Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 1/6/2015 8:28:10 PM EDT
Hi all,
I bought myself a DSLR as a Christmas present so I could hopefully do more than I can with the P&S I was using previously. My main subjects besides the normal family stuff is railroad, both model and prototype, related, but I am having a heck of a time getting good shots.

Here's a sample of some pictures I took this afternoon; I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong so I could get better at it.



35mm, ISO 100, 1/160s shutter, f/6.3



35mm, ISO 100, 1/160s shutter, f/6.3



200mm, ISO 100, 1/320s shutter, f/8



35mm, ISO 100, 1/200s shutter, f/8

I'm not sure what metadata you can see from the gallery so I put what I think is the important stuff after each photo; however if you want to see them at full size, at the top left of the menu that the website gives you, the icon at far left is the size option to pull down full size (or any other size) you'd like for a better idea.

These are taken at full quality; I have the camera set to do JPGs and NEF (Nikon RAW). I have a D3300 Nikon; lens today is the 18-300mm zoom I have.

I'm assuming my #1 problem is focus; I've set the camera up for back button based autofocus, but just don't think I'm doing it right or I'm missing a step.

Thanks for any help.

TR
Link Posted: 1/6/2015 9:04:21 PM EDT
[#1]
definitely focus..  looks like shutter is not fast enough to stop the action to me..

Are you doing your shutter speed and aperature manually?

Link Posted: 1/6/2015 9:36:51 PM EDT
[#2]
Find a fence or deck rail where you can practice focusing on a single point and see how the closer and farther portions of the fence/railing are out of focus, and how the depth of field changes as you adjust the f-stop.  


(not my photo)
Link Posted: 1/6/2015 11:39:08 PM EDT
[#3]
I don't know exactly what kind of picture you want to take, or story you want to tell.  If it were me, I would increase the shutter speed and compensate the exposure by increasing the ISO.  (assuming that you are trying to achieve that specific depth of field).

You could take an extra minute to look at your backdrop and compose your pictures, too.  Try finding an interesting backdrop, and fitting it into the frame using the rule of thirds for your train.  Obviously the train is your interest (since you centered it), but where is it going?  Where is it coming from?  What is significant about the place that it's passing?  If you moved the horizon, and had the train on one of the corners of the rule of thirds, you could tell a story with your photo.

If you really wanted to draw attention to the train, maybe put your camera on a tripod and use a very slow shutter speed to track the train and blur the background  (Giving an impression of speed).

I guess the bigger question is why do you think something is wrong, and what would YOU like to change?  My opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it..Hope it helps.
Link Posted: 1/7/2015 12:01:46 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Hi all,
I bought myself a DSLR as a Christmas present so I could hopefully do more than I can with the P&S I was using previously. My main subjects besides the normal family stuff is railroad, both model and prototype, related, but I am having a heck of a time getting good shots.

Here's a sample of some pictures I took this afternoon; I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong so I could get better at it.


35mm, ISO 100, 1/160s shutter, f/6.3


35mm, ISO 100, 1/160s shutter, f/6.3


200mm, ISO 100, 1/320s shutter, f/8


35mm, ISO 100, 1/200s shutter, f/8

I'm not sure what metadata you can see from the gallery so I put what I think is the important stuff after each photo; however if you want to see them at full size, at the top left of the menu that the website gives you, the icon at far left is the size option to pull down full size (or any other size) you'd like for a better idea.

These are taken at full quality; I have the camera set to do JPGs and NEF (Nikon RAW). I have a D3300 Nikon; lens today is the 18-300mm zoom I have.

I'm assuming my #1 problem is focus; I've set the camera up for back button based autofocus, but just don't think I'm doing it right or I'm missing a step.

Thanks for any help.

TR
View Quote


Focusing on moving targets is a lot like shooting skeet with a shotgun: spotting, tracking, follow-through.

Using back-button focus is a great thing, but you need to do it correctly. The camera will only focus when the button is pressed:
Put the center focus point on the target.
Press and hold the focus af-on button.
Keep the center focus point on the target, continue to hold the af-on button in.
Half-press the shutter button to get the VR system going if you have it turned on.
Wait a half second for the VR system to stabilize, still tracking your target, still pressing the af-on button.
Full press the shutter button to take the picture, still pressing the af-on button, still tracking your target.
Release the shutter button.
Release the af-on button.
Stop visually tracking the target.

Focusing on a moving target using AF-C is done in two parts:
(1) target lock-on: using the center focus point of your focus group (1, 9, 21 points) press the focus button to mark your target.
(2) tracking: the camera will continue to update the focus as long as you (a) keep the target under the center focus point of your group, (b) keep the focus button pressed.
If you do not get the lock-on in step #1, tracking will not happen.

Take a look at this article regarding the D3300 focus system (same as the D200 camera):
http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-d200-multi-cam-1000-af-module
Link Posted: 1/7/2015 12:05:01 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
definitely focus..  looks like shutter is not fast enough to stop the action to me..

Are you doing your shutter speed and aperature manually?

View Quote


These were all manual; I've had similar results in auto modes where the camera picks the shutter speed.
Link Posted: 1/7/2015 12:07:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I don't know exactly what kind of picture you want to take, or story you want to tell.  If it were me, I would increase the shutter speed and compensate the exposure by increasing the ISO.  (assuming that you are trying to achieve that specific depth of field).

You could take an extra minute to look at your backdrop and compose your pictures, too.  Try finding an interesting backdrop, and fitting it into the frame using the rule of thirds for your train.  Obviously the train is your interest (since you centered it), but where is it going?  Where is it coming from?  What is significant about the place that it's passing?  If you moved the horizon, and had the train on one of the corners of the rule of thirds, you could tell a story with your photo.

If you really wanted to draw attention to the train, maybe put your camera on a tripod and use a very slow shutter speed to track the train and blur the background  (Giving an impression of speed).

I guess the bigger question is why do you think something is wrong, and what would YOU like to change?  My opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it..Hope it helps.
View Quote


Mostly these prototype pictures are for documentation purposes to help my modeling. These aren't so much as for artistic purposes, but reference.

Why I think there is something wrong - I can't tell shit about those cars from these photos. I can get the engine number, but everything else is blurry...
Link Posted: 1/7/2015 12:58:36 PM EDT
[#7]
That makes it much easier. Run your shutter speed up to maybe 1/640 or so and drop your aperture to 3.5 or whatever the min on that lens/focal length will give you.
Link Posted: 1/7/2015 8:30:16 PM EDT
[#8]
I don't think the problem is focus or shutter speed. If it was only an issue of slow shutter speed, the stationary objects in the picture would still be sharp. If it was only a focus issue, some part of the of the frame would likely be sharper than the rest. What it looks like is lens blur caused by movement of the camera while the image was exposed. It takes practice to hold the camera steady, not unlike a firearm when shooting. Using a back button for focus, something I particularly like, takes extra practice since pressing the button adds an extra dimension to the need for camera stability.

You can test for this by resting the camera on a stationary object or using a tripod/bipod when making an exposure.
Link Posted: 1/7/2015 10:36:53 PM EDT
[#9]
1/160 should be more than enough to overcome any shake at 35mm unless that camera is really moving.

Focus is definitely an issue. I would break out your manual and learn more about your autofocus options.  Double check that you're in AF-C if you're using back button focus and trying to focus lock on a subject moving towards or away from you. If you're on AF-S you may be focusing on something random (like infinity) and once the camera achieves focus lock it doesn't matter how long you hold the button, it's not gonna change focus. Even at slower apertures you're not gonna have enough DoF to get anything in focus. If you take the picture before the camera has achieved focus lock when it's at either end of the focus wheel you're gonna get pictures like you've posted.
Link Posted: 1/8/2015 11:59:59 AM EDT
[#10]
You said this was all on manual. One thing I found on a couple cams in the past. There is a focus wheel on the eye aperture. If you wear glasses set the cam on auto focus and let it focus on an object. Then look through the eye aperture. Make sure the image you see is in focus and adjust if needed.

I had a similar issue when I had focused with my glasses on then took shots with manual focus and my glasses off.

Just a thought.


EBR666
Link Posted: 1/8/2015 2:49:48 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I don't think the problem is focus or shutter speed. If it was only an issue of slow shutter speed, the stationary objects in the picture would still be sharp. If it was only a focus issue, some part of the of the frame would likely be sharper than the rest. What it looks like is lens blur caused by movement of the camera while the image was exposed. It takes practice to hold the camera steady, not unlike a firearm when shooting. Using a back button for focus, something I particularly like, takes extra practice since pressing the button adds an extra dimension to the need for camera stability.

You can test for this by resting the camera on a stationary object or using a tripod/bipod when making an exposure.
View Quote


These were all done from a tripod.
Link Posted: 1/8/2015 2:50:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
You said this was all on manual. One thing I found on a couple cams in the past. There is a focus wheel on the eye aperture. If you wear glasses set the cam on auto focus and let it focus on an object. Then look through the eye aperture. Make sure the image you see is in focus and adjust if needed.

I had a similar issue when I had focused with my glasses on then took shots with manual focus and my glasses off.

Just a thought.


EBR666
View Quote


I do wear glasses and have set the diopter correctly (or so I hope!)

TR
Link Posted: 1/8/2015 5:27:32 PM EDT
[#13]
The problem is a focus issue. See my previous post.
Link Posted: 1/9/2015 1:03:33 PM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The problem is a focus issue. See my previous post.
View Quote


And I'm a horrible shotgunner...

TR
Link Posted: 1/9/2015 2:53:23 PM EDT
[#15]
Looking at your images, you might think it's a focus issue, but there's nothing I see that's sharp in the image. Even if you were slightly off in focusing on your targeted area, something in those scenes would be sharp I would think, or the entire image would be way out of focus.

Check your diopter, that could be it.  Or go to manual focus.  It couldn't hurt.

Shoot some stationary objects and focus on them. Try a tree or a gate or your house or something.  Film is free, so try to rule out focus altogether.

Try to do it on a sunny day.  1/160sec should be enough, if not to get the train, at least the building, tracks, or trees.
Link Posted: 1/10/2015 1:35:14 PM EDT
[#16]
Just curious OP... the 18-300 has VR, right?  Was the VR ON
while shooting from the tripod?  If so, try some shots on the tripod and with VR OFF and
see if there is an improvement.
 
Link Posted: 1/11/2015 3:23:33 AM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Looking at your images, you might think it's a focus issue, but there's nothing I see that's sharp in the image. Even if you were slightly off in focusing on your targeted area, something in those scenes would be sharp I would think, or the entire image would be way out of focus.

Not if he is screwing up the back button focus technique and the lens is wide open at either end of the focus dial

Check your diopter, that could be it.  Or go to manual focus.  It couldn't hurt.

Viewfinder diopter has nothing to do with autofocus. As he said he is using manual mode, not manual focus.

Shoot some stationary objects and focus on them. Try a tree or a gate or your house or something.  Film is free, so try to rule out focus altogether.

Try to do it on a sunny day.  1/160sec should be enough, if not to get the train, at least the building, tracks, or trees.
View Quote



Responses in red.

OP, go through the list that JosephK posted for you and let us know how it works out.
Link Posted: 1/12/2015 2:20:41 AM EDT
[#18]
I would study up on "depth of field," shutter speed, and Nikon autofoucs

I specified Nikon auto-focusing because it is not entirely fooI-proof, it  can be fool in certain/under circumstances.

ETA
OK, the problem I see is the ISO is set too low, especially on a dreary day.If you want a post card like  pic, you will need ot wait until you get a some sunny days. Cloudy days are not good picture days.
Link Posted: 1/12/2015 10:58:58 AM EDT
[#19]
Focus is the problem. I'll ask the question, just in case, since they all seem to be focused about the same: Is your lens set to auto focus vs. manual? It's easy to hit it by accident. I think the EXIF should tell you the mode it was in. When you hold down the focus button (since you're back button) are you seeing the lens move and try and achieve focus?

I would say this is a moving object issue, but I'd think if you were focusing on the train, waiting for it to fill the frame, and then taking the photo, you'd at least have something in focus.
Link Posted: 1/12/2015 11:22:31 AM EDT
[#20]
I had a similar issue at work with an issued Canon Rebel. All photos turned out exactly as the OP's no matter what I did. It was a lens issue. I don't know what was wrong with it but a new one fixed it.
Link Posted: 1/17/2015 12:33:03 PM EDT
[#21]
Did some more shots yesterday afternoon and some a few evenings ago.

A found out a couple of things - at 18mm and f/3.5, focus is shit. I can't find a single part of the picture in focus - the entire shot is blurry. Now, as I increase my f stop, the pictures get sharper. I know that depth of field increases when as you increase the f stop, but it at least something should be in focus at small f stops, I would think.

Taking shots in overcast seems to be a hell of a lot harder versus in sunlight. Similar deal with stuff in shadow. This is probably obvious to most of you, but kind of a "oh" moment to me.

I did turn VR off yesterday, as everything was from a tripod. I can't tell any sort of difference.

Going to try for more shots today.

Link Posted: 1/17/2015 2:18:07 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Did some more shots yesterday afternoon and some a few evenings ago.

A found out a couple of things - at 18mm and f/3.5, focus is shit. I can't find a single part of the picture in focus - the entire shot is blurry. Now, as I increase my f stop, the pictures get sharper. I know that depth of field increases when as you increase the f stop, but it at least something should be in focus at small f stops, I would think.

Taking shots in overcast seems to be a hell of a lot harder versus in sunlight. Similar deal with stuff in shadow. This is probably obvious to most of you, but kind of a "oh" moment to me.

I did turn VR off yesterday, as everything was from a tripod. I can't tell any sort of difference.

Going to try for more shots today.

View Quote


You did disable your shutter button autofocus when you enabled your back button focus correct? If you haven't, the camera is probably searching for focus when you're hitting the shutter button. Also, are you verifying that you have focus lock before you trigger the shutter? Nailing all of these little details will help us solve the problem.
Link Posted: 1/17/2015 4:47:15 PM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Did some more shots yesterday afternoon and some a few evenings ago.

A found out a couple of things - at 18mm and f/3.5, focus is shit. I can't find a single part of the picture in focus - the entire shot is blurry.
View Quote

Any chance you have a cheap "protection" filter on the front that might be doing more harm than good?
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 8:34:20 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
You did disable your shutter button autofocus when you enabled your back button focus correct? If you haven't, the camera is probably searching for focus when you're hitting the shutter button. Also, are you verifying that you have focus lock before you trigger the shutter? Nailing all of these little details will help us solve the problem.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
You did disable your shutter button autofocus when you enabled your back button focus correct? If you haven't, the camera is probably searching for focus when you're hitting the shutter button. Also, are you verifying that you have focus lock before you trigger the shutter? Nailing all of these little details will help us solve the problem.


According to the manual for this camera, if you enable auto focus via the AE-L/AF-L button, focus via the shutter button is implicitly disabled. I am making sure I have the solid dot (Nikon's way to tell you via the viewfinder that focus is good, according to the AF gnome) before I hit the shutter.

Quoted:
Quoted:
Did some more shots yesterday afternoon and some a few evenings ago.

A found out a couple of things - at 18mm and f/3.5, focus is shit. I can't find a single part of the picture in focus - the entire shot is blurry.

Any chance you have a cheap "protection" filter on the front that might be doing more harm than good?


You'd have to tell me what you consider cheap; I have UV filters/protectors (Tiffen) on all 3 lens I have; they ran in the $15 to $18 range and the cheapest ones the store had are under $10.

What I'll try is getting out the "kit" lens and try some similar shots at 18mm and then swap over to the big lens. For grins, I'll pull the filter off and see if there is any difference.

General Notes

When I playing around yesterday (clear day and lots of sun! but a bit chilly..), I did notice that in some situations, the autofocus would hunt and hunt and not resolve focus. (No solid dot in the viewfinder)

I have it set for single point autofocus, selecting the point via the multipad looking thing on the back.

Something else I am trying to figure out, how do you know what ISO setting to use?

TR
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 9:13:29 PM EDT
[#25]
It sure sounds like there's something wrong with your camera or lens.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 9:20:08 PM EDT
[#26]
Looks like focus is your problem, and you're shooting without a good hard focus on your subject.

Strongly recommend you use the shutter half-press to focus, not a button on the back.

It looks like you're focusing on a subject, then waiting a second, and then pressing the shutter.  Your manual might call this AF Lock or somesuch.

You can typically have either "single" focus, or "continuous" focus.  Shooting moving targets pretty much requires "continuous" focus.  READ YOUR MANUAL.

Also suggest you do some homework on the relationship between shutter speed, aperture, and focal length, and the effect each has on exposure.  You really need a basic understanding of how each affects the other to make any kind of real use of your DSLR.

Link Posted: 1/19/2015 11:53:30 AM EDT
[#27]
For your question about ISO, use the lowest ISO number that you can use while still getting a good exposure.

One way to think about ISO is "number of light sensors."  If you have an ISO 100, you have the least number of sensors on.  This means that if you are shooting on a bright sunny day your pics will not be washed out and overexposed.  

If you go indoors, ISO 100 won't gather enough light to get a good exposure, so you need to "turn on" more sensors.  If you bump up to ISO 400 you might get the exposure, or you may need to go up to ISO 800.  

The higher the ISO, the more light sensors are turned on.  At REALLY high ISO ratings, this can cause "bleed over" that makes your pic look kind of digital.  Think about your sensor like a grid.  At ISO 100, there is a lot of space between the active sensors.  As you go up in ISO, you turn on sensors between the ones that are already active.  When you get up to something like 12500, all the sensors are active.  Since they are all crammed into that tiny sensor pad, the electronic "noise" from the operation of one sensor bleeds over onto the sensors next to it.  (Another analogy is like looking at the night sky in a big city.  All the lights that are crowded around you on the street are kind of bleeding over into one big light, and it's hard to see the stars.)

So, like I said, use the lowest ISO that you can use to get a good exposure.  100 and 200 are usually great for sunny days, 400 for cloudy days or indoors on a bright day, 800 for darker indoor pics, etc.  Those are rules of thumb.  It all depends on your aperture and shutter speed settings.  Once you have them set, find the ISO that gives the best exposure for them.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:37:36 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Any chance you have a cheap "protection" filter on the front that might be doing more harm than good?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did some more shots yesterday afternoon and some a few evenings ago.

A found out a couple of things - at 18mm and f/3.5, focus is shit. I can't find a single part of the picture in focus - the entire shot is blurry.

Any chance you have a cheap "protection" filter on the front that might be doing more harm than good?


Found out the big lens will not auto-focus set at 18mm. Ran into somebody else with a DX format Nikon and had them try it - no autofocus anywhere. It'll be going back to Nikon.

TR
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 7:47:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Looks like focus is your problem, and you're shooting without a good hard focus on your subject.

Strongly recommend you use the shutter half-press to focus, not a button on the back.

It looks like you're focusing on a subject, then waiting a second, and then pressing the shutter.  Your manual might call this AF Lock or somesuch.

You can typically have either "single" focus, or "continuous" focus.  Shooting moving targets pretty much requires "continuous" focus.  READ YOUR MANUAL.

Also suggest you do some homework on the relationship between shutter speed, aperture, and focal length, and the effect each has on exposure.  You really need a basic understanding of how each affects the other to make any kind of real use of your DSLR.

View Quote


I'm in AF-C mode, aka Continuous Focus mode. I'm holding the AF-On as I'm shooting - I hold the button down and hit the shutter.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 8:01:30 PM EDT
[#30]
Sample photos from the two different zoom lenses.

All shot from aperture priority mode so the camera still has its smarts in play for everything but aperture. Camera was on the tripod.

18-300 Lens, 18mm, 1/40s, ISO 100, f22, 13:04:41


Changes: 1/1600s and f3.5, 13:05:11


18-55 "kit" lens, all settings same as 2nd photo, 13:06:51


Without this problem, just having it epic fail on 18mm for autofocus is enough to send it back. If you crack the zoom ring from 18mm and go to 20 or whatever, it will autofocus. With this weird ass issue wide open, it needs to go back.

TR
Link Posted: 1/21/2015 8:06:39 AM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Without this problem, just having it epic fail on 18mm for autofocus is enough to send it back. If you crack the zoom ring from 18mm and go to 20 or whatever, it will autofocus. With this weird ass issue wide open, it needs to go back.

TR
View Quote

I have seen others describe this problem and the workaround, I just don't remember where.
Sounds like a support ticket with Nikon needs to be opened.
Link Posted: 1/21/2015 8:15:27 AM EDT
[#32]
I would suggest grabbing one of the cheapo 1.8 prime lenses.

That should help you get some faster shots.
Link Posted: 1/21/2015 10:32:57 AM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I would suggest grabbing one of the cheapo 1.8 prime lenses.

That should help you get some faster shots.
View Quote


I have a "nifty fifty" in the arsenal already. I'm been waiting for a good twilight to try it and see how it does outside; inside it's great.

TR
Link Posted: 1/21/2015 10:44:15 AM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I have seen others describe this problem and the workaround, I just don't remember where.
Sounds like a support ticket with Nikon needs to be opened.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Without this problem, just having it epic fail on 18mm for autofocus is enough to send it back. If you crack the zoom ring from 18mm and go to 20 or whatever, it will autofocus. With this weird ass issue wide open, it needs to go back.

TR

I have seen others describe this problem and the workaround, I just don't remember where.
Sounds like a support ticket with Nikon needs to be opened.


I've opened an RMA with them already; this lens is a month old so the time to get it fixed is now while it has a warranty.

TR
Link Posted: 2/4/2015 1:59:18 PM EDT
[#35]
Have yet to hear from Nikon the status; not sure if the snow storms they've had in NY have impacted their responses or not.

In the meantime, I'm using the kit lens and shooting when it's sunny. I'm getting pretty good results so far with good sun. When the sun is setting and the light isn't as good, my results aren't what I want.

TR
Link Posted: 2/8/2015 5:35:10 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Have yet to hear from Nikon the status; not sure if the snow storms they've had in NY have impacted their responses or not.

In the meantime, I'm using the kit lens and shooting when it's sunny. I'm getting pretty good results so far with good sun. When the sun is setting and the light isn't as good, my results aren't what I want.

TR
View Quote


I did get the "we received it" email last week, so they are working on it. Or, at least, they will work on it eventually.

Been getting pretty good results in just using the kit lens; I've found the 50 1.8 I have is too much zoom in a lot of cases as I stand trackside.

TR
Link Posted: 2/8/2015 7:37:49 PM EDT
[#37]


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:






<snip> I've found the 50 1.8 I have is too much zoom in a lot of cases as I stand trackside.





TR
View Quote



50mm is a "normal" field of view on a full frame camera, on an APS-C sized sensor the 35mm lens will give you a similar field of view where 50mm will feel zoomed in a bit.


I have the 35mm f/1.8 and it's a really fun lens to use, but you might still need to go even wider than that for a lot of your shots.





 
Link Posted: 2/9/2015 12:56:47 PM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
50mm is a "normal" field of view on a full frame camera, on an APS-C sized sensor the 35mm lens will give you a similar field of view where 50mm will feel zoomed in a bit.
I have the 35mm f/1.8 and it's a really fun lens to use, but you might still need to go even wider than that for a lot of your shots.
 
View Quote


Doing more and more shooting and figuring out what works and what doesn't, I've come around to the idea that I might be better served by a good short zoom (something 10mm to 25mm ish or inside that range) and then a good solid bigger zoom (I'm thinking a 50 or 70 or 100 to 200 or 400) and just deal with the fact about changing lenses.

Possibly a big prime plus a tele-convertor for the big zoom size; dunno about that yet.

Anyway, I might just trade in this big zoom lens (whenever it comes back from Nikon..) and go from there. I'll think about it some more; this whole photography thing is as bad as BRD.

I got a suggestions on another forum to go with a 11-16mm Tokina to cover this use case of trying to get photos from trackside; the suggesting poster had some sort of equation on what size of lens for x field of view at y far away. No idea how to do that; sounds very neat.

TR
Link Posted: 3/14/2015 2:46:30 PM EDT
[#39]
Lens came back from Nikon; if their notes are to be believed, they replaced the zoom ring and verified everything else. Putting it on the camera shows that autofocus now works when set to 18mm, so that is good. Some early test shots are promising, but I will be doing more with this lens in the next few weeks to thoroughly wring it out.

TR
Link Posted: 3/14/2015 9:29:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Doing more and more shooting and figuring out what works and what doesn't, I've come around to the idea that I might be better served by a good short zoom (something 10mm to 25mm ish or inside that range) and then a good solid bigger zoom (I'm thinking a 50 or 70 or 100 to 200 or 400) and just deal with the fact about changing lenses.

Possibly a big prime plus a tele-convertor for the big zoom size; dunno about that yet.

Anyway, I might just trade in this big zoom lens (whenever it comes back from Nikon..) and go from there. I'll think about it some more; this whole photography thing is as bad as BRD.

I got a suggestions on another forum to go with a 11-16mm Tokina to cover this use case of trying to get photos from trackside; the suggesting poster had some sort of equation on what size of lens for x field of view at y far away. No idea how to do that; sounds very neat.

TR
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
50mm is a "normal" field of view on a full frame camera, on an APS-C sized sensor the 35mm lens will give you a similar field of view where 50mm will feel zoomed in a bit.
I have the 35mm f/1.8 and it's a really fun lens to use, but you might still need to go even wider than that for a lot of your shots.
 


Doing more and more shooting and figuring out what works and what doesn't, I've come around to the idea that I might be better served by a good short zoom (something 10mm to 25mm ish or inside that range) and then a good solid bigger zoom (I'm thinking a 50 or 70 or 100 to 200 or 400) and just deal with the fact about changing lenses.

Possibly a big prime plus a tele-convertor for the big zoom size; dunno about that yet.

Anyway, I might just trade in this big zoom lens (whenever it comes back from Nikon..) and go from there. I'll think about it some more; this whole photography thing is as bad as BRD.

I got a suggestions on another forum to go with a 11-16mm Tokina to cover this use case of trying to get photos from trackside; the suggesting poster had some sort of equation on what size of lens for x field of view at y far away. No idea how to do that; sounds very neat.

TR


On focal lengths, I've settled on an 18-105 and a 70-300.  There's better zoom ranges out there, and better lenses, but for me those two pretty much cover everything I shoot.

Still need to get a fast 35 or 50 mm prime.
Link Posted: 3/15/2015 9:07:32 AM EDT
[#41]
Just say F it, sell your stuff, buy a FX camera and the holy trinity - 14-24, 24-70, 70-200.
Link Posted: 3/15/2015 4:36:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


On focal lengths, I've settled on an 18-105 and a 70-300.  There's better zoom ranges out there, and better lenses, but for me those two pretty much cover everything I shoot.

Still need to get a fast 35 or 50 mm prime.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
50mm is a "normal" field of view on a full frame camera, on an APS-C sized sensor the 35mm lens will give you a similar field of view where 50mm will feel zoomed in a bit.
I have the 35mm f/1.8 and it's a really fun lens to use, but you might still need to go even wider than that for a lot of your shots.
 


Doing more and more shooting and figuring out what works and what doesn't, I've come around to the idea that I might be better served by a good short zoom (something 10mm to 25mm ish or inside that range) and then a good solid bigger zoom (I'm thinking a 50 or 70 or 100 to 200 or 400) and just deal with the fact about changing lenses.

Possibly a big prime plus a tele-convertor for the big zoom size; dunno about that yet.

Anyway, I might just trade in this big zoom lens (whenever it comes back from Nikon..) and go from there. I'll think about it some more; this whole photography thing is as bad as BRD.

I got a suggestions on another forum to go with a 11-16mm Tokina to cover this use case of trying to get photos from trackside; the suggesting poster had some sort of equation on what size of lens for x field of view at y far away. No idea how to do that; sounds very neat.

TR


On focal lengths, I've settled on an 18-105 and a 70-300.  There's better zoom ranges out there, and better lenses, but for me those two pretty much cover everything I shoot.

Still need to get a fast 35 or 50 mm prime.


My biggest issue is that 18mm isn't wide enough to get the entire car into the frame when I stand trackside and Amtrak goes by (73' to 85' long cars that I am 15ish feet away from, unless I hot foot it back from the track and get 30 to 40 foot away, but then I get other crap into the frame I don't want... PITA)

Be that as it may, I think I will be moving that way going forward with something 18 or 20 to around 100 and then something from there to 300; both of them with the fixed aperture stuff versus the variable stuff that maxes at f/3.5. Budget has to recover first.

I'd like to get my hands on something that the high end is 600, but that is far in the future. With that, I could get crazy shots into the yard area that the public can't see without mondo glass.

Quoted:
Just say F it, sell your stuff, buy a FX camera and the holy trinity - 14-24, 24-70, 70-200.


Well, considering I just bought a 40mm macro lens (model train and gun part pictures, here I come!) and a 11-16mm, I'm sticking with DX a while yet...

TR
Link Posted: 3/15/2015 5:18:30 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I'd like to get my hands on something that the high end is 600, but that is far in the future. With that, I could get crazy shots into the yard area that the public can't see without mondo glass.

View Quote


Lens Rentals
Link Posted: 3/16/2015 12:17:39 AM EDT
[#44]
You need to watch the angry photographer on Youtube before buying anymore lens's.
Link Posted: 3/16/2015 1:01:52 PM EDT
[#45]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


You need to watch the angry photographer on Youtube before buying anymore lens's.
View Quote


I can save OP 20 minutes of rambling, repetitive video with "fuckin" as every other word, and just tell him that almost every lens that guy recommends won't have an autofocus motor and won't autofocus on OP's camera body.



 
Link Posted: 3/16/2015 7:54:42 PM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Lens Rentals
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


I'd like to get my hands on something that the high end is 600, but that is far in the future. With that, I could get crazy shots into the yard area that the public can't see without mondo glass.



Lens Rentals

Damn $300 for 3 days, might as well pick up the fanciest body they rent too...
Link Posted: 3/16/2015 8:26:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Damn $300 for 3 days, might as well pick up the fanciest body they rent too...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


I'd like to get my hands on something that the high end is 600, but that is far in the future. With that, I could get crazy shots into the yard area that the public can't see without mondo glass.



Lens Rentals

Damn $300 for 3 days, might as well pick up the fanciest body they rent too...


It's a $10k lens. The 800mm is $500 for 4 days vs $18k to buy.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top