DX Lenses
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
I'm thinking of buying some lenses for my DX DSLR. I've found good primes, but I'm not sure about the zoom lenses. This picture is quite relevant to my question: is it a valid comparison between the two Nikkor lenses (55-300mm vs 70-300) or should I consider other brands? Thanks for the answers anons.
>>2820884
delete thread, post in gear thread dick.
>>2820888
This
>>2820888
first, gear threads always reach maximum posts/images. second, you are a dick.
>>2820942
>first, gear threads always reach maximum posts/images
And that matters how? I mean other than the fact your retarded question that could easily be answered with google would be seen by more people who are willing to bother googling for you?
>second, you are a dick.
Says the guy who plainly thinks his one retarded, hyper specific question that's easily googled is deserving of its own thread.
>>2820953
Board nannies are destroying the board. It's the same with the retards whose only criticism or response to an image is "resize faggot."
Everyone's so obsessed with reinforcing these imaginary made-up rules that all meaningful discussion has essentially been eradicated. It's ridiculous.
>>2820946
if you don't want to help and/or if you don't have experience considering these two lenses to share, then shut the fuck up and GTFO. I'm fucking fed up you trolls. just die.
>>2820961
The worst part is I'm reasonably sure it's just one or two losers who just scroll through the whole board and shit up every thread. Would love to see an experiment where this kind of "muh rules dick" crap was a temporarily bannable offense to see how much things improve.
>>2820979
The sticky is garbage, it wasn't voted upon or even agreed upon, and was written by one of the least respected and least liked tripfags on the board. It wasn't made the sticky because it was the best option, it was made the sticky because it was the only option at the time and a lazy mod agreed to it. A lot of personal opinion shit got piggybacked onto what should have just been a few quick simple questions.
I'm sick of this tautology that "if it's in the sticky it's because it's good, the sticky must be good because it's the sticky."
>>2820981
Doesn't change the fact it's there omae.
Also doesn't change the fact that if you hate hearing from people say shit like use the gear thread or resize, all you have to do is do those things in the first place.
>>2820979
I don't know what's your problem, fuck head, but you are fucking up my thread here, you fucking shit. do you have any proper help considering my questions? yes, then please, be kind, and do tell me your experiences. you do not have?! THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP, AND GTFO, AND LEAVE MY THREAD ALONE. don't you have any other thing to do? eg. to read or watch sg. play with your cock, jerk off, let off some steam, but not here. you bloody idiot.
>>2820987
>doesn't respect /p/ sticky
>rages when someone doesn't respect his thread
Simple solution to your problem friend.
Hilariously, you could have also found your own answer many times over by now.
>>2820984
sick circular logic bruh.
i posit that the sticky isn't worth following in the first place, and the people who blindly adhere to it and "enforce" it (read as: shitpost in every fucking thread) are making the board a worst place, to say nothing of their personal character.
>>2820997
You posit the thing that makes you going against the board's wishes good, and people asking you to follow the rules set up by the community bad? Wow, so unexpected!
>>2820998
But they plainly aren't the board's wishes if there's continuous violation, and the rules weren't set up by the community. eggy wrote the sticky without input and without consent.
I get that if the sticky predates your arrival, it could seem like some biblical mandate set in stone. If you were here before it, you're probably already ignoring it.
>>2821001
They plainly are the board's wishes if they're at the top for years now, and you get shit for it every time you go against the rules.
>>2820997
It's not circular logic.
You don't like people bitching about you breaking the sticky.
People don't bitch at you when you don't break the sticky.
-------
∴ Don't break the sticky and you won't get bitched at for breaking the sticky.
Simple, non circular logic. You'll be a happier person. Your experience at 4chan's p will be improved because people won't be bitching at you (at least for this reason-I can't help but think you're a retard in other ways)!
You literally are your own worst enemy in this situation.
>>2820990
sticky is an ill-thought over shit. as many of the 4chan rules. just saying. you're still a useless fuck.
>>2821007
Never fucking reply to me again you're contributing to the thread.
>>2821003
Not OP but hello, is this your first time on 4chan? Board stickies aren't (and have never been) democratic in the least. It's an arbitrary mandate handed down by one single mod without any consent or input from anyone. It becomes a point of contention because there are two parties:
the vocal minority:
>the rules are rules because they're rules and we have to follow them because they're rules, and if you don't agree with my interpretation then you're against the rules, which are rules everyone on the board must agree with because they're rules
the silent majority:
>let's have actual discussions instead of starting bullshit arguments even though "the sticky says so"
Now which one of these contributes to a more active, more enjoyable board?
>>2821011
>interpretation
I love how people like you try to spin this in some manner to where you're not being self-centered pricks.
>it's a point of contention because
There are selfish, ignorant shits who do whatever they want and cry when someone calls them out for it. It's the same kind of mentality of people who break into queues and abuse other informal systems because they think they're better for ignoring conventions that hurt no one to follow.
>>2821001
> the rules weren't set up by the community.
The resizing suggestion has always been there. Since as long as I can remember.
>eggy wrote the sticky without input and without consent.
No.
It was discussed at length in various threads.
Naturally there are the bandwidth self-entitled crew who want everything 4000x6000 and 5Mb, but for everybody else a relatively small image of your shitty camera shakey oof snowflake is just fine.
I don't think i archived the threads, but they certainly happened several times.
The fact that you keep mentioning me as "to blame", rather than me as the only person who bothered to collate all the shit /p/ talks into a cohesive and reasonable mess.. speaks to your agenda.
/p/ wrote it. I just summarised the important bits.
Also examine the wikia, not the sticky. By virtue of trying to fit it into the 16 visible lines of any OP the sticky is only a tiny extract.
http://pseudosticky.wikia.com
>>2821016
>no fuckin plant
Don't even bother. They don't give a damn that there's actual reasons or that it was a community effort, they just want to be different.
Did anyone archive/screenshot any of those enormous shitfight pre-sticky threads?
Or the ones like this that re-happen about once a year?
>>2821029
>Did anyone archive/screenshot any of those enormous shitfight pre-sticky threads?
Literally what. Nigger i've been here for several years longer than you and that was never an issue, or at least not more of an issue than it still is.
>Or the ones like this that re-happen about once a year?
These happen every week, because the sticky fucking sucks and the nannies can't help but shit up the board.
...Just realise this shitfight is about using the gear thread, not resizing.
The gear thread is a good idea, and the mods did even tacitly suggest it when they modified the sticky text specifically to add:
• Use the catalog to consolidate similar topics (photographic themes, images or technical gear threads).
So if anything this directive is even more 'according to the gods' than the resizing suggestion.
Both are good advice.
Obviously that's why /p/ likes disputing them so frequently.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 700 Image Height 528 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:03:13 19:05:12 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 700 Image Height 528
>>2821034
Nigger
The threads where we debated having a sticky and it's content.
> i've been here for several years longer than you
You assume. I've been here a lot longer than my current tripcode.
>>2821036
The fight isn't even about using the gear thread, the fight is about how disruptive and shitposty the board nannies have become in the last few years, and how the sticky has become a bane more than a boon at this point because of it.
>>2821039
>The fight isn't even about using the gear thread, the fight is about how disruptive and shitposty the board nannies have become in the last few years, and how the sticky has become a bane more than a boon at this point because of it.
I love how you completely and totally ignore how easy it is to silence the "board nannies"
>People are unironically defending a guy who posted a shitty gear question outside of the gear thread
Wow this place really sucks now
>>2821043
The response isn't commensurate with the offense and hasn't been in a long time. Stop pretending that you and your ilk don't get your sadistic little jollies from posting stuff like
>"delete thread, post in gear thread dick."
You know that low effort shitposts and trolling is against the rules, right? Like, the actual real global rules and not the made-up rules that you guys slavishly follow?
>>2821043
this
>>2821039
So improve it then.
Or we go back to oldschool /p/ mode and just collectively tell people bitching unnesecarily to lurk moar, or cool story bro...and either ignore them, or link them to a compelling and fully reasoned document that will help them comprehend and save you from needing to give it a second thought.
Write said document and I'll attach it to the wikia, that's its purpose.
With that in mind consider that people say 'read the sticky" when really they should be saying "expand the sticky and read the wikia"... because otherwise nobody ever sees the link. Or the full explanations therein.
>>2821050
>So improve it then.
I tried almost two years ago. Remember the big vote we had over image size? The one where the very vocal minority in favor of 1000px lost by a significant margin?
>>2821049
>You know that low effort shitposts and trolling is against the rules, right?
It's neither low effort trolling nor shitposting.
>read the actual rules
By the actual rules, OP's still in the wrong. This is a low quality thread that doesn't add to the board and by ignoring the sticky they're lowering the quality of this board through low quality contributions. Op also posted an image that Op didn't take.
You're not attempting to argue for the spirit or the letter of the rules, so don't even pretend.
>slavishly follow
You mean how when I have a gear question it gets answered pretty quickly in the gear thread or how no one ever bitches about the size of pictures I post while I do get feedback?
Yeah, it's so fucking terrible. I mean, it was sooo hard so long ago to make a lightroom preset for exporting for 4chan, and fuck if every once in a while I have to scroll down some to get to the gear thread. Man, those guidelines in the sticky are just sooo onerous. I don't know if I can manage much longer.
>>2821053
>very vocal minority in favor of 1000px
It's a guide for newfags.
You seem to be dwelling excessively on the specificity of a simple 'soft' guideline.
Things that hardly warrant the tedium and potential hazards of mods tampering with an otherwise adequate sticky.
If the server didnt impose a filesize limit most dipshits would be posting 30Mb dng's
...of things where 2megapixels (1080p HD) would have been more than adequate.
I had a guy come up to me once and with considerable angst try to debate why I have a "business card" if I'm not running a photography business. He was likely a bit autistic...or just spent too much time in the internet places where that mentality prevails...
I used the slightly more appropriate term "name card" numerous times, but his mind was stuck firmly in an aggressive loop of angst and personal agenda. He just couldn't let it go.
Arguing the suggested filesizes for /p/ is a lot like that.
>>2821069
>You seem to be dwelling excessively on the specificity of a simple 'soft' guideline.
It's not me who's dwelling on it. I post files in whatever size I want. It's the trolls who flip their lid over a 1500x1200 file that weighs in at 1.1mb because it's not what the sticky says.
I get that it's a guide for newfags, you get that it's a guide for newfags. Hell, that was the original reason for resizing: to make sure that people aren't just uploading stuff straight off their memory card without at least a quantum of post-processing. I should know, I was one of the earliest and most vocal proponents of the 1000px rule.
It's the guys like the second post in this thread that don't understand that, and they're the ones who are bringing down the board.
>>2821079
>It's the guys like the second post in this thread that don't understand that, and they're the ones who are bringing down the board.
Oh, talking about me?
>implying you know what all I post here
But aside from that:
Yeah, no, I get that. I almost never say anything about resizing unless it's a full sized literal snapshit.
That said, there is no reason for this thread to exist. Literally none. It's just as bad as thread 4320984320983429098432 of "hai guise! I'm a new photographer! what camera should I get? kthnx!"
That single "quantum" of post-processing is literally no different from hey, use your brain a little and if not just post in the gear thread.
ITT
TL:DR; Post in the gearthread
Also: Relating to OP image: Using a tripod doesn't preclude your image being shit from camera shake... or missed focus.... or both.
>>2821093
I would say the tl;dr: is "stop being a shithead".
If you post gear outside of the gear thread, you might be a shithead. Stop that.
If you respond like a vicious troll to someone who posts gear outside of the gear thread, you're a shithead. Stop that.
..or in this case.. atmospheric distortion
I thought one of the major reasons for the 1000x1000 limit was also to emphasis the artistic value of the photo over mostly trivial shit like "omg look at how sharp this picture of a thumbtack is guys!"
>>2821099
http://pseudosticky.wikia.com/#Resize_your_images
>>2821099
Getting in the way of pixelpeeping is mostly a beneficial side effect
>>2821097
>you're a shithead, but my actions here are totally justified and indicative of a well-adjusted, nice human being.
>>2821099
There were two main reasons for forcing the resize meme back in the salad days of 2007/2008:
1) To make sure that people weren't just dumping straight from their memory card onto the board without post-processing, as has already been stated in this thread.
2) 4chan used to be split up on different hosting servers. Busy boards like /b/, /a/ and /v/ got the expensive, fast server, slow boards like /p/ got the slower servers. That hasn't been true in a long time though.
It's pretty bizarre on an imageboard, a website where you post images by nature, a website that ALSO hosts a board where you are explicitly required to post images of a minimum size and quality (/hr/), and a board stuffed to the gills with gigs of 4-meg tranny porn files (/gif/), /p/ is so huffy about file size. We're the only board on 4chan that freaks out about it. Why is it? It's not like they yell at you in /v/ screenshot threads because they're trying to browse 4chan on a burner from 2008 and "they only got like 500kb left man" like they do here. We aren't the only board that posts images on this here imageboard with some 5 million unique monthly visitors.
>>2821113
>slow boards like /p/ got the slower servers. That hasn't been true in a long time though.
Source?
>>2820884
>This picture is quite relevant to my question:
Doing lunar photography?
Had the 70-200mm (non VR) and it was pretty soft on the long end as in the pic.
Get the 70-300mm VR if you can afford it (Idid). Second hand they're pretty cheap. All round a much better lens than the 55-300mm. I did look into other brands but the Nikon 70-300mm VR seemed to be the best bet.
>>2820968
>>2820961
Would you stop being a faggot and post in the gear thread? This board is way too slow to kill other threads off the last page for this type of bullshit.
Picking a few primes isn't interesting enough to warrant it's own discussion, aka "it's own thread".
If you want that go find a Sony forum, there'll be 10 threads about that if you use the search function.
>>2820884
Ignore the haters. I'll sell you my Nikkor 55-300 DX.
>>2821289
Whenever they moved over to the cloudflare service...not sure how long ago that was but it's been a couple of years at least.
That said, large files still take long enough to load on my connection (100Mb/s) that I don't bother clicking on them unless they look really interesting in the thumbnail, which is rarely.
>>2821422
>That said, large files still take long enough to load on my connection (100Mb/s)
Exactly. I could spend more time offering CC or shitting on some tripfag and less time loading images if everyone just kept to this simple rule. There is no reason whatsoever for me to need to see anyone's 6000x4000 snapshits.
Imagine in 4-5 years if /p/ is still a thing and all DSLRs have 50 megapixels, that would be fucked up.
>>2821512
If the 1 or 2 seconds it takes to load an image is too long for you, 1) you're impatient 2) you aren't looking images long enough.
I really don't know what else to tell you.
>>2821723
I'm the guy with the 100Mb/s connection. It regularly takes between five and ten seconds to load images that are over 3Mb for me on 4chan.
>>2821723
I'm on Google Fiber, and during peak hours, a 4mb photo will take more than 20 seconds to load. 20 seconds isn't a lifetime, but when I can get the exact same experience looking at your photo at 400kb, why the fuck would I bother?
I have yet to see a reason presented for why a higher file size or high resolution is a good thing. Only people complaining about being forced to resize.
>>2821016
Thanks, Eggy.
>>2821731
It is only good when the shot has many small detail and is well executed. Like having a shot of a river and then editing out buildings and people.
i hereby propose that all gear threads that are not in the gear threads, or otherwise similarly out of place... get reverted into eristic rule shitfights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic
This thread is now about the rules. Specifically the community guidelines that are not actually board or global rules.
i have 55-300
and at 300mm it is soft
>>2821893
That's what I've been doing for months now.
