|
I have no idea, I'm surprised I was able to name it correctly. I think it does have some sick primes available.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
Radbot posted:Just ordered a NEX-5N and I'm really excited - something that'll beat my D300 for image quality and low light shots, *and* I get to use my Grandpa's old Minolta glass with focus peaking? Hell yeah, real steel f/1.4 here I come. And at $478 for the kit, I bet I'll be able to sell it in a year or two for $250 at least, so it's quite a steal! It can do that because the 5N has an APS-C sized sensor in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:It can do that because the 5N has an APS-C sized sensor in it. Hah, true! I guess it's the whole $339 body giving similar IQ to a $900 body thing. Of course, the E mount lenses are a different story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
Cross-post from the landscapes thread: Is it more helpful to have a hard or soft edge for graduated ND filters? Looking at snagging my first set to experiment with, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Can you mount any glass on the x-pro1/e-x1? I was under the impression that there was something with the flange distance which would cause trouble, I've only heard of people mounting M glass. You can mount M, FD, and EF/EF-S (I'm a litte fuzzy on the combination). I've heard that Kipon has an adapter out or planned with an adjustable iris for EOS lenses but I don't know anything further.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Cross-post from the landscapes thread: Soft edge (probably), it will depend on what you shoot. Hard edge grads are great for stuff where there is a clear sky transition, like shooting out over water. Soft edege stuff is for when things might be sticking up into the sky, such as buildings and trees. This is just a general rule so your mileage may vary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Is it more helpful to have a hard or soft edge for graduated ND filters? Looking at snagging my first set to experiment with, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 12:23
|
|
|
They both serve their purpose. What I like about hard edge 4x6 filters is that you can use them as solid ND filters, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Holy smokes, I just found out about the new Sigma 35/1.4. It's only $899 and from the initial photos it seems like it's just as good if not better than the 35L. drat.. if I could start over that with a D600 and the Nikkor 85/1.8 would be a siiick setup.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Soft edge (probably), it will depend on what you shoot. Hard edge grads are great for stuff where there is a clear sky transition, like shooting out over water. Soft edege stuff is for when things might be sticking up into the sky, such as buildings and trees. This is just a general rule so your mileage may vary. evil_bunnY posted:Soft, but unless you use square filters you'll probably be better off bracketing. TheAngryDrunk posted:They both serve their purpose. What I like about hard edge 4x6 filters is that you can use them as solid ND filters, too. Thanks again!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Thanks for the feedback. I caved and bought both the hard and soft edge sets from Lee. I also snagged a Big Stopper to play around with. May I ask where you bought these from? I haven't been able to find all of these in-stock, especially the Big Stopper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Bunch of shots wide open with the new Sigma 35/1.4 http://lcap.tistory.com/archive/20121117 If the corners are this good imma get one of these.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 13:25
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Bunch of shots wide open with the new Sigma 35/1.4 Canon and Nikon are getting seriously outclassed in the fast-FF-35/1.4 market. Samyang's got one that beats them at 1/3 their price, and now Sigma's got one with AF that beats them at 2/3 their price. Time to bring the A-game, drop their price to $900 and bring out a 35/1.2L at the $1500 price point  e: Actually it would have to be cheaper than $900 since that's the Sigma's price point and the Sigma is straight up better plus includes things like setting the lens's micro-AF adjustment. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Danoss posted:May I ask where you bought these from? I haven't been able to find all of these in-stock, especially the Big Stopper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Since I got my 5n I've been looking for manual lenses. What are some decent ones that haven't been overhyped and price inflated by ebay users?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
You can stick pretty much anything on there with an adapter, but I've heard good things about old soviet lenses using an M39 to NEX adapter. I can't wait to get my NEX so I can try. I mean it depends entirely on the lens too. There are some good Russian lenses and there is poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
Is a 5n a NEX? That's Sony, isn't it? If it can take a wide range of old glass, Minolta MD-mount is still pretty cheap, and they had some gems back in the day. Any of their ROKKOR line of primes (especially the 50mm f/1.7) are great, and their 70-210mm f/4 telezoom (usually under the name "Minolta", or a third-party probably-patent-violating name like "Magnicon") is the precursor to the much loved, AF "Beercan"; I suspect it has either the exact same or very, very similar lens design/layout. You could probably pick up a set that includes a wide (e.g. 28/2.8), a normal, and a telezoom for under $150 total, probably including an old Minolta manual-focus body like an X700, XG, or something like it. If Minolta MD won't work, Vivitar Series 1 was quite good in the early-to-mid 1980's. They squandered their brand with later stupid decisions and utter garbage (eBay searches will return many of those lovely "wide angle lens" adaptors that screw onto a filter thread and ruin your image quality), but in the early days they were competitive with the main manufacturers. Especially well regarded is the 70-210mm f/2.8-4 - you want versions 1, 2, or 3, later ones aren't as sharp and suffered from some gimmicky add-ons. Other lenses wearing the "Series 1" label, mostly zooms, are also pretty good, and tend not to be horribly expensive. I have a Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 macro, which *wasn't* super cheap, and it is excellent. The 90mm, which doesn't go to 1:1 but can do 1:2, is less expensive and very well reviewed. About $200, I think. Canon FD-mount is also cheap and plentiful. There's a ton of it out there - Canon sold several million A-series cameras in the mid-1980s - and most people aren't aware of or aren't willing to buy the adaptors needed to put that breech-mount onto a modern camera. Konica AR is similar, if less abundant. Lots of it out there, mostly in the hands (attics, closets, basements) of people who don't know what to do with Grandad's old camera. Search engines built into sites like Gumtree and Kijiji (and I assume Craigslist, though I don't know), and eBay have trouble with the corporate shuffling that happened, so it takes a bit of savvy to dig up some of these lenses - search for "Minolta" and it will often "helpfully" suggest "Konica-Minolta" because Konica bought Minolta in the 90's, but then sold the camera side of the business to Sony. Most non-photographers, trying to unload a relative's old camera, won't be able to distinguish between, say, Canon FD and Canon EF; half the time you'll be trying to interpret statements like "Cannon 52mm lense and camera takes good pics NOT DIGITAL also fimlm" As far as I can tell, every camera lens manufacturer in the late manual-focus era (circa 1980-1986 or so) made a core set of lenses (maximum aperture will vary a bit): Primes - 50mm f/1.7 or 1.8; 35/2.8; 28/2.8; 85/1.8; 135/3.5 Zooms - 28-80; 35-70; 70-210 (all at not-too-special variable maximum apertures of around 3.5-5.6, though the telezoom usually comes in at f/4 even at the long end). Plus a few macro lenses (28, 50, and/or 90mm) and superteles (400mm f/5.6 manual focus are cheap and plentiful). Fake edit: Plus the Russians, like Martytoof said. If you can get a M42-to-NEX adaptor, you open up a huge world of weird, cheap, sometimes shabby, sometimes brilliant Soviet glass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
I think the NEX is its own mount so you can't throw Minolta glass on there, but admittedly I haven't doublechecked this fact. Even by opening a new tab in Chrome and googling it. I mean I could have checked in the time it took me to post this caveat but here I am still typing and not checking! Oh well!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I think the NEX is its own mount so you can't throw Minolta glass on there, but admittedly I haven't doublechecked this fact. Even by opening a new tab in Chrome and googling it. I mean I could have checked in the time it took me to post this caveat but here I am still typing and not checking! Oh well! It's all about adapters man. -posted from a hockey game
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
Pentax glass is probably the best bang for the buck because it's so common plus there are bazillions of third-party K-mount lenses out there. I'd stay away from the old Russian M39 glass because it's not as good as your typical multicoated Japanese SLR glass plus minimum focus distances are usually poor with rangefinder lenses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
HPL posted:Pentax glass is probably the best bang for the buck because it's so common plus there are bazillions of third-party K-mount lenses out there. I'd stay away from the old Russian M39 glass because it's not as good as your typical multicoated Japanese SLR glass plus minimum focus distances are usually poor with rangefinder lenses. M39... First off, M39 is not always rangefinder glass. There were SLRs using M39 (i.e. 39mm diameter thread), and some great commie lenses like the Helios 85/1.5 can be found in that mount. No clue if adapters for those to NEX are available, but I recall having to use M39->M42->EF adapters on Canon some time back. The more common M39 is rangefinder mount, but there you have some, uh, local dialects if you wish. Leica used a 26 threads per inch 39mm diameter version, while the russians (FED for instance) used a 1mm thread pitch, which was slightly off and can potentially cause some troubles. Then there was Canon using a 24 threads per inch mount, further adding to the confusion. As for Pentax, the best bang for the buck is to be found in M42 mount (thankfully this one is standardized if you do not consider the Tamron T-mount). There are tons of great lenses in M42, not only Pentax.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:[T]heir 70-210mm f/4 telezoom (usually under the name "Minolta", or a third-party probably-patent-violating name like "Magnicon") is the precursor to the much loved, AF "Beercan"; I suspect it has either the exact same or very, very similar lens design/layout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
Anyone have experience with the Phottix Odin's? Thinking about asking for a set for Christmas as I venture forth into paid photography land.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
Munkaboo posted:Anyone have experience with the Phottix Odin's? Thinking about asking for a set for Christmas as I venture forth into paid photography land.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
HPL posted:If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's to never ask for specific technical things for Christmas because you'll almost always end up with the wrong kind. And the awkward awkward silence where you have to pretend that, yes in fact the 3 megapixel Coby webcam from Walgreens is exactly what you wanted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
HPL posted:If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's to never ask for specific technical things for Christmas because you'll almost always end up with the wrong kind. Except for when I order it myself and ship it to my parent's house 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
In my experience, if you want to experiment with vintage glass on a mirrorless system, Minolta MC/MD is the way to go in terms of bang for the buck. KEH routinely has Minolta glass cheaper than any other system (Pentax, Olympus, etc. included) for comparable lenses. ExecuDork is right on the mark recommending Vivitar Series 1 glass as well - my Vivitar S1 70-210mm f/3.5 cost about $50! Try getting a zoom lens that fast and sharp for anywhere near that price.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
I have a probably dumb question about ND filters. In response to the OP's advice:OP posted:The solution is the Neutral Density Filter. The light reducing property of an ND Filter goes by powers of two, with each power being another stop of light reduction. 2x is one stop, 4x is two stops, 8x is three stops, and so on. Generally, you can't go wrong with B+W filters, but the quality is reflected in the price. I don't know if there are any cheaper ones that are good but still worth the price. Same goes for ND Filters as polarizers, get one to fit your biggest lens and step down rings to adapt to others. I guess I get a little confused with the terminology. A 'step up' ring refers to a smaller diameter lens being 'stepped up' to fit the filter diameter. Meanwhile a 'step down' ring refers to a larger diameter lens being stepped down to accommodate a smaller diameter filter. It seems to me that having a 55 mm filter adapted to a 72mm lens wouldn't be ideal, wouldn't the filter's glass area not be large enough to cover the full lens area? If I have lenses with diameter 72 mm, 62mm and 55mm, my best bet would be to buy a 72mm ND filter and then buy some step up rings that would then adapt a 62mm lens to a 72mm filter(a 62-72 step up ring), and then a 55-72mm step up correct? Maybe in photo lingo 'step down' is used universally to describe adapting filters to lenses, otherwise that's probably just a typo in the OP that's throwing me off. Oh, and while we are on the topic, I should be good with a 3-stop ND filter like this right? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/146977-REG/Hoya_A72ND8X_72mm_Neutral_Density_NDX8.html And should I just buy the cheapest step up rings?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
DoctaFun posted:I have a probably dumb question about ND filters. In response to the OP's advice: You're thinking the right thing, just in reverse Think of it this way: a step up or step down ring is referring to the filter in terms of if it needs to stepped up or down. ..That sounds weird typed out, but it's the filter that you are adapting to the lens, not the other way around, at least in the eyes of the terminology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
kahm posted:You're thinking the right thing, just in reverse Thanks for the help, so this product here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/98916-REG/General_Brand_58_52_58mm_52mm_Step_Down_Ring_Lens.html Even though it says 58mm-52mm Step Down Ring(Lens to filter), this is actually used to make a 58mm filter fit a 52mm lens? I guess I thought the part in parenthesis was in order with the diameter measurements listed, ie: 58mm = lens diameter and 52mm = filter diameter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
DoctaFun posted:Thanks for the help, so this product here: You've still got it backwards, and the terms in ()s do match the diameters. You're starting from a big size (58mm), and you're stepping DOWN to a smaller size (52mm). So for that step down ring you link, the key is that you're stepping DOWN from a 58mm filter thread to a 52mm filter thread, i.e. you can fit a 52mm lens filter onto a lens that would normally accept a 58mm filter size. A step UP ring would read something like 52mm-58mm What you should do is just buy these http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Anod...step+down+rings and http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Anod...step+down+rings You'll have basically every step up/step down combo you could ever need for not much more than buying just one or two rings separately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:You've still got it backwards, and the terms in ()s do match the diameters. You're starting from a big size (58mm), and you're stepping DOWN to a smaller size (52mm). Thanks for the links, I was hoping to find something like that. As for your other comments, I think that's exactly what I was saying in my first post. If I were to buy a filter with thread size 77mm, and all my lenses have thread sizes smaller than that(ie:62mm,58mm) I'd want to buy step-up rings for them like this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/809630-REG/Sensei_sur5877_58_77mm_Step_Up_Ring.html BH posted:The Sensei 58-77mm Step-Up Ring is a step-up ring permitting the use of 77mm threaded filters on a 58mm threaded lens. This black anodized metal ring provides a durable solution for using one size of filters with various sized lenses. I would be looking to buy a filter of 72mm to match my largest diameter lens, and then I'd want some rings to adapt that to a 62mm and 55mm lens, which means I'd want some step up rings, not step down rings. I think I'll just buy the things you linked though, so I guess it doesn't really matter .
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
DoctaFun posted:If I were to buy a filter with thread size 77mm, and all my lenses have thread sizes smaller than that(ie:62mm,58mm) I'd want to buy step-up rings for them like this: Yep, you got it right. You step up to the filter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Don't buy huge filters if you don't need them (or plan to soon need them) because that poo poo's expensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
*Phew*, that was a lot more complicated than it needed to be probably . evil_bunnY posted:Don't buy huge filters if you don't need them (or plan to soon need them) because that poo poo's expensive. I think I am just going to buy a 72mm filter since that's the diameter of my largest lens, I saw a Hoya one on B&H for about $37, that seems pretty not crazy as far as photo stuff goes. It has 3 stops worth of light filtering power, that should be enough for most uses I would think(as I proved earlier that could be dangerous).
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
DoctaFun posted:I think I am just going to buy a 72mm filter since that's the diameter of my largest lens, I saw a Hoya one on B&H for about $37, that seems pretty not crazy as far as photo stuff goes. It has 3 stops worth of light filtering power, that should be enough for most uses I would think(as I proved earlier that could be dangerous). It's $48, and a piece of poo poo. Very few people around here are going to tell you anything other than to buy a Marumi Super DHG, because they're the best on the market and don't cost much more. The plain old DHG are also great, they clock in slightly below B+W and the other 'pro' filters and will be cheaper than the Hoya after you pay for B+H shipping. http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-72mm-Super-Filter-Japan/dp/B003OEJLF4 http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-72mm-DHG-Circular-Polarizer/dp/B000SVXTAO vvv Whoops! 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
Dr is looking for ND filters, not cpls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
Marumi makes a pretty good ND as well, some of the cheaper ones have a pretty bad color cast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me wireless flash triggers? I have nice cheap Cowboy Studio wireless triggers that go with my 285HVs. I have seen things like Pocket Wireless triggers but don't really "get" them. They feature things like insane ranges and continuous drive firing. Is there any reason to jump to them other than that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
reliability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 11:07
|
|