|
SoundMonkey posted:Let us also remember that Ken Rockwell has an unironic webpage on his site about how aliens visited Europeans because they found Native Americans to be too savage and primitive to understand science. Yep, it's on there somewhere. Do you mean this masterpiece of critical thought?  e: I actually work with a guy who honestly believes that the Tunguska event was actually an alien spacecraft crashing, and that the resulting explosion created a time vortex that led to WWI. He also has some interesting views about RAW/JPEG workflows. Dia de Pikachutos fucked around with this message at 10:28 on May 8, 2013 |
#
?
May 8, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
spongepuppy posted:Do you mean this masterpiece of critical thought? Holy christ. I think we need to start going to Amazon and buying anal probe equipment through affiliate links that point back to Ken.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 12:30
|
|
|
Far and away the most offensive thing about Ken is that he has so much amazing photo gear and the only pictures he can be arsed to take for his articles are awful snapshots, mostly of his ugly children.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
Dren posted:Far and away the most offensive thing about Ken is that he has so much amazing photo gear and the only pictures he can be arsed to take for his articles are awful snapshots, mostly of his ugly children. He actually has quite some decent stuff on his road trip albums, but he keeps those shuttered far away and mainly features those stupid snapshots. I don't get it. ed: I take that back. It's actually all very lovely, and I thought they were better than they actually are.1
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Let us also remember that Ken Rockwell has an unironic webpage on his site about how aliens visited Europeans because they found Native Americans to be too savage and primitive to understand science. Yep, it's on there somewhere. The D1H rules. Ditch your D200 and buy my D2Xs I got here layin around (still costs as much as an abused D700) 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
Dren posted:Far and away the most offensive thing about Ken is that he has so much amazing photo gear and the only pictures he can be arsed to take for his articles are awful snapshots, mostly of his ugly children. To be fair, you are not his target audience. He shoots photos of his kids/boring poo poo to demonstrate real world use of camera and lens combinations along with post production styles that only Grey Beards would appreciate. While his reviews are full of poo poo opinions, the photos themselves demonstrate the strengths and faults of the lens hes reviewing. If he says the CA is terrible, he pixel-peeps and shows you instead of just blahblablahthislenssucksimjustgonnabitchaboutit. Face it, you take boring pics, he takes boring pics, we all take snapshots and boring pics. KRock isnt harming you, cut him some slack. Better yet, dont visit his website. Ironically defending krock 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
K rock isn't that bad for succinct real world reviews. At least I can read a krock review in a minute compared to a 23 page dpreview piece of crap.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:K rock isn't that bad for succinct real world reviews. At least I can read a krock review in a minute compared to a 23 page dpreview piece of crap. Pretty much the only thing I use his site for is a quick reference for filter diameter and whatnot on lenses. Although he was entirely right about the 28-80 f/3.5-5.6D. poo poo's plastic, feels like the most bullshit lens ever, actually somehow owns.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
K‐Rock notes what sound each lens makes when shaken. It’s spergy, but it was good to know that no, that lens is not supposed to make that sound, consider sending it in for service.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Krock is a Pentax ME fan, so he's cool in my book.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
The K‐Rock posted:I wouldn't go out of my way to find this model, mostly because I like having an auto exposure lock, but If I got stuck on a tropical island with no other camera, I'd make great photos with the Pentax ME. What a ringing endorsement. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:Do you mean this masterpiece of critical thought? http://www.kenrockwell.com/nm/aliens/ Also found this, which is what I think was being referenced.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Rockwell freely admits that he writes hoaxes and bullshit into his site for laughs. If you take everything he's posted on there seriously, you are exactly the type of person he is trying to catch and you should be laughed at.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
So I am off to Iceland in September, for 10 days of walking around what I hope will be some amazing scenery. I bought a D3200 in February, with just the kit lens. I also have an old 50mm lens from an F301, though the AF doesn't work on my D3200. I should be getting a small bonus from work next month, and I'd like a lens that is good for landscapes, with a budget of £300ish (less if possible). I'm guessing that second hand is probably the way to go here, but I'm not sure exactly what is best to go with. I would imagine that something really wide angle is best for what should be epic landscapes?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Rockwell freely admits that he writes hoaxes and bullshit into his site for laughs. If you take everything he's posted on there seriously, you are exactly the type of person he is trying to catch and you should be laughed at. The problem being that his serious stuff is dumber than the fake stuff half the time.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
junto a la luna posted:So I am off to Iceland in September, for 10 days of walking around what I hope will be some amazing scenery. I bought a D3200 in February, with just the kit lens. I also have an old 50mm lens from an F301, though the AF doesn't work on my D3200. The kit lens for that is the 17-55mm, right? If the wide end on that performs well, it should make for pretty good landscape photos. If you want to go even wider, the Tokina 11-16 is pretty much the only thing that's decent under $2K. If you prefer working with a moderate wide angle, the 28/2.8 AI and AI-s are pretty much distortion-free, decently sharp and pretty cheap through most used resellers.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
A colleague of mine is looking to get his daughter a DSLR for a graduation gift as she goes off to college. His budget is $500. There are no immediate photographical aspirations, but they may be there so he wants to get her something a step up from a point and shoot. Nikon has the D3100 with two kit zoom lenses (18-55 f/3.5-5.6G ED II and the 55-200 f/4-5.6G ED) for $500 straight up. Offer ends tomorrow. That a decent deal? I'm unfamiliar with the 3100. http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/pd/productID.278659200
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
junto a la luna posted:So I am off to Iceland in September, for 10 days of walking around what I hope will be some amazing scenery. I bought a D3200 in February, with just the kit lens. I also have an old 50mm lens from an F301, though the AF doesn't work on my D3200. You probably aren't going to get much wider angle with that budget, but the kit isn't bad for that at all. I'd instead suggest you find a long lens, either a cheap tele-zoom (55-200 or 70-300, or similar), or a good manual focus medium-long prime, such as 105, 135 or 180. The main catch you will have with using manual focus lenses (AI and AI-S) is that the D3200 can't meter with them, so you will have to use manual mode and guess at exposure. It's good practice to get a feeling for what kind of exposures you need in different light situations anyway, even if you plan to use auto-exposure modes most of the time.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:A colleague of mine is looking to get his daughter a DSLR for a graduation gift as she goes off to college. His budget is $500. There are no immediate photographical aspirations, but they may be there so he wants to get her something a step up from a point and shoot. That was my first DSLR, bought it with that same kit. Shot with it for two years until I upgraded to a 5200 this year. Didn't sell it back because I'd like it as a backup. It's a perfectly fine camera and $500 with the two lenses is just peachy in my book.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Eegah posted:That was my first DSLR, bought it with that same kit. Shot with it for two years until I upgraded to a 5200 this year. Didn't sell it back because I'd like it as a backup. It's a perfectly fine camera and $500 with the two lenses is just peachy in my book. Sounds great, thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
So would ebay link be a bad idea? Its a little more, but I like fisheye landscapes for the sense of scale. I might take my camera down to LCE and see if they'll let me play with some lenses before buying.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
junto a la luna posted:So I am off to Iceland in September, for 10 days of walking around what I hope will be some amazing scenery. I bought a D3200 in February, with just the kit lens. I also have an old 50mm lens from an F301, though the AF doesn't work on my D3200. I'd rent a really good lens, rather than trying to buy something on a shoestring, for truely 'epic' stuff like that. e: eg. for 14 days £200 would probably get you something good at the wide end like a 10mm/2.8 nikon and something tele with macro like a 200mm/2.8 sigma for the close up 'wildlife' and long shots, on top of your kit lens and 50mm that would cover most of the ranges, and give you better lenses for those 2 weeks than buying some substandard stuff to own would. SybilVimes fucked around with this message at 22:15 on May 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:The kit lens for that is the 17-55mm, right? If the wide end on that performs well, it should make for pretty good landscape photos. If you want to go even wider, the Tokina 11-16 is pretty much the only thing that's decent under $2K. If you prefer working with a moderate wide angle, the 28/2.8 AI and AI-s are pretty much distortion-free, decently sharp and pretty cheap through most used resellers. The Sigma 8-16 might also be worth looking into. I really like mine for mountain shots.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:I'd rent a really good lens, rather than trying to buy something on a shoestring, for truely 'epic' stuff like that. 10.5mm is a full on fisheye. You would need to flatten it out with perspective control. Its works great but bear in mind that when you perspective fix a fished eye photo, you some image area, so account for that loss when you compose. I personally would rent a 8-16mm sigma myself and use that with 18-55 kit lens and the 50mm for a shortish tele. junto a la luna posted:So I am off to Iceland in September, for 10 days of walking around what I hope will be some amazing scenery. I bought a D3200 in February, with just the kit lens. I also have an old 50mm lens from an F301, though the AF doesn't work on my D3200. Your budget is really small for what you are asking, even on second hand markets. Id use the funds to rent and then if you are blown away by results, put it on your ever growing list of ways to blow photobux.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Rockwell freely admits that he writes hoaxes and bullshit into his site for laughs. If you take everything he's posted on there seriously, you are exactly the type of person he is trying to catch and you should be laughed at. I'm the guy making a living off begging for money on his site and then filling it with bullshit and hoaxes. Please click my links or my children starve, though 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
junto a la luna posted:So I am off to Iceland in September, for 10 days of walking around what I hope will be some amazing scenery. I bought a D3200 in February, with just the kit lens. I also have an old 50mm lens from an F301, though the AF doesn't work on my D3200. What are your criteria for "good for landscapes"? How wide are you capable of shooting? I can't really use more than about 28mm equivalent effectively, and I generally think 24mm is about as wide as most people can really do. You need a good subject in the foreground to minimize the foreshortening effect. Also, how far do you want to stop down? A lot of the UWA zooms are pretty trashy in the corners wide open but most people stop down to f/8 or below for landscapes. Even the kit lens is going to do pretty well stopped down to f/8 or below and shot off a tripod. I mean if you want to buy something, I would look at the Samyang 14/2.8 (or the 8mm if you want to do the fisheye correction). It's as good as it gets for a cheap UWA prime. That's probably too little to buy a real zoom, but you could rent one.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
I've seen some amazing work done with the Sigma 10-20, it should prove more than sufficient for tripod work.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'm the guy making a living off begging for money on his site and then filling it with bullshit and hoaxes. So what your sayin is that Ken Rockwell is Shivadas? How he feed dem kidz?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
Does anyone besides me have a 1 series cameras and care about how poor the off camera flash support is?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
I need to get a relatively inexpensive telephoto lens with at least 300 mm on the long end for wildlife photography. It will be for an APS-C body, the D50. The options that seem available to me are the Nikon 55-300 mm DX VR, the Nikon 70-300 mm VR, and the Tamron 70-300 MM VC. I'm leaning towards the Tamron 70-300 mm because it seems like a good mix of image quality and features for the price, $350. I'm having trouble finding any good comparative lens reviews though. Do you guys have experience and opinions about these lenses?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
I haven't used the Tamron but the 55-300 has done perfectly fine for me for my wildlife shots. And by wildlife I mean cute dogs at the dog park.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
I've used the Tamron 70-300VC, it's a very good lens for the price. Better than the cheap nikons, comparable to the more expensive nikon 70-300 (the ~600 dollar one). http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/619-tamron70300f456fx
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
DOUBLEPOSTING BECAUSE SPACE IS AWESOME. http://petapixel.com/2013/04/10/a-glimpse-at-where-camera-gear-is-kept-on-the-international-space-station/
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
Eegah posted:I haven't used the Tamron but the 55-300 has done perfectly fine for me for my wildlife shots. And by wildlife I mean cute dogs at the dog park. I've got the Nikon 18-200 mm DX VR already (the mk I), and I've been pretty disappointed in the sharpness of it. Of course I know you can't expect much from a super-zoom, and it was a gift anyway, so I can't complain. But even though people seem to like the 55-300 mm DX well enough, the fact that it's just a DX kit lens makes me weary that I wouldn't see any improvements over what I already have, beyond reach. Mr. Despair posted:I've used the Tamron 70-300VC, it's a very good lens for the price. Better than the cheap nikons, comparable to the more expensive Nikon 70-300 (the ~600 dollar one). I've definitely decided to go for it now. I was considering the Tamron and Nikon 70-300 fairly equally, but with the Nikon used/refurbished for a similar price, but then I remembered I'd have a 6 year warranty with the Tamron and basically nothing with a used/refurbished Nikon. It definitely seems like a good lens for the price, and the only thing I use my DSLR for now is wildlife/birding, so this lens should be perfect for that, and I'm just going to sell my other ones.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 09:56
|
|
|
Another note in Tamron's favor is that they apparently have put a lot of work into making their warranty service better, while Nikon's (in the US) is not so hot even if you were buying new. Check out lensrentals' repair data and return times: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/lensrentals-repair-data-january-july-2012
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
I can't gush enough about the Tamron. For the price it's extremely capable. I was mostly surprised by the build quality.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
I got recommended the Tamron in this thread for a safari trip. I wasn't disappointed, it's a great lens. Here are some shots I took with it:  pride by bmc451, on Flickr  just chillin' by bmc451, on Flickr Fungah fucked around with this message at 21:06 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:DOUBLEPOSTING BECAUSE SPACE IS AWESOME. They should send Ashton Kutcher into space.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:They should send Ashton Kutcher into space. Space has enough junk already. I hear they need people for that one way mission to Mars.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
Fungah posted:I got recommended the Tamron in this thread for a safari trip. I wasn't disappointed, it's a great lens. powderific posted:http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/lensrentals-repair-data-january-july-2012 Thanks, it was interesting to read from his perspective.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 07:54
|
|