|
GobiasIndustries posted:I know (hope not) that I'm going to be mocked for this, but what kinds of fun stuff can I do with a polarizing filter? I added this: http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-Super-...+polarizer+77mm to a photography wish list on Amazon a while ago and kind of forgot about it, and my parents purchased it for me this year. I've got step-up rings to adapt it to the lenses I have, I just..don't quite remember what I put it on the wish list for. I love taking nature photography if that helps at all. Pol filters affect blue skies, for one thing. They can also be used to control reflections from e.g. water and glass (but not metal.) Many LCD panels also emit strongly polarized light, so with the right angle on the polarizer you can turn a lit display completely black on the photo.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:I know (hope not) that I'm going to be mocked for this, but what kinds of fun stuff can I do with a polarizing filter? I added this: http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-Super-...+polarizer+77mm to a photography wish list on Amazon a while ago and kind of forgot about it, and my parents purchased it for me this year. I've got step-up rings to adapt it to the lenses I have, I just..don't quite remember what I put it on the wish list for. I love taking nature photography if that helps at all. You'll mostly get the most usage from getting bluer skies since you can adjust the polarizer to cut through hazy skies since you do nature/landscape photography. It also does all the other neat stuff nielsm says just above me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Anyone have a Tamron 17-50 Sony mount they are looking to sell?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
I want to get into photography as a hobby. I have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Point and Shoot camera. Is this decent enough equipment to get into the hobby? I plan on taking pictures outdoors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Alpha Lyrae posted:I want to get into photography as a hobby. I have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Point and Shoot camera. Is this decent enough equipment to get into the hobby? I plan on taking pictures outdoors. No, you want a Pentax ME Super. But seriously, that looks like a very solid camera that shouldn't hold you back much. If anything pick up a copy of Understanding Exposure to read before you start looking at new gear, and then just go out and shoot and see what you enjoy shooting. Maybe shoot in RAW and download the trial for lightroom too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
DoctaFun posted:Anyone have a Tamron 17-50 Sony mount they are looking to sell? Edit - Good news - KEH has two in stock. Bob Socko fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jan 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:I know (hope not) that I'm going to be mocked for this, but what kinds of fun stuff can I do with a polarizing filter? I added this: http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-Super-...+polarizer+77mm to a photography wish list on Amazon a while ago and kind of forgot about it, and my parents purchased it for me this year. I've got step-up rings to adapt it to the lenses I have, I just..don't quite remember what I put it on the wish list for. I love taking nature photography if that helps at all. In addition to the effects on skies and non-metallic reflective surfaces already mentioned, a good polarizer can help look into water. The surface of a body of water counts as a non-metallic reflector, and eliminating some of those reflections and glare lets you see what lurks beneath. Also, just put it on a lens and go out and shoot already. You can see the effect looking through the viewfinder, point the camera at a thing and spin the filter, you'll see the sky change and things like car windows and puddles will look different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:I know (hope not) that I'm going to be mocked for this, but what kinds of fun stuff can I do with a polarizing filter? I added this: http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-Super-...+polarizer+77mm to a photography wish list on Amazon a while ago and kind of forgot about it, and my parents purchased it for me this year. I've got step-up rings to adapt it to the lenses I have, I just..don't quite remember what I put it on the wish list for. I love taking nature photography if that helps at all. I don't know if a polarizer can really be described as fun  ...but extremely helpful! If you shoot landscapes, keep it on pretty much all the time. It will darken the sky and really make the clouds stand out. It will enhance or reduce reflections off objects (depending on how you have it set). You'll see the biggest effect shooting water - especially shallow water at an oblique angle. By rotating the filter you'll either get a mirror reflection of the sky, or you'll be able to see right through the surface to whatever is below. It will even make a difference shooting deciduous trees and plants - making them look a lot bolder-colored by cutting down reflections of the leaves. It's probably the most all-around-helpful filter you can get.Edit: so many people replied with this information already! I missed the last page of posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:I bought mine from a goon here and like 3 months after I bought it the zoom wheel broke, like they tend to do. He sent his amazon receipt over to me and I registered the warranty card under my own name. Called up Tamron and discussed the situation. They asked for his receipt, my paypal transaction, and the serial off the lens and I was able to get the zoom ring repaired on their dime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
Wasn't sure where to discuss this, but it's basically a magic adapter that makes lenses faster and wider on mirrorless cameras. http://philipbloom.net/2013/01/13/speedbooster/ If it wasn't so expensive I would absolutely pick one up, but at $60, I will probably skip it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Wasn't sure where to discuss this, but it's basically a magic adapter that makes lenses faster and wider on mirrorless cameras. I ... uh ... if $60 for an adapter that works miracles (apparently) then maybe this is the wrong field for you? edit: which sounds dickish... just meant to say that in the photography world that seems pretty cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Not really a miracle. The same size aperture on a shorter focal length lens will be a lower F stop. Adding glass (especially $60 glass) to the lens to do this probably decreases the actual amount of light being transmitted anyways. Remember F stop is just a calculated number that we use because it's the standard way of describing the aperture. I would want to see lab tested T stop values before I believed that it was really any "faster".
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Not really a miracle. The same size aperture on a shorter focal length lens will be a lower F stop. Adding glass (especially $60 glass) to the lens to do this probably decreases the actual amount of light being transmitted anyways. Remember F stop is just a calculated number that we use because it's the standard way of describing the aperture. I would want to see lab tested T stop values before I believed that it was really any "faster". Yeah I put the "apparently" in there just because it's a Philip Bloom article and it's got his requisite over dramatic tone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
I still think it's a cool adapter so that you don't end up with stupid long lenses when adapting for mirrorless cameras but it's too cheap for me to believe that it's anything but terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Where are you guys seeing $60, I saw and still see $600 E: ah I see, I typod. It's $600 not $60.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Oh, that's probably okay then. Still doubtful with out independent testing but a lot more likely to not be the worst thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Where are you guys seeing $60, I saw and still see $600 Oh. Well. That explains everything!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
So it's like a reverse teleconverter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
Chalk me up as skeptical but hopeful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
http://www.eoshd.com/content/9474/prototype-metabones-speed-booster-equipped-nex-7-vs-full-frame-5d-mark-iii Some more sample shots posted. I'm personally pretty excited about it even though $600 is pretty pricey. I'd probably be willing to play around with the inevitable chinese versions that may eventually come out for under $100. People love adapting lenses on their mirrorless and now this lets them use the lenses at their 'intended' focal length along with an extra stop in aperture, which opens up a lot of wide angle options. Hell, imagine using this on a 35mm Summicron/Summilux. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 10:06
|
|
|
The Speed Booster™, besides having a really dumb name, looks legit. It should be noted that the optics were designed by the same guy as this obscene $5k macro. Said macro lens has five calcium fluoride elements so it can work with ultraviolet light (as well as visible and infrared, of course). It might look too good to be true—wider, faster, and sharper!?—but it's really not. There is no such thing as a free lunch. All it’s doing is scaling the image circle down from full‐frame to APS‐C. You have to be using a lens that is otherwise unnecessarily large for your format. The aperture numbers look impressive, but that’s what happens when you concentrate the same amount of light in less area. If you do the calculations, you’ll find that the 35.5 mm f/1.0 lens the adapter gave you will result in exactly the same depth‐of‐field as the 50 mm f/1.4 lens you started with. As for the exposure, if the sensors are of the same design and have the same pixel count, 100 ISO on the APC‐C sensor will be twice noisy as 100 ISO on the full‐frame sensor—each photosite is hit with half as many photons for the same aperture value. The fact that the lens is one stop faster exactly cancels that out. For sharperness, when the entire image shrinks, so do its flaws. Of course, now the inferior edge performance can be seen again, and without the elements of the adapter mucking with the image, the full frame camera will get getter results. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jan 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Theoretically such an adapter could be made to give autofocus to manual focus lenses by moving the optics in the adapter back and forth to focus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The aperture numbers look impressive, but that’s what happens when you concentrate the same amount of light in less area. If you do the calculations, you’ll find that the 35.5 mm f/1.0 lens the adapter gave you will result in exactly the same depth‐of‐field as the 50 mm f/1.4 lens you started with. This is a key point that a lot of people in the internet video blogosphere seem to be missing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
powderific posted:This is a key point that a lot of people in the internet video blogosphere seem to be missing. For a lot of users that doesn't matter. The fact that it's concentrating light and increasing the effective aperture will give an advantage in sports shooting and let you get away with lower ISOs in a lot of other places as well. It's not a cure-all but if it performs as well as it seems to it'll be a major boon to mirrorless crop cameras. I want this, in a Pentax-1.7x-AF-style moving-element focuser, on an APS-C body with phase-detection-focus sensor a la the Fuji X200. That would basically destroy the advantage of full frame DSLRs in the low-end market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Does anyone use these light bulbs? I need to replace the two I had for my light box asap and was wondering if there's an alternate people use that might be available at a place like home depot?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
I got a speedbooster + gas saving device for your car Id like to sell you along with a device that turns stagnant water into unlimited power. These are devices the Government doesnt want you to know about. For $600bux... I mean sure it might have its uses in the M4/3 world but isnt there wide options available in M4/3 for cheaper?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The aperture numbers look impressive, but that’s what happens when you concentrate the same amount of light in less area. If you do the calculations, you’ll find that the 35.5 mm f/1.0 lens the adapter gave you will result in exactly the same depth‐of‐field as the 50 mm f/1.4 lens you started with. But this is literally what I and many others want. I have a full frame setup as well as my NEX and I'm always missing the control of DoF I get from my 5D2 + fast primes. I agree that the speed booster name sounds pretty stupid but it's a step closer to having a psuedo full frame mirrorless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I want this, in a Pentax-1.7x-AF-style moving-element focuser, on an APS-C body with phase-detection-focus sensor a la the Fuji X200. And I want a pony!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Polarize posted:But this is literally what I and many others want. I have a full frame setup as well as my NEX and I'm always missing the control of DoF I get from my 5D2 + fast primes. I agree that the speed booster name sounds pretty stupid but it's a step closer to having a psuedo full frame mirrorless. The reason I want one is that if it plays nice with infrared and I win the lottery, I could convert a mirrorless camera to IR and carry it along with my fullframe DSLR. Let’s not kid ourselves, though: if there were a full‐frame mirrorless camera, it would be better because 1) $600 would cover the premium on the sensor 2) you wouldn’t have to carry around, mount, and unmount the SPEED BOOSTER, 3) there would be no SPEED BOOSTER‐induced optical aberrations, and 4) autofocus wouldn’t have all these caveats: quote:Requires lenses supporting distance information.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Musket posted:I got a speedbooster + gas saving device for your car Id like to sell you along with a device that turns stagnant water into unlimited power. These are devices the Government doesnt want you to know about. For $600bux... Concentrating and shaping light is a lie, Fresnel lenses are black magic, constant-aperture zoom lenses are large scale fraud...
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Isn't the fact that it's autofocusing at all a pretty big deal though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
I don't care about any depth of field benefits, I just want to be able to shoot at 6400 instead of 12800.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:So it's like a reverse teleconverter. They are not uncommon for hobby astronomers. Usually referred to as "telecompressors", simply reducing the focal length and the rest follows. Since f-stop is focal length divided by aperture, well... In fact, these have already been in use in camera optics, just built into the lenses (some of Olympus faster 4/3 zooms are just longer/slower zooms with elements that act as a telecompressor). Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jan 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
I think the speed booster is going to be extremely useful for video shooters. It opens up a lot of possibilities (especially on the wide end) and the price is pretty reasonable in the video realm. If I shot on an S35 sensor I'd almost certainly pick one up. Also, I didn't notice this before, but Bryan Caldwell designed the optics. He's got some serious lens design chops. Here's an article about the Costal Optics lens Metabones mentions in their press release: http://diglloyd.com/articles/CoastalOptics60f4/index.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Kinda want to reboot this thread too. Anyone feel like making an effort-OP and being part of forums history or somethingsomething?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 11:05
|
|
|
Here, have some magic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
Nikon included similar optics in their E‐series DSLRs at the turn of the century. Instead of saying it reduced the focal length by a factor of four and increased the aperture by four stops (which it did), they just pretended the sensor was rated ISO 800 instead of ISO 50.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
So I'm thinking about getting the Tamrom 17-50 for my D5100, but in the OP it says:quote:The lens to replace your lovely kit lens is the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Get the version without VC (Vibration Control), it has better optics. Is there any elaboration on this? I would think the benefits of vibration reduction would outweigh the differences in optics, but I'm having a hard time finding a comparison or any one else bringing up this point. Not to second guess the OP, I'm just curious and want to know more. Can anyone weigh in on this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
kahm posted:So I'm thinking about getting the Tamrom 17-50 for my D5100, but in the OP it says: Well there is also another issue. The VC version has quality control issues. A lot of people get bad eggs. Also in my experience with the lens, I've never really needed VC for it. 17mm is wide enough to use some pretty slow shutter speeds if you believe the whole Shutter Speed = focal length-1
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
General consensus is that it isn't worth the additional money for the VC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 22:37
|
|
