-
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
UnluckyKate
Member
Hey PhotoGAF, I have a maybe tricky question.
I love how the world looks like through my polarized sunglasses and for a week now, I have brown colored polarized glasses that makes the world all sepia smooth, leaving the green, blue and red very bright.
Is there brown polarized filters for lens ?
I love how the world looks like through my polarized sunglasses and for a week now, I have brown colored polarized glasses that makes the world all sepia smooth, leaving the green, blue and red very bright.
Is there brown polarized filters for lens ?
UnluckyKate said:
Wel, there are both polarisers and coloured filters, so i'm guessing people would stack them. Thing is, in the digital world, changing the tint or colour channel of an image is so trivial these days, I'm guessing the easiest way to duplicate the effect is to use a polariser and just shift the colour in post processing.
UnluckyKate
Member
mrkgoo said:
I don't post process much and I don't know how to tweak colors to get that great sepia and keeping green, red and blue so clean.
I'm using lightroom btw. There's lot of pre set post process but I don't know if I can create one and save it into that list.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
SaitoH said:
I have no idea of the quality of the Fotodiox Bellows but I do know that a Bellows setup will definitely offer more control over your magnification vs. tubes. The downside is that, generally, bellows require you work with a tripod when shooting. Other than that one of the best Macro setups is definitely working with a Bellows.
So if you wish to work detached from a tripod and taking very fast and loose macro photos handheld, definitely get the tubes. But if you want to do slow, methodical macro photography then I would get the bellows.
345triangle
Member
here's the first pic of the NEX-3 replacement, the NEX-C3!
that is pretty hot - i love my NEX-3 as a pocket cam, but this looks even smaller. i guess they didn't feel the need to add a mode dial or anything.
also i think i want that flash.
The post your gear thread made me think about it, I might (if I have the money) get myself a new lense for my K-r this year, but had no idea which to get.. There's the 10-17, and then the 12-24, or maybe the 17-70, or the 18-135.. or just the fixed 14mm, I'm lost.
Right now I have the 18-55 and 55-300 lenses, so I'm more looking at the wide angles, but the 17-70 and 18-135 would also help me not have to switch lenses as much. I mostly do trip photography, landscapes.
I was also thinking about getting a good P&S instead for when I don't want to, or can't, lug my K-r around and don't want cellphone pics. Is the Canon G series still the only one with a viewfinder, or are there any others? What would be the best choice in that line?
Right now I have the 18-55 and 55-300 lenses, so I'm more looking at the wide angles, but the 17-70 and 18-135 would also help me not have to switch lenses as much. I mostly do trip photography, landscapes.
I was also thinking about getting a good P&S instead for when I don't want to, or can't, lug my K-r around and don't want cellphone pics. Is the Canon G series still the only one with a viewfinder, or are there any others? What would be the best choice in that line?
killertofu
Member
Do you guys know how fast Amazon restocks with their lenses? I wanted to buy a 50 1.8 nikon lens for my girlfriend's graduation, but I don't think it'll get here in time...
UnluckyKate said:
Singh-Ray's Gold-n-Blue polarizer might be the filter you're looking for. Crazy expensive though... :/
I've probably asked in here a bunch of times already, but any suggestions on cheap m42 lenses? I bought a lens a while back that I posted on here that apparently was not M42 that I need to get rid of (it was cheap, like $15). I just want to play around with new glass, and I love my 50mm 1.8 and 18-135mm kit lens, but just seeing what vintage glass is different enough to try out for less than $100. Thanks.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Chairhome said:
Check out KEH.com and look at the Pentax Screwmount section
http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35...h-Lenses?s=1&bcode=PS&ccode=6&cc=55972&r=WG&f
Notables would be the 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 135/3.5 and 200/4 Takumars (I personally own the 135/3.5 Super Takumar). The build quality of the Takumars are phenomenal.
There's also the Russian Helios lenses like the Helios 44 (which I believe is the 50mm f/2). And the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses but these are relatively expensive compared to Takumars.
Unfortunately a lot of the prices for these lenses have been bumped due to people getting on the Manual Focus train (be it due to video and the adaptability of mirrorless bodies).
If you want a long lens to play with I would definitely suggest the 200/4 Takumar. It would make a great long landscape lens due to how sharp it is (and it looks to be going for $80 on KEH).
Yeah, I think you posting that you got the 135mm a while back is what started me on this crazy quest for new glass. Good stuff. Question regarding adapting m42 lenses, what is the conversion factor like? Like I know there is a conversion for APS-C already for regular EF lenses, but is there a further magnification due to m42? And what would the biggest advantages of these lenses be over the 50mm 1.8? sharpness? Thanks, BT!BlueTsunami said:
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Chairhome said:
The conversion should be the same, a 50mm M42 lens would react the same way as any other 50mm lens placed on the body.
I think the biggest advantage to some of these M42 lenses are the build quality and their Manual Focusing feel (the ring itself). If you really want to get into manual focusing you really need a lens made for manual focusing.
Optically pound for pound these lenses are great values. Though on average they aren't as fast as modern lenses. For instance you can get the Super Takumar 50/1.4 for around $150 and that lens rivals Canon's own 50/1.4 that goes for around $400.
MagniHarvald said:
You can get a 16-45mm f/4 and dump the kit lens. its very sharp. The 10-17 is a fisheye, its pretty useless.
The lack of 3rd party super wide is the reason I switched from Pentax to Nikon.
Only Canon G seris P&S still offer optical viewfinder. You have to go back to 4 generations ago to find a viewfinder in P&S like the F700. Nikon never made a G series competitor until very recently. There is a top tier P-something, it may have optical viewfinder. Personally, I rather get a LX3 or S90 to compliment the SLR.
tino said:
Thanks for the answers. How does the 16-45 compare to the 17-70? I hadn't really looked at it yet.
I love my Pentax so far but I've known since day 1 I wouldn't have the same range of lenses then I would have had with the D3100. Oh well, for my level and what I do, it's enough (for now..). And yeah, I'd noticed that the 10-17 was a fish-eye, which is why I was more interested in the 12-24 and 14mm. Thanks again =)
MagniHarvald said:
There are a few more 12-24 and 10-20 from Tamron and Sigma, none stand out of the pack. Me never like the Sigma color. You can let close focus distance, price to performance ratio etc to make decision for you. The excellent Tokina 11-16 is unfortunately not available for K mount.
If I am still on K mount, I probably will pick the 15mm pancake over the other 12-24. Pentax just does compact stuff better than other mounts.
Pentax made the 17-70 to replace the 16-45. The problem of the 17-70 is slightly overpriced. You can go up a little bit and get an used 16-50 "pro" lens. It's not as pro as the Nikon 17-50 but its damn good and weatherproof. You can also get a Tamron 17-50 2.8 or 17-70 2.8-4
Go to flickr and search "Pentax 16-45mm film" and you can find the photos I took with mine on film. It can be used as a full frame lens from 22-45mm range.
Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8 available for preorder now at most major retailers!
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004Y1AYAC/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Better order now while the price is cheap since prices on lenses have been going up like crazy due to the Earthquake disrupting supply (despite most lenses being made in China now).
The 35mm f/1.8 is already going up to $300 if you can find one.
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004Y1AYAC/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Better order now while the price is cheap since prices on lenses have been going up like crazy due to the Earthquake disrupting supply (despite most lenses being made in China now).
The 35mm f/1.8 is already going up to $300 if you can find one.
Lucky Forward
Member
I just went from a 20D to a 7D not long ago, my best advice would be to get used to using the Q button--it's really convenient bringing up all your important settings on the LCD screen at once, and being able to adjust them right on the screen.Hammer24 said:
UnluckyKate
Member
Hammer24 said:
Set aperture and shutter speed on both wheels in M mode.
Don't forget you can remap every command. USE IT.
345triangle
Member
Forsete said:
yeah, i guess the NEX-7 will be along the lines of the panasonic GH series. though, that kind of sounds like the a55 to me! and i'm not quite sure where an a77 will fit in, if it's not full-frame. i don't really know what i'd want to add to the a55, especially if i had to sacrifice the size advantage.
anyway, i saw that the release notes for the next NEX firmware update have leaked, and it includes PEN-style art filters and peaking level focus highlights, both of which sound nice (especially the latter, if it works with MF lenses like the SLR magic one). i'd quite like to keep my NEX around as a fast JPEG camera - i often shoot in B&W in-camera because the form factor is so much better for street photography, though it limits what i can do to the picture after the fact.
Zyzyxxz said:
I came across the samples of this lens by accident. The bokeh is surprisingly good. I guess Nikon wants to double it was a poor man's APS portrait lens?
Although repackaging a traditionally 100-150-ish standard 50mm prime lens into a $350 lens is kind of ridiculous. How many people are willing to pay for those high tech mambo jumbo if given the choice? I saw a introduction of new nano coating on youtube, it doesn't even eliminate ghosting. It just turn annoying red ghosting into blue ghosting that's easier on the eyes. I am not impressed Nikon.
tino said:
I'll probably stick with the old AF-D model since its more compact and the manual override thing is useless to me.
Also aperature ring helps too since I recently got an old Nikon FG. I can't believe it took Nikon this long to come out with an updated 35mm and 50mm lens in AF-S so those who were on the D40/3100/5100 bodies could finally have some affordable auto-focusing primes.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Ok, rumor time. Supposedly the Sony NEX will get a feature, via Firmware update, that emphasizes the "area in focus" with a specific color called "Focus Peaking". Thus going even further to help the photographer focus their camera. This should help in focusing quickly instead of having to magnify the image on the LCD which can be cumbersome.
The link: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/firmware-update-document-for-nex-leaked/comment-page-1/#comment-23185
The link: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/firmware-update-document-for-nex-leaked/comment-page-1/#comment-23185
BlueTsunami said:
That's very cool if true. I do think the rumor has a very good chance turn out to be true. One thing I remember Sony said they want to open up E-mount specs and help 3rd party develop lenses and adapters, which in turn will help Sony with their weak E-mount lens line. This "focus peaking" feature will definitely attract more manual lens users.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
Seems like most everyone in here likes SLR's and DSLR's. How do you all feel about bridge cameras? A week ago I bought a Fujifilm HS20EXR and am really loving it.
It has great controls and modes, a 24mm to 720mm range (30X), takes both RAW and JPG, and is relatively small and lightweight. The pictures are fantastic as long as you aren't a pixel peeper or do alot of intense cropping and zooming in. And honestly, the RAW data does allow you to do that. The JPG's are meant to print as shot though for the most part, which is fine for a hobbyist like me. The versatility of this camera is worth the trade off for me. It's also exceptionally good in low light and high ISO situations, which is a pleasant change for me.
It has great controls and modes, a 24mm to 720mm range (30X), takes both RAW and JPG, and is relatively small and lightweight. The pictures are fantastic as long as you aren't a pixel peeper or do alot of intense cropping and zooming in. And honestly, the RAW data does allow you to do that. The JPG's are meant to print as shot though for the most part, which is fine for a hobbyist like me. The versatility of this camera is worth the trade off for me. It's also exceptionally good in low light and high ISO situations, which is a pleasant change for me.
maybe i'm missing something, but what would be the point? If you're focusing via the LCD screen the focus area is still going to be tiny regardless of whether its in a different color? I prefer the autozoom function on my PEN that as soon as i turn the focus ring it automatically zooms in on the focus point. I don't believe this works with manual lenses though.BlueTsunami said:
mclaren777
Member
If anybody wants to dissuade me from buying an Opteka battery grip for my T2i and some cheap third-party batteries to go with it, this is the time.
$45 @ Amazon
Video review
$9 @ Amazon
Written review
$45 @ Amazon
Video review
$9 @ Amazon
Written review
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
captive said:
It'll apply a large colored halo like line in the area thats in focus. I think it'll be great for those that don't want to magnify the image all the time and being able to constantly work from the full image (for composition sake). Granted this seems like a greater application for quick shooting where focus needs to be judged quicker than magnifying to a specific part of the frame and getting it in focus. In theory I should be able to go out in the street look at the LCD, turn the focus ring and shoot when the colored area falls over the area I want in focus and move on.
Also the NEX has the auto zoom function (I think) but its for their native E Mount lenses and this seems to be something that'll be really useful for those using legacy lenses.
I would imagine the third party grip should be fine. May not have as good of build quality as first party but I would imagine the electronics are pretty simple so it should probably work fine. With batteries I'm a little wary of buying third party. I have two canon batteries for my old 350D and they still work great.mclaren777 said:
You won't find me doing that. From what I can gather they're basically the same as the genuine battery grips minus the Canon branding. I hear they're run off the same factory line and everything.mclaren777 said:
Third party batteries are fine, as Canon don't make their own. The only meaningful difference I have heard about some aftermarket batteries is they are more susceptible to extreme (cold) conditions than the genuine batteries are. If this is a problem, I hear cheap hand warmers do the trick nicely.
Enjoy your saved money that you can put on more photo gear.
As far as I'm aware Timedog, no. The only solution to increase dynamic range and prevent clipping at both extremes is multiple exposures, one for shadows, one for highlights, followed by some digital photoshop shit.
For landscape pictures, to prevent a blown out sky whilst exposing for the foreground, a graduated neutral density filter is a nice piece of kit.
Some highlights and shadows are meant to be clipped, though I'm assuming you know this and aren't referring to them.
For landscape pictures, to prevent a blown out sky whilst exposing for the foreground, a graduated neutral density filter is a nice piece of kit.
Some highlights and shadows are meant to be clipped, though I'm assuming you know this and aren't referring to them.
So basically I just need a better camera, or just stop caring about what Camera Raw's meter tells me?
Edit: Wait a sec, even the 5d Mark II barely has more dynamic range than my Canon T2i. A lot of my photos probably would have clipped even on that expensive thing. How are guys doing morning photos and not clipping highlights or shadows???
Edit: Wait a sec, even the 5d Mark II barely has more dynamic range than my Canon T2i. A lot of my photos probably would have clipped even on that expensive thing. How are guys doing morning photos and not clipping highlights or shadows???
Your camera is fine and you're not going to get a better sensor without spending copious amounts of dollars for basically zero gain for what you want.
Unfortunately, modern cameras don't have the ability to pull in the range of light we see with out eyes into one exposure. Our eyes scan very quickly and combine multiple images into what you see and your brain interprets it as one. Cameras get only one image, because of this, they are somewhat hamstrung.
This is why some people have made a big deal out of HDR photography. Combining a minimum of 3 images (one as a correct exposure mostly for mid-tones, one 3 stops lower for shadows, and another 3 stops higher for highlights) in photoshop (looks ordinary) or photomatix (far better). When done tastefully, it can look incredible, getting as close to representing what you saw as possible. On most occasions it is overdone and looks horrible and because of this, many people who love the art stay away from it because the bulk use of it is overdone. But I digress.
If you're not doing so already, make great use of the recovery slider. It does a pretty damn good job of pulling back the clipped highlights and crushed shadows. Due to the way digital sensors are, if you can help it, it is best to err towards slight overexposure than underexposure. This is because more detail is recorded in highlights than shadows and the highlights are easier to pull back and restore detail.
Using your train shot as an example, the sky is horribly blown out, perhaps beyond saving. It may be worth trying to see what the recovery slider can do. You can then apply a gradient overlay and mask out all but the sky (maybe some of the hill and trees too), making it look nicer, if there is any detail retained at all. Otherwise, this is where a GND filter would have helped you out if you don't want to work with multiple exposures.
Check out what I mean here.
Hopefully this helps a little. Please don't read any of the above as condescending or similar. It may seem like it, I'm just trying to help not knowing your current photographic experience level, plus it can help lurkers or whoever else.
Unfortunately, modern cameras don't have the ability to pull in the range of light we see with out eyes into one exposure. Our eyes scan very quickly and combine multiple images into what you see and your brain interprets it as one. Cameras get only one image, because of this, they are somewhat hamstrung.
This is why some people have made a big deal out of HDR photography. Combining a minimum of 3 images (one as a correct exposure mostly for mid-tones, one 3 stops lower for shadows, and another 3 stops higher for highlights) in photoshop (looks ordinary) or photomatix (far better). When done tastefully, it can look incredible, getting as close to representing what you saw as possible. On most occasions it is overdone and looks horrible and because of this, many people who love the art stay away from it because the bulk use of it is overdone. But I digress.
If you're not doing so already, make great use of the recovery slider. It does a pretty damn good job of pulling back the clipped highlights and crushed shadows. Due to the way digital sensors are, if you can help it, it is best to err towards slight overexposure than underexposure. This is because more detail is recorded in highlights than shadows and the highlights are easier to pull back and restore detail.
Using your train shot as an example, the sky is horribly blown out, perhaps beyond saving. It may be worth trying to see what the recovery slider can do. You can then apply a gradient overlay and mask out all but the sky (maybe some of the hill and trees too), making it look nicer, if there is any detail retained at all. Otherwise, this is where a GND filter would have helped you out if you don't want to work with multiple exposures.
Check out what I mean here.
Hopefully this helps a little. Please don't read any of the above as condescending or similar. It may seem like it, I'm just trying to help not knowing your current photographic experience level, plus it can help lurkers or whoever else.
I have been using the recovery slider. In the book Understanding Exposure, he says to slightly underexpose if anything, so I have been doing that. On the train shot, I think the exposure was right on the money as far as what the camera said. Maybe it depends on what I'm photographing? Like if there's a light gray sky like in the train shot I might want to underexpose.
I guess a polarizing filter would help for skies, but a problem I've been having lately is when filming tulips around my neighborhood, the red on the flower is so red that it looks like pure red without any detail in the bright spots. When I was walking around yesterday without my camera I noticed that that's kind of just how the flowers look in real life. blown out red. But somehow it still seems inappropriate for a photo.
I guess a polarizing filter would help for skies, but a problem I've been having lately is when filming tulips around my neighborhood, the red on the flower is so red that it looks like pure red without any detail in the bright spots. When I was walking around yesterday without my camera I noticed that that's kind of just how the flowers look in real life. blown out red. But somehow it still seems inappropriate for a photo.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Like those guys said, Timedog, it is kind of the way photography works. You're stuck with it - don't spend more money trying to fix it!
In the old days you'd have shot this sort of thing with a really low ISO (say, 25) and long exposure, and even then you'd have to burn in the foreground in the darkroom to get it good. So postprocessing isn't such a radical idea just because it is done on a computer.
For your train shot, for example, you'd either want to use an ND grad filter to handle the sky, or to deliberately expose for the sky (which would underexpose the train) then bring the train up in postprocessing.
Like you, I'm new to this stuff (or at least to the T2i/550D), but I've had some good results metering for the sky and then recomposing the shot. You'll need to use the star button (top right, second across) to lock the metering before you recompose the shot - and it takes a bit of getting used to - but worth a go.
In the old days you'd have shot this sort of thing with a really low ISO (say, 25) and long exposure, and even then you'd have to burn in the foreground in the darkroom to get it good. So postprocessing isn't such a radical idea just because it is done on a computer.
For your train shot, for example, you'd either want to use an ND grad filter to handle the sky, or to deliberately expose for the sky (which would underexpose the train) then bring the train up in postprocessing.
Like you, I'm new to this stuff (or at least to the T2i/550D), but I've had some good results metering for the sky and then recomposing the shot. You'll need to use the star button (top right, second across) to lock the metering before you recompose the shot - and it takes a bit of getting used to - but worth a go.
this is not correct. You can get what is called Graduated Nueatral Density filters in lots of flavors(2 stop, 4 stop, 6 stop etc) that decrease the a scenes dynamic range.Danoss said:
Exposing correctly. For the most part there isn't that much dynamic range in a good sunrise/sunset. All but one of my sunrise/sunsets have been shot without a GND, on a tiny 4/3rds sensor. At some point you will come across a scene that will require either to clip shadows or highlights, but when you at this particular scene you will have to decide on which to do. That is if you want to do it in one shot. If you want to do HDR that is another decision, which typically requires 2 shots and a tripod or very steady hands.timedog said:
Looking at your train station picture, I don't know that you could get much better than that. Its very hazy from the looks of it, which means there's a lot of clouds/haze in the sky that gets reflected sunlight making them very bright. But it doesnt matter because theres no detail there anyway.
You also have to think about whats important in the photo, in the train station case the sky really isn't that important other than conveying the mood at the time. Personally if i had shot that i would have converted to black and white.
UnluckyKate
Member
Ignis said:
Thanks, but I made a couple of pre sets filters in Lightroom that didn't cost me 240$
Original:
Edited:
(need to lower grain in the sky)
I don't like the idea of a ND Grad. If there's an abrupt change, that seems to force your hand composition-wise. A tapered change seems like you're gonna get forced vignetting. How would a ND grad have worked in my train shot where the sky isn't taking up the entire screen horizontally? The top of the train would have had a weird vignette looking thing.
Also when buying filters is there a huge difference between the quality in brands? I want to get a polarizing filter(which seems like a better option for the train shot) and a regular ND filter at some point. Prolly won't get the ND filter til I get a tripod though.
Also when buying filters is there a huge difference between the quality in brands? I want to get a polarizing filter(which seems like a better option for the train shot) and a regular ND filter at some point. Prolly won't get the ND filter til I get a tripod though.
- Status