|
Martytoof posted:Why can't I find a lens shaped travel mug that actually lets you drink with the lid on like a normal travel mug should? http://www.nomorerack.com/daily_deals/view/272980
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
And maybe something in K-mount for us lonely Pentax people... It isn't happening, is it? Ah well...
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Buy some grotty old K-mount 200mm, slather the rear element in food-safe hardening sealant (i.e. not silicone), then glue the rear cap on. Then, smash out all the glass, clean out all the shards and dust, and line the inside with food-safe goop that will dry to a nice, waterproof layer coating everything. Then you just have to find a lid that can be glued to the the ring of an appropriate-diameter UV filter that you've already removed the glass from.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Buy some grotty old K-mount 200mm, slather the rear element in food-safe hardening sealant (i.e. not silicone), then glue the rear cap on. Then, smash out all the glass, clean out all the shards and dust, and line the inside with food-safe goop that will dry to a nice, waterproof layer coating everything. This sounds like the Pentax experience summed up pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:This sounds like the Pentax experience summed up pretty well. Words hurt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
Just got the Sigma 30mm in today. I love it. Build quality seems amazing and .. as far as my tests have shown me this guy has no back/front focus issues. I got it as part of amazon warehouse deals, out the door price @ $430. Everything is complete: box, manuals, lens hood, bag. Not a single blemish on the lens like Amazon had reported ..
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Words hurt. It could be worse, he could have taken a picture... Or even worse: A video. At the current exchange rate of 1000 words to a picture that is a lot of pain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
No Gravitas posted:It could be worse, he could have taken a picture...
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
Balanced out by everyone taking 100 x more pictures these days. At current exchange rates one picture can be exchanged for approximately 87 words.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
I have a Canon Rebel XT and am looking to buy a decent portrait lens for a project I'm working on. Basically I'm looking for a lens that can take nice photos of people posing from distances of about 5-15 ft in a variety of locations both indoor and outdoor. My budget is $200-500, what lenses in this pricerange would be a good bet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Supersonic posted:I have a Canon Rebel XT and am looking to buy a decent portrait lens for a project I'm working on. Basically I'm looking for a lens that can take nice photos of people posing from distances of about 5-15 ft in a variety of locations both indoor and outdoor. My budget is $200-500, what lenses in this pricerange would be a good bet? The 50/1.8 is a pretty good length for portraits on crop sensor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
Supersonic posted:I have a Canon Rebel XT and am looking to buy a decent portrait lens for a project I'm working on. Basically I'm looking for a lens that can take nice photos of people posing from distances of about 5-15 ft in a variety of locations both indoor and outdoor. My budget is $200-500, what lenses in this pricerange would be a good bet? I use the 50 1.8 for that now, but am getting a Tamron 17-50 2.8 which hopefully will be able to replace it for portrait usage while still doing everything else, but we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
I have both and prefer the nifty fifty for portraits, it's faster and so much sharper that it's not even funny. The Tamron is much more versatile, obviously, so keep that in mind if you can only have one lens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I have both and prefer the nifty fifty for portraits, it's faster and so much sharper that it's not even funny. The Tamron is much more versatile, obviously, so keep that in mind if you can only have one lens. Same for me. I've got both the 50 1.8 and the Tammy 17-50 2.8 and the 50 makes a much better portrait lens. I would still prefer an equally fast and sharp 30-35 1.8 on a crop though
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
If you had to have one which would you go with though? Although if his budget is truly $500, you could easily get both used. ^^^Yeah, wouldn't trade my Sigma 30 1.4 for anything (except maybe a newer version). For portrait work though, just have to get in a little too close. Bob Mundon fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Nov 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:If you had to have one which would you go with though? For quality/performance/price then go for the 50 if you're doing head and shoulders portraits. For versatility then go for the 17-50 you lose some of the shallowness of the depth of field but you get all kinds of range. To be honest I would rather have the 30 than the 50 if I could make that choice again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Verman posted:For quality/performance/price then go for the 50 if you're doing head and shoulders portraits. For versatility then go for the 17-50 you lose some of the shallowness of the depth of field but you get all kinds of range. I'm going to be doing a mix of full and half body portraits, similar to these ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
I have a 50mm f/2 manual focus lens that I use with a crop sensor camera. It works great for this kind of stuff, although I do often find it a bit narrow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
The 50 is a perfect shortish portrait lens. I'd never recommend one over a normal as a first (upgrade) lens, but for the usage you describe it should be perfect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
I bought and received my cheapo "Fotodiox" extension tube set and wow.. WHY DID I DO THIS YEARS AGO??? This is quite possibly the best $15 I've ever spent on photo gear. The results, considering the price, are amazing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
I find that the DOF becomes unmanageably shallow using the extension tubes. Am I doing something wrong?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Bobx66 posted:I find that the DOF becomes unmanageably shallow using the extension tubes. Am I doing something wrong? I shot this handheld (granted, at f5.6 on the kit lens) with the extension tube set (28mm taken off). I don't think the DOF is all that bad at that aperture. But I haven't shot at 1.4 on my Sigma .. I can only imagine the shred of DOF you would have there. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
Bobx66 posted:I find that the DOF becomes unmanageably shallow using the extension tubes. Am I doing something wrong? If you use a narrower aperture gives you a lot more room. Have to set it on the lens before taking it off with the DOF preview button first, then your good. Not using all the tubes is good too if you don't want to get crazy close.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Bobx66 posted:I find that the DOF becomes unmanageably shallow using the extension tubes. Am I doing something wrong?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:If you use a narrower aperture gives you a lot more room. Have to set it on the lens before taking it off with the DOF preview button first, then your good. Nice tip for the auto lenses, what does the DOF preview accomplish though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
Bobx66 posted:Nice tip for the auto lenses, what does the DOF preview accomplish though? It steps the lens down to the selected aperture and holds it there. When you then power off the camera the lens is blades are kept in that place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Bobx66 posted:Nice tip for the auto lenses, what does the DOF preview accomplish though? Otherwise it'll go back to the default aperture when you take the lens off. It only goes to the aperture you have it set to if you release the shutter, or press the DOF preview button. For example on the lens I use with tubes, it's always on 2.8, so if you don't press the DOF preview you are using the tubes at 2.8 which will create that unusably thin DOF.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Hi guys. I'm looking to buy a cheap point and shoot to take decent looking shots of cocktails in low light. I work behind a bar that focuses on great cocktails and basically making people happy. Pretty regularly, that involves creating and making custom drinks on the spot to suit a customers whims and desires. I'd like to start documenting these somehow because theres tons of great things that we come up with, and we're so busy that they're just gone again, completely forgotten by the end of the night. I don't want it to be a distraction behind the bar, and I don[t want it to take up any time either, so ideally I'm looking for something that takes great pictures in low light, without a flash, and can snap them in a hurry. The bar is dimly lit but has a row of small, dimmed halogen spots (maybe 2" diameter each, 2-3' apart) providing a little light straight down onto the bar where we mix our drinks and have them sitting before we present them to customers. I'd like it to be as cheap as possible, but I understand good pictures don't get spat out of cheap gear. If it's possible, I'm hoping I can keep it under $200. Open to suggestions on things to check out or keep an eye on because there looks like a ton of great Black Friday deals popping up at the moment and I'd like to take as much advantage of that right now as possible. I am in Canada, if that helps, but don't mind getting one shipped from the US (I have a friend who gets stuff for me just south of the border) if it's the right deal. Thanks a lot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 12:46
|
|
|
You'd be much better served by spending the money on a basic light tent and using a recent phone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
yeah but I don't have room to set up anything in my workspace. Real estate is very valuable and we all move really fast for hours and hours on end. Looking for something I can stash within arms reach, just whip out and fire off a shot and put away again and get back to work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
Small LED-based light with diffused surface set up under the drink like a light-up bar coaster + decent camera phone? Any cheap point and shoot with flash in a dim bar is going to look like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Specifically mentioned i don't want to use a flash though. It's a bar in a fine dining restaurant and I don't want a flash going off every few minutes. Want it to be as discrete as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
nrr posted:Specifically mentioned i don't want to use a flash though. It's a bar in a fine dining restaurant and I don't want a flash going off every few minutes. Want it to be as discrete as possible. What you're asking for is pretty much impossible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
That's cool, maybe I should change my required outcome from "decent pictures" to "pictures that don't look like poo poo." Any suggestions for a couple of models that are going to do the best/least bad job in that environment, in or around that budget? I've never bought a camera before, I'm just looking for a bit of a helping hand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
The best point and shoot in the price range is going to be an s90 through s110 from canon. You might be better off trying to find a cheap mirrorless as it'll do better in low light. Drinks tend to look really murky and not that nice unless you can get them backlit somehow. Usually I shoot a light into the back of them or cut out a piece of white card to match the liquid behind the glass. Edit: also, I don't care for the way drinks and glass in general look in light tents. powderific fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:Small LED-based light with diffused surface set up under the drink like a light-up bar coaster + decent camera phone? Any cheap point and shoot with flash in a dim bar is going to look like poo poo. This sounds like the most reasonable idea to me. At $200 you aren't going to get a camera that will solve your problem, you're better off spending it on a non-obtrusive lighting solution that will make a less-good camera able to take good pictures. As an added bonus, if you get just the drink lit up, it will be so much brighter than the background that it might look like it's just floating in darkness. Example of a "drink" lit from below:  This is a really quick setup using a cheap cold-cathode light table and my low-end smartphone. (I also don't have any cocktail, wine or other stem glasses, so instead placed one on top of another.) This was with the room lights on, the effect is even greater when I turn them off, just didn't occur to me to try that when taking to that picture in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
nrr posted:That's cool, maybe I should change my required outcome from "decent pictures" to "pictures that don't look like poo poo." Any suggestions for a couple of models that are going to do the best/least bad job in that environment, in or around that budget? I've never bought a camera before, I'm just looking for a bit of a helping hand. iPhone 5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Ok, thanks guys. I'll look into the s90->s10 from Canon. I had some other people suggest my iphone as well but it's pretty frowned upon to be having our phones with us at work, and the one thing I've noticed is that the while the iphone camera can look great in daylight, it's not so great in low light. I don't have the ability to set up a back or underlit type apparatus but there is a strip of ice that runs around the bar that could provide a solid white background if shot at the right angle that might give a similar effect. Here's some quick shots I took on my phone while I had time to breathe a little to give you a little bit of an idea of the environment.      So in the fourth one, in the bottom left corner you can see the edge of the black barmat that is where my drinks and prepped and made, and where I'll likely be shooting from. These are taken with the lights pointing down onto the bar that I mentioned, at their brightest. Don't know if you can see it very well but the lighting in the background is more consistent with our lighting levels while we're in service. Maybe what I should be doing is showing you guys cameras that are on sale for good prices and getting your opinions on which one is going to be best for my situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
There just aren't that many good options if you're not going to something with interchangeable lenses. Amazon has the s110 for $224 and the Fuji xf1 for $199, which are both pretty good. Dpreview isn't perfect by any means but they're extremely comprehensive if you see a deal on something and want to know if it's any good. Edit: and, unfortunately, it's tough to say how well even they would do in that situation. It's just a combination of tough lighting with a tough subject. powderific fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Nov 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:04 |
|