|
It's v12 on brands that matter  (and also Pentax)
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Is this a decent lens for someone just getting started? It's the standard kit lens for Rebels, and yeah -- it's fine for starting out. It's not going to get you good low light performance, but optically it's far from terrible and as long as you're shooting in decent light you'll have a decent lens that will help you decide what focal lengths you prefer to shoot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
Well I mean 18mm is on the wide end of things, but it's not going to be ultrawide or anything. It's a good focal length, going from moderately wide 18mm to a normal 35mm to a portrait-ish 50mm. Keep in mind that when I say that I'm also factoring in the crop factor. On a rebel this lens will actually be something like a 28-80mm lens after you factor in crop. But without getting too technical, yes it's wide-ish, but it's also important to check your expectations. Try something like this for a rough idea of what you can expect: http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
Are you looking for things that take standard AAs or are you willing to put some money into getting them working? I have an old Canon G1 that works on AC but the battery has long since given up the ghost. Unfortunately it's a custom style battery so you can't just pop in AAs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Yeah that's what I figured; If you're hard up for a camera you're welcome to it, but it sounds like it's not what you're looking for at the moment. e: without cluttering up the thread regarding battery discussions, I can't verify that the G1 takes the standard BP511, but it seems likely so if you're interested and it turns out you can get some working batteries then go ahead and email me, martytoof at somethingawful dot com. Sounds like a noble effort and I'd be happy to donate a working camera rather than have it sit in a box under my bed until I throw it out. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jun 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
Completely serious (albeit unlikely) suggestion: Pentax ME Super + 50mm + as much film as you can fit in your pockets. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jul 11, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
In my own opinion, photography is (relatively) cheap to get into, but it's the sort of hobby where you very quickly realize that you get precisely what you pay for. So it's also ridiculously easy to sink fist after fist of hundred dollar bills into, once you find out what the more expensive lenses and cameras can do.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
Some fucker on RangefinderForums supposedly bought a dresser full of Leica Ms and Leica lenses for $50. I have to call the most immense bullshit on his story, but I guess the kernel of truth in the whole thing is that there are people out there with "old film cameras" that don't know what they're worth and will probably give you a great deal on their dead husband's old film leicas because their grandson just bought them a new panasonic something-or-other point and shoot. These people are almost universally old and don't really care about photography to begin with. I would love to say that I would be a moral person and tell someone that their camera is worth a thousand dollars instead of fifty, but I'm forced to conclude that if someone offered me a Leica M3 for $50 I would be in and out of there so fast you'd see a dust cloud. I don't really feel very upstanding for admitting this, but ... e: this is supposedly what he bought:  So calling bullshit. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jul 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
FYI after handling a real life Leica M3 I now have the Leica lust. Don't be me, kids. I am attempting to fill this void with cheap soviet Leica III knockoffs but somehow I doubt this will work.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:joinnnn us Oh yeah, I will for sure once I get a steadier paycheck. For now, FED will have to do  (I'm trying to keep a positive spin on it, for what it's worth. It'll still be a fun camera to use  )
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 19:16
|
|
-
|
QPZIL posted:Unless you want to shoot manual Pff just put in a roll of ISO100 film, set the dial to 100x, and shoot Sunny-16 you big baby  tijag posted:Specifically though, there is no reason a rangefinder is superior to an SLR is there? In my limited experience with rangefinders, I found that the ability to see "outside" the photo lines to be incredibly useful for composing a shot. Traditional TTL viewfinders are pretty much WYSIWYG in terms of your final photo. Rangefinders are both less accurate, since you're not looking through the taking lens, and better for getting a sense of what might compose well, since you can see the areas directly outside your end-result photo. You can see a little box around what your final shot will resemble, but you can also look around the frame easily to find a better way of shooting something, or waiting for someone to enter the frame, or whatever you want, really. It's a mixed bag. Personally I really REALLY like the rangefinder paradigm. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jul 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
Leicas are pretty well engineered cameras. They're basically the Rolex of cameras. Are they worth a thousand dollars a pop? Maybe or maybe not. I don't doubt that the brand has much to do with the price, but you really are getting a sturdy piece of metal and aluminum. I was really skeptical of the Leica thing at first too. It really wasn't until I held the body and played with its (albeit very minimalist) functions that I really said "you know what, I can totally see it". It felt great in my hands, the weight was perfect. In the end though it's just a box you put film into and lens on the other end. My $30 FED-2 won't really expose the film any better, given the same sort of lens on both bodies, but it won't feel near as nice in my hands. Is that worth an extra $970? Today it isn't. Tomorrow it might be.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
Yeah, it's definitely a luxury. But then again some people say "if you've got to buy a camera, buy a good one". If you compare it to other cameras like Bessas or whatever, the price actually becomes kind of competitive too. Of course then there are people who think any amount of money for a film camera these days is ridiculous, so I guess everyone has an opinion In the end I think it's really no different than saying I can buy a D5100 or a D7000/D800/D4/Dwhatever. They'll both take great photos, can mount good lenses, but the quality of the product is going to swing up wildly the more money you put towards the camera. Though people seem to have a lot less problem justifying more money for a better digital camera. My suspicion is that all the bells and whistles help sell the price. I'm kind of just going off at the mouth here so this is nothing but my two cents
some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jul 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
I wonder if one day people will be buying Nikon D4s by the boxful. Doubtful, they'll probably fall apart by then.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
tijag posted:Overall an incredibly capable film body. Generally speaking, would the F100 + 50mm f/1.8D take worse pictures than a Leica? I don't know how the 50 1.8D stacks up versus what you can get on a Leica M body, but I would say that it is highly unlikely you will see any quality difference in your photos. Remember, cameras are just boxes for film, at the end of the day. If the lens is quality then the rest is just personal preference and convenience factors. The F100 might even take better photos if you consider proper metering. On an M3 you've got to guess or deduce, or carry a light meter. If you set the F100 to fully manual then you shouldn't see any difference whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess that's the other thing that bears mentioning. If someone is fundamentally bad at manual focusing and/or wans a huge huge huge viewfinder then a rangefinder probably isn't their ideal choice. You're still not going to beat a nice big OM-1 for clarity of focus.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:I think another point is that the current digital Leica occupies a special niche - 35mm full frame sensor in a compact body. Pretty much like their X2 and S2 also, they also have their own niche. Yeah. I think you nailed it on the head. I don't want to say it's worth the outrageous price Leica can command on build quality and form factor alone, but it definitely fills a niche that has very few legitimate competitors. An actual manual focus rangefinder with modern bells and whistles, which is built around a rock solid compact body that you can probably back a truck over. Oh and it's full frame so you don't have to adjust from your film experience. The funny thing is, though -- I don't want one. I would rather get a film Leica any day of the week over a digital. I don't know what it is. Maybe I'm just burned out on digital. Maybe I like the absolute finality that comes with pushing the shutter on a film camera as opposed to a digital camera. Knowing I can't go back and delete my shot to try again really pushes me further to do it right; probably a personal flaw on my part since I ought to be striving for this in all my shooting, really. So I have to be honest with myself here. If I had $7000 to spend on a camera, would I buy a digital Leica? Probably not. I'd probably get a nice M6 or M3 and a top notch lens and call it a day with money left.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:
Not photo-related, but holy poo poo that shirt <3
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
ME is a tiny camera, all said and done. It's Av only but has a dedicated 1/100 mode so you can still shoot s/16 with ISO100 film I guess. There's really no reason to buy one over an ME Super. Then again if you're the kind of photographer that lives in Av mode 100% of the time it might not be a big deal.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
You know, something I found that's really funny is that the last four or five years I spent all my time and money trying to build the most "pro" feeling kit I could -- big bulky bodies, add-on grips, fast lenses, etc. And now that I have some of that stuff, I find that the only thing I want is a small rangefinder style camera that I can stick in my pocket. No doubt the big stuff is amazing gear, but when you have zero desire to carry it around you tend to not shoot as much as you'd like.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Is there any real reason to use RAW+L? I can't imagine a scenario where I'd use that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
I would probably suggest something maybe like the Olympus E-5. It's high ISO work isn't anything to brag about but it certainly won't ruin any photos unless you're shooting an unlit subject in the dead of night or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I want to savor the gently caress out of this post. Well, I mean if you need a sensor that does 2x multiplication off the bat …. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
They have the most unpleasant bokeys to boot, so generally I don't enjoy photos they produce if they have any significant out of focus areas.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
Has the bottom really fallen out of the 5Dmk1 market? I've seen at least two for under $600 recently on craigslist. That seems like an insane price for a full frame sensor camera, even if it is a few years old at this point. Though I guess now that Mk3 is out the price was bound to compress down.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Yeah I don't expect them to bottom out, but if it can challenge the $500 mark in a year or two then it will be an absolute steal. Granted that a lot of these will probably be high shutter count cameras, but if I was getting someone into photography right now I might seriously consider recommending them a 5d1.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
I'm wondering how much lower those will fall now that you can get something sensible for a hundred or two more. Part of me thinks they were artificially propped up by the fact that they were " full frame " and we'll see THOSE bottom out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
You can do cheaper than the 80-200 2.8 but realistically speaking you'll probably want the ability to shoot at 2.8 when the light calls for it, and the luxury to stop down to f/4 to get a sharper image depending on the situation. Something you probably wouldn't get with the older 70-200/210 f/4 Nikkors.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
I actually really loved the push-pull mechanism on my 70-200 pentax thingamabob, but it was manual focus and having both actions on one surface was really really handy. If I had AF at my disposal then I would probably opt for the two ring variety. Plus the zoom creep did get a little annoying at anything over like five or ten degrees off horizontal.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
On the push/pull, can you decouple the focus from the barrel in AF mode, or is it FTM (which would be hilariously terrible)? I am just picturing fighting the camera which is trying to throw my wrist off the giant lens.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
Yeah, isn't there like some Scottish Best Buy you can duck into to pick that up anyway? I'd be ordering from Amazon last, unless budget was my main concern.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
Just off the top of my head, something like the 85L or 135L would be decent for portrait-style or tight product shots with a soft background. Alternately the regular 85mm f/1.8 if the 1.2 L is too pricey. Or really maybe just the $100 50mm f/1.8 II. It's a toss up in my mind. I'd personally go for the 85L if I had a good budget, 85 1.8 if I didn't. Also perhaps invest some money in a lightbox and small light setup. It's a pretty easy DIY and great for product photography. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Sep 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Not to mention that 85mm on a 1.6 Canon crop will give you an effective 135mm equivalent, which I think is like the best portrait length
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure this is forbidden in the bible somewhere
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
50 1.8 is a pretty common but "sought after" lens because it's cheap, fast, and good. You'll likely have zero problems unloading that. Everything else? Ehh. You'll find a buyer but it'll probably be someone who doesn't know much about digital photography or really doesn't want to spend a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBIdcUxdgo0
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
You can stick pretty much anything on there with an adapter, but I've heard good things about old soviet lenses using an M39 to NEX adapter. I can't wait to get my NEX so I can try. I mean it depends entirely on the lens too. There are some good Russian lenses and there is poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
I think the NEX is its own mount so you can't throw Minolta glass on there, but admittedly I haven't doublechecked this fact. Even by opening a new tab in Chrome and googling it. I mean I could have checked in the time it took me to post this caveat but here I am still typing and not checking! Oh well!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
Here, have some magic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 13:35
|
|