|
Yeah you're going to be asking a lot of any lens/body combination. Sports on a mirrorless body is still a very tough proposition in most cases. Pop on over to the sports thread, I know we have a few people there who have shot boxing, wrestling and MMA and they can probably give you a better idea of things.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
What do you mean that I can't have it all on a mirrorless DSLR??  I'll head on over to that thread and ask them. Merci. melon cat fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Bang3r has done some spectacular pro wrestling pictures in there, he can give you some good pointers since the ring and lighting setup is likely pretty similar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
melon cat posted:In case I do decide to go with a fast prime lens instead (again, it'd be for video + photos) could I do any better than this 35mm f/1.8? I already have a T* FE 55mm f/1.8, and while it worked well with the weird lighting I found it really hard to get a good shot with constantly moving action (had to keep re-maneuvering myself in to keep the fighters in-frame). There's a FE 35/1.4 as well, or you could get a Sigma 35/1.4 in A-mount and adapt it to E-mount. I would really want something like an A6000 with PDAF if you really insist on shooting this on mirrorless. The PDAF on the newer models is lightyears ahead of the CDAF on the early models. If you're not going to use a DSLR you might almost be better off manual focusing and going with a Samyang 35/1.4 depending on just how bad the lighting is. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Hey guys, I'm looking for a new "standard camera" for work (that everyone can use and we can buy several of). Manual controls (including manual focus), excellent close focus ability and a decent auto mode are requirements. I don't care so much about low light performance or huge zoom range (24-70mm is fine). Budget is around £350. Historically I've always used the Lumix LX7 which met those criteria brilliantly, but it's an old model which is getting hard to find these days. I'd be perfectly happy with buying more if they were available, but it's been completely replaced by the much more expensive LX100. I'd give the Nikon DL24-85 a go, if only it were £200 cheaper. Does anyone have any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
If you don't care about low-light performance then get a used Nikon D200 or a Canon 40D or something, and a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC. If you need closer focus than ~1 ft, figure in a Micro-Nikkor AI-S 50 f/2.8 or f/3.5 as well.
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Aug 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There's a FE 35/1.4 as well, or you could get a Sigma 35/1.4 in A-mount and adapt it to E-mount. Funny that you mentioned the A6000- the A6300 is in my Amazon wish list. I never considered the Sigma 35/1.4, but from what I'm reading online it'd really help out with low-light shooting! So thanks for suggesting it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Caryna posted:As mentioned before, the newer Godox (or whatever your local rebranded name is, for example the Godox TT685 is Adorama's Flashpoint Zoom R2 TTL) have proper radio triggers built-in, which means the flashes do not need extra receivers and because they are true radio trigger systems they also don't give a gently caress about line-of-sight. All you need is the X1 transmitter on your camera ($40 or $50 or less) or another flash unit set as transmitter. It's really easy. I went and got the Godox 860 with the X1 and I'm still learning how all the modes work but I have a question. I was just loving around with the camera in one hand and the flash in the other and it seems like the flash won't fire depending on where I'm holding it. I haven't been able to figure out any pattern to this. It should be in radio mode so line of sight shouldn't be a problem. Any ideas as to why? It's bugging the poo poo out of me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Bromine posted:I went and got the Godox 860 with the X1 and I'm still learning how all the modes work but I have a question. I was just loving around with the camera in one hand and the flash in the other and it seems like the flash won't fire depending on where I'm holding it. I haven't been able to figure out any pattern to this. It should be in radio mode so line of sight shouldn't be a problem. Any ideas as to why? It's bugging the poo poo out of me. You need to get the 860II if you want to have radio trigger. The old 860 doesn't have the 2.4GHz system build-in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Caryna posted:You need to get the 860II if you want to have radio trigger. The old 860 doesn't have the 2.4GHz system build-in. I have the 860II N. It works most times, just about 20% of the time it doesn't fire. I'm pretty sure it's not recycling or anything. It seems to be related to how I'm holding them in relation to each other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Bang3r has done some spectacular pro wrestling pictures in there, he can give you some good pointers since the ring and lighting setup is likely pretty similar. getting name dropped like a bomb. My tips for ringside sport type things are as follows: - Have a camera that can handle high ISO (I start at 3200 and go from there with my 5D3 and my company has a great lighting setup also this is so I can hit shutter speeds of 1000 and up) - Have a lens that goes to 2.8 at a minimum, my 24-70 2.8 IIL never leaves my camera Bang3r fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
ISO 3200 F/2.8 1/1000 second shutter speed. Thats... not much light to work with. If that counts as "a great lighting setup" then what's the alternative? Just impossible?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
well my main fed has 8 1000W lights covering the ring/ringside area but I like zero motion blur so I bump it up to 3200 ISO so I can hit that shutter speed but it also allows me to drop it down drastically when they go out into the darker spots (it just allows me to be flexible) So the settings are fairly extreme for personal tastes, I could go a lot lower with ISO etc if I really wanted to. Example:  State of Origin by bang3rachi, on Flickr  State of Origin by bang3rachi, on Flickr The other fed I've shot for has one LED light above the ring pointing straight down so I was closer to 6400ISO and around 200 shutter speed or less Example:  NHPW by bang3rachi, on Flickr  NHPW by bang3rachi, on Flickr I've seen similar lighting setups in boxing venues etc like the latter and it's not nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:ISO 3200 Pretty much. Indoor sports are already a nightmare in most cases. Boxing/MMA/pro wrestling are usually the toughest of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Somebody asked about a monopod for their new lens a few pages ago, but the discussion got derailed because the lens was absurd. What are good monopod options under $100 or so?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
https://www.amazon.com/Sirui-P-326-6-Section-Carbon-Monopod/dp/B004QC6VAG
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Lhet posted:Somebody asked about a monopod for their new lens a few pages ago, but the discussion got derailed because the lens was absurd. The Sirui P-326 is pretty well regarded and great value: https://www.amazon.com/SIRUI-P-326-Section-Carbon-Monopod/dp/B004QC6VAG/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
No issues with the stability given so many sections? I thought 3-4 sections was the sweet spot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Depends on what you're mounting on it. If you're just looking for some standard stability then 4-5 are going to be OK in most cases. Depends also on how portable you want it to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
So, are there 4-5 section ones that are superior to the P-326 for the price? Or is it still one of the best choices for that range?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Manfrotto's stuff is really good as well but finding a carbon fiber monopod that can hold over 20 lbs for less than $100 is pretty impressive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Lhet posted:No issues with the stability given so many sections? I thought 3-4 sections was the sweet spot. Never had issues with stability on mine; the leg sections are stiff and wide enough and more sections make for better portability. I use my Nikon 400mm f/3.5 on it and get the impression it can handle a lot more without breaking a sweat, if that helps at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
The shop nearby is having a grand opening for their new location, so probably going to go up the Manfrotto 4-piece carbon. Max listed is 11 pounds, but that should be more than fine. I'll probably find myself wanting a quick release setup too, but haven't even started looking into the different options there; I only know I want something light and compact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:ISO 3200 That's a dream for indoor sports. Several high schools around here I'm forced to 6400 or 12800 to stay above 1/640.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Ok, I have a great debate about gear that I am looking to buy. So I bought the nifty 50 on a lark a while back (the new one) and my last few photography event turned out great. People loved the photos, the 50 blew away the competion by a LONG shot, but it felt rather limiting at times. Now, I am thinking of upgrading from the 50 1.8 to something else. Right now I am looking at 4 options. Option 1. the 50 1.4 from Canon. Advantage: its dirt cheap. 300 or so new, regular seen on photographic forums and all sorts of places on the new (frank miranda, dpreview, ebay, keh, etc) for 200+/- 50 dollars, so its cheap. Its fast. at 1.4 its super fast and amazing quality. Disadvantage. Its not stabilized, and as an optical design its fairly old (The 50 STM at least added the STM and more blades). Option 2: the 50-100 Sigma Advantage: Its range. At 50-100, it would manage to serve at least for my purposes, to be able to replace my 17-70 (based on analysis of 20 events and focal lengths, I averaged 50, and only use its reach for photoshoots, with the higher reach the 17-70 becomes obsolete Disadvantage, cost, its 1000, which is not affordable, but its a fairly expensive lens. Option 3: The Tamaron 45 (its not 50 but its within range). Advantage: Its high quality, good build quality. IS. Cost is midrange at Disadvantage: at 45 vs 50 its slightly shorter and not the right say length for some shots, and is 600 USD worth IS for the slower speed? Option 4: The Sigma 50 1.4 Art. Advantage: Quality is hard to beat. Amazing build quality and pictures both wide open and stopped down. Disadvantage: Cost. Is 1000 for a 1.4 worth it, when the 1.2 can be found for that with sales and searching. If it had IS it would be higher up. Right now I'm looking at the 50-100 (I'm on APS-C, 7dII), but I am putting out these to see if someone else saw something I missed. Thank you all!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Go for a used Canon 50/1.2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Option 2: the 50-100 Sigma If you mostly shoot portraits, this is a great lens. I have the 18-35 which is it's cousin in the APS-C Art zoom lineup, and it's great. All the shots I've seen with the 50-100 are good, too. The only downside is that because it's an APS-C lens, there is no inherit center of frame advantage like you have with a full frame lens. The 18-35 has obvious vignette and lack of sharpness wide open at the edges, and while the 50-100 seems better.... OTOH, the Sigma 50/1.4 Art approaches a near second place to Zeiss Otus glass. And you'll be shooting it through the center of the frame where it's at it's absolute best wide open. The only Canon L glass I had was for areas not covered by Sigma Art lenses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
I have the 50 1.2, and I think the only reasons I prefer it to the Sigma are a. weathersealing and b. knowing I can have it serviced / repaired through Canon Professional Services. Other than that, by all reports the Sigma is sharper, and it's cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Bit of a choice dilemma here. I've happily carried around my a7ii/a7rii for a couple years now, but increasingly I've been doing more mountaineering/backcountry treks, and I've been hesitant to bring them along due to the absolutely paltry battery life and lack of any weather resistance in the body (I do use a rain cover, but I'd like a bit more than just good luck on my side). I've been looking at both Fuji and Nikon here — namely a X-T2 paired with the 18-55mm (or the 16-55mm? Not really sure on this just yet.) or a D500 paired with the 16-80mm, but I'd be more than open to other ideas. As much as I would love to carry higher quality glass, it just isn't really possible considering that it has to fit on my chest holster and not impair movement. This would solely be for expeditions and travel; I have a Ricoh GR that more than fills my need for snapshots/street photography. I would really like to stick to one lens, due to the difficulty of changing lenses at altitude/on-the-go. Price really isn't an issue, as long as we're not talking over $3.5k USD. Anyone have any thoughts or similar experiences? BitesizedNike fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
I think the D500 is catered towards video and high speed continuous shots, but I'm not sure what you're shooting. D750 is similarly priced and a little lighter, also full frame. might be worth considering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
As much as I love my X-T2 after one weekend of ownership, it's not going to solve your battery life complaints.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
If you're looking for toughness maybe find a used D3s (or splurge for a d4) along with a 24-70 for probably the most useful useable zoom length, along with a better-sealed body/lens. Also most of the dials and adjustments are on the body itself, which might be more helpful if you're wearing gloves. Most fuji bodies aren't going to be weather sealed, and they usually rely on the rear screen for focus & framing so you'll be burning through batteries. They're smaller at least, so you can carry more in less space.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:I think the D500 is catered towards video and high speed continuous shots, but I'm not sure what you're shooting. D750 is similarly priced and a little lighter, also full frame. might be worth considering. Hey, what do you know — I swore the D750 was significantly heavier/larger. My mistake — I'll definitely consider this. The 24-70 is on the upper echelon of what I can carry size-wise. Weight really isn't an issue, it's just that it gets difficult to maneuver with it on my torso. I'd definitely have to give it a try first. Thanks for all the insights so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
For battery life DSLR's definitely have an advantage. I have a D750 and would like to have a D500. They're both great. You might want to stick with aps-c if size is an issue though. Maybe check out Pentax too? They have a nice array of aps-c lenses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Looking for a flashgun for my upcoming Fuji X-T1 purchase. I don't need anything too fancy and won't use it off-camera. I just need something that tilts and swivels and has TTL. My current choices are the Fuji EF-42 or the Nissin i40. It looks like the i40 is better overall, but does anyone have any first-hand opinions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Ok, I have a great debate about gear that I am looking to buy. So I bought the nifty 50 on a lark a while back (the new one) and my last few photography event turned out great. People loved the photos, the 50 blew away the competion by a LONG shot, but it felt rather limiting at times. If you use this lens at an aperture wider than f/2 in a scene with any sort of brightness, everything glows like a lantern. On the plus side, when you stop it down to f/4 it's about as sharp as you can possibly get a lens to be. Ryand-Smith posted:Option 2: the 50-100 Sigma Ryand-Smith posted:Option 3: The Tamaron 45 (its not 50 but its within range). It's very sharp from the word go, and a good deal lighter than the sigma, and supposedly has some weather sealing. Very good MFD, but beastly slow AF. It cannot track worth a drat if you care about that. The 2/3 stop vs IS tradeoff is something you need to decide for yourself if it works for your shooting or not. The IS is very good if that helps. Ryand-Smith posted:Option 4: The Sigma 50 1.4 Art.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:Looking for a flashgun for my upcoming Fuji X-T1 purchase. I don't need anything too fancy and won't use it off-camera. I just need something that tilts and swivels and has TTL. My current choices are the Fuji EF-42 or the Nissin i40. It looks like the i40 is better overall, but does anyone have any first-hand opinions? The nissin i40 is good and it's pretty small compared to equal powered flashguns. The dials are a little fiddly but it is nice to have simple manual controls. I'd buy it over an ef42 again easily. Here's a 3rd less expensive option that I have heard good things about but never personally used https://amzn.com/B00UN01D8A
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Again everyone thanks for your advise. I got the 50-100, and with the 50 1.4 I feel I should be good. Also, I kinda hate every online review site. The scale of the lens is huge. In my new camera backpack, which is the second biggest lowepro backpack, I fit the 7DII with grip and the lens and just enough room for an α7 with nothing but the sensor cap on it. It's a big lens and I will try to provide test shots when I return from a Photoshoot with friends this weekend. You all are awesome people by the way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Hello Dorkroom dwellers. I've picked up baby's first budget DSLR (Used Nikon D80) and am looking to grab some extra gear, bag is picked already, just not ordering till i'm back in town. 1. Flash Budget ~30-60 range I'd like a flash that's a bit better than the on-board flash, My indoor pictures will mostly be limited so I don't want to take away from my budget on other stuff? Not sure what feature's i'd look for or need, my last flash was a $29 that was attached to a 1970's pentax 35mm camera. 2. Lens recommendations: What are mid-range / consumer level manufacturers? Is it generally good/bad all across a company line or can 1 lens be poo poo and another be good?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
Hi gear thread. I'm super new to photography, and I'm looking for baby's first remote shutter release, to go with baby's first used Nikon D7000. I don't have any other gear except a tripod and two lenses (Nikon's AF-S 18-55 and 55-300), and I'm trying to be thrifty and grab equipment that will stay useful throughout the learning curve. I mostly shoot landscape, and I'm trying to branch into night-time/low-light shooting and long exposures. For the remote shutter release, my extremely uninformed search has turned up two main candidates: The Nikon ML-L3 Wireless Remote Control The PocketWizard FCC PlusX Transceiver The second is like $70 more. Considering that I really have no idea what I'm doing, is one a better choice in the long term? What's the gap here? Should I be looking at something else entirely? And, er, are these even the right questions to be asking?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 05:40
|
|
