|
fronkpies posted:I don't show off my gear, I would just nod and say "ah" and "hmm" if somebody was telling me how great there point and shoot was, but if they seriously went over the top, being a dick about it, I would just say "this camera cost more than your car". I don't really like showing off either, mostly because my results are still mediocre. Just end up getting frustrated when people vehemently argue their P&S/cellphone would outperform an SLR. And when I say people, I mean, probably more than half the people that ask me a question about my camera.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:42 |
|
|
Tomorrow McBain Camera is having their invitation-only 61st anniversary event, which I get to work. Reps with booths from about 15 Camera, etc. vendors, and only staff and rich snobs who spend lots of money with us get inside. gently caress yeah. The Leica guy is bringing an S2, the guy who reps for Sigma is bringing the "Bigma" (Sigma 200-400 2.8). We had to borrow a table for it because none of ours can safely support it's weight. How awesome is that? Pics to come after the weekend. If you're in/near Edmonton, drop by our main store on Saturday to see this crap for yourselves. Also, SA unblocked at work! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 23:31
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Don't get that lens. Get a 35mm f/1.8 (for DX) or f/2 for FX. Or get the older AI-S version of the 28mm f/2.8 if you want that focal length. It's 1,000 times better than the AF version, except that you have to focus manually. It's also cheap on KEH. Any particular reasons why you like those ones better than the one I found? I just want to know what I'm going to expect from each one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 23:32
|
|
|
DaJe posted:Any particular reasons why you like those ones better than the one I found? I just want to know what I'm going to expect from each one. Of the 28mm series from Nikon the AF versions were optically the worst. But basically, the 35mm lenses are better. The f/1.8 in particular is awesome and much cheaper. On the other hand, the f/2 is also very good (but $90 bucks more than the 28mm). AF is fast on these lenses. They are sharp, they are useful, they are wide but not too wide, the f/1.8 is a great walk-about lens for the DX format, the f/2 is a great wide lens for the FX format, you have the ability to use less depth of field for greater subject impact, you can get better shots in lower light. There really is no good reason to get a 28mm f/2.8. REALLY. Unless you want a manual lens to practice on, and in that case, get a BGN condition one from KEH. If you want cheap, at least settle for good. But uhh, in terms of lens recommendation overall it would be helpful to know what body you use, what focal lengths you're interested in experimenting in, and what your budget is. Otherwise, stick to the 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 23:51
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Just start throwing around some numbers that probably mean nothing to him, but make DSLR's look far superior. "What ISO does your camera go up to? 1600? Psh, this thing will do 6400. My camera can record raw files with 14 bit depth? I bet yours only does 8bit JPEGs. How many frames per second can you take?" ISO is sure great for that, because no one understands geometric progression. "Your camera goes to 6400? Hah. Mine shoots at ASA twenty-five thousand. Beat that.  "
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:But uhh, in terms of lens recommendation overall it would be helpful to know what body you use, what focal lengths you're interested in experimenting in, and what your budget is. Otherwise, stick to the 35mm. The body I use is a D80. What I do already have, is the 50mm f/1.8 which I really like. It's done a lot of great work for me, but one of my issues with it is that on a cropped body like mine, it's just not a wide enough of a view for me sometimes. I want a good enough quality, prime lens, that I can use for every day stuff. I'm sort of tired of my 18-55mm kit lens now. That's why the 28mm sounded good to me. For a budget, I really don't have much. I actually don't have any money to spend right now, but am thinking of things I might want to save up for. But still, the money I'll be able to spend when that time comes is really limited. Something around the price range of the lens I linked to is what I'm looking for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 00:31
|
|
|
The 24 and 28mm lenses from Nikon are more or less average (except the AI-S 28mm which is notoriously excellent). The 20mm might be a little better than the previous two. Get the 28mm if you want, but you would be saving money on the 35mm and it's a better lens. 35mm is not a narrow focal length on a D80, it is just 2mm over 50mm on a non-crop camera. If you really want to save money, I would buy something of BGN quality or better from KEH. Here is a list of their AF primes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 00:43
|
|
|
Either of the 35mm Nikkors would work peachy. If you're a poor bastard (and you don't shoot film), the f/1.8's probably better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 09:00
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD_60_Efpy0#t=1m12s That's pretty crazy, is there any data around on what the threshold is for cmos sensors before they sustain permanent damage from something like tht?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 09:20
|
|
|
trueblue posted:That's pretty crazy, is there any data around on what the threshold is for cmos sensors before they sustain permanent damage from something like tht? I'm thinking that that's just an overload, and it would correct itself when you power-cycled the camera. If not, then color me surprised. I would say that you probably shouldn't point your camera at anything you can't look at with your eyes, and you should be pretty safe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 09:30
|
|
|
That venue shouldn't have had the lasers aimed low enough to fry people's eyeballs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
baccaruda posted:That venue shouldn't have had the lasers aimed low enough to fry people's eyeballs. Right. If that guy wasn't looking through a camera, but still had his face in the same spot, it could have hit him right in the eye.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 16:27
|
|
|
baccaruda posted:That venue shouldn't have had the lasers aimed low enough to fry people's eyeballs. That was my thought as well. Just think of all the peoples faces it swept across before it hit that guys camera. And it probably did it through the whole concert.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 16:39
|
|
|
I remember years ago watching some MTV making the video thing with J-Lo, and she got burned by a laser on a set. I thought she was just being a whiny bitch, but maybe it really hurt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 17:29
|
|
|
I think you need to stare into the average laser for 30+ seconds before your eyes get permanently damaged. Less than that and you might see a weird spot for a couple of days, but your body should be able to bounce back. I looked it up a couple weeks ago, thinking about making laser-assisted focusing attachment for a rangefinder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
Yeah, it's IR spotlights and stuff that you have to be worried about. On our new rifle attachments there's a huge infrared spotlight. I had a headache for two days when my body shined it in my eyes. I couldn't see any light or anything special (because I wasn't wearing IR goggles), but there's still a shitload energy in the beam. I'm not really worried because I don't have my camera when I have a rifle, but just a heads-up. Some video camera systems use something slightly similar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 23:16
|
|
|
spf3million posted:When are people going to realize that a snuggie is just wearing a robe backwards?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 23:19
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Yeah, it's IR spotlights and stuff that you have to be worried about. on the same topic, green lasers are frequency doubled meaning that it gets pumped from ~1000 nm to ~500 nm. On poor quality imported green lasers there's no IR filter and poor conversion so there's an IR halo around the green point. tuyop posted:On our new rifle attachments there's a huge infrared spotlight. I had a headache for two days when my body shined it in my eyes. I couldn't see any light or anything special (because I wasn't wearing IR goggles), but there's still a shitload energy in the beam. I'm not really worried because I don't have my camera when I have a rifle, but just a heads-up. Some video camera systems use something slightly similar. wiki posted:Infrared lasers are particularly hazardous, since the body's protective "blink reflex" response is triggered only by visible light. For example, some people exposed to high power Nd:YAG laser emitting invisible 1064 nm radiation, may not feel pain or notice immediate damage to their eyesight. A pop or click noise emanating from the eyeball may be the only indication that retinal damage has occurred i.e. the retina was heated to over 100 °C resulting in localized explosive boiling accompanied by the immediate creation of a permanent blind spot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 23:39
|
|
|
^^^^^^ Don't they use strong infrared lights in the military when they want to illuminate an area without alerting enemy combatants without NVGs?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
Got to play with the Sigma 200-500 a bit today. It was pretty awesome, and it even comes with it's own special tripod (I think it's a gitzo, painted green to match the lens.) Here's the lens on it's custom tripod and a Jobu head.  This is the case included with each lens. I got a picture of the inside but it didn't turn out very well. Custom cut foam, etc. etc.   
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
Anyone in the New York area, there is currently a Henri Cartier-Bresson exhibition going on at the Museum of Modern Art, running until June. I might check it out on Sunday if I feel like dragging my rear end into New York, which I really don't. Here is the link: http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/968. There is also something going on at the Leica gallery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 04:56
|
|
|
That laser video made me think of something. Mainly that the more assholish of big acts will begin having laser lights specifically with destroying sensors in mind. Given how much some bands hate their fans with cameras, it doesn't seem out of reason. I mean, I've read the stories about some bands in the threads here, like purposely keeping the stage lights off for the first three songs, etc. How likely would it be that one of them sees this video and goes "YES, another way to gently caress with photographers!"? Keep in mind I don't read Japanese and Babelfish shits itself when attempting to translate that page, so I have no clue all of what's happening. Was the sensor really destroyed? Is that kind of thing common with lasers? Mannequin posted:There is also something going on at the Leica gallery.  that man, they's nudes in there
pwn fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Apr 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 06:16
|
|
|
pwn posted:That laser video made me think of something. Mainly that the more assholish of big acts will begin having laser lights specifically with destroying sensors in mind. Given how much some bands hate their fans with cameras, it doesn't seem out of reason. Well, intense visible light is unlikely to affect your sensor permanently. You could overload a row or something but I don't think it would actually burn a hole -- certainly a laser powerful enough to cause guaranteed immediate damage would be completely unsafe to use around people. Honestly, my favorite anti-camera solution (much as I don't like the idea) has to be the people who just set up a bank of flashes with optical triggers pointing back at the photographers they don't want to be getting pictures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 06:21
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:Don't they use strong infrared lights in the military when they want to illuminate an area without alerting enemy combatants without NVGs? Yeah but then you're wearing NVGs so it's ok!  The things that really freak me out are how powerful flashbangs actually are, they'll like detach retina and break ear drums and stuff, and the million gajillion candle-power spotlights that go on rifles and strobe to confuse people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 14:28
|
|
|
Yay for calling up at the last minute and getting a media pass to previously sold out expo's. Absolutely nothing wrong with just asking   
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 13:54
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:^^^^^^ Probably. My Speed Graphic originally belonged to a Korean War vet and came with a bunch of blackout bulbs for infrared 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 15:23
|
|
|
I just made a poormans version of a steady cam for my t2i. Used a ball joint from a tractor as the gimble, a pipe as the handle, and some box steel as the cantilever and welded it together. Trying to get it balanced now, but it seems to be doing the job. Kinda also works as a shoulder stock too, which is neat. I'd post pictures, but you'd all laugh at me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 16:58
|
|
|
ease posted:I just made a poormans version of a steady cam for my t2i. Used a ball joint from a tractor as the gimble, a pipe as the handle, and some box steel as the cantilever and welded it together. Trying to get it balanced now, but it seems to be doing the job. Kinda also works as a shoulder stock too, which is neat. I'd post pictures, but you'd all laugh at me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 17:50
|
|
|
quote:What Happens When the Annie Leibovitz Debt Bubble Bursts? What a mess. Remind me, if I ever reach celebrity status with a salary of $2 million a year at a big fashion magazine, not to take out risky million-dollar loans or to live millions of dollars above my means.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 18:11
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:What a mess. Remind me, if I ever reach celebrity status with a salary of $2 million a year at a big fashion magazine, not to take out risky million-dollar loans or to live millions of dollars above my means. God, when word was just getting out that she was in trouble financially, I wasn't so keen on her selling her image archive, but at this point, if she doesn't I don't see how she'll ever come close to getting out of debt barring a major lotto win or something. If it were a one or two million, I could see the remote possibility of some patron bailing her out, but man, that's a lotta dough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
I don't think she's in as much trouble as people think. The groups to whom she owes money are in much more trouble. The value of her photo archive is wildly variable dependent upon what is done with it; a capital group won't want to sink more money into it to recoup costs. They'll continue to work with her, nothing will happen. In the unlikely event of her work actually being seized, she may even do something as crazy as hide or otherwise make inaccessible all of it with the attitude of "Without this my life is meaningless, do your worst." At least I would.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:What a mess. Remind me, if I ever reach celebrity status with a salary of $2 million a year at a big fashion magazine, not to take out risky million-dollar loans or to live millions of dollars above my means. I've worked for alot of millionaires over the past few years, and probably half of them live beyond there means, everyone can see it except them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 19:23
|
|
|
If there is anything I have learned assisting, it's that being a good photographer has absolutely nothing to do with being a good business person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
I know the $40 million is thanks to "interest" (usury, in this case, if you ask me) -- but how the hell do you end up even $24 million in debt? Assuming she makes that $2 million a year, then somehow she spent an amount (or someone loaned her an amount) equal to twelve years' pay. It would be like someone loaning me, as a graduate student living on my measly research stipend, over $200,000. Just no chance in hell. VVVVV I guess, but like, 12 years' pay? Was it really that bad? The credit card company won't even raise my limit more than $250 at a time and I've never missed a payment or anything. orange lime fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Apr 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I know the $40 million is thanks to "interest" (usury, in this case, if you ask me) -- but how the hell do you end up even $24 million in debt? Assuming she makes that $2 million a year, then somehow she spent an amount (or someone loaned her an amount) equal to twelve years' pay. It would be like someone loaning me, as a graduate student living on my measly research stipend, over $200,000. Just no chance in hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 20:22
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I know the $40 million is thanks to "interest" (usury, in this case, if you ask me) -- but how the hell do you end up even $24 million in debt? Do production heavy shoots constantly on credit, and then make some real estate deals right before a massive downturn. I think what is surprising is that this didn't happen to more well known photographers (or maybe it has and we just aren't hearing about it). So many clients treat photographers like banks it's not really a shock to me that a few are collapsing after the economy went down. I have a hard enough time carrying production expenses on my small shoots, I can't even imagine how much poo poo people who do large shoots like that are carrying on a constant basis just to run their businesses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 20:36
|
|
|
brad industry posted:So many clients treat photographers like banks it's not really a shock to me I've heard of this, too. I've only done a few shoots for pay, but every time I asked for pay up front. If they didn't have the money, then I probably would have sat down and said "okay, I'll be here when you find it." What's stopping photographers from doing that? Or at least asking for some of it up front?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 20:39
|
|
|
Maybe this will be good for her in the long run if it forces her to scale back and refocus on good, basic photography instead of making a massive overblown production out of every shoot. She's a great mind but she's using all her resources as a crutch these days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 20:51
|
|
|
orange lime posted:What's stopping photographers from doing that? Or at least asking for some of it up front? There is this line of negotiating some clients use, especially editorial, called the endless line. As in, "If you can't shoot this job without an advance, there is an endless line of people who can." People expect you to do the job and bill them, advances are uncommon for editorial work and even if you get one for a big commercial job it probably won't cover everything. The problem is no one pays their invoices on time (you bill someone, who bills the agency, who bills the client, etc. and everyone waits for the money to work it's way down). Right now I have 4 jobs I did without advances that had expenses, 3 of which have been published already, and no checks yet. This topic comes up all the time on industry blogs because everyone deals with it and it's hard. It's impossible to be in business without some form of credit to finance shoots and the larger the shoots are the more debt you are carrying while you wait to get paid. quote:She's a great mind but she's using all her resources as a crutch these days. There is nothing about adding production that makes jobs easier, it makes them much harder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:42 |
|
|
There was a three-part article linked here a while back that talked about her money problems, while I'm sure some of it comes from what brad's talking about, people around her say she has basically no grasp of how money works and spends it without any real foresight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 21:37
|
|