|
Need gold trim on your NX300? Yours for a premium of only $2000 and possibly having to go to Saudia Arabia/UAE.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
eXXon posted:Need gold trim on your NX300? Yours for a premium of only $2000 and possibly having to go to Saudia Arabia/UAE. Hasselblad is gonna be pissed they didn't think of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Alot of good ideas from the GX7 Designed by creeps, for creeps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
I bought an SMC takumar 35/3.5 on a whim and I need a M42 to m4/3 adapter now. Ebay is rife with them but can you guys recommend one so that I don't get a dud? I know I need one with the rim to depress the aperture tab.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:I bought an SMC takumar 35/3.5 on a whim and I need a M42 to m4/3 adapter now. Ebay is rife with them but can you guys recommend one so that I don't get a dud? I know I need one with the rim to depress the aperture tab. http://www.amazon.com/RAINBOWIMAGIN...cro+4+3+adapter is what I have, works fine. M42 is one of the simplest adapters to make, so it's probably hard to find a dud.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:I bought an SMC takumar 35/3.5 on a whim and I need a M42 to m4/3 adapter now. Ebay is rife with them but can you guys recommend one so that I don't get a dud? I know I need one with the rim to depress the aperture tab. I use this Fotodiox one, it does have a rim to use with lenses that don't have M/A switches. No problem with infinity focus for me, with Super taks or M42 adaptall gear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Startyde posted:Decepticrons vs Automats. mods namechange the LEICA 6.4 thread plz
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
I'm selling off all my µ4/3 gear in the buy sell threat if anyone's interested. GH3, 12-35, 17mm 1.7, and a 300mm FD L.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Being the only 'video' camera I own, does anyone know how to make the X100 look a bit more professional in video mode? I've tried pushing my strobes' modeling lights to 100% with not much improvement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Being the only 'video' camera I own, does anyone know how to make the X100 look a bit more professional in video mode? I've tried pushing my strobes' modeling lights to 100% with not much improvement. I think the best solution to this is "don't use the X100 for video."
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Yeah, the X100(s) are terrible for movies, they're clearly designed for stills with the movie mode shoved on for the sake of spec sheet. Will do in a pinch, but that's all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
A friend of mine who pre-rdered a Ricoh GR from B&H just got his today, 9 weeks after I received mine from Adorama, only 3 days after the official release date. And he actually pre-ordered a week before I did in the first place. I guess that's a good cautionary tale about ordering new cameras from a store as popular as B&H, although I wouldn't have thought the difference would be so great, since it's not like Adorama is a mom & pop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Costello Jello posted:A friend of mine who pre-rdered a Ricoh GR from B&H just got his today, 9 weeks after I received mine from Adorama, only 3 days after the official release date. And he actually pre-ordered a week before I did in the first place. I guess that's a good cautionary tale about ordering new cameras from a store as popular as B&H, although I wouldn't have thought the difference would be so great, since it's not like Adorama is a mom & pop. That was my experience at their brick-and-mortar stores as well. I couldn't get B&H to give me the time of day, Adorama was more than happy to answer my questions and let me play with some kit. Given that B&H pretty openly discriminates on gender and religious grounds you're probably better off just giving your business to Adorama/Freestyle if at all possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
Hey folks, the thread is 100 pages long so my apologies for not seeing if this has been asked (probably has) but I am absolutely 100% new to non-point-and-shoot photography and I want to get serious. Should I just buy one of these mirrorless systems instead of a DSLR (I don't have a lot of money) for this purpose? They look snazzy but everyone around me is always squealing "DSLR or die".
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
Suzuki Method posted:Hey folks, the thread is 100 pages long so my apologies for not seeing if this has been asked (probably has) but I am absolutely 100% new to non-point-and-shoot photography and I want to get serious. Should I just buy one of these mirrorless systems instead of a DSLR (I don't have a lot of money) for this purpose? They look snazzy but everyone around me is always squealing "DSLR or die". Your peers are wrong. Very wrong. As with any system mirrorless offers both advantages and disadvantages over DSLR's obviously but defaulting to "hurr buy DSLR everything else is crap" is short sighted and dumb. You can get a nice mirrorless from a generation ago new for pretty drat cheap but don't get them because they are "cheap" because accessories can be just as expensive. Glass is usually a bit cheaper compared to equivalents in 35mm but not by a huge degree. E: Actually I have a buddy who is a total Canon gear slut and he kept giving me poo poo about my choice for m4/3, and telling me I should get a 70D or w/e instead. Showing my OM-D to him impressed him enough to make him shut up. Moreso he was really jealous of it. Granted an OM-D isn't exactly a budget camera but the system has great merits. spankmeister fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Aug 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 07:43
|
|
|
Suzuki Method posted:Hey folks, the thread is 100 pages long so my apologies for not seeing if this has been asked (probably has) but I am absolutely 100% new to non-point-and-shoot photography and I want to get serious. Should I just buy one of these mirrorless systems instead of a DSLR (I don't have a lot of money) for this purpose? They look snazzy but everyone around me is always squealing "DSLR or die". I highly recommend a mirrorless camera. Reason being that their performance nowadays is fantastic. DSLR's are no longer the only camera's with good performance. I'd get a DSLR if you're pro (and not even always then) or into sports. (For their quick focusing and fast shooting abilities.) Personally, I bought a Fuji mirrorless and sold my DSLR the next week. The small package helps people relax more and your back will thank you on trips. Not to mention that the images out of this camera keep surprising me, great quality overall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 07:52
|
|
|
I've also just offloaded my DSLR and pile o' lenses in favor of my Fuji mirrorless. I'd recommend getting your hands on a few options in your price range before you make a purchase, but it's definitely not "DSLR or die" 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
Suzuki Method posted:Hey folks, the thread is 100 pages long so my apologies for not seeing if this has been asked (probably has) but I am absolutely 100% new to non-point-and-shoot photography and I want to get serious. Should I just buy one of these mirrorless systems instead of a DSLR (I don't have a lot of money) for this purpose? They look snazzy but everyone around me is always squealing "DSLR or die". The only thing I'm going to warn you about is that most of (all?) the cheapest mirrorless cameras don't have a viewfinder, and if you're going to get serious about photography more probably than not you'll need it. I have the cheapest Sony Nex which has an awesome image quality (on par with many DSLRs, except those with full frame sensors) and if it broke I'd buy it again the same day, but framing on its LCD is not ideal when composing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 08:45
|
|
|
I just find that I'm more likely to take small cameras with me. I bought an EP-1 early on and with a 20mm pancake lens it was pocketable. These days I use an OM-D with a 12-35 and and the lens is a lot bigger, but it's still much smaller than the big DSLRs. It fits inside my old film SLR camera bag. It makes a lot of sense as a travel camera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
Yeah, between the portability, the cost, the quality next to DSLR's, my needs of a camera, and so on, it looks like I am getting a mirrorless. The lack of a viewfinder is a bit worrisome to me, however. I'm just concerned that, if I ever want to start doing photography as a professional, that I'll have to throw all that money I spent on a mirrorless + the inevitable glass arsenal in the trash when I feel the need to upgrade to a more high-end DSLR. So, say I were to put it between a midrange mirrorless and an entry-level DSLR like a Rebel t3i. If I want to get into this not just as a hobbyist but from a more academic/learning standpoint, which should I settle for?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 10:07
|
|
|
Suzuki Method posted:I'm just concerned that, if I ever want to start doing photography as a professional, that I'll have to throw all that money I spent on a mirrorless + the inevitable glass arsenal in the trash when I feel the need to upgrade to a more high-end DSLR. If you do turn pro, chances are that the first body+lens you buy for professional purposes will cost about the same as the entire investment you've made in bodies/glass as an amateur. So don't worry about it. Plus, glass holds its value really, really well and you'll easily sell it for a very significant percentage of what you spent on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 10:49
|
|
|
Suzuki Method posted:Yeah, between the portability, the cost, the quality next to DSLR's, my needs of a camera, and so on, it looks like I am getting a mirrorless. The lack of a viewfinder is a bit worrisome to me, however. There are mirrorless cameras with a viewfinder (check out the x-pro1, it has two) I had the rebel t3i with some L lenses. The Fuji mirrorless sensor kicks the rebel sensors' rear end and then some. Not to mention the quality of the Fuji XF lenses are just as good (for less money). There are in fact pros using mirrorless cameras. For example: Some wedding photographers use mirrorless for a "documentary style" shoot. Calling out less attention to themselves. The smaller size camera is also less intimidating and helps subjects for portraits relax more. Also a pro I follow on Kelby training uses both a 30k dollar Medium format camera and a Fuji X-Pro1 on a fashion shoot, and a client sometimes picks the Fuji shots. If you're thinking of learning photography, I highly recommend a "slower" camera. Such as a mirrorless. You will get much better much faster than getting a high speed DSLR who does a lot of work for you. ChirreD fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Aug 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 11:04
|
|
|
Suzuki Method posted:Yeah, between the portability, the cost, the quality next to DSLR's, my needs of a camera, and so on, it looks like I am getting a mirrorless. The lack of a viewfinder is a bit worrisome to me, however. Are you actually a student who is studying in similar fields or a person who is ambitious enough to take up such profession in near future? If so I wouldn't recommend entry level dslr at all. You should go straight to an used mid tier body, used 40D 50D D7000 etc. You learn faster with a higher end body. If you think you have a 70% chance end up just getting a good camera for pleasure then get a mirrorless system. If your budget is tight just get a RX100.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
Suzuki Method posted:Yeah, between the portability, the cost, the quality next to DSLR's, my needs of a camera, and so on, it looks like I am getting a mirrorless. The lack of a viewfinder is a bit worrisome to me, however. I think we need more information here. Are you a student that uses a camera as part of their coursework? Are you just getting into photography as a hobby, with intentions to pursue it further? A large part of the reason professionals gravitate towards DSLRs from Canon and Nikon is because they offer a degree of security regarding repair, mount compatibility, etc.. Neither company is going anywhere anytime soon, and they have established support networks and product roadmaps that make it somewhat safer for a professional to invest in either system. If you're earning your living off this stuff, then no camera == no pay. Mirrorless system manufacturers cater to a wholly different market: consumers. The upshot is that these manufacturers have a degree of freedom to try new things with each generation, and the downside is that you can't expect the same level of support or longevity from your gear. I would suggest not looking at this purchase and planning 3+ years down the road. Who knows what will come or where you'll be. Buy something that's not junk right now, learn it, be happy, and when/if the need for something else comes up, handle the purchase decision then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 12:18
|
|
|
Suzuki Method posted:Yeah, between the portability, the cost, the quality next to DSLR's, my needs of a camera, and so on, it looks like I am getting a mirrorless. The lack of a viewfinder is a bit worrisome to me, however. It depends entirely on what your version of 'professional' is. Cameras are tools, you pick the one with the correct abilities for the job. What type of photography do you plan on doing? It's pointless to recommend a system without knowing what you plan on doing with it. ChirreD posted:
I disagree. The amount of work you allow the camera to do is up to you. It's completely unrelated to the system you choose. Everything he'll be looking at will have the necessary shooting modes to learn on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 12:46
|
|
|
What is a good choice for mirrorless in the under $500 price range or maybe slightly above? the 18-55 EOS M w/ flash at $419 or a NEX-3? or another option?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/technology/personaltech/leica-cameras-have-eye-popping-prices-with-photos-to-match.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:45
|
|
Associate Christ
|
fuseshock posted:What is a good choice for mirrorless in the under $500 price range or maybe slightly above? the 18-55 EOS M w/ flash at $419 or a NEX-3? or another option? You can get a new NEX5r+18-55 for slightly over 500 on ebay. The lens selection is *slightly* better than EOSM. I would go with the EOSM if I can get the 22/2 for cheap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/technology/personaltech/leica-cameras-have-eye-popping-prices-with-photos-to-match.html quote:Leica makes a lens the way it should be made, with metal and glass, while everyone else is making plastic lenses that are meant to be thrown away in a couple of years,” said Ken Rockwell, a photographer and expert on cameras and lenses. “The Leica lenses are so special because they are smaller, faster and sharper. Well gently caress me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Suzuki Method posted:Hey folks, the thread is 100 pages long so my apologies for not seeing if this has been asked (probably has) but I am absolutely 100% new to non-point-and-shoot photography and I want to get serious. Should I just buy one of these mirrorless systems instead of a DSLR (I don't have a lot of money) for this purpose? They look snazzy but everyone around me is always squealing "DSLR or die". Generally speaking the major difference between DSLRs and mirrorless is, well, the mirror (and viewfinder). DSLRs have a mirror which bounces the light into an optical viewfinder. That means that the viewfinder is always ready to go, and most of the camera electronics can be powered off most of the time yet ready to go. That really helps battery life and time from power-on to first shot. It also allows something called phase-detect autofocus, which is much more accurate than the contrast-detect autofocus on most mirrorless bodies, particularly in low light. Mirrorless bodies display an image by turning the sensor on and displaying the output on a LCD or in an electronic viewfinder. This means they need to boot up the whole camera before they can give you an image, and most of the electronics must be running whenever the camera is on, which eats battery. A very few models have phase-detect autofocus, but it's still a cutting edge feature. Generally speaking mirrorless tend to be significantly cheaper for a given level of capability, but perform slightly worse in the autofocus department. If you do go with a DSLR, I would look at the "prosumer" series. The Canon T3i is a "consumer" body, the prosumer body is basically the same with a more durable body and some slightly more advanced internals (particularly autofocus). If I was going to recommend something mirrorless, I would have three major suggestions. I like my NEX-5N a lot, it has a huge sensor and a pretty decent library of lenses if you include third parties (Sigma 30/2.8 and 19/2.8 particularly). The NEX-5R is the same thing with a built in viewfinder. You should be able to find them in the sub-$500 range if you look around, I got my NEX with 2 lenses on this forum for $425. I haven't tried the Fuji X series, but I've heard VERY good things about it. The downside is that it's a fairly limited lens selection and it tends to be a bit more expensive, the upside is the first-party glass is great and covers most major needs. Finally, for pure cheapness there's the M4/3 system. It's been out there long enough that it's got a great library and a lot of the non-pro gear is very competitively priced. It has a smaller sensor (2x crop factor vs 1.5x for everything else) but that may not matter to you (or may be an advantage for birds/sports). I'm not really a fan of the Canon system for crop sensors. There isn't a lot of selection in consumer-grade lenses besides the 22/2 and a Tamron 17-50, and the Tamron is physically huge compared to the camera. My personal guess is that Canon will not give the M the support it really needs (new compact crop-sized lenses, etc) because they haven't done that for their crop DSLRs either. The M was crippled from the get-go because Canon really wants you to pay more and buy a SLR instead, and their crop bodies (mirrorless or DSLR) are kinda the red-headed stepchild anyway because Canon really wants you to buy a full frame DSLR in the end. I actually just finished selling off my Canon gear because I'm tired of the lovely lens selection. There was a total of one new consumer-grade lens released in the four years I owned the system, and even that was a much better focal length for full frame than for crop. For comparison, in the last year Sony released an image stabilized 35/1.8 and an image stabilized 50/1.8 in the consumer segment, in addition to several high-end lenses. If you're going to be relying on third-party lenses anyway you might as well go to a cheaper system with some unique features like Pentax or something. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Aug 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/technology/personaltech/leica-cameras-have-eye-popping-prices-with-photos-to-match.html I wonder if they interviewed k-rock for that quote or if it was copypasta. After quickly googling I didn't see it on his site.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
krooj posted:I think we need more information here. Are you a student that uses a camera as part of their coursework? Are you just getting into photography as a hobby, with intentions to pursue it further? Good info. To clarify, I am studying in a similar field right now, and I primarily work with photo retouching. I have a lot of software knowledge and post-processing experience, but found it extremely redundant that I don't know a single thing about taking my own pictures, or anything on the 'camera' side of my work. I want to be able to do both, as a hobbyist, and when I get a lot of the hardware/photography learning under my belt I could potentially use my combined knowledge as a business in some shape or form, years down the road. Fart Car '97 posted:It depends entirely on what your version of 'professional' is. Cameras are tools, you pick the one with the correct abilities for the job. What type of photography do you plan on doing? It's pointless to recommend a system without knowing what you plan on doing with it. I really hate doing sports stuff and landscapes in post so I'd be looking at portrait and still-life, mostly. My favourite portrait photographer uses a D700 and an 85 1.4 lens, so that's all I have for reference on what I want to achieve. Paul MaudDib posted:[...] Nothing to add, I just wanted to say that I read your post and while I knew the stuff in the first part of the paragraph the second part was informative to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Suzuki Method posted:... but found it extremely redundant that I don't know a single thing about taking my own pictures ... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Get a Nikon or Canon prosumer body if you are already in the business. I would recommend x100s but you want to shoot portrait. So traditional slr systems have alot more lens options.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Dren posted:You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I don't even know what I was thinking.  whatever7 posted:Get a Nikon or Canon prosumer body if you are already in the business. They do have a lot more lens options. Between that and wanting a traditional viewfinder I guess I am going the DSLR route. It's too bad, I do like the mirrorless systems a lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
If you really want a good viewfinder buy a MF film camera 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
If you really want a good ___, buy a Leica. I hear they can take beautiful photos in or of perfect darkness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Dren posted:I wonder if they interviewed k-rock for that quote or if it was copypasta. After quickly googling I didn't see it on his site. They probably called him directly and asked him to "give them a quote". And by "them" I mean the Leica PR office who managed this article.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Suzuki Method posted:Nothing to add, I just wanted to say that I read your post and while I knew the stuff in the first part of the paragraph the second part was informative to me. This is funny but it's basically correct. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO7rxitFLZg You'll really want to play around to see what focal lengths you yourself like. The cheap option is the kit lens (usually an 18-55), the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a great step up particularly on the long end. For general shooting, I really recommend something between 35 and 50mm equivalent focal lengths (19-30mm on 1.5x crop). One thing you can do is adapt older lenses to your new camera. It isn't great for plan A, but it is a cheap way to add some variety into your kit. For the lens to reach infinity, the register distance of the camera must be shorter than the register distance of the lens (with enough room to fit an adapter in there), if not then it will only focus out to some maximum distance. Canon has the shortest register distance, followed by Pentax, and Nikon is the longest. This means that you can adapt Nikon lenses onto a Canon body, for example. This is a really cheap way to mess around with various focal lengths, because an actual 85/1.8 is a $400 lens (vs $100 or so) and it will have much shallower depth-of-field than a comparably priced tele zoom lens. They will be totally manual, manual focus, manual aperture, manual everything, but the image quality can be really great. By the way many old Nikon lenses work directly on modern Nikon bodies if you buy the prosumer (D300 or whatever) instead of the consumer body (D80, etc). If you want to play with a long lens I HIGHLY recommend the Nikkor 105/2.5, it's fast, sharp, and cheap. One of the classic lenses in its day and nowadays it's only so cheap because everyone wants autofocus. It doesn't matter at all for portraits, and with a little practice you can track moving targets fairly reliably. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Aug 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:This is funny but it's basically correct. That was a lot funnier than I expected.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 23:57
|
|