Photography & photography gear thread

[photekq]

I figure we have enough people here enthusiastic about photography to warrant a thread dedicated to the discussion of it - whether it be gear or techniques.

I also created this to double up as a thread where I can ask for advice on a purchase..

My D3100 and its kit lens are starting to die a slow death, so I figure it's time for me to upgrade.

I'm prepared to spend about £600 on a new body and one or two lenses. I have no brand loyalty and I would prefer to buy second hand if it means I can get more for my money. I don't really photograph much except for keyboards, so I had a good 50mm prime lens in mind, and perhaps an 18-55(ish) zoom lens just for anything the 50mm can't handle. Does anyone have any suggestions?

P.S I wasn't sure if this would be best in off topic or the photos & videos area. Do feel free to move it if you think photos & videos would be better.

[Madhias]

Since you make really gorgeous pictures you could sell an ultra rare Cherry keyboard, and invest this money in a nice lens, and body, probably used - if you have a good forum in the UK with a classifieds section. Think of the new small Sonys, a used Nikon D800, they all have a fantastic dynamic range and things like that, and never look back! A good lens you will have for a lifetime and (let) repair it when there is something broken. Also used lenses in higher price ranges stay the same, you can always sell again for a similar price.

[kokokoy]

Agree with Madhias for going with a good lens. Perhaps a 24-70 for a more versatile range? A bit on the high side but its something that doesn't depreciate in value that easily. I love my 24-70 (Canon) and been using it more than 5 years and I read before that the Nikon one is much better.

[seebart]

You have seen my recent pictures photekq, I kept my old Pentax K-10 with only 10.2 megapixels but got a nice cheap vintage M42 lens and a adapter. High quality lenses make all the difference IMO, vintage ones need to be in really good shape that's all. If you want to save some money (for those dyesub's ) and experiment with your D3100 as long as it's not defect keep your Nikon and get this:

http://www.amazon.de/Adapter-NIKON-Bajo ... B002Z4T2A8

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Carl-Zeiss-Te ... SwnLdWp991

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SUPER-TAKUMAR ... SwPc9WxeMN

[idollar]

Agree with Madhias for going with a good lens. Perhaps a 24-70 for a more versatile range? A bit on the high side but its something that doesn't depreciate in value that easily. I love my 24-70 (Canon) and been using it more than 5 years and I read before that the Nikon one is much better.

Fixed lenses is the way to go. The light goes through the glass first. A good body with bad lenses is useless.
Select the glass first, you will very probably find a decent body for it.
Also, lenses will last forever, if you select a good system.

Sites like this one will help: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reviews.htm

I would also recommend a mirror-less camera (sonny has been mentioned). The drawback is that the sensor may not be hidden behind the curtain and get more dirt. But you will be able to shoot at lower speeds without a tripod.

[kokokoy]

Yup totally agree. But he already have a 50mm and was heading for another on a 15-55.

[Muirium]

I recently spent that same amount on a new body and a nice flash. (I've already got a pretty solid lens collection so I'm Canon loyal thanks to that!) Here's my recent flash photography thread where I'm still in early days of mastering it:

photos-f62/learning-the-art-of-flash-an ... 12965.html

You only have one lens, Photekq? And a prime at that! Impressive. Your shots are regularly among the best at DT. You've learned how to use it well indeed.

I'd suggest staying with Nikon as they're what you're used to. But with just one lens, you're quite free to jump ship to another system. I'm waist deep in Canon (and loving it, rival fanboys!) so my decisions are already half-made for me. Nikon's got excellent glass though, too. But I'd be wary of going Sony or the rest.

As for lenses: keyboard photography is a specific niche. The lenses I find most useful are wide (short focal length) primes and zooms, typically stopped down to f/8 and slower so it doesn't make much difference which. What apertures are you shooting at? Long glass isn't much good with large, static, objects like boards. But a true macro can work wonders, of course. Nikon's equivalent to my 60 mm Canon macro is very well regarded:

http://m.dpreview.com/products/nikon/le ... 2p8g_micro

[XMIT]

If you are buying a new body go full frame. A good full frame body has more than enough sensors to work well in "crop mode" with lenses sized for small sensors

I'm a Nikon person at the moment. I think a used D600 represents a phenomenal value, more so than a used D800.

If I had to buy one lens, only, it would be the 60mm f/2.8 "Micro NIKKOR" macro lens. It doesn't open up more then f/2.8 but then again neither does a much pricier zoom lens. It's as sharp as anything, distortion free, and lets you focus as close as like 3cm.

I've never used a mirrorless camera and can't comment on how well they work.

[Compgeke]

For used under 600, you should be able to grab a Nikon D7000 and a few lenses. I'd probably go with a D7000 + 28-105 f/3.5-4.5D and with the remaining money a decent tripod providing you don't already have one, or maybe some lighting.

I'm personally using a Nikon D90 w/ 28-80 f/3.3-5.6GG (that silver one) and a cheap Quantaray tripod and it provides decent enough results and it's all cheap stuff (I mean the lens was $5).

[Muirium]

If you are buying a new body go full frame. A good full frame body has more than enough sensors to work well in "crop mode" with lenses sized for small sensors.

This is not true for Canon cameras and lenses. EF-S lenses do not mount on full frame EF Cameras: their optics protrude behind the mount plate. Canon sneakily uses the space vacated by a crop camera's significantly smaller mirror. This is a double win for them as their EF-S lenses get to be effectively smaller when in use, and it pushes people up to full frame gear. Full frame lenses do fit on crop Canons just fine, though. Which is why my lenses are a mixture of both formats, while my bodies are stictly crop.

Besides, I like my camera bodies small and full featured, like an HHKB. I've used full frame Canons but their advantages don't suit me, much like larger keyboards.

[Madhias]

With those high pixel full frames you will be not happy though with all (cheap, old) lenses, they are picky what is mounted on them! At least that was my first experience, that some lenses are just not nice together with those many pixels and I sold quickly two lenses and swapped for different ones.

[Muirium]

Yeah, that's another strength of crop cameras. The centre of every lens is its sharpest point. Aberrations get worse with distance from dead centre. Which means you're cropping down to the good stuff with a smaller sensor. Full frame is better for wide, wide landscapes and the like. (Medium and even full format are of course better still.) But all those luxurious edges are where the evil rainbows live, and outright distortions. Blech! Crop it down.

[XMIT]

For used under 600, you should be able to grab a Nikon D7000 and a few lenses. I'd probably go with a D7000 + 28-105 f/3.5-4.5D and with the remaining money a decent tripod providing you don't already have one, or maybe some lighting.

I'm personally using a Nikon D90 w/ 28-80 f/3.3-5.6GG (that silver one) and a cheap Quantaray tripod and it provides decent enough results and it's all cheap stuff (I mean the lens was $5).

Yes. You'll also get better depth of field more easily with a smaller sensor. I have a D7000 as well.

It depends on what your goals are. I'm able to get some really amazing macro shots at 1:1 on my D600. Then again, a single key cap is smaller than even the D7000''s crop sensor.

Muirium's EF-S versus APS-C lens compatibility comment for Canon lenses is also something to consider.

A bunch of folks love the mirrorless DSLRs. I wanted a professional grade camera with everything but the cost and weight of a true pro camera (D4, D800) and am very pleased with the D600. Its ability to shoot tethered, to perform in-camera corrections, to export to an HDMI monitor, to have a full sized battery grip, etc. make it fun to use not just for keyboards.

[XMIT]

With those high pixel full frames you will be not happy though with all (cheap, old) lenses, they are picky what is mounted on them! At least that was my first experience, that some lenses are just not nice together with those many pixels and I sold quickly two lenses and swapped for different ones.

Yes, but you can also get some real gems of lenses on there at used prices. For sure cheap plastic lenses of the 90s took advantage of the fact that you couldn't see their awfulness on the cheap film that the manufacturers expected you to use with them. DSLRs - particularly full frame, high resolution ones - are so unforgiving in this regard.

As Muirium pointed out many lenses will have fall-off or aberration in the corners.

This is yet another reason why I love the 60mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor so much.

[seebart]

If it wasn't for those manual Pentax lenses I still had lying around I would have gotten a Nikon or Canon DSLR too. I've been shooting all my recent keyboard pictues with this setup, the camera handles soo much better with the battery grip. I really need to get an external flash.

IMG_20160229_214248.jpg (387.16 KiB) Viewed 4432 times

[Muirium]

CARL ZEISS JENA DDR indeed! Very chic. But you do indeed need a separate strobe to play with. They transform the whole game.

Re: 60 mm f/2.8 macro lenses: I have one too. That little Canon lens is my primary piece of glass. Wonderfully adaptable, and tack sharp.

[seebart]

Yes a separate strobe is my next DSLR related buy. The quality of the Carl Zeiss optics is awesome, the technical specs obviously not at all. According to the serial number the lens is from the 1960's! I paid € 45 for it, had to get an adapter ring though. M42 mount.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M42_lens_mount

[Muirium]

Ha, looking good!


Well, I think my little 760D would suit it better than that big bugger. Can't say I've ever seen any East German glass make it up here to Scotland, though.

[seebart]

Hell yeah I'd love to try that Pentacon 50mm! Sure I'd love to get this new Pentax SMC-DA 55mm / f1,4 SDM...

http://www.amazon.de/Pentax-SMC-DA-Obje ... B001GAPHRE

only problem it runs at EUR 853,98.

[Muirium]

Glass gets real costly. I've got a fairly nice quick f/1.4 Sigma. Going just half a stop faster costs, well, exponentially more:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-Lens-D ... B000I1YIDQ

Lenses like these are unsuited to keyboards, mind. Even f/2.8 is much too shallow to do much with a keyboard. Super fast lenses are for crazy bokeh, which is not a problem with something the size we're shooting!

[XMIT]

You really don't need something that opens that wide for keyboards. I'm more excited about something that can stop down to f/16 or f/22 or even f/32 and not have diffraction.

If I had truly unlimited funds I'd love to experiment with a tilt and shift lens such as the Nikon PC-E Micro NIKKOR
45mm f/2.8D ED or its 85mm sibling. The 24mm is way too wide for keyboard work.

[photekq]

Thanks all for the advice!

Sorry, I made a typo in the OP!

I meant to say :

"My D3100 and its kit lens are starting to die a slow death, so I figure it's time for me to upgrade."

I have the 18-55 kit lens, not a prime lens. Both the body and the lens are starting to die.. Autofocus motor in the lens, various issues in the body.

Since you make really gorgeous pictures you could sell an ultra rare Cherry keyboard, and invest this money in a nice lens, and body, probably used - if you have a good forum in the UK with a classifieds section. Think of the new small Sonys, a used Nikon D800, they all have a fantastic dynamic range and things like that, and never look back! A good lens you will have for a lifetime and (let) repair it when there is something broken. Also used lenses in higher price ranges stay the same, you can always sell again for a similar price.

I think the D800 may be a little much for me.. It seems to sell around £800~ second hand, which exceeds my budget for the body + lens. You're definitely right about the lenses though. Now, out of curiosity.. what do you personally look for in a "good" lens? Also, slightly off topic.. I've always wondered which body/lenses you use for your photos

You have seen my recent pictures photekq, I kept my old Pentax K-10 with only 10.2 megapixels but got a nice cheap vintage M42 lens and a adapter. High quality lenses make all the difference IMO, vintage ones need to be in really good shape that's all. If you want to save some money (for those dyesub's ) and experiment with your D3100 as long as it's not defect keep your Nikon and get this:

I should look into vintage lenses, you're right. I do own one old Nikon 50mm prime lens, but the issue with it is the focus range.. It will only focus on things half way across the room, so it's useless for keyboards! I only use it with macro rings to take macro photos. Unfortunately the D3100 is starting to pack in, so I will need a new body some time soon.

You only have one lens, Photekq? And a prime at that! Impressive. Your shots are regularly among the best at DT. You've learned how to use it well indeed.

I only use one - the 18-55mm that came with the D3100. That said, I rarely stray from the 55mm focal length as it gives me the highest aperture of f/5.6. Sorry about the typo in the OP!

As for lenses: keyboard photography is a specific niche. The lenses I find most useful are wide (short focal length) primes and zooms, typically stopped down to f/8 and slower so it doesn't make much difference which. What apertures are you shooting at? Long glass isn't much good with large, static, objects like boards. But a true macro can work wonders, of course. Nikon's equivalent to my 60 mm Canon macro is very well regarded:

http://m.dpreview.com/products/nikon/le ... 2p8g_micro

I usually shoot at the highest aperture I can - f/5.6 in the case of my 18-55. I'm not a fan of bokeh for most shots, so I try and get as much focus as I can! I prefer lots of focus and a long exposure than not much focus and a fast exposure. I have indeed heard very good things about that 60mm lens, and it's something I'd like to get if one turns up for the right price.

The D600 and D7000 have been the two cameras in my crosshairs, and this thread has reinforced that. The D600 being probably the only full frame that I could get, and the D7000 being a mighty good value crop.

How about Canon? Which models would I be looking at for D600/D7000 equivalents? I'll start having a look into that now, as I don't want to disregard the next largest brand! The more models I'm open to, the greater my chance for a great deal.

[Muirium]

Aperture is a bit of an awkward beast to talk about thanks to the way it's defined. As you know, f/8 shoots a darker picture than f/4 (two stops darker, and therefore a quarter of the light), screening out the light from the edges of the lens and yielding a deeper focus. I try not to call an aperture high or low because 8 sure looks higher than 4 on first glance, yet you get more light and more blur from the lower number. Moar depth off field! Ungh. Easily confuses conversation, especially in the presence of newbs. Instead I'll say higher f/number (specifically) or tighter aperture (in general).

Similar story with shutter speed. I like to refer to long or short exposures, and slow or fast shutters. Makes it good and clear.

You're right to shoot with tighter apertures. Depth of field is a beautiful thing, especially when clarity is concerned. Everyone likes to go overboard with the opposite when they first lay their hands on gear! Indeed, phone camera filters often soften images to fake a similar effect. Bokeh is beautiful too, when used well. What's confusing, though, is the way newbs refer to depth of field in the opposite direction to us. Shallow focus can indeed make a composition appear deeper, and vice versa, so cue the hilarious misunderstandings. Gah!

Does your current glass really only stop down to f/5.6? My worst performer in that regard is my 30 mm f/1.4 Sigma fast prime, and even it stops down to f/16. f/5.6 is a fairly wide aperture, it's as fast as my zooms go when fully extended. (When I want real telephoto effect, I have a two stops faster 200 mm f/2.8 prime for that!)

Canon's camera lineup is more complex than I'd like. But there's a helpful chart on Wikipedia which gives good overview of the past and present. Note the colours: they are each generation of Canon's core sensor and processor package. Here's the page for my 760D, the chart's down the bottom:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_760D

I'm delighted with the 760D. Just as compact as my ancient 350D, yet stunningly faster (ISO 6400 is clearer than ISO 400 was for me before, and possibly 200 too!) and immense feature density. The flip out display, touchscreen UI, shoulder LCD and Wi-Fi remote shooting are a lot of fun to learn.

I got mine from Jessops (online, while I was away in California, for £100 worth of winter rebate reasons) who apparently still exist after some buyout! Not so in Edinburgh, where our one and only remaining camera shop is an indie specializing in exotic second hand gear. But if there's a camera store near you, definitely give the competing modern bodies a hands on. You can learn a lot in person that you'll never know from afar. Just like keyboards!

[Khers]

When I bought my first real camera one or two years back I was initially dead set on getting a DSLR. The prime objects for my desire was the D600, the D7100, the K-3 and the 6D. I ended up with none of them though. I went to a well sorted photographer's store in town and had a good squeeze on the different bodies with a photographer-nerd friend of mine (his D800 and the pictures it could acquire was the deciding factor for getting a real camera) and found that all of them were too heavy and bulky for me, especially when taking the objective into consideration. I was very impressed by the Sony A7 though, it was so much smaller and lighter, yet was as capable as the others. I didn't get that one either though, it had just launched and the objective eco system was very small (my friend said something about adapters and Leicas, but I wanted convenience) and quite expensive.

In the end I went for a Fuji XE2 with a 35/1.4 and while the tech geek in me still thinks that I should perhaps have said fuck it I want full frame, I'm rather pleased with it. It's relatively small, but not so small that it get's lost in my hands, and relatively lightweight, important considerations when it's primarily bought to take better pictures when traveling. The 35mm focal length objective is very well suited when it comes to the format of the camera, small and lightweight and the 35mm focal length is the most versatile for a prime on a cropped sensor. Sometimes I wish I had something wider, but I seldom want something with a longer focal length.

[Muirium]

Heh, and I thought I'd get taunted for my dinky wee Digital Rebel!

Fixed lens* cameras are a realm of their own. I can definitely see the good in something Leica style for street photography (don't be creepy!) and pocket sized convenience. They can go places our big boys can't go.

But studio work, like keyboard photography, surely isn't their turf. You can do it, like you can haul your full frame around the party too, but neither's really in its comfort zone and you can always tell.

*Correction: the Fuji isn't fixed lens. It can take a range of them. So it's more versatile (optically speaking) than a Leica. But as with all mirrorless cameras (which I did consider in my recent search) there's only so much compatible glass out there, until you start needing adapters that will make it as deep as a bigger camera anyway. Lenses are designed with a certain flange distance in mind. If the camera is too slender, it don't work.

[Khers]

The XE2 isn't a fixed lens camera mind, I just happen to use it as one. I could in principle get one of Fuji's wider objectives, like a 14, 16 or 23mm but I haven't, since I find the 35mm focal length to suit most of my needs.

It could be improved upon for shooting keyboards, but the best improvement I could do, I think, is to get a tripod. Still, it would be no match for my friends D800, but it would definitely allow me more freedom when it comes to shutter speeds...

[ohaimark]

I've been working with the Sony a6000 and vintage lenses for a while... Well, maybe antiques too. I have one from the '50s. The manual focus is annoying for moving subjects, but you can't beat the prices on old Canon FD glass if you're shooting immobile things.

One of the free "apps" for the camera has been very useful for low-light exposures, too. Instead of hooking up a remote you can wave your hand over the photovoltaic sensor (which normally tells the camera you're looking through the viewfinder) to take a photo. Much less vibration. It's somewhat convenient, though Sony's UI makes it more difficult than it needs to be.

[photekq]

Sorry for the slow response! I've been so busy this past week.

Aperture is a bit of an awkward beast to talk about thanks to the way it's defined. As you know, f/8 shoots a darker picture than f/4 (two stops darker, and therefore a quarter of the light), screening out the light from the edges of the lens and yielding a deeper focus. I try not to call an aperture high or low because 8 sure looks higher than 4 on first glance, yet you get more light and more blur from the lower number. Moar depth off field! Ungh. Easily confuses conversation, especially in the presence of newbs. Instead I'll say higher f/number (specifically) or tighter aperture (in general).

Similar story with shutter speed. I like to refer to long or short exposures, and slow or fast shutters. Makes it good and clear.

You're right to shoot with tighter apertures. Depth of field is a beautiful thing, especially when clarity is concerned. Everyone likes to go overboard with the opposite when they first lay their hands on gear! Indeed, phone camera filters often soften images to fake a similar effect. Bokeh is beautiful too, when used well. What's confusing, though, is the way newbs refer to depth of field in the opposite direction to us. Shallow focus can indeed make a composition appear deeper, and vice versa, so cue the hilarious misunderstandings. Gah!

Does your current glass really only stop down to f/5.6? My worst performer in that regard is my 30 mm f/1.4 Sigma fast prime, and even it stops down to f/16. f/5.6 is a fairly wide aperture, it's as fast as my zooms go when fully extended. (When I want real telephoto effect, I have a two stops faster 200 mm f/2.8 prime for that!)

Canon's camera lineup is more complex than I'd like. But there's a helpful chart on Wikipedia which gives good overview of the past and present. Note the colours: they are each generation of Canon's core sensor and processor package. Here's the page for my 760D, the chart's down the bottom:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_760D

I'm delighted with the 760D. Just as compact as my ancient 350D, yet stunningly faster (ISO 6400 is clearer than ISO 400 was for me before, and possibly 200 too!) and immense feature density. The flip out display, touchscreen UI, shoulder LCD and Wi-Fi remote shooting are a lot of fun to learn.

I got mine from Jessops (online, while I was away in California, for £100 worth of winter rebate reasons) who apparently still exist after some buyout! Not so in Edinburgh, where our one and only remaining camera shop is an indie specializing in exotic second hand gear. But if there's a camera store near you, definitely give the competing modern bodies a hands on. You can learn a lot in person that you'll never know from afar. Just like keyboards!

Yeah, this is the lens : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_AF- ... f/3.5-5.6G

The focal length and aperture are tied to one another, so at 18mm you're at f/3.5 and at 55mm you're at f/5.6. That's why I pretty much use it as a 55mm prime lens.

Ah, so it's the 760D that you use! I perused Canon's current lineup and that's the one which seemed to suit my needs the best. I haven't delved into second hand Canons yet though.

I think I will try and visit a neaby Jessops to get my hands on a few cameras.

[Madhias]

That is a good idea to try out and actually touch some cameras, although you get used to the model you have then - so it is not or should not be the main reason for a camera. I use a D800 and a 35mm and 100mm macro lens, I don't have other lenses anymore. The 35mm is my all-the-time lens, I love it, how it 'renders' images. It sounds weird, but I think has lots of 3D

[scottc]

I've got a silly question. I've got a decrepit old Nikon D100, the kit lens and a couple of nice manual macro lenses that I got when yrawlih through Nikon film cameras in local ads. The body is obviously fairly ancient, but I can't get any decent practice in since I can't the manual lenses for shit. I've also been offered a much nicer and more modern Sony by a family member - is it worth just leaving the Nikon and moving to the Sony? Do any brands give you an easier time getting cheapo lenses or are they all roughly the same?