|
Downside of using a phone as a gps logger is that it's gonna murder the battery real quick. So you're gonna be hauling around another battery to keep it charged up. One of the pocket gps loggers will last much longer on a much smaller battery.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Just use a sextant and a chronometer. What is this? Kindergarten??
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
You can tweak all the settings to trade frequency of logging with battery life and I have done a full day of logging without running the battery dead on a moto G. But hey, it's a free app. Instead of listening to me, download it and try it for yourself. E: my only concern is that you don't waste money on shite hardware, like I did. Multiple times. spog fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
Regarding poo poo hardware, just gotta do research. Amazon reviews are all fake now so that doesn't count. My gps logger owns. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Just use a sextant and a chronometer. What is this? Kindergarten?? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
wargames posted:What what i can see the k-70 has a built in intervalometer is some sort of time lapse mode. Yup. A separate unit you plug in will have more options, but yes will otherwise duplicate some functions you already have. President Beep posted:Just use a sextant and a chronometer. What is this? Kindergarten?? Stupid question: could a phone (in principle) determine Lat/Long by taking a picture of the sun? The clock on a phone is way more precise than the Harrison chronometer and it "knows" the current time in Greenwich to the microsecond. The position of the sun could be worked out by the phone from the photo and the phone's internal gyroscopes (if they're not that precise, maybe the photo needs to include the horizon?). Is there already an app for this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Yup. A separate unit you plug in will have more options, but yes will otherwise duplicate some functions you already have. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=pgo.talltree.sextant&hl=en_GB
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
lol. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
The Sony PlayMemories GPS app that links with my camera to writ lat/long onto RAW files has not materially affected the battery life on my iPhone or on my a99ii.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Amazon reviews are all fake now so that doesn't count. For those who haven't heard of them, I highly recommend running potential purchases through these sites. Sure they're not perfect, but they do help weed out iffy options. https://reviewmeta.com/ https://www.fakespot.com/
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Just another guy looking to upgrade--my family snapshots camera from an Olympus XZ-1 and my 'serious' (dicking around) camera from film SLR to digital. I don't want a specific camera recommendation but I've had very little hands-on experience with more sophisticated digital cameras than that compact and since I'll need to purchase thriftily and wisely I have to consider used, older, and-mid-tier kit instead of just picking from the newest and best stuff out there. I'm hoping people who've used more/newer/better cameras than me have opinions about these questions that might help narrow my options to begin with: -How old a body can I consider that will still have a pretty solid use life ahead of it, both in terms of performance and physical longevity? Five years? More? Less? Would I get better use from an older high-end camera or a newer mid-tier one, all else being equal? If it helps, I take about 2000 photos a year at the moment. -When reviews talk about a camera being slow to focus, do they mean relative to the state of the art at the time or in an absolute, physically-agonizing-to-wait-for sense? Will pretty much any interchangeable lens camera from the past few generations be a big improvement over my compact? -How do EVFs now compare to prism finders or back LCDs? Is it pretty easy to transition to a 'good' EVF from a prism or is it kind of a jarring difference? --I really like my Spotmatic. Are there any 'spiritual successors' out there? About the same size and weight, similar feel to use (readiness to hand, straightforwardness, etc.) even though different technology? Bonus if it can adapt M42 lenses for fun. Totally subjective, so anyone who wants to argue for their favorite camera can feel free. I can talk more about what I'd like in a replacement camera if necessary but right now I'm really only starting my search. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
- Digital cameras have been good enough for long enough that you can go pretty far back and still get an amazing camera. I'm using an 8 year old camera and it's still fine. The general way to pick a first camera is to decide on the budget, then narrow down the field based on needed features, such as video or burst fps. Brand is just user preference; go to a store to hold some in your hands and see what feels best. - Auto-focus speed is dependent (mostly) on the lens, though later cameras have more advanced auto-focus with more auto-focus points. - I still think EVFs are weird, but they've become pretty good. - If you want something with the feel of a spotomatic you'll want to look at mirror-less cameras, probably all of which have adapters to accept M42 lenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
Evfs are very good these days and better than many dsl viewfinders which can seem dark and small (not in all but in many) compared to old film viewfinders. An evf won’t be better than those old viewfinders either but they are great and I have no complaints. I’ve been using mirrorless since 2011 and even early on there were some pretty good viewfinders. My favorite evf has been on the xt2 (and I assume the xt3 is just as good). If you have a lot of old glass you’d like to adapt then it’s hard to beat one of the Sony full frame mirrorless cameras. Purely based on native glass I would choose Fuji, and I did and shot Fuji for 6 years. However despite how good the glass is I wanted to start using my old lenses again and got a used a72. The prices on them are absurdly low for what you are getting from the body - I got mine for 650 bucks. You could adapt your lenses on any mirrorless of course but personally I wanted to do so on full frame. Regarding “slow to focus in the last few generations” most from this generation or the previous will be fine unless you are shooting sports or something similar. Move further back than that and you start sacrificing more af capability on some models. To use Fuji as an example again (since that was where I spent most of my mirrorless time) the difference between the xt1 and xt2 autofocus speed was drastic. Regarding longevity people are still using first gen 5D bodies and it is still a capable body for what it is so I wouldn’t worry much there. Using that as an example you have usable af but really only with the center af point so once you start focusing in on bodies you might want then come on back and ask again for some specifics. One big question you’ll want to ask is will you be getting into a lens ecosystem or only adapting glass. If you are adapting then it simplifies the decision. If you are getting a specific mount’s lenses then you want to look at general prices, quality and so on. If I were sticking with one brands lenses I would probably still be shooting Fuji because I also love their bodies external controls since I was coming from film for the most part and missed those external controls. I am happy with Sony now, though, for what I’m doing and although some lenses are overpriced there are third party lenses and the FE Mount isn’t going anywhere so there will be more over time if I want to branch out from using only adapted lenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:- Digital cameras have been good enough for long enough that you can go pretty far back and still get an amazing camera. can confirm. I have several cameras for work, but the M4/3 my family uses cost me $200 5 years ago. It doesn't have an EVF, but it does touch-to-focus so slap a 20mm f/1.7 on there and the wife/in-laws just go nuts with it. getting the right camera doesn't have to be expensive or brand new, but when you get it, it'll be a blast
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
Jellyko posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
Get a pentax k-3 or k3 ii. Comparable to 70d and d7100. Fully featured flagship camera, in body stabilization, dual control wheels, great viewfinder, weather sealed, good compatibility with older lenses, better buffer, satisfying shutter. You could adapt lenses from a spotmatic. Catch in focus works well for manual lenses. The kit lens, 50-200, and 18-135 are all weather sealed and relatively affordable. Mirrorless cameras have made more improvements in the last five years. Older ones have frustrating shutter lag and autofocus, and poor battery life. Newer ones are comparable or better than dslr. Also more video focused and many have in body image stabilization.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 09:40
|
|
|
lampey posted:Get a pentax Mods?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 11:31
|
|
|
lampey posted:Get a pentax Seconded. Any Pentax DSLR, work backwards from the current models until you hit your budget. M42 adapts to K-mount with a $5 all-metal adaptor. Buy one for each of your spotmatic's lenses and they're 100% ready to go on your new-to-you Pentax.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 13:56
|
|
|
M42 also works just fine on a Canon with a similarly-priced all-metal adapter. Although, if you shoot Pentax, you'll be able to join some Facebook groups full of insufferable idiots posting either generic Facebook-safe T&A or non-action shots at sports events (with the inevitable caption 'Apparently Pentax can't do sports....'). So, there's that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
I've been sitting on a 135mm f/2.8 Focal MC (JC Penney-sold) lens with a Minolta mount for some time now. I've now got a Rokkor gen 1 lens on the way with the same specs. Are there any good online resources available for doing lens comparisons? I seem to recall that there's a website out there for just that, but I can't remember what it's called. I also suspect that they won't have any reference info for the Focal MC glass... At first I'd assumed that the Rokkor lens would be better by a mile, but I've done some reading and apparently the version I've found tends to be a bit soft compared to the updated one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
/\/\/\ lenses that old have probably accumulated some differences compared to what they were like emerging from the assembly line anyway, so your best bet is probably to run some simple tests yourself. Find some on-line instructions for shooting highly standardized targets, print them off, and plonk your camera on a tripod at whatever set difference from the target and go hog wild. An hour or two of shooting will provide more than enough pixel-peeping (or negative-peeping) comparisons to make those decisions.Helen Highwater posted:M42 also works just fine on a Canon with a similarly-priced all-metal adapter. Well, sure. But it's not like Facebook is full of insufferable idiots in general.  As always, ergonomics matters. When shopping for a new camera system, it's important to fondle the wares at the earliest opportunity, and frequently thereafter. Literally hold up the demo cameras at Best Buy or Big Bill's House of Cameras or wherever and see how badly it dents your face. No current or recent DSLR is similar enough to a Spotmatic to matter, but some will be smaller than others (especially if you consider mirrorless options) and maybe that's something you like in a camera, or maybe you like a bigger body that fits your oversize mitten-like hands better and you can post-hoc justify it for balancing Big Stupid Telephotos. The point is, each individual is going to prioritize different features of different cameras, and many people will not know what they prefer until they dive in and spend some time shooting with a particular camera. I'm still recommending Jellyko look into current and within-the-past-few-years Pentax DSLRs. Find a camera store that sells them, and try out the Pentaxes on offer - most manufacturers tend to keep fairly consistent with their ergonomics so if today's new Pentaxes don't feel good it's likely a 3- or 5-year-old used camera will also not feel good. Maybe Canons feel better? Or Nikon/Sony/Fuji/Micro-4/3rds. GO PLAY WITH THE CAMERAS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
As a omnibrand user, I never understood the priority ergonomics seems to have with a DSLR in this forum. The user interface mattered significantly more to me when deciding what to use. Even more so, the accessibility of other lenses took even further priority. Most of my friends shot Canon, so that's what I went with so I could bum lenses/bodies until I could afford my own. Performance-wise, it seems like Nikon currently has more value than Canon short of becoming a Canon Professional Services user.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
As a brand new photo nerd whos first camera is a pentax k70 I can say the k70 feels good, a bit heavy though, and auto focus is not a perk/selling point, cannon has the best, and nikon is suppose to be better. Nikon lenses however do seem to have a higher starting pointing. Canon's seems cheaper, and Pentax doesn't have a huge range as the other two. But the pentax 18-135mm kit lens is legit good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:/\/\/\ lenses that old have probably accumulated some differences compared to what they were like emerging from the assembly line anyway, so your best bet is probably to run some simple tests yourself. Find some on-line instructions for shooting highly standardized targets, print them off, and plonk your camera on a tripod at whatever set difference from the target and go hog wild. An hour or two of shooting will provide more than enough pixel-peeping (or negative-peeping) comparisons to make those decisions. This sounds like a drat good suggestion. Thanks! I couldn’t find any comparison data online anyway—any standardized testing seems largely confined to newer autofocus stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:As a omnibrand user, I never understood the priority ergonomics seems to have with a DSLR in this forum. The user interface mattered significantly more to me when deciding what to use. Even more so, the accessibility of other lenses took even further priority. Most of my friends shot Canon, so that's what I went with so I could bum lenses/bodies until I could afford my own. Performance-wise, it seems like Nikon currently has more value than Canon short of becoming a Canon Professional Services user. I consider user interface to be part of the ergonomics. Do your fingers comfortably and naturally land on important and useful controls? Are the settings you are most likely to change often (shutter speed, aperture, shooting priority, live view, burst mode, etc.) accessible through dedicated buttons or wheels, or are they buried in menus? Can you customize some controls (e.g. back focus button)? What direction do you twist the lens to zoom in? How quickly can you swap lenses? Does the flash seem to do what you want, or does using a speedlight involve tedious setting-up? Having friends willing to loan lenses or accessories is also a very valid factor. So is a long-term gear purchase plan that might include specific lenses or features. There are lots of factors that go into any significant purchase. I feel like I'm the loudest voice saying "ergonomics" so if it seems excessive I apologise. Many ergonomic features are easier for a beginning shooter to evaluate than detailed (spergy) in-depth gear reviews by professional reviewers as well as professional photographers - and never mind the paid brand-shills who relentlessly push individual brands. Plus hanging out in a camera store and talking with the employees can be fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
I find the Olympus OM-1 uncomfortable to hold while the Pentax MX feels great. They're (nearly) the same size and layout. I can't stand holding the Nikon F90 but love F100. Not surprisingly the OM-1 and F90 never get used and will be sold even though they're great cameras. These magical soul stealers need to fit proper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
I’ve been flipping back and forth between my 7D and my yashica electro 35 lately. It’s, uh, kinda jarring...
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
https://leicarumors.com/2018/10/16/pictures-of-the-leica-m10-d-camera-leaked-it-has-an-advance-lever.aspx/ but why
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
They know their target market. The camera as jewelry crowd will love it.President Beep posted:... yashica electro 35 lately. It’s, uh, kinda jarring... If the lens was half an inch more to the left it would be super comfy to hold.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Atlatl posted:I would advise sticking with crop sensor. The only dude I know that climbs/hikes/enjoys outdoors with full frame stuff is built like a gorilla and can ruck infinity pounds with no problem, and even then the volume of the lenses is inconvenient so he normally only brings his walkaround zoom. Thanks for the ideas you guys. I purchased the XT3 and rented a xf18-55mm from borrowlenses to test out this weekend at the State XC meet. What's your idea of a good walkaround zoom for something like mountain photos? I'm still really considering the xf16-55mm, it seems like it would be good for that, and would cover a wide range of activities outside of landscape photos. But maybe it's too similar to the length of lens found on the X100F? I dunno. In any case I'm super excited to try this camera out!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
Smoove J posted:Thanks for the ideas you guys. I purchased the XT3 and rented a xf18-55mm from borrowlenses to test out this weekend at the State XC meet. What's your idea of a good walkaround zoom for something like mountain photos? I'm still really considering the xf16-55mm, it seems like it would be good for that, and would cover a wide range of activities outside of landscape photos. But maybe it's too similar to the length of lens found on the X100F? I dunno. In any case I'm super excited to try this camera out! I am not a good enough
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
Smoove J posted:Thanks for the ideas you guys. I purchased the XT3 and rented a xf18-55mm from borrowlenses to test out this weekend at the State XC meet. What's your idea of a good walkaround zoom for something like mountain photos? I'm still really considering the xf16-55mm, it seems like it would be good for that, and would cover a wide range of activities outside of landscape photos. But maybe it's too similar to the length of lens found on the X100F? I dunno. In any case I'm super excited to try this camera out! Congrats, Fuji is great. I was dealing with that zoom decision and ultimately kept the 18-55. Its stabilization was a plus and the IQ was not better enough for me on the 16-55 to sacrifice that and the smaller size. I would suggest a 23 1.4 but if you have an x100 then that’d be redundant for your first lens purchase. If you are budgeting based on the price of the 16-55 I’d get a prime and the 18-55. 18-55 prices used are pretty cheap. The 55-140 is fantastic if you want a longer zoom - actually every zoom I tried (and I think I had been through them all) was great, even the cheap plastic 50-230. But in the end I mainly used prunes because Fuji just makes really phenomenal primes. I did use the 18-55 and 55-140 too but not as much as the primes. Oh and I did use the 100-400 a lot when I had it but that was obviously specialized and no prime would replace that one - phenomenal lens if you want to drop some bucks in a really long lens. Based on your question though for landscapes, what focal length did you tend to use before switching to Fuji? The 18-55 and a prime of your choice can accomplish a lot, particularly if you have the 35mm equivalent covered with the X100.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
rio posted:
I've only used the 23mm (35mm equivalent?) on the Fuji X100F, that (and the X100 before Fuji upgraded it) was my first and only camera. I don't really know much about various focal lengths, this is all super new to me. Smoove J fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Oct 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 12:15
|
|
|
Congrats on the X-T3, it looks like a beast and should last you an extremely long time.Smoove J posted:I've only used the 23mm (35mm equivalent?) on the Fuji X100F, that (and the X100 before Fuji upgraded it) was my first and only camera. I don't really know much about various focal lengths, this is all super new to me. Bigger numbers give a narrower field of view. Field of view is usually measured corner to corner like a TV size, just check for that in the lens spec sheet to see roughly what you want. There are adjustments depending on the sensor size (people talk about 35mm equivalent just as a frame of reference), but field of view is always a real number. You can't really go wrong with fuji lenses, but I wouldn't worry about the 16-55 or 18-55 being too close to your X100F. Just shoot the zoom for awhile and have fun while you get used to the camera and think about what you want. It will be obvious after a little while if you're hurting for something like a big zoom or a macro lens or something fast for low light.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 12:53
|
|
|
rio posted:I mainly used prunes I know it's an autocorrect thing or a simple typo, but I'm stealing this anyway. My macro prune is one of my favourites. What's in your bag of prunes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
Atlatl posted:Congrats on the X-T3, it looks like a beast and should last you an extremely long time. I get the numbers in a very general, abstract sense. I don't know the real world application of them, I guess. Like, will I find [x] focal length useful? would [y] be better suited to the task? For example, will that grizzly that's a quarter mile away show up with a 400mm zoom? I don't have the experience to know what works. Time to figure it out... I'll have both the 18-55 and the 16-55 on hand this weekend to try and see which midrange zoom I like best, at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Smoove J posted:I've only used the 23mm (35mm equivalent?) on the Fuji X100F, that (and the X100 before Fuji upgraded it) was my first and only camera. I don't really know much about various focal lengths, this is all super new to me. So what I would do is take the 18-55 you rented and take some time setting it to 18mm, 35mm and 55mm. I would suggest 23mm in there too but you have that covered with the x100. Set one focal length and leave it - don’t zoom and see which one you gravitate towards. Then you’ll know which prime you would get the most use out of. The one exception is the 18mm and the prime you’d be getting in that case would be the 16mm 1.4. Used will save you a good amount and either here or fredmiranda people take pretty good care of their lenses. Craigslist is good too since you can check what you’re getting but eBay is a crapshoot. Alternatively if the 18-55 seems good enough for you on its own then you could get a longer zoom. ExecuDork posted:I know it's an autocorrect thing or a simple typo, but I'm stealing this anyway. I only use vintage prunes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Smoove J posted:will that grizzly that's a quarter mile away show up with a 400mm Birds/Wildlife are the worst for rampant Gear Acquisition Syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Birds/Wildlife are the worst for rampant Gear Acquisition Syndrome. If someone could somehow chart my transition from a Rebel with a first gen. 55-250 to a 7D with a Sigma 150-600 it would resemble a space rocket’s trajectory. That was doing things “cheaply” too!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
ExecuDork posted:No. You're carrying a 400mm, and you see something - at any distance - and you want more reach. You go home, and research obsessively until 3am then click Buy It Now on an eBay auction. Next time, you're out with your 600mm and that same goddam thing is in the same goddam place and you line up your shot and GODDAMMIT! Still not filling the frame! Still not a Portrait of a Glorified Chicken to pseudo-humbly send to National Geographic. So you open another bottle and repeat the process, but you never take that perfect picture that's in your head. And you throw your back out hiking around with 30 kg of Big Stupid Glass. Love the tiny wildlifes I got with a rented 200-500mm on a DX body on an Alaskan cruise. Happy with a few shots, but man until you get long glass you don't realize it isn't the difference maker if something isn't either big or close to you already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 23:54
|
|
