• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Official Camera Equipment Megathread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why are you asking?

The only reason to get a full frame lens is either A.) the lens specifications that you are looking for aren't widely available on APSC (85mm etc), or B) you're looking to go for a full frame camera.

A lens that covers full frame will be larger, more expensive, and actually less sharp than an APSC lens. Think of it this way: a lens designed for 24MP full frame, will have a lower PPI than a lens designed to cover 24MP on APSC. Because of that, when you crop out all the "extra" lens, you actually end up with a 16MP lens, if you only count what you're using.

Now, a full frame lens does NOT behave differently from an APSC lens in terms of focal length, if given the same sensor. A 50mm full frame lens on an APSC sensor looks exactly like a 50mm APSC lens on an APSC sensor. That difference is caused purely by the sensor itself. (Now, an APSC lens on a full frame camera can expect at LEAST a bunch of vignetting).

So keep this stuff in mind.
I'm asking mainly cause I'm trying to do portrait work on the side and I want a good portrait lens at some point. My 50mm 1.8 takes a damn good picture, just wondering if there are other good apsc lenses, which was why I was asking about the 1.4 30mm Sigma Art lens.
 

MRORANGE

Member
bump for new page:

X2sgnTY.jpg

So we are going to create a new thread, It would be a good idea to get an idea on what people want from the new thread, personally I would like to see:

- recommendations for cameras by brand and beginner/intermediate/best-all-round
- advice on photography in general, such as settings and lenses..
- recommended websites.

captive has already contacted me on things that should be it, which I think is very good to have in the OP:


maybe a current recommended all around camera.

some quotes from thom Hogan on how you don't always need new gear and should maybe work on your technique.

a few statements/questions to read before asking for a camera recommendation like whats your budget, what do you want to shoot or do with your camera. More often than not people come in and post for a camera recommendation but don't give any information to go along with it.

Maybe a few books or websites on learning to shoot.

Maybe a spiffy logo or something?



Feedback so far from this thread:
Can I request a little blurb about Samyang lenses? I feel they are basically in their own market that is definitely worth mentioning IMO. I was at a loss for any lenses that really "fit my market" until I found them -- inexpensive, but high quality lenses that are fully manual, instead of relying on possibly broken or degraded vintage lenses.

If you write a summary that would be great for the OP.
 
I'm asking mainly cause I'm trying to do portrait work on the side and I want a good portrait lens at some point. My 50mm 1.8 takes a damn good picture, just wondering if there are other good apsc lenses, which was why I was asking about the 1.4 30mm Sigma Art lens.

Gotcha. The thing is that bokeh (Which I'm assuming is what you're looking for more of, given you're looking at a 1.4, though I could be wrong) is a product of both the aperture AND the focal length. Also, as others have said, 30mm won't be very flattering. So you'd end up with the same bokeh, but a more "round" looking subject -- hardly what you want. You can either go longer with the same aperture, or the same length with a wider aperture -- or do both. I don't know offhand what Nikon lenses would do that, but I'm sure they have a 60mm or so, possibly in 1.4.

Ultimately though, I'd say that 50mm should be able to do great. Good focal length, good aperture.

EDIT: Gimme a few and I'll edit a blurb for Samyang lenses in this post.

If you're a price sensitive, results oriented hobbyist photographer who's willing to make a few sacrifices, one manufacturer you should keep your eye on is Samyang. Samyang's ENTIRE line up of lenses is a collection of prime, fast aperture MANUAL FOCUS LENSES that have a GREAT price to performance value. Many of their lenses are known to trade blows, often favorably, against lenses that cost 3 or 4 times as much. No, you won't have AF, camera based Aperture control, or image stabilization, but if you find yourself unfettered by the idea of using a vintage lens, Samyang offers a modern day translation. Most of their prices fall around $300 for a lens, with their 50, 35 (both of these are 1.4!), and 100 Macro going for around $400-$500. All for BRAND NEW, incredibly high quality lenses that cost a fraction of an equivalent Nikon or Canon. They even offer Cinema variants, with de-clicked aperture rings and gear focus dials, for anyone in that market. Most lenses are created for full frame sensors, but come in a multitude of mounts, covering everything from Nikon and Canon, to Sony and M4/3rds. There's even a few other mounts that I don't really recognize. ^-^*

In short, by giving up some modern features, you can have a very affordable, very nice lens with a buttery smooth focus ring, fast aperture, and great photos/videos. And as a person who's used almost exclusively vintage Canon FD lenses, I know I'm their perfect demographic. I know there aren't *too* many of us in this odd group, but for those that are I think it's important to know about this company.
 

RuGalz

Member
bump for new page

* Probably some general list of things to consider when picking out gear in addition to recommendations by brand. (i.e. ergonomics, preferred type of photographs, typical shooting condition, etc)
* A bit info on pros and cons of DSLR vs MILC since that comes up a lot.
 
Gotcha. The thing is that bokeh (Which I'm assuming is what you're looking for more of, given you're looking at a 1.4, though I could be wrong) is a product of both the aperture AND the focal length. Also, as others have said, 30mm won't be very flattering. So you'd end up with the same bokeh, but a more "round" looking subject -- hardly what you want. You can either go longer with the same aperture, or the same length with a wider aperture -- or do both. I don't know offhand what Nikon lenses would do that, but I'm sure they have a 60mm or so, possibly in 1.4.

Ultimately though, I'd say that 50mm should be able to do great. Good focal length, good aperture.
I managed to find this thing:
Tamron SP AF60mm f/2 DI II LD
 

Ty4on

Member
For Samyang I'd include the 14mm f2.8 and 12mm f2 (latter is APSC) which are great astrophotography lenses (corner performance wide open) and much cheaper than the next step up.

I'd also recommend used gear, especially entry level camera bodies, and some tips on how to buy used gear (what to look out for, being wary of the cheapest etc.). Older APSC bodies especially are thrown after people and go for less than many film bodies.
 
For Samyang I'd include the 14mm f2.8 and 12mm f2 (latter is APSC) which are great astrophotography lenses (corner performance wide open) and much cheaper than the next step up.

I'd also recommend used gear, especially entry level camera bodies, and some tips on how to buy used gear (what to look out for, being wary of the cheapest etc.). Older APSC bodies especially are thrown after people and go for less than many film bodies.

I'd throw in a recommendation for the 8mm f2.8 fisheye for taking star pictures. I've been using it for awhile and I love it.
 
Guys I made a huge mistake.

I bought my mom a lens for her Pentax (A k1000 film camera). Got her the f1.4 50mm. Went to test it out, cleaned it off (seriously ebay guys put the damn lens caps on you little fucks), stuck it on my camera to test.

Aaaaaand now I don't wanna give it to my mom for Christmas. Colors are really nice on it.
 

Ty4on

Member
I hope you're looking for your own :p
If you can find one there are tons of cheap Pentaxes (the K1000 has a good reputation and can be a bit overpriced; decent camera, but big and lacking features like an on off switch) and another 50mm f1.4.
Pentaxforums.com has data on all the film bodies (and lenses) including user reviews and what they paid for it.

I'm not sure how different their performance is, but the 50mm f1.7 was the old kit lens and is super cheap.
 

Kraftwerk

Member
Whats the best affordable stabilizer? Just want to get some shots of someone walking for a short video im making. Or would a shoulder rig be better? dont want to spend too much.
 

RuGalz

Member
The old Pentax 50mm 1.4 does produce nicer colors and image than the 1.7 but I'm not sure if it's worth the price difference. I think the prices are jacked up too much due to hype, especially the early super Takumar ones.
 
I checked Google and the K1000 was manufactured from 76 to 97...that's longevity. I'd be surprised if I got one good shot using that lcd less contraption...granted my camera doesn't have an EVF I'd still be lost I bet.
Well, there is a battery on it, and is operated by holding down the shutter halfway, and it has a needle in the viewfinder that'll tell you your exposure. It even mechanically communicates the aperture so that it can take that into account.
 
Well, there is a battery on it, and is operated by holding down the shutter halfway, and it has a needle in the viewfinder that'll tell you your exposure. It even mechanically communicates the aperture so that it can take that into account.
Well that's pretty damn cool. All I would have to do is get used to manual focusing then.
 
Guys I made a huge mistake.

I bought my mom a lens for her Pentax (A k1000 film camera). Got her the f1.4 50mm. Went to test it out, cleaned it off (seriously ebay guys put the damn lens caps on you little fucks), stuck it on my camera to test.

Aaaaaand now I don't wanna give it to my mom for Christmas. Colors are really nice on it.

Haha, that's great. I'm with you. My old Pentax glass might not be the sharpest, but I really love the colour rendition.
 
I'm probably going to get this as my portrait lens:
Nikon AF FX NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G
I think I just realized that my 1.8 50mm was a full frame lens and I've been shooting with that forever without complaints so fuck it, I'll get this thing. It's gotten great reviews.

It's a great lens, loved mine. If I ever get a Nikon FF camera again this will be the first lens I'll buy. This and a Sigma 35mm and that's all I would need.
 
It's a great lens, loved mine. If I ever get a Nikon FF camera again this will be the first lens I'll buy. This and a Sigma 35mm and that's all I would need.
It's getting thrown onto an APSC camera, but I'm not the first person to use it on a D7100. I've heard nothing but good things about that lens.
 

RuGalz

Member
It's getting thrown onto an APSC camera, but I'm not the first person to use it on a D7100. I've heard nothing but good things about that lens.

People use film lenses on digital camera and give them good praises all the time, they are probably way less sharp than using modern FF lens on APSC body. I think you are fine. Numerical sharpness and perceived sharpness don't really match up one to one.
 
People use film lenses on digital camera and give them good praises all the time, they are probably way less sharp than using modern FF lens on APSC body. I think you are fine. Numerical sharpness and perceived sharpness don't really match up one to one.

It's the G version. Very modern. Extremely sharp.
 
People use film lenses on digital camera and give them good praises all the time, they are probably way less sharp than using modern FF lens on APSC body. I think you are fine. Numerical sharpness and perceived sharpness don't really match up one to one.

This is a 100% crop at f1.4 on my APSC camera, and I really can't see it getting much sharper than this. Using a Canon film lens. Given I can practically make out individual leaves on the tree in the reflection of her eye, I'd say they aren't "way less sharp", at least not to any point that anyone would really give a damn.

That being said, I guess I am sort of proving the point that a full frame lens would be fine on an APSC camera. >_>*
 

RuGalz

Member
This is a 100% crop at f1.4 on my APSC camera, and I really can't see it getting much sharper than this. Using a Canon film lens. Given I can practically make out individual leaves on the tree in the reflection of her eye, I'd say they aren't "way less sharp", at least not to any point that anyone would really give a damn.

That being said, I guess I am sort of proving the point that a full frame lens would be fine on an APSC camera. >_>*

You can definitely get sharper result than that with modern lenses designed for digital cameras. But we and others don't view our photos at 100% crop typically, or most of us don't print large billboards, so there's definitely a point where it really doesn't matter that much like you said. (Or as much as all these numerical analysis people focus on so much these days want to make you believe.)
 
You can definitely get sharper result than that with modern lenses designed for digital cameras. But we and others don't view our photos at 100% crop typically, or most of us don't print large billboards, so there's definitely a point where it really doesn't matter that much like you said. (Or as much as all these numerical analysis people focus on so much these days want to make you believe.)

I agree, I suppose my point earlier was mainly about the increase in cost. But looking at the lens he posted, it doesn't really seem very expensive, so I guess it's a bit of a moot point. It was more about getting less, for more, than that there was any actual visible loss in quality.
 
I agree, I suppose my point earlier was mainly about the increase in cost. But looking at the lens he posted, it doesn't really seem very expensive, so I guess it's a bit of a moot point. It was more about getting less, for more, than that there was any actual visible loss in quality.
Yeah compared to a lot of lenses I've looked at that lens seems like a bargain. I mean yeah the Sigma 1.4 50mm is probably better but I can't afford the damn thing. I'd be better off just buying a used D610 before I buy that lens cause there's not that much of a price difference. I've already been shooting with a full frame lens on my camera without even knowing it and I've been getting great pictures out of it.
 
Yeah compared to a lot of lenses I've looked at that lens seems like a bargain. I mean yeah the Sigma 1.4 50mm is probably better but I can't afford the damn thing. I'd be better off just buying a used D610 before I buy that lens cause there's not that much of a price difference. I've already been shooting with a full frame lens on my camera without even knowing it and I've been getting great pictures out of it.

Well if you're fine full manual, Samyang makes a 1.4 85mm for $260, which is my next lens. :D
 
Well if you're fine full manual, Samyang makes a 1.4 85mm for $260, which is my next lens. :D
Manual focus is not my forte. I need more practice at that, but I don't always have that much time for shot planning when shooting random ass people on the street or in the middle of a busy subway platform. Does Samyang really only make manual focus lenses?
 
Manual focus is not my forte. I need more practice at that, but I don't always have that much time for shot planning when shooting random ass people on the street or in the middle of a busy subway platform. Does Samyang really only make manual focus lenses?

Every single Samyang lens is a fully manual, non electronic prime lens.
It's why it only costs $270. :x
 

RuGalz

Member
I agree, I suppose my point earlier was mainly about the increase in cost. But looking at the lens he posted, it doesn't really seem very expensive, so I guess it's a bit of a moot point. It was more about getting less, for more, than that there was any actual visible loss in quality.

gotcha, totally agreed.
 
Well that makes too much sense then. Too bad I'm balls at manual focus. I've gotten it right a few times, but when it counts, nothing.

One thing you can do is do burst shooting and rock the focus just a wee bit. It helps to have a wider aperture and "look" for the focus plane, and watch it.

So what I do, is I'll get it relatively in focus, then (somewhat) slowly focus past where I'm trying to focus, then pull it back the other way, and then center it. If you're watching your plane of focus, you'll know when it's right where it needs to be with just a bit of practice, and it's not all that slow. Really, the only time it ends up slow is when I'm going from very near focus, to far focus, and that's mainly because I have to turn that dial all the way around haha.

I will admit that in less than stellar light it's going to be easier on a mirrorless because the Focus peaking will make it very easy to see your focal plane. But I can do it on a film camera nearly as well in good ish light (aka the light you'd be taking photos in anyway).
 

Kraftwerk

Member
Whats the best affordable stabilizer? Just want to get some shots of someone walking for a short video im making. Or would a shoulder rig be better? dont want to spend too much.

asking again. Buying one this weekend, just want to be sure of my decision.

Budget is $300~
 
One thing you can do is do burst shooting and rock the focus just a wee bit. It helps to have a wider aperture and "look" for the focus plane, and watch it.

So what I do, is I'll get it relatively in focus, then (somewhat) slowly focus past where I'm trying to focus, then pull it back the other way, and then center it. If you're watching your plane of focus, you'll know when it's right where it needs to be with just a bit of practice, and it's not all that slow. Really, the only time it ends up slow is when I'm going from very near focus, to far focus, and that's mainly because I have to turn that dial all the way around haha.

I will admit that in less than stellar light it's going to be easier on a mirrorless because the Focus peaking will make it very easy to see your focal plane. But I can do it on a film camera nearly as well in good ish light (aka the light you'd be taking photos in anyway).
That's a definite skill I'm going to have to learn. I have enough to deal with since I'm trying to shoot more in manual mode. I snapped off a few pics of this woman playing the violin and I was quite pleased with my results. I mainly was using aperture priority mode as my primary setting prior to that, but there are just times when it just does whatever the fuck it wants and just under or over exposes an image cause it can't always stick to a consistent shutter speed.
 
That's a definite skill I'm going to have to learn. I have enough to deal with since I'm trying to shoot more in manual mode. I snapped off a few pics of this woman playing the violin and I was quite pleased with my results. I mainly was using aperture priority mode as my primary setting prior to that, but there are just times when it just does whatever the fuck it wants and just under or over exposes an image cause it can't always stick to a consistent shutter speed.

Manually focusing is honestly one of the easier things to learn, since you of course immediately see if it's right or wrong as you're doing it. Getting *really* good at it can be tough, but I'd say you can at least get to AF accuracy quick enough, even if you are slower at it.

Tell you what though clicky aperture rings are the best. Love it when it's clicky.
 
Manually focusing is honestly one of the easier things to learn, since you of course immediately see if it's right or wrong as you're doing it. Getting *really* good at it can be tough, but I'd say you can at least get to AF accuracy quick enough, even if you are slower at it.

Tell you what though clicky aperture rings are the best. Love it when it's clicky.
I think it's only visible to me in Live View which I don't touch cause it doesn't give me a read out with any kind of information. I get no info regarding exposure changes, shutter speed changes or anything. It's the one blatant weak point on my camera.
 

FStop7

Banned
Just keep practicing the manual focus

You can also cheat a little bit by focusing for hyperfocal distance

Like let's say you have a full frame 35mm sensor and a 35mm focal length lens. You could set your aperture to f11 and the focal distance of the lens to 12 feet, which is the hyperfocal distance for that aperture. Now anything beyond half of that distance (6 feet to infinity) will be in focus.

The wider the lens the shorter the hyperfocal distance at a given aperture. There are tables and calculators online that let you figure it out based on sensor size, aperture, focal point, etc.

This is one reason why 35mm and 28mm lenses are very popular with street photographers. They pre-focus based on hyperfocal distance so they can immediately get a shot off if something suddenly happens. The jump from 35mm to 50mm is kind of big, in that at f11 a 50mm lens has a hyperfocal distance of 24 feet on a full frame sensor, which means everything beyond 12.5 feet will be in focus. That's kind of far for crowded city streets.

Anyway, that trick might also be helpful for you.

On the topic of gear, I tested the Leica M Monochrom, the SL, and the Q. I posted a little bit about the Monochrom already. I'll just reiterate that the Monochrom+APO-Summicron 50 f2 combination is out of control. It's the closest thing to film I've ever seen from a digital camera. I absolutely loved it. The only downside is that light control is a big deal for this camera because if you blow highlights with the Monochrom, they're gone. There's no recovering them. The data's simply not there. So with a minimum ISO of 320, it can be very challenging to shoot with the Monochrom in high contrast environments. Especially on bright and sunny days. Chances are you'll need to carry ND filters around with you. That said, it thrives in low light. It's usable up to ISO 12,500 though you'll need to clean up some noise. At ISO 6400 it's got a very natural grain.

The SL. I don't know what to think of the SL. I liked it, but I didn't love it. I shot the SL with the giant 24-90 Vario Elmar F2.8-F4 bazooka lens attached and also with a Summilux-M 50/1.4. The 24-90 itself is like a piece of industrial equipment. It's built like a tank. I wasn't that thrilled by its image quality, though. I wasn't that thrilled with the images I got using the Summilux 50, either. I own a Summilux 50 and it's easily the nicest glass I've ever owned, so I know it's not the fault of the lens. I really like the _idea_ of the SL in that it works with practically all Leica glass, it goes down to ISO 50, has a max shutter speed of 1/8000, fast auto focus, etc. But it just didn't "do it" for me.

The Q. This camera's special. I loved everything about it. It's built very well and yet it's light. Its color rendition is better than my M Typ 240. It has better low and high ISO performance, too. The EVF is good. It has a leaf shutter that is so quiet you barely hear it. If you go faster than 1/2000 it switches from the leaf shutter to an electronic shutter. It converts very well to black and white. It's just a great camera, all around. It's ~$900 more than the Sony RX1RII, but I think it's totally worth it. I'm probably going to buy one next week, or whenever I can find one in stock. The only bad thing I can say about it is that 28mm is not the focal length I would prefer. I'd rather have 35mm. But that's a pretty minor complaint.

A couple of test shots w/ the Q. I absolutely love how it handles the reds and oranges of the bricks.

20151214-l1040103bqsdd.jpg


20151214-l1040102w8syw.jpg
 

Ty4on

Member
I think it's only visible to me in Live View which I don't touch cause it doesn't give me a read out with any kind of information. I get no info regarding exposure changes, shutter speed changes or anything. It's the one blatant weak point on my camera.
Try learning to read the meter. The default matrix metering will try to be clever so switch to something more primitive like centre weighted, spot or average. I look around with spot or centre to get a rough understanding of what the camera meters the ground/sky/shadows to. The camera in those modes always meters to middle gray so if the brightest is 4 stops over and the darkest is 4 stops under that should be a decent exposure.
It's digital so you can just shoot in manual to see when things blow out, etc.

Manually focusing with an old SLR made for it is much easier than on a modern DSLR. They have focus aids that will tell you when you're in focus like a split prism (middle) or micro prisms (outer):
3228644_6c2e9a2ba1_m.jpg

Split prisms should be lined up and even tell you "what way" to turn the ring while micro prisms turn sharp just as you nail focus and look dotty when you're off.

Edit: Didn't see the conversation had moved over to Samyang >.<
You can get those kind of focusing screens for DSLRs where you can change them, but be note that some of them can mess up certain metering modes.

Samyang for Nikon has automatic aperture so I think it's mostly licensing. The big manufacturers don't share how AF works on their system so I'm pretty sure Tamron and Sigma had to reverse design it and they have still had a reputation of being unreliable.
It would be cool if they made an AF lens for mirrorless. Zeiss had similarly only sold MF lenses (apart from first party Contax lenses), but made their first AF lenses as a third party for E mount. MF for mirrorless is also the hot new thing so something like Loxia which is fully manual, but electronically connected for aperture data and punch in focusing could make some marks in the mid range.

AF Nikons will also tell you when you're in focus either with the little green dot or (if enabled in the options) a little rangefinder using the exposure comp slider to tell you which way to focus. It should work on any lens. I've used it with a lens just held in front of it :p

Canons can technically do the same, but need an electrical pin mounted fooling the camera into thinking a Canon EF lens is mounted.
 
Try learning to read the meter. The default matrix metering will try to be clever so switch to something more primitive like centre weighted, spot or average. I look around with spot or centre to get a rough understanding of what the camera meters the ground/sky/shadows to. The camera in those modes always meters to middle gray so if the brightest is 4 stops over and the darkest is 4 stops under that should be a decent exposure.
It's digital so you can just shoot in manual to see when things blow out, etc.

Manually focusing with an old SLR made for it is much easier than on a modern DSLR. They have focus aids that will tell you when you're in focus like a split prism (middle) or micro prisms (outer):
3228644_6c2e9a2ba1_m.jpg

Split prisms should be lined up and even tell you "what way" to turn the ring while micro prisms turn sharp just as you nail focus and look dotty when you're off.

Wait do DSLRs seriously not have that?
 

Ty4on

Member
Wait do DSLRs seriously not have that?
They stopped when AF took over :(

You can replace it, but more often than not it will mess up metering a bit and on most cameras it's a hassle.

On the bright side you can use focus confirmation on Pentaxes and Nikons. Even entry level Pentaxes even have focus trap which fires the shutter when you nail focus. Just make sure you're not turning the ring too quickly.

Big edit:
People use film lenses on digital camera and give them good praises all the time, they are probably way less sharp than using modern FF lens on APSC body. I think you are fine. Numerical sharpness and perceived sharpness don't really match up one to one.
I've said this in the past and I guess I was too broad.

When I've said don't use a FF lens on crop it's usually because they're very expensive and there are better options. Primes, especially standard primes are neither and in many cases *cough*Pentax*cough* "crop" lenses are actually based on FF designs.

The lenses I've thought about are especially wide zooms that are super expensive and not much sharper than the kit lens on APS-C, let alone the Sigma 18-35. Telephoto zooms are another that while cheap, are probably much softer than native APS-C lenses and used APS-C zooms are also cheap.

Exceptions exist though and the best advice is to look at user reviews and general reviews and check out the sample images because it varies a lot and if you value something like bokeh more* sharpness might be less important. Some are surpassingly decent while some fall off in the APS-C edges and have worse edges on APS-C than on FF.

*should be noted that well corrected lenses tend to have smoother bokeh. Just look at a good prime versus a cheap zoom. Some might like the imperfections though like the Petzval. The swirly bokeh is due to heavy astigmatism. Makes sense when you think about it. Tangential and saggital focus is different which "squeezes" the bokeh balls.
Slide6.GIF
 
Try learning to read the meter. The default matrix metering will try to be clever so switch to something more primitive like centre weighted, spot or average. I look around with spot or centre to get a rough understanding of what the camera meters the ground/sky/shadows to. The camera in those modes always meters to middle gray so if the brightest is 4 stops over and the darkest is 4 stops under that should be a decent exposure.
It's digital so you can just shoot in manual to see when things blow out, etc.

Manually focusing with an old SLR made for it is much easier than on a modern DSLR. They have focus aids that will tell you when you're in focus like a split prism (middle) or micro prisms (outer):
3228644_6c2e9a2ba1_m.jpg

Split prisms should be lined up and even tell you "what way" to turn the ring while micro prisms turn sharp just as you nail focus and look dotty when you're off.

Edit: Didn't see the conversation had moved over to Samyang >.<
You can get those kind of focusing screens for DSLRs where you can change them, but be note that some of them can mess up certain metering modes.

Samyang for Nikon has automatic aperture so I think it's mostly licensing. The big manufacturers don't share how AF works on their system so I'm pretty sure Tamron and Sigma had to reverse design it and they have still had a reputation of being unreliable.
It would be cool if they made an AF lens for mirrorless. Zeiss had similarly only sold MF lenses (apart from first party Contax lenses), but made their first AF lenses as a third party for E mount. MF for mirrorless is also the hot new thing so something like Loxia which is fully manual, but electronically connected for aperture data and punch in focusing could make some marks in the mid range.

AF Nikons will also tell you when you're in focus either with the little green dot or (if enabled in the options) a little rangefinder using the exposure comp slider to tell you which way to focus. It should work on any lens. I've used it with a lens just held in front of it :p

Canons can technically do the same, but need an electrical pin mounted fooling the camera into thinking a Canon EF lens is mounted.
Well the hell do I find some of this in the menu? This is making my head hurt.
 

Ty4on

Member
Well the hell do I find some of this in the menu? This is making my head hurt.

Sorry, I ramble a bit :p

Go to menu->custom setting menu->autofocus->rangefinder and turn it on. Make sure your lens is in MF.
Make sure you're not in M and get something with contrast behind the focus point selected.
That +/- bar in the bottom of the viewfinder with a 0 in the middle will tell you if you're in focus (two lines next to the 0 in the camera I tried) or if you're out of focus which way to focus. If nothing lights up, half press the shutter. If all the lines light up it can't find focus so point at something with lines or contrast or change focus point.

Here's a video showing how to set it up and what it looks like.
 
Sorry, I ramble a bit :p

Go to menu->custom setting menu->autofocus->rangefinder and turn it on. Make sure your lens is in MF.
Make sure you're not in M and get something with contrast behind the focus point selected.
That +/- bar in the bottom of the viewfinder with a 0 in the middle will tell you if you're in focus (two lines next to the 0 in the camera I tried) or if you're out of focus which way to focus. If nothing lights up, half press the shutter. If all the lines light up it can't find focus so point at something with lines or contrast or change focus point.

Here's a video showing how to set it up and what it looks like.
Does that also show up in the viewfinder?
 
Just use LiveView for now as a learning experience.

All the lenses on my D3200 are legacy non-AF lenses and I primarily use it for videography so I'm not even really well versed in using MF with the viewfinder.

TBH, everytime I used it for pictures the focus would never look right. Like I'd notice that it seemed kinda blurred in the viewfinder, but when I switch to LiveView it looks as sharp as day so I ended up using LV for a while. It wasn't until I discovered what the diopter does a year ago and figured out the right settings for me... now I can take perfectly clear pictures using the viewfinder with no problem.

That said, I still kinda prefer to use LV for pictures. I know some elitist photogs think that it's cheating, but the check still clears so I ain't too worried honestly. I'm definitely trying to get out of that habit though as the shutter takes a long ass time in LV compared to using the viewfinder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom