#39

Think I’d be looking at taking profile photos of people in bands rather than trying to get the whole band in one

1 Like
#41

Yeah, totally. I also feel a little self conscious carrying a kit bag and huge camera. Especially at social events.

#42

So 50 is better than 18-55? Can someone explain why?

#45

I was going to politely disagree, knowing that the canon 35mm f2 costs significantly more than the 50mm 1.8. But it looks like there’s a Nikon 35mm 1.8 which isn’t much more than the Nikon 50mm, so now I’m going to politely agree instead :slight_smile:

(I’ve got one of the old Canon 35mm f2’s before they had IS, which isn’t a great lens, but I love it for that)

1 Like
#47

So the lower f number let’s more light.

Why can’t they just make them to let all the light in?

#48

Any zoom lenses I’ve used have a lower aperture at their widest such as 3.5 but a but higher one at their most telephoto like a 5.6

I think to get the lower aperture zoom lenses you’re spending top cash.

Zooms traditionally have worse image quality but it’s not something I’ve really noticed…

Zoom lenses can be quite good when you’re starting because they’re a cheap way to learn focal length.

#50

This kind of explains things: https://www.techradar.com/uk/how-to/photography-video-capture/cameras/the-exposure-triangle-aperture-shutter-speed-and-iso-explained-1320830

In any situation there’s only a certain amount of light. If you need to get more light into your camera, you can either up your ISO, take a longer photo, or reduce your aperture.

If your lens can go down to a lower f number, then you’ve got a lot more flexibility and don’t have to resort to upping your ISO (which will give more unattractive noise / grain) or taking a slower photo (which will give you motion blur)

1 Like
#51

I actually knew that about the graininess!
I’ve got a photo app on my phone that’s the same

1 Like
#52

Yep:

24mm 1.8
35mm 2
50mm 1.4
15-30 3.5-4.5
24-70 2.8
135 2
200 2.8

My name’s Rob and I appear to have a problem.

2 Likes
#54

That’s a whole different conversation. At least film cameras are cheap :slight_smile: :camera_flash:

My next purchase will probably be a different lens for my Bronica. Going medium format was one of the best things I ever did, but I can’t get in close enough for the pics I want to take.

1 Like
#56

Ah yeah - I saw an article about how much a Contax T2 goes for these days, all because one of the Kardashians started using them on their instagram. Bonkers.

1 Like
#57

£££

#59

Haha I was just writing this post but didn’t know about the kardashians. My contax t2 has doubled in price in about 8 years.

#60

It was mad to see the Olympus trip hit £50 a few years ago. I never paid more than £5 for one. Also the mju ii has gone up like crazy. I must have about 5 of them.

1 Like
#61

Remind me to read this thread later

#62

They’re great for a point and shoot - nice quick autofocus, good exposure, sharp images. But it’s almost too good - I like my film shots to be a bit soft.

My film compact of choice at the moment is either my Olympus LT-1 (which is basically a fancy Olympus Mju I), or my waterproof Canon Sureshot A-1.

#63

£50 for a trip?!?! Even my red leatherette refurbed one was only £20. A plain one shouldn’t cost more than a tenner, surely?

#64

Yeah I guess they peaked and fell. It was so weird because they were like the most mass produced camera ever so it made no sense.

#65

seems like a good place to mention, @stickboy your instagram is really good.

#68

Here’s an article about it: https://www.slrlounge.com/want-to-save-a-camera-give-it-to-a-kardashian-contax-t2/

But lots of people have written about it (presumably because they know that writing articles with the keyword Kardashian will give them hits on their site)

1 Like