Gear discussion thread v. "I got some new gear and I got to post it here"

[garychencool]

That really short depth of field...

[Trogdon]

it's really not that different from 1.8 or something unless you directly compare them. also depends on distance to subject. i use it mostly for mid to long shots, so that the subject is shown in the scene and some isolation still exists. i use it so i can get more foreground blur.

here is a shot i did at 1.2 to kind of show what i mean. it has foreground and background blur, which is hard to do on aps-c cameras usually
[url]http://payload93.cargocollective.com/1/9/288319/4165333/DSC04393.jpg[/url]

[garychencool]

[QUOTE=Trogdon;40310857]it's really not that different from 1.8 or something unless you directly compare them. also depends on distance to subject. i use it mostly for mid to long shots, so that the subject is shown in the scene and some isolation still exists. i use it so i can get more foreground blur.

here is a shot i did at 1.2 to kind of show what i mean. it has foreground and background blur, which is hard to do on aps-c cameras usually
[url]http://payload93.cargocollective.com/1/9/288319/4165333/DSC04393.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]

I see what you mean, the most I've played with is an f/1.4 50mm and god it's so good.

When indoors, I was able to use f/1.4, 1/60, ISO 100 easily compared to the f/3.5, 1/60, ISO 1600 with the 18-55mm kit lens.

[Trogdon]

So far I couldn't even pull it from my Flickr :p

[Mooe94]

speaking of low-light film shots, this reminds me of Barry Lyndon which was filmed using only natural light using lenses made by Zeiss originally for NASA (one of them being f/0.7 ones), but that Stanley Kubrick took hold of and got em for filming the movie.
MONEY SPEAKS. I wonder what films Kubrick would do if he was still alive today (and a functional director).

[cueballv2themax]

i would defo use 1.2 for video, but only far away shots of people where i can have workable dof and foreground blur. wouldn't use it any close than 5 metres

[Funcoot]

Does this look like a dirty sensor? What could it be? There are these strange spots on my pictures. It doesn't look like dust.

[URL]http://i.imgur.com/v2xgTrY.jpg[/URL]

[Eltro102]

its probably the sensor
take a picture with a really wide aperture and a really narrow one. If the spots become much smaller with the narrow aperture then you've got a dirty sensor, you're not going to notice it very much though unless you have some sort of flat low contrast wall fetish

[Trogdon]

Yep, you've got some gunk on there. I would invest in two things to get it done
You want one of these
[url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00017LSPI/ref=mp_s_a_1?qid=1366232080&sr=8-5&pi=SL75[/url]
That will get rid of the big chunks of dust, an probably one of the best tools for dust cleaning there is. It's an amazing investment, you just blow the sensor every few times while switching lenses and you'll rarely ever have dust problems again.
Then for the wet cleaning part, I would recommend these.
[url]http://opteka.com/ssc20.aspx[/url]
They work absolute wonders. I had spit, dirt, oil, and dust on my sensor once (don't ask) and this got rid of all of them. These are the best kind I have used, the pre moistened means no hassle there, and they are soft enough where you can apply pressure and not damage your sensor. Just use one and give a few passes and scrubs for the hard spots, and you will be good to go.

Then for the future, when you change lenses or have the sensor exposed, hold the camera so the sensor faces the floor, this prevents dust from falling into the camera. Change lenses in a camera bag or inside, and be sure to use the rocket every now and then.

[garychencool]

[QUOTE=Trogdon;40318184]

I had spit, dirt, oil, and dust on my sensor once
[/QUOTE]

oh god

[Trogdon]

[QUOTE=garychencool;40318397]oh god[/QUOTE]

[url]http://i.imgur.com/FwapWZC.jpg[/url]

[Roll_Program]

Those wipes are miraculous.

[Funcoot]

[QUOTE=Trogdon;40319074][URL]http://i.imgur.com/FwapWZC.jpg[/URL][/QUOTE]

Brother...?

[URL]http://i.imgur.com/6Xa6IK0.jpg[/URL]

[Trogdon]

so yeah i would definitely recommend the wipes, they are very good at cleaning. i don't have any photos in particular showing the difference of after, but i haven't noticed any spots since then that i haven't been able to dust rocket away

[gmd]

I bought my first DSLR last week, oh boy.

[URL=http://imgur.com/6v9iQuG][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/6v9iQuGl.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

[➤◉──────────]

[QUOTE=Mooe94;40313669]Barry Lyndon[/QUOTE]

so slow omg 3 hours

[Trogdon]

[QUOTE=bopie;40322937]so slow omg 3 hours[/QUOTE]

But the lens
So fast :0

[editline]18th April 2013[/editline]

Speaking of fast lens
[url]http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_18_35_18/features.html[/url]
No words for this. Wow

[T2L_Goose]

That's funny. I was just talking about that lens used for Barry Lyndon with a friend.

Also that lens makes my bank account weep, trog.

Thinking my next lens will be a Tamron 11-16mm. I need a wide angle lens bad and I'm hearing good things about that lens.

They're also doing a "cine" version, just like Rokinon. Problem is, instead of it only costing ~$100 more like the Rokinon lenses, their price point is going to be "under $2000". Yeah fuck that. If I'm buying a full manual lens that's literally the same as your non-cine version, I'm not going to pay 100% more, that's just silly to me. [url]http://blog.planet5d.com/2013/04/nab-2013-from-freshdv-tokina-new-cinema-lenses/[/url]

[David Tennant]

[QUOTE=Trogdon;40323183]But the lens
So fast :0

[editline]18th April 2013[/editline]

Speaking of fast lens
[URL]http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_18_35_18/features.html[/URL]
No words for this. Wow[/QUOTE]

I hope this catches on, just one lens would replace 2-3 primes, possibly more in the future.

[Ohfoohy]

Yep so the 50mm 1.2 is amazing and the focus ring is amazing. The 100-400mm is freaking huge and fun to snipe people with.

[cueballv2themax]

[url]http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/18/sigma-announces-18-35mm-f-1-8-dc-hsm/[/url]

okay i'll sell a limb for this

[IMG]http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2013/04/sigma18zps5f72f2dd.jpeg[/IMG]

[QUOTE]After opening a lot of eyes with its 30mm, F1.4 DC HSM lens, Sigma's just thrown another curve at the photo community with a feat that the major players haven't managed so far: a zoom lens with a fixed, sub f/2.0 aperture. The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM that launched today for Canon APS-C cameras flew under everybody's radar and flaunts over double the light-gathering powers of the priciest zooms, which typically top out at f/2.8 -- except for Olympus' $2,300 14-35mm f/2.0 Four Thirds model. The extra third of a stop over that model may not seem like much, but the company said it needed to "solve a variety of technical challenges" to build it in order to minimize distortion and aberration. Sigma's also promising fast autofocus via a hypersonic motor (with full-time manual override) and rubber-coated brass construction. There's no pricing or availability yet, but don't expect it to be cheap (think $2k plus) -- after all, it's the only game in town for now.
[/QUOTE]

[DoubleDD]

[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;40326379][url]http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/18/sigma-announces-18-35mm-f-1-8-dc-hsm/[/url]

okay i'll sell a limb for this

[IMG]http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2013/04/sigma18zps5f72f2dd.jpeg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

That's awesome. I wonder how it will perform

[Trogdon]

It's got a fairly limited range but pop that thing on a fs700 or c300 and you have the low light zoom to destroy all worlds

[cueballv2themax]

video, 18mm at f/1.8
yes fucking please

[garychencool]

[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;40327452]video, 18mm at f/1.8
yes fucking please[/QUOTE]

that wide and that open of an aperture, I'd love that.

[cueballv2themax]

look at the zeiss ss t1.3 18mm
yum yum

[Trogdon]

[QUOTE=Kabstrac;40332578]want[/QUOTE]

Isn't coming for sony or Pentax :(
They didn't do the new 30mm 1.4 either
Kind of lame

[FalseLogic]

[QUOTE=Trogdon;40333163]Isn't coming for sony or Pentax :(
They didn't do the new 30mm 1.4 either
Kind of lame[/QUOTE]

Now I'm definitely bummed, was thinking of saving up for that.

[kaze4159]

So I dug out this old thing

[img]http://puu.sh/2CXcL[/img]

For some reason, putting old gear on new cameras is funny to me :v:
Shame I can't use it without buying voltage regulators and cables

[cosmic duck]

[QUOTE=kaze4159;40339954]So I dug out this old thing

[img]http://puu.sh/2CXcL[/img]

For some reason, putting old gear on new cameras is funny to me :v:
Shame I can't use it without buying voltage regulators and cables[/QUOTE]

My dad is professional wedding photographer and still uses these Metz hammerhead flashes every day with his D2X, he swears by them!