File :-(, x, )
slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
FUCKING FRUSTRATING PIECE OF SHIT

WHO THE FUCK MARKETED THIS AS A "SUB-SLR"?
...well I guess they were technically right. it's pretty sub-SLR to be sure. it's just that that implies that its capabilities are somewhere close to a real camera. this fucking thing is making me so blood-pissing mad at its lack of capabilities. i can't freeze a low-light shot, not even if i compensate with MEGA noise. I can't get a decently wide angle and it's impossible to shoot in cramped areas. the gay little lcd screens are a joke and i can't tell if my shots are even NEAR focused until i view them on the computer.

what a fucking sham.

when will i ever be able to afford a real camera????????????
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:05:09 16:38:48Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1280Image Height1049
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Upgrade to this.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 (10.0x20061208 [20061208.beta.1251 02:00:00 cutoff; m branch]) WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern898Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:05:20 01:23:02Exposure Time1/5 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceTungstenFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1277Image Height903RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastHardSaturationHighSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
Stop bitching. It is a real camera; it just has one fixed lens and a smaller sensor. I shot with one for the first several months I was doing photography seriously. I wasn't limited by it; the only reason I upgraded was for a better lens and raw support.

>i can't freeze a low-light shot, not even if i compensate with MEGA noise

Lol wut? If you can't get motion frozen at f/2.8, ISO 800, you're doing something wrong or shooting dancers.

Or, you know, you could learn to work with the motion blur and use it creatively.

And f/2.8 really isn't much of a limitation. Ever seen David Alan Harvey's "Cuba" book? Every single frame of it was shot on ISO 50 Velvia. His fastest lens was an f/1.4. That means at ISO 200 and f/2.8 you're getting the same fastest shutter speed he had. There's shots in there in all lighting conditions. Learn to work with it.
>> Anonymous
>>197460
Con't.


>I can't get a decently wide angle

Again, lol wut? 36mm equivalent is wide. Big wide angles are seriously overrated; they make it easier to make an eye-catching shot, sure, but they're harder for 90% of photographers, even good ones, to compose with, and they're often just distracting flair. David Alan Harvey and Josef Koudelka shot almost everything they did with a 35mm. Henri Cartier-Bresson widest lens was a 35mm, photographs from which make up maybe 5% of his output, if that. He mostly used a 50mm. You don't need a very wide angle to take good pictures, and especially if you're learning, you're probably not skilled enough yet to compose well wider than a ~35mm equivalent.

>and it's impossible to shoot in cramped areas

For the third time, lol wut? I don't get where people come from in saying one needs a wide to shoot in cramped areas. I shoot almost exclusively with a normal, and I don't have any problems shooting at crowded concerts, or even in cars.

>the gay little lcd screens are a joke and i can't tell if my shots are even NEAR focused until i view them on the computer.

Adjust your diopter or get your eyes checked. You should be able to check focus with the EVF.
>> ??????? !ZgKugpvHz2
>>197461
>>197460

sage for faggotry
>> Anonymous
>>197460
>"Cuba"

Here it is, if you haven't seen it. A masterpiece. Study it.

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9910/cubaintro.htm
>> Anonymous
>>197465
did my mac just get hacked?
>> Depressed Cheesecake !vEawx7Krcs
>>197432
>when will i ever be able to afford a real camera????????????

Get a real job.
>> ??????? !ZgKugpvHz2
>>197469

I make about $200/month from my stock photography so i would say yes.
>> Anonymous
>>197470

How? I am (VERY) interested...
>> Anonymous
>>197461
> Adjust your diopter or get your eyes checked. You should be able to check focus with the EVF.

As much as I agree with you otherwise on every point (fellow S*fag here), manual focus on 115kpixels and buttons is totally fucking impossible unless you're doing macro.

I find the sensor's low-light qualities the worst aspect of the camera. The 6-72mm IS USM is a fairly underrated little lens - maybe I have some freak quality peak piece but I haven't even noticed the cromabs every review bitches about.
>> Anonymous
>>197477
>As much as I agree with you otherwise on every point (fellow S*fag here), manual focus on 115kpixels and buttons is totally fucking impossible unless you're doing macro.

Really? Maybe I had a freak EVF or have freaky good eyes, but I never had a single problem checking focus. I usually prefocused, too, and let the huge DoF of the sensor cover the slop. At longer focus distances, setting it to the hyperfocal distance did fine. Medium distances, if the people weren't moving back and forth too much, I usually just had to adjust the focus when I moved or they moved locations, and I could always tell when I hit the mark with the little magnified patch. Short distances it was easy as pie.

The thing I minded about manual focusing on it is how one has to stop and press down that button. That was another reason I upgraded.

>I find the sensor's low-light qualities the worst aspect of the camera.

I guess so, but I've never really minded noise.

>The 6-72mm IS USM is a fairly underrated little lens - maybe I have some freak quality peak piece but I haven't even noticed the cromabs every review bitches about.

Oh, yeah, it's pretty good. It's shouldn't be a real limit to anyone working with it. "Wanting a better lens" doesn't mean "this lens is bad."

It will get some CAs sometimes, but that's not really a big deal. Avoid pointing it straight into the light at wide apertures- just like photographers did for years before multicoating pretty much crippled flare- and there's absolutely no problem.
>> Anonymous
>>197432
buy a used 300d, they're like $300
>> Anonymous
>>197470

Well, chinafag... I am (VERY) interested as well.
>> Anonymous
>>197432
Way to fucking fall for marketing bullshit. Don't blame Canon for the fact that you're a goddamn retard.
>> Anonymous
>>197463
the posts you saged were some of the better advice I've seen on /p/. Learn the limitations of your gear, which OP obviously has done, then learn to work within those limitations.