|
somnambulist posted:I was thinking of buying something at home depot, but I'm having trouble finding something. Any recommendations? Suggestions? "High velocity" are the words to look for. If it needs to last, grab a Vornado. If it needs to be cheap, any piece of poo poo Chinese high velocity fan will do (at least until it either quits working or kills you and the model with a rain of shrapnel). If you've got a thousand bucks burning a hole in your pocket, a proper wind machine is rife with improvements you may or may not care about.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
what are you blowing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
I think I desperately want an Epson RD-1 :\
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 05:38
|
|
Cutie Pie Swag~
|
Cute as heck posted:I think I desperately want an Epson RD-1 :\ So buy one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:So buy one. I am  Anyone well versed in M mount lenses? I'm thinking of starting out with a 35 but all this summilux summicron stuff is new to me
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
It's the same mediocre sensor as the D100 fyi.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:It's the same mediocre sensor as the D100 fyi. Yeah but it's such a sweet, unassuming little camera. The faux film advance lever makes me want to hug this adorable little thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
Yeah, the advance lever definitely makes me want one. Also, people seem to think it has better color rendition than the D100, but that shouldn't matter in RAW, right? Might be the different lens selection.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:"High velocity" are the words to look for. If it needs to last, grab a Vornado. If it needs to be cheap, any piece of poo poo Chinese high velocity fan will do (at least until it either quits working or kills you and the model with a rain of shrapnel). Like what exactly? Im really curious, I honestly have no clue
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 09:32
|
|
|
Just a question, what do you gain with a canon 16-35 L over the 17-40L apart from the aperture? I'm think of getting a new lens but don't think the increased speed and maybe minor(?) auto focus would be worth the extra expense at this stage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 09:56
|
|
|
Raikyn posted:Just a question, what do you gain with a canon 16-35 L over the 17-40L apart from the aperture?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 11:33
|
|
|
On a a full frame camera. I've a 10-22 , 17-55 2.8 that I use with my 7d, but the widest I can use in a full frame camera ATM is my 50 1.4
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 11:59
|
|
|
17-40 has horrible corners at the wide end. 16-35 has merely bad corners at the long end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 12:27
|
|
|
Cute as heck posted:I am There are tons more options - the Voigtlander 35/2.5 is highly regarded, as are the Zeiss Biogons. Lots of older LTM lenses too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
Raikyn posted:Just a question, what do you gain with a canon 16-35 L over the 17-40L apart from the aperture? A better question is - what are you using this lens for? Once you stop it down for landscapes (f8, etc.) the lenses are pretty much identical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Summilux just means f/1.4, and Summicron is f/2. Different versions of each lens will have different looks. The older 35mm Summiluxes are probably one of the more notable examples of "leica glow" which is a euphemism for coma/flare. The Voigtlander 35/1.4 has a very similar look (though with more distortion), but costs $1000-1500 less because it isn't a collector's item. Voigtlander 35/1.2 is impressive and well corrected, but it's huge. If you can find one, the old Voigtlander LTM 35/1.7 is a good compromise. that Zeiss is pretty as heck though...
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
I was told that a good beginners lens is an 18-135mm zoom to get a handle of what focal lengths I like shooting at. Is this a good idea? I'm hesitant because I'm not sure how much telephoto I would do and the aperture on the ones in my price range are dynamic. Also read the image quality isn't as great. Or should I just stick with the Tamron 17-50mm?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:I was told that a good beginners lens is an 18-135mm zoom to get a handle of what focal lengths I like shooting at. Is this a good idea? I'm hesitant because I'm not sure how much telephoto I would do and the aperture on the ones in my price range are dynamic. Also read the image quality isn't as great. Look at the title of the thread. Pause. Answer your own question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:I was told that a good beginners lens is an 18-135mm zoom to get a handle of what focal lengths I like shooting at. Is this a good idea? I'm hesitant because I'm not sure how much telephoto I would do and the aperture on the ones in my price range are dynamic. Also read the image quality isn't as great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:Stick with the Tamron 17-50mm. If you find yourself at 50mm a lot and keep having to zoom with your feet, consider picking up a Tamron 55-200mm f/4-5.6, as it's cheap and has great optics. Unless you're doing all your shooting at f/8 or f/11, these two lenses are going to have better image quality than a travel zoom like an 18-135mm. Thanks! I'll stick with the 17-50mm then!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:A better question is - what are you using this lens for? Once you stop it down for landscapes (f8, etc.) the lenses are pretty much identical. Probably 90% landscapes or similar, any stuff I do at night tends to be longer exposures on a tripod as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 11:04
|
|
|
If you want to experiment with different focal lengths, there are a number of good lens rental companies out there where you can get different things for a few days to see what you like. Travel zooms that cover huge ranges (like that 18-135) are often low-to-mediocre quality, and usually very rough on the long end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 12:38
|
|
|
DJExile posted:If you want to experiment with different focal lengths, there are a number of good lens rental companies out there where you can get different things for a few days to see what you like. Travel zooms that cover huge ranges (like that 18-135) are often low-to-mediocre quality, and usually very rough on the long end. They're usually pretty bad at both ends unfortunately. You give up so much when you have to design an ultrawide and telephoto in one go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
I'm kind of thinking of ditching my Canon 40D. I prefer to shoot manual focus, and I've mostly ended up using alt glass. I'm thinking about switching to something better suited to that. The NEX-5N is pretty sexy, especially since it can mount a fair amount of wonky alt glass that I'd never get infinity with on a DSLR. Focus peaking sounds cool, but I'd have to get used to shooting with no viewfinder ($250 is pretty steep for the EVF). The other direction I could go is to something like a Nikon D200 and throw a manual-focus screen on there. That'd get me access to Nikon's legacy lens library with auto-metering and stopdown, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
I'm looking to grab a good all in one bag for going out on single man shoots (aka when I'm just out in the woods loving around). I'm looking at stuff like the Lowepro Fastpack 350 AW http://www.amazon.com/Lowepro-350-DSLR-Video-Fastpack/dp/B005MYAHJ8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1348198329&sr=8-2&keywords=lowepro+dslr+fastpack Anybody had any experience with that line or something similar?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:I'm looking to grab a good all in one bag for going out on single man shoots (aka when I'm just out in the woods loving around). I have one, it's huge physically, but the top "non-camera" room is surprisingly small/inefficient. If you don't have any large objects that won't fit within it, it's great though! I don't have it here, but I think a 10" netbook barely fits in the upper compartment, either flat against the bottom or flat against the back wall, to give an idea of size. (Not sure if I have the 250 or the 350 or whatever though). Check one out in person before you buy, is my suggestion 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:I'm looking to grab a good all in one bag for going out on single man shoots (aka when I'm just out in the woods loving around). For my hikes and such I prefer the Slingshot 202AW. It only has one strap, but it seems a ton more padded (and wider) than the Fastpack's straps. A lot of Lowepro's stuff is available at Best Buy so it's worth it to swing by one and see how some of your stuff might fit. The 300 series of the Fastpack and Slingshot are huge bags.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 13:57
|
|
|
dorkanoid posted:I have one, it's huge physically, but the top "non-camera" room is surprisingly small/inefficient. If you don't have any large objects that won't fit within it, it's great though! I don't have it here, but I think a 10" netbook barely fits in the upper compartment, either flat against the bottom or flat against the back wall, to give an idea of size. (Not sure if I have the 250 or the 350 or whatever though). That's disconcerting because it clearly suggests it can take a regular sized laptop. DJExile posted:
Ah. Excellent. I didn't know that, but I'll stop by this weekend. Thanks for the info!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 15:01
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:That's disconcerting because it clearly suggests it can take a regular sized laptop. Yeah, you can probably do much better for the price in other places (especially amazon), but it's nice to go in and see how some of your stuff will fit. The staff at the local BBs here have always been fine with me bringing some stuff to test them out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:That's disconcerting because it clearly suggests it can take a regular sized laptop. I should mention that it has a separate laptop compartment that takes a fat 17" laptop no problem. I was just trying to illustrate how tiny the top compartment is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:I'm looking to grab a good all in one bag for going out on single man shoots (aka when I'm just out in the woods loving around). I have one for videography and it's perfect. I have the middle sized one. It holds 3 (+1 on-camera) lenses easily plus my LED panel in the bottom compartment as well as some adapters. In the top I have some things like my 15" rail system and videomic pro. The side has really nice tripod/shoulder rig strap system and the AW versions come with a rain cover that tucks underneath the very bottom so you don't notice it until you need it. The straps are nice, no belt strap but I did a 7 hour shoot downtown where I was on foot the entire time and barely noticed the weight it with all my gear plus my macbook.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 12:23
|
|
|
 Ehehehehehehe  Anyone else in the 2kool klub?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
Cute as heck posted:
plenty of us over here http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3499907 hope you can join us someday
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 08:01
|
|
|
Cute as heck posted:
sweet leica bro
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 07:12
|
|
|
Can you still get film for that thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
Man, I love those Fujis!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Guys idk what the heck i'm doing   Mr. Despair posted:plenty of us over here http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3499907 
Cute as heck fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Sep 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
So I just got a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 for my T2i and I saw that the filter thread size is 67mm. I want to get a marumi circular polarizer but I don't want to keep buying a new polarizer for every lens I end up purchasing. What is a good polarizer size so I can just buy step down rings and save a bit of cash? As of now I have the 50mm f/1.8 (52mm filter thread) and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (67mm thread).
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
72mm is generally the largest size you'll need in my experience and is probably the best. Supposedly a few lenses take an 82mm, and some really old cameras can have funky requirements, but I wouldn't worry about them. Edit: Google brought up this handy chart of Canon lens filter sizes. There seem to be quite a few that use 77mm filters. TheLastManStanding fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Sep 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 06:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:72mm is generally the largest size you'll need in my experience and is probably the best. Supposedly a few lenses take an 82mm, and some really old cameras can have funky requirements, but I wouldn't worry about them. 77mm is the pro filter diameter  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 06:48
|
|
