File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
sup /p/

I am a total /p/ nOOb and I happen to be very fond of /p/hotography, so I decided to buy a digital cam around the price of Nikon D80, I personally have seen GREAT works in general form Nikon products, but some people say you can get a better Cannon with the same price(in b4 cannon vs nikon).


so what does /p/ suggests around the price of D80, and will not having CF bother a /p/ noob? and since D80 may come with different default lens, what lens would be good and what lens would be shitty, if I know it now I can change it when I'm buying it, it'll be much easier.

thx in advance
Anonymouse
pic very related
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
It's all about photographer, not the camera. Though, you need a good camera to get good photos in less than good conditions.
>> Anonymous
A D80 with Nikon 18-70 is a nice setup.

But it's not the camera that produces great works, it's the photographer. The camera is a tool that can help the photographer, or in some cases hinder, in which case a good photographer will work around the faults of the camera. Look up Holga.

How experienced a photographer are you?
>> Anonymous
>>60733

non, total nOOb, but I realy do like photography for many reasosns, capturing a moment is great IMHO and since I don't like diary it's a great thing to have some iportant moments of life captured, and yes I know it's a tool but I would like a decent swrod to start my way and maybe someday I bacome a decent swordfighter and have something like Excalibur...
>> Anonymous
>>60733

ps. since there is not a decent place to learn photography I think I should rely on /p/ more than anything to show me the path...
>> Anonymous
>>60737

I meant there are non in my place so I'm relying on /p/... thx /p/ and anon, I hope with your help I can provide /p/ with something good in the future...

and there are few thing I think I should mention, I would like a lens which I can make good photos of these stuff:

1. close shot of humans like the modeling stuff
2. landscape
3. macros

even as a noob I think it's hard to get one that does all, but if there is plz tell me, and if not how can I make it with least budget, I mean I can't get like 3 different lenses for the start...
>> Anonymous
halp me plz...
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
Dude, /p often takes awhile to respond. It's still on the first page, stop bumping it.
>> Anonymous
>>60748


sorry, new to /p/... then I'll get nap.

thx anyway /p/
>> Anonymous
I'd advise against a Nikon or a Canon. Nikons apply lossy RAW compression and, to be honest, I just dislike most Canon models.

Plus, if you get a Pentax, a Sony, an old Konica-Minolta, or some Olympus models, all of your lenses will be stabilized- that means that your hand movement is compensated for. Nikon and Canon both do it in the lens, which drives up the cost. The brands listed above do it with the sensor.

>>60738
As far as lenses go, your best bet to get those capabilities the cheapest would be a wide-angle (for landscape) to medium telephoto (for portraiture) zoom, and a macro lens. If you're still going to go Nikon, I'd suggest the 28-70, the 105mm f/2.8G Micro-Nikkor, and just because you should have a normal prime, one of the 28mm ones, whichever has better optical quality. (I don't know.)
>> Anonymous
28-70??? Nikkor 17-70 DX is dirt cheap and better.

Also tokina's 100mm AT-X macro lens is as good as micro nikkor, but for half the price.

Also there is no point buying a dark 28mm prime (like 2.8). Since Nikon's own is so expensive, Sigma's 30mm 1.4 DC is more than good enough.

Of course that's just my opinion and you are free to disagree and rage about useless mtf/vignetting/ca charts, but the reality is, those alternatives I suggested are more than good enough for most amateurs.
>> Anonymous
I also forgot to add: compressed RAW with Nikon doesn't matter. Shoot more and better photos instead of looking at the (mostly meaningless) specs and discussing about non-issues.

Buy whatever camera you like to use best. Different brands have their own way of arraging controls etc, going to some big camera shop to try out Nikon/Canon/Pentax is probably the best option. Camera is just a tool, and the easier it's to adjust settings, the better for you and your photos :P
>> Anonymous !MjcMqTX/iM
>>60759
Compressed raw = No problem
Compressed lossy raw = BIG PROBLEM.
That's really not meaningless, it's a major issue.
>> Anonymous
>>60760
in the grand scheme of things, its not a problem, honestly. from a principle point of view, yes, it is a problem because its supposed to be straight from the sensor etc etc, but in practice and whatnot it isnt that big a problem. i guess you could look at it like a big math problem calculating and analyzing the compression algorithms and whatnot...
>> Anonymous
Major issue, right? Could someone show us some real-world examples then (link is fine)? I feel lazy today.
>> Anonymous
>>60768

Whilst there is a difference, it's not noticeable to the human eye and really is a moot issue except for those people who choose it make it so.

Back to the OP. It's not just about buying a camera. The Lenses you choose should determine the body and not the other way around.

The D80 is a fantastic camera, and Nikkor lenses are also brilliant, especially the higher up models. But I say this because i've had a lot of experience with Nikon. So i can whole heartedly recommend it.

Canon is of course also great, but i simply hated the ergonomics of the cameras and they felt incredibly flimsy in my hands, that was actually the PRIMARY reason i went Nikon with DSLR (i did want to go Canon and was happy to keep my Nikon for film shooting).

As far as lens setup. Get the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 or the Tokina 16-50mm. 2.8

Those are two lenses which come quite close to Professional image quality but are much much cheaper ay the 17-55mm Nikkor which i have. Whilst the Nikkor is almost perfect, the Tamron and Tokina... especially when you consider the price difference are amazing deals.

The 18-70 Nikkor is nice... but no where near as good as the Tamron or Tokina... the constant 2.8 throughout will also increase creative control.
>> Anonymous
>>60760
Never was a problem for prints and I doubt it ever will be, I print JPG's from 6MP Nikon Camera's up to 12x18 with no issues, In fact I've even done one 12x18 at ISO 1600 print. So unless we are talking about analyzing 20x30's with a magnifying glass, I really doubt anyone cares about Compressed RAW. (Except you and the PNG whores maybe)
>> Anonymous
personally, I'd consider you retarded if you bought a modern dslr that wasn't a canon or a noink. nikon and canon have a shitload of lenses, every other brand combined doesn't have as many lenses as either nikon or canon.
>> Anonymous
>>60772

what nikkor lens do you suggest for:

1. close shot of humans like the modeling stuff
2. landscape
3. macros


and is there a lens that can all of that? or at least does 1&2, macro will have to wait
>> Anonymous
>>60758
>17-70 DX is dirt cheap and better.
It may be; I'm not an expert on Nikon lens quality. But the 28-70 is faster, so I thought that would probably be more versatile for the OP.

>Also there is no point buying a dark 28mm prime
Meh, I'm just a fan of the 42mm focal length. 43mm is supposedly the "true normal" of 35mm format, but I don't think any lenses are made that are 28 and 2/3mm.

>mtf/vignetting/ca charts
Honestly, I have no clue how to read any of those. I figure out what I think of a lens from the photograph, and like I said, I'm not an expert on Nikkor lenses. I should've put a larger caveat on my post then just that I don't know about the quality of any of them, not just the 28mm primes, and that my suggestions were based entirely on the spec sheet of focal length, size, and maximum aperture.

>>60759
Lossy compression is one of the stupidest ideas ever. Applying to to the RAW format may just be the stupidest idea any DSLR designers ever had, as good as Nikon cameras are otherwise.

But you're exactly right: every photographer should use the camera he gets the best photographs from.
>> Anonymous
>60761
>i guess you could look at it like a big math problem calculating and analyzing the compression algorithms and whatnot...

People have; there's some page somewhere I'll find.

But what people need to understand about digital photography and compression (in terms of the RAW vs. JPEG and Lossless RAW vs. Lossy RAW debates) is that all a digital camera is is a calculator with an imaging sensor and a lens mount, and that all anything in Photoshop does is run an algorithim over some numbers. The more numbers one has, the more to work with in fixing problems in Photoshop.

>60772
> it's not noticeable to the human eye and really is a moot issue except for those people who choose it make it so.

People say the same thing about JPEG.

Also, OP was looking for macro work, too. Since you seem to know the Nikon lens choices, is there a macro lens you could suggest to him?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I was an advocate of the Pentax system for a long time, and I still think it's brilliant. They've made a superior camera, end of story. It's just fantastic.

Problem is, the lens selection is basically shit. I'm sticking with Nikon because the lenses are amazing, and I can stick anything from the past 40 years on my camera, and know it'll work. That, and their flash system is lightyears beyond anyone else.

I'd suggest the D80 with the Tamron 17-50 2.8, as mentioned before (guess who makes the 17-55 Nikon? Yup.) and from there, see where your interests lie. If you need more in the long telephoto range, grab one of Nikon's telephoto zooms, and if you want to get even wider than 17mm, go for the Sigma 10-20. I used one today, and it's incredible!
>> Anonymous
>>60778
not the guy up there, but from what ive seen the 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor is a beautiful lens.
>> Anonymous
>>60779
Have you checked the third-party lens selection?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>60772
That was me

>>60775

Both the Tamron and Tokina will do 1 & 2 pretty well. The 16 or 17 is about 24mm or 26mm on the D80 and that's just wide enough to decent landscape. On the telephoto end the 50mm becomes a 75mm and that's decent enough for Head & Shoulders models or you could go closer.

I use the 17-55mm 2.8 Nikkor for just those purposes, the Constant f/2.8 that the Tamron, Tokina and Nikkor have is really good for the 'modelling' shots as it helps to isolate the subject from the background.

Those are nice options.

But if you have a shitload of money to spare, the ideal setup would look something like below

1. Landscape = 12-24mm f/4 Nikkor. The barrel distortion is there, but not noticeably annoying.

2. 85mm 1.4D, i had my doubts about this, but the Bokeh is actually fuckin ridiculously luscious... but also expensive as hell... the 1.8 version is also nice. But remember that 1.5 crop makes this one a hard one to work with in tight space.

3. The 105mm 2.8 Macro VR is just fuckin superb... my gf's uncle is an award winning nature photographer... and he lent me the old 105 (without VR) for a day... and holy shit... It also doubles as a decent Portrait lens too.

But again, EXPENSIVE, all the pro Nikkors are. If money is an issue, replace the Nikkor 12-24 with the Tokina 12-24. The 105mm Macro can be changed to the old second hand 60mm Macro, another great performer, and usually quite cheap on Ebay.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>60778

>>People say the same thing about JPEG.

Again, that's a moot point. It's one thing to compare RAW and Compressed RAW...

But to add JPEG into that equation is just kinda stretching it.

In regards to Macro, although i've never used he 105mm VR, i've used the old version without VR and by someone's account who i consider an expert. The 105mm VR is apparently just a whole new beast. Arguably the BEST macro lens in any system.

>>60779

>>(guess who makes the 17-55 Nikon? Yup.)

Wait wait... you're not saying what i think you're saying right? :D
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>60777
Lossy compression is a breathtakingly clever idea. Cut file size in half with zero detectable drop in quality? Cut file size by an order of magnitude with a barely discernible drop in quality? And you think that's a stupid idea?

Lossy compression on RAW files, however--the whole point of which is to provide the absolute maximal image quality--is stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>60841
File size isn't a problem in upwards of 90% of modern applications. When one can buy a twenty-nine cent DVD-R disk that can hold 4.9 gigabytes, the logic behind lossy compression evaporates in every instance except like, for instance on 4chan, when bandwith is an issue.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>60845
So you're basing your argument on the premise that 90% of what people do with images is let them sit on a DVD? "Boy, that's a really great image! I can't wait to get it onto a DVD in storage somewhere!"

Me, I like showing other people my pictures. Being able to transmit an image in a fraction of the time with no discernible loss in quality is a pretty big plus to me. Not to mention that I'd rather keep my pictures on my hard drive for quick and easy access rather than a stack of hard-to-search DVDs...
>> Anonymous
>>60852
Okay, a hard drive. There's a one terabyte hard drive for sale now for $400. Run through that.

As far as sharing them goes, if you do it over the web, the download for a reasonably sized image in a PNG format (say, two megabytes) is only thiry-six seconds on a dial-up, 56.6kbps modem. (This figure is -slightly- small, since a 56.6kbps modem runs a bit under that, but I forget how much so I calculated for 56.6kbps.)

If you share as I do- on disks or on USB flash drives- size becomes a non-issue.
>> Anonymous
op here thx everyone, in my 2-3 years on 4chan this was the most reasonable board so far... I mean I got flamed as a nOOb in lots of other boards but damn, there wasn't even a Nikon VS Cannon war... this board looks fairly human...
>> Anonymous
>>60899
This might be since we're still figuring out what the hell is this Cannon you're talking about.
>> Anonymous
>>60901

oops, well if I had the same mistake in other boards it would cause a VERY different reaction from anon...

sorry again
>> Anonymous
Of course I don't know about the budget, but I'm putting some local prices here just for comparison's sake:

Nikkor 18-70 dx f3.5-4.5 350€, 200€ bundled with D80
Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 1700€

Nikkor 105mm f2.8 VR macro 800€
Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro 360€

Nikkor 12-24mm DX f4 1100€
Tokina 12-24mm DX f4 500€

Nikkor 17-55mm DX f2.8 1500€
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 400€

Also D80 body with grip is 899, 800€ without grip. D80 body + 18-70 f3.5-4.5 999€.

Prices should scale accordingly around the globe... You can do most of the stuff perfectly with a cheaper lens, and I don't see a point buying a pro lens especially if you are a normal guy like me and don't bathe in money.
>> Anonymous
>>60859
two megabytes = 2048 kiloBYTEs. 56.6kbps = 56.6 kiloBIT per second = 7.075 kiloBYTE p/s. it usually runs slower, so lets say 6 kiloBYTEs. 2048/6 = 341.3 seconds = 5.68 minutes.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>60939
QFT.

Also, the *JPEGs* from my camera are 2 megs, minimum. More often 4 or 5 megs. If we're going lossless like you're suggesting, the RAWs out of my camera are usually more like 11M minimum and as high as 15 depending on the subject. Assuming 56Kbps, 11M (==90112 kilobits) = 1609 seconds or a little under a half hour.
>> Anonymous
1) who the fuck uses 56kbps anymore?
2) JPEGs are great for online transfer. I just hope to god you don't back up your photos in JPEG.
3) This argument is stupid.
>> Anonymous
Just purchased a D80 myself. Should arrive Wendsday