|
Helicity posted:I've only ever seen one kit lens (Fuji) that didn't leave a lot to be desired AHEM. Canon 24-105 f/4L would like to speak with you.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Shellman posted:AHEM. I've never seen that lens  (I have seen the dreadful 18-55 that comes with most recent Canons, though)There are some really great pictures taken even on the Canon 18-55 though. Get a tripod that you won't have to replace for a few years and then start spending money on the stuff that will help you take more pictures. If the kit lens doesn't bug you, spend it on something else that facilitates you taking more pictures.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I know at least a couple of us are super happy with our Benro tripods, they're super cheap (got mine used for $60 in mint condition). I have one of the carbon models and it's very robust and steals a lot of design elements from more expensive tripods. I'll check them out, they definitely start a lot more reasonably priced than the gitzo ones. Thanks! I have another friend who has a nice telephoto lens that fits on my pentax. I tried it for an afternoon and it really made a big difference, just not sure if I want to spend more on glass for this crop sensor camera. https://flic.kr/p/noM95G This is one picture I took, and I tried to get a blown up print of it. However you can really tell the sharpness wasn't there to get a wall sized one. One of my friends mentioned that I could probably get it much sharper if I had used a tripod, with that same lens. I'm sure he is right, but I'm not really sure how much of it is lens and how much is my shaking. Helicity it is the DAL18-55mm plastic one, I don't think it's very stellar. Rodney Chops fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
I dunno man, 18mm f/11 1/200s shouldn't be too hard to shoot hand-held. And honestly that doesn't look too bad to me, as far as sharpness goes. And what are we talking about as far as "wall sized"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
You're not going to be able to print nice and crisp (300dpi or thereabouts) at anything larger than 16x20 on digital. A "wall sized" print will require stitching or medium/large format.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
I was thinking 36 x 24 ish. I'm not sure what the standard size would be. We have a painting on canvas that size that I wanted to replace. Sounds like I was going too big regardless. When you say medium/large format, your talking those bigger film cameras? Or would my friends full frame (I think its a 5D) been able to print larger? He had some poster sized prints of his work (16x20 sounds familiar) framed that made me incredibly envious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Really, a crop sensor camera and a full frame can make about the same sized prints at this point, just the full frame has a wider field of view. You could probably get away with a canvas large print, since the texture of the canvas would hide the noise and whatever, but neither full frame nor crop would make a nice smooth print at that size.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Ok, good to know. Thanks for the advise everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
I've printed a 24x36 from a Digital Rebel XT with the 18-55 II through a Tiffen circular polarizer and it looks fine. If the shot's good enough, it won't matter that much if you can see a bit of artifacting when you put your nose to it
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
I've been printing landscapes at 20x30 with my 5D and I feel like I could push them even larger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Rodney Chops posted:Hey Goons, I'm getting more into photograph as I go, I've been trying to take some landscape shots but can't get the sharpness I want from just holding the camera. I have a pentax k-50 (airmiles!) with just the kit lens, and a bunch of other manual focus lens from garage sales. My next purchase I think is going to be a tripod. I have a Pentax K-5 which is nearly the same camera as yours. 90% of the difference between your K-50 and your friend's FF camera is not the body or glass but the person behind the lens. If he's as good of a photographer as you think he is he could probably do wonders with your camera and lenses. It's just about learning the basics and developing skill. What you have right now is a great camera to start with, and using the MF lenses will help slow you down and make you pay attention to composition and whatnot more. What are you shooting that you feel like you need a tripod for? I only use mine when I shoot my medium format camera or when I'm doing night photography. And I spent less than $100 on mine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
/\/\/\ I've got a K-5, too.Helicity posted:edit: assuming the Pentax kit lens falls in line with other sub-par kit lenses. I honestly have no idea. Spend around $150 for a tripod+ball head (I can recommend Sirui as a low-cost brand with Arca-Swiss compatibility), be happy. And cheap old glass is one of the best reasons for shooting Pentax. And for any camera, SHOOT MORE. Nothing - no lens, no body, no accessory - can come close to PRACTICE. Get out there and shoot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
My benro owns. They are inexpensive and can hold a fair amount of weight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
I have a MeFoto which is extremely similar to the Benro except available in more colors and slightly cheaper. They're also ballhead tripods and ArcaSwiss compatible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:/\/\/\ I've got a K-5, too. I really like the 18-55 DA WR kit lens that came with my K-5. I eventually upgraded to the Tamron 17-50 2.8 but that was only because I needed a faster lens for shooting roller derby. When I shoot long exposures at night I still tend to reach for the kit lens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
The old 18-55 was a dog but even the new ones are a roll of the dice, I hope Ricoh can address some of the QC issues they have been suffering from. The 16-45 f/4 is in a good spot price/performance wise if you don't mind it being short on the long end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
Was there a kit zoom for Pentax's film cameras?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Was there a kit zoom for Pentax's film cameras? Yes. How old do you want to go back?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Startyde posted:The old 18-55 was a dog but even the new ones are a roll of the dice, I hope Ricoh can address some of the QC issues they have been suffering from. The 16-45 f/4 is in a good spot price/performance wise if you don't mind it being short on the long end. Yeah, I have to agree here. My kit lens is pretty drat good, but the other one I tried was poo poo. A problem with many Pentax lenses is the price for what you get. A good third party prime does wonders. And finally, if the picture is good enough it won't matter much what you shot it with, unless you want to print big.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Was there a kit zoom for Pentax's film cameras? The two-zoom kit isn't new, Pentax sold F- and FA- series cameras in the 90's with a pair of zooms, typically something like the 35-80/variable paired with a cheap 80-200/variable. Again, not necessarily BAD lenses (decent quality glass, Pentax's much loved SMC mulitcoating), just rather restricted by tight apertures and so-so autofocus performance. In the manual-focus era most kit lenses (i.e. bundled with bodies) were primes, typically a Nifty Fifty, but some cameras were sold with a 35-70 or 35-80 variable-aperture zoom. They're not inherently bad lenses, they're just rather limited by small apertures and a zoom range that doesn't fit very well with current APS-C DSLRs. I've got both the F- and FA-35-80mm/variable zooms (because I have an addiction to cheap glass) and a head-to-head comparison I did showed me these two lenses are functionally identical. My DA-18-55 AL is capable of nice sharp images, as long as I don't try to use it at 55mm and stay at f/8 or tighter. So, flexible and broadly useful it is not, but until I can afford the $500+ to get something markedly better it's what I've got for walk-around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I know at least a couple of us are super happy with our Benro tripods, they're super cheap (got mine used for $60 in mint condition). I have one of the carbon models and it's very robust and steals a lot of design elements from more expensive tripods. My parents happen to live next to the Vanguard tripod company's distributor. Every year they have a garage sale, so now I have a small carbon fiber tripod for my digital stuff as well as a large carbon fiber tripod for my 6x7. The little one was $10 and I think the other one was $25.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Given that you can buy an off-brand carbon fiber bicycle frame for $500, the margins on tripod legs must be ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Yup. During the autofocus era the 28-80 / 28-105 / 35-80 options in the F- and FA- lines were commonly sold bundled with bodies, thus they qualify as kit lenses. Plus, variable apertures generally maxing out at f/4 at the wide end. Was the quality on them better than the current batch of 18-50s? I'm asking because I'd like to get a fun, presumably inexpensive film era autofocus lens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Was the quality on them better than the current batch of 18-50s? I'm asking because I'd like to get a fun, presumably inexpensive film era autofocus lens. Weathersealing wasn't introduced until well into the digital era, so none of the consumer zooms from 20 years ago will be weathersealed. But for $25 or $50 you can afford to replace it if it gets wrecked by a sudden rainstorm or something. For example, KEH has the F-28-105mm / 4-5.6 for about $60 and the FA version of that lens for about $70. Or the F-35-80mm / 4-5.6 for a tenth of that: $7.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Given that you can buy an off-brand carbon fiber bicycle frame for $500, the margins on tripod legs must be ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I don't think the quality was better, just not any worse (individual variation and quality control notwithstanding). You could pick up an autofocus kit zoom for less than $100, probably for less than $20 if you spend a little time looking. What's the differences between the various lenses? F, FA, DA, DA-L.. I haven't really been able to find anything that says what is what.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Mostly the age, but the DA/DA-L are crop sensor only. This page has a nice big chart and exact differences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:What's the differences between the various lenses? F, FA, DA, DA-L.. I haven't really been able to find anything that says what is what. F(A) is for full frame. (Not really, but that is what it boils down to.) DA is for "digital" and usually APS-C. (I think with one or two exceptions.) FA is newer than F. DA-L I think is lighter than DA and often has plastic mounts. DA* is hyper expensive and super good. (In theory.) All those are autofocus. K and M type are manual focus lenses and A type is manual focus but allows automatic aperture setting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Thank you both!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:What's the differences between the various lenses? F, FA, DA, DA-L.. I haven't really been able to find anything that says what is what.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Hey fellow goons, looking for some advice on polarizers. First off the Marumi Super DHG seems to have been replaced with the EXUS. Any reason not to get the EXUS? Also it seems like finding the Super DHG will be harder now (esp in glorious  ).For step down rings, is there recommended brand? The prices vary greatly and I'd rather not get an expensive filter stuck on a cheap ring. Also does anyone have experience using polarizers on rangefinders? I'd like to use one on my GW690 if at all possible...
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
nop posted:For step down rings, is there recommended brand? The prices vary greatly and I'd rather not get an expensive filter stuck on a cheap ring. Not really, I think they're all more or less the same materials and quality. Polarizers on rangefinders: in short, good luck. That's one of the major limitations of rangefinder type systems. Unless the manufacturer released a fancy gizmo that turns a second polarizer on the viewfinder (eg Mamiya 7) or something like that, you can't really do much. Hold it up to your eye, look at your subject, turn it to your desired polarization, then put it on the lens and make sure the polarization is set to the same angle. Also just a general heads-up: Plano makes a 4-pistol plastic case that goes for $12 at Walmart and Amazon. It's got a middle layer of Pick N Pluck foam like a Pelican or whatnot. It's not the deepest case in the world, you would probably have to store a DSLR flat on its back, but the price is right. I'm moving and I got a couple for transporting my film SLRs and lenses, they seem decent. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Just got a Sterlingtek battery for my T3i, and it doesn't say anything on the package. Should you charge it before using, or drain it all the way before charging?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:Just got a Sterlingtek battery for my T3i, and it doesn't say anything on the package. Should you charge it before using, or drain it all the way before charging? There are a lot of theories on batteries and what not. Generally lithium ion batteries don't have a 'memory'. A camera wouldn't ever draw hard enough on a battery to lower it's life from a deep discharge (say the way an RC car would). Maybe if you go ape poo poo with the flash? I wouldn't bother fully discharging it on purpose. Keep it charged so you don't run out of juice when you want to take a shot. I'm no camera guru, just going off what I learned from RC stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Breadnought posted:I've got a particularly persistent piece of sensor dust (more like a small hair?) that's survived a whole bunch of compressed air and a wet cleaning. Any tips on how to get rid of it? Should I just ignore it because it's basically impossible to see at low apertures anyways? Clone stamp in Photoshop. I've spent hours removing crap on the sensor from shots of the sky from abused newspaper cameras.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 12:08
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:Clone stamp in Photoshop. I've spent hours removing crap on the sensor from shots of the sky from abused newspaper cameras. So I brought it in to the Fujifilm Service Center (Fuji Japan's customer service is kickin rad) and even they couldn't clean it, so it's off to the factory for a week. This is my first interchangeable lens camera, and I have a feeling I'm going to just need to get used to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Breadnought posted:So I brought it in to the Fujifilm Service Center (Fuji Japan's customer service is kickin rad) and even they couldn't clean it, so it's off to the factory for a week. This is my first interchangeable lens camera, and I have a feeling I'm going to just need to get used to it. Well if they sent it off to the factory I'm assuming it will get a sensor replacement? Sounds like a bit of rotten luck. I'm not very cautious with swapping lenses, and have had to remove the dust digitally. I don't have photoshop, so I downloaded snapheal as part of a mac heist bundle. As long as you are doing simple stuff like water or sky it's dead simple. Good enough for me anyways. I'm sure there are a ton of apps like it. Hopefully it comes back brand new though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
So, I have a Canon T3i with the standard 18-55 kit lens. I've been shooting with it for a couple years now and I think it's time to expand my range. While I'm looking to spend about $1000, I'd be willing to bump that up to $1500 if there was a good justification. For the upcoming trip I'll be wandering around Italy for a bit, but I usually use my camera for just about anything that isn't a portrait. I've been looking at: - Sigma 10-20mm - Tamron 70-300mm VC 1) Do those choices make sense? Is there something else I should be considering? 2) For the Sigma, is it worth the extra $250 for the f/3.5 as opposed to the f/4-5.6? 3) The next purchase after this would likely be a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Should I be looking to get that right now to bridge between 20mm and 70mm, or will the kit suffice?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
What do you shoot?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Both of those are good lenses, and I'm going to lean towards "no" for getting the pricier Sigma with constant aperture. At extremely wide focal lengths, aperture just doesn't seem to matter as much. Shutter speed guidelines typically cite the "1 over focal length = maximum shutter-open time" rule, which at 20mm is 1/20 of a second, or something noticeably slow just by listening to your camera. Being able to shoot sans tripod at 1/15 (or whatever) is largely a matter of good subject choice (big things that don't move, like buildings) and bracing yourself to some degree (like against a stone wall). Spend the difference in coin on some side-trip in Italy, much more worth it to visit someplace special than have a different number printed on a lens. Or a tripod, a decent tripod ("decent" is easily possible for $250) is useful for every lens. Unless, that is, there's a big difference in quality when comparing between those two Sigmas. The Tamron 70-300 VC is widely recommended, just go ahead and get that and start playing with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 06:10
|
|