|
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. Get a super clamp.  Cheapo Tablet Holder
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
Seamonster posted:Produces more diffuse bokeh than one might "expect" for a given focal length. 50mm was always a 'cheat' focal length because they could make lenses small and light by using a double gauss design. The problem is double gausses will never be as sharp or corrected as rectilinear (wide) lenses, and Sigma & Zeiss got around the traditional problems of 50mm lenses by going the wide angle route. The only problem is now they're expensive and heavy. Funniest thing about those two lenses is how many Sigmas all the Otus hype has helped sell. Sigma better hope Zeiss release their 24/1.4 Otus around the same time too.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
El Grillo posted: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? Buy the Marumi. Hoyas are cheap crap that will do things like flare, or diffuse and soften the image a slight amount. Even the "pro" multicoated stuff is pretty crap. In comparison Marumi are top-of-the-line - the Super DHG filters are literally best-in-class and tie up with polarizers that cost 2-4x as much (the cost advantage gets bigger as the filter gets larger), the regular DHG are only slightly worse and cost like half as much as the Super DHG LensTip did a great review of a bunch of the Polarizers available on the market. Spoiler: unless you want to pay lots extra for a German brand name that is not measurably better, buy a Marumi. http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
So I`ve been getting into this photography thing for the last couple of weeks. I have my dad`s Nikon D200 and there`s a 18-200mm lens attached to it. I want something less bulky and conspicuous on my camera, and I see from the OP that I might want a Nikkor 35mm 1.8g. Coincidentally, there`s one selling on craigslist: http://victoria.en.craigslist.ca/pho/4420207999.html is this a good deal? there's also this: http://victoria.en.craigslist.ca/pho/4436742521.html but I feel like there's nothing I can do with that that I can't do with my current lens. But I don't know much about lenses. I like taking landscape photos, and I would like the option of being able to take portraits, random pictures in the street, and travel pictures. I already have an old tripod and I'm planning on getting a wireless remote. ND filters are next on my list - I want to save up for the Lee Foundation Kit, so that's a couple hundred dollars. My budget is $200 and I'd preferably spend less than that.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
If you don't mind manual focus, there's some good cheap ones still out there. I used to carry an adaptall 28mm, 90mm and nikkor 50mm f/2 as my usual. Even with the AD2 mounts that'd be well under $200.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Skizzzer posted:So I`ve been getting into this photography thing for the last couple of weeks. I have my dad`s Nikon D200 and there`s a 18-200mm lens attached to it. I want something less bulky and conspicuous on my camera, and I see from the OP that I might want a Nikkor 35mm 1.8g. Coincidentally, there`s one selling on craigslist: http://victoria.en.craigslist.ca/pho/4420207999.html I don't work for them and this isn't an endorsement of them or anything (although I've always gotten great deals from them), but you appear to be local to http://camera-traders.com. They're down in Market Square on Johnson. Usually an excellent selection of used Nikon stuff (and a bunch else).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Skizzzer posted:So I`ve been getting into this photography thing for the last couple of weeks. I have my dad`s Nikon D200 and there`s a 18-200mm lens attached to it. I want something less bulky and conspicuous on my camera, and I see from the OP that I might want a Nikkor 35mm 1.8g. Coincidentally, there`s one selling on craigslist: http://victoria.en.craigslist.ca/pho/4420207999.html You could also try your local Kerrisdale Cameras
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Thanks guys, i'll check them out. Camera traders is really close to where I work too so I'll just pop by on my lunch sometime. I might just go with the 35mm f/1.8 on craigslist as my friend has the same one and he loves it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
I am seriously thinking about selling all my DSLRs and lenses and committing to m4/3. Much as my Canon kit gives me a semi when I use it, I can't avoid the fact that it hasn't been used for maybe a year. My teeny-tiny Panasonic is just so light and convenient and frankly, the dynamic range seems better. I should just bite the bullet, shouldn't I? If I need anything for serious work, then I could always buy a Panasonic GH? or an Olympus.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
If you're not shooting FX the DR/resolution hit really ain't so bad. Every time I put my d800 kit in my bag I'm like "ugh the weight" then I look at a the DR in the raws and and suddenly it doesn't weight so much.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
spog posted:I am seriously thinking about selling all my DSLRs and lenses and committing to m4/3. I honestly have not missed my DSLR setup at all since getting an OM-D EM-5. Having a 20mm f/1.7 and 45mm f/1.8 that are so small as to be pocketable (on their own, not mounted) is incredible. The 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8 focus every bit as fast as my high end DSLR glass did. It slogs a little bit with C-AF/Servo AF, depending on the subject, and the batteries don't last as long (which isn't shocking, they're obviously smaller than what you'd use for a big pro body DSLR), but if those are my two biggest complaints, I figure I'm coming out well ahead. Currently I can carry my body with grip, 6 lenses (OK two of them are body cap lenses, but still...), and any accessories I want, in a bag the size of a shoebox. I really can't argue with that at all. To be able to take everything short of a telephoto (like a 70-300mm) along on a trip without even a second thought is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
I recently purchased a Panasonic GX7 and a few of the nicer lenses (Pana 25 1.4, Oly 75 1.8) with plans to grab at least one more before heading off to South America for 6 months. I'll be splitting my usage of the system for stills and video (people focus, lots of portraits, street photography, and documentary work for non-profits and fun). I think the GX7 is a great camera and I've already captured some awesome shots with it. The problem is I feel like I'm going to break the drat thing (parts of it feel nice, other parts feel like they will snap off at any moment, like the battery cover), and I'm already getting tired of changing out lenses and I only have two (took everything on a weekend trip recently)! I previously came from a X100 and the simplicity of that camera was really great. If I were just living in a city I would be in love with this camera. The idea of stuffing it all in a backpack and dealing with the various moving parts however does not sound fun. I'm still within the return period for everything and a friend of mine just posted that he's selling a barely used Sony RX1 and Sony RX100 II for $2,200 (along with a ton of accessories that normally are hundreds of dollars on their own, including the EVF which they can both use). After some research this seems like an outstanding travel combination. The RX1 would mean I have full-frame capabilities while backpacking without the normal size/bulk of a DSLR, no need to worry about lens changes (I actually like that constraint when it comes to being creative), and the RX100 seems to be a great "b-cam" (though it might even be better for video than the RX1 considering it has pretty good image stabilization). The RX100 also offers some extra reach when I do need it, but still, no lens changes. Oh and they both share the same batteries, which is also awesome. If I return my current setup I'll essentially be doing a straight swap. Thoughts? I'm leaning towards simplifying and going with the Sony setup. Graphics fucked around with this message at 23:30 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
That seems like a good price and they're both nice cameras, but I don't think either will be much or any more durable than the gx7. And, at least to me, they'll probably feel more delicate in the hand thanks to the smaller size and relatively delicate extending lens on the RX100. For lens changing, you realize that you could just buy a zoom lens for the GX7 yeah? Or just not change lenses so often. If you want those cameras more than the gx7, go for it, but I don't think the reasons you listed make a ton of sense to motivate the switch.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
powderific posted:That seems like a good price and they're both nice cameras, but I don't think either will be much or any more durable than the gx7. And, at least to me, they'll probably feel more delicate in the hand thanks to the smaller size and relatively delicate extending lens on the RX100. For lens changing, you realize that you could just buy a zoom lens for the GX7 yeah? Or just not change lenses so often. If you want those cameras more than the gx7, go for it, but I don't think the reasons you listed make a ton of sense to motivate the switch. Good feedback. I think it may be the reviews I've read talking about how the RX1 feels really solid that had me thinking this way. As far as a zoom goes, that's on the docket for my next GX7 purchase, though I'm such a big fan of primes I wouldn't be able to just bring it. I'd still bring a prime or two. Also, important point I left out initially. The other anxiety I have is having just one camera for all situations. Not everywhere in South America is safe, but I'd hate to not take a picture because I'm afraid of taking my more expensive setup out with me (though I will of course have travel insurance). Being able to leave behind the RX1 in certain situations, but bring the RX100, makes for good peace of mind. Overall I'm looking for an excuse to minimize my kit and not have the option to bring multiple lenses because I know I will if I have it. Maybe I shouldn't have given any context, not mentioned the GX7, and asked the following instead: Do you guys/gals think the RX1 + RX100 II would make a great backpacking/travel setup for stills and video for $2,200 total? Graphics fucked around with this message at 00:18 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
I have that combo and it is brilliant. It's pretty much my only digital camera setup now. RX1 does have slow AF but it isn't a problem if you're not shooting moving things. I must say though, if you think you're going to be zooming in a lot, you might want to consider the RX10 instead, if you can accept the size.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Can I ask what motivated the change from the X100 in the first place? It seems strange to go from fixed lens APS-C to interchangeable mirrorless and then fixed-lens full-frame. The RX1 alone would be a definite upgrade but the RX100 wouldn't stand up to the kit you've got now -- or even, as suggested, a kit zoom. But you have to be happy with the camera you've got, and if you're happy shooting a 35mm fixed lens and juggling a second camera for video, then you could do a lot worse. [edit: missed a few posts. I think you should go for it. rohan fucked around with this message at 00:43 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:I have that combo and it is brilliant. It's pretty much my only digital camera setup now. RX1 does have slow AF but it isn't a problem if you're not shooting moving things. I must say though, if you think you're going to be zooming in a lot, you might want to consider the RX10 instead, if you can accept the size. This is great to hear. Also, zoom isn't a huge deal. I'm used to using my feet already, and nothing short of a massively long and heavy zoom will let me sit on a park bench and shoot people without them knowing, and that's not something I can carry with me. I more meant initially that it's nice to have a bit more flexibility in focal range with the RX100, not long reach. I don't shoot sports or wildlife, so moving things is also a non-issue. Graphics fucked around with this message at 00:50 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Overture posted:This is great to hear. Also, zoom isn't a huge deal. I'm used to using my feet already, and nothing short of a massively long and heavy zoom will let me sit on a park bench and shoot people without them knowing, and that's not something I can carry with me. I more meant initially that it's nice to have a bit more flexibility in focal range with the RX100, not long reach. Well it isn't always about just moving the feet, as there are perspective issues but in general the RX1 does have enough megapixels for you to crop in as a pseudo-zoom. It also lets you focus in really close which is good if you're shoot flowers or food. You can see a sample of all the various stuff I shot with the RX1 here.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I honestly have not missed my DSLR setup at all since getting an OM-D EM-5. Having a 20mm f/1.7 and 45mm f/1.8 that are so small as to be pocketable (on their own, not mounted) is incredible. The 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8 focus every bit as fast as my high end DSLR glass did. Do you still get the same 'feel' of using a DSLR? To get the camera to do what you want to do, rather than trust the (usually excellent) auto-features? How is the responsiveness when you press the shutter release?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
spog posted:Do you still get the same 'feel' of using a DSLR? To get the camera to do what you want to do, rather than trust the (usually excellent) auto-features? How is the responsiveness when you press the shutter release? Short answer: Yes. The EVF can take a little getting used to, but everything has the same feel. That being said, I'm going from Olympus DSLR system to Olympus mirrorless system, and controls, menu layout, etc. are all very similar. Long  answer:The best comparison I can give you is from the Spartan Race events I shot last year (Olympus E-5 with 35-100mm f/2.0) and this year (OM-D with 75mm f/1.8, 60mm f/2.8, 45mm f/1.8). To give you an idea, I'm usually posted at the end of a long mud crawl under barbed wire to shoot racers just as they're getting clear of the obstacle. If the E-5 lagged anywhere it was with burst mode. It was rated at a pretty mediocre 5FPS and it didn't feel like I was even getting that sometimes. OM-D gives me 9FPS. I felt a step slower with the OM-D for a while before I realized I was leaving Quick View on with the viewfinder  . Once I killed that, I was getting quick flashes of the pictures right as they happened, then immediately back to live view. It takes a little getting used to, but I wound up really falling in love with having the EVF and knowing exactly how each image was going to look before I fired the next burst. I didn't feel any more shutter lag/delay with the OM-D than I did my old E-5. In fact, the OM-D feels a shred faster, but that might be because the E-5's shutter button doesn't really have a positive 'click' feel (it's basically a mushy press). Both the on-body shutter button and the 2 on the battery grip feel great, although the E-5 filled my hand better. That's probably not shocking since I'm 6'6". Having such a dramatic change in weight was an absolute godsend. The E-5 is a plenty big body, and the 35-100mm is a very hefty lens (3.64 lbs/1.65 kg). These events are constant shooting from 7:30AM until whenever the last runner passes (anywhere from 10-12 hours later). The difference in weight becomes really noticeable as the day goes on and you wear down. Each race, I'll shoot somewhere between 12,000 and 18,000 photos. The E-5 seemed to be a little better with C-AF/Servo AF. The OM-D feels almost "jumpy" here. Best I can describe it is to say it almost feels too eager to find a new focus point. The E-5 seemed to lock on the subject a bit better. To be fair, I'm also comparing small, fast primes on the OM-D to a huge zoom lens with the E-5 so take that for what it's worth. The one big advantage the E-5 had was in battery life, but the E-5 takes a huge battery compared to the OM-D, and I'm sure the EVF can be pretty draining itself, especially when you're also asking a hell of a lot of it in terms of focus, burst mode, etc. I do wish a speed charger existed for their batteries. Promaster had one for my E-5 and that was fantastic. The OM-D batteries can take 3-4 hours to recharge at times. The other advantage with the E-5 was having two-card capacity (1 SD slot, 1 CF slot). Overall I really don't find myself missing the big DSLR setup, that's partly because the OM-D with a battery grip is basically built to have that very similar feel, just smaller/lighter. I can't speak to the PEN bodies or Panasonic bodies, personally. God drat that was a lot of words.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
DJExile posted:God drat that was a lot of words. God drat that was a lot of words. You could have just said 'DJExile says it's cool' and that would have been enough as I respect your judgement. But seriously, that's great, thanks. I may have to start putting stuff on ebay. Seems pointless to have it just sitting on a shelf, no matter how much I used to like it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Happy to help 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Buy the Marumi. Hoyas are cheap crap that will do things like flare, or diffuse and soften the image a slight amount. Even the "pro" multicoated stuff is pretty crap. In comparison Marumi are top-of-the-line - the Super DHG filters are literally best-in-class and tie up with polarizers that cost 2-4x as much (the cost advantage gets bigger as the filter gets larger), the regular DHG are only slightly worse and cost like half as much as the Super DHG Thanks for the advice! Think I'll give it a miss for now as at £40 that would make the IR filter the most expensive bit of camera kit I own... by more than double! So doesn't really seem to make sense for me to go for it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
I decided that I want to upgrade my kit lens, specifically for better landscapes. Is the tamron 17-50 2.8 still the go-to upgrade? I have a D5100 so is there a Nikon mount with the focus motor? Is there another lens that would be a better option? Looking in t ~$500 CAD range
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
The cheapest I can find the Tamron 17-50 in Canada is $399 on sale. Amazon has it for $289 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:The cheapest I can find the Tamron 17-50 in Canada is $399 on sale. Amazon has it for $289 Go buy a used one. They're built sturdy enough that unless someone was photographing the landing at Omaha Beach with it, it should be fine.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:The cheapest I can find the Tamron 17-50 in Canada is $399 on sale. Amazon has it for $289 I saw one on the Red Flag Deals forums for $250. I got mine of kijiji for $250 and it's in perfect condition. Doesn't happen often so check back frequently.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
I've ebayed a cheap, and hopefully in a good enough condition, Sigma 70-200m. Seeing how big that thing is, I was wondering, how stable is that tripod collar of it? Can it double as carrying handle without breaking on the longterm?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
It's really nice, with a smart locking mechanism.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
The tripod foot is too small to use as a carry handle, at least for me, and mostly I find it just gets in the way. I usually have it turned up to make hand holding easier because it interferes with the zoom and focus rings. The tripod ring is solid though, like if you were going to use it to attach a strap or something it would be fine.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
I have the Canon not the Sigma but I connect my black rapid at the trip collar when I'm using my 70-200.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I have the Canon not the Sigma but I connect my black rapid at the trip collar when I'm using my 70-200. +1 - same with my 100-400
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I've ebayed a cheap, and hopefully in a good enough condition, Sigma 70-200m. Seeing how big that thing is, I was wondering, how stable is that tripod collar of it? Can it double as carrying handle without breaking on the longterm? You can always buy the Sigma tripod collar that has the carry handle as a replacement.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
http://petapixel.com/2014/05/15/sony-announces-pricing-availability-low-light-powerhouse-a7s/ A7s $2500 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:You can always buy the Sigma tripod collar that has the carry handle as a replacement. Also, jesus that thing has an annoying weight. I knew why I stayed with primes up until now. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:http://petapixel.com/2014/05/15/sony-announces-pricing-availability-low-light-powerhouse-a7s/ Still cheaper than a Nikon DF.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Ooooo. Yeah, that'd be an idea. The thing arrived today and there's not enough space to grab it properly.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
HPL posted:Still cheaper than a Nikon DF. I actually think $2.5K seems like pretty good value for that INSANE low light performance.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I actually think $2.5K seems like pretty good value for that INSANE low light performance. For a specialist camera that they won't sell a lot of it's actually a decent price, and it has a completely unique feature set and 15 stops of dynamic range too? Crazy camera.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
I'm looking to buy my first set of ND filters, but I'm not sure at all what I should be looking for. I can't afford to go all out on B+W filters right now, but I don't want cheap crap that will hurt my pictures either. Is this Tiffen set decent for the price? Do I even need to buy a variety, or is there a "one size fits all" compromise that will work good for most stuff?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 22:13
|
|
