|
8th-samurai posted:What book? No true artist reads anything but the finest animes while taking long exposures. My sister gave me Army of Darkness: Ash Saves Obama for christmas; I have plans for some long exposures, I need to remember to take this with me. I don't think it'll last 7 hours, though.
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:You certainly need a life raft when reading this thread, to get around the sea of unnecessary sarcasm. I also disagree. This is SomethingAwful, sarcasm, irony, deliberate stupidity, bad jokes, mockery, and general internet-people type behaviour is central. Take nothing so seriously you cannot point-and-laugh at it.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
KingsPawn posted:So, I've been looking around for a DSLR and I stumbled upon three cameras that I was considering: The Nikon d7000, the cannon t3i, and the Pentax k-30. This is going to be my first DSLR and I'm willing to go up to $700. Right now I'm leaning towards the Pentax k-30 just because the reviews have sold me on it's durability. Also, I've used mostly point and shoot photography and it wasn't until recently that I wanted to go into landscapes and close ups. So any advice would be appreciated before I purchase. Thanks! This is important. Do not rely on a list of features you may or may not actually use, do not rely on recommendations from people who are not you and are not spending your money. Go to a store and pick up some drat cameras! Personally, I'd go with the Pentax K-30. But I'm biased, because I already shoot Pentax and have a bunch of lenses and accessories for it. If I was starting over today, with that budget, I'd still go with the Pentax because I know it will feel right in my hands - but again, that could be as much because I'm used to Pentax as any weird fit between my hands and the body of the camera. Also, having dropped my camera, other gear, myself, and assorted random objects into pretty much every body of water (from 50ml spills to the Pacific Ocean) I've ever encountered, I know that one feature is of utmost importance to me: weathersealing. Pentax thread here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3170510 My First DSLR thread here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3533640 (read the OP, it is good) There are also threads for Nikon, Canon, Sony, and others. Please feel free to fire questions at us all day long, but do go to a store and fondle some gear. Not that posting questions like that is at all inappropriate (in my opinion) for this thread. You might get more attention and more comprehensive answers in those threads, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I'd avoid Pentax because it doesn't seem to be a good system to grow into. You're not buying a camera now, you're buying into a system. It seems there isn't much on the high end as lenses go and you're going to get a lot less third party support (like say no TTL pocketwizards for your system). For example, it's true that Pentax doesn't make a 70-200 f/2.8. Sigma and Tamron do, in Pentax K-mount. All those facts could change in the future, of course, but I'm going to concentrate on what's available right now. Pentax does make a 60-250 f/4 (The DA*), neither Tamron nor Sigma makes a comparable lens in P-K (i.e. f/4 constant aperture). Imagine you've decided you want a telezoom, something in very popular focal length range between 50mm and 300mm. For around $1200 you can get either the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and get a very good constant-aperture sports zoom. For the same price you can get the Pentax DA, with a wider focal length range but a narrower maximum aperture, plus weathersealing. For considerably less money ($400-$600, or even less) you can choose from a numer of options from all three that have narrower, not-constant apertures. Ninja edit: Powderific's example with the 50-135/2.8 came in while I was typing this up. Another option! In Canon EF-S you don't have anything directly comparable with weathersealing, but the 70-200 f/4L about the same price ($1150 on B&H) and it's an L-lens, besides being extremely well regarded by everybody who has ever used one. And of course there's the f/2.8 L as well, for about $2200. So Canon has some different options to choose from (Tamron's and Sigma's lenses are also available in EF-S). I don't know anything about Nikon, but I assume it's similar. At much higher budget points, around the $2000-$3000 range for one lens (or body), you see not much from Pentax or in P-K from the third-party manufacturers. There's nothing comparable to the full-frame bodies from Canon or Nikon, nor is there anything like the full-frame lens lines, such as the ever-popular 24-70. If you have a Pentax system and you really feel the need to spend that much money, your options are really specialized, basically you're looking at super-telephoto lenses, because you want to shoot birds. Pentax includes some features in their cameras that other manufacturers do not at comparable prices - like weathersealing (both bodies and lenses), and built-in wireless flash support (bodies, flashes, and some 3rd-party flashes). Sony and Pentax both have in-body image stabilization, compared to Canon and Nikon placing this function in some lenses (and Sigma/Tamron put it in lenses, because the market for it there is larger). I don't know why Pentax bodies do PTTL but not ETTL (or really what the difference is, except I believe ETTL has some advantages). Most accessories from third parties (flashes, wireless triggers, remote trigger releases) come in Pentax-compatible forms, or are universal (filters, tripods, etc). I suspect Canon's professional speedlights (e.g. the 540), combined with something like a 7D or a 5Dii would blow away anything in Pentax or Pentax-compatible for shooting a wedding or for portrait photography. I do not think a Canon telephoto setup (e.g. 7D + 300mm f/4, $2600 on B&H) would be much better than a Pentax telephoto setup at around the same cost (K-5ii + DA*300mm f/4, $2400). It depends entirely on the kind of photography you will do. Professional? Go Canon or Nikon, yes. Spend thousands, be awesome. But in my opinion, the differences aren't there if you're doing anything from really casual (kit lenses are all the same) up to what I might call "enthusiastic amateur" - birds, landscapes, the office christmas party, whatever - that you're putting some real effort into as a hobby or as a minor source of income on the side. I will never be a professional photographer, which is the area that Canon and Nikon rightly deserve their reputations for excellence. I will be trying to get a photo of a bird in the rain. I could do that with Canon or Nikon, but I'd have to spend much more money (and yes, thus own nicer gear) to get there. This is getting too long. I'll summarize: if you see yourself with a budget of several thousand dollars in a few years, there's more to choose from in Canon or Nikon. If you see yourself with a budget of maybe $1000-$1500 in a couple of years, there's no real difference in available options. Haggins posted:Well if you do switch, you'll probably get better prices for your gear if its Canon or Nikon. EDIT: I had described the body+300 as "supertele", but I changed it to "telephoto".
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I'd assume you'd have more buyers if you have a more popular mount and be able to sell it for a higher price. Or at the very least it will be easier to sell. I used the tele zooms as an example, any other application would fit about the same, I think. Kit lenses are boring to talk about, the always-in-my-camera-bag set of primes (wide, normal, portrait) are something well outside my area of interest/knowledge (my camera bag is too unstable and built on spur-of-the-moment purchases for that level of rigour), ultrawides and superteles are very rarely part of a my-first-DSLR purchase. I mentioned the availability of Sigma and Tamron for Canon and Nikon, their lenses are almost all available in any current DSLR mount. This was to avoid getting bogged down in a discussion of first-party-lenses only. I wasn't trying to describe a clear advantage for Pentax. I was countering the point that Pentax is inherently inferior. I think the differences between brands at any budget (body + a nice set of lenses) up to either "I'm a dentist" or "I can write this off because I'm a professional" are negligible and amount to a series of trade-offs. Low-light vs. burst speed; weathersealing vs. maximum ISO; it depends on the features you most value in your camera. For myself, weathersealing is a big deal (and yes, only Pentax lenses have it, as far as I am aware. Sigma's teles and superteles have a good reputation in unpleasant conditions, though). For somebody else, it might be pointless. I'm sure the same arguments could be made about Sony, but I don't know enough about them. Olympus has apparently abandoned the APS-C market in favour of mirrorless.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Haggins posted:If you don't have any aspirations of being a serious amateur or pro why even get a DSLR? If I were a just a hobbyist I'd either get a high end point and shoot if I didn't want to deal with expensive lenses or start looking into micro 4/3ds if I needed more flexibility. I think this is not a stupid opinion. It's worthwhile to consider one's reasons for buying a particular item, especially if the cost is in the same region as major living expenses like rent. Current cameras span a range that includes some really nice P&S (with manual control), compact and very capable mirrorless systems, and consumer-level DSLRs that some purchases may never really grow into, as well as reasonably-priced fantastically good devices that can be used to produce mind-blowing images in the right hands. That opinion could be presented better, though. Perhaps by moving the condescension slider a bit to the left.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I didn't like this post up until I read this. Ah, so you're also a part of Adobe's beta testing of software for improved Internet experiences? Are the mod buttons some kind of DLC that you have pay more for? 
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:It's not often I crosspost stuff from here to modforum, but drat. Saint Fu posted:Execudork is racist. No blacks Makes me wonder why we call it "white balance" though.  casa de mi padre posted:It makes me happy for some weird reason.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
I don't know about either of the lenses you listed, but in my (limited) experience, macro lenses produce very sharp images throughout their focus range; some of my favourite shots were taken with my 105mm macro at infinity. You pay a bit more for it as a feature, so it's not really worth it unless you expect to be taking some very up-close shots. If you're going to be doing actual macro work, get a macro prime that can do 1:1. Like most things, jack of all trades but master of none isn't always the best way to spend money. Regarding 17-70mm as a focal length range: that seems very handy on APS-C, from reasonably wide to decent reach.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:What I mean to say is give me a microdrive sex parrot. "give me a microdrive sex, parrot" "give me a microdrive-sex parrot"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Pianist On Strike posted:My mom used to work as a tour guide in the Soviet Union I want to hear more about this. Have you heard many stories from her?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
I bought a Zigview S2 for my Pentax K10D, mainly for the motion sensor function. The Zigview is a small video camera that mounts to the viewfinder of a DSLR - the package includes adaptors to mount it on Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or Sony DSLRs. There's a small screen with a row of buttons that control the device - on/off, menu selections, etc. There's also a cable to attach it to the camera and allow it to trigger the shutter. The functions include simply using the screen as a tilt/rotate viewfinder, a fairly sophisticated intervalometer, a cable that allows operation of the screen and camera from up to 20 feet away, and the motion sensor. The motion sensor works by dividing the view into nine regions (3 x 3 grid) and measuring the brightness of each part. The default setting is for the Zigview to trigger the shutter if any part of the image either increases or decreases in brightness by a threshold value; the brightness is displayed as a number from 0 to 100, with an arrow showing the change (up for brighter, down for dimmer) since the last measurement. I ordered the Zigview about two weeks ago, and I got a pretty good deal because mine was used as a display model at some trade shows; the package says it won an award in 2007 and the videos (and general layout) on the website suggest it really hasn't changed since then. Possibly, mine sat in a box for years before I called Argraph, the North America distributor. It showed up last night - at the post office Monday, I picked it up Tuesday - just in time for me to take it to an autocross event. This isn't the main reason I bought a motion sensor trigger for my camera, but the severe lack of other photographers at most events means I hardly ever get any pictures of *me*. I had about 20 minutes to unpack it and try to figure it out before I went to the event. Clearly, I need to play with this thing some more - basic functions like changing the number of shots it takes before reverting to standby mode were beyond my abilities last night (the default is 10), but I did get some shots that let me figure out some important points; I only used the motion sensor capability, I haven't yet played with any of the other functions. First, there's a delay of about 0.1s between the motion sensor detecting a change in brightness and triggering the shutter. I don't know if that can be reduced, but if it cannot it means I need to choose shooting locations and directions very carefully. Most of the shots I got of cars going past include only the back half of the car.  Zigview First Attempt 1 by Execudork, on Flickr For example, this is the only shot I got of me on course. Note the way I'm escaping out the left side of the frame. Faster drivers than I were almost completely out of frame; I have several shots of just the rear quarter panel and bumper. Second, the way it attaches to my camera is rather loose, due to some damage around the viewfinder of my camera. There are some shims included with the Zigview that can help align it, and I'll need to fiddle with it some more. Third, setting up the motion sensor to trigger only on some parts of the image, and setting threshold brightnesses, is probably the key to effectively using this thing.  Zigview First Attempt 2 by Execudork, on Flickr I also got several shots of traffic going past on the highway. Bigger vehicles occupied enough of the viewfinder's area to affect the brightness.  Zigview First Attempt 3 by Execudork, on Flickr Interestingly, I have few pictures of any of the light-coloured cars (white, silver), I guess they didn't change the brightness of the image enough to trigger a shot. This hilariously-sliding BMW did trip it, for some reason. Overall, I'm pretty happy with this thing. I've got to work out how long the battery lasts as well as fine-tuning the sensitivity, and making sure shutter speeds are fast enough to deal with the subject matter. For less than $300 (regular price is closer to $500, like I said, display model) I might have something that will tell me when a polar bear visits my campsite in the Arctic this summer.  Zigview First Attempt 4 by Execudork, on Flickr I count this as "a good start" - I have some ideas about how to take better pictures using my Zigview thanks to some practice; more is required.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
I have the opposite problem: I own 2 rolls of Delta 3200, both of which are almost certainly completely exposed by being sent through an X-ray machine when I bought them. They are 2/3 of my eBay purchase from a seller in Sweden. I shot and developed the first roll and it's a perfectly uniform smooth grey ribbon. I think Canada Customs is afraid of vikings.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I need a camera and lens to take pictures of dead fish for work. The setup is going to be camera mounted 40-50cm above the fish looking straight down. The fish are 5-15cm long and I need to get the whole thing in shot. Ideally the camera will have some degree of weather sealing because I'll be taking it out onto the middle of lochs in Scotland for long periods and it's probably going to rain a lot. I know I probably sound like a Pentax fanboy, but their weathersealing is excellent. They've been using it as the main selling feature of the K-30, which, due to the recent release of its sucessor the K-50, is available new for prices well under your budget. There aren't any weathersealed prime lenses I can find wider than 50mm, but the kit zoom for the K-30 is the weathersealed 17-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and it's cheap and quite good as long as you're not in need of wide apertures. To avoid bulk you could really cut down on size & weight and get a waterproof P&S - my GF has one of Sony's more recent offerings and while it looks rather toy-like the image quality is very impressive. Helicity posted:Is using a circular polarizer on a 15mm (used on a 1.5x APS-C sensor) not going to work out well? If I shoot something besides plain blue skies would the dark patches even be noticeable?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Yup, wireless (infrared) capability built in to all Pentax bodies since about 2007, and there is a waterproof remote available - no need to compromise weathersealing. Also self-timer, 2 and 12 seconds (there might be a firmware update that is more flexible) and built-in intervalometer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
I guess this is a gear question, though I'll crosspost it to the Pentax thread since it could be brand-specific. My K10D is starting to show its annoyance with the way I treat it - everything I own is deteriorating rapidly, blame for which I apportion evenly between my own clumsiness and risk-taking and the fact that I'm at the end of 2 months of fieldwork in the High Arctic (not just snow, icicles in July). Anyway, my plan is to buy a K-5 and send the K10D to somebody for a CLA. I don't know the shutter count, but it's got to be around 60-70K, and there are a few little things gone wrong in addition to some new squeaking/scratching sounds when the mirror moves, and a grinding sound when writing to the card in burst mode. Does somebody have a recommendation for a place I could send my Pentax K10D? I live in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, so anyplace local will just send it onwards, might as well deal with the service provider directly. Perhaps there's something in Calgary, Vancouver, or Toronto? More generally, has anybody sent a camera for a check-up lately? What's typically involved? What kind of price might you expect for a fairly thorough test-and-repair? And is there a good way to determine the shutter count on a Pentax DSLR? \/\/\/ Oh yes. It's pretty quiet, but it sounds remarkably like a film-advance motor winding the spool back up when you finish your roll of 35mm in your mid-90's AF SLR. At this point, I'm committed to buying a new camera and if this one dies completely, it will have died in-harness, honourably. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Update on my declining camera:quote:Results New question: who has taken their camera up to its shutter lifespan or beyond?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
No Gravitas posted:The saga of my ill-fated K-30 purchase continues. gently caress! The vendor is an idiot beyond belief. Spime Wrangler posted:KEH BGN grade 4 lyfe
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
I don't anything about the Fuji X-E1, but a bit of googling around leads me to believe pretty much any old SLR glass can be adapted fairly easily. There are a few orphan mounts from back in the manual-focus days, lots of quite good glass if you're patient and know where to look. Besides Canon FD, Minolta MD, and Konica AR, each of which will have its own set of first-party well-regarded lenses (Canon L-series (still very expensive); a few Minolta Rokkor gems; Konica Hexanon), there's Contax/Yashica. Every few months I ponder picking up an old C/Y body and some lenses and just playing with it. As far as I know, nobody carried C/Y stuff forward into the autofocus era in any signicant way so they're really orphaned. But, the Zeiss name is all over C/Y from the late 70's/early 80's, and Zeiss has that crazy reputation for making ridiculously expensive but insanely good glass. I think your best bet is to search around for either a set of lenses in a particular mount - I'd hold out for something more interesting than the standard consumer 35-70/70-210 zoom kit - or one very good deal on a cool old lens (an interesting and very well regarded individual lens, something like a big bright telephoto 200mm f/2.8, or a 35/2.8, or a fisheye, or whatever strikes your fancy) and then get the adaptor for that lens mount. It's likely the best way to get a set of lenses is to buy somebody's attic clean-out at a garage sale or on Craigslist / Kijiji / Gumtree; shoot film in the old camera body, too, film is fun!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
That's a hell of a positive recommendation, Primo Itch. I've been thinking about the way everything I own (not just cameras) seems to deteriorate more rapidly than for other people. My GF, possibly in a blatant attempt to make me feel better, pointed out an alternate hypothesis, that I simply own things for longer, or things that are older, than most people. In any case, I prioritize "toughness" (as in, will this thing survive being around me for longer than 5 mintues?) over many other features. An old Yashica sounds like the perfect fit for my habit of... wait, you described exactly what I do with all of my cameras. "Wait, lemme get my camera I'm gonna take a picture here" *CLUNK* "Nah, it's fine. Now smile!"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
smallmouth posted:My Canon 35mm f2 doesn't work anymore. The autofocus is stuck and in manual it just spins without focusing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 00:27
|
|
Does anyone have any idea how much a repair might cost?
|
No Gravitas posted:Radiation. Honestly I'm disappointed my big Tak 500mm doesn't show up on that list. nielsm posted:If the radiation doesn't fog your film it isn't a problem
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
All Takumars come with the same superpower: you look like a dork SD 095 16 by Execudork, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
Print Exchange is live.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
There's more information on it in the Sony thread, but yes, Minolta changed their lens mount when they went to autofocus. Maxxum cameras are autofocus and have what is now the Sony alpha mount, while older X-series manual-focus SLRs have what is variously refered to as the MD mount (or MC, or SR). I have an X-700 and I love it. Lenses and accessories are cheap because the mount is obsolete - adaptors exist for micro 4/3 (as you know) and for some other mounts but they're not widely used so demand for MD-mount glass is low. That keeps prices down, and Minolta made some rather nice stuff back in the day. Maxxum, because of modern compatibility with Sony DSLRs, has higher value but is still not really expensive. It hasn't been updated for a long time, but The Rokkor Files has some good information and reviews of bodies, lenses, and accessories. A 50mm/1.4 and a 28mm/2.8 is an excellent starting combination - pick up something longer for portraits or casual birding/wildlife/telelandscapes like a 135/3.5 or a 70-210/4 and you're laughing. As far as handling and basic use go, I find my ME Super and my X-700 are really similar - both can go Aperture Priority or Manual. The main difference is the little stuff, like how the shutter/mirror sounds, and how the shutter button feels. GWBBQ is selling an X-700 on page 161 of the buy/sell thread. I have dealt with him before, he's good. Make him a decent offer - he might be willing to not sell you the 50/1.4 mounted on his camera since you already have one. \/\/\/ As someone who owns 6 35mm film SLRs in 3.5 mounts (K and KAF count as 1.5), I must agree. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Different lenses on KEH have wildly different frequencies and refresh rates. Kit zooms and nifty-fifties are never absent, but specialized lenses (dedicated macro, supertele, ultra-wide) seem to each have their own schedule. All you can really do is check in periodically.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
Most tripods have a loop or a hook at the end of the center column opposite the head. That's so you can hang a weight - lots of people use their camera bag - to improve stability. I have a Sirui ball-head, not the C-10 but I think just a little larger (possibly a discontinued model, I don't see mine on the B&H website). It's quite stable, and I'm happy with it. It uses Arca-Swiss compatible QR plates, so if you're not happy with the one you get it's easy to find a nicer replacement. The good QR plates tend to be a bit pricey, though. I wouldn't worry too much about the center column and long exposures - it seems unlikely you'll need to have the column at maximum extension when leaving the shutter open for 30 seconds. I've never run into that situation, at least.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Atalante01 posted:Not sure if I really need that level of quality though. BUT. You will ALWAYS want the (i.e. "really need") the highest quality lens you can get in every situation. Always. Always. That said, the image-stabilization (whatever they call it) of the Tamron might make it higher "quality" in your shooting situations, or it might not - if you can brace on a solid, non-vibrating object (the window frame of the truck is good, unless the engine is running) you get some of the solidity benefits of a tripod, reducing the importance of image-stabilization. On the other hand, the 70-200L is widely regarded as the best bargain in Canon's current lineup. On the gripping hand, get the 100-400. Seriously - go for it!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:In the 'poor mans canon 100-400L' category, Sigma make the 50-500 and 150-500. I have the latter, which I took through Africa and it was pretty much ideal for me, but I think the former is rated a little higher. Either way, they are great lenses... that you will never use again. The Bigmas consistently get rated as "pretty decent", I can't think of any bad reviews of either off the top of my head. And you'll use it again (many times) if you decide you *like* bird/wildlife photography. Atalante01 posted:We're backpacking for ~6 months or so Get the Tamron if you think you'll not be doing anything like that (I mean shooting outdoors at uncooperative animals) anytime soon; you can sell it and move on with your life when you eventually get home. Get the Canon 70-200/4L if you are willing to fall down that particular L-shaped rabbit hole, spending all your money a year from now on other L-glass. I don't shoot Canon, but my understanding is once you taste L, you want more. Does anybody have just one L-lens for more than a few months? BrosephofArimathea posted:(Or you could just go all Nick Brandt and shoot wild animals from fifteen feet with a p67. Which doubles as self defence. )
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Chroisman posted:Thanks for all the input but I got confused by all the more technical talk haha. What if I just got a D7100 and called it a day? You'd be fine. Get that, go shoot stuff, get used to the camera and take advantage of the steep part of the learning curve (*this* is what happens when I set it to aperture priority and shoot at f/8; *this* is what happens when I fiddle with the exposure compensation; *this* is what high-ISO noise looks like; etc.) before you go on your big awesome trip to Nepal. The really technical stuff only matters when you've shot tens of thousands of frames (digital) or hundreds of rolls (film) and you care about poo poo like diffraction limits. Subject matter (great trips, great friends, great times) matters much, much more than that. Get your D7100, grab a good couple of lenses (bug the people in the Nikon thread), have fun. Post results in the Dorkroom, because WELCOME. Nobody seems to have done that yet, so let me be the first to say WELCOME.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Surprise T Rex posted:I've got a few cheap thrift shops in my town and I swung by and picked up a lens for £8, I'm assuming it's shockingly bad, but I was just wondering if anyone has some opinions on it? It seems to be one of these, a Sirius f2.8 28mm Macro. It's actually the first non-kit lens I've bought for my 550d/T2i, so I'm excited to use it when my adapter arrives, even if it is garbage. HappyCrab posted:I'm very new to photography and I'm looking to buy a camera (compact system preferably) with a budget of around 600 dollars. My knowledge solely comes from a manual photography class I took in the spring. oxsnard posted:Any thoughts on the new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC? I'm debating between that or the Sigma 70-200 OS. A third option is to get the Tamron 70-300 VC and use the 700 bucks in savings to buy a wide angle lens sometime in the future. Those extra stops would be great for indoor shooting like concerts and whatnot. Personally, I'd spend the money on one of those f/2.8 - either the Tamron or the Sigma. In Pentax mount, the Tamron is supposed to be slower-focusing but a bit more reliable in terms of copy variation - you might get a really nice Sigma, or you might get a made-on-Friday-afternoon one. According to the review on Pentaxforums. Exception for Canon-shooters: 70-200 f/4L, widely considered to be the gateway drug to other L-grade lenses, thus ruining your finances for decades!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Buy some grotty old K-mount 200mm, slather the rear element in food-safe hardening sealant (i.e. not silicone), then glue the rear cap on. Then, smash out all the glass, clean out all the shards and dust, and line the inside with food-safe goop that will dry to a nice, waterproof layer coating everything. Then you just have to find a lid that can be glued to the the ring of an appropriate-diameter UV filter that you've already removed the glass from.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
Huxley posted:If you were going to start buying into a legacy system from scratch, what would you go for? I'll echo what's already been said: Contax/Yashica, Konica AR, and Minolta MD are as obsolete and orphaned as Canon FD, so there's little demand from DSLR users* for that glass. Pentax K-mount and Nikon (can't remember the details) is still compatible with modern DSLRs from those companies so those lenses are in a bit higher demand. As has been mentioned though, manual-focus 3rd-party lenses (everybody slapped their brand name on SLR lenses in the 80's) are abundant and cheap, and quality usually ranges from "meh" up to "pretty good". Really top-of-the-line stuff is rarer and much more expensive, so in some instances it's worthwhile just getting something 20 years newer and autofocus. There are a number of now-defunct brands of 3rd-party glass that made decent or better lenses in many different mounts. I'm particularly fond of Vivitar Series 1, but you have to be careful - the brand dropped to the bottom of the market with cheap gimmicky crap after their heyday in the early 80's. If you can find a Viv S1 70-210 Version 3 (Komine) for less than $120 it's a good deal in any mount. I also really like my Viv S1 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 in MD, though on a Nex that wouldn't be as fun as it is on my X-700 (Wiiiiiide!). * I use a DSLR - a Pentax K-5 - but I own AR, MD, and FD manual-focus lenses because I love to collect old cameras and shoot film and generally enjoy throwing money at things that are as old and worn out as I am. If your budget can work it - I'd guess you'd spend 20-100% more doing this than just picking up whatever - go with a theme for your old glass. A set of nice primes (pancake lenses around 40-45mm were popular back in the day, and the old standby focal lengths of 28/35/50/85/105/135mm were popular for good reasons), or (as I might do someday) a full range of Vivitar zooms, or some upgrade pathway like C/Y-Zeiss.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
For a budget of $400 total, for body+toys+lenses enough to cover what you want to do, you could have an excellent set-up in any system. For $300 you could do pretty well, too, perhaps just missing that one special thing that you'd show off to people. For $200 you could be out shooting, and pondering the purchase you'll make 3 months later (hint: it'll be a lens. Always. 3 months after any camera purchase comes a lens purchase). If time isn't a big pressure at the moment, I would lurk your local listings (Craigslist or equivalent, and "local" varying in area depending on population density). Wait for a good price (not a great price - those evaporate like spilled methanol) on a kit that looks like it was loved & used - both are important. One hint that you might be looking at something that somebody actually used with some gusto is an aftermarket strap; OEM straps for many 80's "consumer" or "prosumer" grade SLRs were spagetti-thin uncomfortable things. Another hint is an unusual lens. Something like an ultra-wide (wider than about 28mm), or a really fast 85mm (like f/1.8 or better), or a big-rear end supertelephoto that's faster than f/8. Scuffs and scratches on the body or the metal/plastic parts of a lens just add character as far as I'm concerned, and some interesting scars can have cool stories behind them, further evidence that the gear was actually used and didn't just collect dust and rotting light-seals (and fungus) sitting on some shelf.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
I have that exact setup - K10D with DA 18-55mm AL, and I upgraded to a K-5 just a few months ago after using my K10D for more than 3 years. Excellent, excellent camera, and while the lens is nothing special and has some drawbacks, it's a fine all-rounder and great for starting out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
Tha Chodesweller posted:Admittedly I'm far from an expert but I can't imagine "camera standards" means a lot - I mean, there are only so many different ways to take a photo, and if it's a pretty drat good photo with cheap gear, what's to complain about? People here will endlessly debate your first point - "there are only so many different ways to take a photo" - but your second point - "if it's a pretty drat good photo with Pentax DSLRs get a bad rap for some reason I've never quite understood. Sometimes I think it's simply popularity - there are far more Canon and Nikon DSLRs out there in the world than Pentax - but I don't see that blatantly stated very often.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Oh, right. Other forums - I always forget about those because I never go into them, beyond reading reviews or the marketplace subforums. Craziness abounds.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
One point in favour of KEH is the big discount you'll get on combined shipping if you decide to buy a bunch of stuff at once from them. Any random eBay seller might or might not have the other things you're looking for (lenses, to spell out the obvious example). If the eBay seller you find has a great price, cool, but if they don't have the other things you're looking for then combined shipping simply isn't possible whereas a big order from KEH will get you at least that discount, plus anything else you can negotiate with them. Again, probably not worth $250 unless you're really going to town with ton different things.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
My ballhead and my gimbal-mount are both Arca-Swiss compatible but each cost about $100 because they're part of the wave of Chinese manufacturers trying to break into global markets. I'm happy with both, and while big-brand-name Arca-Swiss plates (e.g. Really Right Stuff) are very expensive, there are again a number of Chinese companies happily selling good-enough plates for semi-reasonable prices.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
Nikonos V vs. "Waterproof" P&S There's a Nikonos V for sale near me for $180, and I just got $200 dropped into my Paypal account as a birthday present. Seems like a good match. But, I lost my waterproof P&S back in November and I've been meaning to replace it. That was a Pentax Optio WG-1 GPS, and the WG-4 has just been announced, meaning there's a camera store locally that has the WG-3 for about $230. I'll get to play with said WG-3 (with my SD card and my spare-batteries-from-the-WG1-that-should-work) tomorrow when I pick up some film from that shop. Oh, and that film came from my "weathersealed" $4 Olympus Infinity / AF-1. So maybe I'm just experiencing shiny-thing lust. It's a film-vs-digital question on top of a "is this a good camera?" question, so I don't know if anyone has any solid advice here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 20:16
|
|