|
Platystemon posted:That’s funny, because you’ve posting in here recently Yep, I posted how dumb you all are about debating camera usages. Its like FM Lite around here. A bunch of fanboys trying to be right.
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
Musket posted:Yep, I posted how dumb you all are about debating camera usages. Its like FM Lite around here. A bunch of fanboys trying to be right. Right, because you were posting ironically  here:Musket posted:Unlike 2010 when FF vs Crop was a wide gap, today its not. The only real advantage FF has over DX/Crop is in UWA territory and even then that's not even a big deal much these days. Im championing whatever system you take with you now these days. Ive sold off a full frame system in favor of a smaller more portable compact system and have not found myself painted into a corner by lacking a FF sensor. If anything Ive upped my % of good photos because I am not breaking my back lugging 20pounds of gear around cursing its weight, thus leaving it at home to collect dust. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
The only good sensor is Portra, you weirdos.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Hey could we not have a giant wanky crop vs. full-frame debate, y'know, just as a personal favor?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:The only good sensor is Portra, you weirdos.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 19:38
|
|
Cutie Pie Swag~
|
 "sensor" chat
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:The only good sensor is Portra, you weirdos. Astia has superior sharpness while also not having over-the-top saturation like other slide films. Astia, I say, is the best sensor!! 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Astia has superior sharpness while also not having over-the-top saturation like other slide films. Astia, I say, is the best sensor!! It's just a more expensive version of ektar anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
So when you get hosed up luminance in photos of people on an LED-lit stage, is it because the lighting is in one of the dips in the spectral sensitivity?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:So when you get hosed up luminance in photos of people on an LED-lit stage, is it because the lighting is in one of the dips in the spectral sensitivity? No. It's generally because LEDs are relatively intense sources of a single wavelength of light.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
There was a fairly informative post about how to recover photos overly saturated with LED stage lights on petapixel a few weeks back: http://petapixel.com/2013/04/21/quick-tutorial-on-removing-red-fill-light-from-concert-photos-in-lightroom/ Basically, yeah, you've got three big sharp spikes across the spectrum without a whole lot of information between them. You've also got a rolling/flicker issue to deal with, so you can be shooting and wind up with shots where the entire top half of the frame is dark. I've been able to save a couple of live band shots using some of the techniques in the video, but lately, whenever a band has me come out to shoot a live gig, I just warn them that they're gonna be getting a lot of B&W shots.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
bisticles posted:Basically, yeah, you've got three big sharp spikes across the spectrum without a whole lot of information between them. You've also got a rolling/flicker issue to deal with, so you can be shooting and wind up with shots where the entire top half of the frame is dark. Luckily this is getting better these days, as theatrical LED fixtures are getting a bit more mainstream, manufacturers are actually putting decent PWM controllers in them. Even with the nicer ones though, there's still a bit of flicker below about 10% intensity.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
casa de mi padre posted:It's not compatible with my camera, sorry. Then get the Pentax 15/4.0 or 14/2.8
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
kcncuda71 posted:In a lot of ways it is. The only real difference between crop sensor and full frame is the size of the sensor. Any major differences are R&D into making it work in the digital era. All the bells and whistles they throw on could be adapted to crop sensor technology, and it usually is to a limited extent. Looking at the difference between a pentax k-5ii and a 645d the only major difference is the sensor and accomodations for the sensor (I shoot pentax so this is the easiest to compare for myself). Both are weathersealed, both have two dimensional leveling, sensor cleaning, and top LCD. Hell, they both have similar body construction. The 645d though costs $7000 vs the k-5ii's $1000. The big difference is the sensor that picks up pictures. Even the lenses are of similar quality, they just need to accomodate a bigger image circle. Paul MaudDib posted:The only non-marketing distinction between any "crop" sensor and a "full frame" sensor is the size of the sensor, period. Everything else is marketing - it's whether Canon felt like putting a decent AF system on the 7D or whether they're going to cut costs like the (full frame) 6D, or didn't bother weather sealing it, etc. Of course there are inherent advantages to a large sensor size - depth of field, plus, as mentioned, we're running into the laws of physics and megapixel counts won't be able to increase much further unless the sensors start getting bigger too. But supporting features can be present that provide everything else you ascribe to "full frame systems" (weather sealing, AF performance, build quality, etc), and a professional photographer is probably not going to care that he shot that game on a 7D instead of a 1Ds (unless he's rolling in enough cash not to care). Even depth of field can be faked if you want (the photojournalism thread cries out). I think I'm understanding where you're coming from now -- right now, people who really need their poo poo to perform are going to pick full frame because of the supporting features -- better lenses, sealing/af/frame rate -- but that if the big camera companies really wanted to, they could make an equivalent supporting system for crop sensors and the only take-away would be depth of field, diffraction limits, and IQ for same-generation sensors. Fair enough. Right now though, with the way the systems are set up, you're going to pick the 1D over the 7D every time because of those supporting features -- weather sealing, depth of field, battery life, multiple card writing, ergonomics, better lenses, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
I think that was a very good summary, thanks for clearing it up. No mod sass intended but this is the gear thread... I think sometimes we need a place to sperg out to get it out of our systems so FM lite doesn't spill over into our other wonder threads about actually taking pictures. Those are the treads that make this the best photo forum on the internet.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:No mod sass intended but this is the gear thread... I think sometimes we need a place to sperg out to get it out of our systems so FM lite doesn't spill over into our other wonder threads about actually taking pictures. Those are the treads that make this the best photo forum on the internet. Fair enough. I just ask that people don't make personal attacks based on opinions on the sizes of sensors in cameras. The reason Dorkroom owns is that we're generally pretty civil even with brand wars, etc, and don't get all caremad like most other photography forums. Let's just keep it that way if at all possible.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Fair enough. I just ask that people don't make personal attacks based on opinions on the sizes of sensors in cameras. The reason Dorkroom owns is that we're generally pretty civil even with brand wars, etc, and don't get all caremad like most other photography forums. Let's just keep it that way if at all possible. Wait, I thought it was the unusually high saturation of ME Supers. Now I'm confused.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:No. It's generally because LEDs are relatively intense sources of a single wavelength of light. I don't understand how narrowband sources gently caress with luminance, though. Is the calculation on the camera is some kind of weighted average? Sodium vapor street lights would have the same problem, but I haven't noticed any issues with those. Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 13:46 on May 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
Someone said in this thread that white LEDs have three spectral peaks. That's not quite right. Phosphor on blue LED, which is what virtually all white LEDs are these days, are full spectrum lights with an UV peak. The CFLs are the ones with peaks, and actually four of them. A cheap trick to get a rough idea of a bulbs spectral range is to use a data-side of a CD or DVD to refract the light. If it's a smooth rainbow, it's full spectrum, if it's interrupted, something's missing, if it's four distinct lines of color, you're dealing with a CFL or something similar.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Someone said in this thread that white LEDs have three spectral peaks. That's not quite right. Phosphor on blue LED, which is what virtually all white LEDs are these days, are full spectrum lights with an UV peak. The CFLs are the ones with peaks, and actually four of them. A cheap trick to get a rough idea of a bulbs spectral range is to use a data-side of a CD or DVD to refract the light. If it's a smooth rainbow, it's full spectrum, if it's interrupted, something's missing, if it's four distinct lines of color, you're dealing with a CFL or something similar. That's pretty cool. Although now I'm going to be doing this with all of the lights I can find. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/html/spectrometer.html "White" LED lights usually aren't a problem, but most of the small clubs and bars around here are using lights that have red, green and blue LEDs, and the "white" setting is just turning them all on at the same time.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
bisticles posted:That's pretty cool. Although now I'm going to be doing this with all of the lights I can find. Yeah. And the problem isn't so much that they're narrow-band light sources, the problem is that they're narrow-band light sources whose colours also happen to correspond to the Bayer filter on your camera. At least with other narrow-band sources, like sodium vapor as someone mentioned, the light isn't just going to rocket through one section of the Bayer filter and blow that pixel to hell and back, but will (probably) end up going through both the red and green filters semi-equally.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this is the right thread but it's the closest I could find so sorry if i'm in the wrong place. Ages ago (about a year) a friend sold me the following: - Canon 350D DSLR - Kit Lens (18-55mm) - Sigma 70-300 Telephoto lens (+ lens hood) - 50mm "Nifty Fifty" 1.8 lens - Carry case - 2 Batteries - Battery Charger - 4GB CF Card - Remote for the shutter for £200/$308. I don't ever use this camera and I'm looking to sell it on. My question is how much is all this stuff worth? Like I said before I bought it for £200 but I think I was getting this at a 'mates rate' and a quick Google of a price for the telephoto came up with ~£100 just for that but I'm not sure. Can anyone give me a ballpark figure? I'm in the UK but I guess the prices will be proportional in dollars? E: gently caress I didn't see the Canon gear thread. Thirteenth Step fucked around with this message at 22:34 on May 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Go to KEH and start looking under "Canon digital". Note that there are different names for the same camera in different markets (i.e. XSi is a 450D I think?), and that there are different versions of the 18-55, the IS versions being much better.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Shooting full frame on a crop sensor, am I doing this right? 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Apparently everybody needs a superzoom.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Apparently everybody needs a superzoom. I went right to the bottom for sweet sperging.  
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I went right to the bottom for sweet sperging. Killjoys!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Apparently everybody needs a superzoom. This post sponsored by Tamron!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
That's a pretty terrible article but I had one of those 18-270s for a while and it honestly wasn't as bad as you might think for such an incredible focal length range. Yeah you'll never use it at 270mm in doors because lol f/6.3 but it was similar to the kit lens in build quality and IQ.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I went right to the bottom for sweet sperging. I can't see your pics at work but it must have been brutal. The conversation/comments section no longer exists.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
xcore posted:I can't see your pics at work but it must have been brutal. The conversation/comments section no longer exists. Nah, there were never comments there. I'm guessing they disabled them from the start knowing what kind of sperg magnet it would be.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
The article starts out with a general statement, "5 Reasons to Take an All-in-One Lens on Your Exotic Vacation" and then goes on to harp on the features of one specific lens in 3 of the 5 points. It's gotta be a sponsored post or something.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
bisticles posted:The article starts out with a general statement, "5 Reasons to Take an All-in-One Lens on Your Exotic Vacation" and then goes on to harp on the features of one specific lens in 3 of the 5 points. It's gotta be a sponsored post or something. It is sponsored. It's not as obvious once you're actually viewing the article (shows the Tamron logo in the top left with "sponsored" below the author name), but in the list of Gizmodo articles it'll say across the top "Sponsored by X." I just thought it was funny because this one was significantly more of a blatant shill than the usual sponsored articles I see. They even tell you that there's a $50 mail-in rebate for the lens. What a steal! Interestingly, I just tried to go back and find the article in the feed, and it doesn't show up for me anymore. Maybe the shame finally overcame them. Edit: Nevermind, it's still there. I just forgot that ever since converting to Kinja, the Gawker sites don't show their content in chronological order anymore 
404notfound fucked around with this message at 06:20 on May 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
I actually felt dirty reading that article.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Apparently everybody needs a superzoom. Thanks for the Gawker2Go. 5 reasons superzooms suck:
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
Lets be honest here, it's gizmodo, so we'd feel dirty reading it at any time, and at least they admit that they're just shilling for tamron (don't get me wrong, I like their lenses...), whereas any normal article by them could be trying to sell you any number of products.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
I've been having some trouble with the viewfinder on my D5100. I find it really hard to (manually) focus with a wide aperture or low light. I was thinking of getting a magnifier, but before I do I was wondering what might be causing the issue. I noticed the viewfinder is much clearer on my FM2. Is it a pentamirror/pentaprism issue? Or full frame vs crop issue? Has anyone had any success with magnifiers?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
nop posted:I've been having some trouble with the viewfinder on my D5100. I find it really hard to (manually) focus with a wide aperture or low light. I was thinking of getting a magnifier, but before I do I was wondering what might be causing the issue. I noticed the viewfinder is much clearer on my FM2. Is it a pentamirror/pentaprism issue? Or full frame vs crop issue? Has anyone had any success with magnifiers? The pentamirror is what's making the viewfinder seem dim and small. The other issue is that most modern viewfinder are optimized for lower apertures, this makes them seem brighter at those lower levels, but it also means that the DoF seems to be the same whether you're at f/1.8 or f/5.6, leading to missed focus. I'm not sure if the focus confirm dot has the same limitation, have you tried setting the camera to center dot focusing and relying on the focus confirm to see if it helps at all?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
nop posted:I've been having some trouble with the viewfinder on my D5100. I find it really hard to (manually) focus with a wide aperture or low light. I was thinking of getting a magnifier, but before I do I was wondering what might be causing the issue. I noticed the viewfinder is much clearer on my FM2. Is it a pentamirror/pentaprism issue? Or full frame vs crop issue? Has anyone had any success with magnifiers? This is a drawback with entry level camera viewfinders. There isnt much you can do, and the focus dot is also not all that accurate. You cant do much other than upgrade to a better more expensive camera. Even then you are lookin at droppin some serious coin, as they dont get better until you hit the D7100 and even then its not as good as say a D300/D700.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
nop posted:I've been having some trouble with the viewfinder on my D5100. I find it really hard to (manually) focus with a wide aperture or low light. I was thinking of getting a magnifier, but before I do I was wondering what might be causing the issue. I noticed the viewfinder is much clearer on my FM2. Is it a pentamirror/pentaprism issue? Or full frame vs crop issue? Has anyone had any success with magnifiers? About the only thing you can do is focus in liveview.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 18:34
|
|