|
I think DJExile was pretty much propping up Olympus' SLR division on his own, so yeah. Their mirrorless bodies own and there's a mirrorless thread I guess!
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
Everything went downhill after the 2nd coming of Pentax, sorry olympusailures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I think DJExile was pretty much propping up Olympus' SLR division on his own, so yeah. yeah, pretty much 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
I bought a Sony A37 and my wife hated it so I sent it back. We have gone back to the drawing board looking for a camera and she saw a commercial for a E-PL5 and now is interested in something smaller and with a touchscreen. I have been reading Understanding Exposure and had a question about the exposure meter in cameras without a viewfinder. Does the exposure level indicator still show up on the LCD screen, and is it still just as usable as a camera with an optical viewfinder?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Modern EVFs are fine, especially compared to cheap SLRs' pentamirrors. The EPL's are good cameras, if you're into the physical format.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
Crosspostin' the awesome $50 body cap lens my sister got me for christmas 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
My friend has a Canon 5D Mark i he might sell. Is this camera still useful compared to anything made today, and would it be worth around $400 if he took my offer?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
Ethanfr0me posted:My friend has a Canon 5D Mark i he might sell. Is this camera still useful compared to anything made today, and would it be worth around $400 if he took my offer? It's worth more than $400 and it still a very good camera. Notable downsides compared to newer generations: slower autofocus, no video, iso maxes out at 1600, and that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
It's still a very good camera yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
You could buy it today for $400 and sell it tomorrow for $600, in my neck of the woods. Go for it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
It's a hell of a camera to start out on. Do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
As others have said, that's a very good deal, and FF cameras have no crop factor which can open up a lot of opportunities for cheap adapted glass. And at that price you could flip it no problem if you didn't like it. However, for the same money you could get a current-gen something like a used NEX-5N or a new Pentax K-01 or Olympus OM-D which will have far superior high-ISO performance (usable at 1600? Try usable at 25,600) as well as video. The NEX series is somewhat limited in terms of available glass, but has great adaptability and a great sensor. The K-01 has one of the best sensors on the market and lately they've been running deals like $316 body-only or $300 body+40mm lens, but the autofocus sucks and the camera is ugly as poo poo. The OM-D is fairly refined and has good, cheap glass selection, but lacks some features for adapting glass and has a higher crop factor than the others. Just food for thought. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Dec 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
Used OM-Ds are already going for less than half price?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 12:55
|
|
|
Picking up a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 tomorrow. Really love the lens and did plenty of reading up after borrowing one from a friend, but I'm thinking I'm probably going to step up to the f3.5. Looks like the 3.5 outperforms the variable f model all across the field but apparently it drops the ball on chromatic aberration - can anyone share a few words on this if you've got experience with these lenses? At this point I'm sold but a little dorkroom wisdom never goes amiss. Also what's the verdict on adapting FD lenses onto EOS D bodies? Anything I should keep in mind? Got offered a load of nice old FD glass cheap as poo poo and I'm willing to give it a go after seeing the quality of shots some people online have managed to get.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 14:46
|
|
|
No, I think he's thinking only of the NEX-5N, which is a fantastic deal. You could buy the 5D in question and an NEX-5N for about the same price as a used OM-D.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 14:48
|
|
|
milk thug posted:Picking up a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 tomorrow. Really love the lens and did plenty of reading up after borrowing one from a friend, but I'm thinking I'm probably going to step up to the f3.5. Looks like the 3.5 outperforms the variable f model all across the field but apparently it drops the ball on chromatic aberration - can anyone share a few words on this if you've got experience with these lenses? At this point I'm sold but a little dorkroom wisdom never goes amiss. By EOS D do you mean digital? In that case you cannot easily adapt FD glass. There are crappy glass adapters, and there are very expensive Canon adapters, and finally a few choice lenses like the FD 55 1.2 can be mount converted. Otherwise you're out of luck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 14:52
|
|
|
Yeah, that's the only thing that put me off. An allegedly decent third party adapter is going to cost nearly a hundred dollars if I bought one in-store locally, for example, and I've seen the genuine ones going for absolutely bonkers prices. Did Canon not produce many or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
milk thug posted:Yeah, that's the only thing that put me off. An allegedly decent third party adapter is going to cost nearly a hundred dollars if I bought one in-store locally, for example, and I've seen the genuine ones going for absolutely bonkers prices. Did Canon not produce many or something? Canon didn't produce many. An adapter also has to have optics if you want infinity focus, and Canon's was a decent four-element design since it was sold specifically to pros who wanted to keep using their FD L glass on EOS bodies. The really cheap modern adapters have no glass (and no infinity focus), and the prices go up from there with the quality of the build and optics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
milk thug posted:Also what's the verdict on adapting FD lenses onto EOS D bodies? Anything I should keep in mind? Got offered a load of nice old FD glass cheap as poo poo and I'm willing to give it a go after seeing the quality of shots some people online have managed to get. There are three ways to go. One, a simple mechanical/glassless adapter. This means you lose infinity focus. Two, a glass adapter. You get an additional crop factor, usually something in the neighborhood of 1.3x. You also get a pretty significant loss in quality. As mentioned, there was a special adapter produced by Canon, it was primarily intended for pros who had big investments in superfast supertele lenses like 400 f2.8s and things like that, they weren't offered for general sale so there aren't many and I don't know how they perform (if at all) on non-tele lenses. Finally, there's also the option of conversion. There used to be a couple places that would physically take the FD mount off, machine the lens down, and put an EOS mount on. It's expensive and you get manual stopdown/aperture/focus, usually not worth it and especially if the glass isn't L-series. If there's fast primes in there, I might be interested if it's cheap. I've been thinking real strongly about picking up a NEX and some of these lenses that can't really be put onto DSLRs anymore. For the record, you should also be able to put it on one of the EOS mirrorless bodies if you made the laughably bad decision to purchase one of those. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Dec 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Used OM-Ds are already going for less than half price? bobfather posted:No, I think he's thinking only of the NEX-5N, which is a fantastic deal. You could buy the 5D in question and an NEX-5N for about the same price as a used OM-D. I actually don't track Olympus and M4/3 prices very closely, I just assumed that they weren't too far out of the ballpark of their competition since I've seen them talked about as a "budget" option because of all the relatively cheap good lenses available. I had no idea they were still that spendy, I figured with $300 NEX-5Ns they couldn't be THAT much.  In hindsight I guess I must have been thinking of other M4/3 cameras and made the connection because of the M4/3 mount. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Dec 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
Yeah, there are much less expensive m4/3 bodies out there (and they're still drat good, to be sure) but a new OM-D body alone runs around $1000.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
Wrong thread ffuu.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
milk thug posted:Picking up a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 tomorrow. Picked this sucker up, spent the afternoon/night taking as many test snaps as I could and I'm mostly pretty happy. At 3200 iso on a 550D I can actually pull off some handheld night photography and the bokeh actually looks really nice with the 6 blades. It probably goes without saying that I went with this lens purely for the 10mm, but I found myself wanting to shoot at 20mm more than I thought I would. Given it ramps up to f5.6 at that end, it gets pretty slow. So it comes down to $150 kangaroo dollars for an extra aperture blade and half an f stop. I've got 14 days to make a decision. Can anyone else who has been shopping around for wide angles tell me whether I'm going to regret not upgrading? @PaulMaudDib: If and when you get around to playing with FD glass I'm totally keen to see how it works out for you. diddy kongs feet fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Dec 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
If you want to shoot around the 14-25mm range, you should be able to find some good primes in that range that would have much better apertures. E: Then again maybe my mind is on some of the mirrorless system lenses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
Maybe I'm blanking hard right now but from what I've seen there aren't really any affordable primes in that range. My price bracket really caps out at the 700 or so the 3.5 constant aperture model Sigma will cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
I can't think of any full frame primes at 14mm that are faster than 2.8. And they're all expensive anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I can't think of any full frame primes at 14mm that are faster than 2.8. And they're all expensive anyways. Yeah, majorly expensive. I'm really looking at bang for buck and that's why I've settled on the sigma. Tossing up on the f3.5 upgrade is really just me trying to squeeze as much out of the purchase as I can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a big problem with finding primes for crop sensor cameras, anything FF wider than 20mm or so was a specialty superwide lens when it came out and is going to be insanely expensive ($800 for an 18mm is the ballpark I remember). There are a few newer options like the Samyang 14mm, but that one suffers from really strong distortion. You're probably better off looking at the wide crop zooms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I can't think of any full frame primes at 14mm that are faster than 2.8. And they're all expensive anyways. Nope. The rokinon 14 2.8 is about $300.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Nope. The rokinon 14 2.8 is about $300. You show me a $300 Rokinon 14mm and I'll show you a man who bought another lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:You show me a $300 Rokinon 14mm and I'll show you a man who bought another lens. It's been on 'sale' a few times this year: Most recently was on December 7th: http://slickdeals.net/f/5659574-Rokinon-14mm-f2-8-for-Canon-Nikon-mounts-299-Amazon-Lightning-Deal-LIVE-10-30AM-PST Prior to that, November 28th: http://slickdeals.net/f/5602770-Bower-14mm-f-2-8-Ultra-Wide-Angle-Lens-299-Bower-35mm-f-1-4-Lens-379-Free-shipping-2-Rewards
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:You show me a $300 Rokinon 14mm and I'll show you a man who bought another lens. I've seen it online for $300 lots of times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
Currently the 430 EX II is on sale for $254 on amazon. This seems like a great price on the speedlite. On the other hand, the Yonguo flashes with ETTL are cheap as hell. Is there anything I'd be missing by going third party? This would be my first flash, and I'm just looking for something to screw around with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
Later this month I'm shooting the US Pond Hockey tourney here in Minneapolis. Should be a lot of fun, but I have a couple questions to prepare for it. First, my understanding is that if I get a neutral density filter it'll help the camera meter better with the contrast of the white snow backgrounds and the bright colors of the players' jerseys. If this is true, my assumption would be to get a .3 ND filter because I want to still be able to take fast action shots. Am I good so far? Second, when shooting people in bright snow with film it's recommend to shoot center weighted metering and to crank up exposure 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop. If I'm using a ND filter, do I still need to do this? I'm shooting a Nikon F100 with a mix of Ektar 100 and Kodak Gold 400 if it matters.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 11:40
|
|
|
An ND filter should not help the camera "meter better". It just changes how much light reaches the sensor/film. So if you mount a 1 stop ND filter, the camera will meter 1 stop less than without the filter, because the image is 1 stop darker. The exposed image will still be the same, except for the effects of the slower shutter (possibly more motion blur) or the larger aperture (less depth of field.) Just set the exposure compensation in the camera. Or, set the camera to manual mode and find a proper exposure before the sports match, if it's indoors with controlled lighting. The lighting should be the same all across the playing field in that case, so the exposure would be the same through the game and regardless of where you point. Camera auto-exposure systems tend to target an 18% gray exposure, i.e. expose so the average light intensity in the image matches an 18% gray card. When you point the camera at a snowy field, that results in the camera wanting the bright white snow to be 18% gray, causing it to severely under-expose (because it doesn't know the snow is supposed to be bright white.) If you instead tell the camera to over-expose the snow will end up as the bright white it should be. Or use an incident light meter, if you have that option. What an ND filter might be useful for is if you are outside in bright light and only have fast films (such as the Kodak Gold 400), and you want to use slower shutter speeds or larger apertures. nielsm fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Jan 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:Currently the 430 EX II is on sale for $254 on amazon. This seems like a great price on the speedlite. On the other hand, the Yonguo flashes with ETTL are cheap as hell. Is there anything I'd be missing by going third party? This would be my first flash, and I'm just looking for something to screw around with. If you're just looking to screw around, go the cheap route. Even if you're not just screwing around the Yonguo stuff is still a good option.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
Geek USSR posted:Later this month I'm shooting the US Pond Hockey tourney here in Minneapolis. Should be a lot of fun, but I have a couple questions to prepare for it. All of this is wrong. An ND filter will reduce the total amount of light coming in through the lens, useful in very specific circumstances only. Forget ND for anything action-shot related. Second, I don't know about center weighted, but what I was taught was you need to open up by 2 stops over whatever your meter is telling you. The meter is saying "holy poo poo there is a lot of light out there, we need to stop down to turn it grey" because your meter wants to turn everything grey. You need to compensate for this by opening up 2 stops. I guess if you were averaging this makes sense, but for center weighted I don't know. If you were using a DSLR I would say shoot and then review the histograms but if I was shooting film I would shoot averaging meter and +2 stops EC. Edit: Beaten sort of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 11:18
|
|
|
I have a Tamron 17-50 that I bought used from eBay, but I convinced the seller to send me a copy of the original receipt. My first question is, does anyone have experience getting the 6 year warranty in this fashion, or will Tamron refuse since it was bought by someone with a different name on the other side of the country? My second question is... a long shot. I took the lens with me while hiking a few months ago, and at one point slipped on a wet rock and fell. I have an RS-7 strap, so it hit the rock before me (only time I've ever regretted using that strap). It got a few scratches from that, which is fine, but when I shake the lens I can also hear something very small that's loose inside it. I haven't noticed any image quality degradation, but it could be that I'm too much of a noob to see it. In any case, it would sure be nice to have it fixed. If the answer to the first question is yes, is there any way to frame this to Tamron such that they would actually agree to fix it under warranty?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 10:25
|
|
|
I know (hope not) that I'm going to be mocked for this, but what kinds of fun stuff can I do with a polarizing filter? I added this: http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-Super-...+polarizer+77mm to a photography wish list on Amazon a while ago and kind of forgot about it, and my parents purchased it for me this year. I've got step-up rings to adapt it to the lenses I have, I just..don't quite remember what I put it on the wish list for. I love taking nature photography if that helps at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
TheEye posted:I have a Tamron 17-50 that I bought used from eBay, but I convinced the seller to send me a copy of the original receipt. My first question is, does anyone have experience getting the 6 year warranty in this fashion, or will Tamron refuse since it was bought by someone with a different name on the other side of the country? I bought mine from a goon here and like 3 months after I bought it the zoom wheel broke, like they tend to do. He sent his amazon receipt over to me and I registered the warranty card under my own name. Called up Tamron and discussed the situation. They asked for his receipt, my paypal transaction, and the serial off the lens and I was able to get the zoom ring repaired on their dime. Edit: took like 6 weeks though
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 21:16
|
|