|
kefkafloyd posted:Sony 70-300G or 70-400G, but will require the LA-EA2/4 for his NEX. The former is affordable enough for your average amateur, the latter is expensive but worth every cent. Sorry - I should've been specific, they don't want to share a lens. So one tele for the NEX, another tele for the Alpha.
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Helicity posted:Sorry - I should've been specific, they don't want to share a lens. So one tele for the NEX, another tele for the Alpha. There are a few all-in-one superzoom lenses for the NEX (the kinds that go 18-200), but there's only one option for what it sounds like you're looking for without buying an alpha adapter. The 55-210 f4.5-6.3 is likely better optically than the superzooms and it's definitely cheaper (around $250 used). http://www.keh.com/camera/Sony-E-System-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-SE07999126005J4?r=FE I can't speak to alpha-mount, but the options are likely very similar and probably similarly priced. Poking on KEH you can get the a-mount 55-200 for under $100, but it's probably garbage. Edit: Sony-alpha thread says buy this, the "beercan": http://www.keh.com/camera/Minolta-Maxxum-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-MA07000006500J?r=FE Huxley fucked around with this message at 18:01 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Helicity posted:A friend wants to know which telephoto he and his brother in law should get for their kids' sports. He has a NEX 5N, and the brother in law has a Sony Alpha. Any recommendations for the two? They're squarely in the amateur camp. Image stabilization is high up on their list of wants, as well. Which model of Alpha?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Question for videodudes and people into cinema stuff, if I wanted to gently caress around with an anamorphic lens on a dSLR what's the cheapest avenue I could take to dip my toes into it? I have to imagine there's some dirt cheap anamorphics out there for the undiscerning person but I don't even know what to begin looking for.
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Anamorphic lenses are pretty specialist, made either for motion picture cameras or projectors and all the decent ones have been hoovered up on eBay by this stage, you're talking big money for lenses (plus you need an adaptor and extra messing in post). I don't think anyone's made cheap DSLR ones, I've never seen any on all the shoots I've been on.
Quantum of Phallus fucked around with this message at 01:12 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Where do you guys draw the line on camera wear to the body? A guy on another forum is selling a camera body for a pretty good deal, but it has a gouge from rubbing against a wall on one of the corners and a hairline crack on the top display. I'm not sure if I should rule it out or not. Seller has good feedback on there also.
DanManIt fucked around with this message at 03:01 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
DanManIt posted:Where do you guys draw the line on camera wear to the body? A guy on another forum is selling a camera body for a pretty good deal, but it has a gouge from rubbing against a wall on one of the corners and a hairline crack on the top display. I'm not sure if I should rule it out or not. Seller has good feedback on there also. Depends on the price but I'm much more leery of buying a beat up camera from a person versus KEH. My Xpro is beat to hell but the six month warranty made that less of an issue for me.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 03:54
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Anamorphic lenses are pretty specialist, made either for motion picture cameras or projectors and all the decent ones have been hoovered up on eBay by this stage, you're talking big money for lenses (plus you need an adaptor and extra messing in post). I don't think anyone's made cheap DSLR ones, I've never seen any on all the shoots I've been on. I suppose I should specify Photography Cheap, not real world cheap. I've seen a couple 2x anamorphic lenses on ebay in the $100-300 range, but I don't know what I should be looking for or avoiding since I literally only thought of trying this stuff in the last 24 hours.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
DanManIt posted:Where do you guys draw the line on camera wear to the body? A guy on another forum is selling a camera body for a pretty good deal, but it has a gouge from rubbing against a wall on one of the corners and a hairline crack on the top display. I'm not sure if I should rule it out or not. Seller has good feedback on there also. Depends on the camera. If it's a Rebel or similar level of body, I wouldn't bother but if it's a higher level body like a 1D or 7D, it shouldn't be a problem as they're built to take a beating. The LCD glass can be replaced somewhat easily if it's just the outside glass and not the LCD itself.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
HPL posted:Depends on the camera. If it's a Rebel or similar level of body, I wouldn't bother but if it's a higher level body like a 1D or 7D, it shouldn't be a problem as they're built to take a beating. The LCD glass can be replaced somewhat easily if it's just the outside glass and not the LCD itself. Yeah it's a 60D body with 3rd-party battery grip for $380.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
DanManIt posted:Yeah it's a 60D body with 3rd-party battery grip for $380. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1tTBncIsm8 plastic cameras can be surprisingly durable!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
It's not plastic, but you can't post that and not also post this (7D durability test): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCT-YMgjm9k
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:It's not plastic, but you can't post that and not also post this (7D durability test): Hah. I guess that's a little nastier than the earl grey test.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Crosspostin' from the SHSC forum:quote:I was barely able to save a shoot where the camera screen was showing 'normal' when the shots were all 2 stops overexposed, so I think I'm going to start tethering when I can. What I'm looking for is a netbook/ultrabook with a decent 13-inch screen that can be calibrated. It's mainly going to be for travel and tethering to a camera on a photo shoot. Does anyone else tether, and can anyone point me in the right direction from their experience?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
I would suggest the pro retina if you can, since it has an ips display, wider viewing angles, and should be easier to calibrate than a 6 bit tn panel in the air.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Walked to the corner store this evening and was surprised to find this gem, my very first ever digital camera from my childhood! That 640p is full frame guys.  REVOKE YOUR AMATEUR STATUS
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Buy it and let it sit another 5 years. lovely digital cameras will be the cool thing like lovely film cameras are now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:40
|
|
Haggins posted:Buy it and let it sit another 5 years. lovely digital cameras will be the cool thing like lovely film cameras are now. poo poo, they're the cool thing now, I saw some shots from some vivitar digicam where the CCD had such a slow scan speed you could warp the image by shaking the camera while shooting. It was cool as hell.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Hey guys, long time no post. I'm a reporter again and we're doing much more portraiture work as of late, along with shooting concerts at summer festivals at night. Would this be a decent low-light lens to suit my needs? I use my 7D for work because otherwise the only DSLR we have is a 40D that doesn't... really work anymore. http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/refurbished-lenses/ef-50mm-f-14-usm-refurbished
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Hey guys, long time no post. I'm a reporter again and we're doing much more portraiture work as of late, along with shooting concerts at summer festivals at night. Would this be a decent low-light lens to suit my needs? I use my 7D for work because otherwise the only DSLR we have is a 40D that doesn't... really work anymore. If you can deal with the shortcomings of it, it's a good low light lens. It's hazy/glowy at large apertures (which can be very flattering for people if you like that look), and the AF is not amazingly accurate or robust (I get best results using servo with it at larger apertures, and taking a lot of shots because a lot of them will miss) - if you can do a little longer focal length wise, the 85/1.8 has much more accurate AF and is not nearly as hazy wide open. Or you could drop a lot more cash for the new sigma 50/1.4
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:If you can deal with the shortcomings of it, it's a good low light lens. It's hazy/glowy at large apertures (which can be very flattering for people if you like that look), and the AF is not amazingly accurate or robust (I get best results using servo with it at larger apertures, and taking a lot of shots because a lot of them will miss) - if you can do a little longer focal length wise, the 85/1.8 has much more accurate AF and is not nearly as hazy wide open. Or you could drop a lot more cash for the new sigma 50/1.4 I rented it once before for a concert, which I had to shoot in drat near pitch black and it worked out well enough. And I wish I could get that Sigma, it looks like the bee's knees! Sadly there's no compensation via work for using our own equipment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
I really liked the 50mm 1.4 when I was shooting Canon, but you do need to be careful not to let it get bumped on the front of the lens barrel is it's easy to knock out of alignment. Wide open it was still good enough for me. Perhaps I'm just not that picky though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
powderific posted:I really liked the 50mm 1.4 when I was shooting Canon, but you do need to be careful not to let it get bumped on the front of the lens barrel is it's easy to knock out of alignment. Wide open it was still good enough for me. Perhaps I'm just not that picky though. It's not bad,it just has that glowy look - lots of SA. It's great for people pictures IMO, but lots of people hate it nowadays - they want tack sharp instead Edit: always focus at infinity for storage so it's not poking out. Easy to damage that way, tis true
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Hey guys, long time no post. I'm a reporter again and we're doing much more portraiture work as of late, along with shooting concerts at summer festivals at night. Would this be a decent low-light lens to suit my needs? I use my 7D for work because otherwise the only DSLR we have is a 40D that doesn't... really work anymore. If you're shooting in smaller venues, you may find 50mm to be too long on a crop camera. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is more useful and since it has been replaced by the "Art" version of it, you can find it for reasonable prices now. If you still want a 50, just get the plastic 50mm f/1.8. I shot concerts with one for ages and it was fine. I dropped it on the floor lots of times and it still works. Of the two lenses, I definitely used the 30mm much more, though I shoot in small venues so if you're shooting at large outdoor festivals, the 50 may do you better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
HPL posted:If you're shooting in smaller venues, you may find 50mm to be too long on a crop camera. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is more useful and since it has been replaced by the "Art" version of it, you can find it for reasonable prices now. If you still want a 50, just get the plastic 50mm f/1.8. I shot concerts with one for ages and it was fine. I dropped it on the floor lots of times and it still works. Of the two lenses, I definitely used the 30mm much more, though I shoot in small venues so if you're shooting at large outdoor festivals, the 50 may do you better. I have no problem getting up front, I'm pretty short and most people don't mind you stepping in front of them to snap a few pics at medium sized venues. But I've been shooting in a lot of teeny bar stages lately, and it's fun but very dark and no one allows flash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
The 30 1.4 is pretty good in low light but you'll still probably have to crank the ISO and get a poo poo load of noise on the crop sensor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:I have no problem getting up front, I'm pretty short and most people don't mind you stepping in front of them to snap a few pics at medium sized venues. But I've been shooting in a lot of teeny bar stages lately, and it's fun but very dark and no one allows flash. Definitely get the Sigma 30 then. With the 50 at the front of the stage, you'll be stuck with mostly head shots. Like I said, the plastic 50 is fine and good as a companion lens to the 30. If you really want to rock the casbah, get the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 to accompany the Sigma 30. Quantum of Phallus posted:The 30 1.4 is pretty good in low light but you'll still probably have to crank the ISO and get a poo poo load of noise on the crop sensor. The 7D should be good to 3200 and 6400 in a pinch with decent noise reduction software. I use a NEX 5N which is a generation or two ahead of the 7D sensor and it's good for 6400 and 12800.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
HPL posted:Definitely get the Sigma 30 then. With the 50 at the front of the stage, you'll be stuck with mostly head shots. Like I said, the plastic 50 is fine and good as a companion lens to the 30. If you really want to rock the casbah, get the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 to accompany the Sigma 30. I still really suck at post. I used Lightroom's noise reducer when I shot a concert at ISO 1600 and they were still super grainy. It was either have some grain and a sharper image or degrain and get a blurry messy face. It sucks not shooting RAW for work!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:I still really suck at post. I used Lightroom's noise reducer when I shot a concert at ISO 1600 and they were still super grainy. It was either have some grain and a sharper image or degrain and get a blurry messy face. I hated my 7D's high iso performance. I know it's probably not an option, but if you can upgrade at some point to a 6D or 5D3, the noise is so much better and way easier to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I hated my 7D's high iso performance. I know it's probably not an option, but if you can upgrade at some point to a 6D or 5D3, the noise is so much better and way easier to deal with. In retrospect I should have saved my money awhile longer and gotten the Mk III, but I still love my 7D. Lowlight concerts are just a challenge in some of the venues around here. Some bands looooove to keep the lights off too. It's still a lot of fun though, don't get me wrong. It's just I'll stand there waiting a few minutes, an entire song, for some strobe lights and just pray to Jesus I get a lucky shot in of something dramatic. E: Just bought the Sigma. Thanks guys! crime fighting hog fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:I still really suck at post. I used Lightroom's noise reducer when I shot a concert at ISO 1600 and they were still super grainy. It was either have some grain and a sharper image or degrain and get a blurry messy face. The usual suggestion here is to crank the gently caress out of the chroma noise reduction (which has little impact on sharpness) and then just pretend that the luma noise is nice peppery film grain. Then the noise will at least be black-and-white luma noise, which is much less noticeable than sparkles of color everywhere. You will definitely need to be shooting RAWs for the best quality, though. And yeah, sensors made a big jump there between the NEX-5 and the 5N. Nikon also made the jump, Canon is lagging a bit. With those new sensors, super high ISOs are totally workable if you can deal with some luma noise. Being able to punch up ISO 25600 and shoot in pitch black in a pinch is pretty awesome, and removes a lot of the pressure to buy superfast f/1.4 lenses. Sigma 30/1.4 is a great lens, enjoy it. Did you get the old one or the new Art version? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The usual suggestion here is to crank the gently caress out of the chroma noise reduction (which has little impact on sharpness) and then just pretend that the luma noise is nice peppery film grain. Then the noise will at least be black-and-white luma noise, which is much less noticeable than sparkles of color everywhere. You will definitely need to be shooting RAWs for the best quality, though. ACR is really good for this - their chroma reduction cleans up every drop of color speckle, and when luminance is set to 0, it's really 0. DPP for some reason, always seems to do some luminance reduction even when it's set to 0 (either that or their chrominance reduction smudges)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The usual suggestion here is to crank the gently caress out of the chroma noise reduction (which has little impact on sharpness) and then just pretend that the luma noise is nice peppery film grain. Then the noise will at least be black-and-white luma noise, which is much less noticeable than sparkles of color everywhere. You will definitely need to be shooting RAWs for the best quality, though. Old one, it was available for cheaper. My photography buddy raged at me for buying Sigma though, which made me laugh. Can't wait to shoot with it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
I'm currently living in Panama and gear prices suck. I went looking for lenses and saw a $200 lens marked up to $400. So, I'm having someone bring me down everything I could possibly want to play around with since I'm here for another 16 months. Currently, I've got my Sony A290, kit lens, memory cards, and camera case. I looked at a few suggested accessory websites to make sure I'm getting everything I need to get going. Currently this is my list: Lenses - Minolta 50mm f1.7 AF Lens - Sony 55-200mm f/4-5.6 SAM DT Filters - Complete Square Filter Kit Compatible with Cokin P Series (Mainly just for messing around with effects) - 3-piece Filter Set UV, Fluorescent, Polarizer (Yes I did see about not buying a UV filter. I figure for $13 it'd be fun to play around with the filters though since I have a ton of free time.) - PLR Optics 55MM +1 +2 +4 +10 Close-Up Macro Filter Set Misc - 2 Replacement Batteries - Cleaning Kit(LensPen, Rocket Air Blaster, Microfiber Cleaning Cloths) Is there anything else I should add to this list? Maybe stuff worth getting just to experiment with that's relatively cheap? I'm skipping on anything flash related for now since I live in the jungle and almost never shoot at night. As a note, my budget is probably going to be about $300 for lens(es) and everything else another $100 or so. huhu fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
huhu posted:I'm currently living in Panama and gear prices suck. I went looking for lenses and saw a $200 lens marked up to $400. So, I'm having someone bring me down everything I could possibly want to play around with since I'm here for another 16 months. Currently, I've got my Sony A290, kit lens, memory cards, and camera case. I looked at a few suggested accessory websites to make sure I'm getting everything I need to get going. Currently this is my list: Definitely save your money and skip the square filter kit and 3-piece filter set. You (shouldn't) aren't going to use graduated colored filters. Some people use graduated neutral density filters, but no one really makes good photos with colored filters. If you want to dick around with that sort of thing, just take a picture and then drag a gradient mask across half of it in Lightroom and go bananas. For polarizers, you want a circular polarizer, which lets you rotate the filter to pick how much polarization you want, and in which orientation (rotate a quarter turn if you want to shoot portrait vs landscape, for example). #1 Best Value Filter is the Marumi DHG Super Circular Polarizer, but if you just want one to mess around with, Tiffen's are fine. The fluorescent filter is rendered completely obsolete by white balancing, and there is no "effect" to mess with with a UV filter -- it's literally a clear piece of glass. The macro filters will degrade image quality but for the price will probably be alright to mess around with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
dakana posted:Some people use graduated neutral density filters, but no one really makes good photos with colored filters. If you want to dick around with that sort of thing, just take a picture and then drag a gradient mask across half of it in Lightroom and go bananas. Red and yellow filters are pretty common for black and white stuff. Can Lightroom always stand in for that, or are there situations where you'll need it in-camera?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
dakana posted:Definitely save your money and skip the square filter kit and 3-piece filter set. You (shouldn't) aren't going to use graduated colored filters. Some people use graduated neutral density filters, but no one really makes good photos with colored filters. If you want to dick around with that sort of thing, just take a picture and then drag a gradient mask across half of it in Lightroom and go bananas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
I love the poo poo out of my square filters, but I only use graduated ND and solid ND. Everyone should have a set.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't understand how people have the patience for exposure blending.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
xzzy posted:I love the poo poo out of my square filters, but I only use graduated ND and solid ND. Everyone should have a set.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 02:54
|
|
