|
Autofocus is so unreliable for a lot of nature stuff (and you're at infinity for the far away stuff anyway) such that you're probably better off adapting a $50 manual focus super tele unless you really really want to buy that $1500 Oly zoom. I have a Canon FD 100-300 f/5.6 that was $50 on KEH that adapts to m4/3 really easily and is optically great.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
The ability to adapt pretty much any old manual-focus lens to a shiny new digicam (with focus peaking and fast burst speeds and tilting screens and whatever else) is a really attractive feature of m43 cameras. You can find pretty nice old glass for orphaned systems - Contax/Yashica, Canon FD, Minolta MD, Konica AR, etc. etc. - for well under $100 a pop. Is autofocus worth $1000 to you? Don't get me wrong, modern AF systems are pretty drat good, and there are plenty of shots I've missed because I was frantically twisting a ring (the wrong way) while simultaneously trying to compose and check my settings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
I currently own a Canon Powershot S110 and an Olympus E-P2. I want something that will allow me to make stable POV videos for painting tutorials/journals. What kind of tripod or whatever won't get in my way while shooting good video of hands on a table?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
You guys are seriously expensive to hang around. Picked up a 24-105 from someone who had picked it up with their body... i then procured a used 70-200 2.8 from someone across the country, after we had agreed he asked "need a 17-40L?2" he gave me a price that was considerably less then other was selling the same lens for... so i guess im set for awhile... (except a flash, tripod and maybe a blackrapid)
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
I just picked up a Sony rx100 m2 for $400 off Craig's list. Showed up to meet the seller and it was one of my old hockey teammates. Small world I guess. Now I've got my pocket travel camera. Now if only I could convince my wife to let me pick up a 70-200 2.8 and 2x extender for our trip to Africa in May.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Maybe the wife would be more ok with a rental, if rentals let you take stuff out of the country. (I've never rented just looking for a way to help you find a compromise)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
There are proper rental places in South Africa if you're heading through there
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:There are proper rental places in South Africa if you're heading through there I thought about renting. The only problem is that we're flying from cape town to a game preserve out near Swaziland (but still in SA) and flying out of Johannesburg so I wouldn't be able to return to where I picked up. We'll be gone for 10 days and the thought of dropping $200 on a rental isn't appealing. That's just money towards a keeper lens. The other option was to pick up a 70-200 4 for cheap and trade it up when I return for a 2.8 before my next wedding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Verman posted:I thought about renting. The only problem is that we're flying from cape town to a game preserve out near Swaziland (but still in SA) and flying out of Johannesburg so I wouldn't be able to return to where I picked up. We'll be gone for 10 days and the thought of dropping $200 on a rental isn't appealing. That's just money towards a keeper lens. Verman, when are you landing in Cape Town and where? Have a look at http://www.kameraz.com their second hands are excellent, and they can courier to whomever you're meeting beforehand. I stay quite close to them so if you need the condition of the lens checked before dropping money on it, I can gladly check any out. Also, what kind of budget are you looking at? I mean, worst case scenario, there's always the Tamron 70-200 2.8 dc vc thing which is easily on par with the canikonony for cheap moneys. Comparatively. edit: Actually, do you know which game reserve you'll be going to? How long will you be in jozi?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
I asked in the Film thread, but it probably belongs in here. For a fun little lightweight 35mm film shooter, would you guys go Konica Hexar or Contax G1 (with either the 28 or the 45)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
So my order from borrowlenses arrived, and they came with UV filters. Does the thread title mean "don't use UV filters, full stop" or "don't waste your money, but if you get them free they're fine"? Mix of indoor and outdoor shooting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:So my order from borrowlenses arrived, and they came with UV filters. Does the thread title mean "don't use UV filters, full stop" or "don't waste your money, but if you get them free they're fine"? Mix of indoor and outdoor shooting. UV filters are usually sold to "protect" a lens, when they are actually likely to cause more harm in the event of a drop. Use a lens hood to protect your front element, or alternately don't treat your lenses like a filthy animal would. It's also a cheap piece of glass in front of your $500 Zeiss lens or whatever, which doesn't make sense. Unless they're really nice glass and you need to complete a waterseal, I'd ditch them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Helicity posted:UV filters are usually sold to "protect" a lens, when they are actually likely to cause more harm in the event of a drop. Use a lens hood to protect your front element, or alternately don't treat your lenses like a filthy animal would. It's also a cheap piece of glass in front of your $500 Zeiss lens or whatever, which doesn't make sense. Unless they're really nice glass and you need to complete a waterseal, I'd ditch them. Box sounds like a good plan. Is the same said for polarizing filters, or are those cool?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:Box sounds like a good plan. Is the same said for polarizing filters, or are those cool? UV filters are pretty much the only ones that can be worthless in many scenarios. Polarizers are good if you want to increase contrast and saturation for landscapes, but primarily to remove light reflected off things - like the surface of some water. Same principle about quality of the glass however. If you have a kit lens, don't feel guilty about playing around with an el cheapo polarizer on it. If you've got the Zeiss from my previous example, spend some decent money on anything you stick in front of it. LensRentals.com had an interesting article about stacking good and bad UV filters and how it affected image quality, if you Google around a bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Helicity posted:I asked in the Film thread, but it probably belongs in here. For a fun little lightweight 35mm film shooter, would you guys go Konica Hexar or Contax G1 (with either the 28 or the 45)? I recommend the Olympus Stylus Epic because it is relatively cheap and weather resistant so you will be more inclined to actually use it in fun situations and not worry about loving it up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Helicity posted:I asked in the Film thread, but it probably belongs in here. For a fun little lightweight 35mm film shooter, would you guys go Konica Hexar or Contax G1 (with either the 28 or the 45)? None of those are little and light. I'd get a stylus epic, easily slips into a pocket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
They're both pretty close to 500g and about the size I'd be comfortable with (I nerded out and made cardboard boxes in the respective dimensions), although I definitely don't want to go larger than the G1. I'll check out the epic since you're the second or third person to recommend one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
If I were to want a Cokin filter set, for up to a 77mm filter thread (and up to 24mm wide on FF), does the P series suffice with its width, or do I need to go Z-Pro already to be on the safer side? Any other reasons for either of them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Helicity posted:UV filters are usually sold to "protect" a lens, when they are actually likely to cause more harm in the event of a drop. Use a lens hood to protect your front element, or alternately don't treat your lenses like a filthy animal would. It's also a cheap piece of glass in front of your $500 Zeiss lens or whatever, which doesn't make sense. Unless they're really nice glass and you need to complete a waterseal, I'd ditch them. Indestructible Hoya HD filters  Since I pretty much drag my camera equipment through the mud, I have UV filters on at all times and remove them for the 0.1% of shots where they introduce excessive flaring. I just bought replacements for two that are ridiculously scratched and I'm happy I don't have to get front elements replaced (on the other hand, Canon lens repairs around here are fixed rates regardless of parts replaced so I could just get a new front element every time something else breaks...  )
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 02:06
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Indestructible Hoya HD filters For some people, they're worth it. Low, low percent though. And things that scratch a filter won't necessarily scratch the lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Tiny scratches aren't a big deal either, you won't notice them in the photos. Also if you ever do break your front element, it's the cheapest part of the lens to repair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
I seem to remember a bunch of tests that showed that a broken front element mostly just messes a little bit with the contrast, and maybe the bokeh balls, depending on how it spidered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
Anything you do to the front element will generally just reduce contrast, which becomes more noticeable as you stop down - but you'll be hard pressed to tell in all but the most extreme abuse cases. Realistically, the biggest thing that scratches and the like will affect is resale value. For most people this isn't an issue, but personally I have a lot of high-end manual glass that I like to treat as an investment, so I use filters on all my lenses since they're a fraction of the lens value and give me peace of mind. A small benefit that's often overlooked is that they make the front of the lens much easier to clean because the entirety of the exposed surface is nice and easy to access, which isn't necessarily the case with certain lenses. I use the Hoya HD Protector range which are super thin and don't seem to affect anything optically at all; I highly recommend them for anyone who decides they actually need protective filters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Just use a hood unless poo poo is flying through the air
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Bad news, Triggertrap Ada backers: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/triggertrap/triggertrap-redsnap-modular-camera-trigger/posts/1144189
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
Crowdfunding Project Fails is pretty "film at 11" at this point. quote:In fact, by the time all was said and done, Ada was going to cost three times more to create than we had planned for when we kicked off the project. jesus christ hahahaha how do you gently caress up that badly? Did they seriously only glance once at the start at how expensive it'd be to produce, and never thought that amount could change over time?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Crowdfunding Project Fails is pretty "film at 11" at this point. quote:£290,386 Even that level of up-fuckery should have been covered by that pledge. They went overbudget by 400% but they're working budget came in at 500% over. EDIT: It gets better, scroll down for the detailed explanation. 30% of the money was spent on travel expenses, the single biggest expense on their unnecessarily-3D pie chart. Other than a few trips to visit the manufacturer and one or two high-level meetings - which, on a shoestring budget, should be "everybody get yourself to Gary's house on Tuesday" - how did they blow through nearly £90K on "travel expenses"? And an amusing typo in the (angry) comments quote:I feel for you guys I do, BUT I also know this is a business. I want a FULL refund not 20%. This is a hug mismanagement on your end. Hug mismanagement has doomed so many good projects. 
ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
I thought kickstarter projects weren't technically obliged to produce anything, so I'm surprised they're refunding 20%. Or is this some UK consumer protection thing that they have to do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:That's true for the huge number of Crowdfunding projects that don't make their goal, but this is a special kind of fail. The 30% is for "Contractors and Staff Costs", which is still a great way to blow through ~$150,000. Travel was only 1.1%.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
I'm looking to get a camera to take with me on hikes or vacations for general picture taking. Nothing too specialized, I just want to replace my smartphone in picture quality. I am planning on getting the S110 from amazon, but I am not sure how updated all the OP info/thread titles are so I thought I'd ask if there's any other camera I should look into? $300 is an ideal upper limit, but I could stretch to $500 if it makes sense for what I'm doing and image quality is significantly better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Would you give the idea of a [ $10 film point and shoot from a thrift store + $10-15 for 3 rolls of some rando colour film + MAX$20 for dev and scan ] a twirl? For a total of a cool $40-$50.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Helicity posted:The 30% is for "Contractors and Staff Costs", which is still a great way to blow through ~$150,000. Travel was only 1.1%. You are correct. Apparently I'm blind. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Master Stur posted:I'm looking to get a camera to take with me on hikes or vacations for general picture taking. Nothing too specialized, I just want to replace my smartphone in picture quality. I would look at an rx100 instead. There are three generation at this point that aren't that different from each other, and I'd say all are a step up from the s110.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
I saw a Rx100 (can't remember if it was I or II) for $350 today on CL. Either I or II would be a lot better than the S series. Edit: was a I http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/pho/4895738565.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I saw a Rx100 (can't remember if it was I or II) for $350 today on CL. Either I or II would be a lot better than the S series. You can get an LN- RX100 from keh.com for $367 with the charger. Honestly, it is the answer to all "i need a camera for $300" questions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
I was in the same boat. Originally I was going to go with an rx100 mk1 because I saw them for $300 everywhere online. Then I found a mk2 for $400 on CL and I bought it. Honestly its a ridiculous camera and will replace my SLR on nearly every trip I go on, especially my backpacking/hiking trips. Just buy an RX100 mk1 and be done with it. You won't buy a better camera for the money/size. It has been voted the best pocketable camera for the last few years, and only competed with itself when they released new versions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Sweet. Thanks for the input guys 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
The RX100 will lock the S110 in a basement, beat the crap out of it and unleash the gimp on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
I think with phone cameras getting better and better every year, if you're going to lug around a point and shoot, it needs to be worth it. Go big (sensor) or go (leave it at) home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
Just wanted to jump in and throw in a thanks for the lens rental suggestions way back when. Went with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Nikon 85 1.8, and they quickly earned their money by rocking the inside of Notre Dame de Paris on an overcast day. Granted, it took ISO 1600 to do it, but that stabilization feature of the Tamron is magical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:16
|
|