|
Wild EEPROM posted:Don't be the guy with the photography vest who uses the blackrapid double camera sling and 2 bodies everywhere you go. It would be much more reasonable to bring two 5dIIIs with these lenses instead~
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 20:14
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
torgeaux posted:I just got back from a Disney world trip with the boy. Saw a nice man taking a non-discript family photo, but I could see he had a Canon with a 70-200 2.8 II as a second camera. I waited a sec to see what he was shooting with while his 1Dx hung unused. It was a 645D. If you had the money, you would do the same. Admit it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
fjelltorsk posted:so, i have gotten back into photo after some years of snapshots with my phone. I have an old 5d (mark 1) and i am in the process of building up my stable of glass. I have a terrible 70-300mm f3,6-whatever, no is that i got with my 350d back in the day. i have also picked up a Sigma 50mm 1,4. i love that lens. I would tell you to get the 2.8, but it's a seriously heavy piece of glass and one that you might not want to lug around all day while you'll hardly notice the weight of the 4 IS. I'd try both out (in a store or from a friend) and/or walk around with the 5d and the 24-105 first. If the latter already seems heavy to you, get the 70-200/4 IS.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
Haggins posted:This is a shot from the other day when I was shooting in the rain. It's my 24-105 but I did used my 70-200 a bunch that day too. I probably should have go something to cover the hot shoe (the Canon suggestion is to put a 580ex II over it I poured wine into my 40D's hot shoe. It's still working four years later. SMERSH Mouth posted:I've definitely used back button focus on a borrowed 5dmkii before. I'm not sure that the XSi even has it as an option but I'll definitely check now. It has. Check the C.Fn.s.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 14:37
|
|
) and next time I'll get a UV filter for weather sealing. Had no issues during or afterwards. 
by
|
Helicity posted:UV filters are usually sold to "protect" a lens, when they are actually likely to cause more harm in the event of a drop. Use a lens hood to protect your front element, or alternately don't treat your lenses like a filthy animal would. It's also a cheap piece of glass in front of your $500 Zeiss lens or whatever, which doesn't make sense. Unless they're really nice glass and you need to complete a waterseal, I'd ditch them. Indestructible Hoya HD filters  Since I pretty much drag my camera equipment through the mud, I have UV filters on at all times and remove them for the 0.1% of shots where they introduce excessive flaring. I just bought replacements for two that are ridiculously scratched and I'm happy I don't have to get front elements replaced (on the other hand, Canon lens repairs around here are fixed rates regardless of parts replaced so I could just get a new front element every time something else breaks...  )
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:For some people, they're worth it. Low, low percent though. And things that scratch a filter won't necessarily scratch the lens. Haggins posted:Tiny scratches aren't a big deal either, you won't notice them in the photos. Also if you ever do break your front element, it's the cheapest part of the lens to repair. I checked the filter and it was scratched deeply enough to feel the scratches with my finger nails, and to make the scratches visible at up to 60-ish mm on my 24-105. It's living on a 300 f/4 now, until it gets another bad scratch right in the middle
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:LENS BABY sounds like the kind of name associated with a cellphone photo filter, not a $500 macro lens. Lensbaby have been around for a while and originally made a cheap 50mm "tilt shift" (read: mounted on a bellows with guide rails instead of a barrel so you can bend the thing by hand) lens for around $100 which was rather well received. It looks like they're trying to get expand into more serious ) lens.BANME.sh posted:Most of the examples they show look like poorly executed gimmicky photoshop effects Yeah. It's a remake of lenses with not-entirely-ugly optical abberations that ended up being largely replaced by photoshop effects when digital cameras happened.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Yeah, their original plan seemed a better market to work within. For $100 I'd probably pick that tilt-shift up if I was bored. When we start talking actual money, it'll have to convincingly beat that Tokina 100mm that's $380 at B&H and seems well liked from what I can see. But hey, I'll keep an open mind - especially if good reviews come in for it. Just such a terrible name, at least use a faux Japanese sounding thing! It's not a macro lens. It's a
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Hey guys, B&H has a great deal on the Hasselblad Lunar, aka the $6k NEX 7 at $1495 Ahahahaha. quote:Engineered for your dreams of intergalactic space travel, the Hasselblad Lunar is built to remind you of your terrestrial origins, yet invoke a sense of the cosmos to come. Finished with a firm, textured Italian black leather grip and adorned with ruby-embellished control dials, the Lunar's artisanal quality pairs with titanium mechanical controls, a carbon fiber shell, and a physical vapor deposition coating. This melding of time-honored craftsmanship and futuristic intent recall the earliest missions to space, where the original Hasselblad 500C became the first camera to enter outer space. Employing luxurious Italian design with Swedish ingenuity, the Lunar is a proud object not just capable of producing other-worldly imagery, but also serving as a multi-generational symbol of the past, present, and future. Statistically speaking there must be a person sufficiently dumb and rich to take this seriously, but goddamn 
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 08:02
|
|
at that hasselblad lunar. just lol.
|
timrenzi574 posted:Tamron USA (not sure about other countries) -will not- service gray market equipment, even for $$. It's not just a refusal to honor grey market warranties - they will not fix it at all. This sucks. How do they deal with people who buy stuff on holiday, or with pros who work in more than one country?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:I have no idea, but it's obnoxious. Probably why pros don't buy from these companies. Yeah, but I've heard Nikon can also be obstinate about servicing non-US stuff so...
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
How did a SD1 cost as much as a 1Dx 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
murked by dragon posted:So I've been out of the photography loop for quite some time now and I'm looking to upgrade my current setup, but I'm in a weird situation. On a technical level either is fine, really. At the moment Nikon has slightly better noise at high ISO than most Canon cameras, but this will probably flip back and forth every couple of years. Nikon has 60fps full HD video on more cameras but that's also one Canon model refresh away from equalising. Canon has some extremely specialised lenses that Nikon stopped making like >1:1 macros and vice versa like the 135 DC for extra smooth Bokeh, and there's more cheap-but-sufficiently-good Chinese knockoff accessories for Canon. The 70-300 is good for wildlife and to get something much better you'd need to spend like 1.5k-2k extra Canadian funbucks - it would make sense to stay with Nikon and add a mid-tier walkaround/landscape lens unless you a) loving hate how Nikon arranges their buttons (this can make or break the photographing experience) or b) need manufacturer-exclusive lenses or a shitton of cheap flashes. Given that you want to do both landscapes and wildlfe, I would also recommend a good sturdy and light tripod, which is also not cheap. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
evensevenone posted:How much worse actually is a ~$100 Manfrotto ballhead (or similar) than a ~$400 Really Right Stuff? Will I regret the Manfrotto? Largest lens is a 70-200 2.8 and a 6D. Most Manfrotto ballheads are decent, but unremarkable The  Manfrotto XPro ballhead is extremely good, extremely convenient to use, punches above its price, and comes in an Arca-compatible version unlike every other affordable Manfrotto ballhead. You should definitely buy it unless you specifically like fold-back travel tripod legs (it's fat and gets in the way).I had an XPro and IMO there is nothing that can compete with it that doesn't cost at least twice as much. It noticeably outclasses some of the more expensive Manfrotto heads, even the better Chinese knockoff ballhead brands like Sirui aren't remotely comparable at the same price (if you point a 6D+70-200/2.8 and maybe a flash ca 45° down, all the Chinese ballheads will creep further down unless you overtighten them to the point your thumb hurts), and the only alternative I know of that doesn't totally suck is the medium-size Feisol ballheads (they're quality ballheads, but they're more fiddly to operate and you have to void your warranty and superglue down/strip out the safety pin to make them play nice with non-Feisol Arca-type plates). I eventually sold my XPro because I'm the idiot who wants his tripod to fit in a shoebox during travel, and I had to spend 3x as much on a Markins Q-Ball Q20 to get a slightly slimmer head with same or better quality, and even then the Markins is still a bit less convenient to use.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Added bonus: you can use your manfrotto legs as an impromptu weapon to survive 2 seconds longer before the bear rips your chest open. Sounds about right  I'm actually not a huge fan of Manfrotto legs because their XPro refresh hasn't been quite as awesome as the one for the heads and non-carbon fiber legs don't really exist for me, but yeah, if you don't mind lugging a bit more weight they're a more solid (heh) option.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Kilometers Davis posted:It's really a shame tripods are so pricy. I don't think they have to be by any means but you know, that's business. I guess I'll put off grabbing one for a while and eventually shoot for something close to $150. I can't imagine the cheaper ones are really THAT bad but I trust you all more than I trust the lack of good info around the internet. $150 excluding or including head? And as a former owner and current user (work...) of cheap tripods, yes, sadly they are by and large total garbage. e: a good option for you might be getting some older Manfrotto 055/190/other good model+head, the previous-generation versions (including new boxed ones!) often go for quite cheap on ebay. Don't get the "compact" or "traveller" labelled ones, they're garbage. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jul 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Kilometers Davis posted:Including head would be ace but it doesn't really matter. I'll keep an eye out for some. I don't use eBay but the price issue is less I can't afford it and more I can't stop buying music gear. I'm going to do a little research on the Manfrottos and see what would be a good fit. Are there any not totally obvious things to consider in regards to max/min height? Get the best tripod/head you can afford for your expected amount of camera/lens in the foreseeable future (within reason, don't spend ten times more on tripods than cameras+lenses I guess). If you buy a cheaper one now you'll end up selling it on ebay and getting the better one in a year, because even beyond the "minimally adequate" threshold there are actually useful features and quality-of-life improvements up to ca. $1500 for DSLR tripod/head combos I'd say. If all you can afford is like $150 then that's all the tripod equipment you need to take good photos assuming you also bring the necessary skills. However, when you play with your friend's $800 tripod with $600 head you'll realise it exists for a reason (even though it would cost $200+$150 if it wasn't marketed to photographers), and if you are well-off enough to afford it in the first place, you might as well pay for the extra speed and convenience. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jul 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Theophany posted:
fixed that for you sadly, most other software is even more garbage, and none (except DxO for a few things) is actually good
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 08:46
|
|
Adobe CC software is garbage
|
DJExile posted:oh no  is that thing useable on cameras other than olympus?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I don't see why not. Seems like it'd fit any standard hotshoe Neat. I was worried it would be "smart" and try to communicate with the camera or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Astrophotography is a rabbit hole. The amount of sperging that goes into it is incredible. Like, they even have charts for what maximum focal length is useful for a given sensor pixel density. Well, why wouldn't you have a precisely calculated cheat sheet to minmax the detail resolved by your lens/sensor combination?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
khysanth posted:Wife upgraded from a 7D to a 5Dmk3. Need to get some full frame lenses now. She has been using the trusty 17-50 Tamron for a while... what's the equivalent lens to look for in FF? Any other sweet recommendations? Some sort of 24-70 or 24-105 type lens, depending on desired level of price, tank-like construction, aperture, IS, ultrasonic focus. Don't bother getting an ancient 28-x lens, they're not terrible but at that point why not just stick with the 7D+17-50.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
hope and vaseline posted:On the other hand, if the guy just wants a picture of a big moon, why not go with an superzoom? Even a budget rebel + 70-300 is gonna run him way upwards of that, let alone a telephoto prime + tc + tripod, etc. Yeah this is prefectly ok if you just want a sort of adequate image to document what you're seeing, and quite honestly is less poo poo than ~83x zoom to 1000mm equivalent~ would suggest. Though I should note that my definition of "small sensor" has been quite severely skewed by using a shitton of microscope and machine vision cameras lately, where even a 4/3 sensor is considered a humongous piece of high-end kit that many optics aren't even designed to illuminate and 1/4-2/3" sensors are the norm.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Oh yeah all the discussion about that kinda made me put the lid on that idea. I did want a better camera, but maybe that's just not possible to achieve on my budget so I'll just continue as is then. Well taking a good moon shot isn't exactly the first thing most photo beginners will do, so there's probably a lot of cheaper but still good stuff you can use for other photos.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2018 11:13
|
|
|
Verman posted:Also sigma, release the 70-200 2.8 art already. It'll be a 70-200 2.8 sports though, given it's one of two standard pro lenses. alkanphel posted:Sirui Ehhhhhhhhhhhh. I tried the ballheads and was not impressed, they're minimally adequate for light gear but you have to tighten them for way too many turns until they don't sag with even a slightly heavy lens pointed at an angle. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 10:59
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:25000 SEK, around 3000 USD. They go for 107,000 SEK new here. congrats, take some pictures
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Yes. The Canon still edges out on image quality but it's very close and anyone that worries about the faint differences is one of those filthy pixel peepers. It’s the same for the Tamron 100-400.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2018 09:59
|
|
|
Manfrotto heads are mostly outdated now, but they have one outstandingly good one, the X-Pro ballhead with the Arca-compatible (not the Manfrotto proprietary) option. Legs I'd recommend anything Feisol, though with the Manfrotto X-Pro they'd probably slightly bust your budget.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
the yeti posted:Yeah, they do lol. I had them and they’re heavy as gently caress. No way you want to carry them unless you’re really fit. A set of either lighter 190 series Manfrotto legs or cheap Chinese carbon fiber legs (generously overspec them wrt camera weight rating) is better because a slightly less high quality tripod in the field is better than a rock solid tripod left at home. Also seriously consider ebay, used tripod legs with screw tightening legs (ie not the manfrotto style flip locks which can wear out without it being externally visible) will probably be just fine unless they’re visibly damaged. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Apr 25, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Maybe I just have a fantastic copy but I don't have these issues with my Manfrotto ball head. It's even a compact one too. It was a little greasy from the previous owner using it as the grease from the lock mechanism transfers to the ball over time but once I cleaned it out it's been nothing but rigid. The sag has already been mentioned, plus they’re mostly not arca compatible which imo disqualifies a tripod head from being considered acceptable after ~2005.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:And their heads continue to use their own proprietary quick release plates instead of the superior swiss-arca everyone else uses. Ironically, Arca Swiss are now trying to migrate people to a smaller plate standard because their own regular Arca plates suck and everyone‘s buying compatible plates from Wimberley/random Chinese ebay sellers. Luckily they’re failing  .
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2018 07:59
|
|
|
qirex posted:Is there a go-to for tabletop/mini tripods? I tried a Gorillapod when they first came out and didn't really dig it since it was hard to balance and it acted like a spring when you hit the shutter. Since I can trigger my camera from an app now I guess the shutter is less of an issue. I just want something tiny, the Manfrotto Pixi seems to pop up a lot. Any other suggestions? Manfrotto Pixi is the least bad cheap table top tripod. It’s still pretty bad though, honestly. If you can afford it, get the Feisol TT-15 and a small ball head.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 09:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
If you’re literally looking for a table tripod I can recommend (to the exclusion of literally everything else) the Feisol table tripod. Unlike all other mini tripods it’s not a plasticky gimmick, it’s actually a miniature version of a regular rock-solid tripod. You‘ll need to buy a small ball head for it though. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Aug 9, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2018 07:45
|
|