|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Heading on vacation to Ireland in a few months and looking to go light with my 5D III. That means I'll likely be leaving my favorite (but bulky) landscape equipment behind like my Big Stopper, timer release, tripod, etc. I probably won't take a Speedlite either. This isn't a photography trip first and foremost, so as much as it pains me to miss the opportunity to make the most of it from a photo standpoint, I'd rather go lighter. 24-70 and a 50mm prime for taking photos in low light, as well as giving you a very lightweight option if you leave the zoom in your hotel room.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Ireland I'm going to flat-out disagree with you. You clearly love taking landscape photos, and you're going to IRELAND which is apparently a country assembled from the parts bin labelled "makes for good photos". Take the T/S and a lightweight tripod. Ireland, like everywhere else, contains plenty of rocks, walls, platforms, other people, dogs, and lots of other items you can put a small tripod on top of at a moment's notice to take a long-exposure shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Any suggestions from more accomplished travelers? If this was a photography trip, I'd go with ExecuDork's recommendation. But since it's not, i'd say just take the 24-70 and keep it simple. I usually just travel with a 50mm equiv lens only but I do bring a compact to shoot all the touristy stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
I spent a month in Europe last year with only a 50mm f1.4. Even better probably would be the 40mm f2.8. Keep it simple, don't be that tourist walking around with a big white lens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Don't be the guy with the photography vest who uses the blackrapid double camera sling and 2 bodies everywhere you go. kid's party? better break out the 1dx with the 16-35 and the 1dx with the 100-400.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Btw I had the 50mm on a 5d ii as my only camera gear in an attempt to keep the weight down. After a full day of walking around it still felt extremely heavy. Go as light as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
deaders posted:Btw I had the 50mm on a 5d ii as my only camera gear in an attempt to keep the weight down. After a full day of walking around it still felt extremely heavy. Go as light as possible. Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'll keep pondering my options and maybe evaluate a few different potential backpack loads. I'm really liking the idea of the 24-70 and a small prime. Unfortunately the 40mm pancake doesn't buy me any extra stops, so I'd only be saving on bulk/weight when I use that. I'll look at maybe the 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.8 lenses in the gear trading thread right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I'm not terribly concerned about weight: I've done all-day hikes at altitude carrying all of the gear I listed and more. I'm mostly just trying to cut down on the amount of time I spend setting up for shots: swapping lenses, setting up for long exposures, etc. As much as I'd love to make this a photo trip, I won't do that to my girlfriend. The 24-70mm + 35mm f/2 IS would be a pretty sweet combo with the zoom giving versatility in the focal length plus the prime lens giving you the extra stop and IS for low light situations. That's what I would go with personally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Heading on vacation to Ireland in a few months and looking to go light with my 5D III. That means I'll likely be leaving my favorite (but bulky) landscape equipment behind like my Big Stopper, timer release, tripod, etc. I probably won't take a Speedlite either. This isn't a photography trip first and foremost, so as much as it pains me to miss the opportunity to make the most of it from a photo standpoint, I'd rather go lighter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
Seems like a shame to go on a trip like that without a tripod. Don't you have a carbon fiber dealy that will fit in your suitcase? You don't need to lug it around the whole vacation but I bet you can find two or three times where you can pull it out and take a great pic that you and your girlfriend will enjoy as a memento and will not feel bad about putting up on your wall. I don't like those little pocket tripods but if you feel like you can get away with one of those at least get one of them. Also, you will want pictures of you plus your lady. Do you feel comfortable handing the 5D3 + expensive lenses over to a stranger to take your picture? If not a point and shoot would be ideal. Get an RX100 or something. Dren fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
Personally, I'd go with the 24-70 2.8 plus a telephoto that isn't as big as the 70-200 2.8 (a slower 70-300?), but that's because I like using telephotos for landscapes in some cases. If you don't care about the telephoto, I like the 35mm 2.0 plan. It's small and a great focal length for travel. If you use it as your default lens, you probably won't feel the need to swap in the 24-70 too often. However, if you'd have to go out and buy the 35, you may want to consider a used Fuji x100 or x100s. That would allow you to go much smaller and lighter than the 5D + 35 while still being able to take great pictures. You'd be able to leave your 5D + zoom behind on some excursions, and due to it's small size and weight, you can get by with a much more compact tripod.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:I do some wildlife with that NEX setup, and I don't have too much trouble manual focusing personally. You can also consider the LA-EA2 since it's now $200 used and will have the same auto-focus as the a58 for cheaper. I visited the Amazon Showroom and played with some DSLRs today. I was really surprised at how much easier it was to manually focus with a viewfinder than an electronic screen. I was able to go right into focus and stop pretty much every time with DSLRs, compared to needing to go back and forth several times to focus mirrorless and DSLT cameras. Now I'm thinking about something like this instead of waiting for the A58 to drop in price.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Nomenclature posted:Thanks for pointing me to the used adapter. Congrats on being the only person in history that ever said manual focus with a bright screen was easier than an evf
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Congrats on being the only person in history that ever said manual focus with a bright screen was easier than an evf
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Nomenclature posted:Thanks for pointing me to the used adapter. I personally bought the add-on viewfinder for my camera, you can also consider buying a used NEX-6/7/a6000 and the Alpha adapter, though that'd be a lot of money in a system you're not particularly attached to. Modern EVF's are totally easier to manually focus with, though if you get an the LAEA2 or A58 you shouldn't be manually focusing with a long lens anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:I personally bought the add-on viewfinder for my camera, you can also consider buying a used NEX-6/7/a6000 and the Alpha adapter, though that'd be a lot of money in a system you're not particularly attached to. Modern EVF's are totally easier to manually focus with, though if you get an the LAEA2 or A58 you shouldn't be manually focusing with a long lens anyway. Maybe it's worth mentioning that I am a microbiologist, so my eyes are well trained at bringing analog images into focus. But even then, when I have a student on a trinocular-head scope and I'm watching the monitor, I will still typically have to use the eyepieces to answer any questions the students ask about what they are seeing. The info conveyed by elements coming in and out of focus doesn't seem to like making the jump to a digital screen. Elliotw2 posted:you shouldn't be manually focusing with a long lens anyway. Nomenclature fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Nomenclature posted:Edit: Quick question - When taking long range, long focal length photos where there is no high-contrast element to auto-focus on (such as a rainshower over the ocean or fireworks at night) and you have a lens with a free-wheeling focus ring, what method works best for getting it in focus? Assuming you're at infinity focus, I'd say use live view and magnification to focus on something at that distance. That's what I do if I'm doing astrophotography - at 10x magnification in live view you can tell when the stars are at their sharpest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
I also find it easier to manually focus with a good, optical, SLR viewfinder than with an EVF. And I find peaking fairly non-helpful most of the time. Guess I have weird eyeballs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Nomenclature posted:In a evenly-lit store, it definitely was for me. You are a lucky ducky - It's really hard to see DOF accurately on those screens for wide apertures, and they are super low contrast. powderific posted:I also find it easier to manually focus with a good, optical, SLR viewfinder than with an EVF. And I find peaking fairly non-helpful most of the time. Guess I have weird eyeballs. But on a bright screen? It's super easy on a screen with high contrast, and super super easy on one with a microprism collar (which I find much easier than split image, as it works on more than vertical lines) , but on the modern bright screens it's atrocious IMO. timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:You are a lucky ducky - It's really hard to see DOF accurately on those screens for wide apertures, and they are super low contrast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
I find it easier to focus when the image in the view finder is upside down, backwards, and at least four inches by five inches in size.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
powderific posted:I find peaking fairly non-helpful most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Nomenclature posted:That's what I have found too, at least indoors with natural light. Focus peaking highlights edges where light contrasts with darker areas on the other side of the edge, such as window frames and objects near windows (but away from the background), regardless of whether they are in focus or not. So I will have a whole room full of highlighted edges, and I have to figure out if any of those edges are actually in focus. But, maybe I can make better use of it with practice. Fuji digital split image for those times when peaking won't cut it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Personally, I much prefer an analog viewfinder over a screen of any kind. I use manual-focus lenses all the time on my Pentax K-5, including long lenses. My 100-300 never seems to work well with AF on my camera so I always manual-focus it, and my 500mm is older than I am. Not a problem. And outdoors during the day is way, way brighter than even the brightest current screens, in direct sunlight there's no substitute for eyeball-on-glass. Given your experience with microscopes, I'd recommend a DSLR over a mirrorless for sure. Speaking of shooting outdoors, that K-50 you linked to is weathersealed so you can use it - including its liveview features - in the rain / snow / dust / whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:I find it easier to focus when the image in the view finder is upside down, backwards, and at least four inches by five inches in size. This, plus having a 5x loupe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:This, plus having a 5x loupe.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
Nomenclature posted:I actually played with the low-end Sony DSLT they had, and I didn't find the EVF any quicker to focus with than the rear screen. The low end DLST's viewfinders have compromised resolutions and older tech (scanning LCD) compared to anything using the XGA OLED finders. They're two different beasts. But they'll both show the same focus off the sensor. A problem with most modern optical viewfinder screens is that they don't show true depth of field, so unless you get the focusing-optimized screen, you will have a more difficult time getting perfect focus. Modern screens are biased towards brightness and clarity, not focusing accuracy. Plus, there's always shims/balance involved so there's a risk that your viewfinder, when in focus, might be a bit off compared to off-the-sensor. The rear screen (or an EVF) always shows you the focus off the sensor, so presuming you nail the focus there, it will be good. Plus, everyone's sight is different and they may have an easier time viewing a screen from a little bit away versus an eyepiece. I like focusing off the rear screen because it gets the camera out of my face and it's easier to move around the "100% window" when you've got some space to work. But that's on a tripod. Speaking of viewfinders, I helped some random person on the street take their picture in town the other day, and they had a Rebel something-or-other. What an atrocious viewfinder. I've been spoiled by a full frame EVF and glass prisms before that. Compared against one of those suckers, even a mediocre EVF is an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
The only place I could see an EVF as being better than an analog one for manual lenses would be in low light situations like concert shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Chill Callahan posted:The only place I could see an EVF as being better than an analog one for manual lenses would be in low light situations like concert shooting. EVFs do not darken when you stop down and will show you true depth of field when you do, so you'll know exactly where you're focusing and how the DOF will work. But an EVF may not necessarily be faster than using a split-collar microprism, which is still the fastest way to manually focus for me. You can also zoom in and focus on any point of the frame, so you're not reliant on the split prism being in the center of the frame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Eh, I have an A7II now and I rather like the EVF. Focus magnification in the VF is awesome. I prefer holding the camera up to the face instead of extending out and checking the rear LCD. Feels more stable. Proper 100% coverage, too. A drawback you might consider the lower framerate in the dark, when the camera feels it needs to collect more light per frame. But then again, you're usually not doing action shots in that setting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
If the light is so low that your frame rate is dragging badly, chances are that it's too dark to use an OVF effectively too. Another advantage of EVFs is that if you're shooting in black and white, you never have to guess what it will look like. Real-time exposure compensation is nice too, as is focus peaking and zebra stripes. I prefer shooting with an EVF versus the back screen because I have always found shooting in that zombie pose with your arms out to be kind of annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
I'm getting ready to take a trip to Paris, and am considering whether I want to bother bringing my DSLR, a Nikon D50. In case I do, I'm starting to look at the lens issue. Right now I have the standard entry 28-80mm (something like that, don't remember the exact numbers) and 70-300mm. I know at the very least I'd want to get a fixed 50mm and not bring the 28-80, which is fine since those are cheap enough (or maybe even forget a short lens and just use my phone for that distance). But what about the longer one? I've briefly looked at fixed lenses in that range, but those appear to be beyond what I'd really like to pay, instead of just using what I have; is this the sort of thing where life starts getting expensive? If I'm thinking about things like getting details of cathedrals and similar indoor shooting, what sort of focal length should I be looking at? EDIT: Come to think of it, this is probably the sort of thing a rental is meant for... dupersaurus fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:I'm getting ready to take a trip to Paris, and am considering whether I want to bother bringing my DSLR, a Nikon D50. In case I do, I'm starting to look at the lens issue. Right now I have the standard entry 28-80mm (something like that, don't remember the exact numbers) and 70-300mm. I know at the very least I'd want to get a fixed 50mm and not bring the 28-80, which is fine since those are cheap enough (or maybe even forget a short lens and just use my phone for that distance). But what about the longer one? I've briefly looked at fixed lenses in that range, but those appear to be beyond what I'd really like to pay, instead of just using what I have; is this the sort of thing where life starts getting expensive? If I'm thinking about things like getting details of cathedrals and similar indoor shooting, what sort of focal length should I be looking at? I'm lucky enough to travel around with some of my camera gear and I find myself pretty rarely using long lenses, unless I'm somewhere at like a zoo or something or want to try shooting wildlife. If you're going to be in those old gothic cathedrals, your main priority will be speed of the lens rather than length. A lot of them are very dark inside.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I'm lucky enough to travel around with some of my camera gear and I find myself pretty rarely using long lenses, unless I'm somewhere at like a zoo or something or want to try shooting wildlife. If you're going to be in those old gothic cathedrals, your main priority will be speed of the lens rather than length. A lot of them are very dark inside. Yeah, which is why I've been looking at fixed stuff. My sense of how much zoom is needed isn't very good, so I may need less than I'm thinking. Would something like 85mm or 105mm be enough?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
My main tourist walkaround lens is either my tamron 17-50 2.8 or sigma 30 1.4. Then again I'm trying to do away with my dslr as a travel camera all together and going for a premium point and shoot like an rx100.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:Yeah, which is why I've been looking at fixed stuff. My sense of how much zoom is needed isn't very good, so I may need less than I'm thinking. Would something like 85mm or 105mm be enough? My googling tells me your D50 has a typical APS-C sensor size, so roughly 1.5 crop compared to "full frame'. A 50mm would be pretty tight, though those lenses tend to be very good value and the f/1.8 or whatever maximum aperture is very handy in dark interiors. The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 seems to get glowing reviews around here, which is closer to a "normal" field of view. For wide, you need to get somewhere below 20mm to get a good sense of "wide". The ultra-wides, like 12-24mm, are pretty pricey so you're probably better off with your kit zoom, or a cheap second-hand kit zoom that does 17-55mm but with a somewhat dark and variable aperture. At the other end, 85mm or 105mm are quite good focal lengths on APS-C, and tele-landscapes (e.g. the top of the church steeple from down the street) are typically some of my favourite shots. That said, the Tamron 70-300 is very well-regarded as an inexpensive way to get some reach. tl/dr: get the Tamron 17-50/2.8
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Any news on how the new Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 compares with their 400mm f/5.6 prime? I'd like to grab a lens that's at least 400mm and the 100-400mm is just at the upper end of my budget, but I'm not sure if the extra cost is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
My general rule of thumb is that if you're going to Europe, bring the widest lens you can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Instrumedley posted:Any news on how the new Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 compares with their 400mm f/5.6 prime? I'd like to grab a lens that's at least 400mm and the 100-400mm is just at the upper end of my budget, but I'm not sure if the extra cost is worth it. There's a bunch of reviews available now , photozone , TDP, lensrentals did a test. It's looked to me like it's just as sharp in the center and midframe as the prime now, but lags a little in the FF corners. But, awesome new coatings and bitchin IS performance, way way better MFD (even better than the old zoom which blew the prime away), and the AF is reported to be as fast now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
The company I work for needs a camera that can take good wide angle indoor shots of art and graphic displays. Our sales people have been taking shots with their iPhones and also the company DSLRs that turn out terrible. I have been telling them for a few years that at least we need a tripod, flash and wide angle lens in order to get decent shots of our work. They are finally humoring me after I brought in my personal gear to shoot better photos. (T2i with Tamron 17-50 and 270ex, so nothing great, but better than we were getting.) We already have a Nikon D3100 and a Canon Rebel XT with kit lenses  Clearly if I go the lens and flash route, I would go with Nikon for the newer camera. I only really know Canon stuff, so what would be good for the Nikon? The 10-24 3.5-4.5 ? I have found that a lot of our displays are in tight quarters, so a wider angle would be great. It would also force people not to zoom in as close as possible. I would probably go with a pretty cheap flash as long as it could be pointed toward the ceiling. The other possibility I thought of is if there is a newer mirrorless or p&s option I should look at? I am the closest thing to a photographer that works here, but I will only be going out on site maybe 1 out of 5 jobs. So we need something relatively simple to use. If I can't teach people to at least get the horizon line straight in their photos, It will probably be difficult to teach them how to bounce a flash, take longer exposures with the tripod, etc. The photos don't need to be huge; they are mostly for our web site. They just need to be bright and clear without so much noise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:30
|
|
