|
Crack posted:Of course with used pentax that big weather sealing advantage is also a disadvantage as the slightest off-smell will make me suspicious of the previous owner taking (golden) showers with it to share with the internet. If that's even at the very back of my mind I'm not going to take as many photos. I went through 5 used Pentax bodies that reeked of piss before I gave up on weather sealing and got a Nikon, so yeah, this is a legit concern. There must be a golden shower forum out there recommending pentaxes.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
Dren posted:I went through 5 used Pentax bodies that reeked of piss before I gave up on weather sealing and got a Nikon, so yeah, this is a legit concern. There must be a golden shower forum out there recommending pentaxes. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Crack posted:Of course with used pentax that big weather sealing advantage is also a disadvantage as the slightest off-smell will make me suspicious of the previous owner taking (golden) showers with it to share with the internet. If that's even at the very back of my mind I'm not going to take as many photos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUz9xCTOPRw&t=18s
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Golluk posted:Seems to be a bit of an older camera, but any thoughts on this for a general use, first time DSLR? Seems to be the same price as a used T5i. The 7D in the first link is a great camera for the price. The only downsides, and they are minor, are that it might be too much for a beginner and the included lens is a bit long for general purpose shooting. The upside is that there will be plenty of room to grow and you won't find yourself significantly limited by the camera anytime soon. The rebel in the second link is fine if you want to dip your toe in and see if photography is for you without spending any real money. It is really stripped down and if you do find out that you like photography, you'll probably be selling it off pretty quickly in order to upgrade. That price is about what to expect, maybe even a touch high, since its an older budget dslr. Honestly though, if you've got a little bit of money and you're pretty sure you're interested in photography, I'd get something better. I'm seeing 50D's for about $300 or even less on ebay and I think you'd get a lot more out of that than the XS. A used 50D for about $300 + the forum's beloved Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 standard zoom for about $200 used and you'd be off and running.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Dren posted:I went through 5 used Pentax bodies that reeked of piss before I gave up on weather sealing and got a Nikon, so yeah, this is a legit concern. There must be a golden shower forum out there recommending pentaxes. Maybe all of those golden shower porno's are using Pentax cameras for their shoots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
HolyDukeNukem posted:Maybe all of those golden shower porno's are using Pentax cameras for their shoots. The in-body image stabilization is good enough to compensate for quite severe vibrations. Like from the furious wanking of the cameraman during key scenes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:The in-body image stabilization is good enough to compensate for quite severe vibrations. Like from the furious wanking of the cameraman during key scenes. I think Pentax is missing a key professional demographic by not investing more heavily in video capabilities in their cameras now. Plus it would be hilarious to see the craigslist ads in LA for "slightly used" cameras.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Dren posted:I went through 5 used Pentax bodies that reeked of piss before I gave up on weather sealing and got a Nikon, so yeah, this is a legit concern. There must be a golden shower forum out there recommending pentaxes. j/k guys I would never buy a used pisstax, I know better
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 09:04
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Dren posted:j/k guys I would never buy a used pisstax, I know better
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
So I went on vacation and shot 6500 pics over two weeks, distributed over DSLR, phone and a cheap underwater point&miss. I think I might have a problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
You absolutely have a problem: Why the gently caress did you take so few pictures? It's digital, you can just hold the button down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Keep that X button handy in Lightroom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
ABS - Always Be Stackin'
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Select all, delete.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
busfahrer posted:So I went on vacation and shot 6500 pics over two weeks, distributed over DSLR, phone and a cheap underwater point&miss. That's a picture every 3 minutes, 24 hours a day, for 2 weeks. Did you do anything while you were on vacation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Next time just put a GoPro on your head and record every moment, decide later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
huhu posted:That's a picture every 3 minutes, 24 hours a day, for 2 weeks. Did you do anything while you were on vacation? That ain't poo poo. There was a dude on the XXD forum on dpr a couple months ago who came back from a family camping trip (2 days) with 11k shots on his 7d2. eleven thousand. two days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:That ain't poo poo. There was a dude on the XXD forum on dpr a couple months ago who came back from a family camping trip (2 days) with 11k shots on his 7d2. eleven thousand. two days. XXD? Got a link?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
huhu posted:XXD? Got a link? The 10d-70d & 7d/7d2 forum - http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1019
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Depends on what you're shooting, but it's easy to shoot ridiculous amounts if you're into bird/nature photography or doing anything with macro rails. I just came back from a ~12 day trip with 24k shots, and that's after pruning a bunch in camera as I shot. Thank god for breeze browser.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:The in-body image stabilization is good enough to compensate for quite severe vibrations. Like from the furious wanking of the cameraman during key scenes. If you aren't into it golden shower cameraman has got to be one of the grimmest jobs. "have a rain poncho, good luck pal".
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
huhu posted:That's a picture every 3 minutes, 24 hours a day, for 2 weeks. Did you do anything while you were on vacation? Every 3 minutes? This is a time when overall averages are meaningless. Even a crapped-out second-hand DSLR built half a decade ago and carrying a memory card pulled from a cereal box can crank out better than 1 shot per second, or 180 times that silly average. 1000 photos a day with a reasonable camera can be accomplished without interrupting the conversation you're having with your spouse about how bad the food was last night.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
You guys sound like a blast to travel with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
huhu posted:That's a picture every 3 minutes, 24 hours a day, for 2 weeks. Did you do anything while you were on vacation? Yes, I did the same calculation! I didn't even bring my DSLR on some of the trips 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
huhu posted:You guys sound like a blast to travel with. My gf was slightly annoyed, but now she's glad we got good pics. The best part is to sit our friends down for the "only 10%!" slideshow with 600+ pics, and etiquette dictates that they can't leave.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
It's how I shoot too, mainly when travelling with the fiance and trying to balance it. If I'm snapping shots and I see she's no longer next to me, I get the message. I also only take the camera out on a few days, when there's stuff to be seen, or when we're with friends and I like to capture the day and get fun photos of people hanging out. All about balance, and when you can easily take a few hundred pictures in a day without trying sometimes, it's nice to not have a million things to then process when you get back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Currently I have a coolpix p7000. It has been nice for learning, manual controls for everything.. shoots in raw etc. I have mostly shot landscape, architecture, mushrooms\plants, night exposures. I haven't done much wildlife(it does seem appealing), no sports and very little portraitures. I am looking at upgrading for xmas. For a while I struggled between a d5100-5300 and a d7000. I have decided a d7000 would be a better choice. I will likely buy used\refurbished from Cameta\b&h\adorama. It looks like a refurbished d7000 can be had for $450 - 500 bucks. My upper budget is $700 leaving me $200-$250 for lenses. I was thinking of picking up a 35mm(should effectively be 50mm?) prime and perhaps an entry level telephoto(something in the 50 - 200/300mm) range. Does anyone have any recommendations on lens that would fit in my budget? I assume they will be used\refurbished from one the above vendors. Thanks for any guidance you can provide!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
This is a 'my first DSLR' kind of question, I guess. I've been trying to recalibrate my lenses using AF micro adjustment on my 5D2 (its bag took a bit of a spill.. everything still works fine but the fine focus was thrown off on the lenses that were in the bag). I seem to have gotten everything back into shape except that as I was comparing shots of this jury-rigged test target taken with my 100mm macro, I noticed that image quality was better when I was using live view - and seemingly not because LV focus is more accurate: Live view focus - 1/80 @ f/2.8:  AF module/mirror focus 1/80 @ f/2.8:  In both images the same areas are "in focus" - it's just that the second (taken with normal viewfinder AF) is softer. Is this due to vibrations from mirror flip-up? The images taken with my 35mm lens do not show the same level of discrepancy in image quality between VF and LV shots. Are telephotos more prone to this issue? Raising the shutter speed to 1/160 doesn't seem to help, and that's about as fast as I can go as it's night time here and I don't trust high ISO images from critical comparisons such as this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
murk posted:Currently I have a coolpix p7000. It has been nice for learning, manual controls for everything.. shoots in raw etc. I have mostly shot landscape, architecture, mushrooms\plants, night exposures. I haven't done much wildlife(it does seem appealing), no sports and very little portraitures. I am looking at upgrading for xmas. For a while I struggled between a d5100-5300 and a d7000. I have decided a d7000 would be a better choice. I will likely buy used\refurbished from Cameta\b&h\adorama. It looks like a refurbished d7000 can be had for $450 - 500 bucks. My upper budget is $700 leaving me $200-$250 for lenses. I was thinking of picking up a 35mm(should effectively be 50mm?) prime and perhaps an entry level telephoto(something in the 50 - 200/300mm) range. Does anyone have any recommendations on lens that would fit in my budget? I assume they will be used\refurbished from one the above vendors. Thanks for any guidance you can provide! I think a 35 and a 55-200 are probably good focal lengths to start out with if you're talking about a budget of $200-250 (and for the camera, I think you're right to look at a d7000 over the d5100 -- you'll enjoy have easier access to options and the motor in the body to drive AF in older lenses.). In the price range you're talking about for lenses, a used Nikon 35/1.8 and Nikon 55-200 probably come in around your budget and I think would be good choices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Is this due to vibrations from mirror flip-up? Yes and yes. Use the mirror lockup function to eliminate the vibration. Also, if it's the 100mm lens with IS, you should turn off IS if you're using a tripod.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:This is a 'my first DSLR' kind of question, I guess. I've been trying to recalibrate my lenses using AF micro adjustment on my 5D2 (its bag took a bit of a spill.. everything still works fine but the fine focus was thrown off on the lenses that were in the bag). I seem to have gotten everything back into shape except that as I was comparing shots of this jury-rigged test target taken with my 100mm macro, I noticed that image quality was better when I was using live view - and seemingly not because LV focus is more accurate:
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
murk posted:Currently I have a coolpix p7000. It has been nice for learning, manual controls for everything.. shoots in raw etc. I have mostly shot landscape, architecture, mushrooms\plants, night exposures. I haven't done much wildlife(it does seem appealing), no sports and very little portraitures. I am looking at upgrading for xmas. For a while I struggled between a d5100-5300 and a d7000. I have decided a d7000 would be a better choice. I will likely buy used\refurbished from Cameta\b&h\adorama. It looks like a refurbished d7000 can be had for $450 - 500 bucks. My upper budget is $700 leaving me $200-$250 for lenses. I was thinking of picking up a 35mm(should effectively be 50mm?) prime and perhaps an entry level telephoto(something in the 50 - 200/300mm) range. Does anyone have any recommendations on lens that would fit in my budget? I assume they will be used\refurbished from one the above vendors. Thanks for any guidance you can provide! With the stuff you're talking about shooting I don't see the need for a telephoto. I think you'd be happier with the 35 and an 18-55. The 18-55 gives some versatility you might appreciate and I can almost guarantee you'll use it more than the tele. If you really want a tele maybe wait a while and pick up the 55-300 or one of the 70-300 options. None of the consumer level teles are great but the 300s are better than the 200s and you'll maximize your reach/$$.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
Dren posted:With the stuff you're talking about shooting I don't see the need for a telephoto. I think you'd be happier with the 35 and an 18-55. The 18-55 gives some versatility you might appreciate and I can almost guarantee you'll use it more than the tele. If you really want a tele maybe wait a while and pick up the 55-300 or one of the 70-300 options. None of the consumer level teles are great but the 300s are better than the 200s and you'll maximize your reach/$$. I'm actually slightly ashamed that the stock 18-55 VR lens tends to be my walkabout for now, but the top end of 55 is a bit limited. Isn't the 18-105 and 18-140 variants essentially the same quality but with better reach? I'd probably go for one of those, they seem well liked. I might plump for one before I upgrade to more expensive glass in a similar range. e: although, with the 16-80 being released, it looks like second hand prices on the older 16-85 are now really rather good. About £200 ($300) for a 'Good' condition one on MPB. That's awfully tempting. EL BROMANCE fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
If you get a canon instead, the 55-250 STM is excellent for the price. It is included with some of them as a kit lens, but don't assume it's bad, it's quite good and very cheap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I'm actually slightly ashamed that the stock 18-55 VR lens tends to be my walkabout for now, but the top end of 55 is a bit limited. Isn't the 18-105 and 18-140 variants essentially the same quality but with better reach? I'd probably go for one of those, they seem well liked. I might plump for one before I upgrade to more expensive glass in a similar range. I don't have any experience with the 18-105 or 18-140 but so long as there is nothing glaringly wrong with them and they're not too much more expensive than the 18-55 then he should consider them too. The thing I was trying to convey is that with a 35 and a 55-200 he'll be missing a walkabout type lens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Nobody makes a bad Kit lens anymore, there's nothing to be ashamed about. I really wish I'd saved the article about that photojournalist who had all his poo poo confiscated at the border on an assignment, literally bought the most basic poo poo at the airport duty free then proceed to produce photographs virtually indistinguishable in quality from colleagues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
Dren posted:The thing I was trying to convey is that with a 35 and a 55-200 he'll be missing a walkabout type lens. Oh absolutely. I did used to use my 35/1.8 as a walkabout though, it's wide enough (even on DX) for most things and with a decent sensor you can crop around it. But yeah, having a decent but not super-zoom level focal range when you're in a situation with only one lens, and a mixture of shot types, is pretty essential.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Are you even shooting from a good tripod? Yeah, a decent one at least, with a big heavy ball head. So there shouldn't be any significant externally-induced vibration. I guess I'm just surprised at how much shake is produced by the camera itself here. I didn't have the light to do so yesterday, but now I will be trying out faster shutter speeds to see if I can get it to go away. I thought I was just poo poo at holding my camera still when all of my handheld photos taken with this lens were coming out soft. I guess there's more to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Nobody makes a bad Kit lens anymore, there's nothing to be ashamed about. 1. Absolutely agreed about the kit lenses. You want to see a bad lens? Find a used kit lens from the mid-90's, something with a now-rather-silly focal length range of 35-70mm and a variable maximum aperture that always forces a choice between "darkness" and "soft as a pillow", and autofocus that just wanders all over the place before settling on some stupidity in the background. 2. I really want to read that article! Do you remember any other details? I have some time today set aside for procrastination.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 14:37
|
|