|
longview posted:Extension tubes + 35mm lens = high res super quick scanner. Well that's fine, but then you end up having to scan the photo of the photo. Anyone tried KatzEye focusing screens? I've been playing with manual lenses and I feel like the default screen in my 50D isn't the best for accurate focus. Having recently got an old film SLR the difference has become pretty obvious. The KatzEye screens are about 5 times the price of a Canon EF-S, but they seem to get awesome reviews everywhere while a bunch of people say the EF-S barely helps at all. At the moment I'm making do with Liveview and 10x magnification, but honestly I hate taking pictures through an LCD. big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Jul 19, 2012 |
#
¿
Jul 19, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Could just be a grey market reseller, except you wouldn't normally get a manufacturer's warranty. They might be perfectly legit, but for $100 I'd go through Amazon and be sure.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 12:26
|
|
|
FWIW, I have the VC version and am perfectly happy with it. That said, I'm not in the habit of pixel peeping and it's worth bearing in mind that the VC version is noticeably larger and heavier than the non-VC. The stabilization is occasionally useful, but I doubt I'd really miss it if I didn't have it. Buying new I'd probably have got the non-VC, but I found a used VC at a really good price so went for that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Have you considered zooming with your feet?
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Have to admit I've never seen it used in the word reuse before. My first reäction was that it was a simple miss̈pelling, didn't realize it was part of a coördinated diæresis reïmplementation effort.
big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 21:49 on May 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
The carry case for my Pentacon Six broke the other day so now I'm just wandering around carrying 2.5kg of glass and metal in my hand. Secondary lens goes in my pocket, nbd.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
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 was thinking maybe a 50D with the 50/2.5 macro because I already have a 50D of my own and know it can deal with a bit of water, but I've no idea if the 50/2.5 is any good or if I'm missing another obvious option. On the other hand it'd be nice to use something a bit less bulky, is there a weatherproof 4/3 or similar that anyone could recommend? Budget ~£1000.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:An OM-D with the 12-50 kit lens would fit your needs pretty well. Weathersealed, so no worry about splashing, opens up to 12mm so you can get nice long fish in frame, can do ok macro in a pinch, and the whole kit fits in your budget. It's not the sharpest lens, but it's flexible as hell and the weathersealing is very effective.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted: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. ExecuDork posted: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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Yeah, my old Panasonic FZ-8 that I used to take climbing got smacked against rocks and covered in wet snow unreasonably often and still works fine. I don't think I dropped it from any height more than three or four times, but I'd be pretty annoyed if a considerably more expensive and supposedly better built dSLR couldn't stand up to at least the same punishment. Although I try and baby that stuff a lot more anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
I have this lens, cool.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
I'm still going to tell everyone I take a picture of with that lens that it's radioactive and I am shooting deadly energy rays at them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:You've learned a $400 lesson: don't leave batteries in the flash.  Molten Llama posted:If you still have the batteries, and they're Duracell, Energizer, or Rayovac, you box the whole mess up and ship it to the battery manufacturer. They'll either fix it or replace it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
I'm the lack of batteries in your meterless film camera, suck it electricity needers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Sounds like you've found the info you need already, but just to mention that I have the Helios 44M-4 and it fits fine on a Canon 50D.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
No Gravitas posted:It could be worse, he could have taken a picture...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
Atalante01 posted:I know the answer to the 3rd party v OEM batteries is generally get SterlingTEK or Wasabi as they have a proven track record. Unfortunately I live in the far corner of the world and can't get hold of these brands within the time frame I need them (January 1st-ish). I can however get some no-name 3rd party ones. Obviously it's entirely dependent on manufacturer, but has anyone gone the no-name route? How did it turn out? Other option is million dollar Canons. Of course the ones you get might be filled with dog poo poo and nitroglycerin, but I'd rather take the risk than spend five times as much on Canon batteries.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
HPL posted:My dad is in his mid 70s and loves his Canon s110.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Seriously though, practicality aside, I'd use a MF > FF adapter just for the fun of it. I think that a lot of people, myself included, don't always want some practical reason to use these lenses. We just want images that look different. A camera that feels different. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
the_lion posted:I reckon canon will do a dick move and try and cut sigma lenses working-they do it for non canon batteries on newer bodies believe.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Chekans 3 16 posted:Calumet Photographic is having a liquidation sale following their bankruptcy. All their stock is 10-40% off, including the stuff that they used to rent out. YMMV, but if you have one near where you live it might be good to go check it out if you're thinking about getting anything. I'm heading out this weekend.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
The VC version is completely fine. If you pixel peep there's some minor difference in sharpness (see http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/(lens1)/497/(brand)/Tamron/(camera1)/619/(lens2)/185/(brand2)/Tamron/(camera2)/619 for a comparison) but I doubt you're going to notice it in your holiday snaps on Facebook. Plus if you end up shooting indoors at all the VC might even come in handy. The main downside in my eyes is that it's 100g or so heavier and generally more expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Speaking of, I've not been keeping up with digital camera gear in the last few years and want to replace and upgrade my ageing 50D. What's good in full frame these days? I am thinking mirrorless so I can adapt my medium format primes and get focus peaking in viewfinder. I'm willing to dump my Canon EF/EF-S lenses for a new system if that's what's good. I'm shooting landscapes while hiking and taking pictures of my dog, and the dog doesn't stay still long enough for manual focus so I'll pick up at least one or two AF lenses. I live in Norway and take pictures outdoors so weatherproofing is a concern - my 50D still works fine on wet snowy hikes and a -20C and that would be nice to match. I was looking at buying a Canon EOS R new, to give you an idea of my budget, but it seemed like the reviewers were a bit unimpressed with it. I'm OK to buy used although the market for it isn't great here. e: I'm also not in a huge rush so if there's some new hotness coming out in a few months that's worth waiting for, I'll wait. big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jul 25, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2020 03:40
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Canon have just announced the R6. It's basically the guts of the 1DX III but in a 'normal style' body, at more or less the same price point at the R (EOS R was $2399 at launch, the R6 will be $2499). It's "only" 20MP (The R is 30) but in just about all respects it's looking like a seriously good camera. theHUNGERian posted:I took my A7R3 on an 8-day mountaineering expedition seminar in Alaska (camped on a glacier for the entire duration of the trip, large temperature variations and high humidity) and it had zero issues. I didn't even have to change batteries. I think I need to go to a shop and pick some cameras up once the R6 comes out next month.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
Munkaboo posted:For me the keeper rate is significantly higher with my Sony a7iii than my 5d mk2 and 7d. The eye AF is just so drat good. The Nikon Z series also have eye AF, don't they? Or is it just not very good compared with Sony's?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2020 11:55
|
|
|
What is it that is holding you back with existing cameras that you'd specifically like to see improved in a stripped down, fully manual digital camera? I feel like people are struggling to give you recommendations because it's unclear what you actually want beyond a focusing prism.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
It sounds like your perfect camera is a Hasselblad 500C/M with a Phase One back. It's a fantastic, fully manual camera with minimal unnecessary automation, a great set of lenses available, and a beautiful, bright, waist level viewfinder. Honestly a joy to shoot. I haven't used the digital back personally but if you don't want to use film it seems like the next best thing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2020 01:40
|
|
|
The Voice of Labor posted:congratulations, you have, with the substitution of a 40mm 2.8 described what I do. I do not want something that *looks* old school, if I did I would be asking about cold war warsaw pact cameras and pallets of romanian surplus film stock. Please do not poo poo talk Cold War Warsaw Pact cameras, they are in fact extremely good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
That Nikon DF does actually look pretty sweet, but only now that you can probably get one like $700 rather than the $2750 MSRP.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Well obviously none of the big camera names are going to make such a camera, they know it will sell single digits. It makes absolutely no sense for them to bother. You seem to be saying "makes absolutely no sense", "loving expensive", impractical, impossible to source, no market whatsoever etc. etc., but all I'm hearing is "goon project".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
The Voice of Labor posted:lol at thinking anything I'm asking about is absurd when a single corporation holds a virtual monopoly on the manufacture of a core component of all the cameras. If you want to play with the technical side of cameras there is a lot of fun hobby stuff you can do on the relatively cheap side, just sensor design and manufacture probably isn't it. Building a pinhole camera is the classic first project - it's a box with a very small hole in it and somewhere to put a sensor/film. If you want to try photography outside the visible spectrum you can get very cheap IR sensitive C-mount cameras (UV sensors aren't too expensive either, but UV transparent glass is) and mess around with that. Or if you're sick of only having three colour channels to work with, consider also picking up a diffraction grating and precision cut slit for like $150 and you can build a pretty capable hyperspectral line-scan camera so you can image 200 wavebands at 3nm spectral resolution. Show your Flickr enemies what real colour reproduction is, Leica doesn't have poo poo on that. If all that sounds too hacky and you just want to spend huge sums of money on bizarre but ready-made equipment for your obscure nerd obssession, astrophotography is there waiting. big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Aug 14, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2020 13:18
|
|
|
The Voice of Labor posted:I picked up a busted up d5000 and a "factory refurbished" mirror box/shutter mechanism/lens mount/ect. unit and am very slowly in the process of taking the camera apart and swapping out the innards. if i can get it working, the plan is to put an ir filter in it and have an ir video camera/still camera. come to think of it, it was finding out how common shutter failures are on nikons that got me thinking about picking up a second (third, I guess) camera. Hyperspectral imaging: I'd suggest this paper for a pretty complete step-by-step guide with an up-to-date buylist. It's a little unusual in that uses a square aperture (a more common design is a slit and "push-broom" imaging) so you get an image out of it more like what you're used to from normal cameras as well as a spectrogram - that can be handy for aiming & focusing the camera. It includes the imaging setup and software/hardware to reconstruct a hypercube from your spectral data. They also cite this very nice paper that is simpler in that is just the camera without all the Raspberry Pi stuff that you might not want to bother with, but then you'll have to figure out how to turn your spectrograms into actual images/hypercubes yourself. It's not that difficult if you're OK with writing some code, I think I have a Python script somewhere that does an OK first approximation. This older design is a little more complicated, they converted a Canon 5D and can operate with either a slit or square aperture, and thanks to the better sensor they have much higher spectral resolution. The other hard part will be lining everything up precisely and calibrating your instrument once you have it working, but if you're dismantling a camera already you're probably OK with precision work on that scale I guess. I messed around with DIY designs for a bit and they're fiddly but you can get surprisingly good results with a week or two of effort. Then I found out my work had a $100,000 hyperspectral imager sitting around unused in a basement with a built-in xy stage and analysis software, so now I use that instead. Astrophotography I don't know much about except looking at a mate's setup, but there used to be a thread for it in the Dorkroom I think, definitely there are a few people here taking pictures of space.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2020 15:30
|
|
|
I'm going to Svalbard in a while and zooming with your feet is not an option with polar bears so I am looking at some long glass. Someone is selling a Tamron 150-600mm F/5-6.3 near me but it's the original version. Any idea how that compares with the G2 or the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary? Either of those new is about twice the price of the used Tamron v1. With the used I suppose I can probably resell it without much loss after the trip, but more likely it's going to end up staying with me because I am horrible at offloading lenses that I rarely use. e: I'm open to alternative suggestions for Canon mounts as well. I'll be taking either a 7D or an RP. big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jul 10, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
Thanks, I might just grab the v1 then. I'm going there on fieldwork and apart from carrying rifles AFAIK usual protocol on seeing a bear in the distance is to retreat until you can no longer see a bear in the distance. If I get any decent shots I expect they'll be from the boat (where good IS would be helpful), but either way the longest lens I have now is 250mm so I'd like to give myself the best chance of getting bear and walrus pics.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Haha, I just shipped a bunch of equipment up there. If you don't mind taking the trip by sea we could easily have freighted another Zarges box with some air holes. Svalbard is actually surprisingly accessible considering how far north it is, the flights from Norway aren't even particularly expensive. I've been once before but it was during the polar night so the light wasn't ideal and winter trips out of town involve a fair bit of planning. This time I'm looking forward to being able to just go out hiking with a couple friends and a rifle. I've arranged to try out the used lens this week, thanks for the votes of confidence.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:polar bears
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
On the Tamron I got no AF at all, and every couple of shots I'd get an error message that the lens and body couldn't communicate, so I'd have to turn the camera off and on. However the aperture control was OK, and the shots it did work the lens metadata came across fine.
big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Jul 15, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
Huh, that's good to know. If I find another copy of the lens I'll at least give it a try then. Either way I told the guy no thanks on this one and will keep looking.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
d0grent posted:this camera looks incredible It looks a bit heavy for taking pictures of my dog.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
frogbs posted:Similar to Shrieking Mullet a few posts up, I’m in the market for a new camera body. I like my Canon RP very much, I upgraded to it earlier this year from a series of older mid-range Canon dSLRs (50D, 7D, 6D). Full frame in such a small package is definitely nice, and obviously the more modern features of a mirrorless camera felt like magic to me initially. You can find all its specs elsewhere, so I'll just talk about the things I'm not so keen on. First, unlike the higher end R models it doesn't have IBIS or the fancy focus tracking stuff, so if you want to shoot wildlife or in the dark you might not find it as capable as some. I've found the focusing fine on shorter lenses, both in accuracy and speed, but it hasn't performed so well with my Tamron 150-600 G2. Whether that's because it's a third party lens, EF rather than RF mount, or just that telephotos are hard I don't know, but it definitely has to do some searching sometimes. That leads to the second point, that the RF lens range is still a lot smaller than in the standard mount, even with third party lenses. You can use an adapter to mount most EF lenses with no real issues and a lot of the RF lenses that do exist are reportedly really good as well as generally smaller than their EF equivalents, but you pay a premium for them. Lastly, the battery life is a bit on the low side. You really want 3 batteries to safely get you through a full day of casual shooting imo. I did consider the R6 but couldn't justify the price difference since I also wanted to buy lenses. I'm pretty happy with the camera overall and none of the above has been so painful to me that I'd consider upgrading any time soon.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2021 03:10
|
|