|
ExecuDork posted:It's hard to say for sure, especially given my lack of experience with any of those lenses - I could be flat wrong, and that 16-300 might be a stellar performer. But that's not where I'd bet. Image quality at 300/6.3 looks like complete dogshit. Even the 150-600 at the long end blows it out of the water. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...omp=5&APIComp=0 IMO the only good superzooms are the 150-600s. There are just too many compromises to get a wide angle lens to work.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
Get the Tamron 70-300 VC USD, it's fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
For anyone who has a portable lighting setup--how are you protecting your bulbs? I really don't want a CFL bulb breaking in my bag. Should I get light cages for transport? Or should I just keep repacking them in their original retail boxes (since those have foam cut to the right shape)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Thanks all for the advice on the 70-300. I'm suppressing my momentary interest in the super-zoom, and will proceed with my initial plan of the Tamron 70-300.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
superzooms are superbad and for superidiots
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:superzooms are superbad and for superidiots They are fine for document your experiences as a tourist, where photo quality is not the prime concern, if you don't want to drag around several lenses and/or not interested in spending the big bux on photography equipment. I would argue that you are better served with a smaller camera if image quality is of such small concern.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:For anyone who has a portable lighting setup--how are you protecting your bulbs? I really don't want a CFL bulb breaking in my bag. Should I get light cages for transport? Or should I just keep repacking them in their original retail boxes (since those have foam cut to the right shape)? My Paul C Buff lights come with a hard plastic bulb cover, and a carrying case. Without those, I'd have had many broken bulbs. What sort of stuff do you have?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
thetzar posted:My Paul C Buff lights come with a hard plastic bulb cover, and a carrying case. Without those, I'd have had many broken bulbs. What sort of stuff do you have? I got this super cheap kit because I needed something last minute to take a Christmas card photo. The lights aren't that bright, but alongside my flash they made an enormous difference in the photos I took yesterday. (of course, the photos I took were only tests to get the lighting right, and right before I went to take the actual shot, my cat knocked over the mini light. It turns out that when you break a giant CFL bulb, you get an ungodly amount of glass to clean up. After an hour (and half a roll of duct tape), I decided to put off the photo for another night)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
I dug out my grandfather's old Canon AE-1 with a 50mm f/1.8 lens and they look like it's in pretty good shape. It looks like I'll need a new battery, but that should be easy to find. What kind of film should I grab to try it out?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
surrender posted:I dug out my grandfather's old Canon AE-1 with a 50mm f/1.8 lens and they look like it's in pretty good shape. It looks like I'll need a new battery, but that should be easy to find. What kind of film should I grab to try it out? portra 400
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Tri x Hp5 Portra Ektar Provia Velvia Astia Tmax Delta 3200 Fomapan Basically all of them
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
If you want to just try it out before dumping a lot of money into film you can still pick up Kodak gold or similar for cheap. something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-6033971-Gold-Purple-Yellow/dp/B002WQW8R8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1450403820&sr=8-2&keywords=kodak+gold
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks for the advice. I'll grab a cheap roll from Walmart just to make sure that the camera works, but then I'll get some Portra.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
How do groups on flickr work? I had one of my photos invited to 4 and I accepted but thats all I've actually done with groups. Do people with like 30 groups on every photo get invited to all of them? Do you have to post them there yourself? Looks like you have to do each group individually for each photo, and even dudes like Deaders do it, but it sounds like so much effort.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:How do groups on flickr work? I had one of my photos invited to 4 and I accepted but thats all I've actually done with groups. I just discovered, if you're already a part of a group, when you upload a photo, you can pull up a list of all your groups and click which groups you'd like to send your photos to. As for the worth of them? I feel like unless you can find some group where critique and such are actually accepted (I haven't) rather than everyone screaming YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND MY ART, they're not worth much beyond that. YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
All I know is if your photo gets explored don't be nice and accept any group invites other than "Explored" because some of those stupid loving things automatically disqualify the photo from being explored. edit: im not bitter or anything tho
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
What do you mean explored?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:What do you mean explored? https://www.flickr.com/explore Your photo gets selected by the Flickr algorithm and put here for everyone to browse. You get a crazy number of views, my shots usually get around 500ish, but if they're explored they get around 10000 views. I put mine in a bunch of groups I'm part of, mainly they're groups for a particular camera or film type, which I tend to browse to get an idea of what that film/camera can produce. I don't put them in the broad groups as I don't ever tend to look at them, and they'd just get lost in the sea of photos dumped into them. RangerScum posted:All I know is if your photo gets explored don't be nice and accept any group invites other than "Explored" because some of those stupid loving things automatically disqualify the photo from being explored. This is also true, I read the disclaimer for those groups before accepting the first time around and avoided this mistake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
I get a handful of views for most of my Flickr pics (I mainly use it for myself rather than to get followers or anything), but anything I put up from Fantasy Fest gets thousands of views. Well the jokes on you pervs, I hide all the titty shots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:All I know is if your photo gets explored don't be nice and accept any group invites other than "Explored" because some of those stupid loving things automatically disqualify the photo from being explored. What do you mean? I accepted the "in explore" group invite one time and it didn't kick my photo out of explore or anything
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
He means the other ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
My girlfriend has a new job processing, reconstructing and preserving a medium sized collection of Mesoamerican artifacts, mostly Olmec stuff. She's an archaeologist and has the technical aspects of the job down, but I'm encouraging her to make presentable, pop-em-straight-in-the-database photographs of each piece as they're done. Can anyone suggest any books, articles, or blogs about documentary photography of ancient artifacts? She knows all the light-chemical interactions so that won't be an issue, it's more that she tends to take bad photos, heh. Any help would be appreciated. Tricerapowerbottom fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:My girlfriend has a new job processing, reconstructing and preserving a medium sized collection of Mesoamerican artifacts, mostly Olmec stuff. She's an archaeologist and has the technical aspects of the job down, but I'm encouraging her to make presentable, pop-em-straight-in-the-database photographs of each piece as they're done. There is probably a lot of overlap between this and product photography if you are looking for photos that show all of an item's features in clear detail while still being aesthetically pleasing. If you google that, you will find a wealth of blogs and videos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Is there any ways to improve shutter speed, without having to sacrifice DOF / ISO? So obviously getting a better sensor would help, but as far as I can figure out if terms of lenses, even if I were to get a huge F4.0 or F2.8 lens, I would be sacrificing DOF for the increase in light yield. And if I then went to F8 or F9 with a 30cm diameter lens, effectively I would still need the same iso settings as with a 7cm diameters lens @ F8, assuming same focal length. Since the true area (in terms of admitted light) only depends on the focal length + aperture, and DOF depends on aperture diameter. Am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Ika posted:Is there any ways to improve shutter speed, without having to sacrifice DOF / ISO? Add more light
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Add more light Ok, so options besides doing the opposite of a rain dance, to make the overcast sky clear up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
I would get used to shooting a bit underexposed in favor of higher shutter speed and then just bringing your exposure up in post (shoot in RAW). Otherwise use a tripod or buy a flash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
I'll give underexposing the photos a try, flash isn't an option, since I'm shooting running animals @ 450mm (1.5 crop). I had hoped there was something I missed and could watch for when I pick up a new lens. I am planning on picking up a 150-600mm lens next but if the nikon 200-500mm lens would have had more light it would have been worth considering.
Ika fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Ika posted:I'll give underexposing the photos a try, flash isn't an option, since I'm shooting running animals @ 450mm. I had hoped there was something I missed and could watch for when I pick up a new lens. A lens with VC would help make slower shutter speeds more tolerable as well if that's the kind of stuff you're shooting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:A lens with VC would help make slower shutter speeds more tolerable as well if that's the kind of stuff you're shooting. Hasn't helped, since the legs + tail still are visibly blurred. Even half year old cheetahs are really fast. E: lemme upload a pic from today, maybe I'm doing something else wrong (besides missing half the cat's head). E2: 1/800s, iso 3.2k, f/7.1, VR on, partial crop and 33% size. 
Ika fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Ika posted:I'll give underexposing the photos a try, flash isn't an option, since I'm shooting running animals @ 450mm (1.5 crop). I had hoped there was something I missed and could watch for when I pick up a new lens. I am planning on picking up a 150-600mm lens next but if the nikon 200-500mm lens would have had more light it would have been worth considering. You're going to get the same amount of noise by under exposing and pushing in post as you would by just turning up the ISO in the first place. I wasn't trying to be a smart rear end - the only way to get a higher shutter speed without sacrificing noise or dof is more light Edit: look up the better beamer - you can get a few extra stops out of a flash for narrow fov with one of those , provided it's an animal that you're not going to be stressing out and mentally harming by using flash. Not sure about cheetahs but you can probably find info online timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Alright, thanks. What's the point of the 30k 30, 40cm lenses then, just better sharpness, less aberration, larger max Fstop?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Ika posted:Alright, thanks. What's the point of the 30k 30, 40cm lenses then, just better sharpness, less aberration, larger max Fstop? Super high IQ & huge aperture yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Well, the good news is that the best course of action is to get a full sensor camera at some point, instead of figuring out whether I should be getting something other than the 150-600mm lens as my next lens. So I can stick with my plan of lens now (since my current lens wouldn't be enough zoom for full format, and I don't want to buy both things at once) and get a new camera in a year or two, hopefully with even more sensor advances.
Ika fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Why are you worrying about DOF? You can use http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html to figure it out, but the DOF at telezoom ranges are usually quite wide. The photo you've supply just looks to me like you missed focus a bit; nothing is really sharp. e: A faster lens is what you want for wildlife - you want the most light possible so you can freeze motion without compromising too much on the ISO side of things. Rely on your skills/the camera's AF to keep things in focus, rather than shooting with a narrower aperture. rawrr fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
rawrr posted:Why are you worrying about DOF? You can use http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html to figure it out, but the DOF at telezoom ranges are usually quite wide. Hmm, the front paws looked much worse than the back to me, maybe I misjudged it. I've been having a hard time hitting the focus well with the sudden bouts of unpredictable movement. As for DOF: Most of the time two or more are chasing each other or running side by side, and I don't like having one look sharp and the second one which is a foot or two closer / further away from me appear blurry, looks really distracting. E: The focus speed is the main reason I can't make up my mind between the sigma C and S versions of the 150-600. Ika fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
If you plug numbers into the calculator linked above, you'll see that the DOF at telezoom distances is usually around a few feet even at f/2.8. It could just be that your current lens is soft, or it could be not hitting focus.
rawrr fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Ika posted:Well, the good news is that the best course of action is to get a full sensor camera at some point, instead of figuring out whether I should be getting something other than the 150-600mm lens as my next lens. So I can stick with my plan of lens now (since my current lens wouldn't be enough zoom for full format, and I don't want to buy both things at once) and get a new camera in a year or two, hopefully with even more sensor advances. The larger the sensor, the shallower the depth of focus, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
rawrr posted:If you plug numbers into the calculator linked above, you'll see that the DOF at telezoom distances is usually around a few feet even at f/2.8. It could just be that your current lens is soft, or it could be not hitting focus. I did notice that if I were just a bit further away it jumps up massively, so maybe that is something to consider. torgeaux posted:The larger the sensor, the shallower the depth of focus, not the other way around. Ok, I didn't know that. It should be more sensitive, allowing me to go to higher F stop or better shutter speed though, right? E: I never thought about it before, but that naturally explains why the point+shoots never have much of an issue with DOF, since they have such tiny sensors. Ika fucked around with this message at 10:07 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
Ika posted:Ok, I didn't know that. It should be more sensitive, allowing me to go to higher F stop or better shutter speed though, right? Ika posted:E: I never thought about it before, but that naturally explains why the point+shoots never have much of an issue with DOF, since they have such tiny sensors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:50
|
|