|
Wyeth posted:
Gotta say that I am interested in this lens too. Pancakes are cool, and the price is quite affordable. 40mm on crop makes not so much sense to me, but on FF it is a really nice focal length. Used to be a strict 50mm guy, but in the past year I suddenly became enamoured with the 35-40mm range for some reason. It seems like most shooters eventually end up there for "general purpose" type shooting; I kept trying it over the years and never really liked it (too wide) but sometime last year it just clicked for me and started working. Now I don't shoot 50mm at all anymore (and will sell the ZE 50/1.4), and am happy with a 35/85 or so combo (20 and 45 on micro 43 right now). Also would like to throw in a vote for thread title: Camera Gear v8 (is really v12.8 on crop)
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
FormerFatty posted:I have a quick and possibly stupid question. Either. Your options are: M42 lens <-> M42 to K mount adapter <-> K mount TC <-> Camera or M42 lens <-> M42 TC <-> M42 to K mount adapter <-> Camera Note that if you go for the M42 TC make sure to research it first as a lot of cheap crap was offered in M42... And don't buy a 2X one!!! Martytoof posted:It's v12 on brands that matter Oh yeah, Sony.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
FormerFatty posted:Please elaborate Well, they give up so much optically that in almost all cases (excepting super high end combos like a Canon 300/2.8 and 2X III) you get a better result using a 1.4x and cropping. "Affordable" setups with a 2X generally end in (mushy) tears.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 08:23
|
|
|
FormerFatty posted:Would this degradation be as pronounced on a relatively wide aperture, good quality telezoom, say a 500mm f4.5 Asahi-Pentax? If you get a really good TC maybe you will be OK, but realistically you are better off with the 1.4.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 09:21
|
|
|
powderific posted:2x teleconverters really do need to have glass that's not just good but bordering on spectacular. Even a lens that's really excellent normally might wind up not so good with a 2x. Not to mention f/4.5 with a 2X would result in f/9, and you will likely need to stop down a bit for better results, meaning you will be shooting at something like ISO 800 or 1600 in the middle of the day... Try a 1.4x of good quality, the Pentax lens should work nicely with that. I have what is arguably spectacular glass (500L) and I am not going past 1.4x on that either.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
Been very happy with Lenmar myself. Their batteries fit as well as OEM ones (unlike most others) on the 1Ds II.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:I would like to buy a polarizing filter for my GF1's lenses. From reading the first post in this thread I believe I need a circular polarizing filter. Well, the OP is not entirely correct; you need a step-up ring to adapt a bigger filter to a smaller lens thread. Step-down rings are the opposite, where you want to stick a smaller filter on a lens with a bigger thread diameter--usually not a good idea because of vignetting. Personally I chose to have a set of different size polarizers so I can use my lenses with their hoods; if you use step-up rings you want to make sure to have a hood that fits the polarizer's threads.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Yeah, I figured out that step-down and step-up rings are different before I purchased :p. Every lens should have a hood. Wish all manufacturers (looking at you, Canon and Olympus) included the hood instead of charging rear end-raping prices for them separately. You would think they have an interest in ensuring the buyer gets the best possible pictures out of the thing, so why skimp on a dollar's worth of plastic that actually helps image quality? Fuckers. On a gear note, picked up this: http://www.ghilliesuitwarehouse.com/products/CamoSystems-Jackal-Ghillie-Suit.html Should be a little more portable than my bag hide. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Lens hoods also bounce when the lens goes face first into things. That too. It blows my mind when I see people (just went to Legoland in Denmark with my daughter, lots of examples there) shoot with the following combo: Camera, lens, REVERSED lens hood, cheap poo poo "protective" filter. Yeah, explain that one.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
spog posted:I've got one of those cheapy knock-off battery-grips. The controls seem okay, but it's made of that horrible plastic that feels like it will shatter if you squeeze it too hard. Try some gaffer's tape; every photographer should own a roll anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Unless I'm mis-reading you, Olympus does include hoods with their lenses. Not m4/3 that I have seen. E.g. 45/1.8, 12/2, 75/1.8 etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Apparently they were available for the Icarex 35 at some point, but good luck finding one. I've always wanted a WLF in 35mm too. Some Exaktas had them as well. Or get a Yashica T4 which is a point and shoot with a WLF.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Does the Yashica really have a WLF though? After a quick google image search it just looking like a regular point and shoot brilliant viewfinder with a mirror. Not TTL, no, but still a waist level finder of sorts. Kind of like a TLR.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:I don't think it will work. USB ports output a very small amount of DC power (5 volts, .5 amps), whereas wall outlets put out a much larger amount of AC power (110-120 volts, 15-20 amps). Even if you converted the USB output to AC power through a voltage converter, it's not going to have anywhere near as much power as the charger is expecting. I would not expect the charger to function, or if it does, it won't work in any meaningful way. The same would be true for pretty much anything you plugged in, so that's probably why no one has built such an adapter. Well, the charger is not going to pull any 15 amps from your 120v outlet. I just grabbed my 7d charger and it uses 0.21 amps at 120v. But yeah, even that is about 5x what USB can supply.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:That's the input, the output (for the charger I grabbed) is 8.4v @ .55 amps which is 4.6W, less than twice the standard for usb (2.5W). Well, the charger I used for an example has an output of 8.4v 1.2A so 10.1 watts which is borderline for the high power USB ports (e.g. the ipad draws 10 watts). Definitely plausible, you are right.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 11:22
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Some fucker on RangefinderForums supposedly bought a dresser full of Leica Ms and Leica lenses for $50. I have to call the most immense bullshit on his story, but I guess the kernel of truth in the whole thing is that there are people out there with "old film cameras" that don't know what they're worth and will probably give you a great deal on their dead husband's old film leicas because their grandson just bought them a new panasonic something-or-other point and shoot. Some years back I was at a used camera fair, and witnessed a quite old guy looking to sell his "old cameras" to one of the "camera dealers" there. The dealer took a look at some rather minty Leica IIIs with what appeared to be absolutely perfect lenses (some very rare ones at that), said the shutters were "probably old and worn" and offered... 200 bucks. I pulled the guy aside rather quickly and explained what he had and what it was worth and he ended up going back home to figure out a better way to resell it. Sorry, camera dealer, you were a greedy rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:FYI after handling a real life Leica M3 I now have the Leica lust. Yeah, you are screwed. I have an M3 + 50/2 Summicron DR (with no haze!) and it is pure camera porn. Look for an M4-2, they are really nice and often don't run too high on ebay. I bought mine for 400 bucks and later traded it for an M3. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
dissss posted:With my Canon I use it travelling because jpegs are much easier to look though on a netbook. If you are just going to look through them why not shoot RAW+S and save some space?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2012 11:58
|
|
|
spog posted:I don't think all bodies can shoot RAW+S: my S90 and 400D only have RAW+L, my 40D has RAW+all Ah, did not know there were bodies without RAW+S. Learn something new every day. As for sRAW, yeah, not sure. If the files were much smaller I could see the purpose, but I gather that the mid-size sRAW file is not much smaller than the real thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Anyone have the Olympus OM 28mm f/2.8? I'm going overseas in 2 weeks and a wider lens for my OM1 would be nice. I have the 28/3.5 and it is quite nice; I gather the 28/2.8 is even better though not by much. Have you considered the 24/2.8? I paid 120 bucks for mine and it is wonderful.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Supersonic posted:I've owned a Canon Rebel XT for a year now, and I've become fairly decent at shooting in manual mode with my 18-55 (non IS) kit lens. For one of my jobs, I need to frequently take photos of cans. I'm looking for an affordable lens which can take nice photos of said cans in various settings. Which kind of lens should I be looking for? Keep in mind that the 85s have a relatively long minimum focusing distance, which may come into play when doing product shots.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
Man, I love those Fujis!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
HPL posted:Pentax glass is probably the best bang for the buck because it's so common plus there are bazillions of third-party K-mount lenses out there. I'd stay away from the old Russian M39 glass because it's not as good as your typical multicoated Japanese SLR glass plus minimum focus distances are usually poor with rangefinder lenses. M39... First off, M39 is not always rangefinder glass. There were SLRs using M39 (i.e. 39mm diameter thread), and some great commie lenses like the Helios 85/1.5 can be found in that mount. No clue if adapters for those to NEX are available, but I recall having to use M39->M42->EF adapters on Canon some time back. The more common M39 is rangefinder mount, but there you have some, uh, local dialects if you wish. Leica used a 26 threads per inch 39mm diameter version, while the russians (FED for instance) used a 1mm thread pitch, which was slightly off and can potentially cause some troubles. Then there was Canon using a 24 threads per inch mount, further adding to the confusion. As for Pentax, the best bang for the buck is to be found in M42 mount (thankfully this one is standardized if you do not consider the Tamron T-mount). There are tons of great lenses in M42, not only Pentax.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
longview posted:Should have bought Pentax Yeah, I really do not get why other manufacturers have not done this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 13:02
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Patented hole technology! Even if Pentax does have a patent, I'd imagine you could just buy the entire company for about tree fiddy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Ricoh beat you to that, sorry! And so did Hoya, but once Ricoh realizes there is not much profit to be made in selling (well engineered) premium crop bodies to people who will never buy a new lens since a mold-ridden 1970s Takumar is God's gift to photographers Pentax will probably be passed on to the next suitor.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:It's also worth noting that screw-drive lenses CAN'T have really nice smooth focus rings - if they had that much dampening on them, the screw drive would poo poo itself trying to AF them. I assume you went away from the Canon gear discussed as Canon does not use any screw drive lenses; that said, you can definitely have decent manual focusing feel AND screw drive, go check out the Pentax 77/1.8 for instance. The screw drive autofocus is not attempting to turn the manual focusing ring on many lenses, but rather it is decoupled at that point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:It doesn't really change the DOF, only the light-capturing ability. That would be a really neat trick.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:That’s how the numbers work out. The 0.71× on the focal length and extra stop on the aperture exactly cancel each other out, as any depth of field calculator shows. Not sure we are talking about the same thing. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:We are. Yes, no disagreement there, however I was referring to what happens when you stick the speedboster on e.g. a 50/2.8 on a crop camera, vs shooting the "naked" 50/2.8 on the same crop camera. I was not debating the equivalency or lack thereof with the lens being used on full frame. And they are right in saying it "adds a stop of light" if you look at it from this point of view. If your options are shooting a naked 50/1.4 or a "boosted" 35-ish 1.0 on the same NEX-7 then you are indeed gaining a stop of light, no?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Of course. You gain a stop v. the naked lens on the NEX. That we can agree on. It boils down to the whole "equivalency" debacle, where the takeaway is that unless you need to shoot near wide open then full frame does not have a real advantage, as you can shoot at a larger aperture on crop and retain the same depth of field for a given subject distance and field of view. That one is always fun to bring up when people get all starry eyed waxing lyrical about full frame. As for the original post, yeah, you do gain an actual aperture stop (after all, that is how telecompressors work) but comparing to the lens on full frame the total light collection for the sensor has not increased.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 11:36
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Yeah, but it's not a Genuine Canon Lens Who the hell shoots Canon when there's a Zeiss in the same focal length?  Ugh, plebes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Am I right in thinking that Canon is lacking in the primes area? I know with Nikon I had a bunch of G lenses, AF-D lenses, AI, AIS, whatever I wanted to use, but the selection doesn't seem to be there with Canon, they seem to focus more on zooms. Am I wrong there? Dead wrong. Canon has something like 41 primes currently being sold.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Probably not as expensive as you would expect given the speed. I would guess that it's a 28-50 f/3.5 with a telecompressor built in. It's how Olympus pulls off their fancy f/2 zooms (they're pedestrian full-frame 70-200 f/4 designs licensed from Tamron or Sigma with telecompressors added in).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Digital. And you can, just not the other way around (EF-S won't mount on EF, but EF will mount on EF and EF-S). You can find a list of the Nikon lenses to worry about here: http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility Canon changed from FD to EF back in 1987, which was seen as a huge gently caress you to Canon photographers at the time but has left Canon with a ridiculously comprehensive and compatible lens collection since that will work on any EF body. In fact, a modern IS lens will stabilize even on a body from the 80s. Good stuff. EF-S was introduced in 2003 with the original Digital Rebel. The 10D which came before while a crop body does not mount EF-S lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Local camera store went out of business and sold their entire stock at 50%+ discounts. Went there to stock up on M43 gear (scored a 7-14, 100-400 and 45 macro), and got this little thing at 75% off.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:$2500? 25000 SEK, around 3000 USD. They go for 107,000 SEK new here. Got a 55/2,8 SDM with it. Ordered a 150/3.5 and looking for a 35 as well. So drat fun being back to using medium format with big floppy mirrors and oversized cameras. This one is built really well too (weather sealing etc) and basically acts like a large DSLR. Good button layout, articulated screen, useful high ISO etc. Love it. The files are glorious but that's to be expected. Had no intentions of buying something like this, but the conversation went something like "Oh, is that a 645D up there?" "No, it's the Z." "Oh, well, nevermind then, bit out of my budget." "How about 25k?" "Are you loving joking?" *pulls out wallet* Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:
Oh, been out with it quite a bit. What a machine. Took some pics of the kids with their grandparents in a darkish room at ISO 25,600 and could easily make a nice size print of that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2018 07:48
|
|
congrats, take some pictures
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
the yeti posted:Since the tripod thread is ancient and archived, what's babby's first decent tripod these days? I need it to keep a D700 and telephoto/macro lenses stable, so 2-3kg I'd guess. How much are you looking to spend? Tripods generally fall under the "buy once, cry once" category where you'll eventually buy a fairly decent one so may as well get it right away and enjoy it rather than spending 2x as much on inferior ones to eventually arrive at it. So get a nice Gitzo. You've earned it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2018 21:26
|
|