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

I will soon be procuring a Nikon D80 with 18-55mm VR lens for $650 new, is this win?
>> Anonymous
It's ok.
>> Anonymous
Where might I find a better new deal then?
>> Anonymous
that's a nice deal
>> Anonymous
Feh.
>> Anonymous
D80 is outdated and noisy
>> Anonymous
d80 is fine. fuck. even a d50 is still fine

dont buy into OMGAWD OUTDATED TECKNAWLOGEE
>> Anonymous
D60 blows and the D90 is on a completely different price level.
>> Anonymous
I'd take a set of 2-3 primes, but if you want a zoom D80 plus 18-55 VR is probably the best photographic value running right now. The only meaningful capabilities/features it lacks over any other DSLR for most photography is a 100% finder and weatherproofing, and it's of a pretty reasonable size.
>> Anonymous
great camera. noise is a perennial problem however.
>> Anonymous
also, if you can get it without the lens, do. get a fast 50mm as your first lens.
>> Anonymous
So yeah this is /p/ and everyone says buy a entry level dslr and 50mm prime. Why? Because its good glass for cheap? Sounds fair enough.

The problem is its pretty much a useless lens. Ok its reasonable for portraits.. but still not as great as something longer like 80mm or 100mm. Its pretty good for live music i suppose.

Otherwise its pretty dumb. Its an akward focal length to walk around with. On street you are limited to having a single subject or moving so far away the subject moves into the background.

I think the only reason why people recommend a cheap 50mm as a first lens is so that kids with their new dslr want some noticeable bokeh to show how proffessional they are. Well fuck that.

Luckily i got out of this cheaply by purchasing an old ricoh 50mm for 20 bucks. Now i'd like to pass this on to everyone in buying first lens town, save your money for a lens with a normal to wide field of view if you want a walk around lens or a longer lens for portraits. Leave the 50mm for people who want minimum depth of field per dollar for wank factors. Crop sensors have killed the nifty fifty lets move on.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>299973dont buy into OMGAWD OUTDATED TECKNAWLOGEE

No, of course not. Nothing has changed in the past 5 years. We're all super happy about the technical prowess of cameras from back then that everyone just settled on leaving everything as is and twirling our thumbs around not trying to improve image quality.

Outdated? Nonsense!
>> Anonymous
>>300042
No one gives a flying shit.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
well i never discovered my 50mm until after having a
sigma 10-20, a stock 18-135, and a ridiculous 28-300, i was a mad fan of my wide angle.

but now, all i mostly use is my 50mm. i love it, what you see in front of you, you'll see in your camera, so i think it's really gerat to develop a sense of composition.

i mainly take theatre previews for my uni newspaper, so this might be biased. who gives a shit anyway, just get the camera, if you like photography, you'll like the camera.

pic related, my trusty 50mm :)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern670Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:11:18 21:14:41Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastHardSaturationLowSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
>>300053
it's not a 50mm, its a 75mm.
>> Anonymous
>>300042

The only people who think a d80 is outdated probably don't actually take photographs at all, and sit @ home all day ogling their own gear.
>> Anonymous
>>300058

eh, you're confusing me. go away.
>> Anonymous
Everyone boo-hooing about the D80, what the fuck would you buy for $700.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>300058
It's not a 50, it's a 28.
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
>>300058
nope, it's a 50mm. it gives the equivalent 35mm sensor FOV of a ~75mm lens ON A NIKON APS-C... on a Canon APS-C it will have the FOV that an ~80mm would have on a 35mm sensor.
>> Anonymous
>>300052

you obviously do
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
>>300068
its a 75 mm precisely because of that.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>300053i love it, what you see in front of you, you'll see in your camera

3/10, nice try
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>300053
Nice underexposure bro.

Fixed your shot for you.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop LightroomMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern686Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:24 20:12:38Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastHardSaturationLowSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>300071
Focal length does not change based upon the size of the sensor.

Angle of view does.

We tend to think in terms relative to 35mm film sizing (or now, full-frame ~35mm sensor) equivalencies. This is, however, arbitrary.

An 80mm lens on a medium format camera is still an 80mm lens. If you used a 35mm film back, you would get an 80mm-in-35mm-equivalent field of view. If you used a 120 back, you would get, what, 50mm equiv? About that.

Focal length is a property of a lens - entirely separate from the size of the sensor.
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
>>300079
I hope your excuse is you 'fixed' that in mspaint. Myself, I much prefer the original. Gotta love portraying opinion as fact tho.
>> Anonymous
>>300063
Still waiting on an answer
>> Anonymous
>>300090
The original It's under exposed, and flat.
If you compare both of them, the second one is much more vibrant.

Either way, the OP who post this. Why is this shifted to the left? It's like he didn't want to center the image on purpose, but could get wider because he had a 50 (75 lulz).

Of course, I might be a samefag anon, but how can you tell, amirite?
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
>>300081
If you were using a piece of steel to drive nails would you still call it a piece of steel? I would call it a hammer.
>> Anonymous
>>300081
For all intents of purposes, he used a hammer.

It's ok to call a 50mm a 75 on DX. Everyone does it, and everyone understand. If you want to get pissed off about semantics, go ahead.

I for one, accept our now DX OVERLOARDS
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
>>300108
I'm sorry, but you're wrong, and your logic example is not helping. The lens does not change its focal length when used on a different sensor, and nobody is arguing over whether it should be called a lens rather than a chunk of manufactured materials.
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
>>300110
2/10
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>300107
op here.

why is it shifted to the left? I don't know. I did regret it.

also, the jpg on my comp looks a little brighter for some reason. agreed, it does look flat. could something have been lost in the upload? pic related.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Ya, no.
>> Anonymous
I always enjoy reading 2 tripfags going at each other.

Neither one wants to admit failure and then it turns into a 50 posts thread. Love it.
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
>>300117
now it's a 112mm.
>> Anonymous
And while we're at it. I love my Nikon 27-105, and my 105-300.
Oh wait..
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
>>300124
I understood you perfectly.

Also, I recommend a full frame camera to get the correct lengths of your lenses, if they are not Digitally Crippled that is.
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
>>300117
win
>> Anonymous
>>300124

on a DX camera, they ARE effectively 27-105 and 105-300

the lenses do not change but the field of view does
>> Anonymous
I just bought a used D200 for 20 less than that.
>> Anonymous
Question here, YEAH YEAH I know crop lenses are made a little bigger to project a larger image than a APS-C sensor but what it sees is still only parts of the center.

Anyway.. if crop lenses are never, ever meant to truly project a full circle for the 35mm format, why not just call them by their equivalent focal lengths?

Like a 18-55, it's equivalent to 27mm to 83mm. So why not just call it that? Put it on a crop camera, it gives the equivalent of 27-83, put it on a full frame camera or film, it's still only going to give 27mm to 83mm (in the exposed areas anyway). It would make it a lot simpler for people to understand that a 14-24 on full frame is a WHOLE FUCKING lot wider than a 18-55 on their crop cameras.

In before 80mm is a normal on medium format. That's a completely different world. They're not even using 35mm based lenses, so that doesn't apply to other formats.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense at all, in b4 DUURUURURURURUR. Just explain it nicely to me or don't post at all.
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
>>300151
focal length is focal length. none of this changes the focal length. when lenses start listing their FOV, then your argument will become valid.

Just because my car does 100 mile to the gallon and yours does 200 doesn't mean our fuel should be measured differently.

On that note, I'm out of this sham debate
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>300151
Well if you look at some P&S lenses, they're labeled 35-105(equiv.), which would work. If you simply wrote the equivalent on without saying so, that'd be an outright lie. The focal length itself does not indicate the field of view - it can be taken as CAUSING a given field of view, in conjunction with other factors like sensor size. It'd be like selling a CPU as "Core 2 Duo 30second Windows Startup Time" - that processor may only cause such startup times with certain other hardware combinations.

tl;dr: truth in marketing shouldn't be given up to pander to idiots like you who can't handle mental math
>> Anonymous
>>300200It'd be like selling a CPU as "Core 2 Duo 30second Windows Startup Time" - that processor may only cause such startup times with certain other hardware combinations.

Nikon makes lenses for their cameras only. Canon makes lenses for theirs only, so on so on. Third party can label theirs as needed. You're now selling a 27mm to 83mm equivalent lens for your system and yours only.

>> tl;dr: truth in marketing shouldn't be given up to pander to idiots like you who can't handle mental math

lol?

>> Like a 18-55, it's equivalent to 27mm to 83mm. So why not just call it that? Put it on a crop camera, it gives the equivalent of 27-83, put it on a full frame camera or film, it's still only going to give 27mm to 83mm (in the exposed areas anyway). It would make it a lot simpler for people to understand that a 14-24 on full frame is a WHOLE FUCKING lot wider than a 18-55 on their crop cameras.

OBVIOUSLY I can't handle simple math. Fucking retard.
>> Anonymous
This thread got derailed hardcore
>> Anonymous
>>300205
I wasn't going to contribute further in this thread past my 50/75 image post, but the reason to call it by its actual name is because you can use them on full frame.
When I put my 18-200 on my FE2, I get an (albeit vignetted) 18-200mm lens.
They call it an 18-200 DX for a reason.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>300205
>>It would make it a lot simpler for people to understand that a 14-24 on full frame is a WHOLE FUCKING lot wider than a 18-55 on their crop cameras.

But it wasn't hard to understand in the first place! Doesn't need to be any simpler - unless you're an idiot.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>300266

you mean like Martin?
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>300205
Okay did some more thinking. When you label a lens with its true focal length, you're actually truthfully describing a physical property of the lens. Great.

If you put on the 35mm equiv, then that description is only useful as long as people continue to think in those terms - which is a really recent development. It is an arbitrary choice based on the inability of idiots to really understand what goes on with lenses and field of view.

So given that we can't know the field of view just by knowing the focal length of a lens, what knowledge do we gain by accurate focal length reporting? Depth of field properties come to mind.

In conclusion:
- Reporting with 35mm equiv: Helps dumb people figure out FoV
- Reporting with true focal length: Clearly describes FoV for most people. Provides DoF info that is otherwise unavailable. Therefore all the benefits + more of 35 equiv.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>300268
I think I've made it clear on many occasions that I think that guy's a fucking retard.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>300269
Speaking in 35mm "crop factors"

Example: Sigma 12-24mm lens. Can be used on Canon/Nikon/Sony Crop Factor 1 Cameras, Canon 1.3s, Nikonetc 1.5s, Canon 1.6s. It's exactly the same lens. The optics are physically the same. However, the 35mm equivalent view ranges from 12mm to 19mm.

Even if we're willing to label each mount differently, Canon has 1, 1.3 and 1.6 crop factors. One lens will fit onto cameras with three different sizes of sensors. So, proponents on 35mm equiv. labelling, how shall we label an EOS-mount 12-24? What do we call it other than 12-24?
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
ITT: people who think it should be different argue with people who understand why it's the way it is
>> Anonymous
Field of view =/= focal length.
/thread
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
>>300320
hooray... your sports racer name is now 'the distiller'
>> Anonymous
This shouldn't be win, but in this fucked up world, it is. To put it another way, there are no better win yet.
>> Anonymous
Canon XSi>D80
>> Anonymous
XSi>D80
>> sage else !L6xabslN96
>>299939
i don't know wtf everyone's arguing about in this thread but a nikon d80 is pretty win for a first dslr, OP - if it is your first, that is.

the 50mm prime lens is great for beginners imo. i'm a beginner myself and the "awkward" focal length isn't dehabilitating like people say.
>> Anonymous
D80 is a fine first camera. Good resolution, works with AF lenses, offers quick and easy adjustments of settings.

If you prefer the awkward and inefficient controls and dials of the rebel series that's fine too. The XSi probably handles noise and renders colours slightly better, but I'd rather shoot with a camera that's comfortable and gets out of the way.
>> Anonymous
I'd love to use the most comfortable camera in the word, except it sucks shit for photos because it has shit image quality, but at least I'll be comfortable
>> Anonymous
Is there honestly any reason not to get the 450D over the D80? 450D has newer tech better ISO control and its just a downright sexy looking camera.
>> Anonymous
>>300844

it has awkward and inefficient controls and dials lollololoo
>> Anonymous
>>300876
and way better PQ lololololol
>> Anonymous
fact: it is not going to make a fuck of a difference which one of those cameras you buy. the quality differences between the two are so small that your budding skills will have zero chance in finding them. also canon and nikon have very similar product lines, so the system you are buying into really isn't that different either. (that's going to get some boys fired up!)

just try them and pick which one you feel most comfortable with.
>> Anonymous
>>300844

The D80 is older technology, bro. It should suck against the 450D, and if it doesn't well, meh.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>this thread
>> Anonymous
>>301073
>just try them and pick which one you feel most comfortable with.

This. Get whichever camera feels best when you hold it. Check if all the switches and buttons are on a nice place for you and go for it.

For a starters camera a few MP, or some newer technology don't matter. I bought a D80 about a year ago, and I haven't found a thing I want it to do what it can't... Maybe GPS, but who gives a flying fuck about GPS.
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>301084
what camera has a fucking GPS on it???
>> Anonymous
lol D80 sucks at high ISO

/thrad
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>301087
I know the sony's all have a module for it but afaik dont have it built in.

Some P&S do, the sparkly nokia phones do as well.
>> Anonymous
>>301087

I was talking about a GPS connection. Shitty me.

Some P&S and phones indeed have it built in though...
>> Anonymous
>>300268

You are my hero.
>> Anonymous
>>301082

Under the stairs?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
my iPhone has GPS built-in and has a camera, suck it
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
iphone>all
>> Anonymous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jshe65EE0So
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>301177
sauce on pic? does that bag really carry all that shit properly in compartments?
>> Anonymous
>>301384

..is that real
>> Anonymous
>>301416
no. duh.
>> Anonymous
>>301416
Yeah its real http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.10813~r.99999999