|
Maybe I just have a fantastic copy but I don't have these issues with my Manfrotto ball head. It's even a compact one too. It was a little greasy from the previous owner using it as the grease from the lock mechanism transfers to the ball over time but once I cleaned it out it's been nothing but rigid. Makes me wonder if I'm just used to a bad product?
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
I had the old recommended manfrotto 190 series aluminum legs with the matching ball head. Never had issues with it. The biggest lens I ever used was a 5d2 body and a 70-200 2.8 though so if you're using huge glass thou might need more. I also have no idea what the new equivalent is. I think all in it was around $200-250 and its suited my needs for the last 8 years or so. Also, flick locks versus twist, I'll take flick every time. Don't get me wrong, I would love a carbon fiber tripod and a nicer head but I don't use my tripod that much in the first place as I literally never hike with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
I've used a Manfrotto (190 something?) for 8 years now. It's seen Europe, British Columbia, the Black Hills, a few family vacations, lots of snow/ice/cold, and 50+ tornadoes. The only camera I have that doesn't feel good on it is a Crown Graphic. I'm not a pro but its certainly held up as an enthusiast tripod.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
Another Manfrotto-legs user checking in. I have a Sirui Arca-Swiss-compatible ballhead and a DealExtreme gimbal mount for my 500mm supertele and either combination works great. I don't use my tripod that much, because it's heavy and very awkward (I bash it in to random things - doors, my car, furniture - every time I pick it up) but it works great when I do use it. My tripod cost me a little less than $300, three years ago when I bought it on sale with the Manfrotto ballhead after winning the money in a photography contest. The Manfrotto ballhead is fine, I've used it a few times, but the proprietary MF QR plate that it came with is the only one I have whereas I picked up a bunch of Arca-Swiss QR plates on eBay ages ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Maybe I just have a fantastic copy but I don't have these issues with my Manfrotto ball head. It's even a compact one too. It was a little greasy from the previous owner using it as the grease from the lock mechanism transfers to the ball over time but once I cleaned it out it's been nothing but rigid. For me at least the issue isn't rigidity so much as sag/shift when you tighten down the ball. With anything over, like, 50mm on mine it'd be a large enough movement that I'd usually have to reframe a couple times before getting it just right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Yep, my manfrotto ball head holds lots of weight quite well (takes a tamron 150-600 like a champ), it just sags a millimeter or two when you let go of the camera. It also had an issue where the friction pin for the ball fell out and was rattling around inside the head. Disassembly is not easy without circlip pliers. Was a good beginner head, would not buy again though and certainly won't recommend it to anyone. The 055xprob legs are still pretty great though. They disassemble easily so you can clean mud off 'em which is good because I treat my gear like poo poo. Only thing I don't like is the low angle pole, I get why some people would like having such a feature but I have never used it and would prefer to not have it. It doesn't detract from normal use though, it's completely ignorable except for the extra weight it adds. If cinema gear wasn't so loving overpriced I'd hunt around for a bowl tripod for my next legs. http://flowtech-tripod.com/ 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
powderific posted:For me at least the issue isn't rigidity so much as sag/shift when you tighten down the ball. With anything over, like, 50mm on mine it'd be a large enough movement that I'd usually have to reframe a couple times before getting it just right. Yea I had those issues when I first got it, but cleaning off the ball and interacting surface with a solvent got rid of sag. I've put a 5DIII with battery grip, 400 f/5.6, and 2x teleconverter on it with no issue. But I also know not to expect no problems mounting off the camera vs the lens mount for heavy set ups.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
Sorry, sag wasn't the right word. I've had no sag once tightened, it's that the ball shifts as you tighten it down even if you're holding the camera steady.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
the yeti posted:Yeah, they do lol. I had them and they’re heavy as gently caress. No way you want to carry them unless you’re really fit. A set of either lighter 190 series Manfrotto legs or cheap Chinese carbon fiber legs (generously overspec them wrt camera weight rating) is better because a slightly less high quality tripod in the field is better than a rock solid tripod left at home. Also seriously consider ebay, used tripod legs with screw tightening legs (ie not the manfrotto style flip locks which can wear out without it being externally visible) will probably be just fine unless they’re visibly damaged. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Apr 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 01:00
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
um excuse me posted:Maybe I just have a fantastic copy but I don't have these issues with my Manfrotto ball head. It's even a compact one too. It was a little greasy from the previous owner using it as the grease from the lock mechanism transfers to the ball over time but once I cleaned it out it's been nothing but rigid. The sag has already been mentioned, plus they’re mostly not arca compatible which imo disqualifies a tripod head from being considered acceptable after ~2005.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
If you're doing heavy loads like Pentax 67, Mamiya RZ, large-format cameras, long telephoto lenses, etc it's worth just ponying up the money for a used Arca-Swiss B1/Z1, probably like $200-250 depending on the model. But they do hold their value really well, so if you ever want your money back out it shouldn't be a problem. (obviously not applicable if you're just shooting a lightweight digital or something, but someone upthread mentioned they were shooting a Crown Graphic - those aren't heavy cameras but they probably will catch some wind.) Get a L-bracket for your main cameras too, it's a really nice luxury to have something that fits your body right instead of a generic plate. And get some plates for any teles you have - Wimberley sells scratch-and-dent plates fairly cheaply and they work perfectly. It'll be a lot more stable with a tripod under the CG than hanging off the lens mount, with larger lenses you could potentially even damage the mount. (probably not news for any of the denizens of this forum) Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Apr 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
Been wanting some better studio lights for a while and have been looking at the AD600's. Am currently in china where these are a lot cheaper than where i live (about a 3rd). Doing gear research here is a pain as i only have a phone, google and youtube is blocked and the web pages where i can buy gear arent in english. As long as i have specific brand names to search for i am fine, e.g. I can find ad600 since that is a fairly universal term but searching for "godox flash" wouldnt be much help. I was wondering if someone could help me out with the names for the other stuff i need. As far as i know the ad600s only needs a transmitter on camera to fire. Is X1T the one i want? I need both a canon and a sony one so that should be X1T-C and X1T-S? ( i can find the -C one but no -S, though there is an X1R-S, is that for a different flash?) What about stands, mounts (bowen something?) and softboxes? Any of these have names/codes i would be able to search for?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 01:52
|
|
|
You want to buy one XPro-C transmitter for your Canon bodies and one XPro-S transmitter for your Sony bodies. The lights will automatically switch between both TTL modes. The XPro transmitters are so much better that I can't in good conscience recommend X1T style transmitters unless you really want to have another flash on top of the camera while using the transmitter. The X1R-S is a receiver to use with Sony shoe flashes to get them to trigger wirelessly via Godox. You don't want one of those to use the AD series lights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
What the gently caress https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1273541-REG/lomography_z260n_petzval_le.html 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
Ah, yes, exactly the type of gear I think of when I hear "Lomography".
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
One of my buddies has one. He used it for one portrait session during a wedding we were shooting. After seeing the results I had to tell him to stop using it for weddings or limit its use to one photo. Its too gimmicky and the results aren't even good/cool/interesting enough to warrant its use. Also, the photos make me feel dizzy/drunk. Cool experimental thing for $100-200, but insanely dumb at $700 for a novelty lens with very limited applications.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
To me it's the fedora of camera lenses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
M'lamey
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
President Beep posted:To me it's the fedora of camera lenses. lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
President Beep posted:To me it's the fedora of camera lenses. My name is Randy and I'm here to take your nuptial photos m'lady. Can I interest you in any boudoir photos today? I have this great lens ... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
"Bokeh control art lens" is some fantastic phrasing
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Gotta give them credit for parting fools from their money though. You can make most their lovely effects with random lenses you buy at a science surplus store and pvc tubes, or if you're not a DIY type you can get old lenses off ebay for a $100. And they've convinced people such things are worth hundreds of dollars. Though I'll never forgive them for poisoning any google search that uses the word "daguerreotype."
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
I Can Quit OM Lenses Any Time I Want  
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Gotta give them credit for parting fools from their money though. Yeah, I'm absolutely okay with this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Here's a review. The guy says he likes it but even he admits that it's a gimmick lens. Also the sharpness falloff from the centre to the edges is hilariously terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
just get a helios
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:just get a helios But that doesn’t go with my velocipede. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
The only good Bokeh control lens out there are the Nikon 105 and 135 f2 dc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
The Sony/Minolta 135 STF and Sony 105 STF would disagree.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Here's a review. The guy says he likes it but even he admits that it's a gimmick lens. Also the sharpness falloff from the centre to the edges is hilariously terrible. Uh, that's real loving bad. You could do that poo poo in Photoshop with a couple of filters and a normal lens instead of advertising to the world you're an idiot with some gangsta rap poo poo screwed on your camera.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 23:13
|
|
Theophany posted:Uh, that's real loving bad. You could do that poo poo in Photoshop with a couple of filters and a normal lens instead of advertising to the world you're an idiot with some gangsta rap poo poo screwed on your camera. I'm not sure you understand the kind of person Lomo markets to.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
It’d be a good photography challenge to see if anyone on the planet is capable of taking a good photo with that thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
Fermat's last therom of photography
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
I've literally paid less than that for actual vintage petzvals. Like, 1/5th of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
Is there a lens called "The Bokinator"? If not there should be, you'd make a zillion dollars. Also include a blurb about how pictures of children with names ending in "aiden"/"ayden" come out looking 66% better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
Some rear end in a top hat broke into my car while I was unpacking for a location shoot. Thankfully, I had my camera and light bag with me. Lost my tripod, light stands and modifiers. Still, Insurance is covering it, so I'm kicking in some more cash and buying a Gitzo extra long I've gone from a 19lb setup to 10lb, and up to 8ft. Hopefully it's the last tripod I ever buy
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
Another set of questions, a direct result of procrastinating when I really should be writing a letter of recommendation this weekend ... How do people in this thread compare cameras? I see dpreview has a large image database that lets you compare two cameras side-by-side using the same reference subject. Is it fair to compare cameras this way? While doing this, I noticed that I really like the image that the Leica M10 produces. It has also gotten a favorable review at dxomark. I'm daydreaming about a compact camera that I would mostly use for landscapes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
I'm looking for a camera bag to take all my stuff with my for a 5 day vacation out west. I currently have a Canon 7DmkII, a few small/medium lenses, and a 10 inch long Sigma 150-600mm that until now I've always carried in its own pouch when I bring it places. Is there a backpack-type bag that I can use as my carry-on (I'm also checking a bag) that is rainproof, would hold everything I already have (holding the 150-600 not a requirement but nice), and maybe fit a 6D + another wide lens if I end up buying them? I guess I could put some of the less-expensive things in my checked luggage, but since I only want something that at worst would be used for a day hike (And emptied out somewhat for lenses I wouldn't be using) I think a large backpack would be the ideal way to go. This seems like it would meet all my needs, wondering if anyone else has other opinions on what they like: https://www.amazon.com/Ikan-IBG-EXP-Explorer-Bag-Green/dp/B004L8Y1VG
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Another set of questions, a direct result of procrastinating when I really should be writing a letter of recommendation this weekend ... Comparing images isn't really a very effective way to compare two different cameras directly. it might sound weird to say that because, after all the images are the whole point, but there are a lot of different factors that go into choosing a camera. For a start understand that image quality for any decent camera is likely to not be an issue at all. I guarantee you that nobody can tell what camera was used to take a particular picture. There are so many variables in the image production and post-production that, for 99% of users, the image quality for generic shots is effectively equal for all cameras. Most of us I guess are locked into a particular system by lens collections and other accessories. So, when we are looking at a new camera, we are comparing what we have to the new replacement or upgrade for it. I don't think that many of us are comparing sample photos though, it's all about the specs and the value of the improvements vs the cost of upgrade. For people who aren't locked into a system or who are looking for a new system, mostly it's about form factor and use cases. Availability of particular lenses for specific requirements, burst speed for sports and wildlife, lowlight capability and so on. Sometimes it's about looking at physically smaller cameras for active sports or as a second body for when we don't want to drag along our main camera.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Comparing images isn't really a very effective way to compare two different cameras directly. it might sound weird to say that because, after all the images are the whole point, but there are a lot of different factors that go into choosing a camera. I understand the idea. Image quality is a result of the complete system. Image sharpness in the corners is more a function of the lens rather than of the sensor. But certain lenses cannot be used on some bodies(?*). Also, I use the noise/graininess in the shadows of an image to get an idea of the sensor performance along with the dynamic range from dxomark. *Unfortunately, the RAW image of the M10 contains no lens information, so I don't know if the lens would be compatible on a different body (the much less expensive Samsung NX500 for example). How would I go about finding out what lens was used? Also, Leica made a couple of videos where the main message was that a rangefinder has no mirror, and this allows the lens to sit closer to the sensor -> higher quality images. But the same argument holds for any mirrorless camera, not just rangefinders. On the one hand, I feel that somebody is trying to sell me snake oil. On the other hand, the image quality (not an apples-apples comparison) of the M10 cannot be denied.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 00:32
|
|