who the gently caress ever.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 06:13
|
|