Camera Gear v8 "Buy A Pentax ME" (Don't buy UV filters, do hail satan)

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Camera Gear v8 "Buy A Pentax ME" (Don't buy UV filters, do hail satan)

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

Clayton Bigsby posted:

Also would like to throw in a vote for thread title: Camera Gear v8 (is really v12.8 on crop)

I second this.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2012 05:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 02:20

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

signalnoise posted:

Is there a "I'm a complete loving newbie" thread I missed?

There's this one: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3387357.

It sounds like you want something that can do aperture priority and shutter priority. It also should have interchangeable lenses. That means you want a dslr or a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (Sony NEX or micro 4/3 style). If size is an issue, perhaps mirrorless would be better for you.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2012 16:22

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

General consensus is that it isn't worth the additional money for the VC.

# ¿ Jan 19, 2013 22:37

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

_adam posted:

Recommendations for a general purpose Canon Mount walkaround lens? I have my eye on the Sigma 17-50 2.8, or Sigma 17-70 2.8-4. I'm trying to decide if the extra speed of the 17-50 will be worth the extra money and sacrifice of the extra 20mm... I can get a used 17-70 for $300, or a demo model 17-50 for $460.

I mostly do automotive photography but all I have for a lens now is a 50mm 1.8 and it's very restrictive. I'd like to get something more "general purpose" that I could use, again, as a walkaround, and maybe some street photography, etc.

That 17-70 has a pretty close minimum focus distance allowing you to get 1:2.7 magnification vs 1:5 with the 17-50. If you're interested in doing a little macro, the 17-70 might be a better choice.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2013 03:54

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

Welcome to photography.

Many people struggle with this question. The key is to not let it become an excuse for not shooting more. Everyone will have a different opinion and budget. I personally use 4 primes: 20/35/50/135 on full frame and find it sufficient for what I enjoy shooting. Some people swear by the f/2.8 zooms: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200.

Just starting out, typically the best bang for your buck is a 17-50 (or 18-55) and 70-200/300. Use those for a while and see what you actually like shooting with. If you don't want to get an ES-S mount 17-50, there's the Sigma 24-70 out there which is cheaper than the Canon offerings and covers full frame sensors. The super zooms are typically frowned upon due to their complete suckiness in everything except for zoom range and sometimes price.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2013 10:47

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

Gotta buy the name brand tubes if you want the best picture quality. Canon air is better than Kenko air.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2013 04:36

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

Platystemon posted:

Untrue. Think of it the other way around: if full‐frame sensors have the same pixels density as crop sensors, they�re superior in every way: crop for the extra �reach� or don�t for the extra megapickles/stop‐and‐a‐third of noise.

That stop+ of noise will always be there, because you�re enlarging less for the same print size.

He did qualify it by saying

spog posted:

only true when compared to CF sensors of the same generation

I think the argument was that eventually that extra stop of noise will not be that great of a benefit when ISO 200,000+ is acceptable. I do agree with you, though that when comparing FF to CF of the current generation sensor, FF will always be better. It might not be worth the premium they're charging though.

# ¿ May 8, 2013 09:40

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

You've got it backwards. New CF = old FF. Of course 6D > 550D.

e: compare a 5D to a 700D.

# ¿ May 8, 2013 14:52

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

Why do you say that? The only reason I can see is the maximum aperture (and we're talking double the price here). FF lenses on crop sensors benefit from using the center of the image projection, everyone knows that. FF lenses on FF sensors are the same as EF-S lenses on crop sensors.

# ¿ May 8, 2013 14:56

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

That assumes the same pixel density on the crop and full frame sensors. Typically, FF and CF sensors of the same generation do not have the same pixel density. Usually the CF is higher.

# ¿ May 8, 2013 15:38

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

I think that was a very good summary, thanks for clearing it up.

No mod sass intended but this is the gear thread... I think sometimes we need a place to sperg out to get it out of our systems so FM lite doesn't spill over into our other wonder threads about actually taking pictures. Those are the treads that make this the best photo forum on the internet.

# ¿ May 9, 2013 01:31

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

That's a pretty terrible article but I had one of those 18-270s for a while and it honestly wasn't as bad as you might think for such an incredible focal length range. Yeah you'll never use it at 270mm in doors because lol f/6.3 but it was similar to the kit lens in build quality and IQ.

# ¿ May 10, 2013 01:29

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

SoundMonkey posted:

As a fun aside I actually received a request from someone to gas this thread, so I guess lens noises make some people really angry for some reason

It seems like a lot of people who don't like to talk about gear come in here and get upset when people want to talk about gear.

# ¿ May 21, 2013 05:27

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

Sigma 35/1.4 or 50/1.4?

# ¿ May 28, 2013 09:06

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

HPL posted:

For the record, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a great lens and I used mine extensively for shooting concerts until I switched to mirrorless.

Probably wouldn't be the best recommendation for his 5d3 unless he really likes vignetting.

# ¿ May 28, 2013 09:49

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

Execudork is racist. No blacks

# ¿ May 31, 2013 00:54

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

INTJ Mastermind posted:

I'm looking for a nice leather hand strap for my 7D. Has anyone used the Handy Dandy Hand Strap by Photojojo?

http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/camera-hand-strap/

That looks stiff and uncomfortable. I was perfectly happy with a $9 Opteka strap off amazon with my 5d2.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2013 02:38

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

There aren't any L lenses for crop bodies FYI. The widest non-fisheye L is the 14mm f/2.8 I believe.

The UWA options are the Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20 (two versions of this), Tokina 11-16, and Sigma 8-16. I had the older Sigma 10-20 (I think it was f/4 vs f/3.5 for the new one) and it was pretty alright. A lot of people (Haggins and others) love the Sigma 8-16 for the mega ultra wideness.

e: oh look there's one in the gear thread if you're interested in buying.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2013 07:10

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

Most people will tell you to just suck it up and crop. For what its worth, I had a Tamron 17-270 for a while and found it to be about on par with the kit lens and 55-250. Although it's really slow on the long end and not 2.8 on the wide end. Incredible range though.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2013 07:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 02:20

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

I carry a tripod onto flights all the time. Shouldn't be an issue.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2013 22:28

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Camera Gear v8 "Buy A Pentax ME" (Don't buy UV filters, do hail satan)