|
harperdc posted:Why the 16-55 and 50-140? Both the 18-55 and 55-250 are excellent options that happen to be cheaper (and the 55-250 has more reach). That or get the 18-55 and use the pennies for the 100-400 instead? And, the 18-55 has IS, as does the 55-200. The 55-200 is not blazing on aperture or focus speed, but it's sharp, and longer than the 150.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:59 |
|
|
Fools Infinite posted:Disappointment seems to be a theme in xf10 reviews, but if it is appealing to you, you might consider a used x70 as well. qirex posted:If you're doing daylight the XF10 should be fine, of course at 28mm it's useless for wildlife but should be good for general landscapes. Most of the focus hunting was reported in low light. One other one to think about is some kind of RX100 like a 3 or 4, the sensor is smaller but you still get some zoom and it charges by USB. I went with the XF10 - all the other options sacrificed something that I was looking for: RX100 has a smaller sensor, X70 is bigger and kinda fiddly after playing with it, I considered an EOS M50 briefly since I could use my existing glass but that isn't a pocketable option, GRiii didn't seem like it was worth $400 more on paper. I'm pretty happy with it so far after playing around with the menus and customizing stuff.  XF10 Test by charliebravo77, on Flickr XF10 Test by charliebravo77, on Flickr XF10 Test by charliebravo77, on Flickr XF10 Test by charliebravo77, on Flickr XF10 Test by charliebravo77, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
charliebravo77 posted:I went with the XF10 - all the other options sacrificed something that I was looking for: RX100 has a smaller sensor, X70 is bigger and kinda fiddly after playing with it, I considered an EOS M50 briefly since I could use my existing glass but that isn't a pocketable option, GRiii didn't seem like it was worth $400 more on paper. I'm pretty happy with it so far after playing around with the menus and customizing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
qirex posted:Glad you’re happy with it so far, I got to play with a friend’s GR III and it was super fun but it’s basically the same price as my X100. The XF10 things I didn’t like were the lens cap and fact that you can’t put it on a normal strap. If it gets cheap enough I might try it out. You could put a black rapid style sling on it with the tripod mounting hole  It's a bit of an annoyance but for my usage it's purely a pocket camera and when I want to be carrying as little as possible but still have something better than my cell phone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Hahaha, if I buy the below it comes to 4200. Which is technically more than the cost of the safari I'm going on. You're not wrong though, a telephoto is a good idea on a safari. Have you planned for how you're gonna mount the 18" long microphone?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 06:26
|
|
|
powderific posted:Have you planned for how you're gonna mount the 18" long microphone? 18 inches? holy poo poo lol 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:And, the 18-55 has IS, as does the 55-200. The 55-200 is not blazing on aperture or focus speed, but it's sharp, and longer than the 150. Truth. And there’s a big weight savings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
powderific posted:Have you planned for how you're gonna mount the 18" long microphone? Totally haven’t but didn’t even realize it was 18 inches, I will go back and check options I do thank you and the others for your feedback though. I didn’t realize there was a thread for photographing wildlife either. AT875R Line + Gradient Condenser Microphone is 6.9 inches long and says it's for use with cameras. And I get to save money. harperdc posted:Why the 16-55 and 50-140? Both the 18-55 and 55-250 are excellent options that happen to be cheaper (and the 55-250 has more reach). That or get the 18-55 and use the pennies for the 100-400 instead? One, I'm inexperienced and reading all the reviews made me think it'd be okay investing in the higher end lenses. I can afford it too. I also don't know what to expect when I go to Africa so I felt weather resistance was important. However your point is right with the 18-55 in that it has OIS for image stabilization. EDIT: What you're saying makes sense after checking it out. The 100-400 is meant for wildlife photography/action telephoto and is weather resistant. I will recheck myself. Gatts fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jun 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
If its a single trip look into rental options. Lensrentals.com offers anything you can think of and the prices are reasonable compared to buying. You get top quality glass without spending thousands. Get a kit you are going to use more frequently and get the long stuff useful for the safari as a rental.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
Buy used, sell used for the same or higher price. It's the best rental.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 03:48
|
|
|
Crossposting from the wrong thread: I've added an X-T3 to my stable, but I need a new bag/backpack. The bag that I have for my DSLR doesn't fit the Fuji right, so it just rattles around in there, and none of the velcro points are in a position to close it down any. My other bag is too small. What I need is a bag that will fit the camera, 3 lenses, flash, battery grip, etc. Does anyone have a recommendation that isn't a $600 Peak Design bag?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
billingham hadley pro
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
Gatts posted:
Don't be like that one Reddit guy that is frequently featured in the best photographer thread. I am unable to dig up any of his posts but maybe someone else knows whom in thinking of
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 11:29
|
|
|
XBenedict posted:Crossposting from the wrong thread: On my wish list for a similar set of gear is the Lowepro Freeline BP 350 AW. They've cribbed some notes from Peak Design and it looks like a tasty package for (a not insignificant) ~$200.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 12:04
|
|
|
XBenedict posted:Crossposting from the wrong thread: Think Tank Retrospective 10. Holds my gripped XH1 (usually has the 16-55 on), my 55-200, and my 90 (and frequently, my 35 and 9mm inside the lens hoods of the other lenses). Exterior slot for my tablet, and lots of space for a couple batteries and cards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 13:15
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:Don't be like that one Reddit guy that is frequently featured in the best photographer thread. I gotchu fam.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Thanks! Yeah, don’t be this guy
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
wow that's some good photography.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
Thinking of pulling the trigger on this. Anyone recommend a good tripod? https://youtu.be/r1a89UBEdTQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
That's like this dude who turned a truck into a camera in 2012. https://vimeo.com/39578584 I guess Vimeo doesn't imbed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 03:10
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Thinking of pulling the trigger on this. Anyone recommend a good tripod? It is the tripod.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
Might have asked this ITT already but is th re a reason that catadioptric (mirror, or reflex) lenses aren't really a thing anymore? I've got a hankering for some longer-range shots and they're really inexpensive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
I used to have an enlarging lens on a single helicoid and it worked fine. I now added a second helicoid for >1x macro and I see some bright spots in the image center. Taking the contraption off the body and looking through it, I see some reflections from a surface on the inside of the tube. Is there a way to reduce those reflections? I know on telescopes, people typically add flocking material. While I could add that, I would lose a bit of focusing ability. Or is it easier to get a single high quality helicoid that has been properly treated to avoid reflections inside the tube? Edit: The local arts and craft store sells felt, so I'll try to attach it to the problem areas with an adhesive. I'll worry about focusing ability later. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Jun 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Might have asked this ITT already but is th re a reason that catadioptric (mirror, or reflex) lenses aren't really a thing anymore? I've got a hankering for some longer-range shots and they're really inexpensive. I am not an expert, but I think the nicer bokeh and backgrounds you get from a telephoto lens (which is a specific arrangement of lenses, not just any lens with high magnification) means nobody really bothers to make a high-quality mirror lens. They're cheap because a) you can build a functional but not great one for cheap and b) demand is low. A really good mirror lens would presumably have less of those issues but they'd still be present, so you're spending a lot of money to get something inherently flawed, even if the multicoating is great and the aperture is wonderful and the autofocus is silent and quick and smooth. There are probably other aspects having to do with maximum apertures or minimum focus that also make it hard for a mirror lens to compete effectively with other options aside from being cheap as hell. The flip side is, given how cheap a 500mm or whatever mirror lens is, why not just buy one to play with? If you hate it you can probably unload it for about what you paid anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Might have asked this ITT already but is th re a reason that catadioptric (mirror, or reflex) lenses aren't really a thing anymore? I've got a hankering for some longer-range shots and they're really inexpensive. President Beep posted:Thinking of pulling the trigger on this. Anyone recommend a good tripod?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
I bought a couple Paul c buff white lightnings from the BorrowLenses sale, aside from them being 100% manual are there any quirks I need to worry about?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Might have asked this ITT already but is th re a reason that catadioptric (mirror, or reflex) lenses aren't really a thing anymore? I've got a hankering for some longer-range shots and they're really inexpensive. pretty slow aperture (most are like f/8), pretty gross bokeh
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
I have an 800mm mirror lens. It is fine as a novelty but lacking overall, even perfectly focused images are soft, and the color is more dull. Fixed aperture at f8, manual focus, razor thin depth of field means it is hard to use. It is hard to nail focus on stationary targets. With catch-in focus it works ok for moving targets. Getting birds in flight or airshows takes luck to keep the subject in the center of the frame with such a long lens so catch in focus works. If you turn that off and go with shutter priority you are just taking a lot of blurry shots and filling the buffer otherwise.The weird bokeh was not as big of a problem as I thought it would be. Because of the thin depth of field the bokeh fades out to look mostly normal quickly. For stationary targets you can take more pictures than you think you need while adjusting the focus and pick out the good ones. The lens has no chip so you have to cover two of the contacts with foil, or modify a t mount to get automatic shutter/iso, and catch-in focus to work on a K3-II. Liveview doesn't work very well because shake reduction is maxing out and clunking. Shake reduction works fine otherwise though and you don't really need a tripod for 1/500 or faster. It is light and compact relative to other supertelephotos. F8 isn't a lot of light so you are limited when you can shoot to during the day an hour after sunrise or an hour before sunset, in the light if the subject is moving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:I bought a couple Paul c buff white lightnings from the BorrowLenses sale, aside from them being 100% manual are there any quirks I need to worry about? Recycle times are slow, the power sliders are super hinky, and the fans like to fail (in which case the overheat failure mode is the unit acting increasingly weird and eventually shutting off). But they're built like tanks, the hinky sliders can be worked around unless you're a highly technical shooter, and even a fully failed fan is rarely an issue if you're shooting indoors and not blasting the modeling light. Depending on their age, they shipped for a while with uncoated flashtubes. If you're primarily shooting people or are particularly attached to your modifiers, you may want to verify whether you have a coated (UV filtering) or uncoated (UV blasting) tube. Also those metal casings will get hot as gently caress if you're shooting outdoors or near a window. Pack gloves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
With the lens chat, this is a good time to ask about which you would rather. I've got a Canon SL1 that has been a great little travel DSLR for me and produces decent photos with the kit lens that I have as well as a nifty fifty and a 75-300. I'm debating whether it's time to upgrade the body or if I should look into spending on glass instead. Any suggestions to which is more worth it? I would be most likely looking at a 70D or 7D, or something to that end if I went with in the direction of a new body.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Dudeabides posted:With the lens chat, this is a good time to ask about which you would rather. I've got a Canon SL1 that has been a great little travel DSLR for me and produces decent photos with the kit lens that I have as well as a nifty fifty and a 75-300. I'm debating whether it's time to upgrade the body or if I should look into spending on glass instead. Unless there have been any significant feature updates in other bodies that you just have to have, there's really no need to upgrade that body. It's perfectly serviceable, and all most people really need. If you're going to upgrade the body, then maybe upgrade to a compact mirrorless system since that's your travel kit. I kept my heavy, giant Nikon DSLR, but I haven't used it in at least 6 months, favoring my Fuji X-T2, and I travel with either an X-E2 or an Olympus OM-D E-M10, depending on how many lenses I want to carry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Lens if you want to take different types of photos, body if you want more speed, features or better low light performance. I guess think about what you want to get out of the upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
These are the debates I have with myself. I think I may lean toward getting some better glass. The question is what are some good Canon mount lenses that won't torpedo my savings?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
I had a 7D, and while in general it was a great camera, the high ISO noise it produced was a bit rough--it is a ten year old model... Still though, the ergonomics were great, as was the building quality. 8 FPS burst mode was nice too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Dudeabides posted:These are the debates I have with myself. I think I may lean toward getting some better glass. The question is what are some good Canon mount lenses that won't torpedo my savings? Really depends what you are after, but the 40mm pancake is a bargain. The 100mm nonL macro is awesome if you want a dedicated macro. 85 f/1.8 is a nice portrait lens. for ultrawides you can go MF for like a Rokinon or get the 10-18. For quality upgrades for your zooms probably look to Tamron or Sigma instead of Canon. There's nothing really cheap for wildlife so you'll either need to make due at 300mm or be willing to pay >$500.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Might have asked this ITT already but is th re a reason that catadioptric (mirror, or reflex) lenses aren't really a thing anymore? I've got a hankering for some longer-range shots and they're really inexpensive. Honestly, the real problem with mirror lenses is that getting the focus right is incredibly hard on such a long lens. Their sharpness is generally good for their price, but that doesn't matter much if every photo is just slightly out of focus. The only one I've really enjoyed using is Nikon's last 500mm one. It has a super long focus throw (more than a full rotation), so you can actually fine tune the focus like you need to. It's pretty expensive for a mirror lens, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
Dudeabides posted:These are the debates I have with myself. I think I may lean toward getting some better glass. The question is what are some good Canon mount lenses that won't torpedo my savings? 35mm f2 IS
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
Anyone have a recommendation for a very small and compact camera bag/sling that can hold a mirrorless camera and not much else? I want something I can wear on my bike that doesn't flop around when I am riding, so it would need to be snug against my body. Edit: something like the thinktank turnstyle 5 v2 sling bag. open to other options though polyester concept fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jun 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
Maybe just get a regular fanny pack? North st bags makes some in a variety of sizes and they also make handlebar bag attachments for em if you wanna get it off your body.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:59 |
|
|
Yea I would just get a generic shoulder bag and stuff it in a backpack. Alternatively, get a cheap harbor freight brand pelican case and put it wherever the gently caress you want 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 18:47
|
|