|
evil_bunnY posted:20/1.7 is the panasonic 20mm f/1.7 Yeah, I have this lens (as do a lot of other m4/3 owners) and it rarely comes off. Fantastic walk-around and starter lens.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
Alright so that's on my buy list. What about something like a 14-150 or 40-150? Is there any particular stand out lense you would suggest for more distance? Any cheaper lenses that would just be fun to play with?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
A kit lens is rarely a bad idea, did you buy the e-10 naked?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Moonbloodsflow posted:Alright so that's on my buy list. What about something like a 14-150 or 40-150? Is there any particular stand out lense you would suggest for more distance? Any cheaper lenses that would just be fun to play with? THe 40-150 isn't bad and pretty inexpensive, especially used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
He's a beginner, a kit lens will be helpful in establishing what focal lengths he wants to be shooting at before dropping money on really good glass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
The Olympus 40-150MM and the Panasonic 55-200MM are both very capable entry-level telephoto zooms. The Panasonic has more reach but costs more. The 14-42, 20mm F1.7 and one of those two zooms will give you a very capable kit combined with the E10
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Moonbloodsflow posted:Alright so that's on my buy list. What about something like a 14-150 or 40-150? Is there any particular stand out lense you would suggest for more distance? Any cheaper lenses that would just be fun to play with? The voigtlander I have for sale in the buy/sell thread is pretty fun on mft  If you don't mind MF there's tons of solid and cheap lenses out there that you could get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
I adore my MF lenses, but I'm also a dirty Sony shooter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:If you don't mind MF there's tons of solid and cheap lenses out there that you could get. Such as the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 Series E, commonly known by its shorter nickname "The Best Lens Ever Made That Isn't The 180 2.8 ED."
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Noktor, that brand worth anything? They have 35mm and 50mm manual glass at f0.95, but currently only for m4/3 and E-mount. They're however running a poll for another mount, and EF is leading, so I'm getting interested. A 50mm/0.95 would be awesome as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
I ended up picking up a Canon 24-70L USM from their rental stock in that liquidation sale. They had a lens hood with it but they didn't include it.  Are the knock-off hoods I'm seeing bad in any way, or should I just try to find a good deal on the canon one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Chekans 3 16 posted:I ended up picking up a Canon 24-70L USM from their rental stock in that liquidation sale. They had a lens hood with it but they didn't include it. As long as it attaches properly and doesn't fall off, it's pretty hard to gently caress up a lens hood unless you decide to paint the inside silver or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Been looking at a variety of lenses for sports photography, and originally I was going to go for a Sigma 120-300. However, the Sports lens is crazy expensive. I was told that a Canon 70-200 2.8L is good enough to run with, and is less expensive. I don't have a real need for an IS or anything, but I wanted to know, is this a respectable purchase or is there something I should hold out for instead. Camera is a Canon 70D.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
The Canon 70-200 is a really good lens and it might be enough for field sports with a 1.4 or 2x TC attached but you're going to take a hit with aperture and AF speed. 200mm isn't really enough unless the action is almost on top of you. What are you using now and what are the limitations you're running up against with it? Also, Sigma has an older 120-300 f2.8 that is a lot cheaper (1300-1600 or so) used that might get closer to your budget.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Yeah 200 is SUPER short, even on a crop. Best suggestion would just be to rent some stuff in the 300-400 range and try it out and see what type of reach/speed you're actually going to need for your usage. I'm willing to bet that you should be able to find something that would fit your needs for <1k if you actually take a realistic look at what you want to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:The Canon 70-200 is a really good lens and it might be enough for field sports with a 1.4 or 2x TC attached but you're going to take a hit with aperture and AF speed. 200mm isn't really enough unless the action is almost on top of you. What are you using now and what are the limitations you're running up against with it? Also, Sigma has an older 120-300 f2.8 that is a lot cheaper (1300-1600 or so) used that might get closer to your budget. Definitely more within my budget type of stuff. I currently use a Tamron 70-300 macro lens, and while it gets the job done, the AF is kind of slow on it sometimes. Still takes good pictures, but I'd like to get a better DoF. I was reading some reviews that the older 120-300's were kind of slacking in terms of AF capabilities, but really wanted to find out here I guess. I trust you guys more. The reason I was thinking about the 200 was because it's a great lens, and I was looking for alternate options. The 2.8 is going to be a must on any new lens that I get. It's something I'm saving up for currently (got around 500 so far) but it's one of those things where I don't know. Renting is a possibility, I've never done it before, and I'm not in the states right now so it'd be a little hectic I think. Unless my method of thinking is flawed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Soulex posted:Definitely more within my budget type of stuff. I currently use a Tamron 70-300 macro lens, and while it gets the job done, the AF is kind of slow on it sometimes. Still takes good pictures, but I'd like to get a better DoF. I was reading some reviews that the older 120-300's were kind of slacking in terms of AF capabilities, but really wanted to find out here I guess. I trust you guys more. If you're looking for shallower dof and better AF you're definitely looking at a bit of money one way or another. I would keep putting money away and keep a sharp eye on eBay and your local area craigslist for good deals on something used. It might take a little while but I think its much better to wait and get the right tool for the job than it is to get a half way solution right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
While not specifically "on camera" gear, what does everyone carry their lighting gear with? Ideally I would love a rolling pelican or skb case but I was seeing if there was anything less than $300 to look at. I've come across some soft wheeled cases on Amazon and adorama but they still hit around $200-250 in which case I would just pony up for the nicer pelican. I've got three monolights, stands, umbrellas soft boxes etc and it would be nice to not transport then via a Rubbermaid tote and a duffel bag. My camera stuff stays in my backpack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Lytro's releasing a "professional" version of their lightfield camera, for some 1500 bucks. Too bad details are scare about the resolution of the images ("custom-designed 40-megaray light field sensor"). http://fstoppers.com/lytro-finally-introduces-a-camera-that-creative-professionals-will-want
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Lytro's releasing a "professional" version of their lightfield camera, for some 1500 bucks. Too bad details are scare about the resolution of the images ("custom-designed 40-megaray light field sensor"). Given that the 11 "megarays" in the first-generation Lytro produce an effective 1.2 megapixels, the 40 "megarays" in this one probably produce about 4.4 megapixels (assuming the relationship is linear).
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Lytro's releasing a "professional" version of their lightfield camera, for some 1500 bucks. Too bad details are scare about the resolution of the images ("custom-designed 40-megaray light field sensor"). It's all very clever, but I am struggling to find a use for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
spog posted:It's all very clever, but I am struggling to find a use for it. What you don't have papers on a desk somewhere that need holding down?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Verman posted:While not specifically "on camera" gear, what does everyone carry their lighting gear with? Ideally I would love a rolling pelican or skb case but I was seeing if there was anything less than $300 to look at. Yesterday I used a bicycle pannier and a mini hand truck we found in a parking lot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
spog posted:It's all very clever, but I am struggling to find a use for it. When a lady comes by... You tell her about all your megarays... You tell her... All those... hot... sexy... MEGA... raaAAAAAAAaaaaaysss-ohgodyes. However, if you are able to focus the camera then you don't need this. If you cannot focus the camera, there is a different technology that might help you. It's called "autofocus" and "burst mode".
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Verman posted:While not specifically "on camera" gear, what does everyone carry their lighting gear with? Ideally I would love a rolling pelican or skb case but I was seeing if there was anything less than $300 to look at. I swear by Pelican cases. They've saved my gear more than a few times, and even though one large case can be pretty heavy, it's nice having everything there in one trip. Has saved me hours in setup/breakdown.  I keep cameras and lenses in the medium-sized one (1510), and I can fit four monolights with reflectors, power cords, replacement bulbs, and a couple of accessories in the larger 1654.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
I've used Nanuk cases and they're great too. They were a bit cheaper a couple years ago when I priced it out, at least. Crutchfield had the yellow ones for quite a bit less than the other colors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Sometimes you can find SKB golf hard cases used cheap that can work for lightstands and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions, its sort of what I expected. All the sub $100 either looked pretty flimsy, were really small, or had terrible durability reviews. I was originally looking for something like this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/522969-REG/Photoflex_FV_SLBAG2KIT_Transpac_Dual_Kit_Case.html Then I started looking at this guy for $65 more http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=606112&gclid=CKTQ87699L0CFa1j7AodzXwATQ&Q=&is=REG&A=details Wheels are important because I'm tired of carrying all that gear across a parking lot or trying to put it onto a cart if I don't have to. Showing up with my backpack and a wheeled kit would be incredible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
I don't suppose anyone has heard of or owned an EF-mount Tamron 17-50 f/2,8 (ie. the A16) that wouldn't stop down unless it was zoomed out to it's widest setting, ie. 17mm? I bought one used, and after having some problems with 'Err 01 clean your lens contacts' I narrowed the problem down to what I described above. The DOF preview button narrows the aperture if I have the lens at 17mm and it takes pictures fine too, but if I zoom in even a little bit I'm stuck at 1:2,8. No, cleaning the lens contacts didn't help. I guess it could also be a camera body + lens combo problem, since I'm using a 50D (with the latest firmware installed.) I'm hoping the seller says something like "oops forgot to mention it's broken here have most of your money back" but am not actually holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Verman posted:Thanks for the suggestions, its sort of what I expected. All the sub $100 either looked pretty flimsy, were really small, or had terrible durability reviews. Maybe you can find road cases like bands use to haul their gear around? I don't know if that would be any cheaper, but lighting is pretty big for a Pelican case, road cases might be roomier for the money. Either way, you could try looking on Craigslist or something. Unless it's totally beat to poo poo it's a hard plastic/wood shell, there's not a lot to break. You can buy replacement pick-and-pack foam for the inside if necessary. I also wouldn't super obsess over brand - if it's got some reviews that say it's not garbage, go with what you can find a good deal on. It's definitely an investment for gear you're travelling with, though. I took my Nanuk case canoeing and while handling it was a pain, at one point I tripped on a shoelace, flailed, and hurled a 20lb case full of gear down hard 8 feet onto some rocks. Total damage: a nice gouge in the plastic. I had just got it back from my other major oopsie (tripod leg wasn't latched securely), which knocked the meter readout loose in my camera, it didn't even undo the repair.  Good cases are expensive, but usually less expensive than rebuying whatever you put in them when you eventually gently caress up. And you will, eventually. Just do be aware that Pelican-style hardshell cases make an appealing target for theft, because it's a solid guess that whatever is in them is valuable. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Amok posted:I don't suppose anyone has heard of or owned an EF-mount Tamron 17-50 f/2,8 (ie. the A16) that wouldn't stop down unless it was zoomed out to it's widest setting, ie. 17mm? I bought one used, and after having some problems with 'Err 01 clean your lens contacts' I narrowed the problem down to what I described above. It sounds like the in-lens electronics board is burned out, honestly. It's doubtful it'll get better, I'd get your money back. Hopefully this was eBay or something and not a Craigslist deal. vv There you go Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It sounds like the in-lens electronics board is burned out, honestly. It's doubtful it'll get better, I'd get your money back. Hopefully this was eBay or something and not a Craigslist deal. Loose or damaged cable - contact made when lens is retracted (wide angle setting) , pulling/seperating when extended (zoomed in)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Lytro's releasing a "professional" version of their lightfield camera, for some 1500 bucks. Too bad details are scare about the resolution of the images ("custom-designed 40-megaray light field sensor"). I like the concept, but I feel like they need to bring this to cell phone cameras, not try make it more "pro". Pro cameras can already focus ridiculously fast and accurately. Eliminating focus time for a cell phone camera seems like an actual benefit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Maybe you can find road cases like bands use to haul their gear around? I don't know if that would be any cheaper, but lighting is pretty big for a Pelican case, road cases might be roomier for the money. Either way, you could try looking on Craigslist or something. Unless it's totally beat to poo poo it's a hard plastic/wood shell, there's not a lot to break. Good quality road cases make Pelican cases look like a smokin' hot bargain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
I think Google is actually working on something like that where it applies DOF in post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I think Google is actually working on something like that where it applies DOF in post. I think they already did that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I think Google is actually working on something like that where it applies DOF in post. I was reading this as well but can't find the article that I read it in at the moment. I thought I recall hearing a specific way the camera takes the photo in a sweeping motion or series of photos and allows you to pick a focal point in post. *EDIT* Here it is http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/lens-blur-in-new-google-camera-app.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I think they already did that. Yep, Google Camera in the Play store. I actually wanna borrow a friends phone at work to try it out, it sounds cool enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Loose or damaged cable - contact made when lens is retracted (wide angle setting) , pulling/seperating when extended (zoomed in) Sounds plausible, unfortunately bought it off a craigslist-equivalent and SOL on that. Based on a few disassembly videos I took a look at it seems I could get at the cable myself, but since I know gently caress-all what to do with the cable once I get there, I think I see asking for repair quotes in my future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
mclifford82 posted:Yep, Google Camera in the Play store. I actually wanna borrow a friends phone at work to try it out, it sounds cool enough. My friend sent me some shots he took with it. They were ok. He also found this site where you can play with an image taken with it http://depthy.stamina.pl/ fwiw, photoshop has the ability to load a depth map in its lens blur filter and do the same blur effect as the app. However, photoshop can't create the depth map for you afaik. Dren fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 20:27
|
|
