|
Honestly couldn't tell you--someone in the point and shoot thread might have an idea. I think most photography enthusiasts, including me, are going to have more experience more on the s90 type stuff in point and shoot land since that style and quality camera compliments bigger gear well. Your best bet would be seeing if dpreview or similar sites have reviews.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
That's an impossible set of demands. You want an ultra-cheap tiny camera and you don't want to flash or use any lighting (i.e. you need a large-aperture lens). It's physically impossible. P+S have small-aperture lenses and are going to suck if you push the ISO too far, and $200 is beyond a shoestring budget for that task. The cheapest reasonable setup that could do that is a Nex-5N ($250) + a Sigma 30/2.8 ($100). And that's still not a particularly fast lens. A more realistic solution is a Nikon D5100 ($325) and a 35/1.8 DX ($200). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Nov 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
Thanks anyway, guys. I didn't realize there was a point and shoot thread, I'll take it over there instead. I'm after a lovely camera that can squeeze the best pictures possible out of the lovely budget/circumstances I've got at my disposal, and I'm pretty sure I that goes well below the sort of standards that you guys are used to, so I won't subject you guys to any more of my terrible plans 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
You can also make your pictures look a lot better by composing them properly. An angled down, weird perspective shot won't look as good as a straight on, distractions minimized shot of the cocktail. It's going to be really difficult to shoot in low light without motion blur or extreme graininess for under $200. I know you're looking for something that doesn't take totally lovely pictures, but honestly I don't think you're going to get any usable results for that budget without any additional lighting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
Unless he gets a mini tripod. Then it should be possible to quickly drop the setup on the bar, take a longish exposure, and remove it. Should still only take a couple seconds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 08:31
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm sure I would get better results with even a half minute or so worth of extra effort, but I don't think I made it clear just how busy and how tight room is behind my bar. I can't get away with sitting around setting up a shot even for 10 seconds while thirsty people are waiting and watching thinking what the gently caress is this guy doing with his precious creation, I want a drink. It needs to be as discreet as possible, I cannot stress that enough. The other idea I've had is getting whatever customer has the front and centre seat at the bar to take a shot, and comping a drink for their trouble but maybe relying on drunk people to push a button cleanly on a camera on a little tripod might be putting a little bit too much faith in them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 08:57
|
|
|
Is it possible to make space somewhere behind the bar? Pretty much the only way to do what you want quickly is to set up a tiny photobooth that you could quickly place the drink in snap the shutter and then serve. You could get a small LED panel, support it on three sides with white foamcore, and have P&S on a minitripod so you can just push a button and go. Otherwise you are just going to look silly and take blurry photos doing it. You wouldn't need more than a square foot or so as long as you don't have crazy large glasses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
Does the bar have windows? Do you come into work when it's daylight? Re-make and take pictures of interesting cocktails then when it's slower and the light is better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 10:23
|
|
|
Is there a good way to get a cell phone mounted onto a tripod with a Manfrotto plate? I know this is a weird edge case use, but my iPhone can record 120fps video which makes it the only camera in my arsenal that can do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 10:26
|
|
|
nrr posted:Yeah, I'm sure I would get better results with even a half minute or so worth of extra effort, but I don't think I made it clear just how busy and how tight room is behind my bar. I can't get away with sitting around setting up a shot even for 10 seconds while thirsty people are waiting and watching thinking what the gently caress is this guy doing with his precious creation, I want a drink. It needs to be as discreet as possible, I cannot stress that enough. Slap an Instagram logo and hash tag on the bar and encourage your patrons to take their own pics (best shot wins a round on the next night or whatever). You don't have the time, the means or the money to make this work but you have an entire drunken clientele obsessed with social media at your disposal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 10:40
|
|
|
I have never been to a bar where the bartenders didn't have their phone charging next to the cash register. There's a difference between using your phone to take a picture and using it to sit on Facebook during your shift.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 13:29
|
|
|
ahmeni posted:Slap an Instagram logo and hash tag on the bar and encourage your patrons to take their own pics (best shot wins a round on the next night or whatever). You don't have the time, the means or the money to make this work but you have an entire drunken clientele obsessed with social media at your disposal. Buy this man a drink. Trying to do it yourself with the limitations you are putting on it sounds like a waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 13:44
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry, we're not trying to gang up and run you out or anything. It's just that the issue of "good low light pictures" comes up pretty often, and it's a lot more involved than it seems at first glance. Good pictures come from good light. A brand new camera with a fast lens helps, but light is easier and cheaper. From an image perspective, you usually want to get the best pictures you can muster or Instagram that poo poo so people know they're looking at something quick and fun. The in-the-middle stuff is just weird. If you want to do it yourself and improve the quality of your shots, look into getting a pinspot light and position it at one particular spot. Thatll provide a concentrated beam of light that won't light up the rest of the space and ruin ambiance. That's your picture takin' spot. When you have a drink needs its picture taken, bring it over there and now all of the sudden your cheap camera is able to make better use of the light and your customers aren't waiting five minutes for their drink because you can't get the focus to work in the darkness. I work at a club where the owners have a switch for "the Instagram light" so they can post quick decent shots of the acts on stage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Is there a good way to get a cell phone mounted onto a tripod with a Manfrotto plate? I know this is a weird edge case use, but my iPhone can record 120fps video which makes it the only camera in my arsenal that can do so. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
But but *emerald sparkle!*
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
Hey, my girlfriend is getting back into cameras and picked up a Cannon T3i yesterday. She really wants a macro lens, but doesn't have the money for one right now and it might be a year or so until she can afford a nice one. I was thinking about picking this up in this interim as a macro lens, but wasn't sure if it was worth it. My budget is around $200 and the reviews on Amazon say this is the best I'm going to find in that price range. Any advice? Can I find something better? Is this just a waste of money? http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B000ALLMI8/ref=sr_1_6?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1385654069&sr=1-6
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
Thalamas posted:Hey, my girlfriend is getting back into cameras and picked up a Cannon T3i yesterday. She really wants a macro lens, but doesn't have the money for one right now and it might be a year or so until she can afford a nice one. I was thinking about picking this up in this interim as a macro lens, but wasn't sure if it was worth it. My budget is around $200 and the reviews on Amazon say this is the best I'm going to find in that price range. Any advice? Can I find something better? Is this just a waste of money? My dad has one of those. It's good for the price if you accept what it is, which is a slow long-zoom lens with no image stabilization. A few other things to consider: the 70-200 f/4 L can be had for ~500. The better the glass, the better it tends to hold value. Cheap crap is hard to get rid of, but L glass is always in demand, so you could buy one and flip it later as a "long-term rental". There's also a non-L 70-210mm f/4 macro that can be had for ~$100. There's also a Canon 70-300 IS, which I have no experience with. The old Canon 100mm f/2.8 non-USM macro is also dirt cheap at this point (~$300), because they replaced it with a USM version and then replaced the USM version with an IS version, or there's the 60mm f/2.8 macro. You could also buy alt-glass. You can find old macro lenses fairly commonly and they do pretty well. They will have a shorter focal length and thus won't provide as much working distance between the lens and your subject. You can also take a regular lens and buy extension rings or close-up filters to extend the close-focus limit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Thalamas posted:Hey, my girlfriend is getting back into cameras and picked up a Cannon T3i yesterday. She really wants a macro lens, but doesn't have the money for one right now and it might be a year or so until she can afford a nice one. I was thinking about picking this up in this interim as a macro lens, but wasn't sure if it was worth it. My budget is around $200 and the reviews on Amazon say this is the best I'm going to find in that price range. Any advice? Can I find something better? Is this just a waste of money? If she wants actual macro (as in big pictures of tiny things) save an extra $50-100 and get her a used EF-S 60mm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Thalamas posted:Hey, my girlfriend is getting back into cameras and picked up a Cannon T3i yesterday. She really wants a macro lens, but doesn't have the money for one right now and it might be a year or so until she can afford a nice one. I was thinking about picking this up in this interim as a macro lens, but wasn't sure if it was worth it. My budget is around $200 and the reviews on Amazon say this is the best I'm going to find in that price range. Any advice? Can I find something better? Is this just a waste of money? I had one of those a while back when I was first getting into DSLRs and got rid of it pretty quickly. I found it had really poor IQ and the "macro" really wasn't. YMMV though, its Sigma and I could have got a poo poo copy. Paul and BlandAverage are right about the 60mm macro, it'll do what she wants (close focus) for only a little more money. Adorama has a refurb for ~380 and you can haggle with them some. Ebay looks a bit cheaper if you're willing to do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I had one of those a while back when I was first getting into DSLRs and got rid of it pretty quickly. I found it had really poor IQ and the "macro" really wasn't. YMMV though, its Sigma and I could have got a poo poo copy. Paul and BlandAverage are right about the 60mm macro, it'll do what she wants (close focus) for only a little more money. Adorama has a refurb for ~380 and you can haggle with them some. Ebay looks a bit cheaper if you're willing to do that. KEH has an EX one for $299. I got one for my girlfriend on eBay for $275 a while back by being patient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:KEH has an EX one for $299. I got one for my girlfriend on eBay for $275 a while back by being patient. Oh weird, I looked there first and didn't get any results. KEH is awesome but their search function is kinda sucky and particular about search terms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
If money's tight just get macro rings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Oh weird, I looked there first and didn't get any results. KEH is awesome but their search function is kinda sucky and particular about search terms. Their site is the most Web 0.5 bullshit imaginable, but the rest of their company is awesome. If you can believe it, the site actually used to WORSE. At least it responds most of the time now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
bisticles posted:Yeah, sorry, we're not trying to gang up and run you out or anything. It's all good, I don't feel I was run out of here. I wasn't after advice on how to improve an environment that I cannot possibly change, I was just hoping to be pointed towards a couple of cameras (or features to look for) that would give me the best outcome with the restrictions I have to deal with. I appreciate the help as it's given me some good things to keep in mind in the future, but I don't think I emphasized enough that I cannot lift or alter any of the restrictions I mentioned, even in the slightest. It's not possible. So sorry for anyone who tried to help out with tips on how to improve the environment because it was unfortunately a bit of a waste of time.I do appreciate the effort though, so thanks for trying to help out a guy with a lovely situation
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 11:17
|
|
|
Question regarding FILM CAMERAS. I am considering buying a new film camera. I have an old Minolta camera with a 50 1.7, and a 70-200 4-5.6 (I think that's the aperture, but I am not sure.) Anyways, I am starting to get a little more serious into film photography just because of how much loving fun making black and white prints is, but the Minolta's IQ is seriously seriously starting to piss me off. I know that I am not missing focus, but the 50 looks poo poo even at like f/8, which is where it's supposed to be the best, right? I keep looking at other lenses, but 1- There is almost no choice 2- All the lenses that I hear have acceptable IQ are as expensive as comparable, modern ones with IQ. So, I can't really warrant buying a digital-film camera. The feel of a manual body is half of the appeal to me, so I would rather just get a older body from a different manufacturer. So, what brand does everyone recommend? Is the ME seriously the poo poo? e, I don't know, it might have fungus but it just seems too soft. If people think that it is a good lens, maybe I am just missing focus Boneitis fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Dec 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
I'm surprised at your disappointment with the Minolta 50mm. I don't think there is such thing as a "bad" 50mm made in the last 30 years, and the minoltas I'm general we're very good. You probably have a bad copy. But if you insist, you could always probably pick up a Canon film slr with the great FDn 50mm 1.4 for around 100 bucks. Maybe a similar nikon set up for a bit more. Konica stuff is dirt cheap and also very good. I would probably just replace that Minolta 50mm or upgrade it to the 1.4 model and go from there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Boneitis posted:So, I can't really warrant buying a digital-film camera. The feel of a manual body is half of the appeal to me, so I would rather just get a older body from a different manufacturer. So, what brand does everyone recommend? Is the ME seriously the poo poo? I briefly had a ME Super. I find the Pentax M* series cameras are too small. I don't have gorilla hands by any means, but they're super compact. The Pentax K1000 is the perfect camera for me. I also have a Chinon CP-6 that is kind of the same (manual controls for everything), but it has a self timer and DOF preview.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:I briefly had a ME Super. I find the Pentax M* series cameras are too small. I don't have gorilla hands by any means, but they're super compact.  your hands are just defective.You can also look into older Nikon film bodies. They're pretty dope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 09:51
|
|
|
nemoulette posted:A great advantage of Nikon and Pentax film bodies over Canon FD (which I'm heavily invested in) is the adaptability to modern Nikon and Pentax digital bodies. With FD (as great as some of the glass is), you're stuck with getting something mirrorless and an adapter. Also the advantage of (anything) over Canon FD is that the lenses aren't worthless idiot garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
I'll have to agree with Mightaswell, I have a Minolta 50mm 1.7 and It's really sharp on my cameras. Yours might have fungus or something else internally wrong with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
I've got a Canon 7D - how bad would I hate myself if I bought a 16gb/266x card? Am I gonna be buffering after two RAW shots? I don't need 30 or anything, but it's gotta be useable. This card's too cheap, my hunch is it's gotta be a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Also the advantage of (anything) over Canon FD is that the lenses aren't worthless idiot garbage. That's some egregious bullshit and you know it SM.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:That's some egregious bullshit and you know it SM. It's a Soundmonkey post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
Gordy's yayyyy   DSC_5045 by khyrre, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
Nice strap, been meaning to grab something like that for a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Quick question about old Pentax K-mount lens. Did I get it right from googling that pushing the lever on the mount will keep aperture open and if nothing is pushing that lever (like when lens is removed from camera or mounted on different system using adapter) then lens is stopped down to the aperture I dial in? Somebody gave me old Cosinon lens but I think it must be broken.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
ah forget it posted:Quick question about old Pentax K-mount lens. Did I get it right from googling that pushing the lever on the mount will keep aperture open and if nothing is pushing that lever (like when lens is removed from camera or mounted on different system using adapter) then lens is stopped down to the aperture I dial in? Yes, K lenses will normally stop themselves down under spring pressure; the camera forces the aperture to open to meter. I have no idea why they do it that way. It makes more sense to stop-down under force to prevent sticky apertures from messing up the exposure. Who cares if it takes a second to open back up all the way after the picture?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Yes, K lenses will normally stop themselves down under spring pressure; the camera forces the aperture to open to meter. Thank you! Just wanted to be sure that I'm not missing something obvious. No big loss, it seems to have chip in the glass anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
I'm looking for a small L bracket to mount a wireless transmitter on a RB67. All I've found are massive double flash mounting system with 30 different knobs and levers, is there anything around like this bracket?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 06:33
|
|