|
I was considering the peak design one but it’s so expensive
Rated PG-34 fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Dec 12, 2021 |
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 08:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
xzzy posted:I could never go back to the darkroom because I always got super anxious I was gonna gently caress the process up. I hate destructive workflows. You can make more than one print from the same negative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 05:41
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:You can make more than one print from the same negative. You can make a great many prints from one negative. I don't miss shooting film and making actual prints. Because I made about twelve just to get the exposure for the print down, and paper is expensive. On the other hand, a lot of my career was digital on newsprint, the exact opposite of the above, so YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 08:12
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
That's excessive... I can normally get a decent 8x10 print out in 2 sheets. If it's a complex fine art thing it might take 5 or 6 to really nail but it's all about economical use of strips of paper and good planning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 09:09
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:You can make more than one print from the same negative. I know, my anxiety is over developing the negative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 12:41
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I know, my anxiety is over developing the negative. You don't need a darkroom to develop negatives, either!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Hey guys, I want a cheap webcam/or just any smallish camera I can put on a tripod to record myself playing guitar at a reasonable quality. Maybe 1080p @ 60 fps would be good. Anyone have any suggestions for something cheap that's reasonably okay for the money? I'm not making a professional youtube channel or anything like that, I just want the videos to look better than my cell phone can do. My S7 looks alright in decent lighting, but it's inside videos have always been pretty bad, plus it's just old at this point so a dedicated camera for it would probably be better anyway. I was hoping to not spend more than 100-130, but I don't know anything about this stuff so that could be nowhere enough money, or plenty for what I want, I have no idea!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:02
|
|
|
People seem to like the logitechs in that price range for webcam duties, but I’m not sure they’re much or any better than your phone camera quality wise (they might even be worse.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:27
|
|
|
I'll play around with my phone settings and do a few test videos with it. It's possible something might be out of whack in that regard. That would definitely save me some money. I also guess a little tripod and a ring light of some sort would probably help too. e: Found the 60fps HD setting, also I might have been a dummy in the past and just used the front camera at times, which would be lower quality from what I understand. The rear camera at 60 does look decent. However, I'm still open to suggestions on the camera thing, just because having more storage space dedicated to this sort of thing would help. Also I just remembered the port on my phone is screwed up, so I'd have to transfer any files I record via bluetooth which would get old fast. So hit me up with those suggestions. Drunk Driver Dad fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:36
|
|
|
Lighting in general is a great place to start. I don’t have any specific suggestions, but it just makes sense!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:41
|
|
|
Also is there a better thread somewhere more geared to webcam/streaming type stuff to ask this in? I didn't see one in IYG when I looked. Although I'm thinking probably anything on amazon that has decent reviews should suffice. I am noticing some cameras have different FOV. Is there a particular FOV I'd want to record myself playing guitar about 4 or 5 feet away?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:47
|
|
|
Hey. I owned a nice Manfrotto tripod with a great ball head for a few years until a friend borrowed it, left it in his car overnight, and it was stolen (or so he claims, at least. I don't talk to that guy anymore.) I'm looking to get back into photography, and would like a tripod for taking lovely landscape photos. Can anyone recommend specific legs and a nice ball head? I don't remember the exact kind I had, but any brand is acceptable as long as it's good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 12:10
|
|
|
Drunk Driver Dad posted:Also is there a better thread somewhere more geared to webcam/streaming type stuff to ask this in? I didn't see one in IYG when I looked. Although I'm thinking probably anything on amazon that has decent reviews should suffice. I am noticing some cameras have different FOV. Is there a particular FOV I'd want to record myself playing guitar about 4 or 5 feet away? For streaming guitar you have a few things to consider as well as the camera, i.e. recording your guitar well and then making sure the audio of your guitar and the video are sync'd in the stream. Streaming is actually pretty different to just recording where you can sync stuff up afterwards. So you need to decide, are you streaming (live video/audio over the internet) or recording then uploading? You generally want wide angle for both, for reference your phone is around 22mm on a full frame camera. However most entry level camera based streaming setups will not be full frame cameras so you want wider lenses to match the phone FoV, most webcams are already pretty wide angle. Likely your best bet for just recording is to keep using a phone and get good lighting, you'll need the lighting either way you go and if your phone port is broken then use this as an excuse to upgrade it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 13:51
|
|
|
Overwhelmingly for something like this, you will get better quality dollar for dollar (by a lot) via audio and lighting. They arent sexy, but $100 in lighting is going to go WAY WAY further than $100 in camera. Keep your cell phone. Get a basic light, something like: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1570500-REG/lume_cube_lc_blk_broadcast_lighting_kit.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1538360-REG/raya_frb_usb_10_folding_usb_ring_light.html Get some upgraded audio; I'm not familiar with Android but I'm 100% sure you can find something on the cheaper side that sounds decent. Get those sorted, toss it through a de-noising filter in the free Davinci Resolve (I think the free version has these filters?) and you'll be miles ahead of where you are now. Not sexy gear stuff, but far more effective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 15:16
|
|
|
Looking for some continuous LED Lights for video. I want something I can put a Bowens minute softbox on (nice to reuse gear when I can) Any budget suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:36
|
|
|
I like the Aputure AD100 and 200 for more affordable but still good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 01:27
|
|
|
I got a 2 pack of neweer LED square lights for when I was doing Zoom calls because my corner is dark.. makes a ton of difference. Cheap at 45bux and sometimes they go on sale, I paid 21bucks. Also yes.. you can use anyting in Davinci except for GPU dependent things (And GPU rendering) for free. If you find yourself doing a lot of editing and want some sped up process time / better scrubbing etc you can drop $300 for the basic control box (Blackmagic Design Davinci Resolve that also comes with a license for the same price as the license. BEWARE folks selling just the button box like on amazon https://www.adorama.com/bmdvrsd.htm...nmpi-google-dsa tater_salad fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Dec 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
Walked posted:Looking for some continuous LED Lights for video. I want something I can put a Bowens minute softbox on (nice to reuse gear when I can) If you need battery-powered, I have two VL150 lights and one VL200 light at work that have been working very well so far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 21:07
|
|
|
Walked posted:Looking for some continuous LED Lights for video. I want something I can put a Bowens minute softbox on (nice to reuse gear when I can) There's a bunch of Godox stuff that has a Bowens mount. SL60W is the cheapest one, I think, and the build quality isn't great. SL150W gives you more light and a better build quality. VL150 and VL200 were already mentioned. Aputure Amaran series uses Bowens too, I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
So I'm thinking of picking up photography again. Would mostly be dabbling in urban landscapes and portraits. I really want one of the Fuji medium format digitals but I cant really justify that to my self so I've narrowed it down to two choices: 1) Nikon Z6I or Z6II + 24-120 f4 - Tempting because its full frame so its closer to medium format, however the lens I want is not out yet so I would be waiting and hoping Nikon makes a kit of the 24-120 Z mount when it hits the market. 2) Fuji X-T4 16-80 f4 - I've liked Fuji's in camera processing, however since they don't see a point in competing in the full frame market its just crop sensors. For goons who lived with these cameras what did you like dislike? Also if there are other brands/models to look at I would be interested to hear suggestions. I guess also would it be worth it to just get a last gen DSRL Nikon and a 24-120 F mount? I know F mount is on its way out but I see a lot of deals on glass and I'm sure the FTZ adapters will be around for awhile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 13:03
|
|
|
Can you get your hands on them? I’ve used both and prefer the Nikon but I’ve been shooting Nikon since dslr days and have a bunch of nice f-mount glass. They’re both great cameras so I’d try ‘em and see what feels good. If you’re not doing video you might also consider a Z5 on the Nikon side. One thing, I think those lenses are probably gonna be kinda beefy so you might want to handle them with that lens a bit to see if you like the balance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 13:47
|
|
|
powderific posted:Can you get your hands on them? I’ve used both and prefer the Nikon but I’ve been shooting Nikon since dslr days and have a bunch of nice f-mount glass. They’re both great cameras so I’d try ‘em and see what feels good. If you’re not doing video you might also consider a Z5 on the Nikon side. Played with them at stores but nothing major yet, size isn’t a problem i was dragging around a D7000 with a 200-500 on it for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
Shrieking Muppet posted:So I'm thinking of picking up photography again. Would mostly be dabbling in urban landscapes and portraits. I really want one of the Fuji medium format digitals but I cant really justify that to my self so I've narrowed it down to two choices: Used to shoot a lot with Nikon stuff, but using Fuji now. I got the X-T4 w/ 16-80/4 about a year ago, but I was never a fan of the lens. Sold it this summer, got a used bargain priced 16-55 about a month ago, much more satisfied with that. But I also almost always shoot wide open, so that extra stop is useful for me. I do like the body a lot, but still prefer Nikon's handling over Fuji's, maybe because I started out with Nikon. If you can wait for the Z mount 24-120, nothing wrong with that, just know that it might take a while. There's a bunch of used Nikon F bodies on the market for very decent prices. You could look into D750, D810, and for a bit more money, the D780 and D850. Hell, depending on what you shoot, even the D800 might be a good choice. The D850 is still hands down my favorite camera body ever, there's just something real nice about the colors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2021 10:42
|
|
|
Similar to Shrieking Mullet a few posts up, I’m in the market for a new camera body. I have an XT-10 that I’ve used and enjoyed for about 4 years, but it’s starting to show its age. I only have the 16-55 2.8 and the XC 55-230. I also used to shoot Canon, and have a 50mm 1.8 II in a drawer. In my price range I’m looking at two options: 1.) Upgrade to an XT-4 2.) Try going back to Canon with a EOS RP I love the way Fuji’s handle and the color you get straight out of camera, but am sort of interested to try something full frame. Anyone have any thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2021 02:20
|
|
|
frogbs posted:Similar to Shrieking Mullet a few posts up, I’m in the market for a new camera body. I've recently upgraded to the X-T4 from an X-T1 and I've been loving it. Feels like the IBIS would do wonders for your 16-55mm, too. Canon's full-frame mirrorless stuff look good but they're pricey and feel too bulky to me. I guess borrow a friend's or rent one?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2021 02:55
|
|
|
frogbs posted:Similar to Shrieking Mullet a few posts up, I’m in the market for a new camera body. I like my Canon RP very much, I upgraded to it earlier this year from a series of older mid-range Canon dSLRs (50D, 7D, 6D). Full frame in such a small package is definitely nice, and obviously the more modern features of a mirrorless camera felt like magic to me initially. You can find all its specs elsewhere, so I'll just talk about the things I'm not so keen on. First, unlike the higher end R models it doesn't have IBIS or the fancy focus tracking stuff, so if you want to shoot wildlife or in the dark you might not find it as capable as some. I've found the focusing fine on shorter lenses, both in accuracy and speed, but it hasn't performed so well with my Tamron 150-600 G2. Whether that's because it's a third party lens, EF rather than RF mount, or just that telephotos are hard I don't know, but it definitely has to do some searching sometimes. That leads to the second point, that the RF lens range is still a lot smaller than in the standard mount, even with third party lenses. You can use an adapter to mount most EF lenses with no real issues and a lot of the RF lenses that do exist are reportedly really good as well as generally smaller than their EF equivalents, but you pay a premium for them. Lastly, the battery life is a bit on the low side. You really want 3 batteries to safely get you through a full day of casual shooting imo. I did consider the R6 but couldn't justify the price difference since I also wanted to buy lenses. I'm pretty happy with the camera overall and none of the above has been so painful to me that I'd consider upgrading any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2021 03:10
|
|
|
frogbs posted:Similar to Shrieking Mullet a few posts up, I’m in the market for a new camera body. even an upgrade to an X-T3 / 30 would be a massive change from the first-generation, I would look there as well for bodies. And maybe save a bit and get a prime or two as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2021 03:32
|
|
|
I settled into my setup a while back and have been suggesting Fujis to anyone who asked me for a recommendation but haven't really been keeping up with the market in the past 4-5 years. Today a friend asked me for a recommendation that I honestly don't have any idea about, so goons help me help my best friend spoil himself. He wants to get into a mirrorless full frame setup from scratch. (I think he has some Canon crop lenses that are 10 years old). His budget is $2500 for "a body and a lens." He knows his way around photo gear/workflow through his job, so keep-it-simple isn't really a consideration. Last I was haunting the gear threads, Sony had just gone into FF mirrorless in earnest, and the cameras were nice enough but the lens lineup was immature and pricey. I know since then, some of the other big makers had gotten into it but I can't really speak on any of it. Thanks for the help!
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2021 21:25
|
|
|
At that price point without a reason (owning lenses, friend having a compatible system, etc) - any of the options are going to be fine. I’d lean towards an A7C and Tamron 28-75 2.8 as a general middle of the road option but anything is gonna be fine between Nikon/Canon/Sony
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Huxley posted:He wants to get into a mirrorless full frame setup from scratch. (I think he has some Canon crop lenses that are 10 years old). His budget is $2500 for "a body and a lens." He knows his way around photo gear/workflow through his job, so keep-it-simple isn't really a consideration. Does he have a reason for full frame besides “MOAR MEGAPICKELS AND BOKEHHS”? That budget will get you into Canon, Nikon or Sony easily enough, but would also get you a Fuji X-T4 and a much more mature lens lineup in a smaller package. Otherwise both the Canon R and Nikon Z have adapters available to bring over EF and F mount respectively, so if they don’t mind having a chunkier camera setup that’s also an option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
Huxley posted:... mirrorless full frame setup ... budget is $2500 for "a body and a lens ..." What kind of lens? If a manual focus standard prime is ok, a used A7R3 and a 40 mm f/1.2 Voigtlander Nokton would be within that budget. Edit: My biggest issue with Sony is that they bake the raw files when certain lenses are used. See this: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64862331. It's only visible in highly monochromatic situations, and it can be resolved by covering up the electrical contacts of the lens, but it's disappointing that Sony went this route in a near-flagship product with uncompressed raws and with all lens corrections turned off. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Dec 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
If video isn't important a Nikon Z5 is an affordable way to get into FF mirrorless and the Nikon Z mount library is pretty good at this point. $2500 would get you the camera and a few lenses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
harperdc posted:even an upgrade to an X-T3 / 30 would be a massive change from the first-generation, I would look there as well for bodies. And maybe save a bit and get a prime or two as well. Yeah, I can get an XT-3 body in 'good' condition for $800. It looks like the biggest difference is the XT-3 doesn't have IBIS, and has a different style fold out screen (which I prefer vs. the XT-4 style). I could put the $700 difference between that and the XT-4 towards a lens (am leaning towards a 56mm 1.2 for portraits, or the 100-400 for bird stuff).
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2021 00:41
|
|
|
Hello. I'm trying to upgrade a toy camera I have with a 1/4"ish sensor with either a C or D mount lens. I'm looking for something that'll functionally be a standard prime lens (the sensor has a 10.5ish crop factor) so prob something near a 28-35mm D mount or a 16mm C mount. I'm mainly looking for softish images I think? No autofocus so old rear end cinema cameras are probably ideal. Hoping to be in the sub 100 USD range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
frogbs posted:Yeah, I can get an XT-3 body in 'good' condition for $800. It looks like the biggest difference is the XT-3 doesn't have IBIS, and has a different style fold out screen (which I prefer vs. the XT-4 style). I could put the $700 difference between that and the XT-4 towards a lens (am leaning towards a 56mm 1.2 for portraits, or the 100-400 for bird stuff). Yeah, if you're not doing video, the X-T4 really isn't much of an improvement over the X-T3. Stabilization is really good for handheld stills too of course, but most of the XF mount lenses that tend to get used in situations where you really want it are already stabilized. If you want to get really serious about birding, Fuji is probably not the system you want, but speaking as a casual birder and XF 100-400 owner myself, I like that lens a lot. I'm a very casual photographer but part of the reason I bought it was to make it more fun to go outside and look at birds (WFH anti-insanity measure) and it certainly has done that job well. It's maybe a bit on the expensive side for the amount of optics you get, but it's very forgiving and easy to use with the stabilization and fast autofocus. Build quality is really good too; I've dropped it, banged it into things and gotten it pretty thoroughly wet but to no ill effects. Perhaps it's a bit too fun though because I've been pondering getting an 1.4x teleconverter, for those really long shots... It's a good lens for the "f/8 ISO 1600 crew" (as the bird thread calls it) I'd say. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Dec 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Yeah, if you're not doing video, the X-T4 really isn't much of an improvement over the X-T3. Stabilization is really good for handheld stills too of course, but most of the XF mount lenses that tend to get used in situations where you really want it are already stabilized. Nice, thank you for the info on the 100-400. My use case is similar, I just want to take better photos of the birds hanging around the backyard. I'm going to go check out the bird thread immediately. The other way i've been thinking of going is adapting an old Sigma 400mm 5.6 to Fuji. It's manual focus unless I get an active adapter. Results are mixed, but it's so cheap by comparison that maybe it'll scratch the itch? https://www.ebay.com/itm/224719255479?hash=item34524fb7b7:g:dz4AAOSwf~dhpxIm
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
So, I have a Canon EOS 60D and I'm looking to upgrade from my kit lens. I generally use my camera for nature shots, landscape, urbex, and abstract stuff to use for digital art, but some friends have started paying me to take pictures for events, like weddings and baby showers. I'm not especially passionate about it, but the spare income is nice. Since this appears to be something I'm doing now, I'm looking at purchasing a 50mm f1.8 or f1.4. My question is, how significant of a difference is there between the f1.8 and the f1.4?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
frogbs posted:Nice, thank you for the info on the 100-400. My use case is similar, I just want to take better photos of the birds hanging around the backyard. I'm going to go check out the bird thread immediately. I wouldn't recommend going the adapter route. A great bird photographer can probably get good results even with old glass, and maybe even with manual focus, but it's really really hard. The main reason the 100-400 is fun to use for me is that even I, an idiot, can get decent bird shots in good conditions, and it's pretty good at teaching me what I need to do differently in less than good conditions. Before I got the 100-400 I kinda went through the same thought process as you did, because it's a loving expensive lens even used, and I tried birding with the 50-230. I got a few shots I liked but it really doesn't have enough reach. Then I also tried old 400mm f/6.3 with an M42 screw mount - it's from the 80's, inherited from my dad - and I tried that on an X-T20 with an adapter for a while. Manual focus and manual aperture only. Image quality was very eh, it could be sharp sometimes but getting the focus right was very hard even with focus peaking and it had pretty horrible chromatic aberration issues. More importantly though I'm nowhere near good enough to get results out of a thing like that, and getting 95% trash for my efforts just took a lot of fun out of the experience. That Sigma is probably a lot better than my old Soligor, but it's still not stabilized and that does make a pretty big difference IME. If you're not sure about dropping the cash on the 100-400 I'd say just go out and try with the 50-230. For backyard birding it's sometimes just long enough, especially if you let it be known that you're willing to pay hard cash in advance for modeling jobs (peanuts is a pretty widely accepted currency, especially among corvids). Few if any bird decent photographers are above bribery. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Dec 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
Fish Appreciator posted:Since this appears to be something I'm doing now, I'm looking at purchasing a 50mm f1.8 or f1.4. My question is, how significant of a difference is there between the f1.8 and the f1.4? The 1.8 can be had for a song (though look for the upgraded metal version), the 1.4 is closer to $400 new. Two other thoughts: 50 is pretty long on a crop sensor so maybe look at others (and do the old trick of checking at what lengths you’re using the kit lens), or look at like the Tamron or Sigma 17-50 kit lens replacements. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 was always the step-up recommendation for people wanting to upgrade. The other thought: 60D is still capable but also a 10-year-old DSLR, autofocus isn’t exactly helpful or easy on that. Might keep an eye on mirrorless systems if only for that reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
In addition to the 17-50 2.8, one of my favorite lenses on a Canon crop body was the sigma 30 1.4 (pre art series). 30 was way more natural on a crop body and 1.4 was nice. 50-80 is a great portrait lens length on crop for torso and up shots if you have the distance. I prefer long focal lengths for portraits though, the compression is much more flattering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 01:47
|
|