File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I think I'm finally going to buy a Nikon D300. Anyone already own one? If so: what do you think of it?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
I saw someone with a D100 today, did also appear to have a tiny prime attached to it.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>174283
I saw a d300 going cheap (£500) for body, earlier. but someone got in there and bought it before me:(
>> Anonymous
the LCD is fucking orgasm

when you see it you'll shit bricks and then fap
>> Anonymous
>>174285

where? secondhand? i want to get one also and im in the uk....i dint think they were that cheap secondhand?
>> Anonymous
Seriously.......lol" A3" why do ppl think this is big?...also why do you guys you the A4 /A3 format when describing print sizes?

a3 is fucking tiny
>> Anonymous
>>174316
Almost no one examines A3+ prints with a loupe, so 20+ MP isn't as necessary as you might expect. Also some lenses already fail pretty hard even on 12MP sensors.
>> Anonymous
>>174318
A3-sized and larger prints are almost universally made for hangind them on the wall, only the most insane keep albujms of that size. Do you have many shots that are worthy of at least hanging them on the wall of your appartment? I don't think so.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>174318
I'm guessing that the majority of people here dont have any need for any bigger..
I know that I've got no need for any bigger.

A3 is large enough for the print i've got hanging on my wall.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>174318
It was a quick example of a size larger than 4x6. We could all go print 600dpi A0 if it would make you feel slightly less worthless.

>>174319
I dont disagree, but you shouldnt keep using the kitlens.
>> Anonymous
>>174329
Kit lenses can be VERY different.

- Canon 18-55 non VR is the worst, but still usable stopped down 1-2 stops;
- Nikon 18-55 non VR, Sony 18-70, Pentax 18-55, Canon 16-85 and Olympus 14-45 are decent enough if stopped down a bit;
- Canon 18-55VR, Nikon 18-55VR, Nikon 18-70, Olympus 14-42, Leica 14-50/3.8-5.6 are very good, just slow;
- Nikon 18-135 has drawbacks, but also has no alternatives given its zoom range;
- Leica 14-50/2.8-3.5, Olympus 12-60 and Canon 24-105VR (5D kit) are as good as it gets unless you're OVER NINE THOUSAND.
>> Anonymous
>>174338
17-50mm vs. 18-135mm is waaaay more than "extra 10mm on tele end". The 18-135 is so much handier than your usual 3x standard zoom... but there's a preice to pay, of course.
>> Anonymous
>>174337
>>174337
"Stopped down 1 stop" = taking shots at an aperture 1 stop less than the maximum aperture allowed by the lens at a given focal length. One stop of aperture means multiplying the f-number by a square root of 2.
For example, if at 40mm your lens has a max. aperture of f/4, stopping down 1 stop means shooting at f/(4 * 1.41) = f/5.6.

>Tonika Wide Angle
lolwut. Tokina, maybe?

>The 18-135 is terrible in low light, cant remember what the minimum f/stop is, something like 3.5.
f/3.5 at the short end (18 mm), f/5.6 at the long end (135 mm).
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>174338
I've heard loads of great reviews about the Tamron, which surprised me, as I used to think they were a cheap off-brand.

And regarding the large apperture - I dont think the manual would suit me to well, as artists often move around and I'd get frustrated refocusing, Although this could be good practice!
The Nikon 50 f/1.4 looks really nice, so might consider that.

>>174342
The extra zoom length wouldn't effect me really, as I usually shoot around 18-75ish.

>>174343
Ah thanks for the information. Helped alot :)
>> Anonymous
>>174343

Easier just to remember the f stop scale than that.

If anyone is confused, go look at Wikipedia.
>> Anonymous
>>174363
1.2 1.7 2.5 3.5 4.5 6 7.1 9 12 14 18 24 32
>> Anonymous
on the 8th day God created the D3 and D300
>> Anonymous
>>174363
This is for pussies, real men remember the entire row from f/1 to f/32. (Btw, in our school we were told to learn all the powers of 2 from one to thirty or so, and I still remember most of them, lol)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>174373
That's pretty impressive. I can only get to 2^16th (65536) before I have to resort to a calculator.
>> Anonymous
>>1743631.0 1.4 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8, 11 (close enough), 16, 22, etc.

you're still missing some 1.2, 1.8, 2.2, 2.5, 3.2, 3.5, 4.5, 5.0, 6.3, 7.1, 9.0, 10.0

what's the universal rule
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>174390
The universal rule is stop*sqrt(2) = next higher stop, like>>174343said. Mine's just to remember the main full stops.
>> Anonymous
>>174373
>>174389
Hah, I used to do that for fun. Around the time right before high school. My nephew/niece/younger cousin etc would ask me "Wut's one plus one" then I answer "two" and he goes "wut's two plus two" and this went on until they couldn't repeat "sixteen thousand three hundred and eighty four". Then after they left, I would continue on in my head. Yes, I was quite the geek.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>174329
Because generally the kitlens is now one of the worst you'll own, although my 100-300 and 1.5x tc are both soft and super fucking soft together. Its generally because its easy to exceed a lens limitation before the body limitation. if that makes any sense.

>>174321
I do, thank you (no im not fucking posting them again)