|
Archos has a tablet with a 250GB hard drive in it and an SD slot.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
And any of the android tablets that have a full size usb port can use an sd card reader just fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
I don't know about his situation but my problem with it is that the android tablets don't generally have that much storage above one of my cards; for instance, if I'm shooting 16gb or 32gb cards that I will fill up once every day or couple of days, there's going to have to be a conventional hdd in there somewhere just for economy of size. Can android copy files from a card reader then back out to an external drive without a bunch of rear end pain?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 19:05
|
|
|
Skam posted:Just looking round some stores and this does seem the best option. The only thing that bothers me about it is that after the holiday I will have no use for it, whereas a tablet I would. Although looking at the options I dont seem to have a lot of choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:I don't know about his situation but my problem with it is that the android tablets don't generally have that much storage above one of my cards; for instance, if I'm shooting 16gb or 32gb cards that I will fill up once every day or couple of days, there's going to have to be a conventional hdd in there somewhere just for economy of size. Can android copy files from a card reader then back out to an external drive without a bunch of rear end pain? Not really, I don't think there are any tablets with 2 usb ports. You'd either have to be using microsd cards, or you'd have to copy from the sd card to the tablet and then back to the hard drive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
Two questions regarding this camera. If I'm shooting color 120 film, should I get 400 or 100 ISO film? How can I figure out the minimum distance I can get from a target for correct focus? The viewing window is pretty old and dirty, so I can't tell if I'm actually in focus or not. The lens has "F:8 Haking's Double Meniscus" written around it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 05:54
|
|
|
ISO 400 film is generally more versatile and has a wide latitude in case you misread the exposure. I suspect that's a 80mm lens so probably the minimum distance is about 3 feet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 06:11
|
|
|
the posted:Two questions regarding this camera. Looks like you have an "I" shutter setting, meaning you are stuck with something along 1/50-1/100 shutter speeds. With aperture adjustments between f/8-f/16, you will need ISO 100 film to handle sunlight and cloudy outdoors. With ISO 400 you can deal with some shade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 19:54
|
|
|
Tell me about some books that every photographer should have on their bookshelf. Are there any you find yourself going back to reference over and over again? I'm looking to expand my skills beyond the basic photography class I took in highschool, and I'm having some trouble, especially when the subject is indoors or when the thing I'm trying to take a picture of is under a shadow. I understand the basics of getting the correct exposure but I feel like I'm ready for the next lesson. Is there some comprehensive book that will help me? I've already ordered the book understanding exposure that someone else recommended here but I would like to fill out my library with some more books and manuals. For reference my biggest interest is in landscape photography, although I've secretly always wanted to dabble into street photography.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:Tell me about some books that every photographer should have on their bookshelf. Are there any you find yourself going back to reference over and over again? I'm looking to expand my skills beyond the basic photography class I took in highschool, and I'm having some trouble, especially when the subject is indoors or when the thing I'm trying to take a picture of is under a shadow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
There used to be a nice (and I think free) time lapse calculator app on the apple app store. I can't for the life of me find it anymore. Anyone know if it exists and what it's called?
Beve Stuscemi fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jan 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
My wife wants me to come to her Crossfit gym tomorrow to shoot her working out. I've got a Nikon D3000 and a 35mm 1.8 lens. It's generally a black box-type place, but there may be some natural light coming in. What settings (Flash, ISO, mode, etc.) should I be shooting in? It will be mostly action shots. Any other tips would be helpful as well! Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
dexter6 posted:My wife wants me to come to her Crossfit gym tomorrow to shoot her working out. I've got a Nikon D3000 and a 35mm 1.8 lens. It's generally a black box-type place, but there may be some natural light coming in. What kind of flashes do you have? With flash photography, it's usually either balance the flash with the ambient or blow the ambient to smithereens with a flash cranked to max.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
HPL posted:What kind of flashes do you have? With flash photography, it's usually either balance the flash with the ambient or blow the ambient to smithereens with a flash cranked to max.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Don't use the flash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
dexter6 posted:My wife wants me to come to her Crossfit gym tomorrow to shoot her working out. I've got a Nikon D3000 and a 35mm 1.8 lens. It's generally a black box-type place, but there may be some natural light coming in. While less movement than most sports, you will need a relatively high shutter speed to freeze motion. Start at 1/120 and see if you need to push it up to freeze motion, or you can push it down and decrease your ISO, which you will probably need to crank up, given the lovely light in most gyms (don't use your popup flash). The good news is that a 35mm 1.8 lens is a pretty good choice. Try to capture some of the more interesting looking exercises (if you're lucky, there'll be gigantic hammers and tires and ropes involved), and exasperated facial expressions your wife will be making.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
I am a huge noob so if this is an incredibly stupid question, I apologize. I have a Nikon D3100 and kit lens. I understand that to change the depth of field, I need to change the f-number, but the only way I can find to change the f-number is by zooming in or out. Am I missing something obvious, or can I only change the f-number by zooming in/out? Or am I just totally confused? I tried reading a bunch of different things on aperture / depth of field / f-numbers but they just left me more confused  EDIT: found it, there's a button on top of the camera you need to hold down before you spin the big dial. I feel stupid. girl pants fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Jan 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
You're referring to the F-Stop. Your camera, on manual mode (and probably "aperture priority" or "AP" mode) has options to change the aperture size. The lower the stop number the shallower the depth of field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
Cockwhore posted:While less movement than most sports, you will need a relatively high shutter speed to freeze motion. Start at 1/120 and see if you need to push it up to freeze motion, or you can push it down and decrease your ISO, which you will probably need to crank up, given the lovely light in most gyms (don't use your popup flash). The good news is that a 35mm 1.8 lens is a pretty good choice. He's not going to want to freeze motion, at least not all the time. Too high a shutter speed and the shots will look posed, instead of action. Fast enough to prevent hand shake, and to freeze casual motion, but not exercise motion. So, if hands are moving faster than the rest of the body, you'll want shots that show the hands blurred, with the rest frozen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
girl pants posted:I am a huge noob so if this is an incredibly stupid question, I apologize. I have a Nikon D3100 and kit lens. I understand that to change the depth of field, I need to change the f-number, but the only way I can find to change the f-number is by zooming in or out. Am I missing something obvious, or can I only change the f-number by zooming in/out? Or am I just totally confused? I tried reading a bunch of different things on aperture / depth of field / f-numbers but they just left me more confused Read the manual. Seriously. Camera manuals are one of the few that are absolutely worth the time and effort. First, if you're a newbie, there are functions that are not going to be obvious (like holding the button AND turning dial to change settings). Second, it'll generally give you some good tips on day to day use. Finally, yes zooming changes the f/stop on a variable aperture zoom like your kit. It's just not a good way to do it, as it's simply changing the maximum aperture as you go. Depth of field is determined not just by f/stop but by subject framing (how close it is) and focal length (actually, those two are entirely the same, as how close you need to be is usually a factor of focal length).
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Read the manual. Seriously. Camera manuals are one of the few that are absolutely worth the time and effort. First, if you're a newbie, there are functions that are not going to be obvious (like holding the button AND turning dial to change settings). Second, it'll generally give you some good tips on day to day use. Third, if you're lucky, they're still using the same illustrative photographs of a woman chewing scenery in front of a fountain, a woman chewing scenery with an umbrella, and a rockin' 80s Japanese apartment as they have been since the mid-80s. Canon USA, alas, long ago decided to localize and update their manuals. Bland modern white girls got nothing on melodramatic 1980s Japanese girls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:Third, if you're lucky, they're still using the same illustrative photographs of a woman chewing scenery in front of a fountain, a woman chewing scenery with an umbrella, and a rockin' 80s Japanese apartment as they have been since the mid-80s. Canon USA, alas, long ago decided to localize and update their manuals. That sounds completely awesome but alas, the manual was accidentally tossed out on Christmas along with all the boxes / wrapping paper. I want to see cheesy 80's photos! I found a pdf of the manual, if anyone else lost theirs during Christmas morning carnage, here's a link http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/noprint/D3100_ENnoprint.pdf it looks like they've updated the photos with white people though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Olde Weird Tip posted:I love the 50mm for how sharp it is (and how cheap it was), and I like the 18-55 range, but hate how not-sharp the lens is, as well as the general crappyness of the pictures it takes. Skam posted:edit: probably not a playbook since it only has a microusb drive spog posted:Netbook. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jan 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Read the manual. Seriously. Camera manuals are one of the few that are absolutely worth the time and effort. I've never been the manual-reading type, but seriously, read the manual. I never would have known that functions I use all the time (like Exposure Bracketing) even existed if I didn't spend the half hour it took to go through manual. Time well spent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
PROTIP: Find the PDF version of the manual for your camrea and then put it on your iPhone/smartphone, if possible. One less thing to lug around in your camera bag all day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
You might even consider one of the independently-written extended manuals. I got my first DSLR a year and a half ago, and came into it with a fairly basic and rusty knowledge of photography from basic film SLR. I got the David Busch guide for my camera, and found it WAY more helpful than the manual. A lot more context for not only what the camera can do, but why you might want to do it. Most of them have basic chapters on things like shutter speed-aperture-ISO, flash photography, etc. Plus the illustrations are usually a lot easier to understand. I'm sure some people here would argue that all the information is in the manual so why buy another book, but I found forking over the extra $20 really helped me have a lot more fun with the $X00 camera I'd just bought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
I'm not a camera guy so hopefully i'm not inadvertently breaking any cardinal photography sins My sister is trying to make her youtube channel more professional and is looking for a good video camera with good optics for $400-600, and this seems like the right place to ask. Also it's not some stupid pipe dream because she's actually a youtube partner with a respectable income. She's currently using some cannon point and shoot from 2009 that isn't bad, but for what she's doing she needs something that's capable of shooting high-quality well-framed vlogs with. She doesn't need a picture camera but being a good picure camera comes with the territory, and interchangeable lenses probably aren't needed as long as the included one can do really good looking portrait video and respectable closeups. And of course she doesn't need a high speed camcorder because she's recording in optimal conditions (and wants more than a flat picture) which is what literally everyone suggests (buy a flip hd!!! its hd!!)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
There are lots of decent-looking camcorders in that price range, not crappy consumer-level vidja cams. Getting good video out of a $600 DSLR (including lens) is certainly possible, but you're probably looking at something second hand and about the same age as that point-and-shoot she's hoping to replace. I have no experience of them, but I'm willing to bet a mid-range $500 camcorder from Panasonic or Sony or Canon (edit: or JVC or Samsung or... there are many manufacturers) would be the best choice. To avoid flat-looking results, find something with a wide aperture; a shallow depth of field isolates the subject (e.g. her face) from the background (e.g. the wall behind her). Look for numbers like f/2.8 - smaller numbers after the slash mean a bigger aperture mean a shallower depth of field. edit: I'm thinking of the long-ish rectangular boxes that you can hold in one hand, your palm against the side and a strap around the back of your hand, your fingers curling over on top. Not a flat rectangle you hold upright with your fingertips. edit 2: Cinematography thread in CC - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3144982 - probably a good starting place for some research. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Jan 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
Mister Snips posted:I'm not a camera guy so hopefully i'm not inadvertently breaking any cardinal photography sins Start researching camcorders. You're not playing to the strengths of digital cameras (interchangeable lens systems, portability, designed around capturing still images) and you're hitting all their weaknesses ($500 will get you a body capable of video, rolling shutters, crappy internal microphones, recording limits). Video on DSLRs is attractive because you can spend $5000 to $7000 on a setup that previously required $15000+ as an entry point. A used Canon Rebel T2i with a EF-50 1.8mm would probably be the minimum setup you should consider and even then you will probably want an external microphone and dead cat. Also a tripod and that 50 is noisy when it focuses so she won't want to move around a lot. Maybe somebody else has an idea but this sounds like square peg in a round hole for that price.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
To get good video, you need good lighting. I have a pair of these with the diffuser socks linked in the accessories sidebar and a $100 webcam with them looks better than a $1000 camcorder with office lighting. Seriously consider working lights into her budget.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
ThisQuietReverie posted:Video on DSLRs is attractive because you can spend $5000 to $7000 on a setup that previously required $15000+ as an entry point. A used Canon Rebel T2i with a EF-50 1.8mm would probably be the minimum setup you should consider and even then you will probably want an external microphone and dead cat. Also a tripod and that 50 is noisy when it focuses so she won't want to move around a lot. I will admit thatbI do not pay much attention to the Rebels, but does it AF during video? Doing video with a DSLR overall has the potential for superb results but put a lot more requirments on the operator than regular camcorders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
ThisQuietReverie posted:dead cat I'm sorry, what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:I'm sorry, what? Big fuzzy windscreen for the mic (I think). We always called them dead bunnies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Big fuzzy windscreen for the mic (I think). We always called them dead bunnies. Oh oh, we always called them puff balls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I will admit thatbI do not pay much attention to the Rebels, but does it AF during video? That's how I remember it. I've only ever shot two things "seriously" with a DSLR and one of them was the camera on a tripod pointed at a wall for 38 seconds. I do know that $600 isn't going to go far past what she is using though. QPZIL posted:I'm sorry, what? Whoops, I know it looks like I just had a psychotic break there but Dead Cat is actually the model name for a particular line of wind muffs. Dead Cat: http://www.amazon.com/Rode-Deadcat-Wind-Muff-Microphone/dp/B000BH437S Rereading Mister Snips' requirements makes me realize that she may not need one if she never does anything outside. I stand by my external microphone suggestion though. The built in one is pretty rear end. I'm assuming she already has a workflow and setup that will accommodate the giant .MOV files that DSLRs create. I always found the workflow to be rather daunting, personally. That said, if I'm ever physically present near a Fisher Price PXL 2000 for sale then all bets are off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
I just got a T3i for christmas and haven't shot since I graduated high school in 2004 and that was on a film SLR. Can you guys please critique these shots I took last night at a photo shoot a friend set up. I was not the main photographer I just asked if I could come and shoot so that I can learn. I appreciate any advice and critique you guys have. These are just the shots I thought would be worth anything. If someone wants me to link all the shots I currently have them uploading to facebook since I used up all my Flickr upload for the month on that set haha. TIA!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
KidDynamite posted:I just got a T3i for christmas and haven't shot since I graduated high school in 2004 and that was on a film SLR. Can you guys please critique these shots I took last night at a photo shoot a friend set up. I was not the main photographer I just asked if I could come and shoot so that I can learn. I appreciate any advice and critique you guys have. These are just the shots I thought would be worth anything. If someone wants me to link all the shots I currently have them uploading to facebook since I used up all my Flickr upload for the month on that set haha. TIA! I'm going to skip over some major stuff like composure, posing, etc. There's a lot to be learned there, but it comes with time and practice and it's more suited for the PAD thread. The main things that stand out to me on first glance are exposure and white balance. All the shots looked a bit underexposed to me with some being extremely underexposed. It looks like you were in manual mode, assuming I'm reading the EXIF data right, but my guess is you were still going off what the meter of the camera said? Don't be afraid to bump up the exposure a bit. Turn on the histogram and check it after your shots. White balance is definitely off in the shots as well. Your camera should have a white balance setting that's close to what you're experiencing in room, which will help your JPEGs. Since you did shoot RAW you can probably fix the white balance issue and mitigate the exposure issue Lightroom (easy) or with the Canon RAW software (less easy).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
Thanks Beast. I was shooting in ISO 6400 and something like 1/80 or less but above 1/10 because there was too much movement. I'm very new to the whole shooting a group of people thing. I felt helpless without a proper flash and I did not want to use the pop-up(partly because I could not figure it out in manual mode). I set the WB to tungsten or white fluorescent for the shots. I think I have to sit down and read the manual first and for most and maybe see if I can visit my old photo teacher for a catch-up chat. Thanks again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
KidDynamite posted:Thanks Beast. I was shooting in ISO 6400 and something like 1/80 or less but above 1/10 because there was too much movement. I'm very new to the whole shooting a group of people thing. I felt helpless without a proper flash and I did not want to use the pop-up(partly because I could not figure it out in manual mode). I set the WB to tungsten or white fluorescent for the shots. I think I have to sit down and read the manual first and for most and maybe see if I can visit my old photo teacher for a catch-up chat. Thanks again. Yea, shooting low-light people shots in low light with the kit lens is going to be difficult no matter how you slice it. The shots I looked at had EXIF saying you stopped down to 7.1. I know the kits lens benefits from being stopped down for sharpness but even the fractions of a stop you'd gain from opening up all the way would help a lot. I know you probably don't want to start dropping more money when you just got a $800 camera, but the nifty fifty (EF 50mm F/1.8) is pretty inexpensive in photo dollars and would've helped you a lot in exposure. It could have caused some issues with getting everyone in focus on some of the group shots though. Read the manuals. It's been said here many times before, but unlike most electronics, DSLR manuals don't suck and are really helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
I have a question about cleaning lenses, what product would you recommend? I've read that there is a coating present on the lenses, so I havent touched them yet. Would alcohol + cotton work? I've seen quite a lot of stuff like LensPen, but the shipping to where I live is 150% more then the cost of the product, so I dont really want to order it yet. But if you can recommend me something that'll last a long time I guess I could consider this as an investment, to make my lenses last. So far I am convinced on http://www.lenspen.com/?resultType=category¶ms=14&tpid=0&tpid=323 (if I can find a store with a decent shipping price).
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 22:04
|
|
