|
Yeah I don't expect them to bottom out, but if it can challenge the $500 mark in a year or two then it will be an absolute steal. Granted that a lot of these will probably be high shutter count cameras, but if I was getting someone into photography right now I might seriously consider recommending them a 5d1.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
Yeah, even the Kodak DCS full frame cameras whose sensors were useless above ISO 200 were still selling for $400-500 last I checked, so I can't imagine the 5D could drop much lower anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
I'm wondering how much lower those will fall now that you can get something sensible for a hundred or two more. Part of me thinks they were artificially propped up by the fact that they were " full frame " and we'll see THOSE bottom out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Yeah, even the Kodak DCS full frame cameras whose sensors were useless above ISO 200 were still selling for $400-500 last I checked, so I can't imagine the 5D could drop much lower anytime soon. Aren't those pretty rare? Not really the kind of camera people are looking to upgrade whenever a new model comes out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
Could someone help me? My mom is planning on selling her house and is now going trough my late fathers stuff and she happened to found a one particulary old camera.  Agfa Iso-Rabid 1. Just wondering that is dime a dozen camera or is it actually worth something or does it have any sort of collectionary value for anyone?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Unfortunately, that camera is probably only going to fetch $10 or so. Also, it uses a proprietary film type that doesn't exist anymore (Agfa Rapid Film). I would say it'd be more valuable to keep as a memory of your father than to try and get any money out of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Just a Fish posted:Could someone help me? My mom is planning on selling her house and is now going trough my late fathers stuff and she happened to found a one particulary old camera. Dime-a-dozen. Looks like a viewfinder camera (scale-focus or fixed-focus), probably has a triplet or meniscus lens. Never say never on the collector values, box cameras are getting more valuable as time wears on (because everyone threw them out), but right now it's not worth anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
ah, alright, thank you both.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
What is the general consensus on wet sensor cleaning tools in here? My used XTi looks like it has an old smudge that won't go away with just blowing air so I'm thinking maybe copper hill or photosol. Anyone have any experience with either of these?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
I've had good luck with a little generic kit, I looked around the Copper Hill and Photosol websites and didn't see it. Anyway, my kit was four little swabs (green plastic stick, triangular cloth pad on the end) and a little bottle of what was most likely alcohol. Drip some "cleaning fluid" on the pad, carefully wipe sensor. It worked for a couple of non-blowable smudges on my sensor, and I've used it a couple of times (months apart) without any trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
ceiling fan pilot posted:What is the general consensus on wet sensor cleaning tools in here? My used XTi looks like it has an old smudge that won't go away with just blowing air so I'm thinking maybe copper hill or photosol. I used the Copper Hill kit with my 10D and always had great success with 1-2 passes. Much cheaper than the individually packaged Sensor Swabs, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
Thom hogan (i think thats his name anyway) has a pretty detailed write up on sensor cleaning on his site. That might give help you get a feel for the process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
Someone on Craigslist posted this: 500mm super telephoto lens for old style 35mm canon camera. New in box. Don't think it will work with digital. Multi coated lens for enhanced contrast. 14" long 24oz. Aperture range f8- f32 Soyo mod.# 205 carrying case for both. tripod adj. 19-49" high. Can't find any info on the lens anywhere. Wants 35 bucks for it. Any help?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 17:45
|
|
Claw Massage posted:Someone on Craigslist posted this: At only two pounds and an f8 max aperture it sounds like a mirror lens, which generally should be avoided for normal photography (terrible contrast, bokeh is donut-shaped, etc). Surveillance and astrophotography folks love 'em, though. Is there a picture with it to confirm?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Nah, he won't post a picture. I had to drag all the other info out of him already (he originally just posted 500mm lens don't think it will work on digital) so either he's computer illiterate or just doesn't care about selling it THAT much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
That 70s Shirt posted:At only two pounds and an f8 max aperture it sounds like a mirror lens, which generally should be avoided for normal photography (terrible contrast, bokeh is donut-shaped, etc). Surveillance and astrophotography folks love 'em, though. Aren't mirror lenses fixed aperture? EDIT: http://www.ebay.com/itm/500mm-f-8-P...=item1c236c5f9e I bet it is something like this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 18:21
|
|
spog posted:Aren't mirror lenses fixed aperture? Oh yeah, good point. You're probably right.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Assuming its that, I would need a T mount to get it to work on a t2i? I might give the guy a call to come look at it. Maybe I'm just too new to dslr's, but the prospect of a 500mm lens for 35 bucks sounded pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Claw Massage posted:Assuming its that, I would need a T mount to get it to work on a t2i? Yeah, if you want it as something to gently caress around with, go to town. I've made much worse decisions with $35.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Yeah, if you want it as something to gently caress around with, go to town. I've made much worse decisions with $35. Yeah seriously. $35 is like, a trip to the movies for 2 people or something. For that kind of money buy it and try it out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
Someone posted shots from their mirror lens earlier in the thread and it didn't look THAT bad—assuming you're shooting in daylight it seemed like $35 worth of fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
I hosed around with a cheap 800mm/f8 mirror and got this with about 5 seconds preparation P7268424 by signalnois3, on Flickr I'd agree the bokeh is a little weird signalnoise fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
For $35 you can use it to frighten people (in oh so many ways) if it turns out to be useless for actual photography. I say buy it, and then you can also brag about buying a lens sight-unseen through some sketchy craigslist ad. Bonus!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
I recently purchased the Nikon 70-200 VR 2 and now I'm looking for a plate for it. Is it worth buying the whole foot that RRS sell? The page also suggests that the plate between the foot and collar is flimsy and should be replaced by a $28 piece. That seems like a pretty ridiculous price to me, especially since I'm in Australia and they want about $40 for postage too. In my searches I've found this which is only $23 with free shipping. Has anyone got one of these generic lens plates and is there any good reason to spend more money on the RRS solution?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
I bought the cheapest Arca-Swiss-compatible QR plate I could find for my 500mm supertele. It's too easy to torque it with the long lens, but otherwise it holds it fine, I'm not worried about the lens falling off or anything like that. I'd say go for the cheap one. Related: is there a standard thread size / pitch for those screw holes in the tripod-mount-foot for big lenses? A screw in the right place would solve my torque problem. EDIT: sorry, I was unclear - not the big tripod mount hole, the little accessory holes nearby. They look pretty small. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Jul 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Related: is there a standard thread size / pitch for those screw holes in the tripod-mount-foot for big lenses? A screw in the right place would solve my torque problem. I think it should be the 1/4"-20 thread size.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
A while back I posted about my lovely M42 adapter that nearly got stuck on the camera, well I ordered a better one that actually worked and has infinity focus. But it's still pretty annoying to have to put in this adapter and then screw the lens in after, so what do I do: Remove the retaining clips from the adapter, then contact cement on the threads! Excellent, but now it won't lock. No worries:  Drill some pits where the mounting pin and AF screw are, perfect! Now it mounts like a normal K-lens, infinity focus and it locks!  Quick test-shot under horrible LED lighting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 09:21
|
|
|
Anyone have an opinion on the Sigma 17-50 f2.8? I want a faster lens to replace my kit lens, I like this focal range, and I was going to buy the Tamron, but all the reviews say that the Sigma has better autofocus and is a ton quieter. I do think that the noise from the Tamron will bother me, but is it worth another couple hundred? fwiw, I haven't been able to find any craigslist or other local good used deals on either lens (except for Amazon Warehouse deals, which are decent but not great) and I do feel ripped off buying the Tamron without a good deal because they seem to be common as dirt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 15:35
|
|
|
Kiri koli posted:Anyone have an opinion on the Sigma 17-50 f2.8? I want a faster lens to replace my kit lens, I like this focal range, and I was going to buy the Tamron, but all the reviews say that the Sigma has better autofocus and is a ton quieter. I do think that the noise from the Tamron will bother me, but is it worth another couple hundred? fwiw, I haven't been able to find any craigslist or other local good used deals on either lens (except for Amazon Warehouse deals, which are decent but not great) and I do feel ripped off buying the Tamron without a good deal because they seem to be common as dirt. A very good lens and the reviews that I could find all say that the Tamron and it are almost identical in optical performance. I have one. Well built, good balance, quality seems good to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Anyone have the Olympus OM 28mm f/2.8? I'm going overseas in 2 weeks and a wider lens for my OM1 would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Anyone have the Olympus OM 28mm f/2.8? I'm going overseas in 2 weeks and a wider lens for my OM1 would be nice. I have the 28/3.5 and it is quite nice; I gather the 28/2.8 is even better though not by much. Have you considered the 24/2.8? I paid 120 bucks for mine and it is wonderful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I have the 28/3.5 and it is quite nice; I gather the 28/2.8 is even better though not by much. i saw that later on but for fairly expensive (something like $160 was all i saw) and I came across a 28mm f/2.8 for $90 and had a hard time turning that down. I do appreciate the thought though 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
My dad lent me a large sum of cash that I'm returning to him and he told me to buy myself a telephoto lens with some of it  Currently I shoot primarily with a Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 lens that works great but I frequently find myself desiring a telephoto when shooting nature or candid stuff. Should also mention I have a D7000. Can anyone recommend a telephoto <1k? I'd rather not spend all his money  I also need to get a couple filters such as a ND, is there a goon favorite?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
Nikkor 80-200/2.8 is pretty good. Kinda depends on the range you'd like, and whether you want to stay at 2.8.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
For range I guess I was thinking about 200-300, staying at 2.8 isn't critical but would be convenient. A friend of mine has a 300 range lens that I may borrow to decide which I want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
I picked up a wierd old Cosina (Vivitar branded) AF 70-210mm f/2.8-4 the other day for $50. Not the sharpest lens in the world but it focuses very close. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
You can do cheaper than the 80-200 2.8 but realistically speaking you'll probably want the ability to shoot at 2.8 when the light calls for it, and the luxury to stop down to f/4 to get a sharper image depending on the situation. Something you probably wouldn't get with the older 70-200/210 f/4 Nikkors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
The 70-210 f/4 is surprisingly good wide open, but the AF is pretty slow (even by screw drive AF standards). Still a really great bargain at under $200 IMO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Yah, you have a few options at under $1k, depending exactly how much you want to spend. The 80-200 f2.8 push-pull zoom is about $400 on KEH, and as far as I know is has the same optics as the 2 ring version that came out later. The differences are the zoom style, the 2 ring has faster AF, and it costs more like $7-800. There is also the old screw drive AF 300mm f4. It's super sharp even wide open. KEH doesn't have any right now, but I remember it being around $5-600. There's obviously a bunch of consumer zooms as well. Nikon's 70-300mm VR and Tamron's 70-300 VC are both really sharp, but slower-you won't want to use these indoors, unlike the 80-200. You could also consider a used Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3; it's huge, has no stabilization and requires bright, direct sunlight on the subject, but it is sharp at around f9. The Sigma will have a pretty rough learning curve, though. After having mine for a couple of years, I really love it. It's around $600 used. While we're on the subject of big, heavy telephotos, the old manual focus 300 f2.8 lenses are well under $1k at KEH, when they have them. They are massive and heavy and manual focus, but really sharp, and work great with teleconverters. I'm guessing it's not what you're after, but you never know. You would want to own a solid tripod before buying one of these. I'd suggest the 80-200 push-pull or the 300 f4 prime, depending on what you want to shoot with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
The af-s 80-200mm f/2.8 is also available under $1k in places. It is supposed to be a little sharper and faster focusing than the AF-D ones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 19:37
|
|
