Question for you camera-nuts: what do you think of the new Casio EX-FC100 (or FS10) unveiled at CES? It's a point and shoot with 720p video, 30 fps burst mode, and up to 1000 fps high-speed video, for $400 ($350 for FS10). I don't have a camera, and I'm looking to get a point and shoot. I'd just be taking run-of-the-mill pictures, but the burst mode sounds useful, and HD video recording would be a big plus. The high speed video sounds awesome, and I'd probably use it, but I'm worried that it might just end up a novelty, ultimately. Any thoughts?
-
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
got me a canon 50mm 1.8 for xmas, hope to post pictures soon 
also, any recommendations on some good landscape lens? been tempted to pick up the canon 10-22mm before my honeymoon to the yucatan, but its a bit pricey. how is the sigma 12-24mm? is the canon worth the extra dollars (in build, picture quality, or extra wide lens~2mm)?
also, any recommendations on some good landscape lens? been tempted to pick up the canon 10-22mm before my honeymoon to the yucatan, but its a bit pricey. how is the sigma 12-24mm? is the canon worth the extra dollars (in build, picture quality, or extra wide lens~2mm)?
Captain Nemo
Member
Question: Are UV filters or Lens Hoods necessary/recommended?
And if they are, any recommendations? I am wondering specifically for my setup but since I am a relative newbie general information is good too. I have a Canon 450d/XSI with the [EF-S 18-55mm IS] and the [EF-S 55-250mm IS] lenses.
And if they are, any recommendations? I am wondering specifically for my setup but since I am a relative newbie general information is good too. I have a Canon 450d/XSI with the [EF-S 18-55mm IS] and the [EF-S 55-250mm IS] lenses.
I have UV filters on all of my lenses-I'm pretty klutzy at times. While I haven't dropped any of my lenses yet, I have accidentally put my finger on the front glass, so this helps keep them clean. You'll want to use lens hoods if you're pointing your camera in the direction of a strong light source, like the sun or a spotlight. They also help with protecting the front glass.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Lens hoods should always be used in Sunlight. No matter where the Sun is placed, flaring is always possible (and not just the obvious flaring). Another sort of flaring (that's not as known) is the kind that saps the contrast of an image. Its one of the reasons why I had thought something was wrong with my 50/1.4. Shading the lens with my hand caused a perceptible difference (in strong sunlight).
BlueTsunami said:
No joke. Here's a pretty serious example, from my 50mm f/1.8. Even with it's pretty deeply recessed front element, and while it's not really prone to stuff like that, you do have to be aware if the sun's in front of you. Less shitty one is just with my hand blocking the sun, which was pretty high up, off the shot's 2 o'clock.
I really wanted to get into photography again. I was into it a lot in highschool, taking various classes etc.. Never got to use any good camera's though.
I have about $500 to spend, and want a Digital SLR, but I don't know what to get or where to look, or if I should keep saving more money.
I have about $500 to spend, and want a Digital SLR, but I don't know what to get or where to look, or if I should keep saving more money.
echo echo echo BUT
UV filters are solely for front element protection. consider it as potentially cheap insurance and decide per lens accordingly. never bother with non-coated UV filters as they will flare and ghost like crazy in the presence of a strong source of light.
lens hoods are for protection as well, but they're mostly to keep strong sources of light from directly hitting the front element (particularly at nasty oblique angles). this light can cause eg loss of contrast, flaring, etc. if there aren't too many strong sources of light near you (eg, the sun), you can also try using your hand. this is what i do. a reversible hood (for your particular lens) would probably be better.
another cheap option: google paper lens hood for cutouts for most popular lenses that can be attached with rubber bands. so awesome it hurts
cheap entry dslr: 400-500 will get you a shitload of camera. the entry level dslrs all have their strengths and weaknesses, but there really aren't any that are total shit. one can also find screaming deals on older non-entry-level models used.
UV filters are solely for front element protection. consider it as potentially cheap insurance and decide per lens accordingly. never bother with non-coated UV filters as they will flare and ghost like crazy in the presence of a strong source of light.
lens hoods are for protection as well, but they're mostly to keep strong sources of light from directly hitting the front element (particularly at nasty oblique angles). this light can cause eg loss of contrast, flaring, etc. if there aren't too many strong sources of light near you (eg, the sun), you can also try using your hand. this is what i do. a reversible hood (for your particular lens) would probably be better.
another cheap option: google paper lens hood for cutouts for most popular lenses that can be attached with rubber bands. so awesome it hurts
cheap entry dslr: 400-500 will get you a shitload of camera. the entry level dslrs all have their strengths and weaknesses, but there really aren't any that are total shit. one can also find screaming deals on older non-entry-level models used.
Captain Nemo
Member
Alright, thanks for the heads up guys. Very informative. I will be picking up some lens hoods soon but will use my hand for now. Aside from the functional benefits they end making the camera look cooler too .
.BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
op_ivy said:
From what I've read, the 10-22mm is the landscape lens for Canons EF-S cameras
BlueTsunami said:
yeah, from the sites i've visited comparing the two, that looked to be the case. funny what a 2mm difference can make when you are looking at that end of the spectrum.
also, can anyone recommend a good + cheap macro lens?
bggrthnjsus
Member
so i am in need of a new walkabout lens for my rebel xt. anybody have anything to say on a tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 ($400) vs. the canon 17-40mm f/4 L ($600)? i know the 17-40mm is a wide angle, but on a cropped frame body it's not so wide, and i actually like wider angles anyway.
anyway other lenses i have:
canon 70-200 f/4 L (non IS)
canon 50mm f/1.8
sigma 10-20mm f/4
what will be a better complement to what i already have (does that even matter right now)?
i've read that the canon 17-40 isn't as good as other L lenses, and that the tamron 17-50 is an awesome bargain that takes surprisingly sharp pictures. also it has the benefit of working in lower light, but i don't know how soft it gets at f/2.8...i do like the build quality of canon L lenses, but i can't really see myself caring enough to get fed up with a lighter, cheaper feeling lens...i mean i do own that cheap canon plastic 50mm.
...right now i could probably get the tamron immediately, but i'd have to save up a bit for the canon. or do i just save more and get a canon 24-105mm f/4 L (which i used for awhile before i had to return)? i mean at some point in the future i'd like to own a 24-105mm again, but i will probably upgrade my camera body relatively soon too, so maybe it would be good to have a cheaper lens on the old camera and wait for the new camera to get the 24-105. agh :/
anyway other lenses i have:
canon 70-200 f/4 L (non IS)
canon 50mm f/1.8
sigma 10-20mm f/4
what will be a better complement to what i already have (does that even matter right now)?
i've read that the canon 17-40 isn't as good as other L lenses, and that the tamron 17-50 is an awesome bargain that takes surprisingly sharp pictures. also it has the benefit of working in lower light, but i don't know how soft it gets at f/2.8...i do like the build quality of canon L lenses, but i can't really see myself caring enough to get fed up with a lighter, cheaper feeling lens...i mean i do own that cheap canon plastic 50mm.
...right now i could probably get the tamron immediately, but i'd have to save up a bit for the canon. or do i just save more and get a canon 24-105mm f/4 L (which i used for awhile before i had to return)? i mean at some point in the future i'd like to own a 24-105mm again, but i will probably upgrade my camera body relatively soon too, so maybe it would be good to have a cheaper lens on the old camera and wait for the new camera to get the 24-105. agh :/
CounterSeal
Member
Hey guys, not sure how much help I can get, but I am currently looking for a good "bridge" camera. I don't have any serious photography experience, so I really have no idea what to do or get. I'd say that I am interested in getting into photography, but I'm not ready to invest in a DSLR. At the same time, I also don't want a simple point-and-click camera either.
I just want to know what your opinions are on what I should do? I am currently looking at "bridge" cameras that are apparently a mix of point-and-clicks and DSLRs such as:
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28K 10MP
Sony Cyber-shot DSCH50 9.1 MP
If it helps, I am mainly looking to use the camera for average everyday use like shooting scenary, events, friends, etc. Nothing professional, strictly as a hobbyist.
I just want to know what your opinions are on what I should do? I am currently looking at "bridge" cameras that are apparently a mix of point-and-clicks and DSLRs such as:
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28K 10MP
Sony Cyber-shot DSCH50 9.1 MP
If it helps, I am mainly looking to use the camera for average everyday use like shooting scenary, events, friends, etc. Nothing professional, strictly as a hobbyist.
well, the bokeh should be godly, but it's hard to master. the AF is slow, and the point of view is certainly restrictive for general photography. it is what it is. certainly a formidable lens for any collection, i'd have bought the 14mm f/2.8L or the 24mm f/1.4L myself before the 85mm L, but to each their own.Zeth said:
radios shipping overview
Member
Looks like it takes FD-mount lenses, which are super super cheap now because you can't use them on modern Canons without an adapter. Get the 50mm f/1.4, the 35mm f/2, and the 85mm f/1.8 for a great portrait lens.karasu said:
I love the 85mm focal length. For the wider end I don't mind using zooms, like you said, personal preference.
Slow focus is the biggest hangup but I plan to do a lot of still life. I'm looking forward to learning to use the widest aperture Canon currently manufactures.
Just picked up this film body for a B/W photo class too. Killer deal at $80. Glad I can use my normal lens collection.
Slow focus is the biggest hangup but I plan to do a lot of still life. I'm looking forward to learning to use the widest aperture Canon currently manufactures.
Just picked up this film body for a B/W photo class too. Killer deal at $80. Glad I can use my normal lens collection.
Lucky Forward
Member
Congrats on the lens, Zeth! I have the 85 1.2L also, and it can be much more than a studio lens. Here's a bunch I shot on the fly with it:
I almost always shoot with it wide-open at f/1.2 unless there is a specific reason I need a little more depth-of-field. Wide-open is its "thing", stop it down a bit and it becomes like many other lenses. But the trick to using it wide-open is to constantly be mindful of the narrow plane of focus, and to continually refocus on the eyes of your subject, or the otherwise center of interest.
I almost always shoot with it wide-open at f/1.2 unless there is a specific reason I need a little more depth-of-field. Wide-open is its "thing", stop it down a bit and it becomes like many other lenses. But the trick to using it wide-open is to constantly be mindful of the narrow plane of focus, and to continually refocus on the eyes of your subject, or the otherwise center of interest.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
I want the 135L so bad. Disposable cash is far between in these times though but hell, I may spring for it when I get my returns (or maybe I should save it just in case ).
).BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
fart said:
That is true. The one thing I personally find appealing are the large apertures but the 85L already has a budget brother that performs nicely (85/1.8) so in that case value being found in each lens should definitely be regarded. One of the cool things about the 85L (II) is the rounded apertures which give images taken with it appealing Out of Focus at all apertures.
The biggest bang for the buck though (in the tele range) has to be the 200L (II). Thing costs $600 and is very sharp... that's one of the lenses I was also looking at. The focal length is probably limiting though.
CounterSeal said:
Hmm, I might have to give the Panasonic serious consideration. I have been wanting to get a very basic DSLR for awhile and almost pulled the trigger on the Nikon D40 yesterday, but couldn't do it without doing more research. Now I'm wondering if one of these bridge cams is the way to go. I'm afraid of spending a bunch of money on something that I never use (since I also want to get one just as a hobbyist), but I'm also worried that I might really love the hobby and be upset about getting something like a bridge camera that I can't upgrade with a better lens down the road.
I've never used anything more advanced than a point-and-shoot digicam, so all of the information is a little overwhelming to me.
My post from this morning can be disregarded. I just ordered a Nikon D40 from Amazon. Now that I am going to be taking better quality shots, should I upgrade the software I use to organize/edit my photos from iPhoto? I already have Photoshop CS4 and can get Lightroom for free from my university, but I have always been of the understanding that Lightroom is more for professional photographers doing their own post-processing. Is it overkill for a photography pre-noob such as myself?
radios shipping overview
Member
Since it's free, you should definitely go for Lightroom. It's better at organizing and tagging photos than iPhoto, and the adjustments that are available are easy and quick to use, so it's good for a newbie. It doesn't hurt to start learning how to tweak your photos to your preference right from the beginning, as digital ain't worth much without good post-processing, IMO.
i love love love lightroom. if basic processing idioms are imposing to you, you might prefer iphoto, but otherwise i don't think you can go wrong (imo lightroom is the most powerful of the catalogers) with it. honestly i think you can skip CS4 for most hobbyist usage, unless you happen to already love it. it's just too slow for me to bother with 99.999% of shots.
snakexs: for some reason i remember you as having a manfrotto tripod. if so, any input on my q from above?
snakexs: for some reason i remember you as having a manfrotto tripod. if so, any input on my q from above?
fart said:
Wow, great memory. And yeah I saw the message earlier but had to run, and then BSG, and I got up to double check what model I had just now.
I have the 190XPROB and a 488RC2.
Looks like a double negative.
The center shaft can also go out horizontally after you pull it up all the way, and can lock in like that, so there's a little ball hinge thing that blocks it from being removed.
As far as removing the entire section, not that I can see, but I've never tried. I'll try and dig up the manual, but I wouldn't be hopeful. There's nothing much insofar as ways I can see to do it, but I'll try.
the 135 f/2.0L and the other long/tele L primes are for portrait action/sport work. the 135mm will probably be my next lens, its part of the holy trifecta. 35mm f/1.4L, 85mm f/1.2L and 135mm f/2.0L. i adore my 35mm, dont think i can use the 85 at all, but from all sources, the 135mm seems to be THE portrait lens, by all accounts its just about flawless, tack sharp. understand that the POV isnt gonna be much use for general photography though. i think you grow around these lenses anyway though, so...
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Congrats on the D40!zesty said:
Some tips:
The kit lens is pretty good considering it's a kit lens. It's decently sharp wide open, and on the D40, it's pretty sharp at apertures 8-11 ish.
Especially for indoor shots, the SB-400 flash is a cheap, small, yet very useful tool to make a dark room bright. Bounce the flash on the ceiling or wall for best results.
This is a fairly useful and beginner friendly guide to the D40 - http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/users-guide/index.htm
Have fun!
Get Lightroom. Hell, if you're gonna get it for free, you might as well. It's a great organizing tool. Ever since I got Lightroom, I use it 90% of the time and only fire up Photoshop if I need to do major retouching.
Google around for tips on organizing your folder structure and catalog hierarchy.
Lightroomkillertips.com has some neat tricks from time to time.
vatstep
This poster pulses with an appeal so broad the typical restraints of our societies fall by the wayside.
I'm planning on buying a macro lens this week, and am trying to decide between Canon's EF-S 60mm and EF 100mm. They both do 1:1, which is obviously important, but I'm weighing the other pros and cons. I know that with the 60mm you'll need to get about twice as close for 1:1 (3.5" from end of lens versus 6" with the 100mm), but it's also much smaller and about half the weight of the 100mm, which I feel is kind of important to me. I probably won't be using it for anything other than macros, so the dual functionality (portrait-wise) of a 60mm lens in this case doesn't really make a difference for me.
I probably won't be doing much insect/animal photography, which is obviously where the additional working distance of the 100mm would come in handy. Is that primarily the only advantage over the 60mm? That's the impression I get from reviews and such. If so, I'd rather save $100 and get a slightly more portable lens.
I probably won't be doing much insect/animal photography, which is obviously where the additional working distance of the 100mm would come in handy. Is that primarily the only advantage over the 60mm? That's the impression I get from reviews and such. If so, I'd rather save $100 and get a slightly more portable lens.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
vatstep said:
You've already got the pros/cons down. The 50mm does sound like it would be perfect for you and the wider perspective the 50mm gives would probably give your macro shots a different feel (since longer lenses seem to be what most people use for Macro).
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
So, Nikon decides to release a 35mm f1.8 prime lens that is DX (smaller image circle made for digital APS-C size sensors). At first I didn't really get the reasoning behind it, but now I see. The thing is only $200. It should probably have really nice image quality too.
This will probably be the lens to get for D40 and other consumer DSLR users who want great image quality at a low price.
I wonder how it compares to the Sigma 30mm f1.4...
Get your preorders in now...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001S2PPT0/?tag=neogaf0e-20
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2183/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-35mm-f%2F1.8G.html
This will probably be the lens to get for D40 and other consumer DSLR users who want great image quality at a low price.
I wonder how it compares to the Sigma 30mm f1.4...
Get your preorders in now...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001S2PPT0/?tag=neogaf0e-20
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2183/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-35mm-f%2F1.8G.html
nitewulf said:
the trifecta seems to vary though. For 1.6x crop cameras, it might be considered more 35/50/85. (traditionally 50/85/135 on 35mm or if you have a 5D or similar)
I have the 85 1.8, love it and its supposed to be much more user friendly, I think the 1.2 would take too much getting used to, and I can't justify that cost just yet
vatstep said:
I bought the 60mm as I liked the idea of it being usable as a (very sharp) portrait lens. Haven't really used it much for that though.
Working distance is *very* close though. if its only inanimate objects you should be ok, but bear in mind getting light onto your subject will be more difficult with the lens so close.
Also worth bearing in mind is depth of field. DoF is tiny when working at macro levels, and the 60mm will give you more DoF for the same apeture compared to the 100mm. The flipside of this is if you're doing eg flower macros, the 100mm will flatten perspective more, so it'll isolate the subject from the background more, as there is less background in the picture.
- Status