|
Considering that Manfrotto (finally) separated the lock control and friction from each other in modern ballheads (e.g. 49X series), it should be far less of a problem than it used to be.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:56 |
|
|
Splinter posted:I left batteries in my SB-600 for an extended period of time and when I pulled it out the other day the batteries had exploded and the flash no longer works even with fresh batteries. Anyone have any ideas on how to clean the battery corrosion from the flash in hopes of reviving it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
So as I'm starting to do a lot more video projects I've decided it's time to ditch my lovely tripod and go with the good stuff. Is Manfrotto the be all it's named up to be or are there alternatives that I should consider? Price range up to $500. (This includes legs and fluid head). Also, thinking about the getting a Zacuto Z-Finder too, but drat that thing seems overpriced. Anyone use any alternatives or should I just bite the bullet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
I don't think there's much difference between most of the $100-200 legs (I've got a Slik myself and am completely happy with it). If you're doing serious video work then I'd definitely spend the bulk of the budget on a killer fluid head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Don't get the Z-Finder or any similar product, it's a waste of time and magnifying a lovely LCD screen doesn't sound very productive to me. You'd be better off finding a lovely 5" LCD or TV and using that to monitor. I actually like the Zacuto EVF, but I think it's overpriced. It lasts all day on an LP-E6 and does false color and EVF sharpening for focus assist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
Peacebone posted:So as I'm starting to do a lot more video projects I've decided it's time to ditch my lovely tripod and go with the good stuff. Is Manfrotto the be all it's named up to be or are there alternatives that I should consider? I have a $200 Manfrotto kit, and it's pretty nice. 3221 legs with 3030 head, like so:  (not mine but same models) Holds a pro Nikon with 300mm f/2.8 or a Speed Graphic fully kitted out just fine (and looks ridiculous when I use it with the little point-and-shoot or phone). The padding is nice to just throw the whole rig over your shoulder to move to a new position. I think the official weight limit on the kit is somewhat less than my 10+ pound heavy cameras, but it holds just fine. At double the budget, I'm sure there are lighter legs, mine's a bit of a tank. But as others have said, for video you should probably buy the best head you can afford and get whatever legs you can -- the cheap heavy ones may even work in your favor to help steady the rig, assuming you're not humping your entire kit into the wilderness on your back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 14:38
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
For a little more than $500 you can get the Sachtler Ace M http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/822102-REG/Sachtler_1001_Ace_Fluid_Head_with.html I have a Manfrotto 501 head and really dislike it. It has a ton of stiction—so much that it's impossible to get a fluid start or stop even on a very wide lens. The MVH500AH I bought to supplement it has become my primary head as it's actually pretty fluid. I wouldn't buy a screen magnifier either, and last time I used a Zacuto EVF it gave me crazy motion sickness for some reason (don't have that issue with any other viewfinders).
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
I did like the thread title said am I cool yet? ME Super with 50mm f/1.7 super edgy razor-thin DOF shot watch this show up in the gear sale thread in a month when I am terrible at film 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Nice. ME Super just feels right in your hand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
you seem pretty cool, yeah
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
I want that lens for my K1000 (and K5.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Probably would make a nice macro lens if you reverse mounted it too. Loved using my 50/1.4 reverse mounted on my nikon for bugs n stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
The seller threw in a lens I'd never heard of before, Cimko 35-100 f/3.5-4.3. It's some kinda push-pull telephoto lens that also can be a macro lens by rotating a locking ring? Can't find much about it online aside from a youtube review, and some sites wanting to charge me money for a manual. Apologies for lovely blurry pictures, you can kinda see the macro scale (I guess?) and a line for focusing with infrared film (maybe?) 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Probably would make a nice macro lens if you reverse mounted it too. Loved using my 50/1.4 reverse mounted on my nikon for bugs n stuff. I used to be happy to have a 50mm f/2 until I saw all of you jerks with faster ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:I used to be happy to have a 50mm f/2 until I saw all of you jerks with faster ones. Don't feel bad, my 50/1.4 is covered in fungus and has a chip in the rear element. Still use it over the 50/2 that's clean though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
So one of my instructors decided to go mirrorless and sold his Canon kit, and asked me if I wanted to have the 100mm Macro 2.8 because it was damaged and he wasn't sure how well it worked. I took it and it works fine. Is this damage I need to be concerned about? I was thinking just throw on a polarizer and it should be good?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Jadeilyn posted:So one of my instructors decided to go mirrorless and sold his Canon kit, and asked me if I wanted to have the 100mm Macro 2.8 because it was damaged and he wasn't sure how well it worked. I took it and it works fine. Is this damage I need to be concerned about? I was thinking just throw on a polarizer and it should be good? Not sure why you'd need a polarizer (I mean unless you need it for a specific purpose). Great find though, those are supposed to be awesome lenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Not sure why you'd need a polarizer (I mean unless you need it for a specific purpose). I guess because it looks like poo poo can get into the lens potentially? I looked at it from different angles and I'm just wanting to make sure it's not going to be prone to fungus getting onto the glass or something. I am really happy with it so far, I went hiking this past weekend (to a state park which was still open!) and got some nice shots of horned lizards that I'm working on right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
Jadeilyn posted:I guess because it looks like poo poo can get into the lens potentially? I looked at it from different angles and I'm just wanting to make sure it's not going to be prone to fungus getting onto the glass or something. Polarizer isn't gonna help you much with that except for being a piece of glass, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
Jadeilyn posted:I guess because it looks like poo poo can get into the lens potentially? I looked at it from different angles and I'm just wanting to make sure it's not going to be prone to fungus getting onto the glass or something. I really wouldn't worry about it. Plus it'd be a shame to poo poo up your awesome glass with cheap glass. See example image in OP etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Seeing a couple Tamron 17-50s on Amazon, but with widely different prices. Is this http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Aspherical-Canon-Cameras/dp/B000FZ3FY8/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1381679449&sr=8-5&keywords=tamron+17-50 The same lens as this? http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Aspherical-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000EXR0SI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381679449&sr=8-1&keywords=tamron+17-50 The first even has new options around $300 in other buying options. Am I missing something (I'm guessing I am)? Bob Mundon fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Oct 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
I believe they're the same. The main thing to look for is the "VC" designation, which shows it has anti shake built into the lens. Neither has it listed, so I assume they're the same. As for why one is cheaper, who knows. Could be clearance from that seller. Could be grey market. Could just be your lucky day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:I believe they're the same. The main thing to look for is the "VC" designation, which shows it has anti shake built into the lens. Neither has it listed, so I assume they're the same. Looks like the cheap listing has grouped sellers all from Japan. Any reason not to go that route?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:Looks like the cheap listing has grouped sellers all from Japan. Any reason not to go that route?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:It won't be serviced by Tamron US for repairs, and you'll probably have to pay $20ish in taxes and duties, but otherwise no, not really. Thanks for the info. If that's the case I'll probably just look at used on KEH or something just in case. Their EX grades usually pretty good? Any way to see specifics on a lens before ordering (good copy, condition, etc)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:Thanks for the info. If that's the case I'll probably just look at used on KEH or something just in case. Their EX grades usually pretty good? Any way to see specifics on a lens before ordering (good copy, condition, etc)? Their grades are absurd, 'GOOD' still means pretty much brand new. Hell I got an 'UG'-grade lens from them and other than the rubber looking sorta halfassed there was absolutely nothing wrong with it, mechanically or optically. And yes I believe you can call them up about a specific lens and they'll go find it in the warehouse and call you back once they have it in front of them. At least they did when a friend of mine called them with a question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:Thanks for the info. If that's the case I'll probably just look at used on KEH or something just in case. Their EX grades usually pretty good? Any way to see specifics on a lens before ordering (good copy, condition, etc)? I got an EX 15mm Voigtlander. The glass was perfect, and the only thing I could see "wrong" with it was a very small and light scratch in the black paint on the side of the lens body. If they didn't have the worst website in the world, they'd be almost the perfect company.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Hopefully they keep it that way so it drives away customers keeping prices down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Speaking of grading, anyone have any experience with Adorama used lenses? I'm looking at something graded E+ which they claim is "Barrel may have slight wear but only visible under close inspection. Lens glass is flawless." Sounds good to me, but just curious how that compares to KEH since everyone raves about their used quality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
I think the Tamron 17-50 I got from them was E+, but not completely sure now. The lens was pretty much spotless, and there were only a few tiny, light scratches on the lens cap. If you're in NYC, I'd suggest to go check it out in person, they're more than happy to show you the lens and let you try it on your body.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
I got a sigma 70-200 f2.8 that was rated as E I think and it looked basically brand new. I'm sure there's some light scuff mark somewhere but who cares. Also, if you buy from Adorama, make sure and haggle. They will almost always take off a few bucks or give you free shipping or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
What is the cheapest, decent full frame body you can get into for a fairly normal used price? D700?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:How often do lenses come and go on KEH? They had about 5 Tamron 60mm f/2 macro lenses on before, and naturally I look to go get one and they are all gone. They get regular cycles or would I expect not to find one like that for quite a while. http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-60mm-2-0-DI-II/dp/B00200K9MM/ref=aag_m_pw_dp?ie=UTF8&m=A1TDKHBC7S48E3
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
It's also worth checking their eBay store. http://stores.ebay.com/KEH-Camera-Outlet
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:What is the cheapest, decent full frame body you can get into for a fairly normal used price? D700? 5D mk1, pretty much a no brainer @ ~$500 nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:5D mk1, pretty much a no brainer @ ~$500 nowadays. JK the 5d's still brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:What is the cheapest, decent full frame body you can get into for a fairly normal used price? D700?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:What is the cheapest, decent full frame body you can get into for a fairly normal used price? D700? A used D700 is still pretty expensive for a 5 year old dslr, really. It's a really good camera, though, with an excellent sensor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:A used D700 is still pretty expensive for a 5 year old dslr, really. It's a really good camera, though, with an excellent sensor. There is one locally for $750 - I haven't seen them that low before so I was wondering if something had changed recently. http://phoenix.craigslist.org/evl/pho/4120578338.html ShadeofBlue posted:A used D700 is still pretty expensive for a 5 year old dslr, really. It's a really good camera, though, with an excellent sensor. Yeah, I owned one before I was a poor again. 
BlackMK4 fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Oct 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:56 |
|
|
D610?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 09:24
|
|