|
INTJ Mastermind posted:I'm looking for a nice leather hand strap for my 7D. Has anyone used the Handy Dandy Hand Strap by Photojojo?
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
Amazon's gold box today is cheap sandisk memory. Check it out
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Just wanted to give a quick update about my recent purchase of the Pentax K-30. I just have one word: amazing! I think I would have had the same opinion if I had bought a cannon or Nikon, but it feels so good in my hands. Still trying out some of the settings and stuff. Thanks for all the useful posts and things. Everything about the camera is really intuitive!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
Myrmidongs posted:Amazon's gold box today is cheap sandisk memory. Check it out SD cards! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:SD cards! That's a perfectly good storage medium. For a clown. At the circus. Idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
Hey guys, so I got a D5100 last month for my birthday and have been loving around with it since. I got it with the two kit lenses, the standard 18-55 and 55-200. While I'm enjoying them and they give pretty good results, I'm finding that often times I wish I had a faster lens on me, so my next investment will probably be in a fast prime lens like the 35mm f/1.8g. I want it primarily for shooting stuff like shows and other low light things rather than using for any kind of portrait work (which I'll also do but isn't my primary focus) so I'll take being able to capture more in a shot over the advantages that 50mm offers. After that, I want an affordable (under $600) zoom for walk around purposes, something that might be a little faster and be of better quality than the kit lens I have on me right now.. I'm looking at either of these two: http://www.amazon.com/camera-photo/dp/B0000A1G05 http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-70mm-2-8-4-Canon-Digital/dp/B002ZNJB32 I noticed that the second one says Macro, I'm wondering what that means exactly (besides the obvious fact that it's meant for Macro photography). Like, can you still use it for normal shooting purposes, or will it introduce some weird kind of distortion or something? The first one looks pretty awesome (continuous f/2.8 at all focal lengths) at the cost of slightly less range on the shorter focal lengths. However, I can't find much information about it and am not completely sure it if works with the D5100 (and if it offers auto focus, but judging the "AF motor" part I'm assuming it does). If anyone knows anything about these two lenses and can point me in the right direction that'd be awesome, I'm still pretty new at all this. Edit: Also, if at some point down the road I want to upgrade to a full frame camera, would I still be able to use these lenses on a larger body? reversefungi fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
On the d5100 the Tamron 17-50 is probably going to be a better buy for your money. Constant f/2.8 aperture, nice optics, etc. That other lens you linked is meant more for FF cameras, it's not as common of focal range when used on aps-c cameras. The macro basically just means that it can focus close, you can still take pictures with it like normal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
I don't know about either of the lenses you listed, but in my (limited) experience, macro lenses produce very sharp images throughout their focus range; some of my favourite shots were taken with my 105mm macro at infinity. You pay a bit more for it as a feature, so it's not really worth it unless you expect to be taking some very up-close shots. If you're going to be doing actual macro work, get a macro prime that can do 1:1. Like most things, jack of all trades but master of none isn't always the best way to spend money. Regarding 17-70mm as a focal length range: that seems very handy on APS-C, from reasonably wide to decent reach.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
If you want to shoot live shows with poor lighting, consider how far you will be from the scene. Unless you'll be sitting on the first row, chance is you'll want something longer for it. I'd think a fast 85mm prime would be well suited for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:That's a perfectly good storage medium. I think you'll find that all *professional* clowns use CF, and frankly, if you don't aspire to be a professional clown, you shouldn't even be putting on makeup 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 11:06
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:I think you'll find that all *professional* clowns use CF, and frankly, if you don't aspire to be a professional clown, you shouldn't even be putting on makeup Rodeo clowns still use MicroDrive though, it's an Old West thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Rodeo clowns still use MicroDrive though, it's an Old West thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I have a few on my desk at work. Almost nothing supports them. The D200 does  (At least I think the manual says it does. D1H certainly does because it's old as poo poo.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
nielsm posted:If you want to shoot live shows with poor lighting, consider how far you will be from the scene. Unless you'll be sitting on the first row, chance is you'll want something longer for it. I'd think a fast 85mm prime would be well suited for that. It's easy enough to just get to the front row at most GA shows. If it's a large crowd, get there early. 50mm on crop is pretty tight up at the front, and farther back in the crowd you'd have to deal with heads in the way, unless you're very tall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Rodeo clowns still use MicroDrive though, it's an Old West thing. I like when the folks that ran the flight school I used to instruct for thought micro drive would be the savior for recording video shot from a camera mounted in the tail of an Extra 300L. Needless to say the +/-4 or 5 g's we routinely put on those planes, or the up to 6.5-7 g's with a durable student absolutely dashed their hopes and dreams of using micro drive against the sharp rocks of reality that sudden and sustained g forces destroyed those little drives. Then to prove they were really dumb the full time instructors that had money bought the original iPods after seeing me take up a little cheap solid state MP3 player with me. Will they never learn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:The D200 does What I mean to say is give me a microdrive sex parrot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:What I mean to say is give me a microdrive sex parrot. "give me a microdrive sex, parrot" "give me a microdrive-sex parrot"
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Had to RMA a new Sigma 35mm f/1.4  Very impressed optically with the lens though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Instrumedley posted:Had to RMA a new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Instrumedley posted:Had to RMA a new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Eek! What happened?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Eek! What happened? Emptyquote + doublequote? I'm gonna have to get a ruling from the high council on this one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
TL;DR: Going to San Diego, want to rent awesome UWA lens for shots of oceans. Using a 650d, what is the best option to match the focal range of the Canon 10-22 USM? I bring this lens up because I used to own it so it's the only one I'm familiar with. Should I get that lens or is there one better for crops? Thanks! (now skip down to the line beginning with Also below, for question 2) ----------------- For my trip to San Diego, primarily for the Zoo and for the beaches to get some sunrise/sunset shots, I have the following lenses at my disposal (though I won't be taking them all, obviously): (these will all be on a 650D body) - 70-200 f/4L IS (definitely going) - 100mm f/2.8L macro (ditto) - 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (probably going with) - 40mm f/2.8 - 50mm f/1.8 I used to have the EF-S 10-22 and really enjoyed it (but ended up selling it as I wasn't using the 10-14 range enough), so I'm considering renting it for this trip. Before I do that, I figured I'd ask you all if there are any other UWA lenses you'd recommend for crop bodies? Not looking for fisheye, just really wide. There don't seem to be any L lenses in that range for crop bodies, which is not at all surprising. So, should I go with the 10-22, or is there a better alternative out there with a comparable FOV? Also, has anyone played around with the TriggerTrap remote shutter system for iOS/Android? It looks pretty awesome, letting you combine the iOS/Android device's camera to, for example, only take the photograph when it can see six smiles (from facial recognition, sends shutter signal through headphone jack to the shutter port). Can do other cool things like take a photo nearly immediately when it sees a bright light (lightning shots) or a detects a loud noise. Anyway, it does a whole host of cool poo poo, I just want to know if anyone has tried it to know it can do that poo poo well. https://triggertrap.com Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
The Tokina 11-16 is a popular option in that range.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
There aren't any L lenses for crop bodies FYI. The widest non-fisheye L is the 14mm f/2.8 I believe. The UWA options are the Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20 (two versions of this), Tokina 11-16, and Sigma 8-16. I had the older Sigma 10-20 (I think it was f/4 vs f/3.5 for the new one) and it was pretty alright. A lot of people (Haggins and others) love the Sigma 8-16 for the mega ultra wideness. e: oh look there's one in the gear thread if you're interested in buying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
nielsm posted:If you want to shoot live shows with poor lighting, consider how far you will be from the scene. Unless you'll be sitting on the first row, chance is you'll want something longer for it. I'd think a fast 85mm prime would be well suited for that. A live show with poor lighting will generally be in a very small venue (unless you're shooting Tool) where 85mm would be wild overkill for anything other than head shots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 10:46
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Emptyquote + doublequote? I'm gonna have to get a ruling from the high council on this one. Weird, that was done on my phone in the iOS Awful app. Must have double tapped the quote icon. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Eek! What happened? The autofocus system was squeaking loudly and would focus inconsistently (even on different bodies).
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
I'm a casual user with a tamron 17-50 and a canon 55-250. Disclaimer: I come from a family that loving loves deals and rebates. I have trips to Mr. Rushmore and Jamaica coming up, and from previous vacations I've realized that I absolutely hate switching lenses, esp. in a messy environment like a beach. Is it worth getting the Canon 18-200 (as part of a deal w/ a D60 and a bunch of misc. poo poo that I'll sell off) and selling the 55-250 or should I just suck it up? Honestly I don't even use that long of a reach that often but there's always that moment of "drat, that cool-looking bird/squirrel is just too far away  ..."
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
Most people will tell you to just suck it up and crop. For what its worth, I had a Tamron 17-270 for a while and found it to be about on par with the kit lens and 55-250. Although it's really slow on the long end and not 2.8 on the wide end. Incredible range though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 07:31
|
|
|
Or if you're okay with looking like a true dork, get a second camera body so you have one for each lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 10:55
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Or if you're okay with looking like a true dork, get a second camera body so you have one for each lens. Who wouldn't want to be a true dork? You make it sound like this is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Pianist On Strike posted:I'm a casual user with a tamron 17-50 and a canon 55-250. Disclaimer: I come from a family that loving loves deals and rebates. Looking at the comparisons of the two lenses, it looks like you would be better off shooting what you have, as the 17-50 looks like it is sharper than the Canon at all of their shared focal lengths, and faster to boot, though it looks like the 18-200 has a slight advantage when shooting fully open at the longer end, at around 150-200, than the 55-250. That being said, it isn't much of a difference and I think you would be better off keeping the lenses that you have and buying better glass for the longer distance stuff later on. I have no experience with superzooms, but form what I hear on these forums, they are usually softer at the reaches of their focal lengths. Hell, if you are using EF-S lenses, it might be worth saving up even more to try and buy a full-frame body later on
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
On the other hand, if you'll take more shots with the 18-200 instead of giving up and leaving your camera behind, then it's totally worth it. Also I hope you're doing more than just Mt. Rushmore when you're in the Black Hills area.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Also I hope you're doing more than just Mt. Rushmore when you're in the Black Hills area. Seriously. Badlands, Custer, and Fort Robinson parks are all significantly more interesting than Mt. Rushmore, which is nothing but a tourist trap. For towns, Deadwood and Hot Springs are great stops too for all the old construction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Seriously. Badlands, Custer, and Fort Robinson parks are all significantly more interesting than Mt. Rushmore, which is nothing but a tourist trap. Oh definitely, we've got a whole road trip planned and Mt. Rushmore is only one stop. We'll be hitting up the Badlands, Custer, Angostura Reservoir, and a bunch of other places. My mom used to work as a tour guide in the Soviet Union, and I guess that mentality of "let's go EVERYWHERE and see EVERYTHING" stuck, so any family vacation always ends up ridiculously packed. Sometimes it's overwhelming but I do appreciate it. Thanks for all the gear feedback, too. My other plan was saving up for a full-frame body, so I'll stick with what I've got for now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Pianist On Strike posted:Oh definitely, we've got a whole road trip planned and Mt. Rushmore is only one stop. We'll be hitting up the Badlands, Custer, Angostura Reservoir, and a bunch of other places. My mom used to work as a tour guide in the Soviet Union, and I guess that mentality of "let's go EVERYWHERE and see EVERYTHING" stuck, so any family vacation always ends up ridiculously packed. Sometimes it's overwhelming but I do appreciate it. Go to Lewie's.  Lewie's by MrDespair, on Flickr Unless you're going during the Sturgis Rally, in which case hahahahahaha.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
I went to go see Mt. Rushmore in the middle of January many years ago. It was awesome. It was clear and sunny and I was practically the only person there. Oh, and I had to stop somewhere in Custer park because a buffalo was standing there, blocking the road.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
Pianist On Strike posted:My mom used to work as a tour guide in the Soviet Union I want to hear more about this. Have you heard many stories from her?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I want to hear more about this. Have you heard many stories from her? I have, but unfortunately I can't seem to recall any right now, and I don't want to derail the thread. None of them are terribly outlandish. She led four trips in her early 20s, so that would be in the mid-80s (I'm a baby). I think they were to Armenia, Moldova, and Romania (we're from St. Petersburg - gorgeous city, by the way).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
So my Scandisk SD card started to fall apart today to the point where it devices didn't read it anymore. And I mean physically fall apart. After e-mailing scandisk they responded: Scandisk posted:I would like to inform you that the Extreme 30 MBPS 16 GB SDHC card is currently out of stock, so we are upgrading your memory card to an Extreme 45 MBPS 16 GB SDHC card. Please reply to this email if you agree to this. They even paid for shipping. I'm pretty happy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
Well that's pretty sweet.. I had one of their cards break on the same corner a couple weeks ago and it's been sitting on the end table since then because I haven't gotten around to throwing it away. I guess I should ring them up! Apparently that edge takes a lot of abuse because there's a little metal spring in a card slot that the host uses to determine when a card is inserted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 01:23
|
|