Top products from r/photoclass2017

Thanks! Like connorirw said, a tripod and long shutter speed is a necessity. That image in particular was taken over a 4 hour period to track the star movement. It's possible to get an effect like this with an exposure close to that length in bulb mode, but I find it's better to make a composite with several images stacked. This reduces noise and allows for the removal of any bad frames(like planes flying through the shot, etc).

So I focused on the stars and used f3.5, ISO 500, with 30sec exposures being taken over and over for the 4 hours. There are modes on most(all?) DSLRs for continuous shooting, but I used an intervalometer to set it up. At Sunrise I took another image with the lake in focus at a narrower aperture to add after creating the startrails.

Then I began the processing. I used an application called Starstax to create the composite image, which I exported to photoshop to blend the foreground in. I set the foreground layer mode to lighten and played around with a gradient filter to ensure the trails stayed bright.
This was my first attempt blending a brighter foreground layer with startrails in this way. It was trickier than I initially thought, and I'm not completely happy with the result. I typically light paint the specific foreground subject I want to focus on, which makes the editing much easier.

Sorry for the long post, hope it helped.

I have a Sony Alpha a6000 mirrorless, along with a Sony Vario-Tessar / Zeiss 16-70mm F4 zoom lens.

I'll compare this to the pricier Sony a7 fullframe mirrorless camera, as I'm honestly curious about what else you get for the money... Additionally, I guess I'll compare my Tessar 16-70mm F4 to the kit lens that comes on the a6000.

Resolution - My Sony a6000 has a resolution of 24MP, which seems basically the same as the a7's 24.3. (Is there any difference in that 0.3?)

Sensor Size - I'm guessing this is the critical distinction between the two cameras? a7 is "full frame," and a6000 is a 1.5 crop, which I don't totally totally understand but I get that a7 has a larger sensor. (And I get that for the a6000, the 1.5 crop means that you need to multiply any focal length by 1.5 to find a 35mm equivalent, so a 24mm lens on Sony a6000 is basically a 36mm on a normal frame. That said I don't really get all this... And also, I guess I'm a little fuzzy on how much the larger sensor matters. (The one thing i do know is that at my noob-level, the a6000 is more than enough camera, and the best way to get better is for me to upgrade my knowledge and skills, not from upgrading my gear.)

Iso range - theoretically they both have an ISO range from 100 to 25,600, which, if I understand correctly, gives more of an ability to shoot in lower lights and/or with slower shutter speed, but I can't imagine actually using 25k ISO -- in all of the shots I've taken on A or S mode (where camera automatically adds ISO) I don't think I've seen anything that high.

Focusing mechanism - the a6000 has "Hybrid AF with 179-point focal plane phase-detection and 25 contrast detect points." I guess that's....good? I really don't know how to judge that. (Not listed on the a7.)

Shooting speed - here I'm a little confused. I know that the a6000 shoots up to 11 frames per second and the a7 up to 4 frames per second. So... the pricier model is actually slower? And does FPS have anything to do with focusing engine/specs? (My ignorance is vast!)

Now comparing my Tessa 16-70 lens (probably the nicest thing I own) to the a6000 kit lens:

The kit lens has a minimum focal length of 16 mm (24 equivalent on full-frame cameras) and maximum of 50 (75). The Zeiss has the same minimum, but can go up to 70 (105). Both have a maximum aperture of f4. Other than that.. honestly, I'm not sure exactly how to evaluate the specs of lenses. I know the Zeiss has "Minimum Focus Distance : 1.15 ft (0.35 m), Maximum Magnification ratio : 0.23x" but I don't really know what that means. (Couldn't find comparable stats on kit lens.)

Okay, enough of my blathering - that was mostly just helpful for me to actually write down. Thanks to anyone who bothered to read, and any insights are icing on the cake....

Heh, I am going to pass on this assignment, since I did all of this work last week when I was picking out a camera to buy. The main Photography Reddit has a great buying guide pinned on the sidebar, which I used to evaluate cheap DSLRs.

In the end I bought a Canon 20D off eBay for about $170. It came with a standard EFS 18-55mm lens, f/3.5-5.6. I'm saving up money for a nicer lens, I kinda have my heart set on the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens.

Apparently this is the type of lens used by the Humans of New York photographer, and I really love the color, clarity, and depth of field I see in his photos. Obviously there's more to his work than the lens, but... I want the lens. :D

Yeah, calibrating by eye is really no calibration at all even with a good panel like yours.

However, I do have a scenario for you to consider. Say, you purchase a Datacolor Spyder 5. The model is irrelevant as you will not use their useless software (don't register it!). Instead, you would use the excellent, free and open source DisplayCal which can very accurately calibrate your monitor. You could then calibrate all displays at your disposal in the time span of a week or two. Then, theoretically speaking, you could be compelled to return the device to Amazon and be entitled to a full refund! Thus, you would have calibrated monitors for very close to $0.

Interesting thought experiment, no?

My camera is the Nikon D3300 with the standard kit 18-55mm lens and the kit 55-200mm lens. I will be comparing it to one of the basic full frame camera from Nikon, the Nikon D750.

The main difference between these two camera is the size of the sensor. Both camera are 24 megapixels, yet the Nikon D3300 is a cropped frame sensor, while the Nikon D750 is a full frame. This gives the D750 better capabilities in low-light photography. Also, the D750 has many more points of autofocus, allowing for better tracking of subjects and an overall improvement in moving subjects.

The lens that I use for my Nikon D3300 is what I would upgrade next. While it's not horrible, it's definitely not that great of a lens and worsens the performance of the camera. The next lens I would get would probably be this one: Link. While it is a prime lens, it would greatly improve the quality of the glass and pictures taken. Also, it's a 35mm lens, which is about the same as a 50mm lens on a full frame camera (The "nifty fifty"). Does this seem like it would be a good next lens to get? Or are there any other recommendations for lenses that would be good for my Nikon D3300?

I agree that you should probably hold off on buying lenses until you know what you're doing. You get into gear too early and it distracts you from photography. Don't be a gear whore.

Also it gets you into this horrible habit of blowing loads of money on camera gear. Oops.

That said, that 55-250mm he linked to should be at the top of your shopping list. It is such a drastically different focal length that it will open up entirely new kinds of shots that your 35-55 cannot do.

That's my benchmark for deciding whether to buy new gear - do I just want new toys, or will this thing actually expand my options and let me do things that I couldn't possibly have done before?

The 18-135, by comparison, would pretty much replace your current lens. It would expand your capabilities a bit, but not as much. It would get you some wider shots though, which is sometimes very nice.

I thought I got all of this, but after reading the lesson I have two points I don't really get:

1. When purchasing lenses for a DSLR, I've seen there are some lenses specifically designed for crop sensor cameras. What I don't get here is what "desinged for ASP-c (crop) sensor" actually means.
   
   I mean, you can mount that lens on a full frame canon and still getting shots, although I guess you will get really wide shots with that, right? Also, there is a 10-18mm Canon lens but it says that is only for APS-C bodies.
   
   So, there are lenses only compatible with non-full frame bodies, or it just a recommendation (like in "if you go 10mm with a full frame you will get some trippy stuff)?
   
   
2. The second question is related with the sensor size and its relation with the focal length. If you get a mobile phone camera sensor (which for my question it's going to be "the smallest"), its crop factor will be huge, so to get wide photos you would need "lenses" with small focal length, right? So if I could mount using magic a DLSR lens on a mobile phone, I would get HUGE zooms due having a bigger crop factor.
   

Isopropyl alcohol wipes are probably the best thing to use however most of the times when I'm out shooting and the front element gets water, snow, etc. on it I just give it a quick wipe with my shirt.
Nikon sells wipes specifically for this but I'm sure you could find them somewhere cheaper.

Here's the tripod I have. I think it's fine for amateur stuff!

Most people I know use Flickr to host their photos. I also use Imgur for casual uploads as well since imgur is RES compatible.

I've thought about that one, but the one I've had my eye on is the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art just because I've heard it comes highly recommended. Although the Nikon lens is far cheaper and I don't mind it being prime. I think for the price difference I might just go with the Nikon lens instead unless someone can give me a compelling reason to go with the Sigma.

Everyone starts somewhere :) I would really hold off on buying another lens apart from the one provided, as it is all you NEED at the moment. I suggest mastering your 35-55mm and waiting a few months to upgrade. However, since you said it is something that you want, here are a couple of lenses I would suggest in that focal range... 1 2

Hey /u/Aeri73, I forgot to ask! When you say bag, do you mean a ziploc bag or is my camera bag enough? The camera bag I currently own is this one. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00V3J4RDI/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_-dosyb4438J06

I recommend checking out the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G prime lens, I have a Nikon D5500 and I'm thinking about buying that lens next. Since it's 35mm on a DX sensor the effective focal equivalent to a 55 mm lens, which is great for everyday use.

It's not a prime lens but this is what I use and I've really grown fond of it.

It's probably a little bit slow in the autofocus department for what you are looking for but it's a hell of a steal for what you get.