|
Fragrag posted:Is there a decent Windows alternative to the Macbook Pros? I was planning to buy a MBP for photo editing but if I can find something cheaper I'd be happy. Aesthetically or computationally? There are a ton of powerful windows laptops out there. But none of them are as pretty as the Apple stuff.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
Fragrag posted:Is there a decent Windows alternative to the Macbook Pros? I was planning to buy a MBP for photo editing but if I can find something cheaper I'd be happy. Depends on what you consider an alternative. If you're just going by specs you can probably get a dell for around that. If form factor is a consideration I think sony vaio ones are well regarded?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
I went with a Lenovo W510. It has the option for a discrete video card, i7, 4 slots for RAM so I upgraded to 16gb, 14.x" full gamut monitor, built in color calibration, SSD hard drive... Love it for editing. Not exactly cheap though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:Is there a decent Windows alternative to the Macbook Pros? I was planning to buy a MBP for photo editing but if I can find something cheaper I'd be happy. There's the Asus Zenbook, but it's not the cheapest thing in the world either. EDIT: Upon further review, the Zenbook is more like the Air than the Pro.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
I want a Leica M Monochrom SO BAD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:built in color calibration How does this work?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
There's a little color sensor down near the touch pad. Huey Pro is included and reminds you to calibrate every few weeks or whatever. To calibrate you start the program and close the laptop (close the lid?) and it runs through the calibration. Takes about a minute. Seems to work well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
Cheers guys, when looking for a laptop, what should my main concern be? I'm working with a Canon 7D so my RAWs are quite sizable. Just a decent amount of RAM and maybe an SSD?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
RAM is certainly important, you always want as much as you can afford. But hard drive speed is the real killer. If you want to edit photos as fast as possible, get an SSD. Or at least the fastest standard hard drive you can find.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
has anyone ever taken the guts out of a digital SLR and put them into an old film camera? i feel like it must have been done somewhere at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:has anyone ever taken the guts out of a digital SLR and put them into an old film camera? i feel like it must have been done somewhere at some point. I think but it's from eons ago, but someone took out the back of an old SLR and mounted it on a DSLR. It was a horrible Frankenstein contraption but it worked somehow. Can't come up with a link though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:has anyone ever taken the guts out of a digital SLR and put them into an old film camera? i feel like it must have been done somewhere at some point.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 12:22
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:has anyone ever taken the guts out of a digital SLR and put them into an old film camera? i feel like it must have been done somewhere at some point. That's what the first DSLRs were. A Kodak back hacked on to a Nikon body.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 15:52
|
|
|
HPL posted:That's what the first DSLRs were. A Kodak back hacked on to a Nikon body. The very first Kodak DSLR was made from a Canon body (F1) though they afterwards moved first to Nikon and then in the late 90s a mix of Canon and Nikon bodies (and even a Sigma!).
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
I'd love it if someone made a digital sensor back for medium format bodies using a DSLR sensor. (I know that optically it is very difficult, but wouldn't it be great?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
spog posted:I'd love it if someone made a digital sensor back for medium format bodies using a DSLR sensor. But they do? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/Digital-Cameras-Newsletter-ZD.jsp Also Pentax makes one I think and Hasselblad definitely does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
Yeah, digital MF backs are older than widespread 35mm+smaller dSLR use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
Well paint me yellow and call me Susan: I'd obviously blanked those out of my mind and forgotten they existed. I think my brain automatically deletes anything potential purchase that includes the word 'thousand' in the price. $6,000 is obviously a lot of cash, but given how cheap medium format stuff is on ebay, I wonder at what price point a digital back would make a full kit in MF be comparible in price to a full kit in FF?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
spog posted:Well paint me yellow and call me Susan: I'd obviously blanked those out of my mind and forgotten they existed. The problem with that kind of scenario is the lack of lenses for MF that would be considered "wide" on 135. You'd be pretty pigeonholed into using teles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:But they do? Pentax makes an entire camera, not just the back. Hasselblad/Imacon, Mamiya/Leaf, Phase One all make backs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
dukeku posted:The problem with that kind of scenario is the lack of lenses for MF that would be considered "wide" on 135. You'd be pretty pigeonholed into using teles. Unless by "wide" you mean "ultrawide", there are plenty of decent wideangles for MF.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Unless by "wide" you mean "ultrawide", there are plenty of decent wideangles for MF. But thanks to the fact that most (all?) MFdb's are either almost 645 or smaller they cease be very wide. http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/hardware/a-primer-to-digital-medium-format-camera/
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Unless by "wide" you mean "ultrawide", there are plenty of decent wideangles for MF. Show me an affordable 35mm lens for 645 and beyond and maybe we can start talking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Show me an affordable 35mm lens for 645 and beyond and maybe we can start talking. Medium format is not cheap. You said that you would basically be restricted to teles, but on say a P1 P45+ back a 28mm would be equivalent to about a 19mm on a 35mm body. That is pretty drat wide to me. A 35mm would be equivalent to about 23mm. And so on. Also, if you are sinking 8-10k into a body it is kind of silly to complain about the lenses being too expensive. The Mamiya 35/3.5 is just over a couple of grand, so in the grand scale of things it is not so bad. edit: OK, I see that you are probably referring to a setup comparative to 35mm price wise, and then you are definitely more restricted. But, Pentax and Mamiya manual focus glass is not too bad; a Mamiya 35mm manual focus lens is like 400 bucks used. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
I'm not sure what the prices are like over in the US but here Hassie dropped prices by about 1/3 across the board. Although a lot of the people I know that were chasing resolution ended up going with d800s. MF digital isn't circus expensive anymore. If you're a very wealthy hobbyist or working photographer a digital back isn't out of the realm of possibility at mid-tiers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:
Yeah, Mamiya has a kit, lens included, for 9990 USD now (22mp back). Pentax 645D I have not looked at in a while, but think that one sits around 10 grand too. Expensive, sure, but not unobtainable for many; I know quite a few photographers with 10k or more in gear once you start counting all their bits and pieces. Of course, their setup is far more flexible than a fixed focal length single lens medium format rig, but it all depends on what you're after.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Medium format is not cheap. You said that you would basically be restricted to teles, but on say a P1 P45+ back a 28mm would be equivalent to about a 19mm on a 35mm body. That is pretty drat wide to me. A 35mm would be equivalent to about 23mm. And so on. I'm not talking about a setup comparative to 35mm, I'm talking about the viability of a medium format body with a 35mm-sized sensor in it - which would severely restrict your lens choices on the wide end, unless you want to start recessing lenses into the body housing. If we're talking about 645 sized digital backs, it's clearly not an issue. edit: I'm not crazy for thinking along this train of thought: spog posted:I'd love it if someone made a digital sensor back for medium format bodies using a DSLR sensor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
dukeku posted:I'm not talking about a setup comparative to 35mm, I'm talking about the viability of a medium format body with a 35mm-sized sensor in it - which would severely restrict your lens choices on the wide end, unless you want to start recessing lenses into the body housing. If we're talking about 645 sized digital backs, it's clearly not an issue. OK, then I completely misunderstood you. Yeah, for a 35mm size sensor you are pretty well screwed, with maybe the Mamiya 25mm being the one viable option...
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hasselblad-Lens-to-Nikon-Mount-Adapter-D300-D700-D90-D5100-/390399705647?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5ae5a2c22f Here you go, $50 DSLR back for your Hasselblad lenses (DSLR not included).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hasselblad-Lens-to-Nikon-Mount-Adapter-D300-D700-D90-D5100-/390399705647?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5ae5a2c22f I can't really comprehend - what's the point of this? As I see it, you don't get any of the medium format pros (the medium-format look, reduced depth of field, definition & tonality) but all of the cons (slow lenses by 35mm standards, lower absolute sharpness, huge and heavy). It just seems like a completely pointless exercise to me, even if you had the appropriate medium-format lenses and $50 lying around already. Anyone enlighten me?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 08:52
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:I can't really comprehend - what's the point of this? Well I bought one so that when I travel I have the option to not bring a telephoto should I decide to bring 35mm gear. Other than that it's pointless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 11:24
|
|
|
I just got out of grad school so I'm looking around for jobs. This means spending a lot of time on craigslist. Just found this one:quote:Must have previous event photography experience (WE WILL CHECK REFERENCES) Oh and also quote:All hired photographers are expected to take at least 100 photos per assignment, and will also be expected to aid us in our promotional efforts by handing out promotional cards to those you photograph. Stellar performance ensures serious consideration for future job opportunities, of which there will be many.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 14:35
|
|
|
event photography is such a joke for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:event photography is such a joke for the most part. My experience with it has been intensely awkward, unless I'm drunk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:My experience with it has been intensely awkward, unless I'm drunk. You can say this about a lot of things, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:I just got out of grad school so I'm looking around for jobs. This means spending a lot of time on craigslist. Just found this one:
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 15:05
|
|
|
If you had a 1D, you could rack up that 100 photos in 10 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 15:16
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:I can't really comprehend - what's the point of this? Some MF lenses are pretty fast, the Pentax 67 105mm f/2.4 and 150mm/165mm f/2.8 come to mind. Others are really really good - I've been itching to adapt my P67 55mm f/4, ideally to film or FF digital, because the results are nothing short of spectacular even wide open. You're taking advantage of the very center of the image circle, the sharpest and best-corrected part, and contrary to popular belief those lenses can still develop some pretty good resolution. You can also get a tilt-shift adapter and make use of that larger image circle (albeit at a maximum of slight-wide to normal because of the crop factor). Also, because they're there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 15:31
|
|
Paragon8 posted:event photography is such a joke for the most part. Wait, what? What do you consider "event" photography? I make a good portion of my living doing (at least what I consider to be) event photography. For example, just this past weekend I was shooting my city's yearly Father's Day weekend music festival and amateur BBQ contest. I was there to shoot people enjoying themselves, the BBQ judging, the winners accepting their trophies, the bands playing, and just everything having to do with the EVENT in general. I was shooting for the city's Chamber of Commerce so they would promotional material for next year's event. How is that a joke?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
That 70s Shirt posted:Wait, what? What do you consider "event" photography? Oh I didn't mean to come off as insulting, just the internet makes things flippant etc. Just personally I've come across people using event photography as a weird stepping stone. Like a guy I know shot a marathon/10k sponsored by Nike and suddenly Nike is on their client list. Or the guy who shot a society event that was covered by Tatler, and suddenly Tatler is in his editorial client list. So from my perspective I get frustrated by people using event photography to disingenuously promote their commercial or fashion work. So that sort of colours my opinion of event photography. A lot of magazines and things will use their name as a lure to get event photography for free/cheap which is frustrating because people will do it for free because they get to say GQ or Elle published them and lead them on with the promise of actual work (which is never going to happen)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 17:53
|
|