|
VelociBacon posted:should we buy a cheap for-school printer and use third party printing services?
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Generally this is the correct answer. I concur. A decent duplexing, networkable, black and white laser printer will set you back about $130 including an OEM replacement toner for when the starter toner runs out. Your cost per page for printing school work on a photo printer would be astronomical compared to the entry level laser printer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
I still have and use an antique HP4L (with duplex unit!) and it's been my best IT-related buy ever. Was close to 10 years old when I got it for almost free, and it's been trucking along ever since.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
Yup, that's the way to go. I have a little Brother HL-2140 (non network model), as do many of my family members. They have all been rock solid, and whatever model of theirs suits you gets my thumbs-up. It's pretty cheap to operate and it's always ready to go. It's a small thing, but I also really appreciate that Brother just gives you the driver. You can get a 10mb zip with the driver from the website, whereas with most HP stuff you have to gently caress around with 200mb universal driver packages. I wish 200mb was a joke, it's not. I picked up a real cheap color laser at a surplus sale, and I think current models are sub-$300 nowadays. If you have occasional color printing needs (reports, etc, not photos) that's not a bad option too. Unlike a jet printer, it will never have the heads get crapped up or waste a shitload of ink in a cleaning cycle. However, even in B+W mode it will probably cost a bit more per page than a straight up B+W model though. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Jul 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice everyone, third party photo printing it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
I have a canon 60D, with no external flash. I've been meaning to give RealFlashes a try for a while now, and want to shoot some portraits on the cheap in the near future. I buy a lot of gadgets I'm really enthusiastic about and then end up never using as much as I thought I would, so I'd like to keep this low cost - but I also don't want to pay for junk that I'll find completely inadequate in like 6 months when I discover I really love using speedlights. so, I've been looking at off brands, which have pretty good amazon reviews. I just don't know enough about what I'm eventually going to want to use to get a feel for specific models. I think I want something with ETTL wireless capabilities, and something that'd be good enough to bounce off an umbrella for indoor people-pictures and photos of food. anyone got any cautions or recommendations? I think I don't understand enough about ETTL to know which models are claiming ETTL and not delivering, and which are the real deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
If you want TTL wireless it's not going to be cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
nielsm posted:If you want TTL wireless it's not going to be cheap. I'm guessing thing like this http://www.amazon.com/YongNuo-YN-468-E-TTL-Speedlite-Display/dp/B00660H6KU/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top are only ttl on the hotshoe? I mean I'd pay $200 for the Canon 270EX II or the 320EX, but I'm having a hard time interpreting if they do wireless ttl too. And then at least with the 270EX II, I'd wonder if it'd be worthwhile in my envisioned umbrella-bounce setup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
As far as I know, Scratch that, Canon does have optical TTL control. But no, don't expect off-brand flashes to support that, especially not cheap ones. They will typically have two optically triggered modes, a simple where they fire as soon as they see another flash fire, and a TTL-compensated one where they attempt to guess when a pre-flash is going on and only fire for the real exposure. Both of those would still be pure manual control on the flash itself. nielsm fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
Off camera TTL flash is dumb. Buy a cheap manual flash and some equally cheap radio slaves and spend the money you save on stands/modifiers that aren't poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Off camera TTL flash is dumb. Buy a cheap manual flash and some equally cheap radio slaves and spend the money you save on stands/modifiers that aren't poo poo. So something like that cheap YongNuo or this (http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-YN-56...canon+speedlite) I posted would be fine? I'm fine with foregoing the off camera ttl and doing exposure adjustment manually if auto ttl isn't really that helpful or reliable, I just really don't know enough about the quality of flashes to know what cheap flashes would be underpowered or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 10:01
|
|
|
Yongnuo is good poo poo, and that's a good price. There's a newer model out, the 560iii, that has a built in radio reciever to use with trigers (so you don't have to stick the flash on top of a receiver to use it off camera if you aren't optically triggering) but that's cheap enough that you could buy a radio trigger kit down the line with the difference. Or using the money to buy some eeneloop batteries so you aren't buying aa's every week for it. According to amazon I've been using my 560ii for over a year now, still works great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 10:09
|
|
|
mindphlux posted:So something like that cheap YongNuo or this (http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-YN-56...canon+speedlite) I posted would be fine? I'm fine with foregoing the off camera ttl and doing exposure adjustment manually if auto ttl isn't really that helpful or reliable, I just really don't know enough about the quality of flashes to know what cheap flashes would be underpowered or whatever. Auto TTL is plenty reliable, you just don't really need it and would be better off spending money on useful stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 10:31
|
|
|
The champion of off camera TTL is Joe McNally. Who also happens to be sponsored by Nikon and gets all his poo poo for free. Off camera TTL is hella expensive and you don't need it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
Before I give my option on ettl, I'd like to say that getting a cheapo manual flash is a good place to start in the off camera lighting world. I think you'll get a better understanding of how use a flash by shooting in manual for awhile. With that said, ettl is great and it really isn't expensive to get off camera ettl if you go the wired route (check out flash zebra). ETTL is a must have for me when I'm running and gunning.Usually, all ill have to adjust is the compensation up or down. If you're planning on shooting people,dicking around in manual can be trying on a person's patience. This is especially true if you're moving from scene to scene. Aside from that, if you still need/want to shoot in manual, Canon gives you full control of your flashes on the back of your camera if you have a ettl cord. This helps a lot if your flash is up in a stand wrapped up in modifiers. As for flashes I can't comment on 3rd party ettl since I've never used one. However the 430ex ii is a great flash and isn't break the bank expensive. It's a good place to start and provides a nice complement to any future flashes you may buy. As for wireless ettl, that's where things get expensive. Optical triggering is built into some cameras but it's generally a pain in the rear end to use and very unreliable. For radio wireless ttl, it's going to cost around $200 extra per flash plus another $200 for a transmitter. Getting a long ttl cord is cheap and works great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Awesome! Thank you all so much for your unanimous and pretty firm guidance. Ordered the $59 flash, and I'm sure I'll be happier that way anyways. Would much rather learn about off camera flash first then shell out for ETTL later if its not that big a deal. As much as I think I might be running and gunning, I probably never actually will, so futzing around with exposures is probably fine for the price.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
mindphlux posted:Awesome! Thank you all so much for your unanimous and pretty firm guidance. Ordered the $59 flash, and I'm sure I'll be happier that way anyways. Would much rather learn about off camera flash first then shell out for ETTL later if its not that big a deal. Even if you need to run and gun learning how to set a flash isn't that hard, just takes some practice and maybe double checking your guide numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
I've just been given a video camera lens, I'm wondering if it can be fitted to my crop sensor Canon. It says "FUJINON Aspheric 16x TV ZOOM LENS" on the side, and it's 6.7-107mm. Basically I don't know what the hell I'm doing and pretty much only have two different kit lenses, so this lens looks awesome. I don't know what that mount style is, and I don't know what those two rings on the bottom do, either (the MACRO ring and the one it's attached to). I guess extra focusing options or something that help with macro photography? Here have some pictures    
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
ante posted:I've just been given a video camera lens, I'm wondering if it can be fitted to my crop sensor Canon. 6.7mm to 107mm? Holy hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
I just got the Tamrom 17-50 and the zoom ring goes the way Nikons do, which is the total opposite to how Canon lenses go, and holy hell is that going to mess with my brain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
ante posted:I've just been given a video camera lens, I'm wondering if it can be fitted to my crop sensor Canon. That's probably a B4 mount, so you'd need something like this to mount it: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/854164-REG/MTF_Services_Ltd_MTB4CANEF_B4_2_3_to_CANON.html That lens isn't made to cover a very large sensor, and has a real short flange distance, so it's not well suited to adapt to much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I just got the Tamrom 17-50 and the zoom ring goes the way Nikons do, which is the total opposite to how Canon lenses go, and holy hell is that going to mess with my brain. I have that lens too, with a Nikon body, and I completely forgot that Canon goes the other way. Guess I made the right choice 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
ante posted:I've just been given a video camera lens, I'm wondering if it can be fitted to my crop sensor Canon. That thing is most likely designed to cover a 2/3rds sensor sitting about 3cm from the back of it so in short you won't be able to mount it. The extra ring is more likely back focus adjustment. EDIT. The long answer is that you'll get massive vignetting if you can find a way to mount it, it may be worth it as a gimmick but you won't be using your whole sensor. XTimmy fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
404notfound posted:I have that lens too, with a Nikon body, and I completely forgot that Canon goes the other way. Guess I made the right choice Doesn't the focus ring go the wrong way though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Thanks, dudes. The reason I have that lens is that I got given an old decommissioned speed camera (in the original housing (that has window wipers on the glass window)), and the lens is off the Hitachi CCTV camera. Maybe I'll see if I can get that working, could still be pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Is there a way to find out more information on products listed on KEH? Is the results here for the IS version or non-is version? http://www.keh.com/search?store=cam...eprice=0&r=SE&e Edit: OK, after checking B&H's website I'm assuming its the non-IS version otherwise that is stupidly cheap. Looten Plunder fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jul 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
Non-IS. They list "IS" when it has IS. And the IS is ~$400 more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
I have the feeling to use all primes. I rather like the simplicity. Someone tell me I am stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Not at all. Lug em all around and never fear the darkness. And get really fast at changing lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Miko posted:Not at all. Lug em all around and never fear the darkness. And get really fast at changing lenses. I think I am going to force myself to think before changing lenses. Move my feet, frame it better, etc. I really need to think a lot more, and not being able to just zoom in like a madman will be a good thing. I like my nifty fifty, just wish the manual focus ring wasn't so blasted small.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
Get a sigma 30 1.4. Since we bought that lens it hasn't come off the camera.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Hdip posted:Get a sigma 30 1.4. Since we bought that lens it hasn't come off the camera. Can't use the 30 since I recently went with FF, looking at the 35 1.4 for a down the road purchase.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Hdip posted:Get a sigma 30 1.4. Since we bought that lens it hasn't come off the camera. srsly. I can't believe that none of the major manufacturers has teamed up with Sigma to offer it as a slightly nicer kit lens for crop DSLR packages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
If you want a nicer manual focus ring, get a MF 50 then. Get a Nikkor MF 50 1.2 and turn your nose at those heathen autofocusers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:srsly. I can't believe that none of the major manufacturers has teamed up with Sigma to offer it as a slightly nicer kit lens for crop DSLR packages. They'd have to legitimize Sigma and share their AF algorithms and nooooo, not gonna happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:I have the feeling to use all primes. I rather like the simplicity. Someone tell me I am stupid. Primes own. Zooms are for chumps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:srsly. I can't believe that none of the major manufacturers has teamed up with Sigma to offer it as a slightly nicer kit lens for crop DSLR packages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:srsly. I can't believe that none of the major manufacturers has teamed up with Sigma to offer it as a slightly nicer kit lens for crop DSLR packages. If the major manufactures had it there way sigma wouldn't be able to make any lenses for their cameras at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Nikon has a 35/1.8 that's good enough and half the price. well then throw that in the kit and sponsor National loving Throw Your 18-55 Off A Bridge Day. What do I know, I'm not a marketing guy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:National loving Throw Your 18-55 Off A Bridge Day. This sounds like a fun day 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 22:16
|
|
