|
Awkward Davies posted:Hm yeah that Tamron looks pretty great. Thanks! The Tamron is very nice, especially price-wise. It's not built as robust as the Canon versions, but it is by no means cheaply built. The zoom and focus rings are quite smooth. Also, at least north of the 49th, finding a new Mk I 24-70 Canon is very difficult.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
The 24-70/2.8L is one of those lenses that even if (though?) third party equivalents perform better on test charts, have more features (like VC/IS), and are way cheaper, I'm still irrationally tempted to buy the Canon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 11:26
|
|
|
rawrr posted:The 24-70/2.8L is one of those lenses that even if (though?) third party equivalents perform better on test charts, have more features (like VC/IS), and are way cheaper, I'm still irrationally tempted to buy the Canon. It's that red ring man, I just want that red ring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
You know, something I found that's really funny is that the last four or five years I spent all my time and money trying to build the most "pro" feeling kit I could -- big bulky bodies, add-on grips, fast lenses, etc. And now that I have some of that stuff, I find that the only thing I want is a small rangefinder style camera that I can stick in my pocket. No doubt the big stuff is amazing gear, but when you have zero desire to carry it around you tend to not shoot as much as you'd like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Yeah in all honesty what I really need is something like an S90 that shoots in RAW and can get me a decent ISO1600 image while maintaining the size.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Yeah in all honesty what I really need is something like an S90 that shoots in RAW and can get me a decent ISO1600 image while maintaining the size. CHDK is available in beta for the S90, that'll get you RAW which will open up some noise reduction in Lightroom/Aperture. Otherwise, Fuji X10/X100.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:No doubt the big stuff is amazing gear, but when you have zero desire to carry it around you tend to not shoot as much as you'd like. Yes, the best gear is the stuff you can take with you. So far I love my GS645, despite the pain it's been, because it packs a huge negative into something small and relatively cheap. The Rollei 35S is as tiny as it's possible for a 35mm camera to really be, and the lenses are as good as it gets. The Olympus XA is tiny yet packs full aperture-priority rangefinder shooting in. I flew out to Santa Barbara last week and took a drive in the mountains. I was keeping things light, so I took the GS645 and my Olympus XA. That was more than enough for snapping some landscapes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:You know, something I found that's really funny is that the last four or five years I spent all my time and money trying to build the most "pro" feeling kit I could -- big bulky bodies, add-on grips, fast lenses, etc. And now that I have some of that stuff, I find that the only thing I want is a small rangefinder style camera that I can stick in my pocket. Oh for sure. I don't bring my 5D everywhere, in fact I tend to not bring it out unless I'm getting paid or it's a big enough event with friends. Paul MaudDib posted:I flew out to Santa Barbara last week and took a drive in the mountains. I was keeping things light, so I took the GS645 and my Olympus XA. That was more than enough for snapping some landscapes. The XA2 is amazing. Fits in the palm of your hand, plastic, cheap (or they used to be). I also have an XA that I don't use as much as my XA2. My XA2 is my go to "carry everywhere" camera. In fact, all of my 35mms are my go to "carry everywhere" cameras.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:CHDK is available in beta for the S90, that'll get you RAW which will open up some noise reduction in Lightroom/Aperture. Otherwise, Fuji X10/X100. I believe the s90 can shoot in raw. But yeah, the x100 is one of the sexiest cameras out there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
This is why I try to only buy primes, I'd say my DA 21mm is the best lens I've purchased since I can use it for almost everything and it's tiny.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I believe the s90 can shoot in raw. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
Is there any real reason to use RAW+L? I can't imagine a scenario where I'd use that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Is there any real reason to use RAW+L? I could understand it in some sports shooting. Get shots that need to go to print quickly in JPG, and others in RAW that you can clean up for later use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Ah, that makes sense. Thanks! You also see this on X100 centric forums where the in-camera processed large JPG is either considered "good enough" to use directly and to save time or is used as a baseline for processing the RAW. The Fuji JPG algorithm is admittedly quite good and there are all manner of "shadow tone hardness" and all manner of settings to play with but ultimately writing an uncompressed 19 meg RAW + a JPG is a lot to ask of the camera so it isn't something I do a lot of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Is there any real reason to use RAW+L? With my Canon I use it travelling because jpegs are much easier to look though on a netbook.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
If you're looking for a small compact with good IQ, the Sony RX-100 is probably one of the best bets right now. It shoots RAW, has a sensor three times the size of the Canon S series, and a brighter lens overall too. Yes, it costs more, but the premium looks to be worth it. I had the same problem as Marty, and that's how I chose to solve it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 01:27
|
|
|
I need some advice on a dslr bundle. The Sony a57 comes with 3 options at $850. Option 1: 18-135mm Option 2: 18-55mm + 55-200mm Option 3: 18-55mm + 75-300mm I am buying this camera as an all-purpose so I am leaning toward the 18-135 with the likely purchase of a prime sometime soon. I'm taking a trip to Montreal for the Just for Laughs festival so I'm hoping to get some good shots as well as video.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
The 18-135 is a new lens. Not sure what the performance is on it. The 18-55 and the other lenses are what they are. The 18-135 is certainly better built; has metal mount, silent motor, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
I looked around for the newbie thread mentioned in the OP but came up short. I'm starting with a private investigations firm this coming week. The bulk of my work will be surveillance. It will be in a wide range of lighting and distance, leaning slightly towards distant low-light shots. I'm guessing around 150 yards or so, likely further at times. Time-stamp and video functionality is a must, but I'm assuming that's pretty standard. After a cursory search, a Nikon D3100 seems to fit the bill fairly well for the camera side of things. However, various websites are telling me I need at least a 2000 mm focal length lens for shots up to 200 yards. That seems extreme, as my crappy Kodak p&s seems as if it is really close to hitting the clarity I need at around 200 yards in low light. I'm also going to need to steady this thing from the driver's seat of a car. Realistically, what can I get that would meet my needs? The budget is fairly limited right now, but I would be comfortable with around $400-$500. The cheaper the better. If there is a p&s that can do it, I would be more than happy to get that.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
dissss posted:With my Canon I use it travelling because jpegs are much easier to look though on a netbook. If you are just going to look through them why not shoot RAW+S and save some space?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 11:58
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:If you are just going to look through them why not shoot RAW+S and save some space? I don't think all bodies can shoot RAW+S: my S90 and 400D only have RAW+L, my 40D has RAW+all It also has the SRAW option, but I am in 2 minds about that: it seems a bit silly to accept the inconvenience of RAW but not get as much info as possible out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 12:36
|
|
|
astrollinthepork posted:I looked around for the newbie thread mentioned in the OP but came up short. Getting an actual 2000 mm will be insanely heavy and really expensive, unless you get one of the extremely cheap mirror optics in which case you'll have a very hard time focusing and get quite bad image quality. I would suggest getting a camera with a higher resolution so you will at least be have a chance to capture more detail with a shorter lens. Nikon D3200 has quite a bit more resolution than the D3100, so go for that instead, if you're getting Nikon's low end. For optics, at your budget you're realistically capped at around 300 mm on a cheap zoom. You can perhaps get something like Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6. The kind of optics you are asking for would be Nikon's own 400 mm f/2.8 and a 2x teleconverter on it. I suggest you just look up the price for Nikkor AF-S VR 400 f/2.8G IF-ED yourself. nielsm fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Jul 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 12:54
|
|
|
I don't think there's even a first party 2k mm lens from any manufacturer. Get a 70-300 and see how that goes on your entry level slr of choice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 13:34
|
|
|
Going for really high magnification might be a good reason to go micro four thirds or even regular four thirds. The smaller chips make high magnification lenses way cheaper. On my g2 I have 400mm equivalent from a teeny tiny 45-200 that's $250 or so new. This is also an area where small chip video cameras can be crazy good depending on which bit of functionality is most important. My xf300 goes to an equivalent of 527mm at f2.8 yet weighs and costs less than Nikon's 500mm f4. They're both way out of your price range, but you might find something good enough. Do you know the model of your p&s? We could recommend something with similar zoom range if we knew.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
nielsm posted:unless you get one of the extremely cheap mirror optics in which case you'll have a very hard time focusing and get quite bad image quality. Are mirror optics really that bad? I wanted to get a long lens and ended up with a 800mm/f8 for like 100 dollars including a polarizing filter because I was the only bidder on this auction. I figured if it sucked it wasn't too bad a price, even if it ends up being a novelty. I haven't really dropped serious money on lenses yet cause I'm still beginning. I mean are they that bad that dipping your foot in it is still a waste?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
astrollinthepork posted:I looked around for the newbie thread mentioned in the OP but came up short. http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/50-500mm.htm something like that with a body with good ISO performance should be good for PI work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
I would probably suggest something maybe like the Olympus E-5. It's high ISO work isn't anything to brag about but it certainly won't ruin any photos unless you're shooting an unlit subject in the dead of night or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
powderific posted:This is also an area where small chip video cameras can be crazy good depending on which bit of functionality is most important. My xf300 goes to an equivalent of 527mm at f2.8 yet weighs and costs less than Nikon's 500mm f4. They're both way out of your price range, but you might find something good enough. Comedy option Nikon V1 with a 500mm f/4. I find a dimensional field of view calculator useful when talking about focal lengths, for example on a typical consumer DSLR, a 2000mm lens will show about 1.5 meters of a subject 200 meters away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I would probably suggest something maybe like the Olympus E-5. It's high ISO work isn't anything to brag about but it certainly won't ruin any photos unless you're shooting an unlit subject in the dead of night or something. I want to savor the gently caress out of this post. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I want to savor the gently caress out of this post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
spog posted:I don't think all bodies can shoot RAW+S: my S90 and 400D only have RAW+L, my 40D has RAW+all Ah, did not know there were bodies without RAW+S. Learn something new every day. As for sRAW, yeah, not sure. If the files were much smaller I could see the purpose, but I gather that the mid-size sRAW file is not much smaller than the real thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Ah, did not know there were bodies without RAW+S. Learn something new every day. And until you mentioned it, I did not know that there were any bodies that did, so the learning is mutual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I want to savor the gently caress out of this post. Well, I mean if you need a sensor that does 2x multiplication off the bat …. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Yeah my 30D does RAW+all. I used to use RAW+L when I first got it, for about 2 weeks while I got used to processing RAW photos, just so I had a backup if I really screwed anything up. I never used the jpgs in the end, but I liked having them there for my own peace of mind while I got used to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Comedy option Nikon V1 with a 500mm f/4. Pentax Q (5x crop factor) and a 500 or 400mm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Are mirror optics really that bad? I wanted to get a long lens and ended up with a 800mm/f8 for like 100 dollars including a polarizing filter because I was the only bidder on this auction. I figured if it sucked it wasn't too bad a price, even if it ends up being a novelty. I haven't really dropped serious money on lenses yet cause I'm still beginning. I mean are they that bad that dipping your foot in it is still a waste? Inherently, mirror lenses have slightly lower contrast and resolution due to the central obstruction in the front, but that's a pretty small effect. The real problem is that most people don't like them, so no one makes quality ones anymore. If you can find an old used one, most of them are better than the cheap new ones you can find. The last-version Nikon one my dad owns is very sharp, but it is difficult to focus well, and split prism finders tend to black out at such small apertures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
They have the most unpleasant bokeys to boot, so generally I don't enjoy photos they produce if they have any significant out of focus areas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
Has the bottom really fallen out of the 5Dmk1 market? I've seen at least two for under $600 recently on craigslist. That seems like an insane price for a full frame sensor camera, even if it is a few years old at this point. Though I guess now that Mk3 is out the price was bound to compress down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:Has the bottom really fallen out of the 5Dmk1 market? I've seen at least two for under $600 recently on craigslist. That seems like an insane price for a full frame sensor camera, even if it is a few years old at this point. It's hard to see it dropping much further than that-- but I said the same thing about 1d mark 2s. Those dropped a bit more after Canon decided that they wouldn't service those any longer. If the 5D can still be sent to Canon for service (other than the mirror issue?) then it still has some room to drop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 16:26
|
|
