|
EL BROMANCE posted:LENS BABY sounds like the kind of name associated with a cellphone photo filter, not a $500 macro lens. Lensbaby have been around for a while and originally made a cheap 50mm "tilt shift" (read: mounted on a bellows with guide rails instead of a barrel so you can bend the thing by hand) lens for around $100 which was rather well received. It looks like they're trying to get expand into more serious  ) lens.BANME.sh posted:Most of the examples they show look like poorly executed gimmicky photoshop effects Yeah. It's a remake of lenses with not-entirely-ugly optical abberations that ended up being largely replaced by photoshop effects when digital cameras happened.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 09:47
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:27 |
|
|
blowfish posted:Lensbaby have been around for a while and originally made a cheap 50mm "tilt shift" (read: mounted on a bellows with guide rails instead of a barrel so you can bend the thing by hand) lens for around $100 which was rather well received. It looks like they're trying to get expand into more serious Yeah, their original plan seemed a better market to work within. For $100 I'd probably pick that tilt-shift up if I was bored. When we start talking actual money, it'll have to convincingly beat that Tokina 100mm that's $380 at B&H and seems well liked from what I can see. But hey, I'll keep an open mind - especially if good reviews come in for it. Just such a terrible name, at least use a faux Japanese sounding thing!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Yeah, their original plan seemed a better market to work within. For $100 I'd probably pick that tilt-shift up if I was bored. When we start talking actual money, it'll have to convincingly beat that Tokina 100mm that's $380 at B&H and seems well liked from what I can see. But hey, I'll keep an open mind - especially if good reviews come in for it. Just such a terrible name, at least use a faux Japanese sounding thing! It's not a macro lens. It's a
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
I'm looking for a fast lens for my D200, for indoor use with available light. My 50mm f1.8 has been great, but the cropping is a little much. So I was thinking maybe Sigma 35mm f1.4 or Nikon 10-24mm--but I see that the thread seems to like the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Why not the dx 35mm 1.8?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
The 35/2 is a solid workhorse too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
powderific posted:Why not the dx 35mm 1.8? Just get that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
Ditto. I have the 50mm/1.8 as well as the 35mm/1.8d and there's just something about that lens I really like. It's super, and I can't really imagine me hanging onto the 50mm as I can't see it being able to do anything I can't do with the 35mm and cropping either on camera (to 1.3x which is about the same) or in post. Every Nikon DX camera should come with the 35/1.8 and the option to buy the kit lens on top. Or at least force it in everyones faces. Unless you have tons of amazing glass already, everyone should own that lens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
have you guys heard of a lens going soft on one side? I've tested another lens (70-200) against it, and it's pretty sharp across the board so I don't think it's the camera (nikon df), while the other one (35-70) is noticeably soft on the right side. At first I thought it was because I was using shallow DOF and wasn't square to the subject, but just from informal tests shooting a poster in my bedroom it seems to be pretty bad on the right side only.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
red19fire posted:have you guys heard of a lens going soft on one side? I've tested another lens (70-200) against it, and it's pretty sharp across the board so I don't think it's the camera (nikon df), while the other one (35-70) is noticeably soft on the right side. At first I thought it was because I was using shallow DOF and wasn't square to the subject, but just from informal tests shooting a poster in my bedroom it seems to be pretty bad on the right side only. Could be decentering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Hi thread, what can you tell me about Kiron lenses?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
I am looking to upgrade from my entry level Nikon D3300 to a full frame (I'm booking a lot of family and baby portrait sessions). I'd like to stay under $2500 and am considering: Canon 5D Mark III (~$2500) Nikon d750 (~2000) Canon 6d (~$1300) I have a few basic Nikon prime lenses but am considering making the switch to Canon since I've read a lot about how skin tones look much nicer out of camera on the Canon lenses. The 5D iii seems to be the standard, but it's significantly more expensive and I don't know if the cost is justified vs the 6d. I'm also very tempted by the higher AF capabilities of the Nikon since I photograph lots of squirming children. Any thoughts on which is the best bet? I'm sure any of them will be a huge upgrade from where I am now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
amethystbliss posted:I am looking to upgrade from my entry level Nikon D3300 to a full frame (I'm booking a lot of family and baby portrait sessions). I'd like to stay under $2500 and am considering: I did a wedding recently where the second shooter I hired shot on a 6D, and when she sent me her files to edit I laughed at how horrible colors are on Canon sensors. I shoot a D800 FWIW. P.S. https://www.keh.com/353091/nikon-d800-digital-camera-body-36-3-m-p
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Yeah I'd get he 750 now no doubt. I have an 800 too
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
amethystbliss posted:considering making the switch to Canon since I've read a lot about how skin tones look much nicer out of camera on the Canon lenses. hahahaha no
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Don't buy Canon if you don't own Canon glass or you're not getting a massive discount over the Nikon/Sony.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
If anyone can tell what brand of body a given photo was shot with I'll eat my camera.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
dakana posted:If anyone can tell what brand of body a given photo was shot with I'll eat my camera.  (not mine) It's a Nikon 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
 Unrelated, anyone here already owns that Zeiss 35mm/1.4 for the A7 cameras?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
dakana posted:If anyone can tell what brand of body a given photo was shot with I'll eat my camera. Actually the one case in which Canon might do a better job rendering skin is the 135 soft focus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
dakana posted:If anyone can tell what brand of body a given photo was shot with I'll eat my camera. Look at this sap who doesn't shoot with a Fuji with those Fuji-exclusive sunset colours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
D610 and then spend the other $1500 on something nice, like a 135f2dc
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
dakana posted:If anyone can tell what brand of body a given photo was shot with I'll eat my camera. I know which ones are from my old 4/3 camera because noooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiise chow down 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Geektox posted:Look at this sap who doesn't shoot with a Fuji with those Fuji-exclusive sunset colours. Fuji exclusive cyan skies I can tell which fill flash containing photos came from my x100t because there's only one versus the three chimped attempts at finding the right FEC to match my canons mood
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
dakana posted:If anyone can tell what brand of body a given photo was shot with I'll eat my camera. It's not crazy to think that shots from a particular JPEG engine could be recognized. Probably not 100% though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Fuji has pretty distinctive In-camera processing, but everyone else is basically similar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
Dren posted:It's not crazy to think that shots from a particular JPEG engine could be recognized. Probably not 100% though. It's crazy to think of nonFuji shooters using the incamera jpeg engine, lord knows I didn't when I had a D700.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
Dren posted:It's not crazy to think that shots from a particular JPEG engine could be recognized. Probably not 100% though. When the Canon 5D was The poo poo, I had a good hit rate of spotting images taken by it. As in, if my thought was 'I bet that portrait was taken on a 5D', I was right 95% of the time Sure, I appreciate that the odds were stacked in my favour, given that the 5D was used by the majority of people who like to/are paid to take portraits, but I almost never got it wrong. Something about the skin quality in direct light
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
This isn't the first time I'm hearing the "Canon makes nicer skin tones" thing. Someone I know insisted that the 6d gave MUCH nicer skintones than any other camera she's ever used or seen and insisted that any wedding photographer worth their salt would definitely be using one, and promptly traded all of her Nikon gear for a ... 600d with a kit lens. For the skin tones maaaaan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
Apparently the iFCL module also captures infrared to decide what red dominant areas in the image may be skin and which not, and does some color grading accordingly. I forgot whether it applies to JPEGs only or if it touches up the RAWs, too. From what I read here, I'd say no to the RAWs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 11:37
|
|
|
If you are adamant that whatever sensor you are using lacks a certain tone, can't you simply then just automate Lightroom to add said tone when importing your raw files?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:If you are adamant that whatever sensor you are using lacks a certain tone, can't you simply then just automate Lightroom to add said tone when importing your raw files? lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
spog posted:When the Canon 5D was The poo poo, I had a good hit rate of spotting images taken by it. Also, it was one of the first full-frame cameras widely available. The shallow depth of field is pretty distinctive as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Anybody who's shot the D7100 and the D7000 care to weigh in on the differences? My D90 is starting to show its age. I'm fairly sure that the 7100 is the better pick right now but internet reading has muddied the waters as usual. At the very least I'm sure that I want to stick with crop rather than full frame. Not looking to replace any glass right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Lightroom 6 may come out tomorrow or Wednesday who knows its probably a bullshit rumor but here you go anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
If it comes out, it'll probably prompt me to subscribe to the photographer pack on CC. As long as it has support for the D7200 out the box. But it's Adobe, so who knows. (And as a Mac user, they'll probably pull some bullshit like supporting it on Windows but make us wait for a few months.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Turns out it did come out, installing it on CC now. It has GPU acceleration which is awesome. Bad news is if you disable it, LR becomes unusable, apparently. EDIT 2: Got it working, driver just needed updating, dear god this is nice. Develop panel has never been this fast before. iSheep fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
It seems like the developing works through the new OpenGL pipeline all the time. If it falls back to the software renderer, due to problems or by choice, you're apparently poo poo out of luck, because it's slower than the old pipeline. Also, I have the new 35mm/1.4 Zeiss for the A7. Awesome lens, the non-linear focus-by-wire is weird as gently caress, tho. On the other hand, small manual adjustments are easier and more precise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Sony has the best implementation of focus-by-wire I've used so far, though I wouldn't mind it being able to detect if I want small precise movements or quick shifts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:27 |
|
|
I hate Sony's implementation of focus by wire. The speed sensitive thing makes it a bitch to consistently pull focus. I way prefer the focus by wire on Panasonic's stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 04:38
|
|