|
DJExile posted:yep
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
DJExile posted:I don't see why not. Seems like it'd fit any standard hotshoe Neat. I was worried it would be "smart" and try to communicate with the camera or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 09:08
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
it's... just a basic red dot. maybe i'm missing what specifically a holo sight is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Enos Cabell posted:This is probably better suited for the astrophotography thread, but I couldn't find it. I had a lot of fun shooting the eclipse, and got some pretty good photos with a cheap Nikon 55-300 telephoto on my D7k. I'd like to get a nicer 400 or 500mm lens, and since I'm not shooting wildlife or sports I don't need anything very fast. Any good deals out there for a sharp but slow telephoto? Astrophotography is probably the most demanding workout you can give a lens. It needs to be sharp, absolutely no coma or field curvature, and the faster the better. I'd look at the Nikkor 300 and 400mm f/4.5 EDIFs, or maybe the Pentax 645 and 67 EDIFs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Astrophotography is a rabbit hole. The amount of sperging that goes into it is incredible. Like, they even have charts for what maximum focal length is useful for a given sensor pixel density. I've decided to not point my camera at a celestial object again without a telescope because the money required to pull it off with a photography lens would require a mortgage. (and don't forget the tracking mount)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
DJExile posted:it's... just a basic red dot. maybe i'm missing what specifically a holo sight is. That's what they are.. just never seen one for a camera before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
DJExile posted:it's... just a basic red dot. maybe i'm missing what specifically a holo sight is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
tater_salad posted:That's what they are.. just never seen one for a camera before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
tater_salad posted:That's what they are.. just never seen one for a camera before. Cameras have had auxiliary direct optical viewfinders for over a hundred years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
How well does the red dot sight work for just setting to center AF point and blasting away with telephoto lens? And the question I came into the thread to ask: It's time to move on from my MacBook Air. I've enjoyed owning a Mac but will be going back to Windows for work. I'm faced with a slew of hardware options now. Is there anything like a consensus pick for an SSD-equipped laptop with a good display for photo editing (wide color gamut especially) under $1,500? I see the Lenovo Thinkpad w540 with the 3K screen option is supposed to be good. It has a drat x-rite color checker built into it, which kinda of gets the message across. But what about something lighter? I'm not looking for a workstation replacement, just something portable with a good screen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Astrophotography is a rabbit hole. The amount of sperging that goes into it is incredible. Like, they even have charts for what maximum focal length is useful for a given sensor pixel density. Well, why wouldn't you have a precisely calculated cheat sheet to minmax the detail resolved by your lens/sensor combination?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
DJExile posted:oh no Can you please let me know if this would help framing the sky at night? I'm not talking about pinpointing exact stats, but rather not having to rely on a dark viewfinder or LCD to try and get the camera pointing in the right direction. I've always thought someuing like a laser pointer would do the trick, but this looks like it could as well, even though it seems to be marketed towards action shots. Cheers!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Shrinking Universe posted:Can you please let me know if this would help framing the sky at night? I'm not talking about pinpointing exact stats, but rather not having to rely on a dark viewfinder or LCD to try and get the camera pointing in the right direction. As the owner of two fine fuji cameras which come from the factory with optical direct viewfinders included (unlike those cheap bastards at oly) I can tell you that it will not help a bunch, if it's really dark out it's also gonna be really dark in the VF with like a dot in the center.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Shrinking Universe posted:Can you please let me know if this would help framing the sky at night? I'm not talking about pinpointing exact stats, but rather not having to rely on a dark viewfinder or LCD to try and get the camera pointing in the right direction. I mean... I guess it could? But like 8th said all you're gonna see is a bright rear end red crosshair against a dark sky. For $100 I don't know if that'd be worth it that much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
The only real options for seeing anything at night are to eliminate everything that glows so your eyes completely adjust, or use live view. You can also do test shots and adjust based on what the camera records, but this is basically the same approach as live view.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I mean... I guess it could? But like 8th said all you're gonna see is a bright rear end red crosshair against a dark sky. For $100 I don't know if that'd be worth it that much. Yeah, you're right. I thought about it more and I figure it'd be good to see where the centre of your shot will be but because it doesn't account for focal length it's useless otherwise. Thanks for the answers!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
I don't really know where else to ask this but I have a KIEV-60 where the screw Part of me wants to do it right and tap the body with new tiny rear end threads and get matching screws, but then I'm worried that the body material seems to be pretty weak to begin with and that just using epoxy to bond the door hinge to the body is a better all-around solution. Anyone have any experience fixing this type of problem? Where would I even get a tiny rear end thread cutter and matching screws? I don't want to send this off to get repaired because it weighs a ton and unless someone knows a decent place in/near Toronto that can repair this kind of thing then a dollar store tube of epoxy looks to be in my future. .... thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I don't really know where else to ask this but I have a KIEV-60 where the screw Personally I'd epoxy it because it's a Kiev who cares? But if you want to do it properly you need something like this http://a.co/fFFSivb and to be lucky enough that the dude that built your camera was sober enough to operate machinery that day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a good telephoto lens for a Canon T6i? I've got somewhere between 400-600 bucks to spend. Something that I could take pictures of birds with from my porch would be ideal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Personally I'd epoxy it because it's a Kiev who cares? But if you want to do it properly you need something like this http://a.co/fFFSivb and to be lucky enough that the dude that built your camera was sober enough to operate machinery that day. Ugh those look way too fiddly. I think it's epoxy time! Thanks for tracking that down though, I had a hell of a time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Ugh those look way too fiddly. I think it's epoxy time! Knowing weird broken camera stuff has some how become my full time job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
java posted:Can anyone recommend a good telephoto lens for a Canon T6i? I've got somewhere between 400-600 bucks to spend. Something that I could take pictures of birds with from my porch would be ideal. How far away are the birds and what type of birds are they? For small birds like tits and finches you want gigantic lenses but for big birds like egrets you don't necessarily need a lot of reach (zooms work well for big birds but you almost always want more focal length for small birds) The following lenses might be within your budget on the used market, depending on where you live, how lucky you are, their condition, how many others are for sale right now etc: Primes The Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L is spectacular though it is getting a bit old. This one on your crop camera gives you an equivalent of 640mm focal length. The Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II is great and gives you a 320mm equivalent focal length. Half the focal length of the lens above so your subjects will fill a quarter as much of the frame The Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS is amazing, has IS, is a lot newer than the 400 and works well with teleconverters so it is a much more versatile solution than either of the lenses above. Zooms The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS is very versatile, with IS and a huuuge zoom range, but it never had very good image quality. The II version of this lens offers greatly improved image quality but i doubt you will find it in your price range in the used market yet, except some banged up ones that require repairs The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is absolutely amazing. Razor sharp, versatile, great IS, works with teleconverters. Might be able to find this one within your budget. There is also a F2.8 version without IS, and F4 versions with and without IS. I intentionally left out consumer zooms like 24-200, 70-300 and such. Personally, if this lens was purely for birding, i'd get the 400 F5,6 or 300 F4. If you also do other stuff like portraits, bigger wildlife, etc, i'd go for the 70-200; I take about 80% of my photos with the 70-200. Ineptitude fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
I've used the Canon 400 f/5.6 before. Super sharp lens but oh boy is it thirsty for light. The focal length requires really fast shutter speed to prevent motion blur on top of it only being open to 5.6. A tripod is a nearly mandatory recommendation from me for that lens. I've tested that verses a 70-200 f/2.8L with a 2x teleconverter and I sold the 400 as a result. It was far more convenient to use the teleconverter and lens without sacrificing a noticeable amount of sharpness. Gone are the days of making a hilarious 800mm, though. I miss that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
I started photography with my dad's old Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex (Super, I think) and I'm getting nostalgic and want to hop on ebay and grab one since they look to be pretty cheap. But I'm wondering, if I have a hankering for retro, could I do better for the price?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
There's a whole load of options if you want retro film shooting funtimes. What is your budget and what formats are you interested in?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:I started photography with my dad's old Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex (Super, I think) and I'm getting nostalgic and want to hop on ebay and grab one since they look to be pretty cheap. But I'm wondering, if I have a hankering for retro, could I do better for the price? Nostalgia outweighs grungy old neckbeards sperging about "The Best" camera. I don't know enough about the Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex (or its upgrades) but if you have good memories of your dad's, just bid on eBay until you're satisfied. A quick bit of reading didn't tell me anything about batteries, but most old cameras either don't strictly need batteries (except to run the light meter, which you can get by without with some practice, and/or a free light meter app on a smartphone) or use readily-available batteries (SR44, for example), or can be adapted fairly easily to readily-available batteries from their weird toxic OEM batteries. If you want to explore film photography - YES, DO THIS - then pretty much any 35mm SLR will do. I'm partial to Pentax and Minolta bodies from the 1980's but it really comes down to personal taste, which is driven entirely by subjective factors like "this looks cool" or "my uncle had one of these" or "I saw one of these in a movie". And then there's the wide, weird world of Former-Soviet-Union (FSM) camera gear, which combines retro with the Iron Curtain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:How far away are the birds and what type of birds are they? For small birds like tits and finches you want gigantic lenses but for big birds like egrets you don't necessarily need a lot of reach (zooms work well for big birds but you almost always want more focal length for small birds) The birds are probably anywhere from 20 - 70 feet away, but very generally are small (robins, finches). Your post was super helpful, thank you so much!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
java posted:The birds are probably anywhere from 20 - 70 feet away, but very generally are small (robins, finches). Your post was super helpful, thank you so much! For typical backyard birds, you're shooting them at rest, too. The 400mm is a fantastic lens but for it's speed and lack of IS, neither of which should be that big of a setback.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
java posted:The birds are probably anywhere from 20 - 70 feet away, but very generally are small (robins, finches). Your post was super helpful, thank you so much! I'd buy the 300 F4, and both the teleconverters so you have a 420mm F5,6 and a 600mm F8 lens. (The F8 variant will likely only autofocus on the center focus point or not at all on your camera, F8 autofocus is generally reserved for higher end cameras) Also consider getting the Extension Tubes. These move the focal plane of your lens, allowing you to focus on things that are closer than normally. This means you will lose "inifinity" focus though, but on long tele lenses you will be able to focus to almost infinity anyways. I believe you won't actually lose infinity focus with a 600mm lens on a crop body (?) Extension tubes are useful for when one of those small birds happen to land very close to you. The long tele lenses usually have a very long minimum focus distance, we are talking several meters away, so with an extension tube on it you will be able to focus much closer. Ineptitude fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:If you want to explore film photography - YES, DO THIS - then pretty much any 35mm SLR will do. I'm partial to Pentax and Minolta bodies from the 1980's but it really comes down to personal taste, which is driven entirely by subjective factors like "this looks cool" or "my uncle had one of these" or "I saw one of these in a movie". And then there's the wide, weird world of Former-Soviet-Union (FSM) camera gear, which combines retro with the Iron Curtain. Buy a lot of bad and weird cameras. Have fun shooting them despite their many flaws. You can buy pro-grade film cameras for the cost of a night out if you look around. I have a poo poo-ton of old Soviet cameras from the 50s, 60s and 70s and I paid almost nothing for most of them. Other than my medium format Arax which I bought new and the Spotmatic that I bought from a Dorkroomer, most of them cost me less than $50. Buy old cameras because they look cool, because they evoke memories of old family holidays, because you like industrial design and precision engineering or just because they are rad things to have around. Buy old cameras is what I am saying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
This isn’t helping my dumb desire to buy a bunch of old cameras and try to make a diy darkroom uggggh
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
I recently inherited 3 film cameras and oh god photography is just fun at that point. Each shot costing money is a good way to start to learn to take a single shot per motive which then in turn forces you to spend a lot of time setting up the shot which forces you to focus on the details and goes on from there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Kilometers Davis posted:This isn’t helping my dumb desire to buy a bunch of old cameras and try to make a diy darkroom uggggh DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT!!!!!!!! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Each shot costing money is a good way to start to learn to take a single shot per motive which then in turn forces you to spend a lot of time setting up the shot which forces you to focus on the details and goes on from there. And then you learn that famous Henri Cartier-Bresson with his "decisive moments" more like spent one roll of film per motive and just picked out the single good frame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
[quote="“ExecuDork”" post="“476579803”"] DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT!!!!!!!! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!! [/quote] Is it a reasonable thing to attempt? Someone should link me a proper diy and fuel my idiotic desires. My girlfriend has actually been wanting to do this for a while so if I start going in that direction I’m 100% doomed I love limiting art, paradox of choice etc, and embracing weird idiosyncrasies is def up my alley. I do it with music and always find success.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Kilometers Davis posted:Is it a reasonable thing to attempt? Someone should link me a proper diy and fuel my idiotic desires. Wait, both you AND your S.O. want a darkroom? What are you waiting for? You have nothing to lose but all your money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Imagine four minifridges full of film on the edge of a cliff... your bank balance works the same way. (but yeah do it, film is fun and developing/printing B+W is easy as gently caress)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
I did a fair amount of darkroom work in school and it always gave me anxiety. It wasn't film rolls though, I was doing prepress work. I didn't like wondering if I was about to waste a giant sheet of film by leaving it in the developer too long or had the wrong temperature or whatever. I suppose if I got to do the generating prints half of the process it wouldn't have been as bad as that's when you get to do the creative stuff. All you're wasting then is the paper and still have the original to fall back on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
People who have never developed film before (or only did it long ago in some school darkroom) often seem to conflate Developing with Printing. Developing, taking light-sensitive film you've exposed in a camera and making it both no-longer light reactive ("fixing" it) and showing the image, is easy and can be done in a kitchen or bathroom - you'll need a reasonable supply of water, both to dilute the chemicals to their working concentrations (you buy the components as high-concentration solutions, kinda like orange juice in a can, just not frozen) and for some steps during the developing process. You could develop film in your backyard with a garden hose. Cleaner water is better, but pondwater would work (your pictures will be a bit funky, but whatever). All you need to develop is a dark place just big enough to fit your hands, the developing tank, the film, and the rolls to put the film on that go into the tank. A windowless room that you can make completely dark will work, you only need the darkness for as much time as it takes to get the film onto the roll and into the tank, so like 15 minutes. A better option is a dark bag, which has sleeves for your arms and keeps light out that way. A proper darkroom - red light, trays, clothespegs on strings, - is needed for Printing, the process of making prints from film negatives (or positives if you want to get really fancy). I've done a bit of developing, a few dozen rolls, but I've never printed. My "darkroom" is a pile of stuff that would fit in a desk drawer. EDIT: Here's an Instructable: http://www.instructables.com/id/How-To-Develop-Film/ One of the comments points out you don't need to do everything in complete darkness if you buy a proper dev tank and changing bag. Even the bag isn't super necessary, with a proper dev tank (which is opaque) the only step in darkness is film-on-roll-into-tank, all of the chemistry (pour in, pour out, pour in, pour out) happens in the light. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
What Execudork said. Developing is the "risky" bit, and it isn't risky. You have get the knack of loading your film onto the reels, and after that it's just following instructions. Printing will soak up time. It involves chemistry (wear gloves) and paper and an enlarger (usually). You will mess up a lot. You will go through reams of paper. It will not be wasted. You will burn and dodge with your hands and tools and try to remember what you did later. You will be at home in safelight and learn patience. You'll try a lot of weird poo poo. I found it extremely cathartic. I'd have a darkroom if I had a house. And time. And money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 21:22
|
|