|
Yah sure that's high precision equipment. Even if it still works today, you're bound to have some weird inexplicable failure here in 1-2 years that is probably partly due to that. Keep in mind they're not going to pay until you hit your deductible, which if you're a cheap bastard like me, is set to something like $5000, so 12/17 lenses may not be covered if they're russian K mount clones or something
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2020 07:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
lenses with ois will have a noticeable thunk when moving them around also if youre only now noticing noises they were likely not there before i hope you are ok after the accident, it sounds like it was serious
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2020 08:08
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Yah sure that's high precision equipment. Even if it still works today, you're bound to have some weird inexplicable failure here in 1-2 years that is probably partly due to that. Keep in mind they're not going to pay until you hit your deductible, which if you're a cheap bastard like me, is set to something like $5000, so 12/17 lenses may not be covered if they're russian K mount clones or something Yeah, that's a good point. Like I'll say something like hey "Maybe this works okay right now maybe it doesn't but it got chucked around the cab at mach 2 something is probably slightly out of alignment and 6 months from now the OIS or zoom or focus quits working completely because of it." I had a Nikon zoom that slide off the engine cover of a boat and hit the deck, a drop of about 18", and it never focused quite right again. This is going to go against the other guy's insurance though so I think I'm okay with regard to deductibles. Half my lenses were loose inside the cab. One was on the camera which was loose in the cab. Two were next to each other inside my camera bag and still impacted each other hard enough to transfer white paint from one to the other. One lens was in one of those Vivitar padded cases that you frequently get free with lens bundles, that's the only lens that I'm confident is probably okay but who knows tbh. Hello Spaceman posted:i hope you are ok after the accident, it sounds like it was serious Thank you, it was. I'm doing well all things considered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2020 12:46
|
|
|
What's a good, cheap cloud service for photos? I know there's unlimitied free photos with prime, which I don't have and won't get. Other than that, are they all pretty much made equally?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
What do you want to do with it, does compression matter etc etc I have a Synology that backs up to aws glacier
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
I have a couple of years worth of raw files backed up with glacier and pay 60 cents a month. And converted files in galleries to share with Google photos. The part of Google photos that is free converts to 16mp I believe. And recompresses jpegs but doesn't seem to covert PNG.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2020 06:16
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:What do you want to do with it, does compression matter etc etc I just want a place to put about 25k photos, just every picture I've ever taken basically. It would be neat if they automatically uploaded from my phone. I'm not a professional, I don't think compression matters as long as the quality doesn't take a hit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
This is me, except I upload them manually to my Synology unit, and then they get synched to the cloud once a week or so, losslessly. Synology probably has an auto upload feature, I just haven't looked into it If you super duper do not care that Google is going to lossy compress your priceless memories forever, and then rebrand their photo service in two years, every two years forever, and you have an Android phone, then you can just use Google photos. If you do care about lossy compression then you need to look at other options besides Google
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 06:05
|
|
|
Amazon prime offers free unlimited photo backup. I don’t think you lose anything but I could be wrong
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 06:35
|
|
|
Nobody mentioned Flickr yet? The Pro level is still good value.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 11:05
|
|
|
harperdc posted:Nobody mentioned Flickr yet? The Pro level is still good value. I've had Pro for long enough that I've forgotten about it. Does the free version still come with 1TB of storage? That should be enough for 25K photos, no?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
Quick question: I'm pretty new to photography in general and was hoping to purchase a beginner camera, but wasn't sure if I should go the road of DSLR or Mirrorless. I was initially under the impression that mirrorless would be impossible on a budget, but I'm coming across 8 year old mirrorless cameras like the NEX-F3 that easily fall within my budget. At this point, I'm a little confused on what to do, as a beginner photographer what am I missing out on if I purchase an 8 year old mirrorless versus the 6 year old rebel t5 or the 4 year old rebel t6. In advance, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 01:28
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I've had Pro for long enough that I've forgotten about it. Does the free version still come with 1TB of storage? That should be enough for 25K photos, no? No, free has an upload limit of 1000 files now. I don't know why anyone would trust backups to anything that's free though. If that poo poo is valuable to you, it's certainly worth $5 a month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 01:55
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I've had Pro for long enough that I've forgotten about it. Does the free version still come with 1TB of storage? That should be enough for 25K photos, no? 1,000 photos now for non-Pro users. Pro is $60 a year, and that’s unlimited full-resolution photos. It’s not a bad consumer-grade option.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 02:16
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, the CEO of Flickr begged people to give them money. I wouldn't count on them for long term storage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
harperdc posted:1,000 photos now for non-Pro users. Pro is $60 a year, and that’s unlimited full-resolution photos. It’s not a bad consumer-grade option. drat, that is pretty good. I use amazon since we already pay for prime, but it doesn’t give a gently caress about metadata which sucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
huhu posted:If I remember correctly, the CEO of Flickr begged people to give them money. I wouldn't count on them for long term storage. It was more like warning people if they couldn't get Flickr profitable lovely changes were incoming. Which still sort of happened, they've had to raise Flickr pro prices but in my mind that's because they wimped out on purging 15 years of mass transit nerds uploading full rez copies of every bus and train on the planet. Delete that poo poo and their operating costs plummet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 03:37
|
|
|
huhu posted:If I remember correctly, the CEO of Flickr begged people to give them money. I wouldn't count on them for long term storage. right, it was saying "we need more members to make this part of the business profitable as it is," and I can see them starting to soak the transit nerds uploading RAW files. but they're owned by a company that makes other photo products, so it's one part passion play, and also combined with a business that should do decent markups on what it sells (customized mugs with your photo! prints and photo books!) and integrates well with what Flickr is. I'm less nervous now than when Yahoo looked like a sinking ship. If the difference between now and 2009 is $10 per year to keep 20,000+ photos backed up, then that's not the worst thing to happen, and that is for a service which also has a pretty good smartphone app.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
Only issue with Flickr for back ups, it doesn't back up raws.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 08:07
|
|
|
I use Flickr for show and Amazon Prime for backup.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 08:14
|
|
|
BambooTelegraph posted:Quick question: Tiny, easy to use, lots of lenses to choose from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 08:15
|
|
|
I use Jottacloud for backup. Fast upload, fast download, virtually unlimited space (like 10TB atm?), stores all files, does not scan files, no compression, decent price. Its a file backup service though, not a photo backup service, so its not a way to store files online and being able to view them. They do have a photo backup service, i havent really looked i to how it is different from the solution i use or if its something you pay separate/extra for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 10:17
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Only issue with Flickr for back ups, it doesn't back up raws. Oh, poo poo. Right. jarlywarly posted:I use Flickr for show and Amazon Prime for backup. Pretty much same, although right now I’ve got local copies of everything too as I’m trying to organize and cull.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 11:55
|
|
|
Xabi posted:Get an Olympus E-M10 or E-M5. The older models are pretty cheap these days. the newest model of M10 has a fair few decent features from the M5 and M1 while still being pretty cheap, and it is real light
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 15:09
|
|
|
BambooTelegraph posted:Quick question: Man, am I glad I decided to look up the NEX camera before I wrote my whole reply. I was totally getting it confused with the Samsung NX camera system which has been discontinued. NEX look like early Sony E-mount cameras so at least you're not buying into a orphaned system. My, general answer would be that DSLR technology mostly matured about 10 years ago and improvements have been incremental since then. Mirrorless, being a newer design have seen larger improvements in that time period, especially with things like auto-focus. Depending on what you're shooting, an older mirrorless may do worse than a similar vintage DSLR. I don't know the specific strengths of each system, but auto-focus is the one area where I would expect older mirrorless cameras to have more issues. If you shoot landscapes this probably won't bother you much, but if you want to shoot sports or wildlife it may be a complete dealbreaker. It could also make shooting video more difficult, but again it will depend on the actual subject. Overall I think getting an older camera is a good way to get started. Bodies have lost most of their depreciation so if you don't end up liking photography you can sell for a minimal loss if you got a decent deal in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
I'm a big supporter of finding a good-enough option for a nice low price (no "just stretch your budget a little" *suggests 200% increase* from me!). The used market for cameras is where it's at. Ergonomics matter. I beat this drum every time. New cameras from the same manufacturer mostly have similar feel, they at least tend to keep things constant like the way zoom and manual-focus works (direction of spin), and the layout of the buttons and menus. So, find a new NEX or OM-whatever and Then, yeah, either a NEX or an Oly, neither is going to be a disaster by any stretch, you'll like what you get.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2020 03:18
|
|
|
BambooTelegraph posted:Quick question: Hello friend. As has been mentioned, loot at the Olympus Em-5 and 10. Also, the Fuji XE series is a ridiculously good value. Also, the Panasonic G7 is very good for stills and has 4k video, and used it can be had for under $400 easily. The Panny and Oly cameras can use each other’s lenses, and a they have quite a few lenses that can be had for pocket change.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2020 07:18
|
|
|
harperdc posted:Nobody mentioned Flickr yet? The Pro level is still good value. Flickr isn't a backup solution. You can't upload raws, they apply sharpening and other adjustments to the originals, and restoring means downloading your photos one at a time (or one album at a time) instead of in bulk. Flickr is a good publishing and sharing platform but it's not for secure storage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 07:15
|
|
|
While I agree Flickr isn't a storage site, the sharpening is only applied to the resized images, not the original upload. And they added a bulk downloader some time ago. Personally I'd love it if they expanded into this space, I'd be happy to pay an extra few £ on top of my pro to backup raws but whenever I've emailed them about the idea they have very much said its not something they are interested in. Right now I use amazon prime for my raws, as I'm already paying for it anyway for other benefits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 09:28
|
|
|
I'm using Backblaze as a backup solution. It backs up everything including external drives except volumes that have Time Machine backups in them. Unlimited storage for $5 a month. For me, that means I have a bunch of working drives, two local backup drives, and the whole lot gets synced to the cloud via Backblaze every day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 09:56
|
|
|
Just be aware that backblaze will delete your backup if your machine doesn't report in for 30 days. So if your house burns down and everything you own is destroyed you better have a plan to get online and deal with it. You can create a cloud snapshot of your backup and they never delete that, but it's an additional monthly charge as long as that snapshot exists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 13:44
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Flickr isn't a backup solution. You can't upload raws, they apply sharpening and other adjustments to the originals, and restoring means downloading your photos one at a time (or one album at a time) instead of in bulk. Flickr is a good publishing and sharing platform but it's not for secure storage. flickr absolutely allows mass export of all of your user data (this includes images), in bulk
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
Anyone have any good tips or links to get me familiar with taking long exposure night shots of stars/landscapes? I know a tiny bit about image stacking, but a decent intro would be helpful since I'm at a loss for best practices like what ISO I should aim for, how exposed each shot should be, etc. I'm just wide-angle stuff, not mounting to a telescope or anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Anyone have any good tips or links to get me familiar with taking long exposure night shots of stars/landscapes? I know a tiny bit about image stacking, but a decent intro would be helpful since I'm at a loss for best practices like what ISO I should aim for, how exposed each shot should be, etc. This guide is the place to start. https://www.lonelyspeck.com/
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
Goons, I have a tough question that I am hoping you can help me with. Back during Christmas 2018, I picked up a Canon 6D Mk II for a pretty dang good price and got a 24-70 f/4L IS USM to go along with it. Also have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II from my previous camera which seems to still take real nice photos. My problem has been "getting back into" photography. I used to have a solid workflow down and was churning along just fine, until life handed me a busy-as-hell job, S/O, new house, etc. Now that I have a lot more time on my hands, I'm trying to get back into the habit of photography but struggling mightily, both with motivation to shoot and motivation to actually sit down and learn the updated editing software. So that leaves me with two questions.... What do you guys do when you find yourself generally uninterested in photographing? Should I commit time to learning Luminar 3 (got it for free as a part of the promo back in March?) or is there other software I should invest my time into? Willing to pay up to Adobe LR prices, but if there's a free option, that means more money for gear. Namaste and thank you goons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
There's no magic to it, assuming you have any time off, the only fix is to commit to going out and shooting and then actually doing it. Once you're out there subjects still start drawing your interest and you'll have fun. I'd use Luminar until you outgrow it or it starts to annoy you, no sense in replacing software you aren't sure you need to replace. It's a perfectly serviceable editor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
bagmonkey posted:What do you guys do when you find yourself generally uninterested in photographing? I look at good photos (like photo books) and the urge returns
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 15:54
|
|
|
bagmonkey posted:Goons, I have a tough question that I am hoping you can help me with. Back during Christmas 2018, I picked up a Canon 6D Mk II for a pretty dang good price and got a 24-70 f/4L IS USM to go along with it. Also have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II from my previous camera which seems to still take real nice photos. When it does strike, I make a game out of it. Like a photographic scavenger hunt, or a "one body, one lens" grab bag challenge. Something of that nature. Games like that force you to be creative and think of new ways to shoot. That is usually enough to get the juices flowing. Maybe take part in the monthly Goon Contest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
XBenedict posted:When it does strike, I make a game out of it. Like a photographic scavenger hunt, or a "one body, one lens" grab bag challenge. Something of that nature. I was thinking about starting up a few challenges to force me into that creative mindset. Definitely gonna look into that monthly contest and give it a shot, thank you! ansel autisms posted:I look at good photos (like photo books) and the urge returns This is something I just straight up forget to do sometimes. I think it's time to break out a few of my photography books! Thanks a bunch guys. It's just been daunting trying to dive back in all at once and has given me a bunch of anxiety about doing it "right", even though I know that there is not a "right way".
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
bagmonkey posted:Goons, I have a tough question that I am hoping you can help me with. Back during Christmas 2018, I picked up a Canon 6D Mk II for a pretty dang good price and got a 24-70 f/4L IS USM to go along with it. Also have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II from my previous camera which seems to still take real nice photos. My approach has been to tell myself to shut the hell up and get off my rear end while having a camera around my neck. Just like with exercise, the first step is often times the hardest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 01:48
|
|
