Gear discussion thread v. "I got some new gear and I got to post it here" - General

if you're upgrading you might as well go interchangeable

Right, a 550D is around £300.

see look loads of dslr bodies [url]http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/used-digital-slr-cameras/?keyword=&curr_min_price=&curr_max_price=&min_price=0&max_price=4200&out_of_stock=&view_all=&filter=price+ASC[/url]

If I do buy just a body, what's a good all-round lens to get?

kit lens (18-55mm w/e your camera company packs with the body) 50 1.8 for canon after that dunno about nikon

[QUOTE=RobbL;43950392]If I do buy just a body, what's a good all-round lens to get?[/QUOTE] This is a very subjective matter, but I'm sure you'll be fine with a kit-lens. This means a cheap 18-55mm or so. [editline]17th February 2014[/editline] and yeah, after a while you buy a 50mm 1.8

for starters, stick with a kit 18-55 or whatever and a 50/35 1.8 [editline]17th February 2014[/editline] ffs

[QUOTE=dwt110;43949974]i cant decide between the 1.8d or 1.8g or the 1.4d reddit advised most against the 1.4d but idk[/QUOTE] I doub't you'll be using that 2/3rd of an extra f-stop that much. The depth of field is really narrow and doesn't always produce the desired image. I think what's more important is which one has the best autofocus?

1.8G. Better than the 50 1.4D and 1.4G. Has a Aspherical element so sharper wide open than the 1.4 lenses on 1.8 (only Nikon 50 that does have a aspherical element). Not 1.4 but who gives a fuck anyway.

[QUOTE=.Lain;43949307]why does the focus show up differently than the end result if i use my optical viewfinder with my 50 1.8d? it's fine if i use the LV. usually if i use the optical finder, my photos are a touch out of focus even if they were in focus in my finder at the time (which is the reason a lot of my old photos used to be out of focus). would it a problem with my camera (d3200), or the lens?[/QUOTE] i don't have a definitive answer for you, but i've got some guesses. firstly, optical viewfinders do not show the true DoF on fast lenses past f2.8. Screens are designed to be the brightest around f2.8 because this is where the pro level zooms are at and where the most brightness is desired. you can test this by setting your aperture manually to f2.8 from f1.8, and you will notice in the finder that the images will look exactly the same in terms of brightness and depth of field what this means is that when you are focusing, you are seeing a great depth of field than what you are actually getting. this is what is causing focusing inaccuracy. the lens and camera are fine, it is just difficult to nail critical focus in a small viewfinder that does not actually show you what the lens is seeing (while liveview does, and hence why you did fine there). in terms of being able to focus fine with your kit, your aperture is smaller than f2.8 so you are getting an accurate preview image this is what i'm assuming the problem is. if your mirror was out of alignment then your AF would be messed up as well. also if your diopter is set so that the viewfinder info is in focus then you are good there too.

eh, that sounds very likely i'll just stick to using LV, then

i highly recommend live view for all manual focusing needs if you don't have any sort of assistance (split prism, microprism, or viewfinder magnifiers). it's much more accurate, and digital magnification will make it easier than it ever was in an optical finder to nail critical focus. nailing focus at wide apertures without any sort of assists in any optical viewfinder is going to be extremely difficult, even a big 100% full frame pentaprism finder.

hey guys, I'm kinda new to lenses and stuff and had a question: would a 35mm f/2.4 lens ([URL]http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-21987-35mm-Digital-cameras/dp/B0042RTQPC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1392709491&sr=8-1&keywords=f%2F2.4+35mm+pentax[/URL]) be able to recreate the bokeh seen in these type of portraits? [img_thumb]http://25.media.tumblr.com/9529f0f6a0bafa16faa5da9b9153850a/tumblr_mrcxm8CZPt1sf96n9o1_1280.jpg[/img_thumb][img_thumb]http://25.media.tumblr.com/44d78718f8eb7a734f52b2422acceb8c/tumblr_mrcy17hjQR1sf96n9o1_1280.jpg[/img_thumb]

Those look pretty dope. Would you recommend the 35mm or the 50mm f/1.8 as a starting prime lens?

the 35mm would be a better all around lens, but the 50mm would be better for portrait stuff

Man the indecisions...would you say the 35mm can still achieve bokeh when taking full-body portraits?

it can yes, but it will be less than a 50mm 1.8. you won't get much bokeh for full body shots even with a 50mm 1.8. the 35mm would be a more natural perspective for full body, but the 50mm would provide quite a bit more background blurring. kab's examples are very good and telling of what the lens is capable of in that regard.

That 35 will give you a more subtle BOshuthefucKEHup, while the 50 will just turn your background into solid blobs of color.

[QUOTE=magepro99;43955753]Man the indecisions...would you say the 35mm can still achieve bokeh when taking full-body portraits?[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2853/12460123143_c1063eeab8_c.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5486/12459949895_8c3546f66c_c.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5542/12507185113_e6260ebea7_c.jpg[/IMG] [editline]18th February 2014[/editline] 35 f/2

the inaccurate colour/brightness representation on my camera is really starting to bug me, if i take something that looks correctly exposed through the display, it's always so much darker on any other display. grr

Try different brightness settings

[QUOTE=.Lain;43958222]the inaccurate colour/brightness representation on my camera is really starting to bug me, if i take something that looks correctly exposed through the display, it's always so much darker on any other display. grr[/QUOTE] Are you using a Windows or Mac?

So now that the Gh4 is a thing, I feel like I'm going to be sticking with a m4/3 mount. The adapters are neat, but this lens looks solid as fuck: [url]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855215-REG/Voigtlander_BA175M_Nokton_17_5mm_f_0_95_Lens.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Trogdon;43958516]Are you using a Windows or Mac?[/QUOTE] [img]http://facepunch.com/fp/browser/osx.png[/img] using lightroom with standard import settings, but it still looks dark if i preview the NEF with preview [editline]18th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Kabstrac;43958329]Could try using the histogram more Maybe turn the brightness down on your screen?[/QUOTE] turning the brightness down completely on my camera still results in noticeably more bright photographs than what i see on my computers

i think camera screens quite commonly have slightly different gamma from computer screens, i'd recommend having a photo open on your computer and on the camera at the same time, then playing around with curves to see if you can match what you see on the camera it's impractical to actually use on every photo, but it'd give you an idea of the difference but yeah, best to rely on the histogram more

i'll start messing around with the histogram, thanks. haven't had to use it before so i guess it's always a good time to learn how thanks

i've got no idea how macs work, but i know my computer was having brightness issues and was able to trace it down to the color profile being created by the GPU, which was inaccurate. i switched it over to standard and everything went back to normal also photos usually look different from the camera screen to your computer because your camera previews the jpg which has settings applied to it (such as contrast and saturation adjustments), while the RAW file loaded into lightroom gets rid of those things. take a raw+jpg and import the jpg into your computer and see if that looks different from your camera screen (hopefully it doesn't)

[QUOTE=Trogdon;43959109]i've got no idea how macs work, but i know my computer was having brightness issues and was able to trace it down to the color profile being created by the GPU, which was inaccurate. i switched it over to standard and everything went back to normal also photos usually look different from the camera screen to your computer because your camera previews the jpg which has settings applied to it (such as contrast and saturation adjustments), while the RAW file loaded into lightroom gets rid of those things. take a raw+jpg and import the jpg into your computer and see if that looks different from your camera screen (hopefully it doesn't)[/QUOTE] I used to have that, a while back my monitor was showing a blue tint on whites, fixed it via gpu settings.

[QUOTE=magepro99;43955620]Those look pretty dope. Would you recommend the 35mm or the 50mm f/1.8 as a starting prime lens?[/QUOTE] Here's some 50mm f/1.8 for comparison if ya want; [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/sullyphotoagraphy/8259316793/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8058/8259316793_42bc45144e_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/sullyphotoagraphy/8260332792/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8203/8260332792_c2c6e64813_c.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/sullyphotoagraphy/8176858055/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8199/8176858055_32033921e4_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/sullyphotoagraphy/11316113265/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7443/11316113265_77e8d07b5f_z.jpg[/img][/url]

[QUOTE=codenamecueball;43956879][IMG]http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2853/12460123143_c1063eeab8_c.jpg[/IMG] 35 f/2[/QUOTE] Damn I wish the pentax 35mm f/2.0 wasn't so expensive :( I guess the 35mm f/2.4 will do it for me, thanks guys!