|
http://honolulu.craigslist.org/oah/pho/4290627031.html What would be a good counter offer for this without seeming like I am lowballing? Would that lens work for everyday photos? I'm still extremely new to this, but I'm tired of living in Hawaii and only having an iPhone to take pictures of everything with. I'm looking at a DSLR over a point and shoot because I'm also interested in learning to do photographs of the night sky (which is incredible here) and from what I can see that is pretty much impossible with a point and shoot.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Paco de Suave posted:http://honolulu.craigslist.org/oah/pho/4290627031.html That's more of a medium-telephoto zoom lens, so for 'everyday photos', no, it is probably not what you want, you want like an 18-55 or something. Luckily those are nearly free.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:That's more of a medium-telephoto zoom lens, so for 'everyday photos', no, it is probably not what you want, you want like an 18-55 or something. Luckily those are nearly free. Would I be better served going with a used one from Amazon with the 18-55 lens for $389 and saving my money for a wide angle lens?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
How to send things to multiple groups without using flickrs uploadr crap: http://steeev.site50.net/flickr/multi.group.sender.htm
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
I'm looking at traveling to Colorado this summer for vacation. I'd like to purchase my first DSLR and build up some time with it before I go. I'd like to get a setup for shooting landscapes. Ideally I can purchase a Canon or Nikon body, refurbished. Any recommendation on lens or setups?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Hughmoris posted:I'm looking at traveling to Colorado this summer for vacation. I'd like to purchase my first DSLR and build up some time with it before I go. I'd like to get a setup for shooting landscapes. Ideally I can purchase a Canon or Nikon body, refurbished. Any recommendation on lens or setups? First choice is going to be the manufacturer. If your friends have any DSLRs, find out which brand and go with those. It's pretty nice to be able to bum lenses off of your buddies once in a while. My circle are all Canon users. So, as far as Canon goes, I would personally go with what I started with. A used Canon 40D and a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lens. The 40D is a large bodied (not to be mistaken with a full body with a vertical grip, though you can buy them), magnesium built camera with fantastic ergonomics and was designed to be in the "prosumer" line of cameras. They go for under $200 these days which is fantastic for what they are. In comparison with modern cameras, the only thing they lack is low light capability. A tripod is a quick fix for that when it comes to landscapes. Costs much less than the difference in price to some cameras with fantastic low light capability (See Canon 6D at $1700 or 5D at $3000). The 40D also boasts some professional features like a 6.3 frame per second burst and professional user interface. As far as the Tamron goes, they are very good as well. Landscapes definitely require wider angle lenses. The 17-50 is very wide at 17mm, you'll rarely find yourself needing more. It is stupidly sharp at F5.6ish and has pretty good low light capability at f2.8. I kept it for nearly 3 years before replacing it with something that costs 3x more. Don't get the VC version. They use different optics (less sharp) and have overall higher failure rates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Pick a manufacturer based on the handling (body specs get upgraded but the ergonomic philosophy tends to stay the same) and the lens line-up (lenses outlast bodies). Split your budget to spend at least as much on the lens(es) as the body.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
I never understood choosing based on ergonomics. Modern DSLR bodies have decent ergonomics regardless of brand. I have pretty small hands, started with a 40D which is a huge camera. Despite shooting Canon, Nikon bodies feel better in my hands. But I don't care because having expensive lenses to borrow from friends has helped me way more than a camera that feels nice in my hands. I know it's not a popular opinion here, but choosing a camera manufacturer based on how a camera feels is a silly thing. But the spend more on the lens than the body is solid advice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I never understood choosing based on ergonomics. Modern DSLR bodies have decent ergonomics regardless of brand. I have pretty small hands, started with a 40D which is a huge camera. Despite shooting Canon, Nikon bodies feel better in my hands. But I don't care because having expensive lenses to borrow from friends has helped me way more than a camera that feels nice in my hands. I know it's not a popular opinion here, but choosing a camera manufacturer based on how a camera feels is a silly thing. I agree with you. I didn't even bother trying Canon out, not because I'm biased against them, but because most of my friends use Nikon and therefore have lenses that they let me borrow. It pretty much made my decision for me and I have no regrets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
I did say "and lens line-up" but I should have stressed that as the first point. The 'ergonomics' thing is a combination of (a) that neither Canon or Nikon make a bad camera these days and (b) photography should be fun. If a camera feels unintuitive because of some choice on the layout of buttons, knobs or menu system, it doesn't aid it being fun. Ultimately it's about making first time buyers realise that it's not about picking the camera that is topping the gigawatts chart this week, but the one that feels right for them (be it because of the lenses, the feel, the accessories line-up, etc)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
This is a vague question but how repairable are cameras? I'm looking at ordering this Canon 40D body off an individual seller on Amazon and there is always a risk that the item will arrive damaged or defective. Do local photography shops typically do repairs or do people just ship them to manufacturers?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Hughmoris posted:This is a vague question but how repairable are cameras? I'm looking at ordering this Canon 40D body off an individual seller on Amazon and there is always a risk that the item will arrive damaged or defective. Do local photography shops typically do repairs or do people just ship them to manufacturers? If you're in/near a major metropolitan area, you might have a shop that is authorized and trained to do repairs. Just do a search for "Canon repair [city name]" and see what comes up. You can also send stuff in to Canon or to places like Midwest Camera Repair. I think KEH has a repair service too. Thing is, I'm not real sure its worth it to get repairs done on a 40D since they are selling for like 250-300 used and repairs aren't really cheap. Most repair quotes I've got for things like shutter replacements started at 150 and only went up. You'd be better off getting a camera from some place you can return it to if there is a problem, like KEH/Adorama/B&H.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Less than that. My 40D with the Canon grip and two batteries blah blah blah sold for $187 with only 18k shutter actuations. They're cheap as dirt now. That being said, the repair very well may cost more than the camera, depending on what that is. Mirror/shutter replacements are like $300, from what I've heard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I never understood choosing based on ergonomics. Modern DSLR bodies have decent ergonomics regardless of brand. It really depends on what you're used to. I was issued a D1 before I touched a Canon, so I'm a Nikon guy because it's what I know. If you're truly new to DSLRs, go to a store and handle both, and buy whichever feels better to you -- for a pistol analogy, some people like Glocks, some people like 1911s, and the angle of the grip of the other feels weird. Cameras are similar -- Nikons are heavier and have a thumbwheel and D-pad, as opposed to Canon's one control wheel on the back; lesser Nikons may differ, I've only really used high-end ones. If you go Nikon, get a D7000 or better; the D3x00 and D5x00 don't have the in-body motor for cheap old screw-drive AF film lenses. Hughmoris posted:Do local photography shops typically do repairs or do people just ship them to manufacturers?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:36
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
I'll put my voice out there in favour of choosing based on literally feel - ergonomics matters. Very few cameras will feel really bad to any person these days, but some will feel noticeably better, and that might be enough for the camera to be in the hand rather than in a bag or left at home a month later. Maybe not, of course, but a camera that feels good (rather than merely acceptable) in my hand is a joy to use and I'm much more likely to have it ready to shoot, which is the main feature of importance of any camera. Also, this thread needs a bump so I can feel better about myself by offering long-winded advice to people I'll probably never meet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
 So I got a lens on ebay, and it came with a UV filter and I took that poo poo off because screw that. It's a wide angle lens and I got all up in my cat's face and she rubbed on it and then I pokked it and left those smudges, and I'm wondering if they can be cleaned off or if I've damaged the coating or something. The pictures still look fine, so worst case scenario I put the UV filter back on and don't worry about it. It's a Sigma 10-20mm if that matters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:
Get thee a lenspen
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:
It's not damaged; it's just cat snot you need to clean off the element. A microfiber cloth, lens pen and an air blower (RocketAir or a knock off) is a basic kit for cleaning lenses. The cloth should be used for cleaning camera lenses and nothing else. It's also nice to find one that comes with some sort of case, soft vinyl or hard plastic both work. Some people toss them after they get dirty, some wash them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Alcohol wipes for wound sterilization/eyeglass cleaning should take that right off if a dry method doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:
lens is now trashed, enjoy your smeary photos. (just wipe it off, its glass, not a newborn babby)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Speaking of the Sigma 10-20, I have one for my D5100, and now that the weather is (sort of) turning nice in Virginia, I'd like to get out more and do some landscape photography. I'd like to get a circular polarizing filter for it, but am having trouble figuring out what the best option is. I have a 52mm CPL that I use on my kit lens and 35/1.8, and I like the effect. I can't recall what brand that filter is, but I probably didn't spend a great deal on it. With the Sigma 10-20 requiring a 77mm filter, however, it seems like I have a pretty wide price range of options -- from this $25 Tiffen (which has decent reviews, but definitely seems like the low end on price), to this $66 Hoya (even better reviews) or $65 Marumi filter, to this $116 B+W filter (with "multi-resistant coating.") Are the higher price filters likely to be significantly better than the lower end filters? I'm just taking pictures for my own enjoyment here, but am I going to notice the Tiffen interfering with image quality such that I'd be better off getting one of the more expensive ones? Is that "multi-coating" worth it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:Speaking of the Sigma 10-20, I have one for my D5100, and now that the weather is (sort of) turning nice in Virginia, I'd like to get out more and do some landscape photography. I'd like to get a circular polarizing filter for it, but am having trouble figuring out what the best option is. I have a 52mm CPL that I use on my kit lens and 35/1.8, and I like the effect. I can't recall what brand that filter is, but I probably didn't spend a great deal on it. With the Sigma 10-20 requiring a 77mm filter, however, it seems like I have a pretty wide price range of options -- from this $25 Tiffen (which has decent reviews, but definitely seems like the low end on price), to this $66 Hoya (even better reviews) or $65 Marumi filter, to this $116 B+W filter (with "multi-resistant coating.") Just be aware a cpl's effect is weird on a lens that wide. You're gonna have only partially de-polarized sky.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Just be aware a cpl's effect is weird on a lens that wide. You're gonna have only partially de-polarized sky. I don't understand. If it's the same kind of filter as the 52mm that goes on my kit lens, why wouldn't the effect be the same on the wide angle lens?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:I don't understand. If it's the same kind of filter as the 52mm that goes on my kit lens, why wouldn't the effect be the same on the wide angle lens? A polarizer's effect is very dependent on the angle of the light. A wide-angle lens covers a large enough angle of view that the direction of the light can significantly change across the image, and hence give you an inconsistent look across the image. This usually manifests as a weird gradient(s) of light to dark blue in the sky. See this page for a more in-depth explanation and example pictures: http://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/polarizing-filter-wideangle-lens
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
404notfound posted:A polarizer's effect is very dependent on the angle of the light. A wide-angle lens covers a large enough angle of view that the direction of the light can significantly change across the image, and hence give you an inconsistent look across the image. This usually manifests as a weird gradient(s) of light to dark blue in the sky. Huh -- I wouldn't have guessed. Thanks, that's an interesting read. Doesn't leave me inclined to drop $65+ on a CPL right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:Huh -- I wouldn't have guessed. Thanks, that's an interesting read. Doesn't leave me inclined to drop $65+ on a CPL right now. Yeah, it's ok if you like the effect of a gradient across the sky, but when you get really wide and it ends up being a stripe in the middle of the sky... it looks kindof silly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:Huh -- I wouldn't have guessed. Thanks, that's an interesting read. Doesn't leave me inclined to drop $65+ on a CPL right now. There is still plenty of reasons to get a CPL honestly. The downside of photography is learning to pay attention to what you are shooting and what tools you are using and the effect those tools can have on the finished product. This hobby requires attention to detail, which most of you autists should have no problems with. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
I wasn't sure if this should be posted in the mirrorless thread or here, but I'm actually also looking to get a simple circular polarizing filter (as a gift for someone). They'll be using a Panasonic lumix 20mm 1.7 on their Olympus EPL-3. I saw the post above and was wondering if price really makes much of a difference. I found the Tiffen version for $40 CAD: http://www.amazon.ca/Tiffen-46CP-46...izing+filter+46 But there are also really cheap ones like this one from Polaroid for $13 CAD: http://www.amazon.ca/Polaroid-Optics-Circular-Polarizer-Filter/dp/B003USVAUI/ref=lh_ni_t?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A2HOYD7OMXREOA Any ideas? I don't have any experience with filters (and very limited experience with lenses in general). ps - I'm either ordering it to a Canadian address or I can buy the filter in Japan at like BicCamera or something. Chernori fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Chernori posted:I wasn't sure if this should be posted in the mirrorless thread or here, but I'm actually also looking to get a simple circular polarizing filter (as a gift for someone). They'll be using a Panasonic lumix 20mm 1.7 on their Olympus EPL-3. I saw the post above and was wondering if price really makes much of a difference. In Photodollars it pays to buy something with a higher cost in most cases. A bad CPL is bad no matter how hard you try to fix it in post. That being said you cant go really wrong with Tiffen. You can go wrong with the Polaroid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Yeah don't put a $20 piece of crap on a $400 lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Marumi super dhg is the only thing you'll need
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
I had a feeling the "too good to be true" clause applied to $13 filters. I'll see if I can find a 46mm Marumi Super DHG in town today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
46mm is an usual size, smaller than the filter ring on most lenses. You might be able to find a 49mm, 52mm, or 55mm filter for about the same price (or even less) because those are much more common sizes. Then get a step-down ring* that goes from that size filter to your 46mm lens-filter-diameter. Then you'll be able to use the filter on other lenses, too. * I get confused by the step-up/step-down thing, so check that what you get allows you to mount your bigger filter on your smaller lens. EDIT: Everything I said about what "you" will be able to do applies to your friend you're buying this for, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:46mm is an usual size, smaller than the filter ring on most lenses. You might be able to find a 49mm, 52mm, or 55mm filter for about the same price (or even less) because those are much more common sizes. Then get a step-down ring* that goes from that size filter to your 46mm lens-filter-diameter. Then you'll be able to use the filter on other lenses, too. Yeah step up and down rings are a huge money saver. I have 2 sets of filters - 58mm and 77mm, and all my lenses are adapted up to one of those sizes if they are smaller. Otherwise you can end up buying ten different sizes of filters - expensive as hell
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:46mm is an usual size, smaller than the filter ring on most lenses. You might be able to find a 49mm, 52mm, or 55mm filter for about the same price (or even less) because those are much more common sizes. Then get a step-down ring* that goes from that size filter to your 46mm lens-filter-diameter. Then you'll be able to use the filter on other lenses, too. Thanks for the excellent advice. I'll keep that in mind when buying filters in the future. I was wondering if people tried to stick with a certain lens size or just bit the bullet and bought filter sets for each lens size. I got a 46mm Marumi Super DHG, so my plan is now in motion!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
I'm looking for my first camera and occasionally see original Canon 5D's on eBay for around $600. Is this a typical asking price and if so are they good buys?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
I think KEH carries them for around $500, and they represent some of the best value in photography today. Very capable, straightforward camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
Haven't heard of that site before, thanks for the tip. Would there be any reason to consider a modern crop sensor instead, or does having a full-frame trump feature improvements? Assuming manual controls only.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
depends on what you're trying to do. I am getting into sports photography, and crop sensor is superior in terms of speed and everything. I would assume that portrait/landscape photography would be more geared towards full frame. I had a Nikon D70 as my first camera, and to be honest, I didn't get excited about the full frame. It didn't do a whole lot for me. Then again, it is a 10 year old camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Haven't heard of that site before, thanks for the tip. Would there be any reason to consider a modern crop sensor instead, or does having a full-frame trump feature improvements? Assuming manual controls only.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 09:01
|
|
