Gear discussion thread v. "I own more nifty fifties than cameras they fit"
2,522 replies, posted
[QUOTE=coolrider102;39492683]Generally, I break more things in the process of fixing it, then I have to go back and fix everything else.
It's fun though!
I've got a Polaroid CB-103 film back coming tomorrow, and I'll hopefully be using the shutter/lens from this Yashica (if I can fix it) as the heart of the franken'camera.[/QUOTE]
wow, your mind seems to work in a systematical manner. makes me think of something like this:
[img]http://208.88.72.216/Portals/0/Images/AirSweepers/mechanical.gif[/img]
also, it'd be really cool if you could post a step by step image set as to how you're converting this into a franken camera. would you be up for that?
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;39483430]Ain't nothing wrong with crop.
Depends on some fine details of your shooting style whether or not you [I]need[/I] full frame or crop.[/QUOTE]
Well he didn't write anything about his shooting style. And for me full frame is just superior. I mean it's a bigger sensor. I see crop only as a compromise. For example when you want a small digital camera then you have no other choice but to go with crop. Or if you don't have a big budget. It's not like crop is awful, I just hate how it turnes ultrawides into normal wides and normal lenses into tele lenses. Of course there are lenses made with that in mind now but I still prefer my 50mm being actual 50mm and not 80mm. But yeah if you are shooting tele then you will like crop.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;39491978]Need a few opinions on lenses from people who have hopefully used them.
I'm looking to get a decent normal lens under $500 for video on a crop sensor DSLR. I have a 550D and the 50mm f1.8 already, so I'm looking for something in the 28 to 35mm range. Thing is, I'm having trouble deciding what to spend my money on. So far, my options really seem to be Canon's 28 f1.8 as well as their 35 f2, or possibly Sigma's 30 f1.4.
[url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009R6WU/ref=s9_simh_gw_p421_d0_i3?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=001214KDFNVC3XZJQDA3&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846[/url]
[url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009XVCU/ref=s9_simh_gw_p421_d0_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=001214KDFNVC3XZJQDA3&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846[/url]
[url]http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U0GZM/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1360138034&sr=1-3&keywords=sigma+35mm+1.4[/url]
The 35mm is the cheapest, but it's also a bit slower than the other two. The 28mm is what I truly want, but the Sigma is a bit cheaper and it's even faster. I know that you get what you pay for and that it's no Canon, Nikon, or Zeiss glass, but how good (or bad) is the Sigma really, especially for video? Would anyone recommend it, or should I just shell out the extra cash and go for the 28mm?[/QUOTE]
Another option would be the Rokinon 35mm f/1.4
[url]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/769569-REG/Rokinon_RK35M_C_35mm_f_1_4_Wide_Angle_US.html[/url]
You can easily de-click the aperture so you can get smooth pulls, and it really is quality glass. As for the Sigma, the quality control might be a little off, One regular here (was it Trogdon?) had some problems with it, but other reviews have put it in good light.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;39491978]Need a few opinions on lenses from people who have hopefully used them.
I'm looking to get a decent normal lens under $500 for video on a crop sensor DSLR. I have a 550D and the 50mm f1.8 already, so I'm looking for something in the 28 to 35mm range. Thing is, I'm having trouble deciding what to spend my money on. So far, my options really seem to be Canon's 28 f1.8 as well as their 35 f2, or possibly Sigma's 30 f1.4.
[url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009R6WU/ref=s9_simh_gw_p421_d0_i3?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=001214KDFNVC3XZJQDA3&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846[/url]
[url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009XVCU/ref=s9_simh_gw_p421_d0_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=001214KDFNVC3XZJQDA3&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846[/url]
[url]http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U0GZM/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1360138034&sr=1-3&keywords=sigma+35mm+1.4[/url]
The 35mm is the cheapest, but it's also a bit slower than the other two. The 28mm is what I truly want, but the Sigma is a bit cheaper and it's even faster. I know that you get what you pay for and that it's no Canon, Nikon, or Zeiss glass, but how good (or bad) is the Sigma really, especially for video? Would anyone recommend it, or should I just shell out the extra cash and go for the 28mm?[/QUOTE]
I would say the samyang/rokinon for video, they have cine versions with declicked apertures and focus gears.
For a photo lens I would wait for the new Sigma 30mm 1.4 that was just announced. It will have better build quality as it is part of their new art series of lenses, and I believe it has their HSM and a new optical formula. If its anything like their new 35mm 1.4 it should be a very good lens
Now that we are talking about tripods, I also need new one.
What would you suggest from a price range of 70-100€?
Something sturdy to take long exposure photos :)
[QUOTE=DuCT;39494812]Another option would be the Rokinon 35mm f/1.4
[url]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/769569-REG/Rokinon_RK35M_C_35mm_f_1_4_Wide_Angle_US.html[/url]
You can easily de-click the aperture so you can get smooth pulls, and it really is quality glass. As for the Sigma, the quality control might be a little off, One regular here (was it Trogdon?) had some problems with it, but other reviews have put it in good light.[/QUOTE]
[quote=Trogdon]I would say the samyang/rokinon for video, they have cine versions with declicked apertures and focus gears.
For a photo lens I would wait for the new Sigma 30mm 1.4 that was just announced. It will have better build quality as it is part of their new art series of lenses, and I believe it has their HSM and a new optical formula. If its anything like their new 35mm 1.4 it should be a very good lens[/quote]
Thanks guys. Yeah, Rokinon's Cine 35 has been on my radar for quite a while, it's just a tad expensive for a lens that I can't really seem to find many reviews for, so I didn't know if it was worth it. I'm glad to hear you guys recommend it. I guess I know where my tax return is going.
it's the same as their normal 35mm f1.4, and that compares favorably with Canon and Nikon's 35mm 1.4's, and beats the Sony/Minolta design.
[QUOTE=ollie;39496734]Now that we are talking about tripods, I also need new one.
What would you suggest from a price range of 70-100€?
Something sturdy to take long exposure photos :)[/QUOTE]
I imagine you could get a pretty decent Manfrotto tripod in that range. If you don't need a fluid head or anything and you're just doing locked down shots, any standard tripod would be fine probably. As long as you don't extend the legs up very much and make sure its weighted well, it should be pretty sturdy.
Personally, I have a Ravelli video tripod. It's very well made and sturdy. Obviously you won't need a video tripod for long exposure, but they have a lot of other well reviewed tripods, and they are less expensive than Manfrotto.
I also was given an Slik tripod by my girlfriend's parents. It's from the 80's but its a damn good tripod. It appears they still make it: [url]http://www.amazon.com/Slik-Professional-Universal-Panhead-Panoramic/dp/B00006I5SI/ref=cm_cmu_pg__header[/url]
It's a bit over your price range, but it's still an option.
fuck i hate how badly my a230 handles low light situations.
[QUOTE=/B/rother;39498507]fuck i hate how badly my a230 handles low light situations.[/QUOTE]
What made you choose the A230 over one of the Rebels? Any reason? Or did you really not have a choice?
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;39501665]What made you choose the A230 over one of the Rebels? Any reason? Or did you really not have a choice?[/QUOTE]
Sony has a really great offering of inexpensive optics. You've got 3 main ones that draw people in though
The 35mm 1.8, the minolta 50mm 1.7, and the minolta 70-210mm 4. The 28-135mm 4-4.5 is popular too, but I'm personally not a fan
The 35mm makes for a great normal lens. It's cheap at around $200, and is optically quite good, beating the sigma 30mm 1.4 which goes for quite a bit more cash.
The 50mm makes for a great, quality and affordable 50mm that also works on film bodies minoltas. I have scored 3 of these over the years for around $35 each, and they are great little lenses. They go for about $80 on eBay which is still a good price. Realistically canon and Nikon do not have a lens that competes with this one. It has a metal mount, distance scale, and works with all Sony and minolta AF cameras, for under $100. You can't get that combination in another mount, so it's really an alluring option in my eyes.
And lastly you have the 70-210mm f4. A constant f4 lens, and you can get them for under $200 on eBay, and under $100 locally. That's a steal compared to the nearest canon and Nikon equivalents at around $800 and $1200! It's pretty good optically with great bokeh and a lot of copies are very sharp, but it does have a bit of CA due to film coatings.
Then the 28-135mm people say is one of the sharpest zooms ever made (I had one and I disagree), and for around $300 it isn't a bad price. Some swear by it, I'm not one of those people
Then using any of these lenses, you've got sensor based stabilization, getting 2-4 stops handheld. So all your primes (and this is what the system works best on) get to be unmatched in handheld low light! Sony cameras and minolta lenses make for a brilliant price/performance ratio. That's what drew me into the alpha series. I got an a77 with a 16-50mm f2.8 constant for about $1600, which is about as much as a new canon 7D body only which is their competing model. And buying minolta lenses locally and selling them online I've made more money on lenses than I have spent on them, and I've got 5 to my name still
[QUOTE=Trogdon;39502176]Sony has a really great offering of inexpensive optics. You've got 3 main ones that draw people in though
The 35mm 1.8, the minolta 50mm 1.7, and the minolta 70-210mm 4. The 28-135mm 4-4.5 is popular too, but I'm personally not a fan
The 35mm makes for a great normal lens. It's cheap at around $200, and is optically quite good, beating the sigma 30mm 1.4 which goes for quite a bit more cash.
The 50mm makes for a great, quality and affordable 50mm that also works on film bodies minoltas. I have scored 3 of these over the years for around $35 each, and they are great little lenses. They go for about $80 on eBay which is still a good price. Realistically canon and Nikon do not have a lens that competes with this one. It has a metal mount, distance scale, and works with all Sony and minolta AF cameras, for under $100. You can't get that combination in another mount, so it's really an alluring option in my eyes.
And lastly you have the 70-210mm f4. A constant f4 lens, and you can get them for under $200 on eBay, and under $100 locally. That's a steal compared to the nearest canon and Nikon equivalents at around $800 and $1200! It's pretty good optically with great bokeh and a lot of copies are very sharp, but it does have a bit of CA due to film coatings.
Then the 28-135mm people say is one of the sharpest zooms ever made (I had one and I disagree), and for around $300 it isn't a bad price. Some swear by it, I'm not one of those people
Then using any of these lenses, you've got sensor based stabilization, getting 2-4 stops handheld. So all your primes (and this is what the system works best on) get to be unmatched in handheld low light! Sony cameras and minolta lenses make for a brilliant price/performance ratio. That's what drew me into the alpha series. I got an a77 with a 16-50mm f2.8 constant for about $1600, which is about as much as a new canon 7D body only which is their competing model. And buying minolta lenses locally and selling them online I've made more money on lenses than I have spent on them, and I've got 5 to my name still[/QUOTE]
Very interesting. I actually stumbled across an oldish Minolta along with some lenses for it at a pawn shop about a year ago.
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/x7rS6DD.jpg[/thumb]
(please excuse the mess)
I purchased an adapter for my Canon so I can use some of them. I haven't gotten around to actually fussing with it much, but I plan to when the spring comes and I finally have some time off.
Oh that's the old minolta MD stuff. I was referring to the minolta alpha range of AF lenses from 1985 onward. The stuff you have is great, but the best camera to use them on would be a mirrorless (I prefer nex cameras), as the adapters don't have any glass as those reduce image quality.
Haven't they been working on FF for years haha
juz bring me sub $3k fullframe compact with 35 1.4
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;39502971]Very interesting. I actually stumbled across an oldish Minolta along with some lenses for it at a pawn shop about a year ago.
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/x7rS6DD.jpg[/thumb]
(please excuse the mess)
I purchased an adapter for my Canon so I can use some of them. I haven't gotten around to actually fussing with it much, but I plan to when the spring comes and I finally have some time off.[/QUOTE]
I have the same camera! I love it, it is my main film slr.
Shot using a friend's rando 35mm slr on the weekend, such a tight crop on 50mm :I
[QUOTE=bopie;39503286]juz bring me sub $3k fullframe compact with 35 1.4[/QUOTE]
The rx-1 is the smallest thing close to that for several years (speculating here). Maybe a FF nex could be close, but 35mm lenses at 1.4 are very big. Smallest one is the Sony 35mm 1.4 and its not a good lens.
When I heard the RX-1 only has 1 fixed lens, I questioned life and existence.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;39505959]When I heard the RX-1 only has 1 fixed lens, I questioned life and existence.[/QUOTE]
Even if I had the money I wouldn't get it because of the lack of viewfinder.
[editline]7th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trogdon;39505664]The rx-1 is the smallest thing close to that for several years (speculating here). Maybe a FF nex could be close, but 35mm lenses at 1.4 are very big. Smallest one is the Sony 35mm 1.4 and its not a good lens.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://leicarumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Voigtlander-Nokton-Classic-35mm-f1.4-lens.jpeg[/IMG]
Voigtlander 35 1.4.
yeah that would be a good lens on an FF mirrorless, but it's manual focus, manual aperture, no electronic contacts, yadayada. probably something people will use, i don't know how it stacks up against SLR 35mm lenses though.
[editline]7th February 2013[/editline]
also from looking at this review, it doesn't look at all like a good lens
[url]http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2009/12/02/the-voigtlander-nokton-35-1-4-mc-lens-review/[/url]
D5200 VS D7000?
My friend is thinking of getting a new camera, and is stuck between the two.
I'd say D7000 myself.
Does anyone know if there's a way simple way to mathematically calculate the distance a lens needs to be from the film plane for infinity focus? kthx
xoxoxo <3
Polaroid back came today. Roughly modeled it in Sketchup because I can't afford any sort of Cad software :s
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/7035566/camera.png[/IMG]
I think I got the film position correct, right?
I've never used the peel apart instant film so I'm not sure.
Since the film is shifted to the right, I should also mount the lens more to the right....right?
Or does the first frame get pulled to the center after you remove the dark slide?
Instant film guis, hallp
[QUOTE=coolrider102;39509618]Does anyone know if there's a way simple way tp mathematically calculate the distance a lens needs to be from the film plane for infinity focus?[/QUOTE]
not really, unless you know the details of the optical system you're dealing with
easiest thing to do would be to either measure the distance from lens to film plane while the lens is still attached to the camera, or if that's not possible then set the lens focus to some distance like 1 meter or something, put an object 1 meter away from it and use a ground glass or some suitable replacement, and just move it till the object is in focus
[editline]7th February 2013[/editline]
you get lenses of the same focal length designed for different camera systems with various flange focal distances; that part basically just depends on the design
[editline]7th February 2013[/editline]
or if you can find a technical diagram like this
[img]http://i.imgur.com/17h1jQ7.jpg[/img]
for the lens in question, then you win
I have a semi-retarded question.
I ordered a UV(C) filter, and I got some kind of translucent-opaque plastic disk with it. I'm not sure if it's actually for the filter or not. It's larger than 58mm which is the diameter of the filter itself, so I can't possibly fit it between the lens and filter itself. It lets light through and gives it a soft glow with some detail, so it might be useful for something.
[QUOTE=don868;39510146]I have a semi-retarded question.
I ordered a UV(C) filter, and I got some kind of translucent-opaque plastic disk with it. I'm not sure if it's actually for the filter or not. It's larger than 58mm which is the diameter of the filter itself, so I can't possibly fit it between the lens and filter itself. It lets light through and gives it a soft glow with some detail, so it might be useful for something.[/QUOTE]
That sounds like part of the packaging that they put in with it to stop the metal of the filter ring scratching the little plastic box it comes in.
[QUOTE=coolrider102;39509618]Does anyone know if there's a way simple way to mathematically calculate the distance a lens needs to be from the film plane for infinity focus? kthx
xoxoxo <3
Polaroid back came today. Roughly modeled it in Sketchup because I can't afford any sort of Cad software :s
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/7035566/camera.png[/IMG]
I think I got the film position correct, right?
I've never used the peel apart instant film so I'm not sure.
Since the film is shifted to the right, I should also mount the lens more to the right....right?
Or does the first frame get pulled to the center after you remove the dark slide?
Instant film guis, hallp[/QUOTE]
Depends on what the back is made for mounting to.
Example, a back made for an RZ67 has an exposure area of 7x7 (to accomodate for the rotating back)
[img]http://www.iscanmanuals.com/ebay/jlbeek/mamiyarz17.5.09pic60.jpg[/img]
The metallic square is the exposure area, when you pull the darkslide out that's [i]exactly[/i] where the film will be.
A back for the Mamiya Universal press camera has a much larger exposure area, it exposes the entire polaroid (3.25" x 4.25")
[img]http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4094/5414092128_18bc4b85b3_z.jpg[/img]
The exposure area for a Hasselblad 6x6 back is much smaller in comparison.
[img]http://www.eplevine.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/used_inv/103538.jpg[/img]
It's made to be used with the Polaroid packfilm cameras. (Polaroid Model 100 cameras for example)
[IMG]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8033/8049050134_6e4856d411_z.jpg[/IMG]
(mine is much prettier than this one though.)
there is a BUNCH of wide angle converters at the local thrift store...about 15 bucks each...are wide angle lens additions any good?
[QUOTE=notlabbet;39512526]there is a BUNCH of wide angle converters at the local thrift store...about 15 bucks each...are wide angle lens additions any good?[/QUOTE]
I'm fairly sure that adding any optics onto your lens at all will degrade the quality of your photo.
If you can't find a wide angle lens for your camera, then I guess a converter will get the job done, but there will probably be a lot of distortion and ugly blurriness on the edge of the frame. Unless, that's the look you're going for.
I'm no expert though, and I'm no where near as experienced as the people in this thread, but that is my understanding from using them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.