![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragonlady7via http://ift.tt/2bJb6rW:sugarspiceandcursewords
replied to your post “torrilin:
bomberqueen17:
ineptshieldmaid:
bomberqueen17 replied…”
I’m stunned and pleased to learn more about photography because of Oscar Isaac. (I often use a 35mm f1.8 on my Nikon D5300, but not, like, because I know how, exactly.)
Sometimes I can look at a commercial shoot (like a magazine spread) and know what’s going on and get pointers from it. A lot of times though, no. LOL.
I have a Nikon D7100! And yes, that 35 is such a good lens, cheapish and widely useful. It was the first lens I ever bought, and was my go-to for a very long time. It’s clear and sharp and light and small and fast enough, and generally a good focal length for most photography. If you hold up your camera for someone to pose, they’ll generally move to a distance where a 35 will capture them without trouble; if you have a 50, you’re going to have to back up, invariably. People have an idea in their head of where you should stand for a camera, and I don’t know why, but that’s the distance.
The 5300 and 7100 are similar vintages, and it was that generation of digital sensors, no earlier, when suddenly it no longer mattered what the minimum aperture on my lenses was for most situations. I used to always struggle to get enough light, because I love to shoot candids in available light without a tripod. But as soon as I got the 7100 I no longer had to worry, because the sensor was fast enough in low light that it could pretty much handle any normal low-light situation.
It’s that recent that digital photography advanced to that point. (Which is somewhere film photography never did get, btw.) Your camera, and mine, can increase the sensor’s capacity without excessive noise such that even a dim interior scene will be adequate light that with most lenses, you won’t get motion blur. The camera I had before that could not.
(It’s your ISO setting, if you ever mess with that– that’s how fast the camera can respond to light. My old camera, 6400 was the highest real setting, and it was very grainy, with almost no color fidelity. My current camera can use 6400 and look reasonably normal, and can go to 12,800 with no real trouble. This is all electronic stuff, and is constantly being improved. Camera phones are a few generations behind, but they’re catching up too. My current camera phone is far better at this than my first digital SLR was, in 2004.)
ISO 6400, with the D7100, and my trusty Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 wide open:
replied to your post “torrilin:
bomberqueen17:
ineptshieldmaid:
bomberqueen17 replied…”
I’m stunned and pleased to learn more about photography because of Oscar Isaac. (I often use a 35mm f1.8 on my Nikon D5300, but not, like, because I know how, exactly.)
Sometimes I can look at a commercial shoot (like a magazine spread) and know what’s going on and get pointers from it. A lot of times though, no. LOL.
I have a Nikon D7100! And yes, that 35 is such a good lens, cheapish and widely useful. It was the first lens I ever bought, and was my go-to for a very long time. It’s clear and sharp and light and small and fast enough, and generally a good focal length for most photography. If you hold up your camera for someone to pose, they’ll generally move to a distance where a 35 will capture them without trouble; if you have a 50, you’re going to have to back up, invariably. People have an idea in their head of where you should stand for a camera, and I don’t know why, but that’s the distance.
The 5300 and 7100 are similar vintages, and it was that generation of digital sensors, no earlier, when suddenly it no longer mattered what the minimum aperture on my lenses was for most situations. I used to always struggle to get enough light, because I love to shoot candids in available light without a tripod. But as soon as I got the 7100 I no longer had to worry, because the sensor was fast enough in low light that it could pretty much handle any normal low-light situation.
It’s that recent that digital photography advanced to that point. (Which is somewhere film photography never did get, btw.) Your camera, and mine, can increase the sensor’s capacity without excessive noise such that even a dim interior scene will be adequate light that with most lenses, you won’t get motion blur. The camera I had before that could not.
(It’s your ISO setting, if you ever mess with that– that’s how fast the camera can respond to light. My old camera, 6400 was the highest real setting, and it was very grainy, with almost no color fidelity. My current camera can use 6400 and look reasonably normal, and can go to 12,800 with no real trouble. This is all electronic stuff, and is constantly being improved. Camera phones are a few generations behind, but they’re catching up too. My current camera phone is far better at this than my first digital SLR was, in 2004.)
ISO 6400, with the D7100, and my trusty Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 wide open:
