|
Fuzzy Pipe Wrench posted:For a novice photographer who isn't wanting to get into photography so much as use it to enable studying wildlife would you guys suggest just a P&S or some sort of SLR? Keep in mind in this case durability/ruggedness/water resistance is a huge plus because the stuff that's going to be studied will frequently be found in the middle of swamps and bogs. Also the budget is extremely limited of course. So it'd be cool to have suggestions of what to save up towards as well as an entry-level that I might be able to get quickly. There are some solid waterproof Fuji cameras that run around $125-150 if you need to get up and rolling with something basic. Outside of that, the Olympus Tough series are very rugged. Earlier models (lens in corner of camera) don't have the best lenses but they work fine and should be about $150-200. The drat things actually "close" by covering the lens area with a small metal sheet. The newer Tough TG-1 has a great f/2.0 lens on the wide end and is built like a tank. Runs $350 new. I absolutely love mine. DJExile fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Aug 29, 2012 |
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
DJExile posted:There are some solid waterproof Fuji cameras that run around $125-150 if you need to get up and rolling with something basic. Outside of that, the Olympus Tough series are very rugged. Earlier models (lens in corner of camera) don't have the best lenses but they work fine and should be about $150-200. The drat things actually "close" by covering the lens area with a small metal sheet. The newer Tough TG-1 has a great f/2.0 lens on the wide end and is built like a tank. Runs $350 new. I absolutely love mine. Awesome, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:So I asked this in the general questions thread, but this thread is probably better for it. I think I mentioned this in another thread but I myself happen to have been jonesing to find a new home for my RB67 and you've finally convinced me to take a couple minutes to get some photos. I just took it out of its box so I haven't taken time to clean and dust it. Everything is pretty pristine save for the prism and maybe the polaroid back but even that is just cosmetic. Everything works really well. Kit consists of: -RB67 ProSD Body -90mm K/L Lens -120 67 SD Back -120 645 SD Back w/ mask -Polaroid Back -Left Handed Grip -Waist Level Finder -Unmetered Prism Finder (Used to be metered but I bought it missing some parts so it became unmetered) Excuse the iffy lighting and terrible color balance, I just started playing with flash:   I decided to get a Sekonic L-208 Twinmate, it's small and comes with a hotshoe mount which lets me mount it to the hand grip. I can take another photo of my "walkaround" setup if you're interested. That particular meter is simple, cheap and has served me well for negatives. If you're shooting slides you might want to be wary of your surroundings and compensate your exposure in tricky lighting situations but that's just how slides go, negatives are much more forgiving and this meter does the job. Since you played with one you've probably noticed that there's a slight but noticeable shutter lag to be aware of, especially when you're shooting people or subjects in motion. I've used mine primarily for shooting abandoned buildings and other things that typically sit still so it hasn't been an issue for me. While you can walk around a crowd and shoot freehand, it's intended to be a studio camera and so it can be a bit cumbersome. It's still fun to walk around with it but I'd recommend using the strap around your neck for support and if you imagine the prism as being a glob of glass the size of your fist you can imagine how much extra weight it adds to the already hefty camera. All that mass keeps things steady though so there's not much of a mirror slap to speak of. It's a great kit and I know the market has kind of dropped out for the RB67 (I definitely wouldn't be spending $700 on one) but on the other hand I'm not necessarily desperate for cash so I'm not going to just give it away. I love the thing but I just don't use it as often as I'd like. The glass is excellent and it's always fun to shoot 67 slides but I'd honestly rather scale things down since I can currently only enlarge prints up to 6x6. You're more than welcome to PM me if you're interested. I'll be out of town for the next week and a half or so and I'll be sitting on it until then when I can make a proper post in the Buy/Sell thread. If you have any other questions I'd be happy to answer them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
Guys, I have a question to ask that has been asked a million times before. What tripod? My budget is $150. I have an E-M5 and an A65, the latter mostly has a 16-50 but may occasionally see a larger telephoto. I want something under 5 lbs with friction ball head, collapses to under 24", and I don't care if it's new or used. I bought a 717A (chinese, Weifeng or Fancier brand) but it's too freaking huge. Smaller is better, but no more than four sections and it's gotta reach 5 feet. Random Task fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Aug 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 07:37
|
|
|
I've owned a Canon Rebel XT for a year now, and I've become fairly decent at shooting in manual mode with my 18-55 (non IS) kit lens. For one of my jobs, I need to frequently take photos of cans. I'm looking for an affordable lens which can take nice photos of said cans in various settings. Which kind of lens should I be looking for? Here are some photos that I've taken recently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
Just off the top of my head, something like the 85L or 135L would be decent for portrait-style or tight product shots with a soft background. Alternately the regular 85mm f/1.8 if the 1.2 L is too pricey. Or really maybe just the $100 50mm f/1.8 II. It's a toss up in my mind. I'd personally go for the 85L if I had a good budget, 85 1.8 if I didn't. Also perhaps invest some money in a lightbox and small light setup. It's a pretty easy DIY and great for product photography. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Sep 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Just off the top of my head, something like the 85L or 135L would be decent for portrait-style or tight product shots with a soft background. The regular 85mm is really underrated, the opticals are loving fantastic. who needs 1.2 anyways. or, for your crop sensor you might want the 50mm 1.4
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Just off the top of my head, something like the 85L or 135L would be decent for portrait-style or tight product shots with a soft background. Thanks for the info. I'm leaning towards the 85mm f/1.8 right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Supersonic posted:Thanks for the info. I'm leaning towards the 85mm f/1.8 right now. It really is an awesome lens. One of my favourites. I'd invest the extra money you'd save into a half decent lighting setup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
Not to mention that 85mm on a 1.6 Canon crop will give you an effective 135mm equivalent, which I think is like the best portrait length 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Supersonic posted:I've owned a Canon Rebel XT for a year now, and I've become fairly decent at shooting in manual mode with my 18-55 (non IS) kit lens. For one of my jobs, I need to frequently take photos of cans. I'm looking for an affordable lens which can take nice photos of said cans in various settings. Which kind of lens should I be looking for? Keep in mind that the 85s have a relatively long minimum focusing distance, which may come into play when doing product shots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
Anyone use old FD lenses with their EOS type canon DSLRs? I'm seeing that there are a few types of FD to EOS adapters and I'm curious what people's experiences with them are like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:Anyone use old FD lenses with their EOS type canon DSLRs? I'm seeing that there are a few types of FD to EOS adapters and I'm curious what people's experiences with them are like. Not good, they either use an adapter with no glass which screws with the focus distance, or glass which screws with the quality of the lens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Keep in mind that the 85s have a relatively long minimum focusing distance, which may come into play when doing product shots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:Anyone use old FD lenses with their EOS type canon DSLRs? I'm seeing that there are a few types of FD to EOS adapters and I'm curious what people's experiences with them are like. I tried a K-mount adapter, it made the pictures significantly less sharp, probably more prone to flaring, and it had some very severe issues with apertures wider than about f/2.8 where it looked like you smeared half a gallon of vaseline on the lens. I actually used that effect when shooting a concert video, but it's not exactly good for stills. TL;DR: Buy a EVIL camera if you want to shoot FD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice guys. Not sure if I'll get it or not but one of the lenses is 28mm f/2.8 and I need a wide angle lens... I might just put that 30 or so bucks to an EF lens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 04:52
|
|
|
28mm is not wide at all on a crop sensor, so keep that in mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
Yeah 28 is a normal on canon aps-c
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
So something more like 15mm would work well for wide angle on APS-C? Thanks for the advice! Also I found out these FD lenses are fantastic macro lenses when held up in front of my T2i body. GoldenNugget fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Sep 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:So something more like 15mm would work well for wide angle on APS-C? Thanks for the advice! Yeah, I wouldn't do any closer than 17mm. Below that, your view will get almost exponentially wider for every millimeter of focal length that you drop. While changing focal length from 30 to 35mm might not look like much, going from 15mm down to 10mm is a dramatic difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:So something more like 15mm would work well for wide angle on APS-C? Thanks for the advice!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
I have a Pentax 15mm f/4, and it's noticeably wider than a typical kit zoom. I think the sweet spot may be like the Tokina 12-24 zoom or something similar, that would probably cover the entire "usable" range of wide angles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:15 is really wide yes. Do you not have a kit lens? No I only have a 50mm f/1.8. I was told that the kit lens is kind of a waste of space and not terribly good so I'd be better off just getting other lenses. So my parents realize that DSLRs really take some sweet pictures. They also noticed that the 50mm makes the photographer stand really really far away. There's a trip to Taiwan in December and they want me to take pictures. They don't want me to fumble trying to get into the correct position to take pictures so they said they'd buy me a lens. I'm assuming these pictures will be groups of people inside and outdoors. Before this trip I was originally thinking of just sticking with prime lenses because they're cheaper and the quality of the images are better. So getting prime in the wide angle range like around 15-20mm and then another prime for more of a telephoto range. Now that this trip is happening, should I just stick with getting a wide angle prime or go for a zoom lens that goes from around 15mm to 50mm? What is a better investment? I'm thinking that they're willing to spend about 500 bucks on a lens. I'm also new to DSLR photography so I'm not quite sure what I'm going to end up taking pictures of. So far I've been taking outdoor shots of landscapes, nightshots with a tripod, and close up images of small things so a short focusing range could be useful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:No I only have a 50mm f/1.8. I was told that the kit lens is kind of a waste of space and not terribly good so I'd be better off just getting other lenses. Since you're just starting out, you'll want something versatile, that way you're not constantly changing lenses and carrying around a bunch of junk. Tamron 17-50 is $499 on Amazon right now with a $75 off MIR, and everyone here seems to like it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 21:48
|
|
Cutie Pie Swag~
|
Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of wide-angle primes for APS-C DSLRs at this point. If you like primes, a 24mm would be a decent compromise - it gives you a ~35mm equivalent field of view, which is a very popular normal-wide/all-purpose length. But I'd see if I can pair that with a ultra-wide zoom if possible - IMO, a wide zoom, 24, and 50 would be a pretty good kit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
Cute as heck posted:Since you're just starting out, you'll want something versatile, that way you're not constantly changing lenses and carrying around a bunch of junk. Tamron 17-50 is $499 on Amazon right now with a $75 off MIR, and everyone here seems to like it! This is what I'd do. Edit: The less-scrupulous me wants me to tell you I'm selling my Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS in the Buy/Sell thread for $800 pseudonordic fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Sep 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
Reminder that Amazon will start collecting sales tax in 10 days for residents in California. If you're on the fence about a big-ticket lens or body, now's the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
How would that 85mm 1.8 work for outdoor photography and pretty flower pictures? I know a 3 feet minimum focus would be problematic but the extra zoom would be nice in a lot of circumstances. I've been running around with a t2i using just the kit and $100 50mm and having a ball so I'm trying to dip my toes into more expensive waters. That Tamron 17-50 just mentioned is probably a smarter next buy though right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
low-key-taco posted:How would that 85mm 1.8 work for outdoor photography and pretty flower pictures? I know a 3 feet minimum focus would be problematic but the extra zoom would be nice in a lot of circumstances. You would love the 85. Beautiful lens, all the strengths of a good prime lens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
The 85/1.8 is really kinda tight on APS-C but it's optically excellent. With some extension rings you could do basic macro.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
low-key-taco posted:How would that 85mm 1.8 work for outdoor photography and pretty flower pictures? I know a 3 feet minimum focus would be problematic but the extra zoom would be nice in a lot of circumstances. Well the 85mm would be problematic if you are doing landscape and people, especially groups of people. I'm kind of leaning towards the tamrom 17-50mm the more I think of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
low-key-taco posted:How would that 85mm 1.8 work for outdoor photography and pretty flower pictures? I know a 3 feet minimum focus would be problematic but the extra zoom would be nice in a lot of circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 07:29
|
|
|
Are there any big downsides to getting off-brand QR plates and clamps as opposed to RRS / Kirk stuff? I was looking at this clamp and a plate off Amazon and they look to be built similarly to brand ones that are easily double the price.
Lediur fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Sep 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
Lediur posted:Are there any big downsides to getting off-brand QR plates and clamps as opposed to RRS / Kirk stuff? I was looking at this clamp and a plate off Amazon and they look to be built similarly to brand ones that are easily double the price. I have a Desmond brand clamp on my Tiltall and it's rock solid. That plate is a little fiddly though I got sick of having to use a screwdriver to remove it because the built in ring is terrible. I forked over the money for legit Acratech dedicated plates to put on my Hasselblad and Pentax 67 and they are totally worth it to me. The cheaper universal plate may be fine if you don't use the tripod all that often or only have one body though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 10:33
|
|
|
The main thing to be aware of is that if you have a lever clamp (instead of a screw clamp) you'll need to adjust your clamp every time you use a plate that's even slightly different from the others. I have an Arca Swiss brand universal plate that's definitely smaller than my Kirk and RRS plates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 12:01
|
|
|
Lediur posted:Are there any big downsides to getting off-brand QR plates and clamps as opposed to RRS / Kirk stuff? I was looking at this clamp and a plate off Amazon and they look to be built similarly to brand ones that are easily double the price. None that I've found, I have a mix of Markin (head + clamp), Kirk (body specific plate) and 'cheap chinese poo poo from ebay' (clamp & plates), they all work fine, and the chinese clamp is plenty solid (the chinese clamp sits on my X/Y focusing rails). Edit to clarify: My 'cheap chinese clamp' is pretty much identical to that desmond clamp, but without the 'desmond' brand (and it was only £18 or something from hong kong, it's probably the exact same clamp, just pre-'desmond branding'. SybilVimes fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Sep 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 13:57
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:The cheaper universal plate may be fine if you don't use the tripod all that often or only have one body though. Yeah, since I only have a gripped T2i I was planning to get that plate and screw the clamp into my black-rapid strap so I didn't have to disassemble the entire thing every time I wanted to use my tripod.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
I wasnt sure where to ask this, so I'll put it here- I'm looking around for a fan ( "wind machine" ) and I'm having a lot of trouble picking something. The only one that pops up on photo sites is the Bowens Wind Machine that is 1000 dollars (wtf? am I missing something here? ) I was thinking of buying something at home depot, but I'm having trouble finding something. Any recommendations? Suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I wasnt sure where to ask this, so I'll put it here- The Bowens wind machine is garbage, I would suggest going straight to the Profoto Airmax it's about 3,000 but it's worth it. A wind machine is like a good tripod, buy the best one at the start and you won't have to replace it. any regular fan will do fine
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
somnambulist posted:I wasnt sure where to ask this, so I'll put it here- I bet it's all bullshit and the marketing includes the word "buffeting" somehow
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 00:17
|
|