|
the posted:EOS 3 body at the local shop for $125.... should I pick it up? Does everything work? (It had a lot of electric do-dads) If so, that is a good deal.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
I have an EOS 3 and it's fantastic. $125 is a pretty great price assuming it works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Found an old Zenit 122 with Helios 44M M42 lens... but the lens has a bit of fungus in it. Is it worth selling, or is it headed for the bin? I spent literally $5 on this, so I'm not concerned. GonadTheBallbarian fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Looking to pick up a fast wide-angle lens for a wedding. Tamron 24-70 2.8 or Sigma 35 1.4?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Looking to pick up a fast wide-angle lens for a wedding. Tamron 24-70 2.8 or Sigma 35 1.4? I use the poo poo out of my 35 1.4 at weddings. That and my 85 get the most use, then my 17-35 and 70-200 are for special applications.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Looking to pick up a fast wide-angle lens for a wedding. Tamron 24-70 2.8 or Sigma 35 1.4? Split the difference, Sigma 18-35 1.8. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
Hi Canon, I know there is quick money to be made in re-making popular focal ranged lenses that you already sell, slap IS on it, and charge an extra $1000 for, but could you please just release the 14-24 f/2.8 already? I'd really appreciate it. I don't think anyone needs IS for that either, if you ask my humble opinion. Thanks. Kindest Regards, rcman50166
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Looking to pick up a fast wide-angle lens for a wedding. Tamron 24-70 2.8 or Sigma 35 1.4?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
HPL posted:I feel similarly about the 40D versus the 50D and 60D. When those came out, there was such a small incremental improvement over the 40D that I ended up going mirrorless instead of staying on the Canon crop sensor path. Since then, the 6D is the only Canon camera that has even come close to make me think of going back to DSLRs. The only thing that seems to be an issue with my 40D is that the dynamic range seems to be smaller than current sensors. Scenes with strong areas of light and dark (brown landscape against a clear sky) seem to suffer unless you play around with curves in post-processing. Though, that might be my perception is spoilt my by mirrorless & P&S both having dynamic range boosters (or whatever they are called).
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 11:04
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Hi Canon, Dear rcman50166, Sorry that you don't enjoy our revolutionary new lens lineup. Personally, we do enjoy rehashing old designs and booting them out the door for more money! Unfortunately, Tom from R&D lost his Nikon 14-24 f2.8, so the only development we have done on our version is that we're 85% sure it will be white. Our pals at Sigma have you semi-covered though - look for their 16-20 f2 in the coming months! Your buddies, Canon
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
HPL posted:Since then, the 6D is the only Canon camera that has even come close to make me think of going back to DSLRs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
WugLyfe posted:Found an old Zenit 122 with Helios 44M M42 lens... but the lens has a bit of fungus in it. Is it worth selling, or is it headed for the bin? The camera's ok and worth keeping, the lens though I wouldn't bother, the soviet bloc made so many helio 44Ms (literaally millions, iirc) that you can probably get another, fungus free, for $5 easily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
I've had people give me a few of those Helios 44Ms for free. Only one was any use or I'd send you one. You can find them pretty much anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
Anyone have a recommendation for a negative scanner? I'm getting back into film but I only have the space for film dev, not printing, and I'd at least like to be able to see some of my pics properly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
ReelBigLizard posted:Anyone have a recommendation for a negative scanner? Depends on what kind of film you're shooting. For 35mm and medium format I like (and own) the Epson V600. It's inexpensive and does a decent job, although you probably would want to look at getting some glass for the negative holders from Betterscanning.com. The long answer: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3307521
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
bobfather posted:Dear rcman50166, 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
So I now have about $150 in Target gift cards and I was thinking of getting a camera. I have enough experience with film and digital SLRs to know that I don't really need one, although I would appreciate having one. Is there a consensus on compact systems? I've never handled one before, but portability really appeals to me. Target has a Pentax Q10 on sale for $200 that I'm eyeing. I would mostly be using it for documenting day to day activities or maybe cataloging some products, although I would like to switch out the lens for a 50mm/1.4f some day. Does this seem like a good deal I should get behind? edit: My alternative would be just getting a nice P&S for the same cost, for example. Octorok fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Octorok posted:So I now have about $150 in Target gift cards and I was thinking of getting a camera. I have enough experience with film and digital SLRs to know that I don't really need one, although I would appreciate having one. The usual P+S recommendation is to buy whatever Canon fits your budget. The Pentax Q series are basically a "system P+S", it has a P+S sized sensor so it performs relatively poorly compared to other cameras with larger sensors. The target market is Japanese housewives who want a tiny camera. I'd probably go with the Coolpix out of those two. Or use the Target gift card to buy groceries and redirect the money into a used DSLR or MILC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The usual P+S recommendation is to buy whatever Canon fits your budget. The Pentax Q series are basically a "system P+S", it has a P+S sized sensor so it performs relatively poorly compared to other cameras with larger sensors. The target market is Japanese housewives who want a tiny camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
EOS M are stupid cheap for what you get too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:EOS M are stupid cheap for what you get too. Is there a comparable Nikon camera on their site? Elliotw2 posted:The only really worthwhile one in that list would be the Olympus PEN, and that's still really expensive for one. The best idea is like someone a bit ago said, use the cards for groceries, take the saved money to KEH and buy a nice M4/3 camera. Octorok fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Octorok posted:Looks like Target only carries Nikon The only really worthwhile one in that list would be the Olympus PEN, and that's still really expensive for one. The best idea is like someone a bit ago said, use the cards for groceries, take the saved money to KEH and buy a nice M4/3 camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Used entry level M43 cost nothing at all and most of them are very good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
Man, you guys weren't kidding. Amazon has refurbished Olympus PEN E-PL3 for $200 and PEN E-P3 for $300, both with presumably the same 14-42mm/3.5-5.6 M Zuiko kit lens. I would probably be happy with the PL-3, but is there anything about the P3 that makes it worth the extra $100?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Octorok posted:Man, you guys weren't kidding. Amazon has refurbished Olympus PEN E-PL3 for $200 and PEN E-P3 for $300, both with presumably the same 14-42mm/3.5-5.6 M Zuiko kit lens. It looks like you get a better screen with touch, a built in flash instead of a bundled clip on, and a better styled body.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Depends on what kind of film you're shooting. For 35mm and medium format I like (and own) the Epson V600. It's inexpensive and does a decent job, although you probably would want to look at getting some glass for the negative holders from Betterscanning.com. Thanks for the reply. I considered a flatbed but honestly I can't see myself using it for more than 35mm B&W negatives. After further research I think I'm going to go with a dedicated 35mm scanner like the Plustek 8100. Space is at a premium for me too so the smaller form factor is a plus, not to mention the higher DPI. Anyone had any experience with the Plusteks? I can't seem to find a benefit to the 8200 over the 8100 other than colour accuracy, which isn't really a priority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
ReelBigLizard posted:Thanks for the reply. I considered a flatbed but honestly I can't see myself using it for more than 35mm B&W negatives. After further research I think I'm going to go with a dedicated 35mm scanner like the Plustek 8100. Space is at a premium for me too so the smaller form factor is a plus, not to mention the higher DPI. Anyone had any experience with the Plusteks? I can't seem to find a benefit to the 8200 over the 8100 other than colour accuracy, which isn't really a priority. I think the main difference between the 8100 and the 8200 is that the 8200 has IR dust removal but that would only work for C41 negatives (maybe slides?) but wouldn't work at all with B&W negatives. I used a 8200 in tandem with an Epson V600 because the 8200 is slow. I don't say that as an exaggeration because you have to manually feed the negatives through the scanner one by one and scanning at the max DPI takes a bit of time as well. I would batch scan entire rolls with the V600 first then pick the few frames that I wanted in a higher resolution to scan with the 8200.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
ReelBigLizard posted:Thanks for the reply. I considered a flatbed but honestly I can't see myself using it for more than 35mm B&W negatives. After further research I think I'm going to go with a dedicated 35mm scanner like the Plustek 8100. Space is at a premium for me too so the smaller form factor is a plus, not to mention the higher DPI. Anyone had any experience with the Plusteks? I can't seem to find a benefit to the 8200 over the 8100 other than colour accuracy, which isn't really a priority. I would have probably gone the same route as you, but I wanted a device that could scan 120 as well as 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
MY GIRLFRIEND and I both have the odd 120/620 camera knocking about but we dont really use them. If we want to start I'll probably just get my enlarger down form my mums attic. Local bricks and mortar photography shop had an 8100 on the shelf and I bit the bullet after they knocked some off the price. I couldn't find any really bad reviews other than the aforementioned speed and the usual non technical users complaining about the fiddly software, neither of which is a problem for me. I'll give it a spin this weekend and post some scans. Thanks for the point on the iR scanning. I didn't twig that it wouldn't work on b&w 
ReelBigLizard fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
So I noticed these marks on the inside of the front element of my lens a few days ago, anyone know what this is? I'm not too worried about it, I'm just curious what's going on. The lens is the Canon 17-40mm f/4L, I've only had it for two months and I purchased it new.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Not completely sure I'm in the right thread, however, I'm in the market for a new camera. I generally take pictures of animals and bugs and moving things - not so much trees and landscapes and portraits of people. I currently have a Canon 50D (Which is way more camera than I really want or need - both in the 'capabilities' and 'I don't take it anywhere because it's rather large and conspicuous' sense) and an Olympus E-PL1. The 50D takes fantastic photos and is completely awesome in every way, but the size and weight and complexity often is way more than I want to deal with. Focusing is fast, the controls are reasonably sensible once you learn them, and it's remarkably easy to get decent shots of fast moving things. Conversely, I really dislike the E-PL1, primarily because it takes half an hour to autofocus, and by the time it has, whatever I was taking a picture of is already out of frame and and often so distant that there's no real way to recover it - this is generally a problem with cats, dogs, and other such hyper animals where you've got a couple of seconds to decide and take the picture, at most. It may be user error, but 80% of what comes out of the E-PL1 is either out of focus completely, focused poorly, or focused on the wrong thing, regardless of what the focus indication said. Photos of things that aren't in motion come out acceptably, so I'm assuming this is just a limitation of the hardware, more than me being completely incompetent. What I'd *like* is something that focuses and has general performance somewhat comparable with the 50D, but is more the size of the E-PL1, as well as something that'll happily shoot RAW. I'm willing to compromise on things like exchangeable lenses if what's there has a reasonable range of focal lengths, and physical manual controls (but would prefer that there's still an option in software). I don't have a specific budget, but recommendations somewhere in the range of what I'd get by selling/trading/whatever the current gear I'm not using would be more what I'm thinking (somewhere roughly in the $600-ish range, going by Amazon and eBay prices).
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
I assume that given the bugs comment, you want good macro capability?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
nm posted:I assume that given the bugs comment, you want good macro capability? In the grand scheme of things, that's more of a 'nice to have' than a 'must have'. I'd say greater than 95% of pictures I've taken in the last two or three years are dogs, cats, horses, ferrets, ducks, and people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
If you don't care about changing lenses, maybe you should look at a point and shoot like a Sony RX100 or a maybe a Canon G1X.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
So I have a dumb question. Say I have two lengs, one which is an 18-55 for my 70D and one which is a "nifty" 50 for my 70D. Why does everyone say a nifty is better than my 18-55? Basically my question is, what is the difference between a nifty and an 18-55 set to 50? Yes I am incredibly new to lens and I am dumb, I'm sorry for how stupid this question probably is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
ScienceAndMusic posted:So I have a dumb question. Say I have two lengs, one which is an 18-55 for my 70D and one which is a "nifty" 50 for my 70D. Why does everyone say a nifty is better than my 18-55? Basically my question is, what is the difference between a nifty and an 18-55 set to 50? The 50mm is specifically designed to shoot at a 50mm focal length. In general, prime (non-zoom) lenses have better optics and are more sharp than their zoom counterparts. Also, if you have the 1.8 50mm, it's aperture is way better than the zoom lens, which is probably at 5.6 aperture at the 50mm range. That's quite a few stops which helps with dark shooting events and allows more creative shots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:The 50mm is specifically designed to shoot at a 50mm focal length. In general, prime (non-zoom) lenses have better optics and are more sharp than their zoom counterparts. Also, if you have the 1.8 50mm, it's aperture is way better than the zoom lens, which is probably at 5.6 aperture at the 50mm range. That's quite a few stops which helps with dark shooting events and allows more creative shots. Awesome thank you, this was exactly what I was looking for!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Haggins posted:If you don't care about changing lenses, maybe you should look at a point and shoot like a Sony RX100 or a maybe a Canon G1X. Went to a BestBuy and played with the RX100 - this is pretty much exactly what I'm after. The autofocus is drat near as fast as the 50d, and the time between shots is more than adequate. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Check out speed priority continuous shooting if you do get the RX100. It can be great for animals and people as it lets you rip off 10 shots in about a second before the buffer fills up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
My brother loves the crap out of his RX100 and probably uses it more than his 7D. From what I gather you can even get quasi-macro (like 1:3 or so) with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 23:24
|
|