|
xgalaxy posted:3x NEC EA231WMi This is what I roll and it's glorious. My only regret is that I didn't buy two.
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
The EA231WMi was cheap as hell when I bought it. It's expensive compared to other budget 23" monitors and is 1080p but it's IPS and the quality is second to none. Like I have a ViewSonic 27" something at work and it's certainly bigger and cheaper and I like the real-estate more but I notice the stupid TN flat panel stuff quite easily. That said, if I didn't care about photos I would probably opt for a big monitor these days.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Lumix GF6 supposedly has NFC? What the hell. Why does a camera need NFC, of all things?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
Ethanfr0me posted:I'm thinking of getting a Nikon D7100 as my first DSLR. Is the kit lens worth getting or should I just get the body + 1.8 50mm Nikkor lens for around the same price. Are you familiar with photography in general already? If you're not, I would almost strongly suggest that you DO get the kit lens because it's likely you don't actually know what you like shooting. If you get the kit you should at least have the flexibility to learn your shooting style without investing in more expensive zoom lenses, or an array of primes that you may or may not like. The fact that sensors these days have good high ISO performance means that even a kit lens' lovely aperture will be more than usable. If you are already somewhat familiar with photography, ask yourself whether you'll be happy walking around with an 75mm equivalens lens. If you will, then there's no problem. If you think need something wider then I suggest you look at the 35mm or sigma 30.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
I loved my Sigma 24-70 2.8. I had the first revision which was notably softer and more prone to flaring than the second version. It was built like a tank and I could have beat someone over the head with it and then taken a quick photo of their cold, lifeless body. It also weighed a ton. I have no experience with the Tamron but if you look at the Sigma I would suggest looking at the newer, updated version. The older version that I had is really cheap these days, but it's also optically inferior. Not inferior to the point where I would say it was a bad lens though. I would probably recommend stopping it down to f/4 to be truly good.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
What camera are you shooting with? By which I really mean what crop factor are you using?
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Oh nice, so you're running full frame. You might want to look at the 85 prime then, and a 24 prime or lower. But overall it's hard to give recommendations since I'm not terribly familiar with the Canon lineup. It'll also almost certainly be more expensive to go with two primes.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
I'm kind of curious whether advances in production will ever make FF yields big enough to actually supplant APS-C as the typical sensor in consumer DSLRs, or whether the big three/four would maintain an artificial separation between FF and APS-C to charge a premium for the former even if the production costs became negligible. I'm just speculating, not trying to make any assumptions on when/if such a sensor yield would ever be feasible.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
I honestly thought this was already the case.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
xzzy posted:If you read up on silicon wafers, the size of the wafers has been growing, but relatively slowly. 300mm has been the standard since around 1997. Intel was making noise about switching to 450mm last year. Yeah, it won't mean cheaper full frame sensors until one of the big names makes a consumer sub-$1000 FF body, as has been mentioned. I think they'll have to go in kicking and screaming to make FF the new digital norm. I'm also not saying that FF *has* to be the new norm. Nobody is really complaining about APS-C, and we're getting all sorts of awesome APS-C sensors in bodies these days. Hell, MFT has a lot of traction so it's obvious that people aren't really clamouring for bigger sensors as long as the quality of smaller sensors remains on an upward trend. We're also seeing more APS-C in mirrorless bodies than ever before so at the same time I wonder if in like five or six years FF will be the new amazing trend in mirrorless bodies. Think about how far the industry has come in the past decade, and really basically where digital photography has come since it went mainstream in the early 2000s. It's pretty amazing that we have the things we do.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
That sensor post was actually really neat to read, thanks 
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:You can really use any system, I started out with an Olympus E-500 (god what a piece of poo poo) that I found on craigslist for cheap, got a couple lenses for it, traded the whole package in for a D200 a year later with no real loss. Just get a camera, and a lens, and shoot with it. There's no real 'wrong' choice. It's really funny how my tastes in camera gear went from P&S to "want to look like a pro with a DSLR body and probably a grip" to "a nice rugged body with a grip and a huge lens" to "holy poo poo I want the smallest camera I can get away with, jesus christ I don't want to carry that 9lb sack of glass around with me"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Yeah, I should have mentioned that the other side of owning a small inconspicuous camera is that I enjoy walking down the street without looking like I'm getting ready for some SWAT mission with a camera bandolier or something 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
e: nm
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 12:56
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I suppose that forcing you to think about composition thing kind of stops working in the tele range, right? I'd be stupid to get say a 135/2 over a 70-200/2.8? I think that all depends on how many lenses you want to carry. The 135L is a sexy beast and worthy of anyone's interest, but if you were going to carry it around as your only lens then you'd probably be better off with the 70-200 (and I'd say f/4 if you have a camera with good ISO, only because it's sharper wide open). If you're on a FF camera it's a little better but if you're on a crop then you'd definitely want something more versatile. It sounds like you want this as a walkaround lens of sorts (or at least something to have nearby while walking around in case you need a tele) so I'd probably go with the 70-200 f/4 personally. I had a lot of fun with a lovely old 70-200 f/4 when I shot my K10D. I obviously didn't get any sweeping crowd shots or anything, but it was fantastic for portrait style photos.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
It would probably fare worse against being dropped on a rock just because of the hardness of the mineral or whatever, but if it's just a scratch then like SoundMonkey said, it's probably not even going to be noticeable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
I'm one of those people that prefers their gear to look a little beat up and.. well, used. Brassing and dings are character  Nothing wrong with babying your gear, but at some point it's going to get a little banged up and that's not a bad thing 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
What the hell is that from?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Since my Yashica Electro 35 GSN gave up the ghost, mechanically, I'm going to hack the lens out and adapt it to E-Mount for my NEX. Anyone done this mod before? I'm going to document my progress, but I'd love to have someone to toss questions at.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
How do you pick an aftermarket hood for a lens? That is to say, what should I be looking at if I want to buy an effective hood for a Konica AR 40mm f/1.8?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks. Wasn't sure how the criteria for hoods worked. Yeah, I'm on a NEX and the front doesn't rotate. Konica originally shipped it with a round hood but I think people have used neat looking square hoods too. Trying to find something good looking but that won't gently caress up the lens' usefulness
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Speed holes in the hood make the lens go faster. Thinking about some baller racing stripes
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Sounds like a pretty common 80s 80-200. Probably not terrible if you stop it down to f/6 or something. I had a craptastic 70-200 f/4 on my K10D that actually produced not terrible shots. One of the lenses I actually enjoyed shooting with.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:a grinding sound when writing to the card in burst mode. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Can I be the one to ask the obvious question here? Why not simply go with a 5Dmk3? I mean this in the least abrasive way possible; Just very curious
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
All very good points, thank you
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:ITT we roleplay discharge curves of various battery chemistries I guess. Hi I'm the replacement battery in my iPho--
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
The photo is a little too dark and grainy to see a lot of the mount, unfortunately. Can you ask him for a better photo? Maybe have him point a lamp at the lens or something.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Why can't I find a lens shaped travel mug that actually lets you drink with the lid on like a normal travel mug should? 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
I've heard good things about Eye-Fi but I just picked up a 16GB Pro X2 and I find it's really flaky. The config app is horrendous so it's entirely possible that I misconfigured it somehow. When I pop the card in my XE-1, taking a photo doesn't seem to trigger the card to start its own private SSID so my iPad never has anything to connect to. I gave up on it last night; Going to try again later today but man, for a $140 SD card I was hoping it would be easier to config. Also I said it before but man, that config app is awful.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Chill Callahan posted:what in tarnation is this http://petapixel.com/2016/02/23/sigma-joins-mirrorless-wars-sd-quattro-sd-quattro-h/ APS-H is back, baby!!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Can't wait for someone to accidentally format their 200gb card and lose a year's worth of photos they forgot to upload.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:How interested would people be in an effortpost about Soviet cameras? And is this the thread for it or should I make a new one/post it somewhere else/stop posting forever? I'd love one. I own a Zorki-6, FED-2, and I love both. I also have a Zenit 12xp that doesn't work, but it looks like a loving tank on my shelf.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Ehh gently caress, my Eye-Fi Pro X2 is being EOL'd. I guess it won't affect direct mode but they won't be updating the apps anymore. Debating whether I want to invest in a new wifi card. I like having WiFi preview on my iPad and I don't see myself upgrading from my XPro1 any time soon so I might... Is Eye-Fi still the name to go with or are there any better wifi SDs around now?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Hey so what's the go-to way to test shutter speed on older cameras now? I have a trip in December that I'd love to get on film and I just bought a used Oly 35RC which is in pretty okay condition (all things considered) -- the shutter speeds SOUND okay but I'd want to test before dumping a bunch of film through it. I'll be bringing my XPro1 too so I'll have at least one known-good camera so I'm not sweating it TOO much. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I don't know if there is a "go to" way. There are apps that listen to the shutter sound but they are pretty unreliable. You pretty much need to build yourself a small circuit using an LED and a photo sensitive diode and "record" the signal into your computer then determine the shutter speed by looking at the waveform. http://www.mraggett.co.uk/shuttertester/shuttertester.htm This absolutely works for me, thanks. I'll build this weekend.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
I swear I have a Helios-44 where the aperture ring is wide open at f/MAX and constricted at f/2. Can you even put a lens together incorrectly like that or is it from the bizarro universe? It's buried in a box of stuff at my parents' house, I'll have to try and dig it out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Entirely possible! I'll have to dig it out and verify
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Check out this archive of old camera ads. The ones from the 70s and 80s are especially fun as many of us still own those cameras and you can see how they were hyped when they were new. You can see DJExile's point by comparing ads from 110 systems or instant cameras to Leica or Mamiya or Hasselblad ads. The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Camera Gear: I'm a helluvan artist!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
There's always the Nikon 80-200 2.8. Two ring seems to be fairly affordable, and there was an ancient push-pull version before. I haven't used Nikon in quite a while but I seem to remember them being fairly well regarded.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 03:18
|
|