|
Which camera would that be? Most newer cameras all have raw conversion in-camera these days, don't they? The idea of using my iPad to process raw files sounds nice actually, though I'm sure my old-rear end model would choke on anything too resource intensive. The EM10's raw conversion options are decent but something like LR's luminance curve and color HSL sliders would make things much better.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
I wouldn't edit things in the iPad, just want to see them on location on a larger screen. Unfortunately I may not have a choice since the wireless transmitter doesn't work with a d7000, apparently the transmitter that does is $800 new. Might be using a eye-if anyways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:I wouldn't edit things in the iPad, just want to see them on location on a larger screen. Unfortunately I may not have a choice since the wireless transmitter doesn't work with a d7000, apparently the transmitter that does is $800 new. Might be using a eye-if anyways. Why not get an SD card reader for the ipad? Then just review afterwards. Cheap and reliable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
The Nikon software I use on my D7200/iPhone is quite annoying too, it's not the most pleasurable thing to use. It's handy for putting a few things on social media but that's about it. There's also some weirdness where in some configurations it will decide what quality you want rather than give you the options. It sounds like the new way of doing it on that snapbridge or whatever it's called is better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
I'm looking at an inexpensive AF mount 70-210, or 70-300 4-5.6 depending on budget. in either case is the sigma or Tamron better? I know that they wont' be fast, but most of what I shoot is outside. Also, How much more reach is a 300 going to get me over a 210?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
The nikon AF 70-210 f/4 is supposed to be pretty good, right? It's cheap and constant aperture. Ken Rockwell says that certain copies can have focus accuracy issues. Thanks, Ken! Coming in at just around $400, the nikon AF 80-200 f/2.8 is a constant aperture 2.8, 80-200mm zoom for under $500! Wow! It supposed to be fine. Probably better than the 70-210. It's more expensive so it's got to be better, right? It seems to me like you don't have to go third-party to get some really good deals in the ~70-210 range with Nikon. The tamron 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 is fine and I think it's supposed to be pretty much the same as the Nikon version with the same specs. So if you find the tamron on sale for less than the nikon equivalent, go for it. I had one (for Canon) and it was great until it broke. Will yours break? Probably not, but maybe. AFAIK, the 70-300 Sigma is a dog compared to the Tamron/Nikons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
the nikon 70-300 is pretty good between 70 and 200. if you're on crop, the 55-200 is actually really good and the vr is incredible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Isn't a goon selling a 55-200 in SA Mart too? E: ah it's a 55-300, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:the nikon 70-300 is pretty good between 70 and 200. I'm on a crop. I'll take a look at the 55-200.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
The 55-300 was my first lens, and my copy was terrible above 2xx mm, and since I didn't know better I always blamed my technique and settings and missed a bunch of good photos. So I definitely would not recommend it. I tried a friends 70-300 and its better, but still not really good at 300.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
Something about Minolta MF SLRs... Maybe because i grew up with an SRT-101b, but I just find them beautiful ...I had to grab some (waiting on an XD-11). Anyone know any good MC/MD lenses to look out for? The X-700 I just got came with a Soligor C/D 35-200 F/3.8/5.6 zoom macro (heard they have mixed quality, but C/D line gets better reviews, were like a redistributor of other company's lenses similar to vivitar?), MD-1, and quartz data back (radical!... I'm trying to get the MFB though) I don't know why but something about their 110 zoom SLR is beautiful in the what the hell were they thinking putting that much effort into a 110, but drat they are some unusual and imo cool cameras and the love they put into them really shows. These were not just some travel cameras, back in like 78, the 110 zoom retailed for 180[in 1978 dollars]. The Mark II, according to the articles I read, retailed for $340!! in 1979 (80 catalog I saw showed $230). More than many mid-range SLRs at that time. They have aperture priority full auto exposure as their main mode, flash sync, bulb (and mark II has self-timer). You can adjust exposure to +/-2, and they read 100/400 iso (you have to adjust for 200.. I've been shooting +1... Hope it works out) Their lenses are considered some of the best ever put to such a horrid format and I just love their bastard child design between a compact and an SLR (I think the mark II is quite beautiful actually holding it, thought the mark i was cool and funky and disliked the design update when I first saw it but now I think it's totally amazing and seems decades ahead of its time)   It almost feels criminal to get these though, 110 zooms are so cheap now...  One was basically free with some 110 film and one was a few bucks [shown with a real almost-compact 110]
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Those are awesome. I have a 110 camera (well, a pseudo-110 anyway), a Kiev 30. It was smaller than the 110 standard so you had to cut 35mm film to size manually and load it into a re-usable cartridge yourself. It folds up and you cock the shutter and wind on the film by closing it and then pulling it open again which makes a sound like a tiny shotgun being racked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
You should check out the Rokkor files for all your MF Minolta needs. http://www.rokkorfiles.com
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:You should check out the Rokkor files for all your MF Minolta needs. This, but also IIRC the gems are: 24/2.8 - reportedly same design as Elmarit-R 50/1.4 - a nice lens, MD is slightly better than MC 58/1.2 - renowned for its bokeh 100/2.8
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
I've got the love for the old Minoltas, too. My first "real" camera was a X-700 I bought in 1998 from a camera store, on consignment. More recently I've picked up a couple of others, but I'm ashamed to say I can't remember the details right now. When I get home I'll blow the dust off and have a look. I don't have any really amazing lenses in my SR/MC/MD collection, but my Vivitar Series 1 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 is great fun - 19mm is very wide through a 135 viewfinder.  Arista Prem 400 2 034 by Martin Brummell, on FlickrI'm *pretty sure* this one was taken through that lens, probably at around 24mm. It's good lens for walking around if you're in a landscape kind of mood.  Arista Prem 400 1 026 by Martin Brummell, on FlickrThis one, too. Probably all the way out at 19mm. Any excuse to post pictures, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
So I bought the Sigma 50-100 1.8. It is an amazing lens, and with the dock, I managed to fix the bugs (I needed to do some microadjustments and it looks like it solved them perfectly. It is a solid, if massive lens (It is somewhat like a APS-C 70-200 but that isn't exact since it is 80-160 range, but the ability to shoot wide open makes the lens have an amazing quality to it. I am honestly impressed with the drat thing and I really would recommend it (WITH THE DOCK) for anyone who is looking for a portrait lens for APS-C cameras. Sigma came out swinging with this thing. Some images I took with the lens     
RCK-101 fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Oct 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Yeah I still need to pick up the dock for my 18-35 for sure. How many adjustments did you have to make in the 50-100? I think mine has something like 16, and the software looks an absolute chore, but at least it only has to be done once.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Working on getting lenses together for a trip to Hawaii. I'm certainly taking with me a Tamron 17-50 2.8, but what's a good focal length for a second lens? I'm thinking most of my shooting will be landscape and hiking stuff. I previously took the Tamron and a 85 prime on a trip, and the 85 seemed too... short, comparitively? Is it worth renting a 105/300 prime? It might be an edge case... I already have a 70-300 kit lens that I could bring, in that case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
If you're mostly going to be shooting outside during the day, a the narrow aperture on your kit 70-300 won't be a serious problem. Tele-landscapes are an often-neglected sub-category (take lots of pictures of mountains and waterfalls and poo poo at 150mm+ !) and you're going to Hawaii, there will be freaky-looking birds and other far-away things to shoot. If you feel the need to spend some money, rent or buy an ultra-wide. Fisheye volcanoes are always fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
My wife is interested in getting into photography, and I'd like to get her a camera for Christmas. Is there anything in the "it'll last a little while if she really decides she's into it, but won't be a huge waste of money if she doesn't stick to it"? I don't want to spend $$$ and have her end up deciding it's not really for her, but I also don't want to gimp her/have to spend $$$ right away if it really grabs her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
hooah posted:My wife is interested in getting into photography, and I'd like to get her a camera for Christmas. Is there anything in the "it'll last a little while if she really decides she's into it, but won't be a huge waste of money if she doesn't stick to it"? I don't want to spend $$$ and have her end up deciding it's not really for her, but I also don't want to gimp her/have to spend $$$ right away if it really grabs her. What is $$$ to you? To some people $$$ could be $500, to others it might be $5000.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Good point. $$$ would be $500. I'm hoping to be able to find something around the $200 range, but could stretch up to $300 if it would make a big difference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
hooah posted:Good point. $$$ would be $500. I'm hoping to be able to find something around the $200 range, but could stretch up to $300 if it would make a big difference. Maybe look for a 2nd hand RX100 mk1?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:If you're mostly going to be shooting outside during the day, a the narrow aperture on your kit 70-300 won't be a serious problem. Tele-landscapes are an often-neglected sub-category (take lots of pictures of mountains and waterfalls and poo poo at 150mm+ !) and you're going to Hawaii, there will be freaky-looking birds and other far-away things to shoot. Two lenses is probably enough for me, but something like 10mm for ultra-wide?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
10mm is really loving wide though. My last couple trips I used my 17-55 way more than my 10-22. It's obviously nice to have that extra width on hand but I don't find it very useful for "traditional" landscapes because if you're not standing at the foot of the mountain everything gets too compressed. If you're at a spot where you want to get both close foreground elements and a nearby mountain/building that's when 10mm starts to shine. I think if I was limited to two lenses for a trip I think the 17-55 and 100-300 ranges are the most important to have on hand. You'll have gaps in there but zooming with your feet works too. But I'm sure everyone has a slightly different preference so feel free to ignore or get violently offended by all that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
xzzy posted:feel free to ignore or get violently offended by all that.  *smashes keyboard*10mm is really really wide, though. I don't know what system you're shooting but the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is a cheap-and-cheerful lens that stays cheap by dropping most of the bells and whistles (like autofocus) for a lens that doesn't need that (everything is in focus with an ultrawide); that also saves on weight. I don't have one, I've never used one, but they have a good reputation for a new lens that costs less than $400. It might show up under different names, like Rokinon or Bower or something else, it should be all the same stuff. B&H sells it in half a dozen different mounts, you should be able to find one for your camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
I've had friends go on honeymoons in HI and some of them have bought a waterproof P&S for snorkling, rainy hikes, etc. I'm not sure what the latest hotness is but I'd guess it's in the ballpark of a less expensive UWA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
From past experience I'm sure that the 17-50 is going to be my workhorse, and I'll bring my 70-300 for long stuff. Wider than 17 feels gimmicky, but renting one might be small and cheap enough to throw in for shits and giggles (I've penciled this in) If I were to rent a camera, what do you guys think of the Nikon D7200? Seems to be in a good price-to-feature point. My old D50 works fine, but I'm starting to feel like its 5MP is letting me down. BetterLekNextTime posted:I've had friends go on honeymoons in HI and some of them have bought a waterproof P&S for snorkling, rainy hikes, etc. I'm not sure what the latest hotness is but I'd guess it's in the ballpark of a less expensive UWA. Good point, I'll have to remember my gopro
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Yeah my best pics from Hawaii are of lava and also underwater
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
I gave Forums Poster Dakana and Mrs. Dakana an Olympus Tough TG-1 for their wedding and i'm pretty sure they took more pictures on their honeymoon in the Caribbean with that than he did with his DSLR. Underwater shots in water as clear as Hawaii's are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
My mum is visiting and she loves taking photos. I hesitate to say that she loves photography because she doesn't understand even the most basic principles of it. At the moment she has some lovely point and shoot that has no manual controls, only scene presets. I'd like to get her a basic compact that at least lets her play around with aperture and shutter speed without overwhelming her (no joke, she couldn't figure out how my kitchen tap worked and it's just a regular mixer tap). It has to be: Cheap. I'm not spending on this because the difference to her between a cheap and lovely camera and an expensive camera will be approximately zero. Small. She won't carry something the size of a DSLR or even a mirrorless system. She also won't want to gently caress around with interchangeable lenses. Digital. I offered to lend her something from my analogue collection while she's here but she wants to just take pictures SOOC and put them on Facebook. What are not terrible options in the land of ultralow-end cameras?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Is that even going to work? If she stumbled at tap science, aperture and shutter speed might as well be asking her to plan a mission to mars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
I honestly don't know, hence my reluctance to sink money into this. However she is super enthusiastic about taking photos and keeps asking me how I get effects in my pictures like separation of subject and background or misty water etc. She takes her camera everywhere and takes hundreds of photos a week with it. I explained that she can't do the stuff that she wants to do with the camera that she has because it doesn't have the basic controls to control depth of field or exposure length. So I'd like to get her something that at least lets her achieve super basic stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Is that even going to work? If she stumbled at tap science, aperture and shutter speed might as well be asking her to plan a mission to mars. That's my gut feeling, too. I'd get her a decent P&S instead (an older model will be fine&cheaper). Maybe some free software to allow basic editing/filters as well. EDIT: some P&S's have filters that will fake things like narrow DOF, etc
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I honestly don't know, hence my reluctance to sink money into this. However she is super enthusiastic about taking photos and keeps asking me how I get effects in my pictures like separation of subject and background or misty water etc. She takes her camera everywhere and takes hundreds of photos a week with it. I explained that she can't do the stuff that she wants to do with the camera that she has because it doesn't have the basic controls to control depth of field or exposure length. So I'd like to get her something that at least lets her achieve super basic stuff like that. Is $160 cheap enough? The fujifilm xf1 has a f/1.8 bokeh-capable lens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
Hey so what's the go-to way to test shutter speed on older cameras now? I have a trip in December that I'd love to get on film and I just bought a used Oly 35RC which is in pretty okay condition (all things considered) -- the shutter speeds SOUND okay but I'd want to test before dumping a bunch of film through it. I'll be bringing my XPro1 too so I'll have at least one known-good camera so I'm not sweating it TOO much. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
I don't know if there is a "go to" way. There are apps that listen to the shutter sound but they are pretty unreliable. You pretty much need to build yourself a small circuit using an LED and a photo sensitive diode and "record" the signal into your computer then determine the shutter speed by looking at the waveform. http://www.mraggett.co.uk/shuttertester/shuttertester.htm
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:My mum is visiting and she loves taking photos. I hesitate to say that she loves photography because she doesn't understand even the most basic principles of it. At the moment she has some lovely point and shoot that has no manual controls, only scene presets. I'd like to get her a basic compact that at least lets her play around with aperture and shutter speed without overwhelming her (no joke, she couldn't figure out how my kitchen tap worked and it's just a regular mixer tap). https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Coolpix-Digital-Camera-Zoom-Nikkor/dp/B00427ZLRO I used this before I got my Nikon d7000. It has all the basic manual settings, dials, bracketing, RAW etc. I'm sure you could find it or a newer version of it used for very cheap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I don't know if there is a "go to" way. There are apps that listen to the shutter sound but they are pretty unreliable. You pretty much need to build yourself a small circuit using an LED and a photo sensitive diode and "record" the signal into your computer then determine the shutter speed by looking at the waveform. http://www.mraggett.co.uk/shuttertester/shuttertester.htm This absolutely works for me, thanks. I'll build this weekend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I don't know if there is a "go to" way. There are apps that listen to the shutter sound but they are pretty unreliable. You pretty much need to build yourself a small circuit using an LED and a photo sensitive diode and "record" the signal into your computer then determine the shutter speed by looking at the waveform. http://www.mraggett.co.uk/shuttertester/shuttertester.htm This is a really clever idea. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:07
|
|