|
Yeah, not to say that cheap wireless triggers aren't perfectly fine for a lot of photographers. I used a set of chinese ebay radio triggers for a few years at weddings and never had an issue. I did have to tape the battery doors shut and in one case modify a battery door so that it would work at all. Not once did I feel let down by them, if my flash miss fired once or twice a night it wasn't a big deal. If you are shooting all day with flash or on a big production where even a small delay to troubleshoot trigger will gently caress up your schedule then Pocketwizards are cheap at any price.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 12:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Is there something like this, about an inch / inch and a half: tapped as a regular tripod sized screw hole on the bottom and a regular tripod threaded screw on top that I can buy online somewhere? I just got a cheap Orbis ringflash and bracket, but the bracket isn't long enough at full stretch to take a 580EXII and a Flash Trigger and still mount up to a 50D with grip - putting the widget between the flash trigger and the bracket should sort me out. It just fits gripless, but I need my portrait shutter button and double battery power, dammit 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Is there something like this, about an inch / inch and a half: http://www.ebay.com/itm/MINI-TRIPOD-EXTENSION-EXTENDER-TUBE-1-4-20-THREAD-CCTV-/350276510631 That should work, no idea if you can find them cheaper some place else though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
Many of the cheaper triggers use lovely frequencies because the chips are cheaper. RadioPoppers, for example, are great little triggers until they don't work because they're on the 900MHz ISM band with half the rest of the wireless-everything universe. (And they're now ridiculously overpriced—they were designed to be a cheaper PocketWizard competitor, but their current price is $40 more than a more featureful, more reliable, less ugly/flimsy PocketWizard Plus III.) And then you have the nutbars at Phottix, who are now shipping, against all sanity, a 2.4GHz trigger. Then there are the 433MHz triggers like your Cowboy Studio triggers, which will generally work fine because they're terribly illegal in the US and transmitting on a restricted frequency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:Then there are the 433MHz triggers like your Cowboy Studio triggers, which will generally work fine because they're terribly illegal in the US and transmitting on a restricted frequency. This explains why my ebay triggers never seemed to have any interference problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
Anyone interested BuyDig has the Rokinon 35mm F1.4 for $369 Free shipping
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:http://www.ebay.com/itm/MINI-TRIPOD-EXTENSION-EXTENDER-TUBE-1-4-20-THREAD-CCTV-/350276510631 thankyou, but; lol I am a dumb who tries new kit while half-asleep; all screws together fine:  PLUS!! I never knew until today there was a little hidey-slot for your battery door on the side of the grip to stop you from losing it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:thankyou, but; lol I am a dumb who tries new kit while half-
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
Quite the setup there. Does enough light make it to the top of the dish to actually reflect out in a meaningful way? Or does it not really matter because the light is diffused evenly enough around the rest of the dish? Edit - typo Bob Socko fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Dec 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:No one ever reads the instruction manual these days, especially for something presumably so simple as a grip. Mine didn't come with one 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:Quote the setup there. Does enough light make it to the top of the dish to actually reflect out in a meaningful way? Or does it not really matter because the light is diffused evenly enough around the rest of the dish? I doubt it has nearly the poke of a proper 'real' ringflash like the AlienBee ABR800, but it seems to put out enough light for head & shoulders shots at 2.8|iso100|1/250th... I really bought it just to try it as some softer on-axis fill flash. Tell you what, it's awkward as hell and heavier than I thought
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Mine didn't come with one
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
Yup, I bought some random chinese grip and it had zero instructions. Instead of instructions they gave me two batteries (this is for a T2i), so I can't really compare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:I doubt it has nearly the poke of a proper 'real' ringflash like the AlienBee ABR800, but it seems to put out enough light for head & shoulders shots at 2.8|iso100|1/250th... I really bought it just to try it as some softer on-axis fill flash. honestly you'd probably just be better with a speedlite and a bracket. I've shot great portraits with that set up. Ringflashes just have a huge gap between the dabbling and the serious business stuff. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Ringflashes just have a huge gap between the dabbling and the serious business stuff. The Orbis ain't bad, honestly. It's not a proper ring head on a decent pack but it's pretty well designed and gets reasonable results even before you figure the cost into things. It does eat up a bunch of light and it's awkward as hell to use. I'd put it head and shoulders above the $400 ABR800, which has such a hosed overall design that its light has a really grotesque character and often looks nothing like a ringlight should. But yeah, there's not much middle ground between plastic hotshoe contraptions and ~$3K for the cheapest head+pack combination.
Molten Llama fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Dec 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
prob the best way is a elinchrom ringflash eco and a quadra pack. but that's a grand
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:reliability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Is there such a thing as a contrast-reducing filter, for capturing high-contrast scenes? If not, would it be possible to make?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 11:45
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Is there such a thing as a contrast-reducing filter, for capturing high-contrast scenes? If not, would it be possible to make? It's not a straight "reduce contrast" filter but Fog Filters produce an effect that reduces contrast a lot. Vincent Peters uses them a lot in his work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 11:51
|
|
|
Info starting to trickle out about the Sigma 35 1.4. Seems like a good lens. Still no autofocus info though which is my make or break feature for a fast prime. I don't care how sharp it is in the corners wide open!! http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Is there such a thing as a contrast-reducing filter, for capturing high-contrast scenes? If not, would it be possible to make?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Speaking of grips upthread, is there any difference between the official canon ones and something like a pixel? They can't have that much technology inside them and the rest is just asthetics and ergonomics, right? I've got a canon grip on my 50D, but if I buy a 5DIII in the new year I'll be on the bleeding edge of my budget with the body and a 24-70 2.8 II - even saving a hundo will help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
the official canon grips are magnesium alloy coated with plastic like the cameras themselves. The third party grips are basically plastic with some metal furniture. I'm sort of considering a 3rd party grip for my 5d3 as I'm not sure if I'll be using it enough to justify spending the extra moonbux on the first party Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
In what situations would you use one? Just really long shoots?
Bob Mundon fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Dec 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:In what situations would you use one? Just really long shoots? I think it's personal preference, really. I've always had one on my 5DII but i'm weird and am most comfortable with big clunky equipment. It also provides balance for bigger lenses
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
I think gripped bodies feel more comfortable to hold, even if they're marginally heavier. They're also great if you do a lot of vertical compositions, since you have access to the shutter release and a few command dials/buttons on the grip.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
I'm looking to get a macro lens for my 450D so I'll be able to take detailed closeups of purty flowers, human eyes, insects, etc. Got the Tamron 17-50, Sigma 8-16, Canon 55-200 and Canon 50mm 1.8 from before. Anyone have any recommendations? I'm looking to spend around 800 to 1000$. Preferably closer to the former, unless there is a huge gap in quality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 11:58
|
|
|
Noia posted:I'm looking to get a macro lens for my 450D so I'll be able to take detailed closeups of purty flowers, human eyes, insects, etc. The non L Canon 100mm f2.8.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 12:04
|
|
|
Wyeth posted:Info starting to trickle out about the Sigma 35 1.4. Seems like a good lens. Still no autofocus info though which is my make or break feature for a fast prime. I don't care how sharp it is in the corners wide open!! Some folks on POTN have said it's accurate. Even if it isn't, you have your camera's MF adjustment, plus the user can make autofocus adjustments directly on the lens using some sort of lens cradle and software supplied by Sigma. They seem to have learned their lesson with previous lenses, and the Sigma 85 1.4 is a winner by all accounts (AF included), so I would bet that the 35 1.4 will be too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:The non L Canon 100mm f2.8. I'll even go forward and say the non-L, non-USM 100mm macro. Can be had for $250 when they pop up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 14:20
|
|
|
the non-L 100mm /2.8 is great. You'll be able to get a nice flash and bracket with that too, some extension tubes for super-close-ups, and maybe even a worthwile tripod. For your price range you could afford a 100/2.8 L, or maybe even the fancy bellows lens (MPE-65), but those probably aren't worth getting unless you also plan to use your lens for long portraits (for the former) or are really getting into super close up studio macro work (the latter). Are 100/2.8 non-L's really going for only $250? I might be selling mine soon, and I thought they'd go for at least $300.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Are 100/2.8 non-L's really going for only $250? I might be selling mine soon, and I thought they'd go for at least $300. There are non-USM 100mm F/2.8 Macro lenses, USM 100mm F/2.8 Macro lenses, and the USM 100mm F?2.8L IS Macro lenses. The non-L, non-USM 100mm macros generally got for about $300ish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
Whats the performance on an Eye-Fi card? Could it keep up on RAW (5D III) files if I were to direct connect to a laptop? Or is it more for sending pics to my phone in JPG so I can Instagram?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 22:19
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Whats the performance on an Eye-Fi card? Could it keep up on RAW (5D III) files if I were to direct connect to a laptop? Or is it more for sending pics to my phone in JPG so I can Instagram? I have an older eye-fi card I think (JPEG only) but definitely the latter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
What's the general opinion here regarding Rokinon/Samyang lenses?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
Im That One Guy posted:What's the general opinion here regarding Rokinon/Samyang lenses? Good optics for the price. Downside being fully manual -- focus and aperture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
Im That One Guy posted:What's the general opinion here regarding Rokinon/Samyang lenses? It depends on the lens. The 85mm f/1.4 is OK. The 35mm f/1.4 is great, beats the Nikon and Canon 35/1.4s. The 24/1.4 equals the Canon/Nikon counterparts. Quality control seems to be a little on the hit-or-miss side, but not terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
Samyang also makes a 14mm f/2.8, which has some complex distortion but is otherwise great - bad for architecture, good for landscapes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Yah, I own the 85 and have no complaints, although I have no other 85s to compare it to. I'm perfectly happy using it wide open, as long as I get the focus right. I was initially kind of disappointed with it, but that turned out to be my focus technique (what a surprise); it's definitely a sharp lens. I've also used the 14 a bit, and sometimes you have to be careful with the distortion, like you definitely want to avoid putting the horizon near the top or bottom, or you have to fix it in post. It also has an odd quality control problem in that in many copies have something misaligned, so the focus scale is inaccurate. The result is that you lose some of the close focus range, although on such a wide lens that rarely matters. It's supposed to be pretty easy to fix, too. You can't really go wrong with them if you want a cheap manual focus lens. The 24mm probably gets the worst reviews, and I'm guessing the higher price on it is partly to blame there. The 35 is supposed to be ridiculously sharp, beating all the expensive AF primes. You can get them chipped for Nikon, so you get all the auto functions except focus, which is nice. I don't know about Canon. They've also announced a 10mm crop lens, and a 24mm tilt/shift, which is super exciting, although the latter might end up being pretty expensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Alright, so I'm still a hobby photographer but my current "zoom" lens (an EF 75-300mm USM III non IS) is just terrible for well, basically anything. I'm looking into finally getting some of that sweet, sweet "L" glass but I wanted to know if there was anything else comparable to it in the 3rd party sector first? I'm really leaning towards a Canon 70-200mm f/4L but before I drop a fairly decent amount of cash, I wanted to get a consensus. Also, if I do go with the Canon 70-200mm, is the IS really worth the extra money? I would also consider possibly going to 300mm as well but after looking back at most of the photos, very few are over 200mm. Right now, I have: -Canon T2i (so APS-C crop) -Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 -a few nice, quick primes: Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and Canon 50mm f/1.8 -2 crappy zoom lenses: (the 75-300mm) and an EF 80-200mm($200 price point). I'm really just looking for something I can use outside in the day which I'm guessing the f/4 should be fine for. Lemme just give a real example of exactly what I'd be using it for. The other week I was on vacation and my niece and nephew were running around outside at the park kicking a ball around. Then, a few days later, I was at the zoo trying to photograph animals. Then we were at the beach and I was photographing the family and some surfing. Occasionally, I like to spot aircraft as well. Also, since I work in live sound, I'm at a bunch of concerts and festivals and it would also be nice to have some "reach" to the stage. These are a bit more tricky and I can see where having f/2.8 would come in handy when they're occurring later in the day or even large, indoor arenas and theaters. This is really last on the list of priorities as all too often, I'm just plain busy, lazy or don't want to haul expensive camera gear for it to get lost, stolen or broken. I'd really like to keep this all under $1000. $500-$700 would be ideal. i am kiss u now fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 06:23
|
|
