• Gear discussion thread v. "I own more nifty fifties than cameras they fit"
    2,522 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ProWaffle;37806354]Right, I know pretty much nothing about cameras, so I need advice. Looking for a good entry-level DSLR, what do all of you think of the Canon EOS 600D? I'm considering buying it from Kogan, anything wrong with them? Here's the kit I'm considering: [url]http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/canon-eos-600d-kit-single-lens-18-55mm/[/url][/QUOTE] I know nothing about camera's and I just started photography only a sort time ago. But I'm loving my T3i. Its great for what I use it for, documentary of car restoration.
[QUOTE=ProWaffle;37806354]Right, I know pretty much nothing about cameras, so I need advice. Looking for a good entry-level DSLR, what do all of you think of the Canon EOS 600D? I'm considering buying it from Kogan, anything wrong with them? Here's the kit I'm considering: [url]http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/canon-eos-600d-kit-single-lens-18-55mm/[/url][/QUOTE] I bought my first DSLR a couple of months ago, and chose 600D. It's a great camera, and I've had no complaints with it so far. Go for it.
My 600D has been nothing but glorious since I bought it last year! Make sure you invest in a good prime lens though, you can't go wrong with an f/1.4 50mm though I'm glad I bought a 30mm instead of 50mm for my setup.
Been looking into getting a Film SLR after using a friends for ages, Looking at the OM-10, would you guys reccomend anything different?
[QUOTE=Dvorak231;37809064]Been looking into getting a Film SLR after using a friends for ages, Looking at the OM-10, would you guys reccomend anything different?[/QUOTE] Get a Canon A-1 or AE-1. Not really different than the OM-10 but lenses are way cheaper and easier to get than OM lenses, which have risen considerably in value because you can also use them on digital. A Minolta X-700 would also be a really good choice, same story as with the FD lenses, you can't really use them on digital, so the prices of those lenses are way lower.
I saw a Pentax ME Super with a 50ish mm prime lens (maybe 45?) that appeared to work fine for $15 at the store the other day, I think that's what a portion of the film photogs here use. considering grabbing it if someone wants to pay for it + shipping
can anyone point me in the right direction? I'm trying to find a battery grip online for my 550d but a lot of sellers and after market grips get mixed reviews. I just want a decent grip for a good price, any help would be much appreciated
Hahnel do a nice one that's basically just a canon grip, but comes with an infrared remote.
Finally dumped and viewed a month and a half of snapped photos I took with my new D30 during the EF-FD adapter and later true EF lens days. [IMG]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a166/ballsandy/IMG_6794.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a166/ballsandy/IMG_6603.jpg[/IMG] I really, really need to invest in a lens that has image stabilization. There's a lot of good photos but about 75% are ruined by fuzzyness and blurring. Even my 300mm tripod shots came out bad. I don't like any of the 170+ photos I took.
most likely it's because of the glass in your adapter
I have a question about flashguns. I want to shoot outside portraits with my Canon Speedlite 430 EX II. I figured getting a softbox for my flashgun and using it off-camera will have a very nice soft, almost natural, lighting effect on the model. First off, is this true? Will a flashgun using a softbox produce lighting that compliments the natural lighting? Second, will it have enough power to decently light a model from a few meters away? Not talking about fully illuminating a model but just adding some lighting to the existing natural lighting. Third, if the above should all work, what softbox would you guys recommend that isn't that expensive? pls rspnd thx
[QUOTE=MIPS;37814018]Finally dumped and viewed a month and a half of snapped photos I took with my new D30 during the EF-FD adapter and later true EF lens days. [IMG]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a166/ballsandy/IMG_6794.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a166/ballsandy/IMG_6603.jpg[/IMG] I really, really need to invest in a lens that has image stabilization. There's a lot of good photos but about 75% are ruined by fuzzyness and blurring. Even my 300mm tripod shots came out bad. I don't like any of the 170+ photos I took.[/QUOTE] Ah, I had the same issue with my adapter. However, if I was shooting over anything past f/3.0, I was good on softness. Eventually, I just said fuck-it, and reinvested into another EF 50mm. My little experience with an EF-FD adapter has left me with a bad taste.
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;37842503]I have a question about flashguns. I want to shoot outside portraits with my Canon Speedlite 430 EX II. I figured getting a softbox for my flashgun and using it off-camera will have a very nice soft, almost natural, lighting effect on the model. First off, is this true? Will a flashgun using a softbox produce lighting that compliments the natural lighting? Second, will it have enough power to decently light a model from a few meters away? Not talking about fully illuminating a model but just adding some lighting to the existing natural lighting. Third, if the above should all work, what softbox would you guys recommend that isn't that expensive? pls rspnd thx[/QUOTE] First check your cameras sync speed with flash. Most models have around 1/125, which most likely isn't enough for outdoors. Then it will look "natural" depending on the light situation outside, and how closely it matches the color of the sun. If you can get an acceptable sync range for outdoors, and a way to modify the color of the light, then you can create natural fill light Or you can use a reflector, because that is using the same light so the color won't change OR You can overexpose the scene by exposing to the skin of who you are shooting so they are properly lit, maximize the dynamic range in RAW, and then in photoshop have them be a separate layer and properly edit them to ideal lighting, and edit the background differently. This is what I do and it helps get the natural look lighting while still giving a realistic looking exposure.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;37845189]First check your cameras sync speed with flash. Most models have around 1/125, which most likely isn't enough for outdoors. Then it will look "natural" depending on the light situation outside, and how closely it matches the color of the sun. If you can get an acceptable sync range for outdoors, and a way to modify the color of the light, then you can create natural fill light Or you can use a reflector, because that is using the same light so the color won't change OR You can overexpose the scene by exposing to the skin of who you are shooting so they are properly lit, maximize the dynamic range in RAW, and then in photoshop have them be a separate layer and properly edit them to ideal lighting, and edit the background differently. This is what I do and it helps get the natural look lighting while still giving a realistic looking exposure.[/QUOTE] I'm guessing the sync speed won't be a problem if I used an ND filter? And thanks for the tips!
i don't think sync speed will be, but then flash power might (not entirely sure?) as i believe you would need a higher power flash to have an effect on the scene. and ND filters make focusing harder which is something to keep in mind as they darken the viewfinder
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;37842503] Third, if the above should all work, what softbox would you guys recommend that isn't that expensive? [/QUOTE] Maybe get a white umbrella first, you can get big ones for around $20 I think. If you can get someone to hold umbrella+flash you won't have to spend anything on lightstand and ... uh, thethingthatkeepsumbrellaandflashinplace. Then again: [QUOTE=DoubleDD;37842503] Second, will it have enough power to decently light a model from a few meters away? Not talking about fully illuminating a model but just adding some lighting to the existing natural lighting.[/quote] Since umbrellas are open you lose more light than with a softbox. Oh, and "a few meters away", maybe a small one would be better then cause it doesn't diffuse as much.
Got my Sigma 30mm f1.4 today. Super awesome. I've heard some Sigma lenses had focus issues. Is this still a thing? How can I check if it does or not?
My Sigma 24-135 has focus issues, but only in dimish lighting. My 50mm can always pick it up, but my sigma just sits there and spins the focus ring back and forth.
[QUOTE=AshMan55;37868369]Got my Sigma 30mm f1.4 today. Super awesome. I've heard some Sigma lenses had focus issues. Is this still a thing? How can I check if it does or not?[/QUOTE] You'll enjoy it, and as far as I know it was only on older ones, but your best bet would be with a focus chart I guess.
Is it worth the jump from a Rebel XS to a 50D? I've tried many many lenses, and no matter what people let me borrow, I always jump back to my 50mm 1.8. I would be selling my Rebel and my Sigma 24-135 F2.8-4.5 for the 50D?
How much are you selling the Sigma? If the price is decent, and nothing is wrong; I'll buy it off you.
It works great, its in good condition. Ill have to look at how much they are going for, and Ill shoot you a PM?
[QUOTE=Trogdon;37814465]most likely it's because of the glass in your adapter[/QUOTE] The first picture was taken using Canon's EF 28-80 58mm stock lens. Now that [url=http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-80mm-f-3.5-5.6-II-Lens-Review.aspx]I have googled[/url], it's really just a HORRIBLE lens. I asked a friend about it as well. He said he ahd one. He had converted it into a macro lens.
Oh yeah that's a crap lens. A lot of canon 90's zooms were really terrible. Aside from fast aperture glass they were all bleh in quality. But that's how most 90's optics were, just plastic slow zooms on automatic cameras
After getting involved in the photography environment I got to know a lot of amazing people, and some mad ones. One of the people I know is a great portrait photographer. He also collects cameras and is partially insane. [IMG]http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/418807_10151153769845871_1959357723_n.jpg[/IMG]
He has approximately 750 cameras. No idea on the lenses, but I think it's a fair bet to say that he owns more cameras than nifty fifties to fit.
You could say he has fifty nifties.
[QUOTE=mac338;37882914]I think it's a fair bet to say that he owns more cameras than nifty fifties to fit.[/QUOTE] heresy
No super-telephotos, scrub. oh god why am I page king. Content: Talked with a photographer at school today. Year ago we talked how his 70-200 2.8 VR was stolen by a security firm, finally seeing him again finally bought one again. Although it's only an 80-200mm 2.8 AF-S
Woah that's still a dope lens But sucks though, I get my decent glass and cameras insured through my parents homeowners
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.