|
Martytoof posted: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. It also warps your sense of money. "$1000 for a lens? That's pretty cheap!" (Because you just plonked down 3k for another lens) tijag posted:Overall an incredibly capable film body. Generally speaking, would the F100 + 50mm f/1.8D take worse pictures than a Leica? In terms of style, you might shoot differently when using a rangefinder instead of an SLR, but that is more due to the paradigm of using a different way of seeing and focusing. For better or worse, that's really up to the person behind the camera. In terms of technical image quality, using a Leica does give you access to better lenses...at a very high premium. spog posted:To be fair: the optics are still good and the recent one seems to have a good reputation, but the stuff before definitely is branding-first. 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.
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Related: is there a standard thread size / pitch for those screw holes in the tripod-mount-foot for big lenses? A screw in the right place would solve my torque problem. I think it should be the 1/4"-20 thread size.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I have a couple of 24 inches dells but I use an 27 iMac to edit. How do you find the iMac compared to the Dells? I'm currently using a Dell U2411 but I'm considering a switch to an iMac eventually down the road.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 11:32
|
|
|
powderific posted:You could buy that Metabones Speedbooster and double your number of focal lengths and get full frame DOF. It doesn't really change the DOF, only the light-capturing ability.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I'm afraid to see where I go next. shut up woot fatigue! don't you dare say TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II He doesn't have to say it because you said it to yourself already. You've been incepted dun dun dun.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Bang3r posted:I'm going to be upgrading to a 5dmk3 later in the year and as the EF-S lenses won't work on it I'm looking for a good replacement, I'll mainly be shooting live wrestling/other indoor sports, music gigs and the odd portait or two, As I do a fair bit of video work I purchased the 2.8 because of the constant aperture so that is also a fairly big thing. If your budget can allow for it, I'd suggest the 70-200/2.8 IS II and the new Sigma 35/1.4. These 2 lenses should cover most of the focal lengths you need to cover events. Alternatively, get a 24-70/2.8 and rent the 70-200 for each event until you get enough events regularly to warrant buying it.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
Bang3r posted:Can anyone recommend me a fast prime to go with this setup? I'll be shooting a lot of gigs in places with lovely lighting generally and kinda want to keep the max at about $700 Probably the new Sigma 35/1.4
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
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. Yeah I agree with this. And also this post by Mike Johnston on the topic is a good read: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/05/false-shopping.html
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
xcore posted:Any Aussies on here purchased from KEH? You can check their shipping when you checkout the item, it's usually US$59.95 to the Asian region, so Australia should be close in pricing. They use Fedex which takes usually a week or less, and their communication is superb.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
I started with a Sekonic L-558 for the spotmeter capability but now I just use a Gossen Digisix because it is drat small but has both reflected & incident metering. You gotta figure out what features you need and what size you're willing to carry around.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Just looked up the Otus. WTF is this supposed to mean? I think it's more of how the focus falls off quickly past the depth of field, so there's more separation between subject and the background.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Can you actually influence that via the optical design? I'm no expert in optical design but I would say yes. Anyway, the Otus 55/1.4 was based off the optical design of the Hasselblad Zeiss 50/4 medium format lens so maybe there's something in that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:Long shot: I have a Zeiss ZF 50mm f1.4 That I bought from our very own trade thread. Lens in mint and is great for indie video work where a proper cine camera isn't available. My current issue is that I got an EF adapter from Fotodiox after much research and while it mount/unmounts easily enough I'm a little worried about a couple of things. Firstly the infinity hard-stop on the lens seems 'past' infinity, in that I have to focus back a little to achieve infinity, this isn't the case on a Nikon body. Secondly the lens seems a little soft, I'm worried that this might be a dud adapter and I'm wondering if anyone else has had similar issues, hopefully someone has the same set up since ZF 50mms are like baby's first manual focus lens. Some lenses focus back past infinity as a compensation for tolerance for the lens expanding in the sun's heat, but it's usually just a bit. Not sure if this is the case for your lens. With regards to the soft part, the 50/1.4 is known to be intentionally somewhat soft wide open, due to the design of the lens.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:I think the Zeiss 80/2 (645) and the Hassy 110/2 (66) would like a word with you. There's an 80/2 for the Rollei 6008 too, which is 6x6.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Moonbloodsflow posted:You guys suggested the Panasonic 20mm F/1.7 for my M43. But I'm also looking at the Panasonic 14-140mm f/4.0-5.8 OIS. For a first lens, which would you pick up first? Everybody seems to be on the 20mm side. I'm sure I will end up owning both, or something comparable sooner rather than later. But I'd just like some more input before I spend the money. Keep in mind I only have the 14-42mm kit lens that came with my Olympus OMD-10. I'm also open to other suggestions. I just want to get the most for my money until I figure out how far I am going to take this. I think that really depends if you prefer zooms or primes. I would pick the 20/1.7 because I don't use zooms, but it might be different in your case. In fact I bought my OMD without the kit zoom and got the PanaLeica 25/1.4 straight away, which has pretty much been the only lens on my OMD.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
I have that combo and it is brilliant. It's pretty much my only digital camera setup now. RX1 does have slow AF but it isn't a problem if you're not shooting moving things. I must say though, if you think you're going to be zooming in a lot, you might want to consider the RX10 instead, if you can accept the size.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Overture posted:This is great to hear. Also, zoom isn't a huge deal. I'm used to using my feet already, and nothing short of a massively long and heavy zoom will let me sit on a park bench and shoot people without them knowing, and that's not something I can carry with me. I more meant initially that it's nice to have a bit more flexibility in focal range with the RX100, not long reach. Well it isn't always about just moving the feet, as there are perspective issues but in general the RX1 does have enough megapixels for you to crop in as a pseudo-zoom. It also lets you focus in really close which is good if you're shoot flowers or food. You can see a sample of all the various stuff I shot with the RX1 here.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Urgh the old layout, albeit ancient, was so much easier to find what I wanted.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:For commercially available stuff probably the D4S but I don't know which lens. For commercially available my guess would actually be the Sony A7S and the Leica Noctilux.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Any suggestions from more accomplished travelers? If this was a photography trip, I'd go with ExecuDork's recommendation. But since it's not, i'd say just take the 24-70 and keep it simple. I usually just travel with a 50mm equiv lens only but I do bring a compact to shoot all the touristy stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
red19fire posted:have you guys heard of a lens going soft on one side? I've tested another lens (70-200) against it, and it's pretty sharp across the board so I don't think it's the camera (nikon df), while the other one (35-70) is noticeably soft on the right side. At first I thought it was because I was using shallow DOF and wasn't square to the subject, but just from informal tests shooting a poster in my bedroom it seems to be pretty bad on the right side only. Could be decentering.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Ethanfr0me posted:Anyone have a Bessa R4? I'm wondering if it is comparable to a Leica M6, or if its worth forking over Leicabucks to use M mount lenses. Leicas always feel better than the others like Bessas and Hexars etc. If you can afford one, you should get it. It's pretty much like asking whether you should get a BMW vs a Toyota. Both will get you to a destination but one will feel a lot better. It won't affect the quality of your photos normally though.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:But I haven't really noticed anyone here that shoots them. I also did notice that the bulk of the photos in the DP2 pool on Flickr are landscapes. I know that even the new APS-C Foveon sensor has abysmal high ISO performance, so I wasn't expecting much low-light stuff, but there also didn't seem to be very many pictures of people. Does the unorthodox approach to color reproduction make for bad skin tones? I know that there are plenty of people who go for the Fuji X100's, so it's not the fixed lens that puts everyone off, and the DP2's on KEH are a few hundred dollars cheaper than the X100S's, too. So are the tradeoffs in flexibility too great to make the DP2 a desirable camera for most serious hobbyists? Someone who owned one told me it was like driving a 50 year old Toyota missing the front wheels and the only good thing was that it had the engine of a modern Ferrari. And then he sold it off shortly too. From what I've read online, if you give the sensor 100 marks, you can give the rest of the camera 0 marks. I'd say no one uses it for people because most portrait shooters use longer focal lengths which the DP2 can't do. Most people using the Fuji X100 type of cameras tend to use it for all-purpose shooting which includes people. The DP2 is the furthest thing away from an all-purpose camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
blowfish posted:How did a SD1 cost as much as a 1Dx Because Sigma said so.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:What's the problem with long focal lengths? There isn't a problem? HPL posted:They made a big price adjustment shortly after though, and gave big rebates or credits to the folks that had already bought them. Yeah but it was way too late, and the usability was an even bigger issue since most of my friends who actually bought one at the much cheaper prices still sold them off after a few months of self-inflicted torture.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What do you think about the Ricoh GR? Very good if you love that focal length.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Nameless Dread posted:I'm looking to get into medium format again, and want to simplify a lot of the problems i had last time with my clunky Mamiya RB67. So i think i want either a Mamiya 7 or a Pentax 6 x 7. My reasoning is that they are basically like 35mm cameras and will be easier to shoot with. What's the difference between them? There seems to be a huge price gap between them and i'm not sure why. Is one outright superior or inferior? One of them is a lot loving lighter.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Vinestalk posted:Awesome. Thanks for the advice. Reading the posts about the RX100 made it tempting, but it felt so awkward looking through that viewfinder when I visited my local shop. Yeah the viewfinder is really too small but it is helpful in direct glaring sunlight!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Helicity posted:I haven't purchased anything from them since before the site was redesigned and I haven't gotten any mailers or emails about this breach. Wondering if maybe they changed systems and only people who have ordered since then are affected. Same, I haven't gotten any emails about this either. Makes me think it was a particular computer or server that was hit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
I wonder if the change happened at the same time they changed their website.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Probably. If you check out their Glassdoor reviews you hear that the original owner sold the business to some investment group right around that time. It takes some time for pirate equity types to get their hooks properly deep into an organization, and turn over the old crew, so the timeline makes a lot of sense. That's a real shame, considering the name KEH built for themselves. It's really decades to build a reputation but just months to destroy it. Those Glassdoor reviews are pretty depressing too, lucky I bought my last KEH piece of gear shortly after they changed over.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
Go for a used Canon 50/1.2.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Goddamn, I have a 128gb card and it's already too big for me. lol I don't even use up my 16gb card on vacations...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Put a 35/2 on that APS-C DLSR and go to town. You do *not* want to be lugging a FX body with fast zoomy glass on a trip abroad, believe you me. It sounds like that is exactly what she wants though, and I think she knows it too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
hooah posted:My wife is interested in getting into photography, and I'd like to get her a camera for Christmas. Is there anything in the "it'll last a little while if she really decides she's into it, but won't be a huge waste of money if she doesn't stick to it"? I don't want to spend $$$ and have her end up deciding it's not really for her, but I also don't want to gimp her/have to spend $$$ right away if it really grabs her. What is $$$ to you? To some people $$$ could be $500, to others it might be $5000.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
hooah posted:Good point. $$$ would be $500. I'm hoping to be able to find something around the $200 range, but could stretch up to $300 if it would make a big difference. Maybe look for a 2nd hand RX100 mk1?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Maybe she should get the Fuji X70 instead, but I'm not sure if it's under $1k.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
spog posted:When I travel somewhere interesting, I average about 200 photos / day. Everyone is different though, 36 exposures is way too much, even 12 shots on 120 film is too much. I only shot like 24 rolls of 120 for 3 weeks of vacation and that was not being strict on what I shot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Ernie. posted:Bought a nice big backpack today. Anyone have after-market recommendations for padded inserts? I just went with the wisdom of 'buy a nice bag, add nice parts' rather than try to buy a camera-dedicated bag now and find out I outgrew it in a couple of years. Look at the Crumpler camera bag inserts.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
President Beep posted:Piss. Any lower end (but not garbage) brands you’d recommend? Sirui is pretty decent as well, if you can source for them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 01:51
|
|