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

I'm very new to DSLR photography and having different lenses. I just got myself a Canon Rebel XT. I've been using the standard lens it come with (18-55mm Lens). Now, is the photo quality mainly based on the camera body or the lens? So will my images be sharper if I use a better lens? And will a better lens take in more light so I get the best natural lighting pictures?
>> Anonymous
>a 50mm lens with this camera gives you the same field of view as an 80mm lens on a full frame camera due to the 1.6x field of view crop

fixed. a 50mm is not and never will be a 80mm lens. It is physically impossible.
>> Anonymous
>>116959
Stop your lens from being broken if you bang it up against stuff. (You will. Everybody who actually uses their camera does.)

Reduce flare, improving contrast and generally overall image quality, although flare can be used creatively.

>>116968
That's true, but a lens shouldn't have to be stopped down so far to be decent. The slow speed of the lens already stops it from being used in many available light situations, and having to stop it down to f/8 to make it not suck is just horrible.

>>116971
And this is something people need to get into their heads. Never bothered anyone shooting multiple formats with film.
>> Anonymous
>>116971

It does. You are crazy.
>> Anonymous
>>116980
Are you a troll or is someone going to have to explain basic concepts to you?
>> Anonymous
>>116983

It is 1.6 times. If it is 50 then it is 1.6 times that. I think you are making it up. Prove it.
>> Anonymous
>>116994

bullshit. total bullshit. you can make up your lies and spin all you want but you are still a cretin and a liar.
>> Anonymous
>>117002
You are obviously incapable of simple arithmetic.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>117004
i think he's either really stupid, or just trolling successfully.
>> Anonymous
>>116994
This is only half true.
A 50/1.8 lens on a Canon with 1.6x crop factor behaves like a 80/2.9 lens on a 35mm film camera in regard to DoF, but as a 80/1.8 lens when it comes to calculating exposure.
This is because DoF is dependent on the actual aperture (in millimeters), and exposure is calculated using f-stops.
>> Anonymous
>>117004
6/10
>> Anonymous
>>116994
Jesus fucking christ you people are retarded.

Crop factor DOES NOT CHANGE THE FOCAL LENGTH OF THE LENS. Focal length is a property of the lens, it can not be changed by the camera body. Crop factor changes the field of view, the amount of the image circle that is CROPPED to produce the picture. This changes the APPARENT field of view of the lens, NOT the focal length.

THE APERTURE DOES NOT CHANGE. A 50mm lens at f/2.8 has a 17.8mm aperture no matter what camera body, digital or film-crop or no crop, it's mounted on. Aperture is a property of the lens and has nothing to do with the body on which it is mounted.

THE REASON DEPTH OF FIELD CHANGES between cropped and non-cropped bodies has NOTHING to do with the aperture and everything to do with the circle of confusion. The circle of confusion is the minimum point of acceptable sharpness- basically the dividing line between in focus and out of focus. The smaller the sensor, the smaller the circle of confusion. A smaller circle of confusion results in more depth of field. That is why cropped sensors have more depth of field than full frame or film, and why 35mm has more DOF than medium or large format.
>> Anonymous
>>117013
/thread
>> Anonymous
>>117013
But the 60mm lens on my digital has a focal length of 96mm!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116971
>fixed. a 50mm is not and never will be a 80mm lens. It is physically impossible.
Unless you mount it on a camera with a flange-focal distance that's 30mm longer than the EOS standard.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
crabs
>> Anonymous
What good would a new flash do me?
>> Anonyfag of Borneo !bHymOqU5YY
>>117070
A whole lot, depending on what you want to capture with your camera.
>> Anonymous
This had to be a troll. No one is that stupid.

>>117070
Like he said, it depends on what sort of photography you want to do. I'd hold off on it for now- the goal of using flash is to design the light in the scene to look like how one wants it to. To do that well, you have to learn to recognize what good light looks like sans flash- i.e. practice just shooting and paying attention to what sort of light looks good and what doesn't. Then when you really understand that, buy some flashes and reproduce all the nice light you have stored up in your head.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>117084
>This had to be a troll. No one is that stupid.
It's not necessarily a troll, and it's really not all that stupid.

Those of us who are camera geeks know that all of the digital SLRs out there pretty much give you the same level of image quality, and that the lens is a much bigger part of the equation. However, people who *aren't* camera geeks might leap to the conclusion that, just like how P&S cameras give much shittier image quality than SLRs, there are different levels of SLR. Which, technically, is true, when you take into account things like full-frame vs. 4/3 and APS-C, although someone at this level certainly shouldn't be looking at the 1Ds/5D/D3 lines.

Although, granted,
>And will a better lens take in more light so I get the best natural lighting pictures?
does sound a bit too-stupid-to-be-real, I can see that sort of question coming from someone who's learned a little bit about cameras but still doesn't quite grasp everything. And, you know, an f/2.8 L zoom is a "better" lens (in most ways) than the EF 50mm f/1.8, but the 50/1.8 will give you an extra stop-and-a-half of brightness.
>> Anonymous
>>117090
No, I didn't mean the OP. That's not a stupid question at all he's asking.

I meant the "50mm gets APS-C pixel dust and grows 30mm" crowd had to be trolls.
>> Anonymous
In fact, I was

>>116955
>>116973
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>117092
Ohhh. Yes.

Well, actually, what I think happened was this:
>116980
This guy responded to the guy who fix'd the previous guy, not quite understanding what "fix'd" meant. So he didn't get that that guy had *changed* what he was quoting, so he thought that he was trying to *refute* what was in the quote. Next few people missed that important misunderstanding, so argument began.

>116987
THIS guy, who was the guy who was all "Yeah, because the aperture changes with the crop" was clearly being sarcastic. Like it's painfully obvious that he's refuting the guy he's responding to with sarcasm. I'm amazed how anyone could not grasp that. Hell, he saged when saying it. That should've tipped people off right there.

Then a bunch of people didn't get that he was being sarcastic, and more flaming ensued. Along with a couple of genuine trolls who probably realized that that guy was being sarcastic, but decided to argue in favor of the point as if he weren't specifically to suck in the stupid.

Basically, lots of people in this thread need to lrn2reading comprehension.