|
QPZIL posted:Noted on both accounts! Canon has been calling me with its sweet siren song, but my photographer ex-gf blinded me to the ways of Nikon and I never looked back Nikon vs Canon vs Snype? You won't be able to see much difference in IQ, DR or ISO, or AF. Find them, hold them, buy the one that feels the best and whose control setup works for you. The current generation of DSLRs are all fantastic. Or, buy one that your rich friend has so you can borrow gear. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Mightaswell posted:For the sigma's, I'm referring to the new 35mm, 50 and 85 1.4's. which personally I would choose over the first party counterparts. And of course, Canon has Nikon beat in terms of flip out, fully-actuated screens! <- Bought a 60D and haven't had a use for that feature yet. drat no video rules at concerts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
fivre posted:And of course, Canon has Nikon beat in terms of flip out, fully-actuated screens! Use it to take pictures of yourself!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Use it to take pictures of yourself! That's the only thing I've used mine for so far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
I've used mine for low-to-the-ground shots when I don't feel like going entirely prone position. While the uses I've found for it are limited, if it wasn't there I would definitely have missed it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Yeah I love the tilt and swivel screens on my E-5 and G12. They aren't needed often but drat they're a huge help when you do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:vs Snype Look how dumb you are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Look how dumb you are. You're the one that just called gear chat a "serious thread".
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Look how dumb you are. Well, in my defense, I was posting something we've all said over and over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
Monitors count as gear, right? Because I finally upgraded to a 27" monitor after using a 20" for the last 8 years... it... is... huge. It's the Dell U2713HM on the left. (Please overlook my messy desk) It's 2560x1440 res and has above-average color accuracy. It's not Dell's flagship Ultrasharp model, but is significantly cheaper than some of their other models that offer extended-gamut color. Cons: It does have a bit of a light leak in the bottom left corner but it's really only visible over completely black areas (like in the black bars when watching a movie). The anti-glare coating also casts a very faint diagonal line pattern over solid-color areas, but is only visible at certain angles / on certain colors. I knew about the pattern and the possibility of having light leaks before buying it, but it was recently $475 (before tax) and no other monitor of this size, resolution and quality comes close to that price. No dead or stuck pixels, which was my main concern. Lightroom editing is going to be amazing... the photo workspace (area minus toolbars/panels) is larger than my entire old monitor, and significantly higher resolution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
Gambl0r posted:Monitors count as gear, right? Because I finally upgraded to a 27" monitor after using a 20" for the last 8 years... it... is... huge. Sup new 2713 buddy?   
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Sup new 2713 buddy? Yeah! How do you like yours? I need to borrow a calibrator from work, but even right out of the box, I'm surprised with how good it looks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Gambl0r posted:Monitors count as gear, right? Because I finally upgraded to a 27" monitor after using a 20" for the last 8 years... it... is... huge. Woah, Deja Vu. I said something similar to your post a few months ago in this thread. I even got a 27" monitor. Cheapo 27" AOC monitor, but the colors are endlessly better than my laptop. The resolution also helps a ton. Only 1080p but its miles better than 1200x800. rcman50166 fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
Is there any consensus on zoom macro lenses? I'm shooting videos in a very small kitchen and I would like the ability to change focal lengths on the fly while still retaining a larger reproduction ratio and short minimum focus distance. Should I just get a good zoom and swap out for my prime macros as needed or is there a magical inbetweener lens that I should be looking at?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
Bobx66 posted:Is there any consensus on zoom macro lenses? I'm shooting videos in a very small kitchen and I would like the ability to change focal lengths on the fly while still retaining a larger reproduction ratio and short minimum focus distance. Nikon did in fact produce the only macro zoom lens ever to exist, to my knowledge. For a loving lot of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Bobx66 posted:Is there any consensus on zoom macro lenses? I'm shooting videos in a very small kitchen and I would like the ability to change focal lengths on the fly while still retaining a larger reproduction ratio and short minimum focus distance. Maybe you can rent one first? http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Gambl0r posted:Monitors count as gear, right? Because I finally upgraded to a 27" monitor after using a 20" for the last 8 years... it... is... huge. Dang that 2005FPW looks like a little baby! I recently upgraded from a 2005FPW as well but I upgraded to a U2412M instead of the U2713HM. Not quite as dope but still awesome, especially considering it was on sale for only $249!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Nikon did in fact produce the only macro zoom lens ever to exist, to my knowledge. Just to clarify, that's the only "true macro" 1:1 lens? Lots of zooms will go to 1:2 or 1:2.5, without spending way too much or sacrificing too much image quality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Minolta made a zoom macro, though it was a bit of an odd duck - the 3x-1x macro. They're very rare, with only a few showing up on eBay or other sites each year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Just to clarify, that's the only "true macro" 1:1 lens? Lots of zooms will go to 1:2 or 1:2.5, without spending way too much or sacrificing too much image quality. The Nikon only goes to 1:1.33 actually. It's the only zoom I've heard of to get that close to 1:1, and isn't super rare, but then I don't know of any zooms that go 1:2 either. Nikon's 18-55 VR kit lens does 1:2.7 though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
I have several zooms than can do 1:1.  reversed or with extension tubes/diopters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
When i need zoom on my micro lenses, i move the camera closer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Bobx66 posted:Is there any consensus on zoom macro lenses? I'm shooting videos in a very small kitchen and I would like the ability to change focal lengths on the fly while still retaining a larger reproduction ratio and short minimum focus distance. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Carl-Zeiss-...181107809526%26 One of these bad boys was the first thing to come to mind- but I'm not sure what level of magnification it gets with the macro switch. I do know that it's an amazing lens, and has been on my buy list forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Musket posted:When i need zoom on my micro lenses, i move the camera closer. Easier said than done with a tripod in a kitchen. Especially overhead shots. Being able to change my frame without moving is just more efficient. Granted I should probably be using a different rig given my limitations. Thank you everyone for your input, I'm going to take a look at both of those lenses. Speaking of legacy lenses, what are some of the other cult classics? I just picked up a 90mm Vivitar Macro and it is an incredible value, I would love to get more familiar with older lenses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:http://www.ebay.com/itm/Carl-Zeiss-...181107809526%26 1:2.5 @ 35mm and MFD (iirc). It is a superb lens. I wish it had an AF motor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Bobx66 posted:Thank you everyone for your input, I'm going to take a look at both of those lenses. Speaking of legacy lenses, what are some of the other cult classics? I just picked up a 90mm Vivitar Macro and it is an incredible value, I would love to get more familiar with older lenses. Minolta's 70-210mm f/4 zoom went through an update with the advent of AF, becoming the much-loved "beercan" while retaining the optical formula. I've got a knockoff (Magnicon was a weird little brand name) in Minolta-MD that I love. If you can use Minolta manual-focus (i.e. MD, MC, or SR-mount - the bayonets are all the same, the differences have to do with the Program mode of the various mid-80's Minolta bodies), there are a few gems in that lineup, as well as the third-party stuff that was made for Minolta such as Vivitar. Canon FD glass can be modified to fit EF - the process is rather expensive, but for some of the really stellar lenses of that era it might be worth it. The first L-glass came out in FD mount. Konica AR mount is a bit of an odd duck. In North America Konica was never apparently very popular so it can be hard to find, but in Europe it was more common. Their Hexanon and Hexar lens lines are well-regarded, though figuring out adaptors is a bit difficult. This keeps the lenses cheap, since few people shooting digital are able to fully use them. Then there are the Soviets. Former Soviet Union glass is mostly pretty terrible, but it's often cheap and because the designs were stolen from Zeiss and other German manufacturers (rocket scientists weren't the only technical people scooped up by the Red Army) there are some good lenses out there, particularly for narrow and specific uses. My advice: Shoot an entire video (with a Cold War theme) using a Photosniper. What's your budget? About a year ago I watched a few eBay auctions for Photosnipers end at around $300 + about $60 to ship from Ukraine/Russia/Belorus/Kazahkstan (if you're willing to gamble on such sellers).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
RE: battery chargers: Anything to avoid with buying a couple of those cheap $5-10 ones from Amazon? My OM-D charger miiiiiight be back in the Caribbean and I really don't feel like contacting the place and paying what will probably be $50+ to ship it home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
On the subject of chargers, anything wrong with leaving my spare battery on the charger (unplugged)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
You may lose a bit of charge over time, but it's not going to kill the capacity of the battery (which will happen if you leave it in a plugged-in charger for very long periods of time.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
DJExile posted:RE: battery chargers: Anything to avoid with buying a couple of those cheap $5-10 ones from Amazon? My OM-D charger miiiiiight be back in the Caribbean and I really don't feel like contacting the place and paying what will probably be $50+ to ship it home. I understood that all the clever stuff is built in the battery, so it down't matter too much if you have a cheapy charger. I've also read that crappy power supplies generate crappy power - which may be a Bad Thing, but I'd guess that it probably doesn't have a significant negative effect on your battery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
spog posted:I understood that all the clever stuff is built in the battery, so it down't matter too much if you have a cheapy charger. Might, possibly, matter for Lipo, almost certainly not for Lion. As to leaving a battery on top of the charger physically, the charger may get slightly warm even if not in use, but nowhere near getting out of the realm of safe battery storage environment. Summertime it's probably wise to make sure your batteries aren't in direct sunlight, wherever you leave them. You'll lose some charge over time, but no more than it would lose anywhere different. e: btw, regarding the 'don't leave them in the charger', it probably isn't the case for 3rd party chargers, and I don't know about the 1st party olympus charger, but the nikon chargers will stop charging and not restart (ie, you can leave a bettery in the charger for 6 months and it'll still be stuck with the LED green or whatever indicates full charge, even though the battery has lost 6mo worth of nominal discharge) if a battery is left in the charger. SybilVimes fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Any recommendations for a soft camera wrap that fits a Canon 7D with 17-55 Ef-s lens?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Need a lens hood for my Tamron 17-50, should I buy the official one or third party?
Iced fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Iced posted:Need a lens hood for my Tamron 17-50, should I buy the official one or third party? If you get a third party hood, get a clone of the official Tamron hood, rather than a universal hood that mounts on the filter threads. The convenience of bayonet and reversed mounting are worth the premium, not the mention shading the lens perfectly, rather than shading the lens too little or vignetting. You can get knock‐off RHAF09/DA09 clones for  on eBay. It’s your call on whether or not the extra $7 for Tamron’s is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If you get a third party hood, get a clone of the official Tamron hood, rather than a universal hood that mounts on the filter threads. The convenience of bayonet and reversed mounting are worth the premium, not the mention shading the lens perfectly, rather than shading the lens too little or vignetting. Matters more than $7 when you go to sell it. I say go for the original.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Macro tube question - how useful are they in practice, and does image quality take a hit? Let's say I replaced my Minolta 100mm f/2.8 macro with a Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 + a macro extension tube. Other than a loss of autofocus, what's the risk - degraded image quality?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:Macro tube question - how useful are they in practice, and does image quality take a hit? Let's say I replaced my Minolta 100mm f/2.8 macro with a Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 + a macro extension tube. Other than a loss of autofocus, what's the risk - degraded image quality? Extension tubes don’t lower image quality, but they do lower effective aperture—which can lower image quality via diffraction if you still stop down to the same listed aperture. That said, macro lenses are highly corrected for close‐up operation. There’s no guarantee than a normal lens will perform well when focused close. Some lenses perform better with extension tubes than others. There’s also a usability downside. Macro lenses have a wide focus range, from infinity to 1:1. If you put tubes on a normal lens, it may focus to 1:1, but you won’t have much flexibility in magnification unless you swap tubes on and off. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Apr 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Gotta buy the name brand tubes if you want the best picture quality. Canon air is better than Kenko air.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
!420 reverse mount everyday.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Sounds like a lot of hassle. Guess I'll just stick with my dedicated macro lens. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 04:39
|
|