• Gear discussion thread v. "I own more nifty fifties than cameras they fit"
    2,522 replies, posted
Woo - well I followed your advice, purchased a D90. It arrived yesterday, I'm loving it. So much nicer than my friends D5100. Just need to afford a decent lens now.
guys 35mm slr, i want to buy one, dont want to spend a bomb but i don't like the aesthetic of the stuff like the Nikon F60, prefer the older looking ones help a brother out
Most people around here like the Pentax ME Supers and Canon AE-1 or AE-1 Program, take a look for those. The AE-1 and AE-1P are definitely good cameras, just may be a bit pricier.
I was looking at the pentax ME, but would lean more towards the K1000 as i'm much more familiar with it.
[QUOTE=Angoose;38179669]I was looking at the pentax ME, but would lean more towards the K1000 as i'm much more familiar with it.[/QUOTE] I had two Pentax ME Supers and I loved them. Your choice though
I had a Pentax MX, it was lovely (small, good quality, bloody good metering) , but I'm a Zenit/Praktica man
Anyone recommend some good ND grads/holders that aren't too expensive?
Well I just mentioned to my dad that I had bought a new Nikon. His reply: Oh, I used to be into photography. 15 mins later brings down a metal flight case. [img]http://i.imgur.com/ar4ic.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/h9uuk.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/HIs0G.jpg[/img]
Anybody have any experience/reviews with this Fisheye adapter? [url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Opteka-Panoramic-Fisheye-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00281IQRI[/url]
Got my Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro. Loving it, but i think it's 105-450mm for my 1.5 cropfactor nikon? Correct me if i'm wrong. The shortest it goes. [IMG]http://puu.sh/1jkOY[/IMG] Extended without lens hood. [IMG]http://puu.sh/1jkX9[/IMG] Extended with lens hood. [IMG]http://puu.sh/1jkOs[/IMG] Pros: - No creepy ass lens creep. - Weight just perfect. - min. 1:2 reproduction scale - Ok quality glass Cons: - [b]Really[/b] noisy AF. - Bit plasticy maybe. Well worth the money. (200€) Also sorry about the blurry pictures, currently the only real camera i own is the subject so i had to use my 2mpix phone camera.
[QUOTE=Lewzje;38208665]Anybody have any experience/reviews with this Fisheye adapter? [url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Opteka-Panoramic-Fisheye-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00281IQRI[/url][/QUOTE] It adds a circle around your image, as far as making it wider I don't think it really does much, maybe a little bit of distortion but nothing really actually fisheye
I feel like my camera might be slightly messed up. Iirc, if I have my AF point selection on automatic section, certain af points on the view finder are supposed to light up depending on what you're shooting. For me, it doesn't light up and I just found this now. Also, my camera doesn't beep anymore. (I always had it off, but decided to turn it on,) Anyone know what's up? It's on my T2i btw.
[QUOTE=Lewzje;38208665]Anybody have any experience/reviews with this Fisheye adapter? [url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Opteka-Panoramic-Fisheye-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00281IQRI[/url][/QUOTE] They're okay, a bit gimmicky but pretty fun.
[QUOTE=ollie;38208936]Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro. Well worth the money. (200€) [/QUOTE] Really? Can you post some shots at 300mm, please? I bought one of those cheaper Sigma zooms once back when the only thing I knew about lenses was that higher mm meant more zoom. Was a 18-200... 200mm was basically so soft, the pictures were unusable.
[QUOTE=Fake-XM;38225999]Really? Can you post some shots at 300mm, please? I bought one of those cheaper Sigma zooms once back when the only thing I knew about lenses was that higher mm meant more zoom. Was a 18-200... 200mm was basically so soft, the pictures were unusable.[/QUOTE] the sigma lens he has isn't bad. it's a design from the 90's, and from their APO line which is considered to be above average for them at the time. The macro is certainly interesting, and the lens has been rebranded by other manufacturers (notably quantaray), but it probably matches similar zooms from the 90's in terms of optical quality and build quality, while having the macro feature. I had a sigma (well quantaray) 28-90mm macro for my minolta 9xi which was manufactured at a similar time, and it produced pretty good results for being a replacement for the kit. plus the 1:2 macro on the long end is really neat, not something you find in many lenses (most "macro" featured zooms only do 1:4 at the very best).
Don't you love when you buy a 24-70 2.8 and it's sent unboxed in an unpadded jiffy bag? Don't you love it? Don't you love when obviously it's very faulty? I'm so happy :D
I kind of want to buy a small camera which I can take with me everyday (the 550D is just too huge and heavy to take it with me every day) and right now I am thinking about getting the PowerShot S100, simply because it has manual controls, raw and it's also pretty "cheap". (350€) Is it worth the money or should I just try to take my dslr with me more often?
I would recommend the Olympus XZ-1 (or ZX-1 I don't remember). It's $200 right now, same size sensor, and the aperture is 1.8-2.4 for the whole range, making lowlight not too bad. Great camera, I highly recommend if you think a lighter camera is for you. Either that or just carry yours around more, it's not too heavy :P
The Panasonic LX7 is also a pretty nice one in that category. Nice bright f/1.4-2.3 lens, aperture ring, manual focus controls and a Leica lens. They are a little pricier though, so I guess get what fits your budget best.
I believe the lx7 is bigger than the Olympus. And both of them are bigger than the rx100.
It is a little bigger, not quite pocket sized, but still not a large camera. Sort of like a G15 in size.
The olympus looks quite nice, the aperture is a big plus. I just wish the lens was 24mm at it's widest instead of 28mm. (Although that's not a huge contra. :) ) The Panasonic also looks very nice and because of the leica lens I would probably choose that but it costs 100€ more which is probably out of my budget. Thanks for your suggestions!
[img]http://distilleryimage6.s3.amazonaws.com/7c17427826a711e29c0312313813fb3e_7.jpg[/img] Without a doubt my favorite lens in my kit, and it was only $15 :D Vivitar 75-260 4.5
Ah the vivitar 75-260mm... Still have one lying around here(in m42 mount). I wanted to throw away it multiple times now, but still haven't done that.
I want it for my 550d :(
[QUOTE=matreox;38316574]I want it for my 550d :([/QUOTE] [url]http://www.shopgoodwill.com/viewItem.asp?ItemID=11781630[/url] ?
[QUOTE=Trogdon;38320051][url]http://www.shopgoodwill.com/viewItem.asp?ItemID=11781630[/url] ?[/QUOTE] That's a 75-205mm lens. Although not the same lens, it's very similar. I also have that lens lying around here, but unfortunately there's something broken about it. [editline]5th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=matreox;38316574]I want it for my 550d :([/QUOTE] If i can find the lens, you could have it for 5 euro's + shipping cost :) Don't know where you live, so cannot say how much the shipping would be.
This has probably been asked before (yes I have searched) but....... are Lomography cameras any good? are they good for beginners? thanks
[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;38329326]This has probably been asked before (yes I have searched) but....... are Lomography cameras any good? are they good for beginners? thanks[/QUOTE] I started out on a Holga 135, but I regret it. Completely over-priced, and so many more cameras on other websites that are way better, and way cheaper. By philosophy, any camera is good to start out on. However, by technicality, a Lomography camera can't offer you the options other cameras can. The majority of Lomography's cameras are over-priced, cheap hunks of plastic. You could find something way better to use, for way less on eBay. In conclusion, NO, don't waste your money, go find something better.
I'd recommend looking for a good old film camera, lomo's have their idiosyncrasies but they are plastic with plastic lenses, and are expensive. I just don't find them a good investment, you can get cool looking shots but not really quality pictures ever if that makes sense. I mean quality in a technical sense.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.