|
everythingWasBees posted:So I found the FE2 I learned on, as well as the lens I used. I'd like to keep the lens for when I get a DSLR, but it's a bit beat up. Noticeably there's a dent from when it fell, that impedes the ability of the lens to slide. Is this something you can get fixed? Is it even worth getting this lens fixed rather than buying a new one? I wouldn't bother with it. Lenses like that are a dime a dozen, almost literally.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:I'm looking for some sort of all-purpose lens (Tamron 16-300?) and a macro lens for a Canon camera, as well as a camera bag that will fit a Canon 7Dmk2, those two lenses, and if possible the Sigma 150-600. What do you people like? Budget for all of it is $2k, I could go higher if it's worth it. The Canon EF 100mm f2.8 macro lens is stellar and gives an extreme price/performance ratio. (The 100mm L F2.8 Macro with IS is also amazing but in a different price class) Are you going to do macro shots or portraits etc? The 100mm will be 160mm on your 7Dmk2 so consider what you will use it for before getting what is essentially a 160mm prime, i.e. a lens that only really works for portait if you have plenty of space. There is a Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens which might fit better for a crop camera but i have not used that one and don't know how good it is. I used my Canon 100mm on my crop camera as a portrait lens and had to get the canon 70-200 F2.8 IS to match the performance once i upgraded to full frame. There are plenty of 16ish to -200-300ish lenses. None of them are very good, but at least they are versatile. Get one with IS. Why do you want a 16-300 lens when you already have a 150-600? Have you considered going for one of the slighly less all-purpose lenses from Sigma's ART series, e.g the 24-105 F4.0 ? Or the 18-35 F2.0 crop lens? You don't HAVE to cover every single focal length. As far as bags go this isn't the answer you want but you simply have to try a bunch of them. A bag that is comfortable on one guy is horrible to wear for the next guy. Additionally, everyone has their own goals and desires for camera bags. Some wants to bring 3 lenses, a flash, a tripod, 2 backup batteries and a bottle of water. Others bring less. Personally i use Canon's EOS bag, it was dirt cheap and is very comfortable to wear. It is extremely easy to get the camera out of the bag and start using it. It has exactly enough room for my Canon 6D with the 70-200mm F2.8, and no more. I bring only 1 lens when i go out to take photos (which is where personal preference comes in) Ineptitude fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
60mm macro is a nice lens, but you have to get really close with it. So depending what you want to do macro of it could be good or bad (stamps, great. Insects? Maybe not so great) Sigmas 105 & 150mm OS Macro lenses are both really good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:60mm macro is a nice lens, but you have to get really close with it. So depending what you want to do macro of it could be good or bad (stamps, great. Insects? Maybe not so great) I used to use a Nikon 40mm Micro Nikkor as a general walk-around lens for a long time on my DX bodies. It was amazingly sharp for general purpose shots and when I wanted to get really close to something I was able to. I don't think I'd want to do the same with my 105mm Micro Nikkor because that poo poo's heavy. What I'm trying to say is that one should consider the possible other uses of a lens as well. Unless, of course, it's only going to be used for one specific task/purpose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
The 60mm macro rarely leaves my bag, partly because it's sealed, partly also because it is incredibly light. 6.5oz is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:I'm looking for some sort of all-purpose lens (Tamron 16-300?) and a macro lens for a Canon camera, as well as a camera bag that will fit a Canon 7Dmk2, those two lenses, and if possible the Sigma 150-600. What do you people like? Budget for all of it is $2k, I could go higher if it's worth it. Just stick with the EFS 18-135 STM for a general zoom. Its miles ahead of the first version and good enough unless you plan on going full frame. Macro can be had on the cheap by putting extension tubes behind a 40mm pancake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
All good suggestions, I think the 18-135 is what I'm looking for in one lens to stick on my camera when I don't want to take a bag with me, that's not going to look terrible at either end. The idea to get a macro lens came up after a hiking trip, and if a larger focal length would be better for that, I'll have to look into the 100mm. Edit: For the EFS 18-135, what options are there if I limited myself to EF lenses? I almost bought a full frame body when I got my 7Dmk2, but didn't want to spend the money replacing all of my lenses, and instead I'm planning on buying full frame lenses that are compatible with my current body, unless that's a terrible idea. Drunk Badger fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Aug 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:All good suggestions, I think the 18-135 is what I'm looking for in one lens to stick on my camera when I don't want to take a bag with me, that's not going to look terrible at either end. The problem if you go to FF lenses, is that they won't be very wide. So the range is less useful on crop. Most of them start at 24 or 28mm, which is slightly wide -> normal on a crop sensor, as opposed to the crop zooms that start @ 16-18mm , making them a true wide angle. To do that coverage with FF lenses, means getting like a 16-35 & a 24-105, which is getting a bit more expensive than an 18-135 crop zoom would be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
I wasn't sure where to post this. So I lost my tripod mount (part number pmu50) and of course I lose it the day before I go on my Montana trip. Now usually I'd just buy another one if that happened but my friend lives in BFE and I REALLY want to use my tripod. I checked MeFotos website and they don't have any authorized dealers in Montana  Is there a reasonable way to get one ASAP?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Isn't it just an Arca-style plate? Any camera shop should have one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Sweet! Well, hopefully I find a camera store in loving whitefish, Montana LOL. Middle of nowhere 😐
somnambulist fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Nah, that's the beauty of arca swiss plates. Lotsa heads use them. As long as it's arca style it should work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Sweet! Well, hopefully I find a camera store in loving whitefish, Montana LOL. Middle of nowhere 😐 Kalispell is a fairly well serviced town. I mean 90% of everything there revolves around fishing, hunting, cherries, or boats but there's gotta be a camera shop in there somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Yeah, a hunting/sporting supply store should have something useful. They should have tripod mounts in their optics section for telescopes and spotting scopes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Sweet! Well, hopefully I find a camera store in loving whitefish, Montana LOL. Middle of nowhere 😐 Kalispell is right down the road but unfortunately there doesn't appear to be a full service photo store there. The only photo-related store appears to be primarily a lab/studio, Photo Video Plus. Where does your friend live? Where are you flying into? Do you mind taking a drive down to Missoula (it'll be a 2.5 hour drive from Kalispell)? Missoula and Bozeman would be much better places to buy stuff, but you might be better off ordering something online and having it delivered overnight via Fedex to your friend's place. Here's a list of MT dealers. Good luck. http://www.photographypros.com/equipment/montana.php
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
I'm planning to get circular polarizing filter(s) for my lenses and have the following options: buy one filter for each of my lens thread sizes (82mm and 77mm) or just buy a 82mm filter and get a 82-to-77 adapter. Is the filter+adapter solution good enough or will it get me into trouble under some circumstances?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Caryna posted:Is the filter+adapter solution good enough or will it get me into trouble under some circumstances? Filter+adapter should work. Main thing is if your 77mm lenses have hoods that clip on to the end of the lens (pre-filter), you won't be able to use the hood at the same time as the 77 to 82 step-up filter. However, using a clip on hood with a polarizer is usually impractical anyway since the hood impairs your ability to adjust the polarizer while looking through the viewfinder. Step-up rings are cheap, so if anything start with the 82mm polarizer + step-up ring setup. If you find that doesn't work for you, you can always buy a 77mm polarizer later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Kalispell is a fairly well serviced town. I mean 90% of everything there revolves around fishing, hunting, cherries, or boats but there's gotta be a camera shop in there somewhere. If you aren't mounting a particularly heavy lens, you probably don't even need a complete dovetail plate. You could probably scrounge a block of scrap aluminum that's the right width, drill a through hole with a countersink for a 1/4-20 screw, and clamp it in the tripod head.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Just buy the biggest circular polarizer that you can find.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
I got robbed a few weeks back and my D80 with Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 was taken. I'm still waiting on the valuation I get from insurance but in the mean time I'm thinking that now that I only have one Nikon mount lens (28mm f/2.8) maybe I should look at mirrorless? I mainly take photos when I'm travelling and don't actually tend to change lens' much. What are the pros and cons of mirrorless vs. DSLR? Are there any Nikon mount mirrorless systems? Are mirrorless lens as good as DSLR lens? Anything else I need to consider?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Red_Fred posted:I got robbed a few weeks back and my D80 with Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 was taken. I'm still waiting on the valuation I get from insurance but in the mean time I'm thinking that now that I only have one Nikon mount lens (28mm f/2.8) maybe I should look at mirrorless? I mainly take photos when I'm travelling and don't actually tend to change lens' much. What are the pros and cons of mirrorless vs. DSLR? Are there any Nikon mount mirrorless systems? Are mirrorless lens as good as DSLR lens? Anything else I need to consider? Nikon has the 1 series, but it's pretty laughable. Its native sensor size is something that can be found in compact cameras (sony's rx100/rx10 series), with a majority of those performing worse than their compact counterparts. The best application that I've seen for them is for birdwatching because of their pretty absurd crop factor (x2.7?) If you're looking for a travel camera, I definitely think mirrorless is the way to go. They offer exactly the same image quality (from dynamic range to ISO performance) in a more compact package. The downsides are less developed system due to the their relatively recent emergence, lesser battery life (pretty easy to carry more), and reliance on electronic viewfinder (this one is debatable). However the lens selection for fujifilm and micro 43 are quite robust and are of high quality. Micro 43 (2x crop) is more compact vs fujifilm's aps-c(1.5x crop) I think if you were to go the mirrorless route, the best bodies I think for you to get would be either fujifilm's xt-1 (more rugged/better evf/more controls) or xt-10 (less expensive/smaller/same image quality) with the 18-55mm f2.8-4 lens. The 35mm f1.4 is highly regarded and is discounted pretty heavily right now as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Yeah mirrorless systems are phenomenal for travel. I've taken my OMD all over the world, and having bodies and lenses that weigh so much less than their DSLR counterparts is an enormous help.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Yeah mirrorless systems are phenomenal for travel. I've taken my OMD all over the world, and having bodies and lenses that weigh so much less than their DSLR counterparts is an enormous help. I agree. Once you get to mirrorless, you'll wonder why and how you used to drag that boat anchor of a camera around everywhere. The technology has come far enough that you'll be good whether you get a m43, Fuji or Sony system. DSLRs are still better in some ways, but mirrorless cameras are quickly closing the gaps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
The only problem with mirrorless is that there aren't that many high-quality pancake or collapsing lenses around. There are a few but your total selection is probably less than a dozen. If you want fast zooms, long reach, or super fast primes you will probably end up with a bulky lens. I'm a big fan of the cheapo Sigma 30+19mm f/2.8 pancake set for its cost and size. I want a digital version of my XA for travel and glovebox duty. One of these days I am going to break down and buy an X100. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
What do you think about the Ricoh GR?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
I have a GR and love it. The autofocus is pokey, but I've learned to work around it. The lens is super sharp and the controls are great for one handed use. It's the perfect always camera for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What do you think about the Ricoh GR? Very good if you love that focal length.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What do you think about the Ricoh GR? My impression is a lot the same as the Epson R-D1 - they're a Japanese camera that is less common in the US markets and kinda culty. The optics are good but overall it costs as much money as an X100 and given the choice the X100 is a better camera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The only problem with mirrorless is that there aren't that many high-quality pancake or collapsing lenses around. There are a few but your total selection is probably less than a dozen. If you want fast zooms, long reach, or super fast primes you will probably end up with a bulky lens. I'm a big fan of the cheapo Sigma 30+19mm f/2.8 pancake set for its cost and size. It's sounding like mirrorless is going to work for me. However I did look at the Fujifilm X lenses and holy poo poo they are expensive compared to the Nikon equivalents. First glance says they are quality though, is that the case? Are the XC good? Does Sigma/Tamron/etc make lenses for that mount?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Red_Fred posted:First glance says they are quality though, is that the case? Red_Fred posted:Are the XC good? Red_Fred posted:Does Sigma/Tamron/etc make lenses for that mount? Edit: I just unloaded all of my DSLR gear last month and picked up a Fuji mirrorless for my trip next month. Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Aug 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
I'm looking for a camera to take to SE Asia this Christmas (dry season) and then Antarctica next Christmas. I had a crummy $100 P&S for a few years, then just used my various smartphones due to ease of carry, and now I think I'd like to upgrade to a nicer camera. The stuff I'm taking with my phone just kinda sucks unless conditions are perfect, and even then the zoom is obviously limited to digital and the detail in photographed subjects is lacking. I'm currently looking at the Canon G16. It's pretty much at the top of what I'd like to pay at $400, but seems to compare to a lot of other higher-priced cameras. From what I've read, it also seems to handle inclement weather better than its competitors. I imagine my general photos will comprise of the following: landscapes, architecture, wildlife (some in action). All of those would be in varying levels of light, but all likely too far to be affected by the flash of the camera. I'm also a complete buffoon when it comes to photography; I'm excellent at capturing awful-looking grainy photos in low light conditions. However, I learn things pretty quick so I could easily read a book and become greater than complete buffoon. That would definitely happen if I spent a few hundred on a camera. The one thing that would hold me back from buying the camera is that I've never really dug carrying the extra weight/bulk in my pocket. I'd really like something small and slim if anybody can propose alternatives. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
Blinkman987 posted:I'm currently looking at the Canon G16. It's pretty much at the top of what I'd like to pay at $400, but seems to compare to a lot of other higher-priced cameras. From what I've read, it also seems to handle inclement weather better than its competitors. I imagine my general photos will comprise of the following: landscapes, architecture, wildlife (some in action). All of those would be in varying levels of light, but all likely too far to be affected by the flash of the camera. If you're willing to buy used, I feel like getting an Sony rx100 would be a much better bet. It's significantly smaller than the G16, and has significantly better image quality. It also has a wider aperture lens and better ISO performance so shots in dark places should be a lot better as well, just remember to shoot dark photos at the widest focal length.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:My impression is a lot the same as the Epson R-D1 - they're a Japanese camera that is less common in the US markets and kinda culty. The optics are good but overall it costs as much money as an X100 and given the choice the X100 is a better camera. I rented both a few times before buying and I preferred the GR to the X100. The X100 is in a totally different size class IMO. The GR is the same size as compact point and shoots like the RX100. Also, they're under $400 used now so it may be a bit cheaper if you find a good deal. This would probably be a controversial opinion, but I also liked the GR's handling better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
getsuga posted:If you're willing to buy used, I feel like getting an Sony rx100 would be a much better bet. It's significantly smaller than the G16, and has significantly better image quality. It also has a wider aperture lens and better ISO performance so shots in dark places should be a lot better as well, just remember to shoot dark photos at the widest focal length. Agreed, an RX will be better than a G16 in nearly any circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Tonight I am listening to the thread title and am buying a Pentax ME. Pretty excited about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Red_Fred posted:However I did look at the Fujifilm X lenses and holy poo poo they are expensive compared to the Nikon equivalents. What are you comparing against? Fuji lenses aren't cheap because they mostly make high quality, fast lenses and not as many slow, variable aperture kit zooms but the lenses they make are all significantly cheaper than the equivalent lens from Canon and Nikon. $900 seems like a lot for a 56mm f1.2 but its less than half the cost of the Canon 85mm f1.2 at $2000. The Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 is normally $1200, which is expensive to be sure but its still much cheaper than the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 at a little over $1700. Good lenses are expensive but with mirrorless you can still save a decent amount of money (and weight) on good glass for similar focal lengths and apertures. The major downside to buying in to Fuji right now is that there isn't really third party support and the used market, at least for lenses, is pretty anemic. They're really cool camera's though!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Fred Miranda has shitloads of Fuji gear up there all the time, though it goes fast. Look there if you need some used gear. I just got a used 18-55 Fuji and hooooly poo poo does it not feel like a kit lens. It's just in a completely different class of lens compared to a Nikon 18-55 3.5-5.6 or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
getsuga posted:If you're willing to buy used, I feel like getting an Sony rx100 would be a much better bet. It's significantly smaller than the G16, and has significantly better image quality. It also has a wider aperture lens and better ISO performance so shots in dark places should be a lot better as well, just remember to shoot dark photos at the widest focal length. Thanks. I'm seriously considering doing that. There's a local "gently used" one on Craigslist for $350. Best Buy has them new for $450. I saw BH has used ones selling for as low as $275. Anything I should be looking at in a used one before buying? Blinkman987 fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Aug 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Ask yourself if you want a viewfinder, and how much fancy video features mean to you. If they mean something, go with an RX100III or IV, if they don't, go with an OG model.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:What are you comparing against? Fuji lenses aren't cheap because they mostly make high quality, fast lenses and not as many slow, variable aperture kit zooms but the lenses they make are all significantly cheaper than the equivalent lens from Canon and Nikon. $900 seems like a lot for a 56mm f1.2 but its less than half the cost of the Canon 85mm f1.2 at $2000. The Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 is normally $1200, which is expensive to be sure but its still much cheaper than the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 at a little over $1700. Good lenses are expensive but with mirrorless you can still save a decent amount of money (and weight) on good glass for similar focal lengths and apertures. The major downside to buying in to Fuji right now is that there isn't really third party support and the used market, at least for lenses, is pretty anemic. They're really cool camera's though! To be fair I was more comparing it to the 3rd party lenses which isn't really a direct comparison. Is there a chance that the 3rd party brands would start to make lens for X mount in the future? Is there a risk of the X mount being abandoned in the future? Sorry if that is a silly question but that is not really something to ever worry about with say the Nikon F mount so I've never really thought about that before. I've always had this notion in my head that the kit lenses are generally garbage as that is often the case with DSLRs. Which of the variable aperture X mount lenses are a good starting point?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 22:32
|
|