|
Mightaswell posted:I guess it depends where you live, but in-store price locally here in Canada is around $269 for a 430EXII (Saneal, TCS). I see B&H has them listed for $299. Both are pretty good I guess since I paid like $350 for mine several years ago. Yeah 560 is 60 bucks, fully manual 565 is 90 bucks, TTL & has wireless 568 is 180 bucks, TTL, wireless, HSS I guess HSS is expensive?  You can get YN-622's for RF (no line of site!) wireless with all of them. They are 80 or so a pair (one for the camera, one for the flash) A lot of people have nice things to say about the yongnuo's, I've personally never used them. I used to have 2 Sigma 500DG Supers, and the build quality was atrocious on them. Both fell apart after a few years use. I have a 430II and a 270II now, I would probably dip my toes in the YN waters if I was looking to do a crazy daylight HSS setup with a bunch of lights, if only because it would not cost 2 grand to do it.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Even the Canon first party flashes (that I know of) don't do wireless HSS. And it should be noted that even though it's fully manual, the YN-560 III has a built in radio trigger that pairs with the YN-602/3 triggers which saves you a couple bucks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Even the Canon first party flashes (that I know of) don't do wireless HSS. Not with the built in flash as a controller, but if you use a 580 as the master you can trip HSS remotely on the 430/580. Or you can use the YN-622s to do remote HSS as they support it. I think the ST-E2 also supports tripping HSS on the remote flashes. Edit: Using a remote trigger like the 622 to do it is the much more economical edition, as having a 500$ 580EX sitting on your camera not flashing just acting as a master is pretty "I don't care about money"
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
However you do it (I've got a pair of Sigma 530DG Supers, the build quality seems OK but the owner's manual and controls are incomprehensible), GET WIRELESS FLASH. It's loving amazing how goddam fun it is to get half-drunk and go shooting with the flash just-out-of-frame in your left hand and your wobbly blurry eye pushed up against the viewfinder, right hand fumbling for the button.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
I have a Yongnuo 560, a 565 and a pair of their wireless triggers, all for less than the price of one (1) Canon speedlight. They're super cheap and they haven't let me down yet. The only downside is that Yongnuo seem to bring out a new model about once per week so you're constantly kicking yourself that you're missing out on whatever new feature they've decided to include.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity, how is the quality control with Yongnuo these days? I still have an original 560 that works well, but a few years ago people were having units randomly crap out on them and trying to get them replaced with a warranty was a pain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Mest0r posted:Just out of curiosity, how is the quality control with Yongnuo these days? I still have an original 560 that works well, but a few years ago people were having units randomly crap out on them and trying to get them replaced with a warranty was a pain. Amazons return policy really makes buying them not a big risk these days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
On weather-sealing: most all prosumer bodies (for Nikon, D7000 and up; the D3x00 and D5x00, as far as I know, aren't sealed at all) are sealed to the point where they can handle a good bit of rain; carry a towel (preferably with a bit of plastic sheeting pinned to one side) to drape over it/wipe it off occasionally, and you'll be fine for any weather that won't get a high school football game cancelled. If you must spend ten hours in a Biblical downpour, get a Pentax -- I know for a fact the D700 won't take it (we sent it to the shop, they thought it had been submerged). The top-of-the-line Nikons may be better; I've been out in a hurricane with a D1X and it kept working. And dunking even the D1 in a lake is right out. One of my coworkers left a full set of gear -- D1X and two top-end lenses -- on the bottom of Caddo Lake. He's a big guy (think Fat Bastard from Austin Powers with a buzzcut), and the stairs from the pier down to the boat were rather rotten. torgeaux posted:If you take snapshots or journalistic type shots, that's fine SoundMonkey posted:Other than severely blown highlights you can usually squeeze a stop or so of adjustment out of any of those things, and if you need to fix it by more than a stop, your image probably has bigger issues than what format it's saved as. Kenshin posted:I wish I always had ideal shooting conditions or time to adjust my settings to get things right the first time! Personally, I shoot RAW, and make a habit of switching to P mode whenever I turn the camera off, just in case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 20:48
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
I hope I am asking in the right thread. I have seen some used Nikon D60s for around $250, would this make a good first DLSR? What kind of things should I be worried about when buying one used? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
The D60 doesn't have an internal autofocus screw, so it won't autofocus with older "D" lenses. Not a problem if you use new AF-S lenses with a built-in motor. Also, if you plan on shooting manual, the lack of a front dial and ISO button will mean a lot of fumbling around in order to change aperture and ISO. It's good to know the shutter actuation count of the camera you're buying, given that reliability starts to tank above 1-200k clicks. http://olegkikin.com/shutterlife/nikon_d60.htm If you want to get OCD you can check for sensor cleanliness and dead pixels by shooting a white wall at the highest aperture. You can check for hot pixels by shooting a long exposure with the lens cap on. It just depends on how much hassle the seller is willing to put up with for a $250 camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Lysandus posted:I hope I am asking in the right thread. Is that with lens or body only? Have you looked up anything about the D60 at all? Is this your max budget? I ask because the D60 is very old in the tooth. Is it a good starter camera, maybe. Could it be old enough to skip and save up for something better? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Musket posted:Is that with lens or body only? Have you looked up anything about the D60 at all? Is this your max budget? I ask because the D60 is very old in the tooth. Is it a good starter camera, maybe. Could it be old enough to skip and save up for something better? Yes. It's with the lens. I don't mind saving for something better. What do you recommend?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25478B/D5100.html Is a good start. It all depends on your budget and how deep you want to head down this rabbit hole. Got 1500 to spend? Go balls out with a Fuji XE2 or Nikon D7100 or Canonwhateverthefuck. Buy a Olympus MJU 35mm camera, learn to bulk roll your own black and white, dev it at home, scan and be done with ever buying a digitalwhatzit. Musket fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Lysandus posted:I hope I am asking in the right thread. I wouldn't get a D60 for $250. It's an old camera, and it's not worth that much. In the same pricerange, you could get a D3100 or D5000; neither have the focus motor or front dial (Have to step up to the D90 or D7000 and up for that), but they're also more expensive (about $300 for a bgn d90 from keh) I don't know how it is on the Canon side, but I'm sure there are better options for the same cost or not much more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Just bought my first DSLR. A new Nikon D3100 with an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm for $400. Neither are VR but I read that VR isn't all that great. What say you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:What say you? Take many pictures, post them in the Dorkroom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Shoot more. I was asking if my gear was kosher and if I made a mistake in not getting a VR lens, but fine you durned goon. Here's my very first pic:  Flowers for my Stalker
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:I was asking if my gear was kosher and if I made a mistake in not getting a VR lens, but fine you durned goon. Here's my very first pic: I like it but the photo looks a bit soft, probably a situation where the VR would have come in handy; I don't know what the ISO capabilities of the 3100 are but you'd probably want to bump it up a bit for a faster shutter speed. General rule of thumb is 1/focal length. That setup should be fine for the most part though, it covers a huge range of focal lengths and for just starting out it's about what I used (18-55 and a 70-300 w/ VC).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
IS/VR/VC/OS is handy on longer lenses. I have it on probably 80% of the time with my Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC, but I rarely need it on my 17-50mm f/2.8 VC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Why would you turn it off?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
ante posted:Why would you turn it off? Some IS systems don't play nice with tripods, and if you don't need it, it saves a little battery to turn it off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
ante posted:Why would you turn it off? Battery life, Any OIS/VR lens on a tripod besides specific Canon IS technology, are reasons to turn off IS. IS/VR on a tripod can cause soft/blurry images as the IS/VR gets confused. I keep mine off in daylight cuz theres no reason to stabilize 1/500th unless im shooting 600mm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:I was asking if my gear was kosher and if I made a mistake in not getting a VR lens, but fine you durned goon. Here's my very first pic: Bump up your iso to get shutter speeds high enough to defeat your lack of VR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Personally, I shoot RAW, and make a habit of switching to P mode whenever I turn the camera off, just in case. To each his own, of course, but there's something to be said for having a 16gb card that shows only 450 shots left in RAW, but then says "999" as soon as I switch to large jpg.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
You don't get to bitch about 25MB raws, btw.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
10000 pictures at an average of 25MB is only 250GB. Given disk sizes these days... v v
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:10000 pictures at an average of 25MB is only 250GB. Given disk sizes these days... v ...plus on-site backups, plus cold storage, plus request fees for cold storage, forever. I'm sure I'm in the minority but I do most of my work on a laptop and while disk space isn't a huge concern for me in TYOOL 2014, I'd also rather not burn it for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Lucid Nonsense posted:I've got a lead on an A230 with the kit lens and a Tamron 28-80 mm wide angle for $120. I'm thinking it's worth it at the price. Was the A230 bad enough to make me wrong on this? Posted this in the Sony thread, but it seems this one gets more traffic. Anyone have some advice?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Lucid Nonsense posted:Posted this in the Sony thread, but it seems this one gets more traffic. Anyone have some advice? I can't contribute much other than "28-80 is in no way wide angle".
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
I ran right into that with My First DSLR. I didn't think enough about what "crop factor" means, and one of my first lenses was a 35-80mm kit lens from a mid-90's AF SLR. That's not a very useful range on 1.5x crop APS-C. 28mm is slightly wider than normal, 35mm is actually a little tighter. That's why kit zooms for APS-C DSLRs are almost always either 17 or 18mm at the wide end. That's reasonably wide, and quite nice for landscapes and other "zoom out" shots. I know nothing about Sony DSLRs (paging Bob Socko) but a working camera with a useable (if not particularly useful) lens for $120 doesn't seem too bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback. I think I'm going for it. The body alone goes for more than that even used, not even counting the lenses. Just wanted to make sure that the A230 wasn't some reviled hunk of trash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I ran right into that with My First DSLR. I didn't think enough about what "crop factor" means, and one of my first lenses was a 35-80mm kit lens from a mid-90's AF SLR. That's not a very useful range on 1.5x crop APS-C. 28mm is slightly wider than normal, 35mm is actually a little tighter. If you mean the Nikon 35-80 4-5.6, it's also probably objectively one of the worst pieces of poo poo Nikon has ever let out the door.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Pentax SMC FA-35-80mm f/4-5.6 (silver). The IQ on that lens is fine, nothing special. It's just your typical small-and-variable aperture, not-very-useful-on-crop, plastic-fantastic mid-90's SLR kit zoom lens. One of the reasons I bought it was the eBay seller was claiming to donate some fraction of the proceeds she received to cancer research as part of some challenge with her friends or coworkers. It looks good and performs alright on my ZX-7, less so on my K-10D or on my K-5. Last year I did a head-to-head comparison between that lens and the equivalent F- lens (again, Pentax - please nobody get confused about Nikon here - I own no Nikon gear at all), mounted on both my ZX-7 and my Z-70. I swapped the lenses between the bodies a few times (and shot with my SMC F-28/2.8 - once again, a fine piece of gear I'm very happy with) and took back-to-back pictures of the same subjects on the same film, which was expired Kodak Gold 400, hilariously misspelled "Zodak" in the Kijiji ad that led me to the Z-70. The two lenses (to nobody's surprise) were indistinguishable, as were the camera bodies once I got past the small differences in handling (mode selection, control layout). tl/dr: There's nothing inherently wrong with 90's AF kit zooms, as far as my experience goes. They just tend to be an awkward focal-length range on crop DSLRs, with lame maximum apertures. EDIT: the FA cost me less than $50, including shipping. The F was part of a kit that included the Z-70, 6 rolls of film, and a small bag in good condition, for $60. If you need glass but have very little money, these lenses are an option.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
It's true: I put a canon 28-80 f:slow on my 5DIII and poo poo looked fine honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
The sigma 28-80 that I had for my sd14 was p. solid too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
I just picked up my first dslr last week, a used D3200. I'm pretty happy with it so far and looking forward to taking more pics. I started with my first digital camera back in 04 with a cannon a95, took a bunch of pics but then the screen broke. I ended up getting it fixed by Cannon, but by then it just got used for ebay pics and some of fish. I ended up getting a free Nikon with my rifle scope and it had more mega pixels, a big screen, and did better vids, but worse pics. But I didn't use it for much else anyway. So recently I've wanted to take better pics of my miniatures painting and my car. Also later this year more cars at some races and vacation. So I looked around at getting a new camera. I ended up buying a Samsung wb250f on a black Friday sale. Its a decent camera, has some cool wifi features and a touch screen. But I felt like beyond the manual mode and the zoom it wasn't doing more than the camera on my phone. I attempted to get into manual mode and take more control of my pictures but still wasn't totally happy with the results, and lack of depth of field. So I decided to finally go with a dslr. Right now I'm practicing and playing around with it. I'm reading Understanding Exposure and watching everything I find on youtube. I'm trying to decide what to get for my next lens though. Im leaning to the 50mm 1.8 or something that goes up to 200mm. I was thinking of getting into hockey photos but heard you need a pretty fast lens and I wasnt looking to break the bank yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
Fingers McGee posted:Im leaning to the 50mm 1.8 or something that goes up to 200mm. Do you have a kit lens already? If so, the 50 f/1.8 is kind of a niche thing. Get a long lens first. I was considering the Sigma 70-300mm for $150 until I got an old Nikkor screw-drive made for 35mm. I have a D7000, you're more limited -- make sure whatever lens you get has a built-in AF motor, because your camera doesn't have a motor in it for the old lenses. quote:I was thinking of getting into hockey photos but heard you need a pretty fast lens and I wasnt looking to break the bank yet. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
I'd imagine hockey would be a hard one to get decent exposure, given all the lighting of an indoor sport combined with the white playing field that you don't really have in other sports.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I've gotta say, in the RAW vs. JPG argument I used to say RAW, every time, because gently caress it: hard drive space is cheap, right? But goddamn, then I bought a 7D and the RAW files are routinely around 25mb, and I'm killing my hard drive (and burning through CF cards) when nine times out of ten jpg will do me just fine. If I'm shooting something I absolutely have to get right I'll do RAW, but for the past week I've been shooting jpg (average file size around 7mb) and saving gobs of space, and haven't found anything I can't edit successfully. Yea I stopped shooting RAW completely unless it is an extremely tricky lighting situation. Mainly because the Fuji JPEG's are amazing, and they are so much faster to work with in LR/Photoshop compared to RAW.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
keyframe posted:Yea I stopped shooting RAW completely unless it is an extremely tricky lighting situation. Mainly because the Fuji JPEG's are amazing, and they are so much faster to work with in LR/Photoshop compared to RAW. Enjoy working with an incomplete format, noob.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 17:33
|
|