|
TheLastManStanding posted:That's the input, the output (for the charger I grabbed) is 8.4v @ .55 amps which is 4.6W, less than twice the standard for usb (2.5W). Well, the charger I used for an example has an output of 8.4v 1.2A so 10.1 watts which is borderline for the high power USB ports (e.g. the ipad draws 10 watts). Definitely plausible, you are right.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2012 11:22 |
|
|
# ? Apr 27, 2024 08:02 |
|
ExecuDork posted:It seems like a long shot, but does such a thing exist as a way to charge a camera battery (that normally plugs into a wall outlet) through a USB port? I can find plenty of options for going the other way. How about a 12V solar charger? Again less than ideal, but maybe enough.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2012 13:47 |
|
Local seller has a canon mount Tamron 17-50 for $350. I know there is a VC and non-VC of this lens, any other things I should watch for? Seems like a pretty good price.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2012 15:14 |
|
MrEnigma posted:Local seller has a canon mount Tamron 17-50 for $350. I know there is a VC and non-VC of this lens, any other things I should watch for? Seems like a pretty good price. Indeed it is a good price given its clean, works properly and isn't from a soft batch. This is more than likely NOT the VC version of this lens but thats ok because you don't need it anyway and supposedly the non-VC version performs ever so slightly better.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2012 15:40 |
|
MrEnigma posted:Local seller has a canon mount Tamron 17-50 for $350. I know there is a VC and non-VC of this lens, any other things I should watch for? Seems like a pretty good price. Check to see if it has front/rear focus problems (where it will focus slightly in front or behind of the target). The ring in the front has also been known to come loose after a while, although I've never really encountered that myself.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2012 09:40 |
|
rawrr posted:Check to see if it has front/rear focus problems (where it will focus slightly in front or behind of the target). The ring in the front has also been known to come loose after a while, although I've never really encountered that myself. Check the zoom ring doesn't have any noticeable play too - if it does its an internal screw backing out which needs to be fixed asap if you don't want more damage to occur
|
# ? Jul 14, 2012 06:31 |
|
I've found myself attracted to photography. I know a little more than the average phone/cheap digital camera user but I'm not a pro by any means. I do know that I am more interested, at this point at least, in using something like a 35mm SLR. I'm also betting that there are low-cost lens/filters/cameras that are famous for being beginners cameras and would certainly work fine for my purposes. My purposes would be just taking pictures around town/in the woods/nature and almost landscape type stuff and maybe (if reasonable) some nighttime stuff. If you can think of a Digital SLR that would be good too, I won't ignore DSLRs if they are clearly a better choice. I don't really want to leave a limit because if I can't afford a beginner camera I'll just quit right now.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 05:53 |
|
Prof_Beatnuts posted:I don't really want to leave a limit because if I can't afford a beginner camera I'll just quit right now. Check out offerings from Canon and Nikon on https://www.keh.com (I'd link some directly, but their site is down for maintenance right now). I get what you're saying by "I don't want to leave a limit", but seriously, we can probably give you better suggestions if you do tell us what you're willing to spend. An SLR is going to allow more control and creativity, but many people shoot great images on point & shoots. It's not the camera that makes a shot.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 06:25 |
|
In my own opinion, photography is (relatively) cheap to get into, but it's the sort of hobby where you very quickly realize that you get precisely what you pay for. So it's also ridiculously easy to sink fist after fist of hundred dollar bills into, once you find out what the more expensive lenses and cameras can do.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 06:46 |
|
Martytoof posted:In my own opinion, photography is (relatively) cheap to get into, but it's the sort of hobby where you very quickly realize that you get precisely what you pay for. Krakkles fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jul 16, 2012 |
# ? Jul 16, 2012 08:57 |
|
So during my trip to Europe I gave my camera to my friend for a couple shots and apparently he manhandled my tamron 17-50 so much that now the zoom ring sticks and I hear a clicking sound when i zoom from 17-24mm. Moreover, the zoom ring sticks in different places and i'm afraid to use it for fears of damaging my lens any more. Has anyone had any experience with sending their lenses to tamron for repair, and how expensive was it? My equipment is insured, but I have a $100 deductible and I dont know if it would be worth it to file a claim and spend $100 when I could get it repaired for $150. Any advice?
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 09:34 |
|
Unless you use it professionally or buy collectibles, photo gear isn't really an investment.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 09:37 |
|
Turd Nelson posted:So during my trip to Europe I gave my camera to my friend for a couple shots and apparently he manhandled my tamron 17-50 so much that now the zoom ring sticks and I hear a clicking sound when i zoom from 17-24mm. Moreover, the zoom ring sticks in different places and i'm afraid to use it for fears of damaging my lens any more. It probably wasn't your friends fault anyway - it's a good bet this is what happened: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/sigma-tamron-tokina/694767-slight-play-tamron-zoom.html (yes you should definitely sop using it before its fixed) It happened to my lens, and because there is no Tamron presence in this country I took it to the only local camera repair guy who opened it up and fixed it for ~$90NZD (from memory). He said it wasn't a particularly hard repair and I probably could have done it myself but I'm so useless with fiddly things I didn't want to take the risk.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 11:05 |
|
evil_bunnY posted:Unless you use it professionally or buy collectibles, photo gear isn't really an investment. If you get lucky and find a cheap Hasselblad or Leica you can potentially sell it for more money down the road. I guess that's an investment, but I guess that also counts as "collectibles". A guy on Craigslist was selling a 500CM outfit with 80mm T* lens (Planar maybe?) for $500. I have never mashed the e-mail button faster in my life, but he had JUST sold it to someone else
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 13:54 |
|
Some fucker on RangefinderForums supposedly bought a dresser full of Leica Ms and Leica lenses for $50. I have to call the most immense bullshit on his story, but I guess the kernel of truth in the whole thing is that there are people out there with "old film cameras" that don't know what they're worth and will probably give you a great deal on their dead husband's old film leicas because their grandson just bought them a new panasonic something-or-other point and shoot. These people are almost universally old and don't really care about photography to begin with. I would love to say that I would be a moral person and tell someone that their camera is worth a thousand dollars instead of fifty, but I'm forced to conclude that if someone offered me a Leica M3 for $50 I would be in and out of there so fast you'd see a dust cloud. I don't really feel very upstanding for admitting this, but ... e: this is supposedly what he bought: So calling bullshit. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jul 16, 2012 |
# ? Jul 16, 2012 14:45 |
|
That's why I go to as many antique stores and garage sales as I can... ONE DAY. One day.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 14:56 |
|
Martytoof posted:Some fucker on RangefinderForums supposedly bought a dressed full of Leica Ms and Leica lenses for $50. I have to call the most immense bullshit on his story, but I guess the kernel of truth in the whole thing is that there are people out there with "old film cameras" that don't know what they're worth and will probably give you a great deal on their dead husband's old film leicas because their grandson just bought them a new panasonic something-or-other point and shoot. That's how I got my OM-1 with 50mm f/1.4 for like $45
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 15:19 |
|
QPZIL posted:That's why I go to as many antique stores and garage sales as I can... ONE DAY. One day. This old guy in my neighborhood keeps slowly but surely liquidating his collection, every year at the neighborhood garage sales i go there and buy everything he's got. This year the best one was an Argus C-3 for $3. I keep telling myself the guy's got a Rollei or something stashed away that he'll bring out one day.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 16:30 |
|
FYI after handling a real life Leica M3 I now have the Leica lust. Don't be me, kids. I am attempting to fill this void with cheap soviet Leica III knockoffs but somehow I doubt this will work.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 17:17 |
|
Martytoof posted:FYI after handling a real life Leica M3 I now have the Leica lust. It won't FSU cameras are soooo much rougher around the edges. Note this is based on the 5 minutes I once held an M7 in 2008.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 17:32 |
|
If you buy one at least you'll probably shoot with it. One of my horrible friends bought one to shoot and then used it as a shelf decoration because it was "too expensive to use."
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 17:37 |
|
Martytoof posted:FYI after handling a real life Leica M3 I now have the Leica lust. It's terrible, everything else just feels clunky -
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 17:47 |
|
FasterThanLight posted:joinnnn us Even the Pentax ME Super? Of course not go buy a Pentax ME Super
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 18:00 |
|
evil_bunnY posted:Unless you use it professionally or buy collectibles, photo gear isn't really an investment.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 18:16 |
|
Mr. Despair posted:Even the Pentax ME Super? You and I are like the Bebop and Rocksteady of ME Super advocacy. (I call Bebop)
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 18:36 |
|
QPZIL posted:You and I are like the Bebop and Rocksteady of ME Super advocacy. And I'm the cheapskate who keeps pointing out that MEs are just as good 99% of the time and even cheaper
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 19:08 |
|
FasterThanLight posted:joinnnn us Oh yeah, I will for sure once I get a steadier paycheck. For now, FED will have to do (I'm trying to keep a positive spin on it, for what it's worth. It'll still be a fun camera to use )
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 19:16 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:And I'm the cheapskate who keeps pointing out that MEs are just as good 99% of the time and even cheaper Unless you want to shoot manual
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 19:33 |
|
QPZIL posted:Unless you want to shoot manual AND you're hard up against the max/min ISO limits because otherwise you can just tweak the exposure comp/ISO dial to adjust the (probably almost accurate) shutter selection to whatever you want.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 19:39 |
|
I've remained mostly uninformed about Leica for the last decade since I started studying photography. Anyone want to summarize what makes them worth their ridiculous prices? I'm assuming the glass must be really high quality and the focus extremely sharp, but that alone can't be worth several thousand dollars, can it?
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 19:39 |
|
thevoiceofdog posted:I've remained mostly uninformed about Leica for the last decade since I started studying photography. Anyone want to summarize what makes them worth their ridiculous prices? I'm assuming the glass must be really high quality and the focus extremely sharp, but that alone can't be worth several thousand dollars, can it? Brand mystique, it's a status symbol. It's high quality stuff, sure enough, it's compact and light. But for most uses a Mamiya 7 will cockslap the Leica for a similar/lower price and there's usually specific alternatives that you can turn to that aren't the cost of a used car. For example, low light wideangle shooting, get a Samyang 35mm f/1.4 and a Pentax ME or Nikon FM2 and it'll be every bit as good as the Leica (although SLR). I mean, even Rolleiflex isn't that expensive and their stuff has insane build quality with incredible lenses. They've been viewed as the most bang for the size for basically their entire production span (like 1930 to 1990), but they're not status symbols and thus don't command the insane prices of Leica. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jul 16, 2012 |
# ? Jul 16, 2012 19:48 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Brand mystique. It's high quality stuff, sure enough, it's compact and light. But for most uses a Mamiya 7 will cockslap the Leica for a similar/lower price and there's usually specific alternatives that you can turn to that aren't the cost of a used car. For example, low light wideangle shooting, get a Samyang 35mm f/1.4 and a Pentax ME or Nikon FM2 and it'll be every bit as good as the Leica (although SLR). Specifically though, there is no reason a rangefinder is superior to an SLR is there?
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 19:53 |
|
tijag posted:Specifically though, there is no reason a rangefinder is superior to an SLR is there? Yes. Better low-light and wide-angle focusing accuracy. Split prisms black out if there's too little light, even matte rings will go dark if it's low enough, and that makes it harder to focus. Wideangle lenses don't have as much depth-of-field so the prism doesn't show as much movement and the matte ring isn't as snappy. Some of this can be countered by using fast lenses, f/1.4 will keep things going in all but the darkest situations. Rangefinders you just line up the edges and it's in focus, no matter the lens. Also there's specific types of lenses that protrude close to the film, allowing wider lenses and better correction. SLRs have a mirror in there and can't mount that type of lens, so they have to make more optical compromises. Of course there's other things SLRs do better, like macro and close-up shooting, you're guaranteed that the image in the VF is the image going onto the film. vvv And that's another way to do it, plus 100 speed films own. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jul 16, 2012 |
# ? Jul 16, 2012 20:00 |
|
QPZIL posted:Unless you want to shoot manual Pff just put in a roll of ISO100 film, set the dial to 100x, and shoot Sunny-16 you big baby tijag posted:Specifically though, there is no reason a rangefinder is superior to an SLR is there? In my limited experience with rangefinders, I found that the ability to see "outside" the photo lines to be incredibly useful for composing a shot. Traditional TTL viewfinders are pretty much WYSIWYG in terms of your final photo. Rangefinders are both less accurate, since you're not looking through the taking lens, and better for getting a sense of what might compose well, since you can see the areas directly outside your end-result photo. You can see a little box around what your final shot will resemble, but you can also look around the frame easily to find a better way of shooting something, or waiting for someone to enter the frame, or whatever you want, really. It's a mixed bag. Personally I really REALLY like the rangefinder paradigm. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jul 16, 2012 |
# ? Jul 16, 2012 20:04 |
|
thevoiceofdog posted:I've remained mostly uninformed about Leica for the last decade since I started studying photography. Anyone want to summarize what makes them worth their ridiculous prices? I'm assuming the glass must be really high quality and the focus extremely sharp, but that alone can't be worth several thousand dollars, can it? Leica has very good branding and marketing. While they do make awesome cameras, their market is predominately wealthy hobbyists. There's a reason why they have limited edition neiman marcus cameras or put together a run of gold plated leica's for the communist party in China to celebrate their 60th anniversary. I also sort of resent them for doing bullshit like selling rebranded panasonics and such
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 21:11 |
|
Leicas are pretty well engineered cameras. They're basically the Rolex of cameras. Are they worth a thousand dollars a pop? Maybe or maybe not. I don't doubt that the brand has much to do with the price, but you really are getting a sturdy piece of metal and aluminum. I was really skeptical of the Leica thing at first too. It really wasn't until I held the body and played with its (albeit very minimalist) functions that I really said "you know what, I can totally see it". It felt great in my hands, the weight was perfect. In the end though it's just a box you put film into and lens on the other end. My $30 FED-2 won't really expose the film any better, given the same sort of lens on both bodies, but it won't feel near as nice in my hands. Is that worth an extra $970? Today it isn't. Tomorrow it might be.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 21:20 |
|
That's kinda what I was expecting, glad I'm not missing a whole lot. All of my purchases in the last year have always been about practicality, and I'll continue to shop for equipment that way as I start building a lighting kit.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 21:23 |
|
Yeah, it's definitely a luxury. But then again some people say "if you've got to buy a camera, buy a good one". If you compare it to other cameras like Bessas or whatever, the price actually becomes kind of competitive too. Of course then there are people who think any amount of money for a film camera these days is ridiculous, so I guess everyone has an opinion In the end I think it's really no different than saying I can buy a D5100 or a D7000/D800/D4/Dwhatever. They'll both take great photos, can mount good lenses, but the quality of the product is going to swing up wildly the more money you put towards the camera. Though people seem to have a lot less problem justifying more money for a better digital camera. My suspicion is that all the bells and whistles help sell the price. I'm kind of just going off at the mouth here so this is nothing but my two cents some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jul 16, 2012 |
# ? Jul 16, 2012 21:26 |
|
QPZIL posted:Unless you want to shoot manual Someone's a Poser. In my experience a Super is pretty much the same price as a normal ME though, but I tend to buy them by the box.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 21:33 |
|
|
# ? Apr 27, 2024 08:02 |
|
Martytoof posted:Some fucker on RangefinderForums supposedly bought a dresser full of Leica Ms and Leica lenses for $50. I have to call the most immense bullshit on his story, but I guess the kernel of truth in the whole thing is that there are people out there with "old film cameras" that don't know what they're worth and will probably give you a great deal on their dead husband's old film leicas because their grandson just bought them a new panasonic something-or-other point and shoot. Some years back I was at a used camera fair, and witnessed a quite old guy looking to sell his "old cameras" to one of the "camera dealers" there. The dealer took a look at some rather minty Leica IIIs with what appeared to be absolutely perfect lenses (some very rare ones at that), said the shutters were "probably old and worn" and offered... 200 bucks. I pulled the guy aside rather quickly and explained what he had and what it was worth and he ended up going back home to figure out a better way to resell it. Sorry, camera dealer, you were a greedy rear end in a top hat.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2012 21:36 |