|
nm posted:This why I like film. The odds of unintended internet You'd think that disposable 35mm cameras on the tables at a wedding would be dong-free, too. You'd be surprised.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 16:47
|
|
s go way down.
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
spog posted:You'd think that disposable 35mm cameras on the tables at a wedding would be dong-free, too. There's actually a probability curve you can plot for pictures of dongs on those using "length of time open bar is provided"
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
spog posted:You'd think that disposable 35mm cameras on the tables at a wedding would be dong-free, too. Haha who thought those would be dong free? I bet there is at least one dong and one half assed upskirt shot on each camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
spog posted:You'd think that disposable 35mm cameras on the tables at a wedding would be dong-free, too. I said unintended. Those dongs are intended and they don't go on the internet on accident.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:I think you're not saving the settings profile for your phone - my wpa code doesn't change each time. I have a profile for my phone, my iPad, and joining my home wifi for the laptop. Yeah same here. All I do now is just connect my phone to my camera's wifi and it works. Granted it's not the most user friendly thing to set up initially, but once you figure it out, it's easy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
Same with my Sony rx100 m2. Once you set up the camera, as long as you have a device with NFC the image transfer is really simple. You can find the image you want to share in your camera, tap your phone to the bottom of the camera, and the image transfer for that image happens automatically. Its pretty simple but you still need a separate phone/device to make it happen. I would say that if someone really just wants something to take photos and go instantly to social media, you're probably going to sacrifice image/camera quality for convenience. A smart phone or smart camera would probably be the most ideal situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
OK before I put people into a rage, I know cheap filters are generally garbage. However, I've got a trip coming up and beyond a Hoya UV that was given to me (I wouldn't have bought it, don't worry), I don't have any and I'm about to leave the damp and dreary shores of the UK for Mexico for two weeks where I'm led to believe the weather is slightly better*. So I thought a CPL would be a good purchase, I had one for my old camcorders but they're a 37mm thread so no point even trying to find where I put that. I just bought my body (D7200) and of course I have 5 lenses that have no threading in common. But! my favourite (and probably best) is my 35mm 1.8 that has a 52mm thread, and I have a 50mm prime with the same fit and I'm guessing I'll leave one of those two on my camera for the most amount of time. So I just want to pick up something cheap for now, before maybe investing in a better one down the line when I've sorted my lenses out and have some step downs etc. The two I spotted online that meet a cheapskate budget and seem well liked are: Polaroid CPL - £11.99 and K&F Concept 52mm Filter Kit Yes, I know - the idea of paying ~$20 for a set of filters, a lens hood and other crap sounds like it should end up in the junk pile, but does anyone have any feedback on using their stuff? The Amazon user base (who I don't trust to be honest) thinks it's fabulous, and hell I could do with most of the things in the kit just so I don't have to hunt down the bits I do have already in my house somewhere, and if I lose/break it all on the trip it's a $20 set. Also it has an ND filter, which I'm guessing would be pretty useful while out there. Or should I just not bother at all? I tend to like messing with the sky values in lightroom but I'm hoping to get some nice water shots and obviously can't do that in post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:OK before I put people into a rage, I know cheap filters are generally garbage. However, I've got a trip coming up and beyond a Hoya UV that was given to me (I wouldn't have bought it, don't worry), I don't have any and I'm about to leave the damp and dreary shores of the UK for Mexico for two weeks where I'm led to believe the weather is slightly better*. If you're that budget limited, buy the cheap CPL and shoot some test shots. If it hurts as badly as it might, return/resell it. If it's OK, use it. CPLs are very useful, as a rule. The ND is likely to suck so bad you'll never use it. A bad ND will have horrible color cast issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Cheers, that's making me want to plump for the Polaroid one a bit more just because they're a known quantity (who aren't the same polaroid as before and who mainly make junk tablets now... but still!). I get worried when I look at a load of reviews and none of them seem particularly technical, nobody mentions any camera body that's more than basic and you get 5* ratings from people because the product turned up quickly. e: just to make things easier I hope, I just spotted a Hoya kit of another UV, an ND and a CPL. I'm presuming the CPL is the same one they charge £25 for, so all 3 and the pouch for £20 seems a pretty good price. Plus I can probably find something else down the line to fill the space of the UV one too!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Speaking of ND filters, does anyone have a recommendation for an ND4 and ND400 77mm thread that is semi decent and won't break the bank? I guess if I had to have a budget it'd be $50 or under for either, but a bit cheaper is fine so long as they're usable
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:OK before I put people into a rage, I know cheap filters are generally garbage. However, I've got a trip coming up and beyond a Hoya UV that was given to me (I wouldn't have bought it, don't worry), I don't have any and I'm about to leave the damp and dreary shores of the UK for Mexico for two weeks where I'm led to believe the weather is slightly better*. I'd look on the used market. I don't know the UK, but I can get some fairly cheap high quality filters for not that much more than those cost in 52mm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Yeah, the second hand market in the UK is quite sparse... there's MPB and the AV Forums and that's all I know of. Nothing on either at the moment, MPB has a 58mm version of the Hoya Pro-1 for about half the retail price which isn't bad, but I have one lens that's natively 58mm (a really basic one I don't use much), so seems a bit pointless. Reading the reviews of that little Hoya kit make it sound like it's worth my money at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Speaking of filters, I ordered a cokin ND kit and a 67mm adapter from a big online store. They sent me the kit, but instead of the cheap adapter, I found a cokin 67mm pure harmonie cpl in the package. SCORE!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Canon currently has a cashback campaign where if you buy the EOS 5D III and EF-S 60mm macro lens you get aprox $100 back. Not really sure why they are pairing a full frame camera with a crop lens...
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:Canon currently has a cashback campaign where if you buy the EOS 5D III and EF-S 60mm macro lens you get aprox $100 back. Not really sure why they are pairing a full frame camera with a crop lens... Panasonic still owes me £100 cashback for a body I bought in loving december. And this is after Amazon gave me £100 out of their own pocket, because Panasonic's website only credited me with £100, instead of the £200 advertised. gently caress panasonic, bunch of cheats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
spog posted:Panasonic still owes me £100 cashback for a body I bought in loving december. And here I would have thought the UK would have crazy good laws for preventing rebate shenanigans and delays. Learn something new every day
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:And here I would have thought the UK would have crazy good laws for preventing rebate shenanigans and delays. Learn something new every day Haha no. Most places in the UK will try and pretend the 2 year warranty you get as being part of the EU doesn't exist, and gently caress all our cell phone carriers. Thieving scumbags the lot of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:and gently caress all our cell phone carriers. Thieving scumbags the lot of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Compared to US telecoms your cell carriers are loving saints. Consumer protection in the US = 'you're not allowed to force customers to give you prima nocta rights' and that's about it
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Compared to US telecoms your cell carriers are loving saints. I had a 2 year battle with O2 that was entirely their fault, which they even admitted, that hosed over my credit history and had me on the phone with them for hours and hours and hours (one 50 minute call where I had to go up the chain and repeat my entire story 4 times). It was an absolute nightmare, and I could write paragraphs over how inept they were. And this was on a $100/mo loan contract which is pretty expensive for here, not a lovely cheap deal. T-Mobile decided that even though I 100% cancelled my contact because I was buying an iPhone that day and they didn't carry it at the time, and said I might call for a PAC then didn't, meant I actually didn't want to cancel my contract at all. I didn't have internet banking at the time and I got ~$100 back off the $300 they took from me. Vodafone haven't been as bad, but they stripped me of my 25% discount despite promising me I wouldn't so I had to go through that process again, and lost money due to it. Oh and one day someone rang them up, failed DPA tests but was still able to get my phone disconnected because they asked them. They gave me no explanation as to why, and the only reason I knew something was up was because I have two accounts with them (work and personal) and one phone had signal while the other didn't. So yeah, gently caress UK carriers - id rather deal with Comcast!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I'd rather deal with Comcast! This is the opinion of someone whom has never dealt with comcast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:So yeah, gently caress UK carriers - id rather deal with Comcast! Comcast legit charged me 100$ for 'extra outlet installation ' for putting a ten cent coax splitter on a line in my house
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Comcast legit charged me 100$ for 'extra outlet installation ' for putting a ten cent coax splitter on a line in my house I once asked a non official cable forum if I could make use of my second outlet that was installed in my apartment without getting constant 'insert card' notices everytime I changed channels. All I got was the free OTA channels and I didn't want to pay more than my $100 cable bill for a legit box with channels I didn't need in my bedroom. People lost their mind as if I was going to run them out of business. Sorry for the derails, but at least we can agree that all these companies, regardless of our location, can loving do one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
I filed a rebate with tamron and got my money back in like, 2 weeks. Tamron owns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I once asked a non official cable forum if I could make use of my second outlet that was installed in my apartment without getting constant 'insert card' notices everytime I changed channels. All I got was the free OTA channels and I didn't want to pay more than my $100 cable bill for a legit box with channels I didn't need in my bedroom. People lost their mind as if I was going to run them out of business. Oh that's even better - the white knight customers online who feel the need to defend gigantic corporations against their nefarious customers. Anytime anyone talks about returning a camera on dpr, 500 people come out of the woodwork to talk about how they are putting amazon out of business and acting like a criminal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Oh that's even better - the white knight customers online who feel the need to defend gigantic corporations against their nefarious customers. Anytime anyone talks about returning a camera on dpr, 500 people come out of the woodwork to talk about how they are putting amazon out of business and acting like a criminal. This is the thread - http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=250437 , incredible the lengths people will go to defend corporations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Finally got hold of someone who confirmd that it will be paid today. After 5pm. Which puts it in a new tax year. What an odd coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Anyone here uses a Sigma 12-24mm on a fullframe camera? Do you end up using the ultra-wide end of the lens often? I'm trying to decide whether I want a Sigma 12-24mm/4.5-5.6 II, or go for a Canon 16-35mm for the 2.8 aperture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Anyone here uses a Sigma 12-24mm on a fullframe camera? Do you end up using the ultra-wide end of the lens often? I'm trying to decide whether I want a Sigma 12-24mm/4.5-5.6 II, or go for a Canon 16-35mm for the 2.8 aperture. IQ will be better on the Canon, but do you need 2.8 on such a wide lens? Canon has their new 11-24 if you hate money, too. Personally, I'd go for the Canon but maybe the f/4 version. Been thinking about picking one up for a bit. Maybe rent the 16 (or try it out in a shop) and see of you think it is wide enough. 12 is crazy wide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Large aperture only for low light situations. The main intent for the lens is urban exploration. Sometimes trying to use a tripod is impractical, that's why the larger aperture. The lens would be mounted on an A7II, but its IBIS can only do so much. I've read about the Nikon 14-24mm, and I'm currently eyeing eBay for a potentially cheap option. But the adapter and likely necessary tripod collar cost more than I'd like. Right now I have a 14mm and a 24mm both from Samyang. 24mm is generally versatile enough, but sometimes going wider would help framing stuff in crooked positions. Swapping lenses is getting annoying on a whim, tho, and is eventually going to cake my sensor in dust. Thus the desire for an ultrawide zoom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Large aperture only for low light situations. The main intent for the lens is urban exploration. Sometimes trying to use a tripod is impractical, that's why the larger aperture. The lens would be mounted on an A7II, but its IBIS can only do so much. I've read about the Nikon 14-24mm, and I'm currently eyeing eBay for a potentially cheap option. But the adapter and likely necessary tripod collar cost more than I'd like. I use a 10-24mm f/4 on aps-c and it's never left me wanting for f/2.8 (Fuji's OIS is good for about 3 stops under most conditions). Until I bought this I hated zooms and I hated slow zooms even more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
According to reviews the Canon 16-35 F/4 L IS has better image quality (sharper, very much so outside the center of the frame) than the 16-35 F2.8 L II and is a lot cheaper. I too am on the market for a UWA, and am unable to decide between Canons 11-24 which is obscenely expensive or the 16-35 F/4 IS which is much more affordable but only goes to 16 (insert goes to 11 joke here). The 16-35 will also have a lot of overlap with my 24-70 F2.8 in a focal lenght i take very few photos in. On my 24-70 I am mostly using 24mm and wishing i could go wider or the 50mm range, looking in Lightroom i have very few photos in the 25mm-45mm range. I don't have experience with UWAs so it is difficult to judge how much wider 16mm will be than 24mm, it could be all i need for what i know. Looking at comparison pictures in reviews only gets me so far. Is there any practical uses for the 11-15mm range that the 11-24 lens would give over the 16-35? My wide angle usage is landscaping, particularly night time photos of the star-lit sky while showing landscape.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
Anyone ever bought a light tent? I want to do some product photography and am not really sure if I should buy extra big to be safe, or if there are any advantages (aside from not taking up too much room) to buying just big enough. Also, hotlights? I only have a single speedlight and it's currently overseas. Combat Pretzel posted:Anyone here uses a Sigma 12-24mm on a fullframe camera? Do you end up using the ultra-wide end of the lens often? I'm trying to decide whether I want a Sigma 12-24mm/4.5-5.6 II, or go for a Canon 16-35mm for the 2.8 aperture. I had version 1 of the Sigma 12-24. It's very much a one-trick pony, I think the Canon 16-35 is probably more useful unless you absolutely need 12mm. Although I probably wouldn't even buy the Canon, I found 24mm was usually fine for me on FF (that's more my shooting style though).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
Those of you looking at UWA lenses for interiors or landscapes should also consider a 17mm or 24mm tilt-shift.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
Tilt-shift sounds interesting if it allows me to fake shallow DOF with the wide angle (the sorta the miniature effect at close range).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Gonna post this here as it was probably the right thread in the first placemobby_6kl posted:The PO or someone (probably me) smacked around my Tamron 17-50 and as a result the plastic ring around the front element developed a crack, sometimes causing one side of it to pop out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
http://lensbaby.com/usa/velvet56.php Artistic tool or gimmicky spherical aberration?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Most of the examples they show look like poorly executed gimmicky photoshop effects
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
LENS BABY sounds like the kind of name associated with a cellphone photo filter, not a $500 macro lens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
404notfound posted:http://lensbaby.com/usa/velvet56.php here, I'll save you a bunch of money. buy the ugly grade 50 1.8 here and then apply this. if you want to macro it, take it off and flip it around
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:27
|
|