Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Expires in June...hopefully the final release is not that far away.captive said:
-
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
The_Inquisitor
Member
Man I am getting the urge to just buy that EF 70-200mm L lens, but I need to wait until my first paycheck this summer. I have so much school work right now, so I would have a lot more time to play with it in a month if I wait. :lol Though if I see it price drop, I will shoot on it. (No pun intended)
Do you guys know when lenses usually go on sale? Should I wait until 4th of July sales or anything?
Also a filter recommendation would be nice. I know I will have a hood and all, but that thing deserves to be treated with the utmost respect. :lol I got a UV filter for my 50mm, but I don't even use it anymore because I hate the loss of image quality as Mgoo was referring to earlier in the thread. It also created green ghosting for any light source. Don't buy a cheap Tiffen whatever you do!
Do you guys know when lenses usually go on sale? Should I wait until 4th of July sales or anything?
Also a filter recommendation would be nice. I know I will have a hood and all, but that thing deserves to be treated with the utmost respect. :lol I got a UV filter for my 50mm, but I don't even use it anymore because I hate the loss of image quality as Mgoo was referring to earlier in the thread. It also created green ghosting for any light source. Don't buy a cheap Tiffen whatever you do!
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Yeah, the most you could hope for is Bing cashback, or something. But that's doubtful.N2_ said:
The_Inquisitor
Member
Rentahamster said:
Oh wow I completely forgot about that. Yeah, BING actually drops it below 600, NICE!
Also looking at Ken Rockwall review I have been introduced to what barrel distortion really means. Wowzers! Anyone know how to create a filter in Aperture 3 to account for it when I get the lens in May?
So, I'm continuing my spring of trying out different RAW/developing apps with a few hours of Lightroom 3 beta 2. Very impressed so far. It feels 5-10 times faster than Aperture (no exaggeration) and the noise reduction is very impressive, comparatively. It also has a proper point curve for tones! Sadly without separate curves per color channel, but it's a step in the right direction (and there's other ways of introducing specific color casts into different tones, although not as precise as a proper curves tool).
After some weeks of trying Aperture 3, Bibble Pro 5 and Lightroom 3 I have to say this is the winner. Bibble has the edge in some regards, but the speed/quality ratio of Lightroom 3 is far ahead of the competition.
After some weeks of trying Aperture 3, Bibble Pro 5 and Lightroom 3 I have to say this is the winner. Bibble has the edge in some regards, but the speed/quality ratio of Lightroom 3 is far ahead of the competition.
What is the organisation like in lightroom?
I like aperture integration on my mac - the way it's just there in iTunes, using myniphoto library, etc etc. However, I'm less than impressed with operation speed and parts of the raw conversion.
As for editing tools, I don't edit much, even my raws, so I'm not sure what I'm missing out on.
I like aperture integration on my mac - the way it's just there in iTunes, using myniphoto library, etc etc. However, I'm less than impressed with operation speed and parts of the raw conversion.
As for editing tools, I don't edit much, even my raws, so I'm not sure what I'm missing out on.
The organization is pretty straight-forward. Quite similar to Aperture but without the "mystery box" organization of the actual master files. Photos are basically organized in two ways; the physical file structure as "Folders", and in a more free/referenced fashion as "Collections" (the Aperture equivalent would be "Projects" and "Albums").mrkgoo said:
You lose the tighter Mac integration, but I never felt Aperture gained much by having that really. Using images from the Aperture library in iWork is pretty bad, for example, since it will only place the JPEG previews in your documents. On the other hand you gain some Adobe integration, which I value higher.
Exporting is incredibly much better to me for two reasons: speed and control of output sharpening. The new Flickr support also has a bit more output options than Aperture's.
Importing is also much faster, and you have the options of converting the RAWs to DNGs, which are compressed losslessly and are a bit smaller.
Editing is where Aperture has the edge, the stackable adjustments give so much more power and flexibility than the fixed and comparatively limited adjustment stack of Lightroom. One thing you gotta love about Lightroom's adjustments that's curiously absent from Aperture are the graduated filters, which can be used to control exposure/tint/contrast and some other things over a gradient.
I'd say it's worth downloading the beta and try it on a "roll" of photos just to taste the speed difference. To me it feels like Aperture needs a monster Mac Pro to become useful.
VNZ said:
Thanks for the info. I tend not to do trial software, however.
I do, however, love the integration of Aperture. I don't mind the previews being used (frankly, my previews are large anyway), and it means I can just point iTunes to my Aperture Library to sync to my portable devices.
Also, I actually like that my files are in a master file. I've been trying to give up on computer file management, trying to find applications that can do that for me. I do not need to see the file structure.
I have no other Adobe products, so LightRoom integration would be moot for me.
I'm not sure what you mean by output sharpening, but I thought that's what Aperture 3 has in the form of edge-sharpening.
What do you mean by fixed and adjustment stack in Light Room?
I can see where gradient filters would come in handy. It's strange, since in Aperture you have options for brushing practically any adjustment - you'd think it'd be simple to just make a gradient mask.
Sharpening are basically applied at two or three different stages; during capture, output plus the sharpening you may chose to apply between those steps when treating the image (the edge sharpening of Aperture falls into the last category). The output sharpening is the final sharpening that is applied when the image is resized for output. You will want different types of sharpening depending on the media and size the image is intended for, and also depending on the final look your going for.mrkgoo said:
In Aperture 3 I found the output sharpening to be too harsh for small images (like when using the built-in flickr support or when exporting for web viewing), and I couldn't find any way to control it other than exporting to a larger size, more suited to the its sharpening algorithm. Some links about output sharpening.
I'm personally not too keen on maximizing sharpness which is why I was a bit annoyed when I couldn't seem to lower the amount that Aperture always applied in the final stage.
In Aperture you can basically stack any number of adjustments on an image, like adjustment layers in Photoshop (complete with their own masks). I'm very impressed by the creative possibilities this offers. Lightroom on the other hand only offers a more basic, and fixed, stack of adjustments.mrkgoo said:
Yeah, I'd be surprised if we don't see gradients in a not-too-distant update to Aperture.mrkgoo said:
JLateralus
Member
Does anyone have experience with the Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di LD Lens?
I've seen some reviews that say it is good for the price. Any thoughts?
I've seen some reviews that say it is good for the price. Any thoughts?
VNZ said:Sharpening are basically applied at two or three different stages; during capture, output plus the sharpening you may chose to apply between those steps when treating the image (the edge sharpening of Aperture falls into the last category). The output sharpening is the final sharpening that is applied when the image is resized for output. You will want different types of sharpening depending on the media and size the image is intended for, and also depending on the final look your going for.
In Aperture 3 I found the output sharpening to be too harsh for small images (like when using the built-in flickr support or when exporting for web viewing), and I couldn't find any way to control it other than exporting to a larger size, more suited to the its sharpening algorithm. Some links about output sharpening.
I'm personally not too keen on maximizing sharpness which is why I was a bit annoyed when I couldn't seem to lower the amount that Aperture always applied in the final stage.
In Aperture you can basically stack any number of adjustments on an image, like adjustment layers in Photoshop (complete with their own masks). I'm very impressed by the creative possibilities this offers. Lightroom on the other hand only offers a more basic, and fixed, stack of adjustments.
Yeah, I'd be surprised if we don't see gradients in a not-too-distant update to Aperture.
Thanks for the info.
Do you know what parameters adjust the actual output sharpening?
There's the RAW sharpening, which I guess is like the demosaicing as you import, then two kinds of jpeg sharpening, including the edge sharpening...where is the actual output sharpening, or is that it?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
If Aperture is anything like Lightroom, then the output sharpening options should be in the export dialog box.mrkgoo said:
That's what I could never quite find out. The only output sharpen options I found was in the printing dialogue. My main problem was with flickr export there was no options to be found at all, and the defaults totally oversharpened my photos. Where are the jpeg sharpening options you mention?mrkgoo said:
Maybe you get more options if you have a Pro account? When exporting larger jpegs the sharpening was better tuned, so I'm guessing with a Pro account Aperture will upload a larger version, thus having better sharpening.
Doing a bit more reading from your links. Sorry I didn't mean jpeg sharpening per se, just that there are two types of sharpening for the 'creative sharpening' stage (before output and after input).VNZ said:
I thinkthere may be no option to output sharpen in aperture , other than the print.
Aperture jus received another update with loads of bug fixes, btw.
VNZ said:
I think your problem might be with Flickr, rather than Aperture. I've noticed quite often than Flickr images can be over-sharp when viewing smaller sizes. Is it possible that Aperture is exporting a large jpeg to Flickr, and then Flickr is itself resizing down to the smaller image size, and creating that excess sharpness in the process?
chaostrophy
Member
Has anyone else found that spending big money on camera equipment made it easier to justify buying photo books? Case in point, I like the New Topographics photography movement a lot, I have since I first saw some of Stephen Shore's work in college over 10 years ago. Up until very recently, if the movement's big exhibition book came back into print for $50, I would have thought "that's a shit ton of money for a book". Now I think "that's like pocket change compared to what I've spent on cameras and lenses and stuff, and if there's even the slightest chance that studying it will give me some insight that will improve my own work, it's a no-brainer purchase."
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Not really. There are so many resources for images on the internet, and of course, the library or an afternoon of browsing at Borders....Plus the local art museum and used bookstores have sales now and then.chaostrophy said:
The only photo-related books I've ever bought new were ones that are full of technique, workflow tips, diagrams, examples, stories, etc.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
first 1:1 macro shots with my new budget macro glass.
Man, I am loving this shit!! Wish I had some studio lighting and external flash for this. Oh the possibilities!!!Snytbaggen
Member
Which lens it it? Can you link?AlteredBeast said:first 1:1 macro shots with my new budget macro glass.
mrkgoo said:
I don't think that I have a good "eye" when it comes to taking pictures so I haven't shown them here... ;-P
but here are some of my pictures:
http://janikvirtanen.1g.fi/kuvat/
But it's a nice hobby..
ana said:I don't think that I have a good "eye" when it comes to taking pictures so I haven't shown them here... ;-P
but here are some of my pictures:
http://janikvirtanen.1g.fi/kuvat/
But it's a nice hobby..
You improve by posting and getting feedback! (as well as looking and giving).
You have a Nikon as well?
you have some very nice pictures, not sure why you wouldn't post them. Love your bird section.ana said:I don't think that I have a good "eye" when it comes to taking pictures so I haven't shown them here... ;-P
but here are some of my pictures:
http://janikvirtanen.1g.fi/kuvat/
But it's a nice hobby..
Forsete
Member
Question regarding Lightroom 3 Beta 2.
The NR results change when I choose "Edit in CS4" .. it looks much-much worse. Does it have something to do with ACR? When I first selected "Edit in CS4" it gave me a warning about Version "bla-bla" (cant remember).
Do I need to update ACR to get the same results? Its a little weird since LR3 is exporting the image as a TIFF.
Edit: One other dude with the same issue: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39748
The NR results change when I choose "Edit in CS4" .. it looks much-much worse. Does it have something to do with ACR? When I first selected "Edit in CS4" it gave me a warning about Version "bla-bla" (cant remember).
Do I need to update ACR to get the same results? Its a little weird since LR3 is exporting the image as a TIFF.
Edit: One other dude with the same issue: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39748
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Huh, maybe PS isn't using the new LR algorithms? You are choosing "Render using Lightroom"?Forsete said:
Maybe it's an issue with TIFF? Did you try setting PS to use PSD files in your external editing options?
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
ana said:
I was just reading about the 300/4 IS last night and as long as it is, it has a very high magnification (.24x Life Size, the average for most lenses is around .10x). What you've got there is not only great for birds and stuff but also for flowers.
Why hasn't anyone posted this about CS5?!!?!?!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI
O . M . G girly giggles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI
O . M . G girly giggles
Human_Shield
Member
zhenming said:Why hasn't anyone posted this about CS5?!!?!?!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI
O . M . G girly giggles
Mainly, because its already had two separate threads about it:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=391080
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=391063
But I completely agree, it's very awesome.
Speaking of post-processing, can anyone give me an idea of what I should do in this case. I usually get my prints made through Mpix, but I've done no kind of calibration of my iMac monitor. Now, my colors come out pretty spot on - at least close enough for the purposes I use my prints for (ie. nothing professional), but the lower light and darker photos tend to come out too dark when I get prints made. I guess my iMac monitor is just too bright and the brighter pictures survive the slight darkening made when printed, but the darker images don't.
If I want to set up some kind of correction for this do I need to adjust (thinking about Lightroom here using RAW images) the brightness or the actual exposure prior to exporting to the jpegs I send to mpix?
I'm hesitant to invest in a monitor calibrator because the I've read the iMac screens just generally can't be calibrated down to the proper brightness level anyway, so it may just be a waste. I may look into buying a good monitor for editing and using it as a second monitor, though.
If I want to set up some kind of correction for this do I need to adjust (thinking about Lightroom here using RAW images) the brightness or the actual exposure prior to exporting to the jpegs I send to mpix?
I'm hesitant to invest in a monitor calibrator because the I've read the iMac screens just generally can't be calibrated down to the proper brightness level anyway, so it may just be a waste. I may look into buying a good monitor for editing and using it as a second monitor, though.
I'm sure you already figured this out by now, but you need to select the option that says something like "Render with Lightroom 3". At this time there's no version of ACR that includes the new processing engine of Lightroom 3.Forsete said:
I love the new RAW processing engine of Lightroom 3 by the way. So fast and so good.
Hcoregamer00
The 'H' stands for hentai.
ana said:Woo.. Just got a new tele lens.
Canon F4 300mm IS
the other two lenses on the right are 85mm F1.8 and Efs 17-55mm F2.8
Now I only need an extender and a macro lens for the summer.. And perhaps the new Sigma UWA lens 8-16mm..
Dang, I just checked the review over at The Digital Picture, you got a wonderful lens.
I can't believe you got a great white that weighs 100g more than my 24-70L. The price is actually REALLY GOOD, less than my 24-70L
Forsete
Member
Thanks Rentahamster and VNZ, I now found that option (I had to reset all warning boxes first as I had ticked "Don't show again" when I had selected ACR instead of LR3 rendering).
Yes I am very impressed with Beta 2, the workflow and especially the RAW processing is now fantastic (Adobe RAW processing in general has been pretty poor when it comes to Alpha cameras, but now Adobe is up to par on that).
Yes I am very impressed with Beta 2, the workflow and especially the RAW processing is now fantastic (Adobe RAW processing in general has been pretty poor when it comes to Alpha cameras, but now Adobe is up to par on that).
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
By the way, here is a really good comparison of the finer points of Lightroom 3 beta 2
http://ishootshows.com/2010/01/22/lightroom-3-vs-nikon-capture-nx-2/
http://ishootshows.com/2010/01/22/lightroom-3-vs-nikon-capture-nx-2/
The_Inquisitor
Member
Ok GAF, I couldn't wait any longer. Plus I got a lot of cash for my bday yesterday, much more that I expected. I am about to order a Canon 70-200mm L f/4 lens from B&H with MX5347 Tamrac lens case so I can attach it to my camera bag. I am so excited to be getting my first telescoping professional L lens!
So before I shoot on this, should I really get a lens filter or just stick with the hood?
I am about to order a Canon 70-200mm L f/4 lens from B&H with MX5347 Tamrac lens case so I can attach it to my camera bag. I am so excited to be getting my first telescoping professional L lens! So before I shoot on this, should I really get a lens filter or just stick with the hood?
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
The_Inquisitor said:Ok GAF, I couldn't wait any longer. Plus I got a lot of cash for my bday yesterday, much more that I expected.
So before I shoot on this, should I really get a lens filter or just stick with the hood?
Stick with the lens hood! Lens hoods for Telephotos are usually obscenely long too.
The_Inquisitor
Member
BlueTsunami said:
What I thought. I am so excited right now!!! This is a good lens choice for my first telescoping lens, right?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
The only times I use a filter is if I'm shooting at the beach, or if it's a windy, dusty day. Otherwise it's not worth the money and hassle.The_Inquisitor said:Ok GAF, I couldn't wait any longer. Plus I got a lot of cash for my bday yesterday, much more that I expected.
So before I shoot on this, should I really get a lens filter or just stick with the hood?
Just use the hood, and be aware of your surroundings. Take care of that shit.
Enjoy your new lens
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
The_Inquisitor said:What I thought. I am so excited right now!!! This is a good lens choice for my first telescoping lens, right?
Its pretty much one of the best zooms lens, yes
I've been shooting with a 135/3.5 lens recently and my based on my experience with that lens (as far as speed and focal length), expect to be shooting your lens above 100mm in moderately good light. Fortunately I think those Canon zooms are fairly good wide open.The_Inquisitor
Member
Rentahamster said:The only times I use a filter is if I'm shooting at the beach, or if it's a windy, dusty day. Otherwise it's not worth the money and hassle.
Just use the hood, and be aware of your surroundings. Take care of that shit.
Enjoy your new lens
Yeah I think if I do a beach shoot, I will just pick up a filter right before I go. For now, i'll forgo it.
And firing. I look forward to posting shots I take with it next weekend!
Congrats! I love the lens. There's just a certain colour quality from it. When I went back to my older photos - a lot I had flagged as favourite werefrom that lens.The_Inquisitor said:
It's hard to tell at first. But you learn to appreciate it a lot. Also, ALL new gear has a learning curve.
We can be 70-200 f4l buddies!
The_Inquisitor
Member
mrkgoo said:
Yay! I had an arguement with my friend about getting the non-IS version plus not getting the f/2.8 version. He said I was really going to regret not getting IS when I wanted to take "night shots of my kids". For reference we are 21 years old. :lol
This will probably be my last lens purchase for potentially another year due to extreme budget constraints. So I wanted to pick something that had the biggest bang for the buck similar to my 50mm f/1.8. This lens seemed to be the logical choice. Besides, I can always sell it for near what I bought it for and buy the IS version down the road.
Do you have any tips on using this lens? At what aperture size is this lens sharpest ect.
The_Inquisitor said:Yay! I had an arguement with my friend about getting the non-IS version plus not getting the f/2.8 version. He said I was really going to regret not getting IS when I wanted to take "night shots of my kids". For reference we are 21 years old. :lol
This will probably be my last lens purchase for potentially another year due to extreme budget constraints. So I wanted to pick something that had the biggest bang for the buck similar to my 50mm f/1.8. This lens seemed to be the logical choice. Besides, I can always sell it for near what I bought it for and buy the IS version down the road.
Do you have any tips on using this lens? At what aperture size is this lens sharpest ect.
You won't regret not getting the IS, because you probably won't know what you're missing out on. IS does an amazing job. Doubles the usefulness of any lens. For the 70-200f/4, it basically means you can actually use it indoors. I didn't really have that luxury.
When I got my 70-200 f/4L, the IS version didn't exist. I was making the classic 70-300 IS vs 70-200 f4L decision. I sacrificed both IS and 100mm of length for that L-quality, and I don't regret a moment of it. I'd do it again. But if I were to make the decision today, I would probably try and get the IS, if I could stretch my budget.
Note, I bought this many years ago, and I paid NZ$1300 (~US$1000). That's just what stuff cost. I didn't have too much disposable income, so this was the highest I could go. $6-700, while by no means insignificant, it is one of the cheapest 'L-lenses' you can get.
I wouldn't worry too much, though. No IS means less to break. Heck, I've dropped this lens on to some hard carpet from about 3 feet, front element (with cap) straight down. IT drilled the lens cap slightly into the thread (stripping some plastic thread on the cap), but the lens is perfect and still works like a charm.
The colours and sharpness from this lens is supreme. I use it nearly exclusively wide open. It probably gets a little sharper stopped down, but I never care about any differences. There's something about the rendering in this lens that makes it stand out. When I went back over some of my old favourites, a good portion were taken from this lens.
The 2.8 is a pretty big lens. While the f4L is no small lens, it's pretty portable.
While I say IS is great, if you can't afford it, I wouldn't worry, this is still a great image-maker.
From my old library - both wide open, 70 and 200mm respectively (take on a 350D, I believe).
The_Inquisitor
Member
Holy shit mrkgoo those pictures look a new level of incredible compared to some of the wildlife/nature shots I have taken with my 50mm. I am really freaking excited now.
In fact, I am to take my 70-200 straight to our local zoo in Dallas.
1) I haven't been to the zoo in ages
2) I haven't shot in that kind of environment before
3) Your pictures have really inspired me to do so.
The thing about the IS also is the fact I am a pretty green around the ears amateur still. The fact I just spent 600 on a lens is a pretty big deal for me. As I said, when I get a full-time job sometime next year and maybe after I fill out my gear with a few more lenses or so down the road I may consider swapping out this lens for the IS version. I feel I will more likely get a IS version of the 300mm before. Of course that's WWWAAAYYYY down the road. :lol
In fact, I am to take my 70-200 straight to our local zoo in Dallas.
1) I haven't been to the zoo in ages
2) I haven't shot in that kind of environment before
3) Your pictures have really inspired me to do so.
The thing about the IS also is the fact I am a pretty green around the ears amateur still. The fact I just spent 600 on a lens is a pretty big deal for me. As I said, when I get a full-time job sometime next year and maybe after I fill out my gear with a few more lenses or so down the road I may consider swapping out this lens for the IS version. I feel I will more likely get a IS version of the 300mm before. Of course that's WWWAAAYYYY down the road. :lol
- Status