|
Mannequin posted:
There are so many things right with that picture that I wouldn't even know where to begin.
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2009 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:The lens on the flash serves to focus it, giving it reach. They kinda sorta work... never seen them used seriously. In this case it's going to be largely blocked by the telephoto lens. The flash gadget looks like a Better Beamer and they do work pretty decently, and some pros actually use them to get a little fill in on wildlife stuff (mostly birding). As for the hand position, that is the proper way to handle a long tele lens to limit vibrations. Resting your arm on it like that makes a big difference. Not saying the guy knows what he's doing otherwise, but wanted to point that out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2009 16:45
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:The 61 point AF is the same as in the 1DX, but a "simpler version". This may be exactly what people have been waiting for. It probably wont AF @ f/8 like the 1D Fwiw, the 1Dx does not AF at f/8 either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 07:43
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:I want 2 stops more light Get a 2 stop faster lens.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Found this page via TOP, love love love these photos. http://thephotographypost.com/blogs/post/rachel/jump-with-philippe-837/ Some minor nudity in one in case you are at work.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Is that a large format TLR in the self-portrait? Or a comically large prop camera? Halsman designed a 4x5 tlr back in the 40s.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
Pentaxforums.com pulled a cruel April fools this year, announcing a full frame Pentax DSLR. Pentaxians being a humorless bunch, it did not fare well. quote:Surely this is not a joke. This kind of thing would be enough to make loyal, "patient" pentaxians jump ship and go to another brand. :| quote:I really can't believe that a reputable forum would post such a puerile joke. quote:Sorry, JUST NOT FUNNY. quote:Maybe PentaxForums has been generating to much traffic and they just want less visitors? Really, I have been quite fond of Pentax for a long time (though I think their recent releases are blah), but I have never seen such a negative, unhappy bunch of people as I see on the various Pentax boards.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 09:58
|
|
|
I knew the "K-3" was fake as soon as I saw it was not offered in a series of gaudy colors.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 14:33
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:I want a full-frame OM-mount DSLR dammit What I would like is a basic, manual focus, no semi-transparent mirror, pentaprism, big viewfinder DSLR that has interchangeable mounts. Oh, and a FF monochrome sensor would be nice too. Just something to mount old OM, Nikkor, FD, M42 glass to. With tech getting cheaper all the time, I would not be entirely surprised to see some niche manufacturer putting out on of these within the next 5 years. Cosina, you listening?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:I know the camera is poo poo but that pancake lens still seems pretty amazing to me.. Well, the camera isn't "poo poo" really. It's just a weird, poorly thought out design; the technology is pretty decent, even though the sensor is not the newest it still kicks the crap out of almost all APS sensors on the market today. But yeah, the design and lack of viewfinder... and size because they wanted it to be native K-mount instead of via adapter... not sure what the gently caress they were smoking. Mightaswell posted:Is it still a pancake when 3/4 of it is sticking into the camera body, thanks to the legacy k-mount nonsensically transplanted onto a mirror-less body? Well, it still fits on K-mount DSLRs so I'd say it qualifies. Remains to be seen if future "XS" lenses will be equally compatible though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:There is nothing quite so endearing as when a friend of yours first discovers photography. It's like I'm excited about photography again, vicariously through her I envy you, you get to live through the HDR stage, the high contrast black and white stage, the "blurry is art" stage, the low saturation polaroid edge hipster stage.... I miss being young.  Soulex posted:Or because the shot is in focus. Focus is a social construct! Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 20:18 on May 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Well, Leica have done it, a $7500 monochrome digital camera: Hopefully those samples are just indicative of the dpreview team's inability to produce good images; they look pretty flat and unexciting. Will be nice to see what a good B&W shooter with some filters can accomplish. Also, if Fuji are smart they would release a monochrome X100, tons of the "street" guys just convert to B&W anyway. Price it under 1500 bucks, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2012 14:21
|
|
|
That 70s Shirt posted:Not sure if this is the same thing, but when I went to LR4 it updated ALL of my photos to the new processing scheme. Made a lot of them look like absolute poo poo. I was going through all of them one-by-one reverting them back to the old processing before I realized I could batch them all back. That's weird. I upgraded to LR4 and I had to explicitly tell it which images to convert to the new process. But yeah, back up them catalog files. (You should anyway.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Ahh okay thanks. I did so and it seems fine. I already don't like 4 tho. They made switching in between Library and Develop less intuitive and it's annoying. What change is that? I just click on the tabs up top like a moron so it didn't act any different for me. Takes some getting used to the new sliders though, but I gotta say highlight recovery is as big of an improvement as NR was in LR3.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Can anyone ballpark what focal length this was shot at? I would guess short tele, maybe 85mm on FF or thereabouts?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:Is there somewhere in particular I should be looking to find a thread about the computer end of photography? I've been chugging away for some time processing photos on my old T400 using LR3, but that's getting tedious as gently caress. I went Mac last year, and have to say I have not regretted it for a second. Bought a 27" quad core i5 version with the 6970M graphics card and 12 gigs ram. Great display for editing, excellent performance, and just a nice machine to work with. Best part: unless you add external devices, you have a big glorious screen, a bluetooth keyboard, and a bluetooth mouse/trackpad, and that's it. And please, no Windows vs OS X wars here. Just mentioning what I like to work with, and appears to fit this one person's needs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
spog posted:Due to the death of a family friend, I have a mint Olympus OM10 on my desk and 3 lenses (3rd party). Realistically, it will probably go up on ebay and earn maybe a few quid - hardly worth the effort. You will be disappointed. One of the reasons the old FF cameras had such glorious viewfinders was that they had a fully reflective mirror, while modern AF FF bodies divert a fair amount of the light to the AF sensor. My 1DsII is nothing compared to my old OM2.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
HPL posted:That's what the first DSLRs were. A Kodak back hacked on to a Nikon body. The very first Kodak DSLR was made from a Canon body (F1) though they afterwards moved first to Nikon and then in the late 90s a mix of Canon and Nikon bodies (and even a Sigma!).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:But they do? Pentax makes an entire camera, not just the back. Hasselblad/Imacon, Mamiya/Leaf, Phase One all make backs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
dukeku posted:The problem with that kind of scenario is the lack of lenses for MF that would be considered "wide" on 135. You'd be pretty pigeonholed into using teles. Unless by "wide" you mean "ultrawide", there are plenty of decent wideangles for MF.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Show me an affordable 35mm lens for 645 and beyond and maybe we can start talking. Medium format is not cheap. You said that you would basically be restricted to teles, but on say a P1 P45+ back a 28mm would be equivalent to about a 19mm on a 35mm body. That is pretty drat wide to me. A 35mm would be equivalent to about 23mm. And so on. Also, if you are sinking 8-10k into a body it is kind of silly to complain about the lenses being too expensive. The Mamiya 35/3.5 is just over a couple of grand, so in the grand scale of things it is not so bad. edit: OK, I see that you are probably referring to a setup comparative to 35mm price wise, and then you are definitely more restricted. But, Pentax and Mamiya manual focus glass is not too bad; a Mamiya 35mm manual focus lens is like 400 bucks used. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:
Yeah, Mamiya has a kit, lens included, for 9990 USD now (22mp back). Pentax 645D I have not looked at in a while, but think that one sits around 10 grand too. Expensive, sure, but not unobtainable for many; I know quite a few photographers with 10k or more in gear once you start counting all their bits and pieces. Of course, their setup is far more flexible than a fixed focal length single lens medium format rig, but it all depends on what you're after.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
dukeku posted:I'm not talking about a setup comparative to 35mm, I'm talking about the viability of a medium format body with a 35mm-sized sensor in it - which would severely restrict your lens choices on the wide end, unless you want to start recessing lenses into the body housing. If we're talking about 645 sized digital backs, it's clearly not an issue. OK, then I completely misunderstood you. Yeah, for a 35mm size sensor you are pretty well screwed, with maybe the Mamiya 25mm being the one viable option...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Someone mentioned Leica last page. Leicas have titanium taints.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I only use cloth-tainted Leicas, the titanium taint makes too loud of a clack to be usable for street shooting. Just don't point your rear end towards the sun without stopping down and defocusing first.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I refuse to touch a 5D or even 7D because it's bad enough having a 50D at work then waiting for the buffer on my 30D to fill up when I'm using my personal camera. If buffer clearing is your main concern you can safely handle an X100. I think it uses a 1200 baud modem to talk to the SD card.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
Photography, 'taint what it used to be.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:You too can own a Mamiya RB67 (okay so it's one step down from the RZ67), I'm selling one in the gear selling thread. I love RBs. Mine is the older model with all the funky interlocks which is a good way to save film as you are rarely able to fire the shutter because button A isn't aligned with tab B while lever C isn't in position D and there is a full moon outside.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Alright, I am getting tired of having a bunch of gear sitting around mostly unused, so trying to slim down. Just wanted some thoughts on this (even though I know that ultimately I am the only one who really can make the call). Currently (not including "fun" gear like old cheap rangefinders): Mamiya RB67 with 90 and 250 lenses Fuji GA645 Sinar F1 4x5 with 135mm lens Leica M3 with Summicron 50/2 DR (goggles and all) Canon 7D and 1DsII with 500/4L, 400/5.6L, 24-105/4L, Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar, Nikon PC-Nikkor 35/2.8, Tokina 35/2.8 macro, EF 85/1.8. Olympus E-M5 with 14/2.5, 20/1.7 and 45/1.8 After getting the E-M5 the other gear is basically collecting dust, with the exception of the 7D+500L which goes birding and wildlifing on a regular basis. I am very fond of the 1DsII and the GA645 but neither sees heavy use. So I am considering this setup: Sinar F1 with 135mm Canon 1DsII with 24-105 (on the fence about this one) and PC-Nikkor for landscapes (I don't like shooting really wide) Canon 7D with 500L (for birding) E-M5 with 14, 20 and 45mm as well as an adapted 300 or 400 lens for a lighter wildlife rig (considering the Canon FD 400/4.5 which is very affordable , much smaller/lighter than the 500L and quite sharp) It hurts a bit dumping the other stuff, but fact is I hardly ever even touch it (at least in the past year). I am more fond of the idea of shooting with it than ACTUALLY doing it. Film is fun but if I am going to put the effort in I may as well go big or go home. Any thoughts?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I don't mean to be oblique here, but I think you should decide what to shoot and get or keep the right equipment to shoot that. Well, my main love is birding and I really can't think of a better combo for that than what I already have. So, it's basically trying to cover "the rest" which includes some family stuff, a bit of landscapes when the mood strikes, and whatever else seems fun to shoot. Just fielding some thoughts on the subject since I am pretty torn between gear love and wanting to have a practical, more basic set of gear.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:How do you like the Zeiss 50mm f1.4, I've been toying with the idea of getting one. Best lens in the world. You should totally buy mine. Serious answer: It is a mixed bag. Wide open it looks soft but it is not due to lack of sharpness but rather low contrast. The bokeh can be really nice at times and really harsh at other times. What it has is superb microcontrast and tonality, and for many purposes it flat out crushes the Canon lenses because of this. Landscapes look incredible, with such fine and well rendered detail you will be amazed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Clayton give me your M3. Or sell it to me I guess. I'm over in Europe so if you are in the US it probably is not worth the hassle. It is pretty and shiny though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
loving electrons, how do they work?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2012 10:58
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I... I can cut this down to 2 4X5 sheets right? What would you do with the other half?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:Mr. Bigsby - sell me your RB67 thingy! I am over in Sweden so if you are in the US you are likely better off picking one up from KEH. Not sure what they go for now, but a few years back you could get an entire outfit for 200 bucks or so.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:How many times a day do you think some manager at a fortune 500 company says "How much?! But I can buy a 2TB external drive at best buy for a hundred bucks!" Oh, I love doing that to the infrastructure team.  Usually the conversation goes something like:  Hey, your logs are filling up the disk again. So buy some more. No way, don't have the budget. But disk is cheap! No it's not. Look, I can walk down to the warehouse and pick up a 1TB drive for next to nothing, you're telling me I can't have 300 gig for logs? THIS IS DIFFERENT DISK, OKThey know that I know, but it is still fun to gently caress with them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Televue SoundMonkey posted:That's basically a 5x TC made by a no-name company. Are you loving kidding me? Televue makes some seriously premium astro poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I was assuming photography companies, what with Dorkroom and all Well, just don't let it happen again, as a mod you are expected to be an expert on all things optics and poo poo. Great vid: http://photorumors.com/2012/11/29/funny-video-the-mirrorless-party/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:A special thread that costs $5,000 to access. That's right, and Contax G, Zeiss Ikon users and the other hoi polloi need not apply as there is only One True Rangefinder. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
TomR posted:All the photos I took in 2012: Got curious about my own stats, so went and looked in LR. From 2007, the winner is the 24-105 followed by the 500/4 and 400/5.6. Incidentally, I recently sold the 24-105 since I felt it was not getting enough use.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 20:34
|
|
