|
I'm now looking at carbon fiber Giottos YTLs and trying to justify >$200 sans-head. Why do I ever go to the dorkroom with a budget when I should be mentally multiplying it by two before even posting. This place needs a :photobux: emote.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:I'm now looking at carbon fiber Giottos YTLs and trying to justify >$200 sans-head. Why do I ever go to the dorkroom with a budget when I should be mentally multiplying it by two before even posting. This place needs a :photobux: emote. That's what  is for
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Dumb question: for a lens to have an effective focal length less than the back focal length, there must be an intermediate focus between the last lens surface and the sensor?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
What do you mean back focal length
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Last lens surface to sensor distance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Dumb question: for a lens to have an effective focal length less than the back focal length, there must be an intermediate focus between the last lens surface and the sensor? Do you mean an intermediate lens? Anyway, nope. Do you know how a telephoto lens works? Essentially the lens puts the optical center physically forward of the lens, so if you have an 800mm lens it might be physically 200mm long, but the optical center is located at 800mm from the film plane. Retrofocus lenses work like that except backwards. You take a lens and you make the optical center go behind the lens, into the mirror box. So the last element is 45mm away, but the optical center is 18mm (or whatever) away. That's one of the major challenges with making those ultrawide lenses for SLRs. Not only do you have to make the lens sharp, you also have to force the optical center behind the lens too. The wider the lens, the farther you need to push the center back from the lens. There's a reason most of the lenses <20mm have historically been non-retrofocus lockup-only types. By the way, not all long lenses are telephoto, it's a frequently misused word outside the large format community. It is perfectly possible to have a 200mm lens that is not a telephoto, or what have you. That's a long lens, but not telephoto. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
By "nodal point," do you mean focus? So if you sent in collimated light through the lens, the rays would converge into a spot there?
Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:By "nodal point," do you mean focus? So if you sent in collimated light through the lens, the rays would converge there? I mean the optical center of the lens. I guess nodal point is the wrong word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_point_%28optics%29#Principal_planes_and_points http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length#Thin_lens_approximation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Ok, I was thinking about lenses the wrong way. Just had to look up a ray diagram for a wide angle lens (this one has a 210-degree FOV).
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Ok, I was thinking about lenses the wrong way. Just had to look up a ray diagram for a wide angle lens (this one has a 210-degree FOV). I've missed you, $20,000 Nikon fisheye.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:I'm looking to buy a tripod, but as it's my first one I'm not too sure what to look for. My only requirements are that I'd like something small so I can travel with it (eg: can I fit it in a backpack small enough to ski with), and I don't want to go above $200. At the same time, I'm wondering if I'll regret getting something too compact, and end up buying a full size tripod later. Your question is pretty similar to what mine was a few days ago, so those answers up the page might help you as well. I ended up finding a used Sirui T-1005X tripod paired with a Benro BH0 ballhead, and it seems to be a nice compromise between price, size, and stability. I can't say much more since my vacation starts tomorrow so I haven't used it yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Ok, I was thinking about lenses the wrong way. Just had to look up a ray diagram for a wide angle lens (this one has a 210-degree FOV). Just so you are aware, that is a traditional non-retrofocus lens where the optical center is inside the lens and the backfocus is too short for the mirror. It's basically a rangefinder lens since it needs to be operated with MLU. Retrofocus SLR lenses are different. There's some general discussion on the wiki about the Angeneiux retrofocus: (the lens the Pentax 35/3.5 was copied from) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang%C3%A9nieux_retrofocus Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
I carry a tripod onto flights all the time. Shouldn't be an issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Just so you are aware, that is a traditional non-retrofocus lens where the optical center is inside the lens and the backfocus is too short for the mirror. It's basically a rangefinder lens since it needs to be operated with MLU. Retrofocus SLR lenses are different. the best lens design
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 07:19
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Just so you are aware, that is a traditional non-retrofocus lens where the optical center is inside the lens and the backfocus is too short for the mirror. It's basically a rangefinder lens since it needs to be operated with MLU. Retrofocus SLR lenses are different. Is there a good resource where I can read about lens design? I'm fascinated by the various aspects that go into the makeup of lens groups and all that, but every page I've read starts out at the "Let's just assume you know everything" level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
bisticles posted:Is there a good resource where I can read about lens design? I'm fascinated by the various aspects that go into the makeup of lens groups and all that, but every page I've read starts out at the "Let's just assume you know everything" level. lensrentals' blog has the best primer on lens design I've found online: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/10/from-petzvals-sum-to-abbes-number http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/lens-geneology-part-1 There's much more technical discussion out there but I find it easy to get lost in all the equations. It's a pretty fascinating topic though.. I keep meaning to dick around with building my own lenses, but finding convex lenses in bulk/cheap is kind of a pain in the rear end unless you're willing to do a ton of homework.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
bisticles posted:Is there a good resource where I can read about lens design? I'm fascinated by the various aspects that go into the makeup of lens groups and all that, but every page I've read starts out at the "Let's just assume you know everything" level. If you want to hear about it from the designers themselves, including every amusing anecdote about the design and some chat about how the lens designers all went and got shitfaced and hit on young women every night, you couldn't do much better than Nikkor 1001 Nights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
Perfect, thanks for the links. Really interesting stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
I am planning on finally calibrating my monitor (Samsung PVA). Would it be safe to grab a Spyder 3 pro used?
daspope fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Oct 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
I almost bought an overpriced tablet holder before I realized that the little wedge fits into the super clamp and turns it into a perfect tablet holder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Any preferences for muslin or cotton backdrops and backdrop stands? I'm shopping around for them for an upcoming shoot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
My school's studio used the back of a roll of linoleum for a white seamless backdrop, and required subjects to take their shoes off to avoid scuffing it. The newspaper studio uses paper backdrops. It comes in colors and is cheaper, but smaller widths and has to be replaced more often. If you must have fabric, buy a couple bolts off the clearance rack and sew/glue/tape it together for your required width, and Photoshop out the vertical seam. Photo backdrop fabric is ridiculously overpriced, even by $photo standards. Cheapass option, especially if it doesn't have to go all the way under their feet, is a king-size bedsheet, and iron the hell out of it just before the shoot. As for holding it up, I've only ever used C-stands and various hardware-store spring clamps. Or just nail it to the wall and put bricks on the corners on the floor. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 11:07
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Chekans 3 16 posted:Any preferences for muslin or cotton backdrops and backdrop stands? I'm shopping around for them for an upcoming shoot. Paper or muslin for sure. Everything else is going to be too thin, or attract stupid amounts of lint, or show creases like mad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
dakana posted:Paper or muslin for sure. Everything else is going to be too thin, or attract stupid amounts of lint, or show creases like mad. Also if you're not hugely concerned with quality and the backdrop is going to be largely out of focus, muslin is so cheap it's almost free.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
SpoopyMonkey posted:Also if you're not hugely concerned with quality and the backdrop is going to be largely out of focus, muslin is so cheap it's almost free. I have an upcoming assignment where I'm shooting a full length portrait and need a plain white background. I figured I would pick up something that I could use in this assignment and in assignments down the road so ideally I would like something that could last. If it's better just to grab a roll of seamless though I'll probably just do that. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:Are the TSA cool with folks brining tripods on as hand luggage at full size? If so that's certainly an option and I have a pack that will take it. I was thinking something smaller would be less likely to be vetoed by them. Yeah, I carry a fairly large 3 part Manfrotto loose all the time. If I used a more expensive head on it, I'd probably remove the head beforehand, as I've had stuff get bent in the overhead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
I have messed about with rolls of paper for bulletin boards (I found them in the teacher classroom supplies section of michael's craft store) and muslin. I prefer the look of the muslin but I had to steam it to get the wrinkles out. The paper had texture under certain light or if it wasn't thrown out of focus that I didn't like and with paper any wrinkles are permanent. You might be able to buy a big giant roll of white paper then rip off sections and throw them out when they get dirty or creased, like a big roll of paper towels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Dren posted:I have messed about with rolls of paper for bulletin boards (I found them in the teacher classroom supplies section of michael's craft store) and muslin. I prefer the look of the muslin but I had to steam it to get the wrinkles out. The paper had texture under certain light or if it wasn't thrown out of focus that I didn't like and with paper any wrinkles are permanent. There's a big difference in texture, thickness, and finish if you buy paper made for photo backgrounds. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/45468-REG/Savage_1_12_107_x_12yds_Background.html This stuff is good stuff. It's 12 yds so you tear off parts when it gets gross. They also make it in different widths; this one is 9ft wide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 13:31
|
|
|
I'm thinking of purchasing canons 40mm pancake for an upcoming trip to Rome. I really don't think I will notice the stop of light loss compared to using my Sigma 50mm f1.4 a la roll in an extra stop with ISO, but I do think the weight savings will be surely felt at the end of the day. The kit I'm thinking of taking is my 7d, 10-22, and if I use the 40mm in place of the 50mm, and a Joby tripod(the heavier duty one.) Would this seem reasonable to you guys and 40mm owners I have 77mm filters do you guys notice any vignetting by using step rings to adapt filter sizes on the 40?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:I'm thinking of purchasing canons 40mm pancake for an upcoming trip to Rome. I really don't think I will notice the stop of light loss compared to using my Sigma 50mm f1.4 a la roll in an extra stop with ISO, but I do think the weight savings will be surely felt at the end of the day. When I was in Rome I had a 17-40 (on a 5D) mounted almost the entire time. I also brought a 24-105, but rarely used it. I wished I had brought my 100-400, but only because I was in Rome during the announcement of Pope Francis and it would have let me get closer to him during the ceremony. I did not bring and did not miss a tripod.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:I'm thinking of purchasing canons 40mm pancake for an upcoming trip to Rome. I really don't think I will notice the stop of light loss compared to using my Sigma 50mm f1.4 a la roll in an extra stop with ISO, but I do think the weight savings will be surely felt at the end of the day. Mightaswell fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Nov 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
I had my 17-50 kit lens and it was fine, I never took my 70-200 during the time in Rome. Honestly, I think you could count on one hand the number of photos I took in Rome at >30mm
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
bobfather posted:When I was in Rome I had a 17-40 (on a 5D) mounted almost the entire time. This. Your 10-22 will be glued to the camera. Everything is really big and really close. Have fun. Don't let the touts get you down. Rome = awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Looking at the EXIF for my camera for the shots I took when I was in Rome, most of the shots were at 17mm, with others at ~24, ~30, ~40 and ~50.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
Camera plebe here, I know nothing about anything other than what little I've gleaned from this and a couple other dorkroom threads. I am looking for babby's first DSLR as a christmas gift to my wife, who is equally new to photography, and found this Nikon D3100 bundle with an 18-55mm lens and a 55-200mm lens for $500 which is right around my budget. In your expert goon opinions, is this a reasonable deal on a decent camera setup to get her foot in the door?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
3100 is a good starter camera. Great sensor, no major features missing. And that bundle covers the important focal lengths. Go for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Gray Matter posted:Camera plebe here, I know nothing about anything other than what little I've gleaned from this and a couple other dorkroom threads. I see a couple of options in the ~$500 range. There's a D3100 with just the 18-55 for $425, with the 55-200 added for $500, and with the 55-200 VR instead for $575. There's also the D3200 with 18-55 for $500. The bundle you linked is a decent deal, but there's a couple of issues, which depend on how you think she would use the camera. Neither of the lenses bundled with the camera are very good for indoor photography, because they don't let much light in (which is normal for kit lenses). The 55-200 in particular is basically only usable in bright sunlight, until you have a ton of practice with holding it steady, and even then, it's pretty mediocre. The $575 bundle with the VR version of the 55-200 really is worth the money if you can stretch your budget, and you think your wife would want a longer lens than the 18-55. The VR is Nikon's term for image stabilization, which basically means you can get sharper photos in weaker light, because it counters your hands shaking. The lens is also just better than the non-VR version. One lens that would be really useful for indoor shots is the 35mm f1.8. It's about $200, and doesn't zoom at all, but it lets in a ton of light compared to the other two lenses. Of course, getting the bundle with the 18-55 plus the 35mm lens is getting considerably over your budget. I think the best bet would actually be to just get the kit with the camera and the 18-55, and promise to get her another lens when she has a feel for the limitations of the kit lens. In the long run this might cost you more money, but on the other hand you could just as easily waste money by getting a bundle with a 55-200 only for her to end up not using it. This D3200 bundle is also only $75 more than the equivalent D3100 bundle, and might be worth the money. I haven't actually used the D3100 or the D3200 myself, though, so other people will have to help you decide if it's worth the extra $75. I guess my recommendation would be to get a bundle with just the 18-55 kit for now. EDIT: Okay, my post might have sounded a bit too negative, and a wall of text. There's really nothing wrong with the bundle you posted, although I still would recommend getting the VR 55-200 over the non-VR. TL;DR version is that you might not want to get the 55-200 at all for now, and see if she wants more zoom over the 18-55. If she does, you can get a 55-200 later, but if she is more concerned with taking better photos indoors or in low light, the 35mm f1.8 is a better second lens. This might cost more in the long run, but saves you the risk of getting her a 55-200 that just sits on the shelf if she doesn't find it useful after all. ShadeofBlue fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Re: D3100 chat I guess I should have researched that VR feature more thoroughly. We are expecting our first child next spring, so this is going to be used for obscene numbers of baby photos. I'm sure a good majority of them will be taken indoors, I appreciate the advice! e: think I am gonna pull the trigger on the D3200 with just the 18-55mm VR lens Gray Matter fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
Gray Matter posted:e: think I am gonna pull the trigger on the D3200 with just the 18-55mm VR lens The 18-55 VR is cock solid for reals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
I just took a poo poo ton of baby photos. 35mm f/1.8G is the only lens you will need or want. I actually used a 50 1.8 a bit too but that was just because I was shooting in a small room and it was easier to crop a bit with the lens to get rid of some background stuff than to recompose. I definitely could have stuck with the 35 by being more careful with my subject placement but I had the 50. Does the 3100 or 3200 have 3D tracking AF? It's pretty convenient for making sure you get focus on the eyes as the baby squirms a bit or if you grab focus and recompose. Oh and for the kit lenses get the 18-55 vr and just forget any 55-200 lenses exist. If you want something long get the 55-300 vr or I think there's a 70-300 tamron that people on here love. You probably want the 18-55 and the 35. If you get just the 35 you'll probably feel limited because you can't zoom. But the 35 is great for newborn sized portraits and has wonderful sharpness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 05:10
|
|