|
FormerFatty posted:Would this degradation be as pronounced on a relatively wide aperture, good quality telezoom, say a 500mm f4.5 Asahi-Pentax? You mean this thing?  500mm f-4.5 (1 of 2) by Execudork, on Flickr The teleconverter most often recommended when this particular lens is discussed (or its optically-identical K-mount version) is this 1.4x design specifically meant for gigantic super-telephoto lenses with long spaces between the rear element and the camera body. The 2x version is much more rare, though well-regarded by those who have it. Pedantry: "Zoom" means the focal length of the lens can be changed while the image remains in-focus (some old lenses, like from the 1960's, are technically "variable-focus", not true zooms, because the image goes out of focus as the focal length changes). The term has nothing to do with high magnification. A 10-20mm ultra-wide is just as much a zoom lens as a 50-500mm "Bigma". "Telephoto" is the term for a particular optical design associated with lenses of focal lengths higher than about 50mm, commonly 85, 100, 135, 200, 300mm, etc. They can also be zooms, such as the Bigma or the ever-popular 70-200mm. EDIT: Just to clarify, I have that lens (Asahi Pentax 500mm f/4.5 in M42 mount, plus m42-to-K adaptor) and I love it, but I do not own a teleconverter. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jun 23, 2012 |
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
thevoiceofdog posted:Also I'm looking for a relatively inexpensive intervalometer for my Nikon d7000, are there any decent options in the $50 price range? I don't really need wireless or anything like that, but I haven't really used too many of them so I'm kinda unfamiliar with all the terminology. All I really need is the ability to control my shutter speed longer than 30sec. I have the Pentax version of this: http://www.amazon.ca/Aputure-Contra...0681410&sr=1-11 For some reason the Nikon one is 10x the price of the Canon version. Mine was like $20, more than a year ago. There's a factory somewhere in China churning these things out, they show up with different brand names but otherwise identical. Hold the button down, or slide the little holder over it and walk away. Also does timer up to 24 hours, and intervals of anywhere between 1 second and 24 hours, repeating once, a specified number up to 1000, or infinite (i.e. until the camera runs out of battery or memory space). It uses batteries about as quickly as a digital alarm clock, more or less as quickly whether it's sending a signal to a camera or not; I replaced the AAAs in mine after about 18 months. Takes up very little space in my camera bag.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
rawrr posted:It's time for your first L - get the 70-200/4L for about $500 used and don't look back. It'll be perfectly adequate for outdoor sports. Emphasis added. I have no opinion on that lens (except that it has a good reputation 'round these parts). But, used is the way to go - especially for something like the 70-200/4L that has a clear upgrade path (70-200/2.8L) so the second-hand market will have a steady supply as other people spend their money.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
Pentax primes Manual focus: SMC-M 135mm f/3.5 Cheap, light, compact, very well built. SMC-M 50mm f/1.4 As for the 135 * I own both of these lenses, and I love them on my MX, my ME Super, and on my K10D (though they look a bit goofy on the DSLR, they work well). Either lens sells for $50 or less second hand. Autofocus: SMC-FA-31mm f/1.9 AL Limited Expensive, but ridiculously sharp and an excellent focal length for 1.6 crop sensors (i.e. the entire Pentax DSLR lineup currently) SMC-FA-43mm f/1.9 Limited 43mm is close to the diagonal on the image rectange for 35mm film - the hypotenuse of the triangle with sides 24mm and 36mm. Somehow that makes it closer to a "normal" view than 50mm (or so I have been told). Also, this lens is very well regarded for sharpness and colour. SMC-FA-35mm f/2 For those wishing for the 31mm but on a tighter budget. Most of the FA-series lenses are out of production, but these three are still being made. SMC-DA-15mm f/4 ED AL Limited A very wide rectilinear prime. Landscape photographers love it. SMC-DA-35mm f/2.4 AL Cheap (around $200 new), light, well built and available in about 20 different colours including purple, pink, gold, silver, red, etc. SMC-F-50mm f/1.7 SMC-F-50mm f/1.4 SMC-FA-50mm f/1.7 SMC-FA-50mm f/1.4 (still in production) These autofocus "nifty fifties" from the 90's are pretty similar in size and optical properties (with the obvious difference between the f/1.7 and f/1.4 models). The f/1.7 prices tend to hover around $150-$200 used, while the f/1.4 push towards $400 typically. Pancakes (one of the the biggest strengths of the Pentax system, the variety of available pancake lenses): SMC-M-40mm f/2.8 Not actually very well regarded for its optical properties (it's basically middle-of-the-road), but it's tiny and thin and turns a small manual camera like the ever-popular Pentax ME into a pocketable point-and-shoot. SMC-DA-21mm f/3.2 Limited SMC-DA-40mm f/2.8 Limited SMC-DA-70mm f/2.4 Limited The three DA-series pancakes together constitute a complete set of primes for Pentax DSLRs. Wide(ish), Normal, and medium-tele, in a set that takes as much space as any one lens in that range (prime or zoom). But not cheap - hey, I said "available pancakes", nothing about their pricing structure making sense. Ultracompact: SMC-DA-40mm f/2.8 XS The "kit" lens for the mirrorless K-01 camera, in K-mount so useable on Pentax SLRs and DSLRs. Ridiculously small and light (52g, 9.2mm thick), with an oddball 27mm filter ring.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
Since we're talking about hoods anyway, I have a stupid question. Some hoods - I've noticed it mostly on Pentax lenses, but presumably they're not unique - are petal-shaped, rather than round or rectangular. Given the point of a hood is to block bright light sources just out of frame, wouldn't it make more sense to have the corners covered, rather than uncovered? I know they set them up like that to avoid vignetting, but avoiding flare and vignetting are mutually exclusive goals in some circumstances (or so I think, like I said, stupid question).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:As seen towards the bottom here: http://toothwalker.org/optics/lenshood.html
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
Also Pentax LX, though those are pretty pricey. The light meter isn't part of the viewfinder so you can always use it, regardless of which of the 8 different viewfinders you have on it. http://www.pentaxforums.com/camerareviews/pentax-lx.html I remember a childhood friend of mine, son of a professional photographer, showing me one of his father's cameras when we were about 13 years old. You could remove the pentaprism and show the screen exposed, which was basically a piece of ground glass about as big as a 35mm frame and had the image in-focus. This feature was explained to me as a way to use your camera while holding it on a stick directly above your head, for example when shooting from a crowd. I seem to remember it was a Hasselblad of some kind, and I'm 99% sure it was 35mm. Might have been a Pentax LX, I suppose, my googling for Hasselblad 35mm isn't turning up anything like it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
It seems like a long shot, but does such a thing exist as a way to charge a camera battery (that normally plugs into a wall outlet) through a USB port? I can find plenty of options for going the other way. I know a USB outlet is going to put out a small fraction of even the trickle charge that a battery charger normally draws, but something that would let me keep my batteries topped up using this thing (or something like it) on a week-long canoe trip I'm planning would be very handy. EDIT: Regarding trips and the ME Super. Yes, that's a pretty good idea, but personally I'd be more comfortable with a DSLR. But bring a ME Super and a handfull of film anyways, it's always good to have a backup.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Can I play, too? Pentax ME Super by Execudork, on Flickr I'd kick in for some ME Super tag action. Also, I have been planning to do a compare-and-contrast review of 2 pairs of cameras. The first pair up would be my ME Super vs. my MX. Same lenses, same film (APX 100, methinks, since I've got a bunch in my freezer waiting to see some light). Is there anything anybody is particularly interested in seeing in such a comparison?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
Miko posted:I have a Pentax MX, I feel like I'm on the wrong boat. I have an MX, too. That's the other half of the shootout pair I'll do as soon as the motivation fairy pays me a visit.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
The ME Super and the MX are both pretty small, but the MX is slightly smaller. I don't (yet) have an ME. 35mm SLR collection 1 by Execudork, on Flickr  35mm SLR collection 3 by Execudork, on Flickr I also have some advertising for the MX that came with mine. It claims the MX is "The world's smallest, lightest, most complete, full-featured 35mm SLR" I don't see a date anywhere on this pamphlet, but it's got to be circa 1980. It mentions the ME but not the ME Super. I also have the owner's manual for the MX, it claims: Body size: 135.5mm x 82.5mm x 49.5mm Body weight: 495 grams. I've got to scan these pamphlets in, they're full of really interesting stuff. I particularly like the comparisons to cigarettes in the MX propaganda. "The Pentax MX itself is a mere 135.5mm in length. ONly slightly longer than a 120mm cigarette! Its maximum height of 82.5mm is no taller than the average normal sized cigarette!" How difficult is it to change the aperture or shutter speed while holding a lit cigarette in the same hand?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 06:54
|
|
|
I've had good luck with a little generic kit, I looked around the Copper Hill and Photosol websites and didn't see it. Anyway, my kit was four little swabs (green plastic stick, triangular cloth pad on the end) and a little bottle of what was most likely alcohol. Drip some "cleaning fluid" on the pad, carefully wipe sensor. It worked for a couple of non-blowable smudges on my sensor, and I've used it a couple of times (months apart) without any trouble.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
For $35 you can use it to frighten people (in oh so many ways) if it turns out to be useless for actual photography. I say buy it, and then you can also brag about buying a lens sight-unseen through some sketchy craigslist ad. Bonus!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
I bought the cheapest Arca-Swiss-compatible QR plate I could find for my 500mm supertele. It's too easy to torque it with the long lens, but otherwise it holds it fine, I'm not worried about the lens falling off or anything like that. I'd say go for the cheap one. Related: is there a standard thread size / pitch for those screw holes in the tripod-mount-foot for big lenses? A screw in the right place would solve my torque problem. EDIT: sorry, I was unclear - not the big tripod mount hole, the little accessory holes nearby. They look pretty small. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Jul 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
TheReverend posted:I decided to give it a try. Here's a photo of my kitty. Am I doing this right? You have successfully uploaded a picture of a cat to the internet. That's probably an achievement of some kind. Sarcasm and suchlike aside, it's a decent picture - the eyes are in focus, something appears to be happening (even if it's only cat-stare-at-nothing), and the exposure (short explanation: how bright everything is) isn't bad. Shoot lots more, and tell us how you like it. Perhaps you'll enjoy it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Sigma and Tamron lenses are fully compatible with cameras from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, and Olympus (did I miss anyone?) if the Sigma/Tamron lens is made in the appropriate mount. Those third-party or aftermarket lenses are usually just as good as the brand-name gear; the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is in the thread title for a good reason. The aftermarket lenses are often, but certainly not always, cheaper than the brand-name equivalents (equivalent here meaning focal length and maximum aperture, other features may differ), though the market shifts around fairly quickly. There are a few other manufacturers, too, like Tokina or Samyang, that also make lenses in major-brand mounts; they also "fully interface", though Samyang in particular is carving out a niche making new manual-focus-only lenses (so obviously it won't autofocus on your T3i). If you find you really like close shots you could consider a macro lens (and yeah, manual focus is pretty much standard when it comes to the really close stuff, partly because the depth-of-field on that bee in that flower is 2mm if you're lucky). The macro thread is a good place to get some ideas: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3269817
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:So I have like $40 in eBay bucks, what's the most useful photo thing I could buy for around that price? If you shoot film, a dark bag. They're handy to have around if your camera weirds out and you need to unload a half-shot roll, too. Film. Get something exotic, like weird old expired Russian film from the early 1980's. A little reflector, like 12-inch, is a fun toy. Shiny new lens caps for all your lenses. Spare batteries (boring but very useful). One of those gimmicky "wide angle" screw-on lens-things, so you can evaluate just how terrible they are and report back to us. An old flash (or two or three) and the slave units to remote trigger them. Optical slave triggers are like $2 each, and somebody's off-brand old flash will set you back less than $10. Shipping is likely to be the major expense here. Don't mount old flashes (1980s) on new cameras (newer than 2000). This is fun, everybody loves to tell other people how to spend their money!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
A $250 netbook might work for you. A quick look at Newegg suggests you can get a 320GB harddisk, in something with a 10" screen that probably weighs about as much as your camera and claims to have an 8-hour battery life. You could more than double that HD capacity with a USB-driven external harddrive for another $80-120. This will also allow your relatives to bug you more frequently about how you're totally set up to check your email so why don't you ever write!?! CF cards are physically much larger than SD - are there adaptors so you can just use SD in a CF slot?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
Is a 5n a NEX? That's Sony, isn't it? If it can take a wide range of old glass, Minolta MD-mount is still pretty cheap, and they had some gems back in the day. Any of their ROKKOR line of primes (especially the 50mm f/1.7) are great, and their 70-210mm f/4 telezoom (usually under the name "Minolta", or a third-party probably-patent-violating name like "Magnicon") is the precursor to the much loved, AF "Beercan"; I suspect it has either the exact same or very, very similar lens design/layout. You could probably pick up a set that includes a wide (e.g. 28/2.8), a normal, and a telezoom for under $150 total, probably including an old Minolta manual-focus body like an X700, XG, or something like it. If Minolta MD won't work, Vivitar Series 1 was quite good in the early-to-mid 1980's. They squandered their brand with later stupid decisions and utter garbage (eBay searches will return many of those lovely "wide angle lens" adaptors that screw onto a filter thread and ruin your image quality), but in the early days they were competitive with the main manufacturers. Especially well regarded is the 70-210mm f/2.8-4 - you want versions 1, 2, or 3, later ones aren't as sharp and suffered from some gimmicky add-ons. Other lenses wearing the "Series 1" label, mostly zooms, are also pretty good, and tend not to be horribly expensive. I have a Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 macro, which *wasn't* super cheap, and it is excellent. The 90mm, which doesn't go to 1:1 but can do 1:2, is less expensive and very well reviewed. About $200, I think. Canon FD-mount is also cheap and plentiful. There's a ton of it out there - Canon sold several million A-series cameras in the mid-1980s - and most people aren't aware of or aren't willing to buy the adaptors needed to put that breech-mount onto a modern camera. Konica AR is similar, if less abundant. Lots of it out there, mostly in the hands (attics, closets, basements) of people who don't know what to do with Grandad's old camera. Search engines built into sites like Gumtree and Kijiji (and I assume Craigslist, though I don't know), and eBay have trouble with the corporate shuffling that happened, so it takes a bit of savvy to dig up some of these lenses - search for "Minolta" and it will often "helpfully" suggest "Konica-Minolta" because Konica bought Minolta in the 90's, but then sold the camera side of the business to Sony. Most non-photographers, trying to unload a relative's old camera, won't be able to distinguish between, say, Canon FD and Canon EF; half the time you'll be trying to interpret statements like "Cannon 52mm lense and camera takes good pics NOT DIGITAL also fimlm" As far as I can tell, every camera lens manufacturer in the late manual-focus era (circa 1980-1986 or so) made a core set of lenses (maximum aperture will vary a bit): Primes - 50mm f/1.7 or 1.8; 35/2.8; 28/2.8; 85/1.8; 135/3.5 Zooms - 28-80; 35-70; 70-210 (all at not-too-special variable maximum apertures of around 3.5-5.6, though the telezoom usually comes in at f/4 even at the long end). Plus a few macro lenses (28, 50, and/or 90mm) and superteles (400mm f/5.6 manual focus are cheap and plentiful). Fake edit: Plus the Russians, like Martytoof said. If you can get a M42-to-NEX adaptor, you open up a huge world of weird, cheap, sometimes shabby, sometimes brilliant Soviet glass.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
HPL posted:One neat thing to do is that if you wear glasses, take them off and look through the pinhole by putting it up to your eye. You can see almost as clearly as with glasses on. Any particular recommendations for pinhole "lenses"? eBay is full of cheap Chinese / whatever versions in any mount, is there a brand that might actually be worth the cost of shipping? Or is a laser-drilled hole in a piece of steel glued to a gussied-up body cap pretty much the same across the range?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 12:40
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:I know (hope not) that I'm going to be mocked for this, but what kinds of fun stuff can I do with a polarizing filter? I added this: http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-Super-...+polarizer+77mm to a photography wish list on Amazon a while ago and kind of forgot about it, and my parents purchased it for me this year. I've got step-up rings to adapt it to the lenses I have, I just..don't quite remember what I put it on the wish list for. I love taking nature photography if that helps at all. In addition to the effects on skies and non-metallic reflective surfaces already mentioned, a good polarizer can help look into water. The surface of a body of water counts as a non-metallic reflector, and eliminating some of those reflections and glare lets you see what lurks beneath. Also, just put it on a lens and go out and shoot already. You can see the effect looking through the viewfinder, point the camera at a thing and spin the filter, you'll see the sky change and things like car windows and puddles will look different.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Wow, I've been living in Calgary way too long. I recognized where this picture was taken. And yeah, I don't use my polarizer nearly often enough. SoundMonkey posted:You can also get some cool as poo poo effects by making your LCD go all-white at full brightness, then photographing things in front of it with the polarizer blacking out the LCD.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
I've been idly pondering what lens I should get excited about lately, and I keep coming back to Sigma's offerings. I shoot a K10D, and Pentax's offerings in UWA and 70-200/2.8 are pretty weak at the moment. In both UWA zooms (10-20mm -ish) and "sports zoom" 70-200/2.8, Sigma has released a few different designs over the past 5 years or so that don't differ from each other very much. Pentaxforums has done some head-to-head reviews in both ranges, and the Sigma designs come up on top for what I'm looking for, the weird thing (to me) is how while Pentax isn't really doing anything at the moment, and Tamron has a reasonable choice, Sigma puts out two or three options. In UWA, there's the 8-16mm, two different 10-20mm, and a 12-24mm. In telezoom, there's the current EX DG OS HSM, plus the now discontinued EX DG APO Macro HSM II and the older, screw-drive focus APO EX. Does anyone have any idea why Sigma releases new revisions of lenses more frequently than other manufacturers? I don't pay much attention to Canon, Nikon, or Sony - are they in the habit of tweaking their existing designs almost every year?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I have the HSM II and it's more than serviceable. The corners suck on FX, but on a pentax mount you don't have to worry about that. Thanks for replies, everyone. The HSM II is the one I'm considering most strongly, the newest version adds OS (that part of Sigma's alphabet-soup naming scheme I'm pretty sure means "optical stabilization", equivalent to Tamron's VC I think) which I don't need, but the HSM autofocus is appealing for the lower sound. I'd use this lens for birds, especially the little guys that hide in bushes and let me get a bit closer than the big birds, and less sound is good. And the 8-16 UWA, because 8mm! and I have no plans to go full-frame in the foreseeable future, my budget isn't likely to stretch beyond one new lens this year (assuming for the moment the possibly-misunderstood-in-translation story about Pentax developing a FF for end-2013/early-2014 are accurate). So I'll have to choose between UWA zoom and a replacement for my slow-and-dark current mid-tele-zoom situation. Assuming I don't win the lottery or something.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Anmitzcuaca posted:Is there such a thing as an SD card with NFC built in? I'm looking at buying the new Lenovo Thinkpad Helix, which doesn't have an SD card reader, but does have NFC and I want a way to be able to copy stuff off my SD card without carrying around a USB reader or USB cable.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 12:23
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Is there anyone who's done a mod to keep zoom lenses from extending on their own when you're walking around? Specifically the Canon Ef-s 17-55?  It works, when I bother to use it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Primes are lighter? Why didn't somebody tell me?   500mm f-4.5 (2 of 2) by Execudork, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
Polarizers are also good for street photography. You can cut the glare from windows and therefore take pictures that show inside shops, inside cars, etc., or you can emphasize the glare from glass and go for a social-commentary angle (pun intended) about people anonymously locked away inside their moving metal boxes. Plus good things to skies and water (including puddles).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Welcome to the wonderful world of Former Soviet Union (FSU) glass! Why were so many  For to take pictures capitalist running-dog bourgeoisie lackeys, comrade! Look for Jupiter, Kiev, Zenitar, FED, KMZ, and Helios. All are rip-offs of WWII German optical designs - rocket scientists weren't the only experts captured by the advancing Red Army, and suing for copyright infringement only works if you don't believe all property is theft. Most of them are based on 1930's-1940's Zeiss designs, but without the Teutonic passion for precision engineering.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
Your budget is fine - you're looking at second-hand for a DSLR, something that's about 2-3 years old and has been treated reasonably well. Responsible sellers will list the number of shutter actuations (sometimes just "clicks" or "shots" or something like that); DSLRs like to get a bit of service - the shutter is likely the first thing to wear out, it's one of the few moving parts - at around the 100 000 shutter-actuation point. It's not hard to find something that meets your budget, will let you get as thoroughly involved in this as a hobby as you like (or stay as let-the-camera-make-decisions as you like), with around 20-40K actuations and at least one decent lens. Have another look at the My-First-DSLR thread for brands and models, and of course ask here. There is a mirrorlesss thread, http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3410935 which includes some useful technical information about what's what. The standard advice from the point-and-shoot thread is "Buy the most expensive Canon P&S you can afford, ideally something in the S95/S100 line". The MOST IMPORTANT thing is to fondle some cameras and find out how they fit in your hands. Go to a camera store and ask to play with lots and lots of different cameras (buy a picture frame or get some prints made if you feel guilty about not paying for their time). You'll find out fairly quickly if you like holding a big clunky DSLR, or prefer a mirrorless, or a slim little P&S.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:I'd like to see where you are in 2 years, gear wise. That was also mine (and a lot/most) first L lens. Casu Marzu posted:I'm guessing something like a 10-20mm zoom, 70-200 zoom, and 30/50/100/400mm primes considering what I have been shooting over the course of the last couple years already. Same question, but instead of "gear wise" I'm curious about everything else - with that much top-level gear I'm wondering whether you'll be living in a 'fridge box, or a dumpster.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Nikon did in fact produce the only macro zoom lens ever to exist, to my knowledge. Just to clarify, that's the only "true macro" 1:1 lens? Lots of zooms will go to 1:2 or 1:2.5, without spending way too much or sacrificing too much image quality.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Bobx66 posted:Thank you everyone for your input, I'm going to take a look at both of those lenses. Speaking of legacy lenses, what are some of the other cult classics? I just picked up a 90mm Vivitar Macro and it is an incredible value, I would love to get more familiar with older lenses. Minolta's 70-210mm f/4 zoom went through an update with the advent of AF, becoming the much-loved "beercan" while retaining the optical formula. I've got a knockoff (Magnicon was a weird little brand name) in Minolta-MD that I love. If you can use Minolta manual-focus (i.e. MD, MC, or SR-mount - the bayonets are all the same, the differences have to do with the Program mode of the various mid-80's Minolta bodies), there are a few gems in that lineup, as well as the third-party stuff that was made for Minolta such as Vivitar. Canon FD glass can be modified to fit EF - the process is rather expensive, but for some of the really stellar lenses of that era it might be worth it. The first L-glass came out in FD mount. Konica AR mount is a bit of an odd duck. In North America Konica was never apparently very popular so it can be hard to find, but in Europe it was more common. Their Hexanon and Hexar lens lines are well-regarded, though figuring out adaptors is a bit difficult. This keeps the lenses cheap, since few people shooting digital are able to fully use them. Then there are the Soviets. Former Soviet Union glass is mostly pretty terrible, but it's often cheap and because the designs were stolen from Zeiss and other German manufacturers (rocket scientists weren't the only technical people scooped up by the Red Army) there are some good lenses out there, particularly for narrow and specific uses. My advice: Shoot an entire video (with a Cold War theme) using a Photosniper. What's your budget? About a year ago I watched a few eBay auctions for Photosnipers end at around $300 + about $60 to ship from Ukraine/Russia/Belorus/Kazahkstan (if you're willing to gamble on such sellers).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Cool. I expect it will be much more expensive than I can afford, but still cool. This side-comment is interesting, too: quote:Compatible with Sigma's USB dock, photographers will be able to update lens firmware and adjust focus parameters from their computers instead of having to send in their lenses and lose precious time with them. EDIT: I found this http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/sigma-usb-dock It is weird.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Goddammit, anyone else end up with one of those bum SD cards from Sandisk that won't format? If it is a fake, this story might provide a bit of cheer: http://mattdelito.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/fraud/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Plus, kit zooms have already bottomed out for price, so you can sell it if you don't like it for almost what you paid for it, assuming you don't damage it. There's enough of a difference between f/1.8 and f/2.8 that I don't think the 35/1.8 and 17-50/2.8 are redundant. Also, the experience of shooting with a zoom vs. with just one prime is different, forcing you to take pictures in different ways.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Noise is already dominated by statistical fluctuations in the quantity of arriving photos.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
... to clarify, it takes all day to point it, and another day to shoot it."
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
True Purists don't look at their shots. Ever. Shoot, then hand the camera to a flunky and go home to await the call to the awards show.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I am a minimalist. The only things I need to make art is your mom and a bottle of scotch. Pathetic. Relying on a crutch like Scotch is the sign of a poseur.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 05:10
|
|