|
Jimmy Thief posted:It will look neat and go well with my fixie and giant novelty beard. Beards own. 
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:Enjoy going through your sports footage that's been shot with 1/50 shutter. Won't take long at all. There is that. But it won't be too long 'til DSLRs can do proper slo-mo video framerates/shutter speeds. 1st AD posted:Raw is never really superfluous regardless of where the image will be published. Yeah. I shoot the family Christmas party in raw, just in case one of the nephews does something funny and the flash fails to recharge in time. I had CHDK and shot raw on my lil' Canon point-and-shoot. Had to explain raw to one of the stringers Friday. Apparently he got his photo schooling from the Army, which was all-jpeg -- he's never used film -- and now shoots raw on a D300s but just clicks "okay" and does all his toning with levels in Photoshop. I and the Pro ganged up on him and explained the benefits of raw. Definitely going to get the battery grip; I went to the fair Saturday night, and I found myself reaching for the bottom shutter button every time I went to shoot a vertical. Edit: showed the D7000 to my dad, he of the nice OM-1 kit, today. He was blown away by the 67mm filter size. "I remember when 49mm was a big filter!" he said. Also blown away by the fact that I don't have a filter on it to protect the front element. Maybe someday I'll show him that beater 80-200mm the newspaper lets me use, it's proof that scratches on the front element don't matter. It's so much fun showing a late-model DSLR to somebody who was really into first-gen 35mm SLRs, but has been out of the game since  . I kinda want to buy one of the D2's from the paper and give it to him along with my kit lens when I get that Sigma 17-50 f/2.8.
Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Oct 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 01:48
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
I'm hoping someone here can help me with a problem I ran into, I recently picked up a Nikon N90 since it was stupid cheap and a film camera to play with sounded fun. So I shot a roll of film and got it developed and low and behold there was only 15 pictures I asked the tech and they told me that there was only 15 exposures. Did i load the film wrong or is it possible the camera is defective? the roll said 24 exposures and said it was at 24 exposures when i rewound it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Do you have the negatives? Only thing I can think of is something in the gears hosed up making too much space between exposures, but I can't think of a way that it could fail to do that. Maybe the motor drive going too far. A 35mm frame is 1.4 inches wide, so you'd have noticed if you hosed up loading it in a way that used up over a foot of film. Maybe the shutter's only working every other time? Again, looking at the negatives would help immensely with diagnosing this. Edit: comedy option, you just massively underexposed the other nine so it looked like there wasn't a picture there. Edit again: what's a good price for a half-decent 80-200 f/2.8? Same model as the beater I've been joking about, but one of the guys has been hoarding it as a backup because his newer 70-200 is constantly in the shop, so it's in good shape, has all its screws, etc.. I might want to buy it out from under him instead of the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 I've been looking at on Amazon. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Oct 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Do you have the negatives? Only thing I can think of is something in the gears hosed up making too much space between exposures, but I can't think of a way that it could fail to do that. Maybe the motor drive going too far. A 35mm frame is 1.4 inches wide, so you'd have noticed if you hosed up loading it in a way that used up over a foot of film. So I checked the negatives and its very weird, first 2 are blank then 2 pictures then a long break and then the last 13 exposures are in a nice line. Similar routine on a second roll I used, and all the pictures I remember taking are accounted for. any guesses what would do that? Also me and the friend I was with thought it seemed like we were not getting a lot of shots from the camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
First two being blank is somewhat normal (making sure all of the frames burned in loading are gone before you start trying to take pictures). Is it motor-driven or do you have to manually wind it? If motorized, run another roll of film through it and listen to how long the motor runs between shots. If it goes for a long time at any given time, there's your problem. If manually advanced, it's probably haunted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Just gonna cross post this from the mirrorless thread:Startyde posted:Had no idea that that FM2 rumor was a thing. They'd have to cock up pretty bad for me not to switch back from MFT. Can't wait for this to come out. It's going to be  money with the D4 sensor, but if it's anything like the FM2 I (and a whole lot of other dweebs) will sell off a lot of stuff in a heartbeat. And I hope they sell a body-only kit, 50mm 1.4 only, scrubs (though the pancake 1.8E is also acceptable). Also, maybe they'll do a special program where you can trade in an old FM2 and get extra money, and they also tell you you're pretty cool and not a letdown to my parents.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:So I checked the negatives and its very weird, first 2 are blank then 2 pictures then a long break and then the last 13 exposures are in a nice line. Similar routine on a second roll I used, and all the pictures I remember taking are accounted for. any guesses what would do that? Also me and the friend I was with thought it seemed like we were not getting a lot of shots from the camera. I have had that camera skip frames on the film when the batteries were in poor condition. It's really obvious when that happens, it makes strange sounds and isn't ready for shooting again after exposing and instead wants you to hit the shutter again. It also shows error signals on the display. Make sure you recognize how the camera is supposed to sound with mirror-clap, shutter and motor winding, so you can tell when it sounds wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:First two being blank is somewhat normal (making sure all of the frames burned in loading are gone before you start trying to take pictures). Motor Driven, since that's obviously the problem is that a pricey repair or cheap?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 11:43
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:So I checked the negatives and its very weird, first 2 are blank then 2 pictures then a long break and then the last 13 exposures are in a nice line. Similar routine on a second roll I used, and all the pictures I remember taking are accounted for. any guesses what would do that? Also me and the friend I was with thought it seemed like we were not getting a lot of shots from the camera. red19fire posted:Can't wait for this to come out. It's going to be
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Motor Driven, since that's obviously the problem is that a pricey repair or cheap? Probably more than another used N90 would be, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 11:55
|
|
|
So if I can't get it returned then its probably only worth selling for parts? And If I decide I want to keep tormenting my self with film any suggestions on what to look for?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 12:27
|
|
|
Guys I keep adding a D90 them removing it from my cart. It seems perfect but it's also old! An odd problem seeing as how my main shooter is a Minolta x-700 Edit: first digital not-phone-camera Fuzzy Pipe Wrench fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Oct 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 12:37
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:So if I can't get it returned then its probably only worth selling for parts? Uh, did you try replacing the batteries first? Cameras with motor drives tend to stop advancing properly when low on battery, and then magically work correctly again when the batteries are fresh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 12:38
|
|
|
Batteries were new, just put them in the day before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 12:41
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Just gonna cross post this from the mirrorless thread: Gonna be under 2500 as a kit. D4 sensor isnt special just a good one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Fuzzy Pipe Wrench posted:Guys I keep adding a D90 them removing it from my cart. It seems perfect but it's also old! An odd problem seeing as how my main shooter is a Minolta x-700 D90 is still pretty legit-as-balls. If you can't stretch to D7000 money it's a great alternative to the entry level models if you want a few extra features.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
TinyHooker2600 posted:D90 is still pretty legit-as-balls. If you can't stretch to D7000 money it's a great alternative to the entry level models if you want a few extra features. Hadn't actually checked used prices on the D7000, I think it's settled. 35mm is a good walk around focal length for crop sensor stuff right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Fuzzy Pipe Wrench posted:Guys I keep adding a D90 them removing it from my cart. It seems perfect but it's also old! An odd problem seeing as how my main shooter is a Minolta x-700 Get a refub D600 for 1.3k and master the art of sensor cleaning. It shouldn't be that hard and its really cheap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:It's so much fun showing a late-model DSLR to somebody who was really into first-gen 35mm SLRs, but has been out of the game since I got to do that with my dad not too long ago. Long time Retina Reflex III user that he gave to me in high school. He asked to see my D3100/Tamron70-300 I use to bird with and was amazed at what these things can do. It was a very moment I'll remember for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Some of the retina reflex lenses can actually adapt to Nikon mount. I was surprised to discover this as it doesn't seem like you can adapt anything to Nikon. Haven't had a chance to try it with my dad's retina reflex lenses but I'd love to see those shiny Schneider lenses on a modern DSLR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Get a refub D600 for 1.3k and master the art of sensor cleaning. It shouldn't be that hard and its really cheap. If only. I'd love to start my digital shooting on a FF, but 1.3k would be my total camera budget for the next few months (including my film supplies). Still tempting though; since I know I'll be upgrading to full frame relatively soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
Fuzzy Pipe Wrench posted:If only. I'd love to start my digital shooting on a FF, but 1.3k would be my total camera budget for the next few months (including my film supplies). Still tempting though; since I know I'll be upgrading to full frame relatively soon. You can start with a few cheap AIS E lense ("E" is the cheap plastic version). 50/1.8 35/2.8 28/2.8. It depends on your shooting style really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
powderific posted:Some of the retina reflex lenses can actually adapt to Nikon mount. I was surprised to discover this as it doesn't seem like you can adapt anything to Nikon. Haven't had a chance to try it with my dad's retina reflex lenses but I'd love to see those shiny Schneider lenses on a modern DSLR. They do? I have a bag of Schneider and Zeiss glass that came with it sitting in storage. I've been meaning to the have the body serviced but never got around to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Fuzzy Pipe Wrench posted:Hadn't actually checked used prices on the D7000, I think it's settled. 35mm is a good walk around focal length for crop sensor stuff right? The 35mm f/1.8 DX is pretty universally revered, and if I could only have one lens that would probably be it. Unless you travel a lot, in which case I think the versatility of the older 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DX VR might push it past the 35mm. Often the first time I go somewhere I bring a huge zoom, but on any subsequent trip I usually take a prime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Fuzzy Pipe Wrench posted:Hadn't actually checked used prices on the D7000, I think it's settled. 35mm is a good walk around focal length for crop sensor stuff right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Maker Of Shoes posted:They do? I have a bag of Schneider and Zeiss glass that came with it sitting in storage. I've been meaning to the have the body serviced but never got around to it. Might be hit and miss depending on whether the lens has much spare focusable range at the infinite end, but the deckel mount that the reflexes and voigtlander used were 44.7mm FFD, which shouldn't focus to infinity on the 46.5mm of the F-mount (the only mounts that can are OCT-19 and most of the medium format - good luck finding adapters though).
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
I guess I should clarify and say that I've seen adapters that claim to focus to infinity from Rainbow Imaging and Fotodiox, but I don't have any first or secondhand experience on whether they actually work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
powderific posted:I guess I should clarify and say that I've seen adapters that claim to focus to infinity from Rainbow Imaging and Fotodiox, but I don't have any first or secondhand experience on whether they actually work. They're probably optical adapters, they have like a 1.1x teleconverter built in to get infinity focus. The register distance of Retina Reflex is 44.7mm, the register distance of Nikon F is 46.5mm, so the answer to whether Retina Reflex can be mounted on Nikon with infinity focus is a straightforward "no". http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html e: SybilVimes posted:Might be hit and miss depending on whether the lens has much spare focusable range at the infinite end, but the deckel mount that the reflexes and voigtlander used were 44.7mm FFD, which shouldn't focus to infinity on the 46.5mm of the F-mount (the only mounts that can are OCT-19 and most of the medium format - good luck finding adapters though). Ding ding ding. Winner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
If Nikon releases a D4-sensored, film-style body in an F-mount for under 2k, I will poo poo a brick. And spend the next year being pissed off I can't find one in stock.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Fuzzy Pipe Wrench posted:Hadn't actually checked used prices on the D7000, I think it's settled. 35mm is a good walk around focal length for crop sensor stuff right? 35mm on a DX is equivalent to 50mm on 135/FX; it's the "normal" lens. Personally, I prefer 18/28mm depending on format, but all the greats used 50mms, so I'm the weird one. Ezekiel_980 posted:Batteries were new, just put them in the day before. Speaking of name-brand batteries, yesterday I was at the local indie hardware store, and noticed they sold Duracell Procells. First time I've seen those outside the newspaper office. Miko posted:If Nikon releases a D4-sensored, film-style body in an F-mount for under 2k, I will poo poo a brick.  .I'm surprised nobody's made a digital back for 35mm SLRs yet (aside from the ur-DSLRs, which were technically a film camera with a digital back and computery bits below). I guess the technology isn't quite there yet to build one that bolts on to an unmodified body (connecting the shutter button to the sensor might be an issue). But I can see it working as a service that you send in your camera and they nondestructively convert it, possibly with most of the circuitry in a box underneath resembling the motor drive that was optional for that body. In a few years it might be at the level where it all fits in a thing the size of the old backs that printed the time and date on 135 SLRs:  Looking for that found me this ridiculous bullshit back in the day that is now solved by popping in a bigger memory card:  That's a 250-frame bulk-film back. Did Nikon have one of those? My SD card is the size of my thumbnail and holds 850 RAWS. How times have changed. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Oct 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:
Yes, MF-24 http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf4/filmbacks/MF24/ Also, MF-2 750 exposure bulk back... 
SybilVimes fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Oct 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
drat, now I can't find that picture of the Pentax data back that had pretty much a full keyboard and let you put 30-ish characters of whatever the hell you wanted on any photo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
SpoopyMonkey posted:drat, now I can't find that picture of the Pentax data back that had pretty much a full keyboard and let you put 30-ish characters of whatever the hell you wanted on any photo. That's because it wasn't a pentax databack, but a databack for one of the K-mount compatible Chinon's:  e: Since we're on the subject of film-era gadget porn... Have the Canon Technical Back E, for the early EOS (650 I think), it not only had a full detachable keyboard, but could interface to an MSX computer* (because you know, all the photos you take are going to be right next to your non-portable 8bit home computer).  * Oh, it could also interface to some upstart system from foreigners called 'IBM PC'. SybilVimes fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Also, MF-2 750 exposure bulk back... How do you even hold it/press the button? Well, tripod and cable release, obviously. But drat. Last week, the Pro told us stories of his days with 135 film. After the last football game of the night, he'd go in the bathroom in the press box and load his film into daylight cans, and process it in the car while driving back to the office, one hand on the wheel, one hand shaking the can. He'd just pour the chemistry out the window when changing between developer/fixer/wash ("Not the most environmentally friendly..."), and hand the still-dripping negatives to the printers. His car had a big brown streak down the side from the photo chemicals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Try a different set of batteries anyway. Last Christmas my nephew's LeapFrog thing was DOA, we called and they sent a new one, and then I put different batteries in the dead one and it worked. Maybe you got a bum set of new batteries (and they are name-brand, right?) Just to make sure I went ahead put in a pack of new energizers and shot stupid poo poo in the apartment with the last roll I had, after 4 shots it advanced for quite a bit longer and it skipped about 10 frames. I'm not sure why the camera hates me but the place on amazon i got it from said to send it back and they will issue a refund. Kinda a bummer cus it was fun taking pictures with it and the ones I did get were great but for $50 i guess i got what i paid for. its a shame I can't kidnap my aunts or grandfathers FM's since they are both broke. SybilVimes posted:Yes, MF-24 Jesus Christ, what the hell would someone use that for?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Jesus Christ, what the hell would someone use that for? Same reason we digital shooters buy a 32GB card instead of the stock 8GB. Don't want to miss a shot while reloading/swapping cards. Sort of like the 10-shot pack film for 4x5 -- pull tab to cycle the box rather than flipping a 2-shot film holder. Edit: emailed photo boss at the paper asking for a quote on a D2 and offering $50 for that beat-to-poo poo 80-200. They're trying to buy a couple of new bodies, so they'll probably be willing to sell the old poo poo cheap. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Just to make sure I went ahead put in a pack of new energizers and shot stupid poo poo in the apartment with the last roll I had, after 4 shots it advanced for quite a bit longer and it skipped about 10 frames. I'm not sure why the camera hates me but the place on amazon i got it from said to send it back and they will issue a refund. Kinda a bummer cus it was fun taking pictures with it and the ones I did get were great but for $50 i guess i got what i paid for. its a shame I can't kidnap my aunts or grandfathers FM's since they are both broke. Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue from the 60s?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Jesus Christ, what the hell would someone use that for? Going to space, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:They're probably optical adapters, they have like a 1.1x teleconverter built in to get infinity focus. I'm bit saying your wrong on the adapter bit being workable, but the two adapters I looked at were clearly not optical. The descriptions must just be wrong about maintaining infinity focus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 03:31
|
|