BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Plasmid said:
NEX-5 has a Magnesium body, records in 1080i (vs. the NEX-3 which is 720p)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Official Camera Equipment Megathread
- Thread starter demon
- Start date
- Status
NEX-5 has a Magnesium body, records in 1080i (vs. the NEX-3 which is 720p)
Looks like Nikon might have a press conference on 4th of April where it probally show off the D5100 and the long awaited Nikon mirrorless camera:
http://nikonrumors.com/2011/03/11/nikon-press-event-on-april-4th.aspx
from the patents and artists concept drawing of what it might look like:
http://nikonrumors.com/2011/03/11/nikon-press-event-on-april-4th.aspx
from the patents and artists concept drawing of what it might look like:
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
I think the fact that Fuji had went with a dedicated lens for the X100 will hurt them if the Nikon Mirrorless is comparable in size. And I'm hoping the flange distance on the Nikon Mirrorless mount allows for great adaptability.
I think the fact that Fuji had went with a dedicated lens for the X100 will hurt them if the Nikon Mirrorless is comparable in size. And I'm hoping the flange distance on the Nikon Mirrorless mount allows for great adaptability.
bggrthnjsus
Member
i wish canon would start producing mirrorless cameras that were compatible w/ ef or ef-s lenses...i'd probably go back to canon from micro four thirds
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Looking for some info on a reliable tripod.
I'm guessing aesthetics to match some camera bodies that have sort of matte finish, or it's functional to make it easier to grip. I have some lenses that are smooth and it can be harder to mount and unmount.Antimatter said:
Also, that kind of finish disperses light, rather than reflect it, which can be helpful for not reflecting light back at your subject (models' eyes, revealing your location if you're birding).
I suppose overall, there are more disadvantages than advantages to having it a plain surface.
The_Inquisitor
Member
Bii said:
How much for the Macro?
The_Inquisitor
Member
Bii said:
Fuuuuuuuu. How much use did it get/condition? PM me details.
moop2000 said:
Go for a good name brand - and don't skimp on the cost. This is your expensive gear you're sticking on top! Don't go cheapo brand as you'll likely just go out after you discover it's not so good and get the better one anyway. Do it right the first time!
I go for Manfrotto.
I went with Manfrotto 190XPROB legs and 498RC2 ballhead. I think it's a great starter set.moop2000 said:
If you're not short like me, you may be better off going with Manfrotto 055XPROB legs. They cost a bit more, but you won't be relying on the centre extension rod (sorry, don't know the technical term) to have it meet your eye level.
A lot of people recommend the carbon fibre legs, but honestly, it's a lot of added cost and doesn't shed much weight at all.
If you plan on carting it around a bit, a shoulder strap like the MStrap-1 is a brilliant addition. Once it's slung on your shoulder, it feels like it weighs next to nothing, it's great.
killertofu
Member
I'm looking around for a decent wide-angle lens for my Canon. Any suggestions?
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
killertofu said:
How wide? Zoom lens or Prime? Canon makes a 10mm-22mm lens for their EF-S cameras thats supposed to be good (Sigma, Tokina and Tamron all make lenses this wide for Crop cameras too). If you want a prime then the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is supposed to be amazing for the price.
Instigator
Banned
MRORANGE said:Looks like Nikon might have a press conference on 4th of April where it probally show off the D5100 and the long awaited Nikon mirrorless camera:
http://nikonrumors.com/2011/03/11/nikon-press-event-on-april-4th.aspx
from the patents and artists concept drawing of what it might look like:
Welcome to 2009, Nikon.
It depends what conditions you're shooting under and what you want.Hammer24 said:
The only 2 filters which have effects that cannot be replicated in post are the circular polariser (cuts reflections and does wonderous things with colours if the lighting is right) and the neutral density filter (allows slower shutter speeds, especially in bright light).
Outside of that, the only filter I keep on all my lenses are UV filters (decent quality so as not to affect the quality of the lens it sits on). This is purely for protection only, I have never seen a shot with and without one that demonstrates anything to the contrary.
reggieandTFE
Member
Instigator said:
A lot of the rumors are pointing to Nikon having a tiny, point and shoot size sensor in their mirror-less cameras. The old guard at the company is too afraid of cannibalizing their DSLR sales.
345triangle
Member
olympus, panasonic and sony are all doing a pretty good job of biting into nikon's SLR sales already, so that would be kind of idiotic on their part. i can't really imagine it working as part of any existing or new lens mount system, either...
I'm partial to the Kenko Pro1 Digital range of filters for these. They're identical to the Hoya ones of the same name (they're actually the same company). If you go for a ND filter, don't mess around with the ND4 version, go straight for the ND8 (or ND400X if you don't mind spending the extra (make sure you really want it if you do)).Hammer24 said:
For animal portraits, these filters might not do a whole lot for you. The only one which may be handy is a ND filter, which may help get a narrower depth of field on your subject in bright sunlight. I can imagine this would be a rare occurrence, however.
As I mentioned earlier, both are great for landscapes, though I'd assume you'd be using something other than your telephoto lens for this purpose. In general, on your 70-300mm lens, I'd just be sticking with a UV filter only. Any other lenses would be a whole different story.
Edit: Some things worth knowing about polarising filers, especially the 90 degree rule, discussed here.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
reggieandTFE said:
That would definitely kill any interest I have in it. If thats the case I'd just stick with a Sony NEX.
A ND filter would be bad if you're trying to stop the motion. A circular polariser would cut the reflections on the water. As I said, for animal pictures such as those, they're hardly beneficial.Hammer24 said:
These are generally what ND filters are used for:
Waterfall
Silky water at the beach
This is what circular polarisers are generally used for:
Saturated colours, deeper blue in the sky (only works on things at a 90 degree angle to the sun)
Cutting reflections
Hope this helps some.
Forsete
Member
Sony NEX controlling aperture on a EOS lens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY1Nm6ZDWJs&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY1Nm6ZDWJs&feature=player_embedded
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Can't wait to see some dude mount his 800/5.6L to the NEX-5
killertofu
Member
I found a 580 Speedlite on craigslist for 300$. Would that be a better deal than trying to get a 430EX II?
Also, I remember always going to this one website about lighting a while back...but I'm having a brainfart as to what site is it. Does anyone have any idea? It just had blogposts about lighting
Also, I remember always going to this one website about lighting a while back...but I'm having a brainfart as to what site is it. Does anyone have any idea? It just had blogposts about lighting
killertofu
Member
YES. Me love you long timeDanoss said:
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
mrnorush said:u mean mount his nex-5 to the 800/5.4L
:lol Thats true
Hammer24 said:
Here's some of my own images that I've used my circular polarizer to take.
First, a disclaimer. I don't think these are true "no polarizer shots", but more likely shots with the polarizer on, but rotated to minimum effect. In a way i guess it sort of exaggerates the maximum effect, because when rotated to minimum effect, it will be cutting polarized light off angle. But you'll get the idea, as I don't think the 'minimum effect' rotation is that far off the 'real' image.
Also, my final images on the right MAY have been enhanced somewhat in a couple of the shots, but I think you'll still see the overall effect of the polarizer.
Anyway, to the images:
First up is the typical use. Light from the sky is polarized, with max effect about 90 degrees from the sun. By using a polarizer, you can essentially cut out a lot of sky light in that direction. That means you can take a more even exposure of the sky and land, making it appear more vibrant and less washed out.
Next is another common use - cutting reflections. It will only cut reflections if the light is polarized, like from off glass or water, but not from, say, diffuse scattering from a metal surface.
There can be a lot of other uses too, if you understand light. One use that many people don't think to use is actually in leafy areas, even in shade. The light reflecting off leaves is also polarized. By using it there, you cut off all the reflections off leaves, making for a much more vibrant green. Note it doesn't actually change the colour, it just takes off the white specularity off leaves allowing you to take a darker exposure without all the highlights.
Lastly, circular polarizers WILL darken your image, so be prepared to lose a stop or two of light. These images were not taken at the same settings - the polarizer/max effect photos would've been at higher exposure to compensate for the loss of light. Also, it can mess with the built-in metering (or at least I think so).
Again, there's no right or wrong in photography - it all depends on what YOU want out of your images. Sometimes, I think a polarizer takes away the 3D nature of photos - for example, your brain is used to seeing highlights and things to judge depth, and by taking them away, a photo may appear more colourful, but can also appear a little 'flat'.
Hope you can see the images.
JLateralus
Member
Mmm this showed up yesterday.
Can't wait for the weekend so I can get a real chance to try it out! Also have a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 arriving today. I love new toys.
Can't wait for the weekend so I can get a real chance to try it out! Also have a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 arriving today. I love new toys.
Camera-gaf help!JLateralus said:Mmm this showed up yesterday.
Can't wait for the weekend so I can get a real chance to try it out! Also have a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 arriving today. I love new toys.
I'm looking to get into DSLR and trying to decide between the 60d, 7d and the A55..looking for something mostly for capturing youth sports...mostly outdoors although normal "family" picture taking as well. Would definitely use a lot for video as well.
A55 - fastest burst (10fps) but long write times in between. Fasted focus times. Articulated lcd for taking vids is pretty much critical. The EVF rocks from what I can tell playing with one.
7d - the most toys and arguable the best picture quality and can burst at 7fps. Non articulated LCD sort of blows for videos and framing pictures from interesting angles. Also significantly more expensive than other two.
60d - 7d lite with slowest burst (5.3fps) but not huge wait times in between (like the A55). Articulated screen (yay).
Basically want a 7d with an articulated screen
.Am I missing any other good options (would rather not go Olympus) that have articulated screen, good burst (pref 6+), good video in that price range? Pentax and Nikon have non-articulated screens (UGH).
JLateralus
Member
offtopic said:
I already have Canon lenses, so brand wasn't really a choice for me, but I was deciding between the two of these. I'm not a big user of anything that was taken away or pared down from the 50D, so the feature set of the 60D was attractive to me for the price. I don't currently shoot much video, but would like to start, so the articulating screen did appeal to me as well. All in all, I'm happy with it.
offtopic said:Camera-gaf help!
I'm looking to get into DSLR and trying to decide between the 60d, 7d and the A55..looking for something mostly for capturing youth sports...mostly outdoors although normal "family" picture taking as well. Would definitely use a lot for video as well.
A55 - fastest burst (10fps) but long write times in between. Fasted focus times. Articulated lcd for taking vids is pretty much critical. The EVF rocks from what I can tell playing with one.
7d - the most toys and arguable the best picture quality and can burst at 7fps. Non articulated LCD sort of blows for videos and framing pictures from interesting angles. Also significantly more expensive than other two.
60d - 7d lite with slowest burst (5.3fps) but not huge wait times in between (like the A55). Articulated screen (yay).
Basically want a 7d with an articulated screen
Am I missing any other good options (would rather not go Olympus) that have articulated screen, good burst (pref 6+), good video in that price range? Pentax and Nikon have non-articulated screens (UGH).
I would wait and see if the D5100 uses the same sensor as the D7000 because if so then that would make it a better value especially for what you want. The only issue is that you won't be able to use autofocus on non AF-S lenses
You can do some stuff in post- for example you can darkens sky, provided you didn't blow it out. But it can be a pain. For other things like removing reflections off water and leaves - that just can't be done in post. You could probably get a similar look. To be honest, though, i'm the wrong guy to ask about post.Hammer24 said:
- Status