|
da keebsta knicca posted:Anyone know a good ebay store, or online camera store with cheap stuff in Canada? like the NCIX of cameras? I ordered the Tamron 17-50 for $450CAD shipped off this ebay store based here and they where dicks and would not ship to my work address with UPS because it didn't match my Paypal address. Just add your work address as a shipping address in paypal. might need to have them resend the payment.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2009 19:52 |
|
I mean I am all for performing elaborate paypal fraud on peoples accounts within the same city and having things shipped to my office where I could be easily caught but you know...
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 07:28 |
|
|
Also you can just wait for the 3 failed attempts (3 extra days) and then pick it up at the branch office. edit evensevenone posted:Just add your work address as a shipping address in paypal. might need to have them resend the payment. This is the best idea... most credit/debit cards allow for temporary/permanent additions of alternate addresses for just this reason.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2009 19:53 |
|
|
I bought a 17-50mm Tamron 2.8 last week after deciding between that and the 17-40 f4L, and returned it this week because it's just too loud. It's impossible not to distract subjects unless you're in the middle of a busy street. What a shame too, I really loved having a constant 2.8 aperture. For an example, with the 50mm 1.8 as reference, check this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl6NY4tFcG0
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2009 22:04 |
|
|
1024x768 posted:I bought a 17-50mm Tamron 2.8 last week after deciding between that and the 17-40 f4L, and returned it this week because it's just too loud. It's impossible not to distract subjects unless you're in the middle of a busy street. What a shame too, I really loved having a constant 2.8 aperture. Or you could just not be a creepy peeper and actually talk to people.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2009 22:18 |
|
|
HPL posted:Or you could just not be a creepy peeper and actually talk to people. Have you ever actually heard the lens focus?
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2009 22:50 |
|
|
1024x768 posted:Have you ever actually heard the lens focus? I've had one a lot longer than most of the people here have. Of course I've heard the lens focus. It's just that I either use it in places where it's too loud for the lens to be heard or I'm taking photos of people that want their photo taken. If you're concerned about getting caught, put the lens in manual focus mode at 17mm, crank it to infinity focus, close the aperture to around f/8 and have at 'er. HPL fucked around with this message at Jul 10, 2009 around 22:58 |
| # ? Jul 10, 2009 22:54 |
|
|
HPL posted:If you're concerned about getting caught, put the lens in manual focus mode at 17mm, crank it to infinity focus, close the aperture to around f/8 and have at 'er. I just love when you talk dirty  
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2009 23:13 |
|
|
1024x768 posted:I bought a 17-50mm Tamron 2.8 last week after deciding between that and the 17-40 f4L, and returned it this week because it's just too loud. It's impossible not to distract subjects unless you're in the middle of a busy street. What a shame too, I really loved having a constant 2.8 aperture. Holy *poo poo* that's loud. I don't know if I am going to go with the 17-50 now, I am so used to my quiet 30mm! EDIT: I watched quite a few more videos with the lens. It doesn't sound that bad. The original video really picked up on that AF motor! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikHtZoDkInk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BuXfRQ-4os (incredibly quick) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyHsJ4ZRccw (silent?) jink fucked around with this message at Jul 10, 2009 around 23:32 |
| # ? Jul 10, 2009 23:20 |
|
|
Either I'm completely used to it (deaf) or you people are blowing this poo poo way out of proportions. Unless you want to sneak a shot on someone less than 5 meters away, the noise is nothing to worry about; the shutter's way, way louder.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2009 23:25 |
|
|
Well, my Sigma 50/1.4 arrived and.... it's everything I hoped for and then some. Sold my Canon 50/1.4 to get it and don't regret it for a second. It is, absolutely loving unbelievably sharp. I stuck it on my 1Ds II and my jaw dropped when I saw the shots. Then I viewed them at 100% and it dropped further. The loving thing is tack sharp at f/1.6 and VERY sharp wide rear end open. Sigma got this one right. GOD drat.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 00:09 |
|
|
Can I see a sample? I'm curious.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 00:12 |
|
|
germskr posted:Can I see a sample? I'm curious. Not the best sample, but here's a 100% f/1.6 crop. 16.6 MP.  That would be from about a six foot print if you are viewing it at 72 dpi. Keep in mind, f/1.6... 1.6 It gets far sharper at f/2-2.2
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 00:16 |
|
|
The 17-50 is only really loud when it's hunting and going from end to end. If it can find a lock quickly all you hear is a little faint blip as it jolts into place. As mentioned, the shutter and mirror are louder in those instances.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 01:45 |
|
|
1024x768 posted:I bought a 17-50mm Tamron 2.8 last week after deciding between that and the 17-40 f4L, and returned it this week because it's just too loud. It's impossible not to distract subjects unless you're in the middle of a busy street. What a shame too, I really loved having a constant 2.8 aperture. The 17-40L isn't a particularly great lens on a crop: it's slow at f/4 and too short compared to the EF-S glass available. I used one on my XT for a while and had no regrets about getting rid of it.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 01:54 |
|
|
I'm a lazy babby, someone recommend me a good tripod & ball head combo. Needs to hold a D700 & 70-300 VR. Preferably under $200.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 02:14 |
|
|
Fangs404 posted:How do you carry it? I've seen slings and things you can attach to backpacks to carry tripods. Do you just carry it with your hands? That day I just lugged it around with my bare hands, but by the end of the night I was slinging it by opening one leg out to 45 and making it rest over my shoulder or behind my neck. I don't plan to carry it for that long for a while  If I did, I'd invest in a nice bag. Or find a way to mount a strap to it.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 04:12 |
|
|
I have a couple of questions for you guys; How do I scan my film photos into my computer? Do I scan the negative, or the printed photo? How? Can just use a normal scanner or is there a special film scanner?
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 04:53 |
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I have a couple of questions for you guys; There are dedicated film scanners that scan your negatives. They are much better than a flatbed scanner scanning a print. This is an example of a good one
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 05:10 |
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I have a couple of questions for you guys; If you want something more multipurpose, you can get a flatbed scanner with a transparency unit built in. These can usually scan negatives of various sizes.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 05:14 |
|
|
multigl posted:I'm a lazy babby, someone recommend me a good tripod & ball head combo. Needs to hold a D700 & 70-300 VR. Preferably under $200. Tripod I can't help you with, but I have this ballhead, and it easily supports a D200 + grip full of AAs + 5-pound lens. Should have no trouble supporting whatever you have. The quick release plate is also really nice, and nearly impossible to accidentally release.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 06:17 |
|
|
So I've decided to upgrade from my Rebel XS to something a little beefier, but I'm not quite sure which camera to upgrade to. Right now, my choices are the Canon 50D or 500D, and the Nikon D90 or D5000. The reason I am considering everything other than the 50D is because of the video option in the other 3 cameras. I already own a Canon HV20, but would probably sell it if the video performance of my DSLR was decent enough. Does anyone have any experience with the video mode of the D90, D5000 or 500D (T1i)? Is the quality at 720p decent? What kind of format does it save under? I don't own any lenses for the XS other than the kit lens and nifty fifty, so this would be an optimal time to change to Nikon if I chose to do so. How does the D90 compare to the 50D as far as image quality? Is the video mode in the D90 better than the D5000? Does the D5000 have an AF motor, or is it gimped like the D40 and D60? Regarding the 500D, how does it compare to the 50D as far as high ISO performance and general image quality? Is it basically the same camera in a smaller package and with video? Would getting the 50D over the 500D be worth the extra $300 CAD? Thanks for any replies, I'm really excited about upgrading!
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 12:55 |
|
|
1024x768 posted:I bought a 17-50mm Tamron 2.8 last week after deciding between that and the 17-40 f4L, and returned it this week because it's just too loud. It's impossible not to distract subjects unless you're in the middle of a busy street. What a shame too, I really loved having a constant 2.8 aperture. On Sony/Minolta the lens is screw driven via the body, so a lot of the noise is determined by the camera motors, and the new ones in the later Sony bodies are a lot quieter. While the lens certainly isn't silent I haven't had anyone ever complain about it. The micromotors in the Canon version are probably not as quiet though. If you need absolute silence then yeah this lens isn't for you. I wouldn't say it's as loud as a set of open headers, though.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 13:11 |
|
|
Educated Eggdicator posted:
I have taken a couple clips with the T1i, it saves them in .mov format. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzzRgNtLNY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys1HwlIkriU If you click "watch in hd" on both of them you get them at full res. They were both shot in 720p. edit: ok I was wrong, the youtube player only plays them back at 855x480. Still that gives some idea of the quality. Also, I have found that if you pan quickly you sometimes get a shearing effect. slearch fucked around with this message at Jul 11, 2009 around 15:14 |
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 15:10 |
|
|
Rolling shutter. All dSLR's do that, pretty much.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 15:58 |
|
|
Educated Eggdicator posted:Regarding the 500D, how does it compare to the 50D as far as high ISO performance and general image quality? Is it basically the same camera in a smaller package and with video? Would getting the 50D over the 500D be worth the extra $300 CAD? It's basically the same sensor in a smaller package, but that's where the differences end. The 500D takes a more aggressive noise-reduction approach, so you have to watch that at the higher ISO ratings. The ergonomics of the 50D are much, much better than the 500D. It's a magnesium-alloy body rather than polycarbonate, it's larger and more fitted to the hand, and the controls are much better-designed and suited to changing settings on the fly, without menu digging. It just "feels" a lot better in the hand and during use. The 50D's autofocus will be much faster, more accurate, and more sensitive in low light than the 500D's. The frame-rate and buffer size of the 50D are higher than the 500D: the 50D shoots at 6.3fps, 16 frames vs the 500D's 3.4, 9 frames. Also, something to note about the 500D: its 1080p video shoots at 20fps. Its 720p and VGA modes shoot at 30fps, though.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 18:08 |
|
|
dakana posted:It's basically the same sensor in a smaller package, but that's where the differences end. The 500D takes a more aggressive noise-reduction approach, so you have to watch that at the higher ISO ratings. Not relevant if shooting in raw though, right?
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 18:30 |
|
|
HPL posted:Not relevant if shooting in raw though, right? I can't say for sure in the case of the 500D and 50D, but you can't assume that's always true. RAW isn't really just the sensor output. It has still been run through processors, converters, etc. Nikon have released cameras with the same sensor a few times and the newer camera will always have better image quality, presumably as the engineers fine tune the electronics to get the best out of the sensor.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 18:40 |
|
|
If anyone's interested in a used Canon EOS Rebel G body w/ bag or EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens for cheap, I posted mine in SA Mart. God the job market sucks dick.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 19:01 |
|
|
TokenBrit posted:I can't say for sure in the case of the 500D and 50D, but you can't assume that's always true. I meant about the noise reduction. Usually raw looks worse because it hasn't been run through a bazillion filters yet.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 19:04 |
|
|
High ISO looks distinctly better on the D5k than on the D300. At least Nikon does run *some* processing on the sensor output.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 20:15 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:High ISO looks distinctly better on the D5k than on the D300. At least Nikon does run *some* processing on the sensor output. it's also a newer sensor with newer algorithms.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 21:45 |
|
|
The sensor's the same AFAIK (it's in the D90 too). So yeah the processing in camera matters, even for RAW.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 22:35 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The sensor's the same AFAIK (it's in the D90 too). So yeah the processing in camera matters, even for RAW. Thom Hogan seems to think the D90's sensor is not the same as the D300. http://www.bythom.com/nikond90review.htm posted:The sensor has been bumped from the old 10.2mp Sony to a modified 12.3mp Sony similar to (but not the same as) the D300's. he could be wrong, but the output between the 90 and 300 is different enough to suggest the sensors are not one in the same.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2009 22:56 |
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:There are dedicated film scanners that scan your negatives. They are much better than a flatbed scanner scanning a print. Thats a little bit out of my budget. I'll see if I can find it on craigslist. CanuckBassist posted:If you want something more multipurpose, you can get a flatbed scanner with a transparency unit built in. These can usually scan negatives of various sizes. Any examples? Or names I should look at?
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2009 03:07 |
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Any examples? Or names I should look at? I believe the Epson V500 and the Canon 8800F are two very affordable and good bang for the buck ones. Personally, I bought a previous generation one for $50 or so off of Craigslist, the Epson 3200. It's good enough for web sharing. If I ever need anything printed at a respectable size, I'll just pay to get them drum scanned. Edit: When I said previous generation, I meant a few generations.  Edit2: Oh poo poo, I forgot the most obvious one: Epson 4490. CanuckBassist fucked around with this message at Jul 12, 2009 around 03:22 |
| # ? Jul 12, 2009 03:15 |
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:I believe the Epson V500 and the Canon 8800F are two very affordable and good bang for the buck ones. Sounds great, I'll check it out
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2009 03:19 |
|
|
I have the 4490 and while it does a great job on medium format I have not gotten acceptable 35mm scans (other than for web size shots) out of it. Only paid something like $79 shipped though, so can't complain.
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2009 14:50 |
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I have the 4490 and while it does a great job on medium format I have not gotten acceptable 35mm scans (other than for web size shots) out of it. Only paid something like $79 shipped though, so can't complain. Shot in the dark but have you tried this?
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2009 19:50 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:Shot in the dark but have you tried this? "So, tell me why I got a sharper scan by placing the film on the glass instead of above the glas ??? Don't you believe me ?? I'm not telling a joke here ! Give me your email adres and I will send you the originals uncropped in tiff. Because I had to compressed the jpg to a max of 100 kb for this forum. So because of the compression is it possible that the difference isn't clear enough on the web." / 
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2009 21:59 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 07:28 |
|
|
Now that my D200 is on the way, I'll be getting the reccomended Tamron lens too. Something else i'll certainly need is a good flashgun. I'll be using this thing alot in nightclubs and other darker envionments so I'd like a flashgun that'll not be sat around waiting to charge up for the next shot. Ideas?
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2009 23:41 |
|
