|
Can also vouch on the Sigma 30 being an absolute gem of a lens for an APS-C. I was never particularly wowed by the nifty 50.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:38 |
|
|
The Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art is basically a must-buy for Canon crop bodies. It's a fantastic lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
TheFluff posted: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. I am really liking the 70-300. With the updated firmware, the IS is excellent and it can be sharp as hell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 03:07
|
|
|
TheFluff posted: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. I’ve had the XC 55-230 for a few years, and it’s actually served me surprisingly well! I just find myself not being able to get quite close enough. I did find a place that will rent the 100-400 and 56 1.2 for $30/day each, so I might try them both with my XT-10 and see how I like them. A used XT-3 might be in my future too. $800 isn’t bad, right? Also, here’s about as close as I’ve been able to get with the XC 55-230: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 03:46
|
|
|
frogbs posted:I’ve had the XC 55-230 for a few years, and it’s actually served me surprisingly well! I just find myself not being able to get quite close enough. I did find a place that will rent the 100-400 and 56 1.2 for $30/day each, so I might try them both with my XT-10 and see how I like them. A used XT-3 might be in my future too. $800 isn’t bad, right? Considering I bought a family member an X-T20 off KEH for about $700, I’d say that’s an excellent deal, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
harperdc posted:The 1.8 can be had for a song (though look for the upgraded metal version), the 1.4 is closer to $400 new. Seconding yes 50mm is very long for inside with a Crop sensor. I have a 50mm and a 35mm on a crop sensor and I mostly use the 35 inside and it's still a bit long honestly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 14:00
|
|
|
All this Fujifilm talk: Is there any X mount glass that’s faster and cheaper than the 16mm f2.8 used? I’m using a high shutter count XPro 1 with the 16mm f2.8 it looks like my options are the Fuji 35mm f1.4 or the 56mm f1.2 - unless Tokina or Viltrox or someone make an AF capable 1.something I’m missing
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 15:51
|
|
|
wolfs posted:All this Fujifilm talk: The 90mm f/2 has magic, but I haven't seen used pricing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
My coworker told me about their Nikon P1000 which has a built in zoom that's 24mm-3000mm! I was super-skeptical, but all the photos i've seen are...good? https://www.flickr.com/photos/summersting/albums/72157701661054454 For just fun backyard bird stuff it might be a better value for me than the Fuji 100-400. Hmm... wolfs posted:All this Fujifilm talk: The weather-sealed 'Fujicrons' are f/2 rand can be had relatively cheap, in addition to the 16mm I think there's a 23mm, 50mm and 90mm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
frogbs posted:My coworker told me about their Nikon P1000 which has a built in zoom that's 24mm-3000mm! I was super-skeptical, but all the photos i've seen are...good? https://www.flickr.com/photos/summersting/albums/72157701661054454 That camera should have a bunch of gigantic warning labels plastered all over the box. Yes, the focal length beats anything else on the market by a country mile but that's about all it's good at. The autofocus is really, really bad, which is very problematic for a birding camera. Watch this guy rant about it before you consider it. Also, keep in mind all of those shots you linked are at ISO100-200, and they're still pretty grainy. It's a cellphone sized 16MP sensor and it shows. e: also, another side effect of the tiny sensor is that the focus plane is really deep, so you don't get much in the way of background blur. Notice how in a lot of the shots you linked the background is either sky or water. If you want any other background it needs to be really, really far away. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Dec 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Looking at his content I'm not sure what purpose the P1000 would ever have filled for him. I think they have a place for birders (not photographers) who want record shots in decent light of distant birds, where 'superior' cameras just aren't feasible for getting the same focal length. A Fuji camera with a 100-400 will be able to deliver superior photographs but to do so requires a different approach and the development of good fieldcraft. The P950 or P1000, a birder (not photographer) can point it at a bird while out birding, then get home and go "Yes, that is a Blue Footed Cow Bird. Tick".
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
The other fun side effect is when you zoom in that much how much the atmosphere fucks up sharpness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
Yep. 3000mm is definitely for small things at small distances and maybe medium things at medium distance, not large things at large distances. But then I've also had heat haze ruin shots at a couple of meters at 400mm if you're lying down on the ground on a hot day. I'm not a big fan of her channel, but this feels like a more relevant review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTriM0c1Zsk Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Dec 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
wolfs posted:All this Fujifilm talk: The 35 and 23/2 are in the same spiritual vein (the ‘Fujicrons’ along with the 50), but otherwise you’d be trying to find a 35/1.4 for aperture but maybe not focus speed, especially on a XPro 1. I’ve had good ‘speed’ feel from that 16 on my X-T20, but the autofocus and ISO both are a huge step up in that second gen sensor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
wolfs posted:All this Fujifilm talk: Viltrox makes a whole line of X mount lenses that have AF and are at 1.4. Quality is supposed to be quite good as well with the AF being fast and accurate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 05:49
|
|
|
I'm looking to do something that would be an upgrade for me. My first "real" camera was a Minolta XG-A that I inherited from my grandfather along with a bunch of manual focus SR-mount lenses. I used that through the tail end of highschool and then all the way through college and grad school. Then, in 2011, I bought a Sony Alpha a390. At the time I was under the misapprehension that my old Minolta lenses would be compatible with the Sony A-mount; that turned out not to be the case, but for what I like to do, the a390 has served me fairly well for more than 10 years. It has survived multi-day rafting and backpacking trips and more car camping, day hikes, and jaunts around town than I care to recall. It still shoots OK pictures and I am sure that operator error makes up the largest part of the pictures that don't work out. Just the same, though, I am looking to get my hands on something a little more modern, and especially something that handles low light better. I mostly shoot landscapes and architecture, and sometimes people or animals that happen to be around when I am shooting said landscapes and architecture. In the past, I've never really cared for autofocus performance (I mostly shoot in manual and my subjects mostly stand still), but I do use it occasionally and it would be nice to get something that handles objects in motion better than my current camera as well. I enjoy photography, but I mostly shoot pictures for my own enjoyment, and sometimes to share with friends/family/social media or to use as wall decor. I am not necessarily looking to pick up the latest and greatest, and while I am planning to sell my old Sony to help fund part of the transaction, I would like to keep camera + a couple of lenses to less than $700-1,000--or less than that, if the right deal materializes. I get that this mostly consigns me to the entry-level or used markets. I have had my eyes on the Pentax k70 for a little while. I like that it is weather-sealed, which would probably be a benefit since I live in the Pacific Northwest and do most of my shooting outdoors. Another option I was seriously considering is the Sony Alpha a65, which is nearly as old as my a390 but does have a 24 megapixel aps-c sensor, can be gotten fairly cheaply used, and does have the benefit of using the A-mount lenses from my current camera. I am mostly concerned with the fact that it uses an early-generation EVF and that it's battery life won't be what I am looking for. I am also interested in the current crop of interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras (the Canon EOS M50 Mk II is at the upper edge of my price range), but I am concerned that, at the price I am willing to pay, what I would be able to get won't be up to life in the outdoors. Does anyone have any experience with any of these cameras? Or any alternatives that I might want to look into?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
Aegis posted:I have had my eyes on the Pentax k70 for a little while. I like that it is weather-sealed, which would probably be a benefit since I live in the Pacific Northwest and do most of my shooting outdoors. Another option I was seriously considering is the Sony Alpha a65, which is nearly as old as my a390 but does have a 24 megapixel aps-c sensor, can be gotten fairly cheaply used, and does have the benefit of using the A-mount lenses from my current camera. I am mostly concerned with the fact that it uses an early-generation EVF and that it's battery life won't be what I am looking for. I am also interested in the current crop of interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras (the Canon EOS M50 Mk II is at the upper edge of my price range), but I am concerned that, at the price I am willing to pay, what I would be able to get won't be up to life in the outdoors. As an A-mount user still (I have an a99ii which is basically an A7R III for A-Mount), don’t buy A-mount cameras. The mount is D-E-D dead. If you want to use your old lenses (SR and A mount included), buy something mirrorless. There’s official (and unofficial) A-mount adapters for the E-mount, and if you want to play with your SR-mount lenses there are adapters for that too. Look at the a6000 series for something in E-mount. Really, any of the entry-level crop mirrorless will blow away SLRs or entry-level A-mounts. Mount adapters are available on basically all of them. I find little to dislike about the Canon M50 except for native lens selection, the Nikon Z50 is fine, Fuji has good native lens selection. Don’t buy Pentax.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
Aegis posted:I like that it is weather-sealed, which would probably be a benefit since I live in the Pacific Northwest and do most of my shooting outdoors. I went through similar and settled on a Fujifilm X-T2. Weather sealed, many lenses are weather sealed, and if you like to shoot manual it is a simple treat having the external controls handy. It did blow me away coming from an older dslr. I got the body for $500 on ebay, mint condition. A silly-cheap ($35) Meike 35mm to play with. Samyang 135 was on Black Friday sale for $380. With some spare batteries and accessories, that was me under $1k. Could easily swap that 135 for a kit lens or similar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
Thanks! Those are both what I was looking for. I had heard good things about the a6000 and I will have to check out Fujifilm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 00:07
|
|
|
Any thoughts on the Panasonic Lumix G95? I hadn't looked at it before because of a (frankly senseless) prejudice against the Micro 3/4 sensor, but after doing some reading it looks like it might have a lot of what I am looking for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 06:59
|
|
|
Aegis posted:Any thoughts on the Panasonic Lumix G95? I hadn't looked at it before because of a (frankly senseless) prejudice against the Micro 3/4 sensor, but after doing some reading it looks like it might have a lot of what I am looking for. What are you seeing in that particular camera that seems attractive to you? From what I took away from your first post I'd think you were right to dismiss M4/3, since the smaller sensor sacrifices dynamic range, low light performance and shallow depth of field. M4/3 does have some advantages, you can get really long equivalent focal lengths in a pretty small and compact package for example, but none of them that I can think of match your stated use cases. The G95 isn't even a small or light camera either. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Jan 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 04:55
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:What are you seeing in that particular camera that seems attractive to you? From what I took away from your first post I'd think you were right to dismiss M4/3, since the smaller sensor sacrifices dynamic range, low light performance and shallow depth of field. M4/3 does have some advantages, you can get really long equivalent focal lengths in a pretty small and compact package for example, but none of them that I can think of match your stated use cases. The G95 isn't even a small or light camera either. I'm worried I may be showing a little Dunning-Kruger effect on my part, so apologies if I say anything flat-out stupid; I've been doing some research the last couple of weeks but I still don't know what I don't know. I think what first caught my attention is that it is weather sealed, which is a plus for me but not necessarily a deal maker/breaker. The control scheme also looks pretty good (especially relative to what I have been using). It looks like there is a good market for compatible lenses, which is a category that some of the other mirrorless models I have been looking at seem come up short in. And not for nothing, it is one of the few interchangeable lens mirrorless models that hit all three of those marks while still being available new within my price range. The online reviews I read were pretty positive, but (a) most of the online reviews for cameras I read seem to be positive, so I am taking them all with a grain of salt; and (b) while I assume that it performs well within the constraints of its design, I am not sure those constraints are consistent with how I would want to use it. Your points are good ones (and are consistent with why I had mostly written off M4/3 cameras in the first place), but in light of the apparent positives I wanted to check my biases. Aegis fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jan 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
Aegis posted:I'm worried I may be showing a little Dunning-Kruger effect on my part, so apologies if I say anything flat-out stupid; I've been doing some research the last couple of weeks but I still don't know what I don't know. Sorry if that came across as hostile, I was genuinely curious about what seemed attractive to you in a camera design  You should probably be buying used, IMO - you'll get a lot more for your money and mirrorless cameras don't really tend to wear out. Given what you've said you want to do I'd also recommend Fuji, but they don't have weather sealing on their entry level X-T20/30 bodies. Fuji's controls are excellent for shooting mostly manual, and the entry level first party lenses are good. If you're switching systems in 2022 and you're getting in on the entry level I'd say your main options should be either Sony or Fuji. Nikon is in deep trouble, M4/3 is a rather niche thing, and Canon's more targeted at the higher end/pros. e: also, re: weather sealing, do note that it doesn't really work unless the lens is also weather sealed. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Jan 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Sorry if that came across as hostile, I was genuinely curious about what seemed attractive to you in a camera design No worries at all. Your input has been very helpful and writing out my thoughts helps me organize things in my mind. As it happens, just before I saw your post I pulled the trigger on a used Fuji X-T2 off of Ebay and an18-55mm lens (because it does seem like the closest match to what I want--and I have no restraint).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
Aegis posted:No worries at all. Your input has been very helpful and writing out my thoughts helps me organize things in my mind. Congrats, that's an excellent camera with a good lens. Gonna be a huge upgrade from what you have!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
So I recently broke into modeling photography and I'm finally starting to hit the limitations of my portable lighting setup. Right now I use a bunch of manual speed lights with a bunch of shoot through umbrellas. Super small and compact. But now I'm looking to upgrade. I want to supplement what I have now and get a new key light. I want a big boy too. 60-72 inch round/octabox. It needs to be a softbox because I also want to use it as a backdrop for close ups. I was thinking Alienbee B800 to drive it. I am behind on what's hot in the lighting category since I haven't looked for gear in years. Is there something better suited? Looking to spend $500ish.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
Yeah godox has pretty great monolight options these days and is the new budget king. They have a proprietary wireless system that you can adjust the lights from your hotshot trigger with that’s handy too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
Sounds neat, let me just pull up their product page and Jesus Christ that's a lot of product lines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
I’ve been really happy with my Godox system (couple monolights and a few speed lights with their trigger). Highly endorsed for most uses!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
If you're just loving around with mono lights and not using them in a super professional capacity yet, godox 100%. I'm shocked by their quality of gear for the price and the built in technology. I'll say, be weary of their kit stands. Their stands are hot garbage and not very supportive for the weight of the mono lights but the lights are great. Their soft boxes are okay, they with and make soft light but might not last the longest. My company built out a relatively affordable video kit recently and we chose godox sl200ii led video lights (which operate with a remote, accept photography modifiers on Bowens mounts like soft boxes, beauty dishes etc) They also don't run so hot that you can gel them for continuous usage without melting the gel. Absolutely incredible stuff for the price. I would not hesitate buying the same kind of thing but for photo. I probably wouldn't go led as they're not really intended for photo use but their technology and build quality is fantastic for the price. Also, their on-camera hotshoe flashes are great, and with their radio system it's all built in and works incredibly well. You could buy a mono light or two, and an on camera flash, or just a trigger, and trigger your mono light since they all use the same radio system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
I'm convinced. My build currently has the QS800II or a DP800III. Looked at the specs side by side. Don't see a ton of advantages with the QS series over the DP series with the exception of more levels of control. So I'll probably go DP series. 800Ws isn't going to be overkill for indoor studio stuff, right? The only reason I set that level is because the modifier I want to pair it with will be large and I don't want any cold spots on the diffuser. But if I can get away with 400-600Ws to save some money I will. Which brings me to modifiers. I know I want a large one, but oh god I can't decide if I want to prioritize size (72 inch octabox) or shape and control (48-60 inch parabolic softbox). From what I've read you can potentially do more with a parabolic and that's what the kids these days are shooting with, but being able to stand in front of the keylight is a luxury I got spoiled with when I did commercial studio work. Plus keylight backgrounds make awesome high key portraits. And if that weren't enough, I am a pervert for those 84 inch reflectors. um excuse me fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Feb 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
If you were initially thinking a B800 those are like 320w/s. I have a couple of the SK400 and they've been totally fine compared to my B800 if you wanna cheap out more so you can get more modifiers / a second light.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
Whats the best dust blower blaster bulb thingy ever made price is no object? Is there an overly engineered and expensive motorized device that does this? I'm scanning all my dad's 3D slides and I think I've determined that just blowing them real hard is the best way to do it though maybe if I had a good brush it'd be okay. I'm think the non-invasive non-contact method is really the best though, for the most part dust blasting them seems to work gud enuf but I'm using a piece of crap $2 blower bulb that came free with a lens package and I feel like something like this might actually do a better job: https://www.amazon.com/JJC-Professi...132&sr=8-6&th=1 e: wait are these type of thing any good? my last experience with something like this was those cheeseball keyboard cleaners 12 years ago that were completely worthless but this thing seems like it might actually have some meat under the hood https://www.amazon.com/Cordless-Com...s%2C145&sr=8-17 e2: please help me my hand is cramping so badly bird with big dick fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Feb 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2022 02:00
|
|
|
I use this one: https://www.amazon.com/Giottos-AA1900-Rocket-Blaster-Large/dp/B00017LSPI/ref=sr_1_3 I've stayed away from anything with an electric motor due to static.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
I was thinking about that one too, somewhere I have one of the little meatball Giottos but I haven't bothered looking for it just because its too small. Like when you're talking about air blasting a few thousand slides 8-16 times each poo poo like the size and pliability of your bulb blaster really starts to matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2022 02:50
|
|
|
An airbrush compressor can be grounded to mitigate static. You can also raise the humidity in the room you are working in. I do both in an electronics manufacturing facility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2022 03:16
|
|
|
Air compressor with a moisture trap if you are using it that much
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2022 07:25
|
|
wolfs posted:All this Fujifilm talk: There’s a company called 7artisans that does a bunch of no-frills manual lenses, and in particular they have a 35mm f/1.2 lens for $140 USD or so. Is it high quality? gently caress no! But it’s also a 1.2 that isn’t complete dogshit that costs less than a night of drinking at a moderately expensive bar, so, takes it as you will.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
Question for Sony users. On my Canon 5D IV, I use two back buttons for my autofocus on. One of them (A) I have set to a single focus point, and I use most of the time. The other (B) is set to an area focus, and automatically switches to a high shutter speed. I do this because I shoot birds, and when they take off or surprise fly over head, I need to quickly use the (B) setting to get the shot. Do the Sony bodies have something like this? Looking at the back, I only see the one AF ON button, and an AEL button, whereas the Canon has 3 thumb buttons in that area. I'm considering moving to Sony next time around, mainly because I covet the 200-600 lens so much. But I'm curious about this kind of setup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2022 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:38 |
|
|
Depending on the model, most of the Sony a7-9 bodies, you can reprogram almost any function to any button and there's a few custom buttons. I always used back button focus so you can do that but maybe one is zone, the other is eye af.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2022 06:13
|
|