|
A d7000 would be a really good choice, it's got great low light performance and it'll mount and meter with those lenses you have. If you'd prefer having autofocus and don't care about mounting older AI-S lenses then the d5100 would fit your budget with room for either the kit 18-55VR or even a new 35mm/1.8G (same sensor in both cameras).
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
RoryGilmore posted:None taken. I didn't actually buy any of it, it was second hand. If my lenses are worth that little, I'd rather have options with auto focus and just purchase a new lens like what was recommended earlier. I am interested in interchangeable lenses, I think my film cameras are already mobile enough for street, but I'm not really sure if I need it for what I'm trying to do. Reading up on the 5100 seems like it's a good bet, is that latest generation of sensors or should I be looking at the ones you mentioned for low light shooting? The d5200/d7100/d3200 just came out and feature newer sensors, but the sensors in the 5100/7000 are both quite good in low light still. If the d5100 is anything like the d5000 it'll have focus confirmation in the viewfinder when using a manual focus lens, you'll just have to guess on the meter settings since it won't meter right.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:A couple of weeks ago, I did some drunken eBaying and picked up what I thought was a great deal - a Pentacon 135mm f/2.8, which I understood was a rebadged Optik-Meyer Orestor with a 15-blade aperture. I was wrong, and ended up getting the later 6-bladed version. Given how cheap I got it for and how expensive it would be to ship it back overseas, I'm going to keep it - might as well get something for my trouble. The takumar 35/3.5 might be worth looking at. Depending on whether you want the super multicoating (SMC) they can be found between 50 and 100 bucks, even on keh.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
beergod posted:Looking for a wide angle lens for landscape and creative close ups. Have you looked at the sigma 10-20 as well? e. I haven't used any of these, but I always hear the sigma come up a bunch.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Also the Sigma 35mm f1.4 is about the same price as the Canon 35mm f2. Yeah, but it's not a Genuine Canon Lens 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
!420 adapt pentax glass to everything everyday.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
This is a match made in some unholy hell. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
!420 reverse mount everyday.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:I was looking for a macro lens for my Pentax ME Super and from my research the SMC M 100mm f/4 macro seems to be pretty well liked and produces good quality images. If I wanted to pick that up and also use it on my Rebel XSi until I can pick up the 100mm 2.8L macro, what kind of adapter, if it exists, would I need to get it to work properly? Just go to ebay or amazon and look for any k mount (often listed as PK) to eos mount. With the XSi you shouldn't have to do anything to the lens to get it to fit (FF canon cameras sometimes hit the aperture lever, but I hear it's not an issue on the crop models). Something like http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Moun...+mount+to+canon In fact, I might have an extra one sitting at home that I could sell for hella cheap, I can't remember if I ever returned it or not after the 5d I tried buying turned out to not be real. I'll check when I get home though. whatever7 posted:Pentax goons, any Pentax MX and/or Pentax-M 40mm/2.8 pancake owner here? I have an ME super and a 40mm pancake, it'd be close enough to check. I'll try and do this when I get home too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Thanks dude. I haven't print out mine yet because I don't have a color printer. I'm working on the lens right now, and I'll tell you right now that printing it onto standard 8x11.5 paper I had to scale it up to around 115% to get it close. It's maybe a hair bigger then the lens right now (113% or 114% would probably be perfect, the face part of the lens needs to be almost exactly 2.5" across for reference if you want to scale it more precisely). The big issue is that scaling it up that much means that you cut off bits of the design (at least with the sheet the lens is on I don't think you lose anything terribly important, i'm not sure what that strip on the far right is really for). e. actually 110% is probably closer, I was getting thrown off because I was taking into account the extra thickness of the aperture ring, but that makes the whole thing too big. That said I'm also apparently really terrible with paper models this is way too hard but hopefully that helps. Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Apr 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
 Here is the lens next to the printout at 115%.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I'm the lack of a ruler in the photograph to give a useful sense of scale. It's a size comparison between the paper cutout and the lens, what more do you want, gosh.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I want some drat SCIENTIFIC RIGOR. The paper cutout is 1 pentax 40mm in diameter. That's accurate to nearly 2 orders of magnitude! Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Apr 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
It depends, there are several versions of that lens. Can you be more specific? (for starters, the only 17-70's I'm finding are variable apertures, so they aren't 2.8 when zoomed in), and I dunno if you have the version with OS or not. e. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-17-70mm-f-2.8-4-DC-Macro-OS-Lens-Review.aspx is a review of the OS model, comparing it to some other lenses including the Tamron. It doesn't look nearly as good as the tamron, but might not be terrible depending on how much you paid.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Why not buy a bunch of SD cards and copy from the CF to the SD card in camera? Is time an issue? e. Or just tether the camera to a laptop for the whole shoot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Umph posted:Is there a thread for video cameras? I'm going on a trip with my organization and I was asked to put together a short film about the trip, I don't have a super large budget, under a grand, and it needs to not be bulky-because it's not a very safe place so I don't want to be sticking out. On the other hand if I show up with a cannon point and shoot on the video setting I feel like people wont take me seriously. There's a cinematography thread in CC that seems to focus more on dedicated video cameras and gear http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3144982 and then there's the DSLR video thread http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3294359&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 where the focus is on well, using dslr's for video.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
From what you're shooting (fashion, stuff where super thing DoF can help) a FF camera makes sense, especially on your budget. A refurbished d600 only runs around 1600 or 1700 last I checked, so you'd still have a good chunk left over for lenses. e. Also buy an ME Super
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Anyone have experience with the Yongnuo YN-560 II flash? I am wanting to get a flash, and really do not want to pay for the Canon. This one seems like a great alternative (fantastic reviews), full manual which I am fine with (especially for the price). I've got the YN-560 II as well, it's been working great for me. Getting some eneloops to power it so you aren't buying new batteries all the time has worked great for me too.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
borkencode posted:I'm looking at getting a cheap tele lens for my D600, something to hold me over until I can splurge on something nice. The biggest issue is that the 200 dollar 70-300's all are pretty lovely compared to the ~300-400 dollar Tamron 70-300 VC. e. Alternatively buy Muskets 80-200 2.8 that he's selling for about the same price, if you don't need a full 300mm of zoom.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
The only good sensor is Portra, you weirdos.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Astia has superior sharpness while also not having over-the-top saturation like other slide films. Astia, I say, is the best sensor!! It's just a more expensive version of ektar anyways.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Fair enough. I just ask that people don't make personal attacks based on opinions on the sizes of sensors in cameras. The reason Dorkroom owns is that we're generally pretty civil even with brand wars, etc, and don't get all caremad like most other photography forums. Let's just keep it that way if at all possible. Wait, I thought it was the unusually high saturation of ME Supers. Now I'm confused.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
nop posted:I've been having some trouble with the viewfinder on my D5100. I find it really hard to (manually) focus with a wide aperture or low light. I was thinking of getting a magnifier, but before I do I was wondering what might be causing the issue. I noticed the viewfinder is much clearer on my FM2. Is it a pentamirror/pentaprism issue? Or full frame vs crop issue? Has anyone had any success with magnifiers? The pentamirror is what's making the viewfinder seem dim and small. The other issue is that most modern viewfinder are optimized for lower apertures, this makes them seem brighter at those lower levels, but it also means that the DoF seems to be the same whether you're at f/1.8 or f/5.6, leading to missed focus. I'm not sure if the focus confirm dot has the same limitation, have you tried setting the camera to center dot focusing and relying on the focus confirm to see if it helps at all?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
Yeah, it makes sense for them to update the 50/1.4 to work with their dock system and such, even if they keep the glass the same.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 09:19
|
|
|
Edmond Dantes posted:Sorry to insist, but any input on this? The lens is an old one, so it doesn't have autofocus. Any of the 10-15 dollar adapters on amazon or ebay are going to work just as well as any other one, so just go to town.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Ag Bengip posted:I just bought a used Tamron 17-50/2.8 (Nikon version, built-in motor, no VC), partially thanks to Dorkroom suggestions. I'm very pleased with its optical quality so far, but contrary to what I've read, the focus ring turns quite easily in AF mode. Is it supposed to have full-time MF override, or is it broken/am I breaking it as we speak? The sample I have handy here acts the same way. I'm not sure if it's good for the lens, but the lens isn't broken.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Can somebody tell me why ND filters have such stupid numbering systems? Also why is it so hard to find an 8-stop ND filter? Because physics. It's the same reason iso and aperture numbers are pretty dumb if you don't think about it but make wonderful sense if you think too hard about it. e. seriously, nd filter numbers correspond to aperture reductions, so it's got that same oddball numbering.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
HPL posted:Nothing cuts the light down like an IR filter. I have to shoot at ISO 6400 in broad daylight. Yeah, but you're still letting a lot of IR through, which can be an issue if your camera doesn't have a strong IR filter (or if you aren't trying to get an IR look).
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Out of curiosity, is there a specific reason why Samyang's rebranding their lenses for different countries? I've seen their stuff being sold as Bower, Rokinon, Vivitar and Walimex already. I'm almost sure there's one more. All those companies buy lenses and rebrand them as their own to sell. You see it a lot with vintage lenses as well, it's not a new thing at all. Cosina, tokina, samyang, I'm sure there's a few others did a lot of that.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Haven't used it, but: it's a crop lens, so you can't use it on digital. Huh?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The market for these things died out due to increasing flash memory density (larger CF/SD cards means people don’t need to dump and reüse their cards on a trip), the advent of netbooks, and the declining price of laptops. Tablets may have dealt a blow as well. What the hell is that. Is it some like, secret reverse snipe or fyad gimmick?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/04/the-curse-of-the-diaeresis.html So basically it's a thing you do when you don't think your readers are smart enough to read words properly? That's stupid.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
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! I know Pentax dslrs aren't as popular as other options, but if you don't mind the body styling the k-30's an excellent option. Arguably a better sensor than the d7000 or t3i, in body image stabilization, weather sealing, focus peaking for use with old manual only lenses, it seems like a good camera. But really any option would make an awesome first dslr.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Yes, don't buy something that isn't canon or nikon because in 2 years you could be doing photography as a full time professional, and god forbid you aren't ready for such a scenario!
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
But didn't you hear, camera's are literally poo poo if they don't say CANON or NIKON on them! And you can't have poo poo, cause you're a PRO baby!
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Or like, a set of good autofocus f/1.4 lenses beyond the 50/1.4. I guess there's the Sigma 35/1.4 if that exists in K-mount, but if you want a 24/1.4 or an 85/1.4 or a 100 f2 or a 135 f/2 then you're kind of SOL. How many people "need" a 24/1.4 Man that sounds dumb. I don't think there's a "bad" camera system out there for someone getting started today. Just buy something you'll actually use.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
On the d5100 the Tamron 17-50 is probably going to be a better buy for your money. Constant f/2.8 aperture, nice optics, etc. That other lens you linked is meant more for FF cameras, it's not as common of focal range when used on aps-c cameras. The macro basically just means that it can focus close, you can still take pictures with it like normal.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
On the other hand, if you'll take more shots with the 18-200 instead of giving up and leaving your camera behind, then it's totally worth it. Also I hope you're doing more than just Mt. Rushmore when you're in the Black Hills area.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Pianist On Strike posted:Oh definitely, we've got a whole road trip planned and Mt. Rushmore is only one stop. We'll be hitting up the Badlands, Custer, Angostura Reservoir, and a bunch of other places. My mom used to work as a tour guide in the Soviet Union, and I guess that mentality of "let's go EVERYWHERE and see EVERYTHING" stuck, so any family vacation always ends up ridiculously packed. Sometimes it's overwhelming but I do appreciate it. Go to Lewie's.  Lewie's by MrDespair, on Flickr Unless you're going during the Sturgis Rally, in which case hahahahahaha.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 22:44
|
|