|
It really hits you that it's all bullshit when you start getting atmospheric distortion. I got to 800mm before I realized I was the worst gear whore.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
um excuse me posted:It really hits you that it's all bullshit when you start getting atmospheric distortion.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
Heat haze, the killer of many an airplane photo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
you babies and your air distortion, try dealing with haloclines or losing colors from 5 feet awayum excuse me posted:It really hits you that it's all bullshit when you start getting atmospheric distortion. I got to 800mm before I realized I was the worst gear whore. Half the fun of wildlife is trying to avoid being seen and/or murdered by animals though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
The underwater photography thread: zooming with your flippers may get you keelhauled.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:It really hits you that it's all bullshit when you start getting atmospheric distortion. I got to 800mm before I realized I was the worst gear whore. 800mm is fine if you are some kind of peasant who's happy with having to walk up to things before you can photograph them. Real gear acquisitioners would have an EF 1200mm, a Leica 1600mm or a EF 5200mm for when you want to take travel photos without actually travelling anywhere. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that Sheikh Al-Thani is, in fact, the worst gear whore. Not only does he shoot Leica, but he paid them more than $2M to make him that stupid lens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 09:58
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:800mm is fine if you are some kind of peasant who's happy with having to walk up to things before you can photograph them. Real gear acquisitioners would have an EF 1200mm, a Leica 1600mm or a EF 5200mm for when you want to take travel photos without actually travelling anywhere. I've been jonesing for a long telephoto for my Fuji, but at the same time I'm entertaining the ridiculous idea of spending less than 100-400mm money on a Nikon P1000 and using it as a complete telephoto solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Hello Spaceman posted:Nikon P1000 Had to google that. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
I need someone to talk me out of buying one of these lenses. They are probably pretty crappy, but they also seem like they'd be a lot of fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
pseudorandom posted:I need someone to talk me out of buying one of these lenses. They are probably pretty crappy, but they also seem like they'd be a lot of fun. I was looking at some similar cheap lenses, one being a 500mm cheapo for like 30 bucks which looked like a mini rocket launcher. So I’d be curious too, although more for old mounts that I could adapt vs. ef mount.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
I've been tempted to buy one of those cheap mirror lenses for a long time.. having that kind of reach in such a small package would be worth the atrocious bokeh and contrast. Could easily toss it in your luggage for a trip and never feel bad you didn't use it. So I won't talk you out of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
I seem to recall hearing that the mirror lenses like that more or less work, but you get kinda fuzzy image quality. For a hundred bucks or whatever, I wouldn't necessarily call them a ripoff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
pseudorandom posted:I need someone to talk me out of buying one of these lenses. They are probably pretty crappy, but they also seem like they'd be a lot of fun. The first one is a mirror lens. Putting a couple of mirrors in a supertele is a good way to get large magnification (500mm is large) without needing lots of size and weight; this also helps keep costs down. The downside is the ring-bokeh that such lenses produce.  Alpine Ibex with ring bokeh by Stefan Köder, on Flickr(not my photo) The second one is a dirt-cheap, very simple supertele and it won't have that ring bokeh problem. It will also be considerably larger and heavier. Things that make lenses expensive, such as good multicoating on the glass elements, large maximum aperture (small number F-stop; for superteles look for F/5.6 or F/4), and good construction, are missing on lenses that sell new for $100 or less. Hell, those features are missing on many lenses that sell new for $500. They always seem to sell them with a teleconverter, allowing them to claim a zoom range (it's no such thing, focus will change when the TC is attached). A teleconverter affects both the focal length and the aperture, because F-stops are the focal length divided by the diameter of the aperture, so your (lovely) 500mm F/8 becomes a (shittier) 1000mm F/16 when you stick the (very lovely) TC on it. However, these lenses are excellent illustrations of the concept of "You get what you pay for". I won't talk you out of it either, I confess I sometimes consider buying one myself (usually an evening alone with a bottle of wine will get me there) given the low price. For $100 you get to tell people on the internet about your experiences, with photos. If you already have a tripod and you wouldn't mind hauling one of those out to your local semi-natural area, and you don't have something better to spend $100 on, I say go for it. EDIT: Why not double your silly photo-fun? https://www.ebay.com/itm/Oshiro-8mm...675.c100623.m-1 Get a fisheye lens, too!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:The first one is a mirror lens. Putting a couple of mirrors in a supertele is a good way to get large magnification (500mm is large) without needing lots of size and weight; this also helps keep costs down. The downside is the ring-bokeh that such lenses produce. One of these?  They have one use and one use only: to stick on the end of your DSLR and confuse the hell out of other photographers and impress people with your really, really long lens. Which is what I used mine for. It was poo poo as a lens: f8 is like looking down a lens whilst wearing sunglasses, you can't focus for poo poo and the quality is so poor, you might as well shoot with a 50mm with a lenshood made out of toilet roll tubes taped together and crop it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
Mirror lenses are a hoot. I've got an 800mm f/8 i got from... someone here, I think! My IBIS just freaks the gently caress out trying to stabilize it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
A local store here has a flash sale tomorrow only for 60% off on a couple of cameras and i was thinking of picking one up for my wife as she complains a lot about her cellphone being bad at taking photos (slow) as well as producing crap quality photos. She will use my gear occasionally but for the most part picks up the phone as its lighter and less expensive. The available cameras are: Canon EOS M5 Fuji X-T10 Lumix GX800 Even though i have a bunch of L glass which could be used on the M5 i am leaning towards the X-T10 as its a pretty good camera from what i can see, and it gets fairly low profile if you put a pancake lens on it. They all have the possibility to tweak settings a bit, wifi, decent auto focus, decent megapixels so in the end i guess it boils down to which cameras they will have available when i get there, as they are only selling 5 of each. Im not really sure what my question here is. Which camera should i get maybe? She uses her phone both for stills and video, mostly of our kids, mostly indoors. Before we met she had recently been on a 5 week backpacking trip through europe and took a ton of photos and seemed to have enjoyed doing that. My hope is that she will get her photography interested back if she gets her OWN camera. A colleague gave his wife the X-T10 recently and she enjoys it a lot aparently, the same colleague states that the Fuji cameras has a certain appeal to women though this is probably just confirmation bias?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 11:24
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:A local store here has a flash sale tomorrow only for 60% off on a couple of cameras and i was thinking of picking one up for my wife as she complains a lot about her cellphone being bad at taking photos (slow) as well as producing crap quality photos. She will use my gear occasionally but for the most part picks up the phone as its lighter and less expensive. In a vacuum, the xt10. In your circumstances, the M5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 12:32
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Mirror lenses are a hoot. I've got an 800mm f/8 i got from... someone here, I think! My IBIS just freaks the gently caress out trying to stabilize it. I have the same one. In liveview/video IBIS clunks a lot but it still works. It is a fun lens. If you hold your hand out at arms length, your field of view is roughly your thumbnail. You still need to get closer to get good shots. The bokeh is often not an issue. It has poor sharpness, as expected of anything this cheap. In bright/direct light you lose a lot of contrast. Overcast light is also pretty bad. The version I had does not stop at infinity. Depth of field is thin, and nailing focus is difficult even on stationary subjects. F8 aperture limits when you can shoot even with IBIS. Compare this photo by someone else on a cheap but much better quality lens With this one I took on an 800mm
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
lampey posted:The version I had does not stop at infinity. Take a picture of Buzz Lightyear with this lens, please. I like visual puns. And/or get a Buzz Lightyear sticker and put it on the side of the lens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Take a picture of Buzz Lightyear with this lens, please. I like visual puns. Does this count as a “gig”?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
I will pay you with so much exposure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
I just spent two and a half hours on my first “quick” trip into B&H. Holy poo poo that’s easily the best tourism destination in NYC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
KennyG posted:I just spent two and a half hours on my first “quick” trip into B&H. Holy poo poo that’s easily the best tourism destination in NYC. Do they still have the normal bathrooms and the minority bathrooms?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
lmao blackrapid what the gently caress quote:BLACKRAPID introduces Groovy, our first upright camera strap line. We based it on the iconic fashion of the late sixties and early seventies when bohemian babes flowed with flower power and guitar straps rocked at Woodstock, and took inspiration from the timeless aesthetic of vintage film and Polaroid cameras.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 12:49
|
|
|
20 years too late for the woodstock 30th anniversary lead-up buzz.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 13:14
|
|
|
My brother in law is 17, and wants to learn actual photography beyond what his iPhone 7 can do. What's a reasonable setup for like $100 to $150 to get him started learning about aperature, exposure, etc.? My first though would be something like an old Canon 40D with a EF 50mm f1.8 and a copy of Understanding Exposure. Should I look at mirrorless? Is there even anything in that price range that is remotely viable? At least the glass in the above isn't terrible. I'm not too worried about the actual picture quality though, more of the learning experience. I though something like a used S90 would be good - it would take decent pictures. But not having used mine in a while, I don't know if it's really that much better than the iphone is these days. I kinda want something that doesn't have a great auto mode and make him figure out how to do something with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
Sounds like a perfect idea to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
The old NEX cameras are still decent cameras and within that price range. The user interface is lacking but they are small, and mirrorless so he could adapt old lenses to practice with manual focus and physical aperture rings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 01:49
|
|
|
Just remembered that the 40D doesn't have liveview. I think going to the 50D for that is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
spog posted:Just remembered that the 40D doesn't have liveview. Uh yeah it does?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
50mm on crop is a pretty awkward focal length, especially for a beginner. Get the kit zoom instead imo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
The kit zoom and the 50 1.8 ii (the older version) are both super cheap so it’s not tough to get either, or both. Didn’t know 40Ds were down that cheap though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 10:18
|
|
|
hope and vaseline posted:Uh yeah it does? It does in the same way that I have a sexual organ: technically it's there, but practically, it works so badly that no-one would ever use it. In the 40D's case, that is because to activate the live view, the mirror needs to be locked up. But for autofocus to work, the mirror has to be down. I'll leave that to your imagination/experience as to what that means.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 10:46
|
|
|
You can find a 40d of questionable quality on ebay for like $90 or so. I'll sort through and find something that looks reasonable - if I spend a few more $ on something in better shape, so be it. Looking at like $150 for a 50d with no glass - I don't know if he's going to enjoy this enough to actually warrant more than $150 or so all in. I'd rather get a lens that's at least halfway reasonable in a decent mount and a body that's just for learning purposes, as it can get upgraded and still have a lens that's usable if he takes to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 13:27
|
|
|
A 40 or 50D will be an insanely good camera for someone to learn digital photography on. You can find the bodies/accessories cheap and spend money on good lenses. For crop lenses, the sigma or tamron 17-50 2.8 is a great overall walk around lens. The sigma 30 1.4 is a great little crop lens you can find used for $200. IIRC the Canon 55-250 is a fantastic lens for the price and a big favorite here, don't recall if its EF or EFs though. For EF lenses (work with crop or FF bodies) you can even find the 70-200 f4 L for $350-450 used. The nifty 50 1.8 at $100 is great for portraits but it is awkwardly long, especially indoors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Verman posted:A 40 or 50D will be an insanely good camera for someone to learn digital photography on. You can find the bodies/accessories cheap and spend money on good lenses. I've got a first generation 55-250 (it's EF-S). the optics are...okay, but the stabilization is, I think, really drat good, and the focal length range is useful as well. Would recommend. I hear very good things about the STM version.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Can I get a recommendation for a long zoom lens for a crop-sensor Nikon? Right now I've got a 55-200 that I picked up for $40, and it's very solid for a lot of what I do, but lately I've been getting more interested in wildlife photography and birding and 200mm just isn't enough, especially in situations where I can't get closer (either for safety reasons or because I'd spook the animal). What kind of range should I be looking at, realistically? There's reasonably affordable 300mm lenses out there, but I honestly have no idea if that extra 100mm is enough. On the other hand, I don't really want to get into the super-zoom range where I'm walking around with a gigantic tube that I can't easily stow while I'm hiking or whatever. Some kind of vibration reduction would also be ideal, since I've found my wildlife shots are almost always chance opportunities where I don't have a chance to set up a tripod.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
A 800mm F5.6. You've now entered the dangerous world of bird photography where no focal length is ever enough and you won't be close to not-un-happy until you've spent more on lenses than you spent on your last car. You might as well skip all the pain in middle and just jump to the point where sell a kidney.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
My 150-600 is babytown garbage. Practically wide angle. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
Slap a 2x extender on that bad boy and enjoy losing two more stops of light.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 20:13
|
|