|
When my wife and I spent two weeks in Europe (Austria, Italy, Paris, and London), I brought my 6D, 17-35, and 50 1.8. I used the hell out of the 17-35, especially at the extreme wide end. It's roughly equivalent to a 10-22 on a crop body. I'd really suggest looking into it.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
My crop trinity is a Tokina 11-16 (2.8) a Sigma 18-35 (1.8) and a Signa 50-150 (2.8). I’ve rented a 200-500 when I’ve needed longer than the 150, and when I don’t need any telephoto at all the two smaller lenses are small and easy to carry. Megapixels be plentiful these days so I’m not too worried about only being at 35mm if a 50 to 70mm focal length would’ve been better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Y'all have convinced me, I'll get a prime to support the 17-50. Think I'll pick between the Tamron 35 1.8 VC or the Sigma 24 1.4. That Tonika 11-16 is tempting, too...
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
dakana posted:When my wife and I spent two weeks in Europe (Austria, Italy, Paris, and London), I brought my 6D, 17-35, and 50 1.8. I used the hell out of the 17-35, especially at the extreme wide end. It's roughly equivalent to a 10-22 on a crop body. I'd really suggest looking into it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:Y'all have convinced me, I'll get a prime to support the 17-50. Think I'll pick between the Tamron 35 1.8 VC or the Sigma 24 1.4. That Tonika 11-16 is tempting, too... The Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX is super cheap and pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
e: wrong thread
BlackMK4 fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
Has anyone tried the Kodak cameras? There's one for 150 bucks that look interesting, I am after a compact camera to steup from a cell phone, max budget is 150. Maybe there are other suggestions? To be honest the zoom range on this is not something I care that much about, I am more concerned with a wider field of view than zooming in. Today there was a great scene as I drove to work, a gigantic full moon was hanging over the -21C landscape in dawn but my cellphone did not manage to capture it adequately... I have had this problem often and I conclude it's because the human vision is so much wider, the piddly cramped image a camera takes. I had the same issue when I used to have a big expensive DSLR with a 35mm prime lens that also failed at this. It just can't take it all in. https://www.amazon.com/Kodak-AZ421-...7RWWVHAG31F4808
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 09:51
|
|
|
Just carry a wide angle adapter and shoot HDR on your phone?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 09:58
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Has anyone tried the Kodak cameras? There's one for 150 bucks that look interesting, I am after a compact camera to steup from a cell phone, max budget is 150. Maybe there are other suggestions? To be honest the zoom range on this is not something I care that much about, I am more concerned with a wider field of view than zooming in. Standard answer here has always to buy whatever Canon fitted your budget. Has that changed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 10:05
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Has anyone tried the Kodak cameras? There's one for 150 bucks that look interesting, I am after a compact camera to steup from a cell phone, max budget is 150. Maybe there are other suggestions? To be honest the zoom range on this is not something I care that much about, I am more concerned with a wider field of view than zooming in. My mate picked up one of these lens kits for his phone and it's doing him really well: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/5-in-1-Phone-Camera-Lens-kit-Shoot-your-world-differently-Included-Wide-Angle/232510436589
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 13:44
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Has anyone tried the Kodak cameras? There's one for 150 bucks that look interesting, I am after a compact camera to steup from a cell phone, max budget is 150. Maybe there are other suggestions? To be honest the zoom range on this is not something I care that much about, I am more concerned with a wider field of view than zooming in. It's actually the opposite way around. The wider the lens, the smaller that individual elements like the sun or moon will be relative to the scene. Your brain does some dynamic processing when your eyes focus on the moon to make it look bigger. But it's still only 2 or 3 degrees of your field of vision. The photos that you see of huge moons hanging over dramatic scenery are usually either photoshopped, taken with a long lens to maximise the width of the moon relative to the scene, or both. Regarding cheap compacts, honestly if you have a reasonably nice phone, you probably won't get a massive increase in image quality from a cheap compact. You might notice a difference at longer ranges if the camera has an optical zoom, but for regular wide to moderate telephoto ranges, there's not going to be much difference. To take a step up, you need to be looking at the cheaper end of the ILC world - stuff like the entry level m4/3rds offerings, the scrub tier Fujis or a DSLR. Helen Highwater fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Mar 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
On the other hand, if the guy just wants a picture of a big moon, why not go with an superzoom? Even a budget rebel + 70-300 is gonna run him way upwards of that, let alone a telephoto prime + tc + tripod, etc. I've had a bunch of non photographer friends link me this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfshAzV0FN4 and gone, hey can your camera do that? etc. The fact that you can get that much of a zoom range is REALLY impressive to people if they don't care about the image quality of small sensors. Obviously even the Coolpix P900 is above his budget range but there's some low-end superzooms in the $150-200 range. hope and vaseline fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Mar 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
The angular size of the moon is about 0.5 degrees.. which puts you into 1000mm-plus territory if you want to fill the frame with the moon. You don't want to do that, because pictures of the moon are loving boring, so you want some earth based objects in frame to make a better scene. This makes the problem less about focal length (250mm-500mm are realistic depending on the size of your earth based subject) and more about how far away you're standing from the subject. A 30'x30' object requires you to stand about 3000 feet away for it to have the same apparent size as the moon. If you've chosen a building? It's miles. Have fun figuring out getting a line of sight for that. tl;dr: shooting the moon is hard if you care about a quality picture. Either buy prints from someone who's actually done it properly or be ready to spend way too much money and time to set the shot up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
You can fill the frame pretty easily with a 300mm or 400mm lens and a Pentax Q.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Hmmm so if I want to get back to some better camera quality I might as well look for something second hand it seems like. I don't want to get back into DSLR territory though. I was considering the Sony A5000 once but ehhh, money... photography was too expensive for me. Maybe those cell phone lenses are worth a shot. I got a Moto G4 phone. Somebody was selling a Lumix GF3 without lenses for 60 euros locally. But I guess lenses are what reams you. edit: found other ads from the same seller, there are the lenses. "Panasonix lumix g 14mm f/2.5 ASPH" 100€. Edit 2 might as well link it, I am thinking if I can offer 150€ for the lens and camera. http://www.findit.fi/sv/1263692.htm http://www.findit.fi/sv/1263664.htm He also has other lenses but this one seems to be a good all-rounder lense. http://www.findit.fi/sv/search/?adv=2D281B26064975300716281E1A0D0E62415C0308152E1949562017282A Think this will beat that kodak, or a moto G4? His Divine Shadow fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Mar 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 10:06
|
|
|
hope and vaseline posted:On the other hand, if the guy just wants a picture of a big moon, why not go with an superzoom? Even a budget rebel + 70-300 is gonna run him way upwards of that, let alone a telephoto prime + tc + tripod, etc. Yeah this is prefectly ok if you just want a sort of adequate image to document what you're seeing, and quite honestly is less poo poo than ~83x zoom to 1000mm equivalent~ would suggest. Though I should note that my definition of "small sensor" has been quite severely skewed by using a shitton of microscope and machine vision cameras lately, where even a 4/3 sensor is considered a humongous piece of high-end kit that many optics aren't even designed to illuminate and 1/4-2/3" sensors are the norm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 00:44
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Hmmm so if I want to get back to some better camera quality I might as well look for something second hand it seems like. I don't want to get back into DSLR territory though. I was considering the Sony A5000 once but ehhh, money... photography was too expensive for me. Maybe those cell phone lenses are worth a shot. I got a Moto G4 phone. I have literally no idea what you're looking for at this point. A 14mm lens will give you a similar to wider field of view as your moto g4. Granted you'll get better quality images but if you're trying to shoot that moon you were talking about, the shot you'll get will be really similar to what you got with your cell phone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Oh yeah all the discussion about that kinda made me put the lid on that idea. I did want a better camera, but maybe that's just not possible to achieve on my budget so I'll just continue as is then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 08:22
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Oh yeah all the discussion about that kinda made me put the lid on that idea. I did want a better camera, but maybe that's just not possible to achieve on my budget so I'll just continue as is then. What is your budget?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 08:36
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Oh yeah all the discussion about that kinda made me put the lid on that idea. I did want a better camera, but maybe that's just not possible to achieve on my budget so I'll just continue as is then. Well taking a good moon shot isn't exactly the first thing most photo beginners will do, so there's probably a lot of cheaper but still good stuff you can use for other photos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 11:13
|
|
|
I could use some advice when it comes to gear. Currently, I have a Nikon D5100 with the Tamron 17–50 f/2.8, which I have had for some time and which I have been quite happy with. However, now I have a little one on the way this summer and I would like to be able to capture some proper video. While I have done some fun video stuff on the D5100, it has always been of more or less static stuff from a tripod, and it's been okay for that. It's not going to be a great hand-held videocamera for general use, so I want something a bit more useful. Image stabilisation seems like an important benefit, and 4k capture would be very nice to have something that isn't completely outdated in a few years. I could buy an actual videocamera/camcorder. That will give me an easy-to-use device to make videos with and several can be easily found that offer the specifications that I would need/want. However, I could also move from the D5100 to a camera that's a lot better in terms of video. Doing some research, something along the lines of the Panasonic GX-80/85 or the Olympus EM-10 would be quite good for video and would still be affordable (spending €1500 for just the body is 'no' territory). Next to giving me a much better video-capable device, it would also mean a move to a more modern camera and possibly a more convenient (smaller, less weighty, WiFi) platform. It would be more expensive than just a videocamera, but cheaper than a videocamera now and a future camera upgrade later on. Is there anyone with some experience regarding this situation? Is it very inconvenient or outright crazy-work to shoot baby/kid/home-videos with a regular camera as opposed to a handicam? And in how much would a move from a D5100 be a down-/side-/upgrade?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
The classic compact camcorder format is more comfortable for longer handheld recordings, IMO. I bought a cheap Canon Legria a while ago, and it has absurdly good stabilization. It pretty much sucked away all my desire for a DSLR that can do video.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Has anyone tried the Kodak cameras? There's one for 150 bucks that look interesting, I am after a compact camera to steup from a cell phone, max budget is 150. Maybe there are other suggestions? To be honest the zoom range on this is not something I care that much about, I am more concerned with a wider field of view than zooming in. If your entire goal is wide angles, A) panorama app and/or B) $8 clip-on wide angle lenses for your phone, sold at wal-mart near the camera stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
I weighed my camera bag last night with all the gear i'm cramming into it for a trip to Africa starting this Saturday and it's actually a bit less than I was expecting 2 Olympus EM1 MKii bodies, one with grip, 300mm f/4, 40-150mm f/2.8, 25mm f/1.2, 1.4x teleconverter, chromebook, tablet, 7 batteries, battery charger, card readers, and a case of memory cards, all in a tenba DNA 15, comes to 16 lbs. All things considered, I was expecting that to be over 20.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
Has anybody experienced their Camera/lens lock up in cold weather? I was in Iceland last weekend and standing around in the ice fields waiting for the Northern Lights. As I was trying to get some photographs of it, I was finding that my D7200 wasn't responding to my attempts to adjust the shutter speed without frantic dial-rolling and switching off and on again. It would keep defaulting to 30' second shutter speed when I wanted to be way down to like 1/25. I managed to get some decent shots of it in amongst a load of poo poo ones, but really annoyed as the drat thing worked perfectly once I tried to replicate the problem back at my hotel room. For reference, it was like -15'c to -20'c factoring in wind chill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Get a battery relocator. At -20c they’ve got zero power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
Right, makes sense I guess as we were standing around in the cold for a good 20-30 minutes before the lights were visible which will have been long enough to chill the battery to the point of not being able to discharge properly. This fuckin' idiot should've done better research!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Get spare batteries, keep them in a breast pocket in your coat to keep them warm. Get used to the fact they'll only last 20 minutes and have several.  If you are seeing actual lens malfunctions in cold weather and it's not caused by a lack of power, astrophotographers will also use lens heaters, mostly to prevent moisture from condensing while sitting outside all night. But I bet it would be useful for keeping a lens in good operating temperature in freezing cold too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Yeah the motors DGAF about the cold but the grease definitely does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
Tourist 1: 'Look, the lights are coming out' Tourist 2: 'Amazing. Such an emotional vision' Theophan: <rummages inside front of pants> Tourists 1&2: <shuffles away>
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
spog posted:Tourist 1: 'Look, the lights are coming out' It probably wouldn't have been an issue as the guys we were hanging out with were a bunch of drunk Bostonians that called themselves the Golden Girls!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Theophany posted:Right, makes sense I guess as we were standing around in the cold for a good 20-30 minutes before the lights were visible which will have been long enough to chill the battery to the point of not being able to discharge properly. Use hand warmers. One in a pocket where you keep spare batteries, and one in the camera bag. They make a big difference in an enclosed space.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
yeah echoing handwarmers. The disposable ones are dirt cheap, and even the reusable ones from like Zippo and such are pretty nice and inexpensive these days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Trying to get a flash + remote trigger for my X-T2. I do have some older (but not so old that they'll fry digital cameras) flashes that only work in manual mode on the Fuji, via hot shoe or sync cord. I was originally thinking about a Yongnuo YN560III with one of the tx controllers, or just two of the speedlight units, but I didn't realize that they're manual-only. I guess I know that studio and other controlled situations are the main use cases for off-camera flash, but I was hoping to get something that would do TTL exposure too. I can use my existing flashes with the X-T2 in manual mode just fine. (Speaking of which, is there any plug-in radio trigger solution for making those off-camera with remotely adjustable output? I have big old Minolta, Bronica, and Nikon flashes from the 80s.) So is the Godox TT350F the best value for higher-powered TTL flash on Fuji? I'm considering picking up one with an X1T trigger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Trying to get a flash + remote trigger for my X-T2. I do have some older (but not so old that they'll fry digital cameras) flashes that only work in manual mode on the Fuji, via hot shoe or sync cord. I was originally thinking about a Yongnuo YN560III with one of the tx controllers, or just two of the speedlight units, but I didn't realize that they're manual-only. I guess I know that studio and other controlled situations are the main use cases for off-camera flash, but I was hoping to get something that would do TTL exposure too. I can use my existing flashes with the X-T2 in manual mode just fine. (Speaking of which, is there any plug-in radio trigger solution for making those off-camera with remotely adjustable output? I have big old Minolta, Bronica, and Nikon flashes from the 80s.) The TT350F is good but not high powered. It's good enough for most use bur it's powered by 2 AAs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
Is there a thread somewhere for compact video? (GoPro/alternatives)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Gear~ish question, I guess. Recently I noticed what I can only describe as splotches on a photo from my t3. I looked for it in other photos and found it in a couple.  You can see them clearly in the bottom pic (the original I noticed) and barely in the top pic. Most notable is that these were taken with different lenses, so whatever it is is in the camera itself. Dust on the sensor? They're effectively camouflaged in any photo that isn't a plain solid sky, but it's still annoying enough that I wanna fix it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Its dust. Get a bulb blower or one of those wet-wipe sensor kits to clean it off, or just use lightroom's spot heal to remove them in post.
hope and vaseline fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
hope and vaseline posted:Its dust. Get a bulb blower or one of those wet-wipe sensor kits to clean it off, or just use lightroom's spot heal to remove them in post. This is correct. It's sensor dust.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
It's looking like I'll be doing some shooting in the rain coming up. Any favorite solutions for DSLR protection on-the-go? Plastic grocery bag for sure, was also looking at these things since they come in small. Extra points for playing nicely with a tripod screw sling
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 15:42
|
|