|
Musket posted: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. I'll try the focus dot again, but last I checked it wasn't really useful, especially in low light. I may look into upgrading to a D7000, at least it has a pentaprism with close to 1x magnification. Mr. Despair posted: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? Do you think the D7000 would be better at dealing with a narrow DoF? Even in bright light that seems to be an issue with the D5100, I'll end up focusing just ahead or just behind my subject. Either way I'm going to try out my next camera in a store and see how it operates. Maybe try and rent one for a weekend.
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
nop posted:Do you think the D7000 would be better at dealing with a narrow DoF? Even in bright light that seems to be an issue with the D5100, I'll end up focusing just ahead or just behind my subject. Either way I'm going to try out my next camera in a store and see how it operates. Maybe try and rent one for a weekend. It's a factor of how they make the focusing screen. If your model supports replacing it you can find cheap upgrades on eBay.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:I actually felt dirty reading that article. It's not an actual "article" though.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
nop posted:I'll try the focus dot again, but last I checked it wasn't really useful, especially in low light. I may look into upgrading to a D7000, at least it has a pentaprism with close to 1x magnification. I would suggest looking at the idea of a Katzeye screen for MF lenses. http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/cat--Nikon-DSLRs--cat_nikon.html I had one for my D700 and it owned hard.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
I want to start using and old 70-200 Nikon lens my dad had on my Canon T3i; any adapter brand/model I should be on the lookout for? I was eyeballing these: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=nikon+to+canon+eos&x=0&y=0
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Question about how many filters are too many. I'm interested in getting a 77mm conkin grad filter holder, either p or z series. I currently have a 67mm thread on my 17-50mm tamron and have a step up ring to 77mm. On top of that I sometimes use a 77mm Hoya 9 stop ND filter and a 77mm marumi circular polarizer. There is no vignetting yet but would there be if I add a square filter holder on top of all that? GoldenNugget fucked around with this message at 03:25 on May 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:Question about how many filters are too many.  Yes you will most likely get vignetting with the setup you are proposing, especially if you ever use a lens wider than 17mm. In my experience you want the square filters as close so the lens as possible. My setup is often 1-2 LEE filters (Big Stopper 10x ND and then a graduated ND if needed) and finally a 105mm circular polarizer. Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 03:52 on May 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:stacks on stacks on stacks haha, I love that crazy filter stack picture of yours. I know you have a LEE filter system but do you know if the cokin system can hold circular filters in conjunction with square filters? I want to have at least my circular polarizer on the stack with a GND. Is a 3-stop GND a good place to start? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:Question about how many filters are too many. If you ever plan to get a UWA lens at any point like a 14mm or whatever, get the Z holder now. Sure its HUGE but hey, it saves you additional spending in the long run.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
Should I be worried about where I buy Eneloops from? I know there's always concern for counterfeit memory cards, so I assume other camera accessories can be suspect as well.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Should I be worried about where I buy Eneloops from? I know there's always concern for counterfeit memory cards, so I assume other camera accessories can be suspect as well. I wasn't but I am slightly now. I've had no problems just getting 20 packs on amazon, always holds charge way longer than I expect.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
I'd like to pick up a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 to go with a new Canon 6D, but is there any reason to wait until it's redesigned (like the new 35mm f/1.4 Art)?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Should I be worried about where I buy Eneloops from? I know there's always concern for counterfeit memory cards, so I assume other camera accessories can be suspect as well. Instrumedley posted:I'd like to pick up a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 to go with a new Canon 6D, but is there any reason to wait until it's redesigned (like the new 35mm f/1.4 Art)? Bob Socko fucked around with this message at 03:58 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Instrumedley posted:I'd like to pick up a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 to go with a new Canon 6D, but is there any reason to wait until it's redesigned (like the new 35mm f/1.4 Art)? Local supplier for Sigma has outright stated that while the 50mm/85mm f1.4 will get a redesign the optics will be the same, the 35mm f1.4 was a totally new lens. Grain of salt of course but I've not known them to be wrong. If you don't mind about having different looking primes I'd pick them up the moment Sigma announces re-badged 50/85 as most places will drop trou to get them gone before the new ones come in.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
Yeah, it makes sense for them to update the 50/1.4 to work with their dock system and such, even if they keep the glass the same.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 09:19
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:I wouldn't expect them to refresh that lens anytime soon, it's a fairly new design and is still highly respected. I'd expect a redesigned 24-70mm f/2.8 or a 135mm f/2 or faster before a refreshed 50mm f/1.4. I wouldn't wait, it might be a long wait. However, Sigma has a tendency to announce something and drag its release for months. Back on my 550D, I wanted to get a 50-150mm, but their stabilized version. There was almost a year between announcement and availability.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 12:48
|
|
|
The problem is that the glass will be the same, but the resale value will drop because it's a version 1.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
nop posted:I'll try the focus dot again, but last I checked it wasn't really useful, especially in low light. I may look into upgrading to a D7000, at least it has a pentaprism with close to 1x magnification. The D7000, D7100 is a bit better than that, but after using film cameras (FM2 and others) for a while I still find the D7k viewfinder to be smallish, dark and confining. This is of course completely subjective, but I basically wanted to warn you not to expect a major improvement over the D5100, because you compared it to a film camera earlier. I guess the best advice is always to go to a shop and fondle some cameras. This tells you way more than internet spergs or even reviews ever can.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
If you want the biggest, brightest viewfinder, get a mirrorless camera. You'll get a 3 or 4 inch backlit screen to look at.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
A Nikon 1 and a loupe!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
It’s hard to beat large format.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It’s hard to beat large format.  lookit dat ground glass 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
That bellows doesn't know what the hell to do.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
HPL posted:If you want the biggest, brightest viewfinder, get a mirrorless camera. You'll get a 3 or 4 inch backlit screen to look at. EVFs and LCD screens suffer from being pixelated. An optical viewfinder has as much detail as the lens and your eye can resolve, so you can tell EXACTLY what's in focus. Very important when using f/1.2L lenses.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:The D7000, D7100 is a bit better than that, but after using film cameras (FM2 and others) for a while I still find the D7k viewfinder to be smallish, dark and confining. This is of course completely subjective, but I basically wanted to warn you not to expect a major improvement over the D5100, because you compared it to a film camera earlier. Yeah, I'll definitely be fondling a D7000 before I buy one. And even then I'll probably end up buying a focusing screen for it. I've been messing around with the different screens for my FM2 and I can't believe how much easier it is. I have a feeling that when all is said and done I'll just shoot film for most things. I could always get a rangefinder camera 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Fred Miranda Jr posted:EVFs and LCD screens suffer from being pixelated. An optical viewfinder has as much detail as the lens and your eye can resolve, so you can tell EXACTLY what's in focus. Very important when using f/1.2L lenses. Except that exactly 0 cameras on the market come with focus screens that can accurately show depth of field of lenses faster than f2.8. In fact, this is one distinct area that EVFs absolutely excel at - they can show you the exact image that will be produced when you click the shutter, depth of field and all.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
Walk into the club like "what's up I gotta big contact print".
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Fred Miranda Jr posted:EVFs and LCD screens suffer from being pixelated. An optical viewfinder has as much detail as the lens and your eye can resolve, so you can tell EXACTLY what's in focus. Very important when using f/1.2L lenses. First, there's the issue with the focusing screen, as already mentioned. Secondly if you can tell focus just by looking at the tiny rear end DOF through a just as tiny-rear end viewfinder, without any prism collar, split image or anything else, I have a bridge to sell to you. How tiny is the DOF? Very. I tried focusing a f/0.9 equivalent lens on a large ground glass screen without any focusing aid, besides a loupe. It was a huge PITA. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 02:54 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
... to clarify, it takes all day to point it, and another day to shoot it."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
bobfather posted:Except that exactly 0 cameras on the market come with focus screens that can accurately show depth of field of lenses faster than f2.8. Interchangeable focusing screens called.  EVFs will never get the colour and contrast right. Mirrorless cameras have their place, but the EVF is a necessary evil, not a feature.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Interchangeable focusing screens called. OVFs don't get colour and contrast right either. The EVF at least shows things as they will be recorded whereas the OVF only shows what you see, not what will be recorded. EVFs are great for shooting B&W because you see exactly what you're getting. They're also great because you see true depth of field live as opposed to always working at wide open aperture and then flipping over to a super dark DOF preview mode.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
At the risk of going all fanboy, I prefer EVF now. Yes the color and contrast are not correct, resolution is an issue, but having a live histogram is huge to me. The killer feature for EVF, for me, is being able to "see" in black and white. Shooting in raw with B&W picture style gives me the EVF display in black and white, but I still get a color raw file so that I can tweak the B&W color mix in lightroom or SEP. As far as checking critical focus, I also shoot with a 5D2 (for now) and often use a 85mm F/1.4 manual focus lens which I like to shoot wide open, with the replacement precision focusing screen, and I have as good or better results using live view and magic lantern's 10x picture-in-picture magnification. Unfortunately I haven't found a way to hold the camera stable while shooting live view so this is pretty much a tripod only method. Fake Ken Rockwell fucked around with this message at 03:23 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
SMDH if you people need to see the scene in B&W on the camera to shoot in B&W.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
I mean I shot BW through OVF like everyone else for several years but now that I have an EVF it's nice to have. Colors sometimes get in the way of our perception of value. My art teacher taught me to look through a framed piece of red cellophane, to take the color out of the scene for judging value for drawings. It's actually very helpful. Yes, you can get by without it though.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
Fake Ken Rockwell posted:Colors sometimes get in the way of our perception of value. My art teacher taught me to look through a framed piece of red cellophane, to take the color out of the scene for judging value for drawings. It's actually very helpful. Yes, you can get by without it though. To be honest the best way is to just blow though a few rolls of B+W film and develop it. It's not difficult and it accustoms you to seeing contrast instead of color. I highly recommend doing a 50mm or a wide/normal/tele kit as it also helps you with the ability to mentally frame your shot. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:39 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
I was very confused for a while on what made a photo a great photo. It's almost certain that the photo looks good in black and white. I always wondered why. A professor that I know who used to work for Nat Geo told me it is about tonality, or the way light and dark interact. It was a very revealing thing to me. Being human, we see in color so sometimes that take priority. Tonality is a perspective that can be seen, but many photographers spend their entire lives searching for it and developing the skill to "see" the shot before they take it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:To be honest the best way is to just blow though a few rolls of B+W film and develop it. It's not difficult and it accustoms you to seeing contrast instead of color. I highly recommend doing a 50mm or a wide/normal/tele kit as it also helps you with the ability to mentally frame your shot. I am not new to shooting B&W. I just find it nice to have. If I am choosing whether the EVF is in color or not, I am going to choose not. If I didn't have the option to have B&W EVF, I wouldn't fret about it. But I like having it. If it's a silly amateur feature, that's fine with me. I like silly amateur features. Not sure what focal length has to do with this but i'm a 28mm/50mm/85mm prime kit guy myself, wouldn't have it any other way. Fake Ken Rockwell fucked around with this message at 03:50 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
All of the visual arts are ultimately about light and shadow. I feel that an understanding of this is necessary for creating pictures that will elicit an emotional response from viewers. If you need tools to help you, that's okay, but the goal should be to understand it so well that you abandon the tools and just work intuitively.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
casa de mi padre posted:All of the visual arts are ultimately about light and shadow. I feel that an understanding of this is necessary for creating pictures that will elicit an emotional response from viewers. If you need tools to help you, that's okay, but the goal should be to understand it so well that you abandon the tools and just work intuitively. Yup, this. You know those weird sideways wheels they put on a kids bicycle, to help them learn to ride a bicycle? Yeah studies show that they are actually impeding learning how to properly ride and balance a bicycle. Speaking in this metaphor: Falling down is normal and part of the experience, embrace it, get better.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Not seeing color in the viewfinder is equivalent to training wheels? Really? What about chimping to check exposure? Are we not allowed to look at histograms either? Where does it stop?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:39
|
|