|
Just played around with the Lens Blur thing, and it's about as impressive as I'd find the Lytro to be I'd imagine. "Oh that's cool." /walks away
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
mclifford82 posted:Just played around with the Lens Blur thing, and it's about as impressive as I'd find the Lytro to be I'd imagine. "Oh that's cool." /walks away It's going to make a lot of Instagram users a lot more pretentious about their food pictures 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
404notfound posted:It's going to make a lot of Instagram users a lot more pretentious about their food pictures a havarti gouda priscuitto grilled cheese w/ garlic parmesan frite bokeh
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Dren posted:a havarti gouda priscuitto grilled cheese w/ garlic parmesan frite bokeh drat, now I'm hungry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Jesus Christ I find myself thinking "drat, my Pentax ME Super is loaded with B&W film and I want to shoot Portra maybe I should buy more ME Supers" ed: aaand actually posting in the ME thread is really hard for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
Amok posted: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. I had the same thing happen with mine, they fixed it under warranty but I was the original owner. I'd send it to Tamron and explain the situation/ask nicely for warranty coverage. They're usually pretty good about such things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
You guys suggested the Panasonic 20mm F/1.7 for my M43. But I'm also looking at the Panasonic 14-140mm f/4.0-5.8 OIS. For a first lens, which would you pick up first? Everybody seems to be on the 20mm side. I'm sure I will end up owning both, or something comparable sooner rather than later. But I'd just like some more input before I spend the money. Keep in mind I only have the 14-42mm kit lens that came with my Olympus OMD-10. I'm also open to other suggestions. I just want to get the most for my money until I figure out how far I am going to take this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Moonbloodsflow posted:You guys suggested the Panasonic 20mm F/1.7 for my M43. But I'm also looking at the Panasonic 14-140mm f/4.0-5.8 OIS. For a first lens, which would you pick up first? Everybody seems to be on the 20mm side. I'm sure I will end up owning both, or something comparable sooner rather than later. But I'd just like some more input before I spend the money. Keep in mind I only have the 14-42mm kit lens that came with my Olympus OMD-10. I'm also open to other suggestions. I just want to get the most for my money until I figure out how far I am going to take this. I think that really depends if you prefer zooms or primes. I would pick the 20/1.7 because I don't use zooms, but it might be different in your case. In fact I bought my OMD without the kit zoom and got the PanaLeica 25/1.4 straight away, which has pretty much been the only lens on my OMD.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
I would not get the 14-140 if you have an OMD-10 and 14-42 already. The OMD has in body image stabilization, so you don't need the OIS. You have the wide-normal end of the zoom range, so you don't need that either. If you want the long end, just buy a longer zoom that compliments the 14-42. The 14-140 is OK I guess but anything with that wide of zoom range is going to have a lot of compromises. For a first lens, I recommend you don't buy anything and keep using the 14-42 till you get a better sense of what you need. Or pick up a 20mm f1.7 used as they're super popular and don't really depreciate should you want to sell it later.
powderific fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Apr 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Moonbloodsflow posted:You guys suggested the Panasonic 20mm F/1.7 for my M43. But I'm also looking at the Panasonic 14-140mm f/4.0-5.8 OIS. For a first lens, which would you pick up first? Everybody seems to be on the 20mm side. I'm sure I will end up owning both, or something comparable sooner rather than later. But I'd just like some more input before I spend the money. Keep in mind I only have the 14-42mm kit lens that came with my Olympus OMD-10. I'm also open to other suggestions. I just want to get the most for my money until I figure out how far I am going to take this. Do you more often find yourself wishing to zoom in more, or to take better pictures in the dark? The only other consideration is whether you want a tiny lens to go with your camera, which can be nice to have sometimes, and whether or not those are the best choices for the problem you want to solve. For a better low light lens, the 20 f/1.7 is excellent for sure. I don't know if the super zoom is the best choice for a longer lens though. Unless you are dead set on not changing lenses in situations where you need both wide and telephoto lenses, it's probably better (certainly a ton cheaper) to get a 40-150mm or something similar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
I'm looking into getting a teleconverter set for my NEX, and I was wondering if it matters if the converter is on the E-Mount side or the adapted lens side?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:I'm looking into getting a teleconverter set for my NEX, and I was wondering if it matters if the converter is on the E-Mount side or the adapted lens side? I believe it should be lens - converter - adapter - camera. Putting the adapter between the lens and the converter wouldn't do crazy stuff thanks to the distance difference? (I'm not sure here).
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:I believe it should be lens - converter - adapter - camera. Putting the adapter between the lens and the converter wouldn't do crazy stuff thanks to the distance difference? (I'm not sure here). it depends on what mount the teleconverter is for. if it was for the adapted lenses mount, it would have to go between the lens and the adapter. if it was for the NEX, it would have to go between the adapter and the camera. it won't work the "wrong" way since it won't even fit on Edit: or is this a question of "which type of teleconverter should I get" more than "where does this fit" If that's the case, if you're talking about some ancient adapted lens mount, I'm sure any modern teleconverter for the NEX is better than a teleconverter from the 70's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
I think the question is "does it matter if there is a gap between the teleconverter and the lens made by the lens adapter?" in which case I don't think it matters. I don't know Sony stuff specifically but people use extension tubes in between lenses and teleconverters for Canon stuff all the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Does anyone have any experience with equatorial mounts? Or just taking pictures of the night sky? I'm looking at getting an affordable mount and am currently eyeballing the Vixen Polarie. I'd be using my OMD-E10 which I know is probably not the most ideal camera. However, I have been looking up pictures of shots taken with mirrorless cameras and they're pretty impressive in my opinion. So if you've got any experience or suggestions I'd love your input. Talking, lenses, mounts, ideas and generally ANY help.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
There's a telescope/amateur astronomy thread somewhere (DIY and hobbies maybe?) that had lots of good info on mounts and astrophotography.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Moonbloodsflow posted:Does anyone have any experience with equatorial mounts? Or just taking pictures of the night sky? I'm looking at getting an affordable mount and am currently eyeballing the Vixen Polarie. I'd be using my OMD-E10 which I know is probably not the most ideal camera. However, I have been looking up pictures of shots taken with mirrorless cameras and they're pretty impressive in my opinion. So if you've got any experience or suggestions I'd love your input. Talking, lenses, mounts, ideas and generally ANY help. The IOptron Skytracker is all around better mount (you can use the polar scope with the camera attached, is the big one. Also it comes with the polar scope). I'd also probably be willing to sell mine, I'm finding I just don't get out to use it as much as I'd like here, so if you're interested in it I can make a post in the buy/sell thread when I get back to my apartment on saturday.  The Nikon 180 2.8 ED is a real good bang for your buck lens too, but I'm not sure I'd want to part with that (although I could probably be talked into it if the price was right, gotta pay off my new bike eventually).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:The IOptron Skytracker is all around better mount (you can use the polar scope with the camera attached, is the big one. Also it comes with the polar scope). I'd also probably be willing to sell mine, I'm finding I just don't get out to use it as much as I'd like here, so if you're interested in it I can make a post in the buy/sell thread when I get back to my apartment on saturday. I sent you a private message. Thanks for the response as I'm checking out the Ioptron now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Just curious here, but what would be better overall for sports? Sigma 120-300 or that new Tamron 150-600 or something.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Soulex posted:Just curious here, but what would be better overall for sports? Sigma 120-300 or that new Tamron 150-600 or something. I rented a 120-300 once and it was pretty great. The 150-600 is also great but it's a pretty slow lens for sports.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Soulex posted:Just curious here, but what would be better overall for sports? Sigma 120-300 or that new Tamron 150-600 or something. That entirely depends on available light. If you shoot in very well lit places, or during the day, the extra reach of the tamron would be lovely to have. But if you need to take it to lower light situations often, the 2.8 of the 120-300 would be more useful than the reach.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Outdoor sports mainly. I'm more worried about the AF and how fast either or is.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Soulex posted:Outdoor sports mainly. I'm more worried about the AF and how fast either or is. Daytime? The Tamron is supposed to have fast AF, but some reviews have said if it can't lock it hunts a lot. People are using it for birding, so it can't be a slouch in that department
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
A larger max aperture will mean faster AF along with better subject separation. You would have a better max aperture with the 120-300 + 2x TC at 600 than with the bare Tamron at 600. I would say the Sigma is a better choice for field sports if you can afford it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
I'm considering a 70-200mm/2.8 for my 6D. Ideally, I'd like not to shell out a fortune, so other than the Canon L II lens, what works better, the Sigma or the Tamron? --edit: Also, what about the Canon L I non-IS? Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 21:56 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
I have the Sigma, non-OS version. Its good and I like what I've shot with it. The AF keeps up fine for basketball and its plenty sharp. The Canon non-IS is probably about the same and the IS vI is probably better. I'd say if you could swing a Canon IS to go with that but if not either of the others would be great.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Yea, seems like the last non-OS version of Sigma performed decently, the OS one regressed a lot in sharpness in tests. Maybe I can get a second hand non-OS, if there isn't anything from Canon that looks nice price-wise.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Woah yeah I guess they hosed something up in the new version. Crazy. Well, I'm glad I got a screaming deal on the HSM II then! fake edit: Looks like the Sig HSM II is actually a touch sharper than the IS vI. At least according to TDP's lens comp tool.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
The HSM II seems to go for around 500€ around Ebay. Sounds like an OK deal for what it is. Leaves me some money to spend on that 50mm/0.95 from Noktor that'll supposedly be heading to the F and EF mounts.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
Out of interest, why do you want that Noktor? Looking at the test photos it looks like soft garbage, unless I'm missing something? A sub-1.0 aperture is cool and all, but it looks from those pictures like it's not even that sharp inside the razor thin DoF. Hah, turns out that noktor is a cleverly branded CCTV camera lens. That explains a lot. StarkingBarfish fucked around with this message at 13:05 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
Produces more diffuse bokeh than one might "expect" for a given focal length. Massive aperture stuff is basically a remnant of the bad old days when film sensitivities were poo poo and image stabilization hadn't been invented yet. And you probably couldn't even use it wide open in bright daylight without an ND filter. Whats really maddening is that its literally taken 50+ loving years to even get a 50mm f/1.4 that is sharp wide open across the frame (Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50mm ART). All gear is indeed poo poo. Thread title validated.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
There's apparently two versions. V1 was a soft mess that came from Noktor themselves. Then SLRMagic acquired them and released an overhauled version, which is way sharper. SLRMagic has a pretty decent 50mm/0.95 for Leica M (or whatever, for 5K$) from what I've read, so they should be capable of delivering something usable. Of course, I'm going to wait for a few reviews before actually committing, if that lens will be released.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Produces more diffuse bokeh than one might "expect" for a given focal length. Sure, I know why people would want a huge aperture, but the bokeh on this lens looks pretty terrible. This is literally a $200 all manual CCTV camera lens designed for light collection at the expense of sharpness. These noktor guys slap a different mount on the back and charge nearly a grand for it, while claiming that they're competing with the leica noctilux. It's not just poo poo, it's dishonest poo poo. Looking at how sharp it is at f/4 you'd be better buying the cheapest 50mm prime your mount offers and you'd still get better performance and a nice bokeh. Edit ^^^ I'd be careful. Looking at all the images so far, it is literally this lens with a bit of rebranding: http://www.goyooptical.com/products/industrial/GMY45095MCN.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
I don't know. Some named photographer/blogger reviewed that lens twice. A 2010 pre-SLRMagic version and an I think 2012 post-SLRMagic one. They look similar, but have wildly different optical properties. I'll try to find the review when I'm back home. --edit: The current Sony FE-mount version, anyway. It's probably a different design, because I don't think CCTV lenses can cover a 35mm image circle. Might probably have been that, that made the difference in said review. --edit2: OK, that's how it went: Crappy CCTV clone for m4/3, new review was a year later with a tweaked design for E-mount, which fared better. The full frame versions are coming and should be different. I was thinking of the Mitakon one for FE. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 16:09 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Was this the guy: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/08/19/testing-the-noktor-50-f0-95-for-sony-e-mount-with-the-new-nex-c3/ Looking at what he gets out of it I'm still not impressed, but I'll be interested in seeing what happens with the FF mounts when they appear.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Yeah, that's him. Hoping for something better out of the FF version, too. You'd think that for instance that the patent on the e.g. Canon 50mm/1.0 would have run out and cause someone to clone it, if only as manual version. According to the review of that Nikon guy persona, it's good enough given its reputation. --edit: clone, not come Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 18:53 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Steve Huff is way below even Krock in terms of photographic credibility. He eats up anything with a fast aperture or a Leica sticker. Yep, that dog snapshot sure does showcase the new Leica T there, Steve.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
This seems as good a place to ask as any: I'm looking for a good tablet holder that could sit on a tripod. It's a pretty large tablet, to be sure (Galaxy Note Pro), but I'd like to use it to take video of some lacrosse players I'm coaching and edit/analyze it in an app called Coaches Eye. Ordinarily I'd just set my OMD up on it and convert the video to what I need but the app doesn't seem to play nice with importing. Any suggestions? Is there something I could instead just rig up with some clamps and parts from a hardware store?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
DJExile posted:This seems as good a place to ask as any: I'm looking for a good tablet holder that could sit on a tripod. It's a pretty large tablet, to be sure (Galaxy Note Pro), but I'd like to use it to take video of some lacrosse players I'm coaching and edit/analyze it in an app called Coaches Eye. I would buy a cheap tablet holder from amazon and just ziptie/gaffer tape it to the tripod. Unless it has to look pretty but let's be real it's a sarnsung tablet soooooo.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
So the Marumi polarizers recommended in the OP seem to be around £40 on ebay for my 49mm OM-10 lenses. Will I be OK going with a Hoya, is there going to be a noticeable difference in quality? Also, just bought the full set of 7, 14 and 25mm macro tubes for the camera, excited to have a mess around with them! e: and a lense reversing mount. Oh god I can't stop help.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 23:30
|
|