Support NeoGAF

[Flo_Evans]

I can't believe canon still calls it the "Rebel" over here.

Every time I hear it I think of this cheesy 90's ad they made with Andre Agassi!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgppNW4FZRk

 

[spats]

Hi cameragaf, I got hold of some old SLR lenses from my mom's old Asahi Pentax (that still works perfectly though) and was wondering if it would be possible to mount them on a D3100?

I don't really know much about them, but one is a Asahi Super-Takumar 1.8 / 55mm and the other is a bit longer 2.8 / 135mm Panagor Auto Tele.

After playing around with them for a while really made me appreciate their build quality, all metal and the travel on the focus ring is really satisfying on both of them. The 18-55 Nikkor that came with my camera feels like hollow and grindy shit compared to these two. Don't have film handy, nor the enthusiasm to start shooting on film again so I was really hoping there would be some fairly inexpensive way to use these on a DSLR.

Any info would be really welcomed.

 

[cbox]

I have some old pentax screw mount lenses that I use with my 7d. I just bought an adapter ring off ebay for 5-7 bucks, give it a shot!

Try and find which mount those lenses are before buying though.

 

[Flo_Evans]

You can probably find some adapter, but more than likely you will lose the ability to focus at infinity.

I don't think the 3100 has the ability to enter focal length and F-stop for non CPU lenses, so it will also not meter them.

You can get a slight teleconverter/adapter to maintain infinity focus (see: http://www.fotodiox.com/product_info.php?products_id=632) but you will lose optical quality and F-stop.

edit: those look like M42 screw mount lenses. You need something more like this:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003Y2ZESE/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Note that this doesn't have a lens to correct for infinity focus, and again you will be operating the camera in full manual mode with no light meter!

 

[Log4Girlz]

So I got my EOS550D, or T2i Rebel as you kerazy American's call it, and I can officially say I made the right choice - very pleased with this camera indeed! Great quality, lots of ability and some nice features too.

Recommend this to anyone starting out!

Nice, for me it was between this and the D5100. My father is a big nikon fan so he kept egging me to get the 5100 lol.

 

[shantyman]

http://camerasize.com/compare/#133,258

this site is awesome!

Someone one DPReview was trying to claim the XPro was almost as big as a 5d Mk II. I swear the trolling on that site is amazing.

 

[spats]

Very interesting, thanks for the info ConvenientBox and Flo_Evans!

I'm still tempted to try it out - fine with shooting in manual. Losing focus to infinity and having to put on extra stuff to get it back sounds like more trouble than it's worth though.

Kinda wondering exactly how much light I'd miss out on with a teleconverter like that. As much as a few stops?

 

[planar1280]

I have a 50mm 1.8, a 18-55mm and a 55-250mm

What is the best set or single lens to use in NYC

 

[Flo_Evans]

Very interesting, thanks for the info ConvenientBox and Flo_Evans!

I'm still tempted to try it out - fine with shooting in manual. Losing focus to infinity and having to put on extra stuff to get it back sounds like more trouble than it's worth though.

Kinda wondering exactly how much light I'd miss out on with a teleconverter like that. As much as a few stops?

With a 1.4x teleconverter you should only lose 1 stop of light.

So your 1.8 would be a 3.6, and your 2.8 would be a 5.6...

If you go with the non-corrected version you can expect your max focus to be something along the lines of this:

30mm ~ 3' . . . 50mm ~ 8' . . . 100mm ~ 32' . . . 200mm ~127' . . . 500mm ~ 790'

 

[bean breath]

after coming back from CES i really want an x-pro1. so expensive but feels so worth it.



my favourite osaka camera shop just shut down! bic and yodobashi are good, another one to try is kamera no kitamura in namba city (in the basement next to uniqlo) which has a decent used selection and film lab.

Is this you?

http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/3/2680703/whats-in-your-bag-sam-byford

Recognized your camera gear from lurking this thread for a while. I suppose it could just be a coincidence.

 

[tino]

LOL seriously? I think we have found someone more famous than Gary Whitta.

In other news, I talked to Ryan Block over the phone noce, I couldn't fix his modem.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I have a 50mm 1.8, a 18-55mm and a 55-250mm

What is the best set or single lens to use in NYC

Having visited NYC, you'd get more use from the 18-55 than either of the other lenses. When in Manhattan its really nice to have something wide angle since a lot of subjects will have immediacy. The 50/1.8 might be nice to tag along if you plan on shooting in low light. A personal opinion but telephoto lenses can be overrated in the city if you don't plan on hunkering down in a spot and picking out detail.

 

[Übermatik]

Well, I'm with you all the way so far as your choice goes (me too). But, like me, because you made a choice that you're happy with doesn't make it the right choice for everybody (or indeed that you wouldn't have been happy with a different choice). No console warz here (didn't I see you in the Wii U thread?!).

That said, it's a nice bit of kit. Enjoy.

Wow man, of course. I'm not saying go out and buy this camera.
Depends what you want - but this one suited me, and I know, because I spent a damn long time deliberating over it!

Just saying I'm pleased with the choice is all.

And yep, I'm a regular visitor of said thread.

Alos, while I'm here, can anyone recommend the ideal lens for macro photographs for a 550D?
I'm eager to get started, but can't afford anything too expensive - so it needs to be cheap, but have the ability to take good close up photos.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Alos, while I'm here, can anyone recommend the ideal lens for macro photographs for a 550D?
I'm eager to get started, but can't afford anything too expensive - so it needs to be cheap, but have the ability to take good close up photos.

Depends on your budget but the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 is one of the best macros you can get and its $400

 

[phisheep]

I have a 50mm 1.8, a 18-55mm and a 55-250mm

What is the best set or single lens to use in NYC

Depends what you want to shoot. Really.

And if you don't know what to shoot, take all three.

What you don't want to do is to be swapping lenses all the time, so it depends rather a lot how long you are in NYC for. Last time I was in Cardiff I spent a day with 18-55 and a day with 55-250 - mostly went around the same places but took very different types of photos (55-250 is great, for example, for street scenes off the top of a double-decker bus, but less useful for general walkaround stuff, 18-55 super for ground-level or one floor up city-waking-up scenes if you get out of bed early). Take the 50mm out at night.

If you've got just one day but all day, take one out in the morning and the other in the afternoon, and learn from it.

If it's a short visit and you want the same shots as everyone else gets, go 18-55.

Alos, while I'm here, can anyone recommend the ideal lens for macro photographs for a 550D?
I'm eager to get started, but can't afford anything too expensive - so it needs to be cheap, but have the ability to take good close up photos.

I got myself a set of extension tubes instead, the Kenko ones. Probably nowhere near as good as a specialist macro lens but a hell of a lot cheaper, and they work just fine with the 50mm f/1.8 lens, certainly for starters. Purists might wonder about whether the results are true 1:1 as in object size vs size on the sensor, but for me, if I'm getting a 20x life size print I do not give a damn how it got there.

 

[Übermatik]

I got myself a set of extension tubes instead, the Kenko ones. Probably nowhere near as good as a specialist macro lens but a hell of a lot cheaper, and they work just fine with the 50mm f/1.8 lens, certainly for starters. Purists might wonder about whether the results are true 1:1 as in object size vs size on the sensor, but for me, if I'm getting a 20x life size print I do not give a damn how it got there.

Erm, what are these then? Like a botch way of getting macro photos?

Depends on your budget but the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 is one of the best macros you can get and its $400

Gagh, that's way too expensive... try half that? Thanks for the suggestion, though - maybe when I've got a bit more free cash floating around.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Gagh, that's way too expensive... try half that? Thanks for the suggestion, though - maybe when I've got a bit more free cash floating around.

The cheapest way to get to macro shooting is definitely what phisheep posted then. I personally got my set of Macro tubes (Fotodiox branded metal tubes) for $10. But I'd read up on non electronic tubes and what it would mean for your lenses (you lose electronic functions and aperture control). I shoot with manual lenses that have aperture rings so this isn't an issue for me. Electronically coupled tubes will cost more. Here's a typical shot you can make with a 50mm lens and 17mm worth of tubes...

And here's one with my 28mm lens that has a much closer Minimum Focus Distance and is more dramatically effected by 17mm worth of tubes...

My set of tubes came with 50mm worth of tube length which means I can attain 1:1 magnification (true macro) with my 50mm lens.

 

[phisheep]

Erm, what are these then? Like a botch way of getting macro photos?

Yep, exactly that. They are just empty tubes that fit between the lens and the camera - what that does is increase the distance between the sweet spot of the lens and the sensor (yeah, I know that's obvious!) and decrease the useable depth of field (closest way I can find of describing it) so the lens doens't focus at infinity any more but you can focus on objects a lot closer to the front of the lens. So obviously they look bigger. A lot bigger.

There are two sorts - the dumb sort (plain tubes that fit the camera and the lens) that you can get hold of for about £10, or the smarter sort that have the electrics in to let you control the lens from the camera (that's what I got for around £100).

If you want to play around with macro without spending a fortune, try them out.

EDIT: Look at Blue Tsunami's post just above mine, he knows way more about this stuff than I do but still came to about the same answer. I'd suggest going for the more expensive tubes unless you're really confident what you are doing with the camera, because otherwise focusing is tricky. Actually at this scale it is tricky anyway, but it is really handy to auto in to start with and then switch to manual and move the camera back and forth to fine-tune.

EDIT AGAIN: if you want to experiment even cheaper, use a toilet-roll tube cut down to about an inch and see what happens. It's worth a play.

 

[Übermatik]

The cheapest way to get to macro shooting is definitely what phisheep posted then. I personally got my set of Macro tubes (Fotodiox branded metal tubes) for $10. But I'd read up on non electronic tubes and what it would mean for your lenses (you lose electronic functions and aperture control). I shoot with manual lenses that have aperture rings so this isn't an issue for me. Electronically coupled tubes will cost more. Here's a typical shot you can make with a 50mm lens and 17mm worth of tubes...

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3438/5837638464_fc19411dd8_b.jpg[img]

And here's one with my 28mm lens that has a much closer Minimum Focus Distance and is more dramatically effected by 17mm worth of tubes...

[img]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5105/5747668663_34a18c30b7_b.jpg[img]

My set of tubes came with 50mm worth of tube length which means I can attain 1:1 magnification (true macro) with my 50mm lens.[/QUOTE]

[quote="phisheep, post: 34816160"]Yep, exactly that. They are just empty tubes that fit between the lens and the camera - what that does is increase the distance between the sweet spot of the lens and the sensor (yeah, I know that's obvious!) and decrease the useable depth of field (closest way I can find of describing it) so the lens doens't focus at infinity any more but you [I]can [/I]focus on objects a lot closer to the front of the lens. So obviously they look bigger. A lot bigger.

There are two sorts - the dumb sort (plain tubes that fit the camera and the lens) that you can get hold of for about £10, or the smarter sort that have the electrics in to let you control the lens from the camera (that's what I got for around £100).

If you want to play around with macro without spending a fortune, try them out.

EDIT: Look at Blue Tsunami's post just above mine, he knows way more about this stuff than I do but still came to about the same answer. I'd suggest going for the more expensive tubes unless you're really confident what you are doing with the camera, because otherwise focusing is tricky. Actually at this scale it is tricky anyway, but it is really handy to auto in to start with and then switch to manual and move the camera back and forth to fine-tune.

EDIT AGAIN: if you want to experiment even cheaper, use a toilet-roll tube cut down to about an inch and see what happens. It's worth a play.[/QUOTE]

Great, thanks for the advice guys, huge help. So the electric ones, how much do they cost? Any recommendations? I'm serious about getting into macro photography, and would love to experiment. These tubes seem like cheap but effective way of achieving this, yeah?
And those example shots are amazing, exactly what I'm looking for! I'm a sucker for bokeh backgrounds, however, so typically, whats' the DOF like?

 

[phisheep]

Great, thanks for the advice guys, huge help. So the electric ones, how much do they cost? Any recommendations? I'm serious about getting into macro photography, and would love to experiment. These tubes seem like cheap but effective way of achieving this, yeah?
And those example shots are amazing, exactly what I'm looking for! I'm a sucker for bokeh backgrounds, however, so typically, whats' the DOF like?

When you're shooting macro the DOF is really shallow. Really really shallow. You'll be way more concerned about whether you get your subject in focus than to be worrying about the background - which will be out of focus anyway. Play around with it. Conclude that you either need f64 and a tripod (which doesn't work either) or to do creative blurry things like Blue Tsunami does.

These are the Kenko tubes that I have (they've gone up a bit since I bought)

These are a set of plain tubes

EDIT: as far as recommendations goes, I can't say any more than that the ones i have are fine.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I would also add for cheap macro you can buy a lens reversal ring.

Check out this hippie!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRn3at0H60

 

[Übermatik]

Awesome, looking at getting some lens tubes to try this out then, and maybe investing in a proper lense when I become more competent. Thanks so much for your help guys!

Now, I'm taking my camera out in the cold and snow - any safety precautions?

 

[Flo_Evans]

OM-D?

Lens is obviously shopped on, but this looks pretty legit!

 

[Instigator]

OM-D?

Lens is obviously shopped on, but this looks pretty legit!

Not the prettiest camera. Better than if Pentax had designed it though. I see no evidence of a built-in flash.

It's a bit smaller than it looks (without the battery grip):

 

[BlueTsunami]

I was about to comment on how it must be pretty big but that design plus maintaining its small profile is pretty nice. I think Oly will have a hit on their hands with this. It maintains that retro OM look but it looks professional and functional instead of being preoccupied with style.

 

[tino]

Some dude on Xitek got access to a X Pro-1

Some interesting samples from his posts:
Minimum moire effect.

Build-in NR settings, you can select from +2 to -2

And here is the money shot, ISO 1600 comparison photos or NEX5, XP1, M9 and EP3.
http://forum.xitek.com/forum-redirect-goto-findpost-ptid-965100-pid-39326538.html

IMO if you still consider spending $1000+ on a m43 body you are bigger Olympus fan than a photography fan.

 

[captive]

Some dude on Xitek got access to a X Pro-1

Some interesting samples from his posts:
Minimum moire effect.

Build-in NR settings, you can select from +2 to -2

And here is the money shot, ISO 1600 comparison photos or NEX5, XP1, M9 and EP3.
http://forum.xitek.com/forum-redirect-goto-findpost-ptid-965100-pid-39326538.html

IMO if you still consider spending $1000+ on a m43 body you are bigger Olympus fan than a photography fan.

or the test is bullshit. My EP2 @ 1600 ISO looks words better than that particular EP3 shot.


what it looks like to me is these are jpeg and they left the EP3 setting to its highest NR, whereas you can actually turn NR completely off, unlike some other cameras.

 

[tino]

or the test is bullshit. My EP2 @ 1600 ISO looks words better than that particular EP3 shot.


what it looks like to me is these are jpeg and they left the EP3 setting to its highest NR, whereas you can actually turn NR completely off, unlike some other cameras.

These are XP1 6400 jpeg files


https://pumel.opendrive.com/files/Ml82NjM1NzBfMGhLVWJfZGI5ZQ/_DSF0252.JPG

https://pumel.opendrive.com/files/Ml82NjM1NzZfV3oyc3FfMDdmOQ/_DSF0255.JPG

https://pumel.opendrive.com/files/Ml82NjM1NzhfaW9UcE1fMjVjMg/_DSF0257.JPG

https://pumel.opendrive.com/files/Ml82NjM1NjhfMmRDMXJfYzRlYg/_S010262.JPG

 

[BlueTsunami]

Love, love, LOVE the boxy design. And I wonder if the EVF will be any different from the original VF2? I know its using the VF2 but I wonder if it has any interesting optics between the screen and photographers eye.

 

[Zyzyxxz]

Really liking the OM-D body design, just not sure if I can get past the $1100 body price.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I cant figure out why there is 2 "lock" things on the grip.

Wonder if it was an optional front grip + an optional vertical?

 

[GuessWho]

does the OM-d use regular 4/3 lens?

 

[bggrthnjsus]

ugh i am strongly considering getting an om-d to replace my gf1. on the other hand, i feel like my gf1 still has a lot of life left in it. also i have a lot of other random gadgets that i also want.

 

[Zyzyxxz]

ugh i am strongly considering getting an om-d to replace my gf1. on the other hand, i feel like my gf1 still has a lot of life left in it. also i have a lot of other random gadgets that i also want.

same I have a GF2 that I got recently but the thing is the sensor is not too impressive, of course that is due to the size of M4/3 you have to give up some things but I don't know yet if I want to wait for the 2nd iteration of this (assuming there will be one)

 

[Instigator]

does the OM-d use regular 4/3 lens?

It's m43 so it's made for m43 optics primarily. It can use 43 lenses through an adapter.

It's unknown at this point whether the OM-D performs better than other M43 cameras with 43 lenses (typically slower AF, but works otherwise). I'd say it's unlikely (since they didn't brag about it).

 

[AlternativeUlster]

Hey guys. Where is the cheapest place to get grip kits online? I need to start owning some of my own stuff for film sets. I will probably spend my tax refund of a thousand dollars getting some lights at the least.

 

[captive]

These are XP1 6400 jpeg files


https://pumel.opendrive.com/files/Ml82NjM1NzBfMGhLVWJfZGI5ZQ/_DSF0252.JPG

https://pumel.opendrive.com/files/Ml82NjM1NzZfV3oyc3FfMDdmOQ/_DSF0255.JPG

https://pumel.opendrive.com/files/Ml82NjM1NzhfaW9UcE1fMjVjMg/_DSF0257.JPG

https://pumel.opendrive.com/files/Ml82NjM1NjhfMmRDMXJfYzRlYg/_S010262.JPG

All i was saying was that the test is crap, the files from the EP3 i think were done wrong, they look very heavily NR'ed. I know for a fact that my older EP2 produces better results than what they are claiming the EP3 did there. I'd provide some samples but i don't really care that much, there's some shots on my flickr under portraits that are 1600-2000 ISO that look better than that.

Anyway, as for the files you just posted 1) they are also heavily NR'ed. theres hardly any fine detail in the dogs hair in the first two photos, and 2) its easy to hide noise when 5% of the photo is sharp and the rest is bokeh'ed.

 

[tino]

All i was saying was that the test is crap, the files from the EP3 i think were done wrong, they look very heavily NR'ed. I know for a fact that my older EP2 produces better results than what they are claiming the EP3 did there. I'd provide some samples but i don't really care that much, there's some shots on my flickr under portraits that are 1600-2000 ISO that look better than that.

Anyway, as for the files you just posted 1) they are also heavily NR'ed. theres hardly any fine detail in the dogs hair in the first two photos, and 2) its easy to hide noise when 5% of the photo is sharp and the rest is bokeh'ed.

This guy own all fours of these cameras, I am sure he know how to use the EP3 to the best of its limit. Look at the M9, it must have taken 10s of thousands of photos.

BTW this guy seem to be a very well known photographer who decided to use a forum avatar to post the photos, some one recognized the accessory he owned. According to him there are only two retail copies and two engineer prototypes of XP1 in China.


The camera is coming out in 2 weeks, you can see somebody else do comparo very soon. Although when the camera is out, people will be doing comparo against 5D2 and D700.

 

[Radec]

If the OM-D is still m4/3, I doubt it can perform on the same level as the XPro-1 and NEX7.

 

[Instigator]

If the OM-D is still m4/3, I doubt it can perform on the same level as the XPro-1 and NEX7.

It depends.

It's doubtful the OM-D can match the level of fine details and low level noise at high ISO's, particularly against the X-Pro1.

Then again, we already know the OM-D beats those cameras with ruggedness/weather-sealing, IS and fast AF.

 

[mrklaw]

I have a ton of photos organised into folders by year/event (exported originally from iphoto)

I want to import those back into either lightroom or photoshop elements organiser, but I want to keep that structure if possible. Just tried organiser and it seems to just give me a massive flat list of photos that I can search/filter, but I can't work out how to create albums based on folders.

Any way to do that? I don't want to create albums by importing one folder at a time, there are over a hundred of them

 

[Flo_Evans]

I have a ton of photos organised into folders by year/event (exported originally from iphoto)

I want to import those back into either lightroom or photoshop elements organiser, but I want to keep that structure if possible. Just tried organiser and it seems to just give me a massive flat list of photos that I can search/filter, but I can't work out how to create albums based on folders.

Any way to do that? I don't want to create albums by importing one folder at a time, there are over a hundred of them

There is an option in Lightroom import to filter by date, it should automatically create folders based on the date in the file.

Edit: oops I miss read your post... Idk about event folders

 

[mrklaw]

There is an option in Lightroom import to filter by date, it should automatically create folders based on the date in the file.

Edit: oops I miss read your post... Idk about event folders

thanks, i'll try that. Date is probably enough, the events are discrete enough to be equivalent.

 

[giga]

thanks, i'll try that. Date is probably enough, the events are discrete enough to be equivalent.

Try this.

 

[mrklaw]

related question. How do I back up my photo folders onto my NAS regularly (scheduled ideally), keeping the original file structure? I have acronis on PC, but it seems to want to create a .TIB or .ZIP compressed file. I want the original file structure on my local hard drive duplicated on the NAS.

 

[tino]

related question. How do I back up my photo folders onto my NAS regularly (scheduled ideally), keeping the original file structure? I have acronis on PC, but it seems to want to create a .TIB or .ZIP compressed file. I want the original file structure on my local hard drive duplicated on the NAS.

I use a program call alwaysync to copy files to NAS. I don't compress anything. This is done to keep the least possible common denominator in the events of disaster. I also use two identical 2-bay NAS for hardware redundancy reason.

You really only need to backup once every few months.

 

[Technosteve]

i think i'm back on the x100 band wagon. But they need to fix all the firmware issues. Let's see how the XPro 1 comes out. Would like a nice full camera to go with my LX5.

 

[AstroNut325]

Question... is a new Canon T3 (not T3i) with a kit lens for $399.99 a good deal? Or are there better deals to be had?

 

[BlueTsunami]

Question... is a new Canon T3 (not T3i) with a kit lens for $399.99 a good deal? Or are there better deals to be had?

That sounds like a phenomenal deal for a semi-modern DSLR. That's almost used prices for some older models. Of course its a less robust version of its sibling (the T3i) but it should still take great photos.

 

[Giard]

Hello, I need Nikon-GAF expertise!

Costco (in Canada) is selling a Nikon D5000 bundled with a camera bag and 18-55mm lens and 55-200mm lens for 850$. (link)

My gf has decided she wants a Nikon. The D5100 seems to be better in every way, but for the same price, you only get a 18-55mm lens.

What would be the best decision? Should she maybe wait for D5100 price drop? Is the D5000 obsolete?

Thanks.