|
I've been noticing that I like to take landscape/forest pictures and there's a lot of water and waterfalls in my area. I want to get a ND filter and maybe a GND. I don't know what are good brands and how many stop darkness do I want for both the ND and GND. I do know I should avoid plastic and any filters that cause color tinting. What are some recommendations? Thanks!
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
What's your budget like? edit: This post made me splurge for LEE Filters when I decided to get into ND filters: http://www.redbubble.com/people/peterh111/journal/4421304-the-ultimate-guide-to-neutral-density-filters
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
I would recommend a minimum of 3 stops. B+W makes good ones. There are other quality brands, too, but that's my recommendation. 3 stops, combined with f/11 or f/16 will allow you to get slow enough shutter speeds for that silky water effect it sounds like you're going for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:What's your budget like? I got a 52mm Hoya 9-stop x400 filter for my 35mm shift lens and it's amazing. I will definitely be getting one to fit my other lenses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:What's your budget like? Around a hundred USD. Also, wonderful link. Would I be better off with a ND filter holder? I do know there are also GND circular filters. TheAngryDrunk posted:I would recommend a minimum of 3 stops. B+W makes good ones. There are other quality brands, too, but that's my recommendation. Would I need more if I decided I also wanted to erase people from really busy places? Thanks! GoldenNugget fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Feb 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:
Yes. So an exposure in broad daylight is ISO 100, f/16, 1/100 seconds. Adding a 3 stop ND filter to that, you can get 1/10 shutter speeds. That should get you some motion blur on a waterfall. If you're shooting later in the day (and not at high noon on a sunny day), you will be able to get even longer shutter speeds. But probably not slow enough to "erase people." You probably want a 10 stop ND filter for something like that. You can get shutter speeds in the minutes with something like that under the right conditions. Really cool for shooting landscapes with silky clouds. GoldenNugget posted:I do know there are also GND circular filters. Don't get a GND circular filter. You can't move the filter to decide where you want the break to be. If you're getting a GBD setup, you want a holder and rectangular filters. What's cool about the rectangular filters is that they can double as a ND filter. TheAngryDrunk fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Feb 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
To "erase people" you need a shutter speed of many seconds. I did this a while ago in a busy bar. I don't have the original version handy, but I believe it was something like f/16 at 30 seconds. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
I just started photography a few months ago, and started with a film camera, and have been only using that camera. Although I really like it, I want to be able to do digital as well, so I'm looking to start doing that and am looking for purchasing advice! (Budget is ~500$) The majority of my time is spent in parks/woods shooting architecture and scenery, but I also like to street shoot (which I guess I can save for film, since I doubt there's a camera that's the best of both worlds). Ability to shoot in low light would be great. I'm not sure if I should be looking for a low end DSLR kit, or if a P&S would be the best option for me right now starting out. If I need to buy lenses, I wouldn't mind starting out with a cheaper one and moving up once I learn more. Any advice would be great, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
RoryGilmore posted:I just started photography a few months ago, and started with a film camera, and have been only using that camera. Although I really like it, I want to be able to do digital as well, so I'm looking to start doing that and am looking for purchasing advice! (Budget is ~500$) The majority of my time is spent in parks/woods shooting architecture and scenery, but I also like to street shoot (which I guess I can save for film, since I doubt there's a camera that's the best of both worlds). Ability to shoot in low light would be great. I'm not sure if I should be looking for a low end DSLR kit, or if a P&S would be the best option for me right now starting out. If I need to buy lenses, I wouldn't mind starting out with a cheaper one and moving up once I learn more. Any advice would be great, thanks! What film camera do you have? Decent chance you can share lenses with the dslr, so that'd be good to know. If you don't mind the size of a dslr then there's no reason not to get one, a used dslr can be had for P&S prices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:What film camera do you have? Decent chance you can share lenses with the dslr, so that'd be good to know. I'm using a Nikon FE2 (I was using a Nikon FA, I think you saw my shutter explosion a few months back  ). I have a f/3.5 28mm and a f/2 50mm lens for it. Are there certain DSLRs you'd recommend for around that price?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
A d7000 would be a really good choice, it's got great low light performance and it'll mount and meter with those lenses you have. If you'd prefer having autofocus and don't care about mounting older AI-S lenses then the d5100 would fit your budget with room for either the kit 18-55VR or even a new 35mm/1.8G (same sensor in both cameras).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
And that 35/1.8 on a DSLR will be pretty close to the 50 you have. You can keep the 50 for portraits (or buy an autofocus 50 for ~$100).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 09:59
|
|
|
Bobx66 posted:I'm in the market for a Vivitar Series 1 90mm 2.5 Macro Lens because it is an affordable macro option in that focal length for me. However they stopped manufacturing this lens long before the Canon EF mount came about. Used that exact lens (Olympus mount version) on that exact camera at my old job! If you've got time to set up on a tripod and fine-tune focus with LiveView, it's a winning combination. There's a 1:1 adapter (optical) that will hopefully be included with the lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:A d7000 would be a really good choice, it's got great low light performance and it'll mount and meter with those lenses you have. If you'd prefer having autofocus and don't care about mounting older AI-S lenses then the d5100 would fit your budget with room for either the kit 18-55VR or even a new 35mm/1.8G (same sensor in both cameras). I think the d7000 is way out of my price range (at what I'm seeing for body-only used prices anyway), but the d5100 looks great. And yeah, I can fit a new 35mm in there as well. Thanks for the tips! E: when I eventually get this, is there anything I should get other than the body /lens for what I'm shooting? Or is that a question for the dslr thread now? spooky wizard fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Feb 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
RoryGilmore posted:I just started photography a few months ago, and started with a film camera, and have been only using that camera. Although I really like it, I want to be able to do digital as well, so I'm looking to start doing that and am looking for purchasing advice! (Budget is ~500$) The majority of my time is spent in parks/woods shooting architecture and scenery, but I also like to street shoot (which I guess I can save for film, since I doubt there's a camera that's the best of both worlds). Ability to shoot in low light would be great. I'm not sure if I should be looking for a low end DSLR kit, or if a P&S would be the best option for me right now starting out. If I need to buy lenses, I wouldn't mind starting out with a cheaper one and moving up once I learn more. Any advice would be great, thanks! No offense, you have about $150 of Nikon lenses, tops, and they will be manual focus. MF is significantly more difficult on crop bodies with tiny little viewfinders and no focus aids, I would get a camera that can take a split-prism screen. Something like a D200 sounds like it might fit your needs. For low light shooting, though, it's hard to beat the latest generation of sensors. They can run ISO3200 and it'll look as good as 200 on previous generations of cameras, or you can punch it up to 25600 or so and shoot in the dark and it'll look like 1600 or 3200 on an older DSLR. The NEX-5N is a great body but has a limited selection of native glass, you could adapt your Nikon lenses but you'll lose auto-aperture. The K-01 is recently discontinued but it was also great bang for the buck (albeit horrifically ugly). If you're not interested in interchangeable lenses Ricoh makes some fixed-lens P+S that seem like they'd be good for street shooting, a used X100 isn't too far above your price range (and will drop as the new version comes out), etc. Your requirements seem like you'd be fine with a fixed 28mm or 35mm equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:No offense, you have about $150 of Nikon lenses, tops, and they will be manual focus. MF is significantly more difficult on crop bodies with tiny little viewfinders and no focus aids, I would get a camera that can take a split-prism screen. Something like a D200 sounds like it might fit your needs. None taken. I didn't actually buy any of it, it was second hand. If my lenses are worth that little, I'd rather have options with auto focus and just purchase a new lens like what was recommended earlier. I am interested in interchangeable lenses, I think my film cameras are already mobile enough for street, but I'm not really sure if I need it for what I'm trying to do. Reading up on the 5100 seems like it's a good bet, is that latest generation of sensors or should I be looking at the ones you mentioned for low light shooting?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
RoryGilmore posted:None taken. I didn't actually buy any of it, it was second hand. If my lenses are worth that little, I'd rather have options with auto focus and just purchase a new lens like what was recommended earlier. I am interested in interchangeable lenses, I think my film cameras are already mobile enough for street, but I'm not really sure if I need it for what I'm trying to do. Reading up on the 5100 seems like it's a good bet, is that latest generation of sensors or should I be looking at the ones you mentioned for low light shooting? The d5200/d7100/d3200 just came out and feature newer sensors, but the sensors in the 5100/7000 are both quite good in low light still. If the d5100 is anything like the d5000 it'll have focus confirmation in the viewfinder when using a manual focus lens, you'll just have to guess on the meter settings since it won't meter right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
RoryGilmore posted:None taken. I didn't actually buy any of it, it was second hand. If my lenses are worth that little, I'd rather have options with auto focus and just purchase a new lens like what was recommended earlier. I am interested in interchangeable lenses, I think my film cameras are already mobile enough for street, but I'm not really sure if I need it for what I'm trying to do. Reading up on the 5100 seems like it's a good bet, is that latest generation of sensors or should I be looking at the ones you mentioned for low light shooting? You can play with the cameras over on DPReview's site. This is a comparison of four cameras at ISO 12800, which is a stretch with the older sensors but reasonably possible with the newish Sony sensor in the NEX-5N/K-01. Do note that 12800 is pretty fast, you should be able to shoot available-light for pretty much anything with a reasonably fast lens. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Feb 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Hi I recently bought a EOS 650D (not entirely sure what it is called in usa, it is the canon dslr with a touch screen) I have a guy at work who is a freelance photographer, and has a vast range of cameras and lenses, so i have gotten some pointers from him and been borrowing some lenses and played around with a bit at work. (he doesn't want me to bring any of them out of the office) I have noticed that the type of pictures i am interested in taking are of "non-normal" things (not sure what to call it), ie macro, long expore night time pictures, landscape pictures, pictures of close up things where you can see a lot of background out of focus, close ups of things far away (got to borrow a 500mm prime, good times)etc. I will work on getting the very specialized lenses later (ie macro, etc), right now i mainly want to get some options that are far outside the stock 18-55 lens i have at the moment. As i will be going on a vacation in a couple of weeks, to an area with nice nature, cool castles across the river, mountains in the distance, etc, i am leaning towards something with a lot of zoom. (not entirely sure what the difference between "tele", "telezoom", "zoom lens" etc is) I have been eyeballing the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L but reading the "My first DSLR" thread they say the Tamron 70-300 VC lens is better (and also a lot cheaper, AND it lets me zoom even further) I guess it is redundant to ask if it would be a good purchase, since they say in that thread it is, but what would i be compromising with the tamron 70-300 over the canon 70-200? How can it be so much cheaper, while also giving an entire 100mm more focal length? The guy at work says "get the 70-200!" but he is exclusively using those white canon lenses. Is this lens a good pick if i enjoy taking pictures of stuff far away, or pictures of something a bit closer while still having stuff far away somewhat in focus, pictures of the moon, of landscapes, etc? (sorry for the bad use of terms, or lack thereof, or wrong use, i need to learn all this stuff in 2 languages at once)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
As for lens suggestions: Unless you poo poo money go for that Tamron 70-300. Also look into getting a macro lens around 90 mm. As for terminology: "Tele" is used about any lens with longer focal lens than "normal", although it technically refers to lenses with shorter physical distance from their optical center to the image plane, than their focal length. "Normal" lenses give an angle of view close to the human vision. On your camera, a normal lens is one around 30-35 mm. "Wide" refers to lenses shorter than normal. "Zoom" is just lenses that can adjust their focal length. The opposite is a fixed focal length lens, also called a "prime". Primes tend to have higher image quality than zooms. "Macro" lenses are lenses able to and built for focusing very close.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
The Canon 70-200 F4 L is probably one of the sharpest canon zoom lenses you can buy. It's also really starting to drop in price. I've seen it down to $450 or so used quite often. The Tamron 70-300 VC is an alright lens. For the money, it's not bad at all, and you could do far worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
I've been trying to pursue photography semiseriously for about a year now, and I went straight for the 70-200 F4 IS. Honestly it's Way More Lens than I need, which I knew at the time but I had Reasons. It's a dream to use and is fantastically sharp, and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that any problem with my pictures is entirely my fault, but I would have probably been better served getting Tamron kit all around (I got the 17-50 non-VC around the same time). So, nielsm posted:Unless you poo poo money go for that Tamron 70-300.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
So I'm considering to get a 77mm Hoya x400 9 stop ND filter. I'm still debating about what type of filter setup I should get. I do want to eventually get a GND... Should I go with a square filter holder for all my filters or is it fine to just have the filter holder for just GNDs and a separate set of circular NDs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
A few years back I spent $60 on a Lexar Firewire 800 CF card reader thinking I could rip my cards super fast. Unfortunately I couldn't tell the difference between it and the el cheapo USB 2 reader. It works fine as a reader and I've been using it since, however it's one of the only purchases I regret I made. Anyway, I just ordered a new 27' iMac to replace my 2008 MBP and the new iMac no longer has firewire ports. I have the option of buying a thunderbolt to firewire adapter or just getting a cheap USB 3.0 thing. The adapter is $30 and I'm not sure if it's worth spending that for a whats now a dead technology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Haggins posted:A few years back I spent $60 on a Lexar Firewire 800 CF card reader thinking I could rip my cards super fast. Unfortunately I couldn't tell the difference between it and the el cheapo USB 2 reader. It works fine as a reader and I've been using it since, however it's one of the only purchases I regret I made. I am very jealous of you because my iMac is the generation before USB 3.0 and I wish I didn't have to pay Firewire or Thunderbolt premiums for external storage Just get a USB 3.0 reader. I'm sure they must exist and probably for cheaper than 30 bucks too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
Yeah if you import to DNG it's not like file transfer is a major part of importing time. I really wish LR import wasn't all sequential.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Yeah if you import to DNG it's not like file transfer is a major part of importing time. I really wish LR import wasn't all sequential. Is there any benefit to DNG? I just copy my RAW files to their destination from my card via reader with a batch script then import them into the correct catalog in LR.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Is there any benefit to DNG? I just copy my RAW files to their destination from my card via reader with a batch script then import them into the correct catalog in LR.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Anyway, I just ordered a new 27' iMac to replace my 2008 MBP and the new iMac no longer has firewire ports. I have the option of buying a thunderbolt to firewire adapter or just getting a cheap USB 3.0 thing. The adapter is $30 and I'm not sure if it's worth spending that for a whats now a dead technology. Just get a USB 3.0 reader—they're not that expensive. Then sell me the F800 reader for cheap. Even a marginal speed increase over 2.0 would be worthwhile for me since I'm regularly offloading several 32 and 64 gig cards at a time and my MBP is pre-USB 3.0.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
powderific posted:Just get a USB 3.0 reader—they're not that expensive. Then sell me the F800 reader for cheap. Even a marginal speed increase over 2.0 would be worthwhile for me since I'm regularly offloading several 32 and 64 gig cards at a time and my MBP is pre-USB 3.0. I went ahead and ordered some good reviewed $16 USB 3 reader on amazon so I don't need my FW800 anymore. I'll gladly sell it for cheap since it does me no good anymore. Go check the last post of the Gear Sell thread so that soundmonkey doesn't yell at us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
Regarding the "Sigma 10-20mm" lenses. Is there any REAL benefit to paying an extra ~$200 for the f/3.5 as opposed to the standard f/4-5.6? I am wondering if anyone had examples as to when they needed that 3.5 at a certain distance or if there really was no need for it in most situations etc. Mainly I would be using it outdoors obviously but I also like making videos and short films and I'm in need of a wide angle lens for me APS-C sensor. I've checked out other lenses also but I think I'm set on the Sigma.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
The 4-5.6 will do you fine. I believe the optics are of similar quality, and $200 is a lot of money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Used that exact lens (Olympus mount version) on that exact camera at my old job! If you've got time to set up on a tripod and fine-tune focus with LiveView, it's a winning combination. That makes me feel much better. What did you think of the lens? Does it live up to the hype? Seems like an incredible value especially for people who don't use the autofocus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Lando2 posted:Regarding the "Sigma 10-20mm" lenses. Is there any REAL benefit to paying an extra ~$200 for the f/3.5 as opposed to the standard f/4-5.6? The two reasons to have a fast lenes are thrown out the window when it comes to ultra wide lenses. The first and most important being shallow DOF. With an utrawide you will never get anything close to a shallow DoF. The second being the light gathering abilities. Going by that old rule of thumb, you should be able to at least shoot 1/10th handheld for sharp pictures. Consider that, and the ultrawide is more of a niche lens and not so much a bread and butter lens, I don't think you'll miss it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Sooooo this happened: http://strobist.blogspot.com/2013/03/pocketwizard-plus-x-remotes-break-100.html Official link here: http://www.pocketwizard.com/products/transmitter_receiver/plusx/
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
With camera manufacturers getting into RF it was only a question of when. If they're as reliable as their NonTTL transceivers it's a super deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 13:32
|
|
|
My wife has given me tentative approval to take a photography class with some tax return to elevate me above talentless. I am primarily interested in taking pictures in the mountains while on day hikes and also of my kids because my wife would make me. I have a few EF lenses to an old Canon 620 and am leaning towards a used 40D. Is there anything else I should consider, or will the 40D do me fine and free up more money over another camera for a scanner to use with my ME Super as I also want to dabble in film?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Butch Cassidy posted:My wife has given me tentative approval to take a photography class with some tax return to elevate me above talentless. I am primarily interested in taking pictures in the mountains while on day hikes and also of my kids because my wife would make me. I have a few EF lenses to an old Canon 620 and am leaning towards a used 40D. Is there anything else I should consider, or will the 40D do me fine and free up more money over another camera for a scanner to use with my ME Super as I also want to dabble in film? 40D is a drat good camera still if you don't plan on shooting over like ISO800. They're also really cheap lately on like FM and such. Contemplating getting one as a backup.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:40D is a drat good camera still if you don't plan on shooting over like ISO800. They're also really cheap lately on like FM and such. Contemplating getting one as a backup. Yeah I bought one for my girlfriend and she loves it, has a lot of awesome semi-pro features like back button autofocus and the nipple (can't remember the actual Canon term for it)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
Haggins posted:The two reasons to have a fast lenes are thrown out the window when it comes to ultra wide lenses. The first and most important being shallow DOF. With an utrawide you will never get anything close to a shallow DoF. The second being the light gathering abilities. Going by that old rule of thumb, you should be able to at least shoot 1/10th handheld for sharp pictures. Consider that, and the ultrawide is more of a niche lens and not so much a bread and butter lens, I don't think you'll miss it. Thanks, just made the purchase. I also kinda realized that since I am buying this lens for the wide angle, I will almost always have it at 10-14mm (tops) so even if I were to use it in low light, the jump from 4 to 3.5 wouldn't justify the money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 11:22
|
|