Looking at different landscapes you might have a pic where
everything in it is very distant and some pics where you
have a close enough foreground and distant background
so would this play a part in using different f stops?
Lets say if you have to zoom in a bit in a landscape,will it
afffect sharpness or you change an fstop.
Er... if you don't know then you probably shouldn't worry about this too much. Basically full frame lenses are designed for film and non-full frame lenses are designed for digital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toyota74
Why might one think of using f22?
When you are focusing very close on a subject and you want it to be entirely in focus or more distant objects to be in focus, like for a macro. Remember the closer your subject, the lower the depth of field. So you photographing an insect for example, it will be impossible to have a sharp background.
Quote:
Looking at different landscapes you might have a pic where
everything in it is very distant and some pics where you
have a close enough foreground and distant background
so would this play a part in using different f stops?
If everything is distant you don't need that high F-stop. If you have things that are close and distant than you need high F-stop. I think for all landscapes F11 is probably enough.
Quote:
Lets say if you have to zoom in a bit in a landscape,will it
afffect sharpness or you change an fstop.
Yes if you zoom in you will need higher F-stop for the same depth of field. Perhaps this DOF calculator will help you: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html. You can see all the factors affect DOF that i tried to explain. Hope this has helped.
Looking at different landscapes you might have a pic where
everything in it is very distant and some pics where you
have a close enough foreground and distant background
so would this play a part in using different f stops?
Lets say if you have to zoom in a bit in a landscape,will it
afffect sharpness or you change an fstop.
A full frame camera has a sensor that is the same size as 35mm film so when you take a picture with a 50mm lens you get the actual 50mm picture whereas a non full frame camera you will get what is termed 35mm equivalent so this same 50mm lens will get you ~70mm equivalent images.
The only real way to see the difference is to take the same picture with the same lens on both types of cameras.
For the average user you should not need full frame.
I currently have a nikon d70 and am thinking of getting
a new camera , have been looking at nikon d5000 and d3000...
but looking for advice on what is a good model to buy that would do
me for a couple of years....my budget is max 700 to 800 euros which
may be dollarwise a1000+...........should i be looking at canon.
If you want a new camera just get the D60. Unless you want a swivel screen, which the D5000 has [personally I don't like the swivel screen since the picture looses details]. The D5000 does have video though.
Here are some links thats will help you decide. I wouldn't really base my decision off just one website. Read, read, read and go play with each of them when you can.
The D40 would be a good choice, it's really cheap nowadays but you have a d70 so it may be a downgrade. I agree with aleks about a d60 or if a d90 is in your price budget then go for it. i wouldn't switch companies cause you'd need all new equipment compatable with canon, pentax, olympus ,etc.
looks like the d90 won out
and I am looking for a camera to do me
for a few years.I wouldnt mind
having a brand spanking new nikon,
but I will sit on it for a while and
suss out the euro's.Another reason
for the d90 is to do large prints
in the future as my skills improve
and the d70 I think has 6m..
Damn, doubt will be shooting anything in a while. My 400D's AF is screwed up quite bad. Can't seem to pick a focus target these few days. Alot of blurred out mis-shots lately. Happens even both in bright contrasty outdoor or low light situations. I can't shoot in manual lens adjustment forever, so I'll need to send it off for servicing for this 3.2 year old camera... worst still, it FREEZES sometimes. Reloaded the firmware last week and unfortunately doesn't remedy it.
Taken good care of it, its lenses, accessories, fungus free, clean as a whistle. Sensor is clean without any spots too. I guess things worn out after a while.
Warranty is out 2 years ago and word is, I don't know how much they will charge for repairs... sigh*
SomeFormOfHuman, you're one of the few that can take amazing shots with almost any camera. Any camera will do fine for you. Do you have wide angle or prime lenses?
So anyways, I want to get the 50mm 1.4D, the SB-600 and the Tokina 11-16. Obviously I won't be able to get everything at once. What do you guys recommend? Getting the 50mm, then the SB and finally the Tokina OR get the Tokina first, then the 50mm and finally the SB-600?
__________________
...the greatness of victor is equally proportionate to the skill and obduracy of foe...
-Kostof-
A yes, the Tokina. But a 50mm+SB600 will make some nice portraits. I really need to get into lighting, it looks like a lot of fun. I already started experimenting with some lights at home but it's not the same as the real deal. Plus a bokeh with 1.4 will look amazing! Better than the 3.5 I have now.
__________________
...the greatness of victor is equally proportionate to the skill and obduracy of foe...
-Kostof-
It can be I guess. I've seen some really nice shots with it. If I had the money I'd go with the 85mm since I wouldn't have to be so close to the person and I could get a better perspective. Plus the bokeh effect is wayy nicer! I love the roundness of the background instead of the hexagons. But like I said, I can't afford a good 85mm lens. The Nikon 85mm 1.4D would be nice but for now a 50mm will do the job. Sort of.
__________________
...the greatness of victor is equally proportionate to the skill and obduracy of foe...
-Kostof-
Prev
looks like the d90 won out
Linear Mode
