|
Tusen Takk posted:Thanks! My brother-in-law works for a residential/commercial garbage removal service and he found a bunch of video cameras (Sony DXC-327's with Canon PH12x7.5B's), camera cases, Manfrotto tripods, a Rosco Alpha 900 fog machine, all kinds of other TV studio-esque goodies. eBay says they're all worth craploads of money, and I know that the video camera body and lenses are worth lots, but I'm not sure what the actual demand is on them. These things get shitted up to high heaven with fog fluid residue, get ready for a god drat lot of cleaning work (and pray to god the heating element still works). Lucky page 13 snype.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:These things get shitted up to high heaven with fog fluid residue, get ready for a god drat lot of cleaning work (and pray to god the heating element still works). It actually works fabulously! He used it to fill his parent's house up with fog before a Lions game came on (~3200 ft2, so I think it works fine  . Good info on that though, the cheapest one I could find used online was like $300. Is that seriously how much it's worth?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:It actually works fabulously! He used it to fill his parent's house up with fog before a Lions game came on (~3200 ft2, so I think it works fine Theatre gear costs outlandish amounts of money. Like I'm averaging $35 per bulb in most of my lights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:So I just got this thingo from a garage sale for $5 because I knew that vintage Nikon SLR's can go for a lot of money, and lenses aren't cheap at all either, so I figured that worse case scenario, this will look great on a bookshelf. The question is this: IS IT REALLY WORTH AS MUCH AS EBAY SAYS IT IS?! Yes. You suck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Theatre gear costs outlandish amounts of money.  Holy crap then we're rich. He found all sorts of that kind of thing, microphones, everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:
PM me if you need help working out what's worth a poo poo and what's not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:PM me if you need help working out what's worth a poo poo and what's not. Done! Thanks! I have very little idea about cameras and theatre stuff except that they're valuable and hard to come by. I forgot to mention that it came with all these goodies too:  And I found this lil' guy at another garage sale for $5 or so. Not NEARLY as good of a find but STILL, pretty cool.  I went to another garage sale a year or two ago and bought a box full of cameras from an elderly chap for like $50, there were a bunch of Canon SLR's, a Zeiss Ikon from looked like the 1950's, a bunch of Canon and Nikon lenses, and I think there was an old old camera, like from the 1800's. I'm almost positive they all worked too, I just bought them because I thought they'd look nice on a shelf when I move out and get my own place. Getting the feeling that I have a box of gold sitting somewhere in my house 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
The F3 is worth money because it is a very desirable camera, other old stuff might not be worth much at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Stop the lens down (shoot at f/16 or f/22 or something) and use a flash (ideally not teh onboard flash, it won't really have the reach), it'll make it less frustrating. I think the problem I was having was that if you stop it down you can't see a damned thing, so to make any adjustments to the focus you need to have it wide open. Then pushing the buttons to adjust the aperture perturbs it just enough to screw it all up. I'm kindof bare on accessories too (don't have a flash or a tripod worth a poo poo) and it was just too much effort for one shot when instead I can just head to the dog park for three hours and shoot shoot shoot. What can I say, I'm lazy 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
I was an idiot. It was my honeymoon, and I was in a hurry and when I packed my day bag for walking around Pompeii, I packed a banana (for cheap energy!) I packed it on top of my Nikon D3100, and the inevitable happened. Banana mush alllllll over the right side. I cleaned it as best as I could there, and when I got home, I cleaned it again with some isopropyl, and got most of the wheels and buttons working again. (the live-view thumbswitch alas, seems welded in place and will probably never move again). At this point, I'm able to use the camera fine, but I'm noticing some general gremlins (power staying on whether the switch is on or off, the selector for burst mode and timer shots not working, that kind of thing). I can still set aperture and F/stop and the main wheel works fine so I can still take photos with it; let's be clear though it had half a banana mashed into it, it's not the same as it was. Additionally, I'm reaching the point where more and more I'm wishing I had an auto-focus screw in the body, so I can shoot with older (cheaper) lenses. Should I: A: Attempt to clean the camera of it's banana residue and see if I can make it a little better myself B: Pay a professional to clean/repair it C: Just get a D80 and chalk this up to being an idiot and not thinking. Budget is low, but time is high, and I found a take-apart of the D5100 on iFixit, which should get me to where most of the banana junk probably is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
So, I'm regretting selling my D70S. I bought it back in late 2006 and used it primarily to shoot some baseball stuff while my brother was in college, and for some school newspaper stuff. Had a 50/1.8 and the 18-200 VR lens for it. I loved them both, but sold them around a year ago to pay off a credit card (I went on a major 'stuff purge', pretty much). However, as of late, I've been wanting to get back into photography. I'm primarily looking to do some wildlife/general scenery shots (Wisconsin has a ton of nice places for shots, especially during season changes), but would also like to be able to do some casual sports stuff (nothing super serious at this point as I can't swing a high quality 200mm 2.8 or better prime) and some portraits. At first, I was considering a Sony Compact format camera, but pretty much stopped considering that when I saw some good deals on the D3100/D5100. I also looked a bit at Canon, but really loved the build quality of my D70s when I used it, and would like to consider Nikon first. I'm likely buying at Target and paying off the card right away - they have a good deal on a D5100 right now and 5% off with my target card. Anyways, given that situation: 1) Is the D5100 + 18-55 a good pickup for me? Everything I've read online and in this thread says that the 5200 is a fairly small upgrade over the 5100. Given what I know from previous dSLR research back in 2005/2006, the older models are typically pretty solid unless there's a feature you really need on the newer model. 2) I know that the 5100 drops the screw drive for the focus. Is this going to be a big deal to me? I know there are some lenses I wouldn't be able to auto focus with, but is there enough of a selection between Nikon/Sigma/Tamron branded lenses that I'd be able to get anything I need with auto focus capability? 3) On the topic of Sigma/Tamron -- when I was last super serious about photography (in 08-ish), Sigma and Tamron lenses were very much hit of miss -- there was a good chance that you'd get a horribly flawed lens even though you bought the same exact one as your buddy at the same time. Is this build quality still an issue? 4) For lenses, I'm also looking to some sort of prime (either 35/1.8 or 50/1.8). What would be a good lower-cost sports lens? Anything good that I could look for used, possibly? Thanks much for any advice. Seeing all the cat pictures in the op made me all :3 I've been doing tons of research over the past few days and am ready to jump if I find the right camera for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
The Nikkor 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 are both pretty great, and only $200 a piece. I couldn't decide which one I wanted more, so I bought them both. I've got the D5100 + 18-55 kit + the two primes plus another longer zoom I was talked into at the store, and I'm quite happy with it all, but this is also my first camera and I'm pretty dumb about photos in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:The Nikkor 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 are both pretty great, and only $200 a piece. I couldn't decide which one I wanted more, so I bought them both. Those are two pretty quality lenses. Wait, does the D5100 have a drive screw? Unless you got the 50 1.8G?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
Welp who is ordering the new 800mm? http://nikonrumors.com/2013/01/28/nikkor-18-35mm-f3-5-4-5g-ed-and-800mm-f5-6e-fl-ed-vr-lenses-officially-announced.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Those are two pretty quality lenses. Wait, does the D5100 have a drive screw? Unless you got the 50 1.8G? No drive screw, I've got the G model of both.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Welp who is ordering the new 800mm? http://nikonrumors.com/2013/01/28/nikkor-18-35mm-f3-5-4-5g-ed-and-800mm-f5-6e-fl-ed-vr-lenses-officially-announced.aspx At least it's AF-S, lemme just hook that thing up to my D3100 and shoot next week's SI cover of Kapernick's eyeball.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Those are two pretty quality lenses. Wait, does the D5100 have a drive screw? Unless you got the 50 1.8G? Dread Head posted:Welp who is ordering the new 800mm? http://nikonrumors.com/2013/01/28/nikkor-18-35mm-f3-5-4-5g-ed-and-800mm-f5-6e-fl-ed-vr-lenses-officially-announced.aspx evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Lookit dat MTF chart! Haha, wow. I saw the price first and the only thing I could think was "the MTF better just be some horizontal lines," and, welp. And with that price, there goes my fleeting hope that this lens would drive down the price of used copies of the AIS 800 f5.6.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Welp who is ordering the new 800mm? http://nikonrumors.com/2013/01/28/nikkor-18-35mm-f3-5-4-5g-ed-and-800mm-f5-6e-fl-ed-vr-lenses-officially-announced.aspx If anyone buys it they need to post pictures of their neighbors' cats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
I can't imagine buying a $17,000 lens . If anyone buys it, post pictures of their house cat from their private helicopter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Stick that on a crop sensor and you have a field of view of about one degree. The moon would fill up a quarter of the frame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Eegah posted:Stick that on a crop sensor and you have a field of view of about one degree. So, a pretty good spot meter for getting those large format shots just perfect, with the zone system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Or an $18,000 finder scope for a $5,000 Meade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Bought some batteries and film for the F3 to see how it works, hoping that they turn out alright  .The inability to see the pictures right after taking them is perplexing and makes me miss my girlfriend's D3100. I also have no idea what I'm doing with her camera, until now (!!) thanks to having to read up on photography lingo while researching this thing then fiddling around with all the settings and buttons trying to make sure everything worked properly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
Go find a copy of http://www.amazon.com/Understanding...anding+exposure (buy it, check it out from the library, whatever). Nikon still hosts the manual for it too, it's pretty useful to read as well. http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/archive/F3.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Go find a copy of http://www.amazon.com/Understanding...anding+exposure (buy it, check it out from the library, whatever). I actually have the manual! It came with the manual for a 35mm-105mm Nikkor lens and a 105mm Micro-Nikkor lens as well, I read those things first thing before even thinking about trying to use the thing. All for $5 . I'll definitely get that book for Kindle though, cheers!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 08:34
|
|
|
My D5200 arrives Monday 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Eegah posted:Stick that on a crop sensor and you have a field of view of about one degree. I wonder why, in this era of a multitude of sensor sizes, we don't switch to field-of-view degree notation when talking about lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
thetzar posted:I wonder why, in this era of a multitude of sensor sizes, we don't switch to field-of-view degree notation when talking about lenses. I think that would just make it worse as field of vew is a factor of both focal length and sensor size. At least if you have the lens' focal length in relation to a standard sensor size (ie 35mm), it's possible to do the necessary conversion when needed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
So, here are my [terrible] attempts at using the Nikon F3. Most of them are shaky, blurry, or over-exposed, and I think it may be half from the ISO 400 film that I used (the only film I could find, my dad said he used to shoot with ISO 100 and swore by it) and half from my lighting/aperature setting. For the most part, I left it at 4, but occasionally I'd switch it to 32 just to see what happens. http://imgur.com/a/wmcMv Highlights:     (I did the popcorn like that on purpose I swear!)   Thoughts? FAT32 SHAMER fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:So, here are my [terrible] attempts at using the Nikon F3. Most of them are shaky, blurry, or over-exposed, and I think it may be half from the ISO 400 film that I used (the only film I could find, my dad said he used to shoot with ISO 100 and swore by it) and half from my lighting/aperature setting. For the most part, I left it at 4, but occasionally I'd switch it to 32 just to see what happens. The film speed shouldn't make your photos overexposed, blurry, or shaky if you expose it properly. If anything 400 speed film will give you an advantage over 100 because it can be used in lower light and allows for faster shutter speeds. This isn't my photo, but while 400 speed film is grainier than 100 speed, it should still expose nicely.  On point by Andre Guerette, on Flickr I suggest reading "Understanding Exposure" as suggested above.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
thetzar posted:I wonder why, in this era of a multitude of sensor sizes, we don't switch to field-of-view degree notation when talking about lenses. because lenses have a focal length, not a field-of-view
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
dukeku posted:because lenses have a focal length, not a field-of-view This, pretty much. If you're familiar with your sensor size (which you would be after like a day of shooting with any given camera body), you know what 24mm is going to look like when you look through the viewfinder. Also it would be pretty dumb to label lenses in terms of field of view, because no matter what sensor/film size you have, a 50mm lens has a focal length of 50mm and that's never going to change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Legitimate Pape posted:The film speed shouldn't make your photos overexposed, blurry, or shaky if you expose it properly. If anything 400 speed film will give you an advantage over 100 because it can be used in lower light and allows for faster shutter speeds. This isn't my photo, but while 400 speed film is grainier than 100 speed, it should still expose nicely. Legit! I just finished my homework for the weekend so I'm going to be all over this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 09:00
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:So, here are my [terrible] attempts at using the Nikon F3. Most of them are shaky, blurry, or over-exposed, and I think it may be half from the ISO 400 film that I used (the only film I could find, my dad said he used to shoot with ISO 100 and swore by it) and half from my lighting/aperature setting. For the most part, I left it at 4, but occasionally I'd switch it to 32 just to see what happens. Your shutter speed was too low for most of these. Inside light is much darker than you would think it is ISO 400 film with an f/4 lens is really only gonna work in well lit rooms. I recommend you read up on how exposure works and then forget your camera has an auto mode until you get a handle on it. Oh and get us more photos of that dog (and any cats in the vicinity as well).
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 13:48
|
|
|
thetzar posted:I wonder why, in this era of a multitude of sensor sizes, we don't switch to field-of-view degree notation when talking about lenses. As opposed to the good old days when we only had to deal with 110, 126, 135, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14...
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
thetzar posted:I wonder why, in this era of a multitude of sensor sizes, we don't switch to field-of-view degree notation when talking about lenses. What about differing aspect ratios? Do we go with the vertical field of view? Horizonal? Diagonal? What if the lens is usable on multiple sensor sizes? What if the camera has a multi‐aspect‐ratio sensor? What if the lens can shift? What if it’s a fisheye? What if it just has a significant degree of barrel distortion? What if you wish to calculate some element that is dependent on the focal length, like depth‐of‐field, absolute aperture size, performance with extension tubes, or working distance? It would create far more problems than it would solve. I’m familiar with 35 mm focal lengths. I’m not familiar with angles of view. Another usability problem is that while there crop factor provides a simple correspondence between how a lens behaves on one camera and how it behaves on one of a different format, angles‐of‐view have a non‐linear mapping. For example, a 600 mm lens gives a 4.13° diagonal angle of view on full‐frame and 2.58° on APS‐C. Cool, that’s 1.6, as we might expected from the known crop factor. Even if were always so simple, we’d be doing division to get 35 mm equivalent focal lengths rather than multiplication, which is harder for most people to do in there heads, but whatever. Let’s try a 50 mm lens. Now it’s 46.79° to 30.26°, or 1.55. Uh, okay. 24 mm? It’s slipped to 84.06° to 58.791°, or 1.43. At 14 mm, the ratio is under 1.3. That’s not as bad as I expected, actually, but it’s still markedly inferior to an unerring crop factor of 1.6.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:What about differing aspect ratios? Do we go with the vertical field of view? Horizonal? Diagonal? What if the lens is usable on multiple sensor sizes? What if the camera has a multi‐aspect‐ratio sensor? What if the lens can shift? What if it’s a fisheye? What if it just has a significant degree of barrel distortion? What if you wish to calculate some element that is dependent on the focal length, like depth‐of‐field, absolute aperture size, performance with extension tubes, or working distance? Here in the Nikon thread, we like to keep our crop factors to 1.5. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
So, I ended up jumping on that D5100 deal from Target that I mentioned a bit ago. I'm getting a bag for it tonight, when I'll be unboxing it and starting to use it. I got the 18-55 kit lens and got the 55-200 for another $149. I'm trying to decide which prime to get. I'm looking at either the 35/1.8 or the 50/1.8 g that'll autofocus on the D5100. When I had a D70s awhile back, I used the 50/1.8D. I figure that, since I can't autofocus with the D on the 5100, though, I should grab one that can autofocus. Has anyone here used both of these primes and has an opinion either way? They're both around the same price, from what I can tell. EDIT: And a bribe for assistance -- whichever lens I get, I will use it to take catte pictures with the camera. My cattes are amazing, too, so I'm sure the pictures will be enjoyed by all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
Cannot go wrong with the 35/1.8. The 50 can be a little tight in some cases, so the 35 is just more versatile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 20:59
|
|