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

so what exactly is the appeal to like a Leica M-Monochrom or an M9, they don't seem very amazing specs or feature wise besides the large sensors.

[QUOTE=dwt110;41979242]so what exactly is the appeal to like a Leica M-Monochrom or an M9, they don't seem very amazing specs or feature wise besides the large sensors.[/QUOTE] Size Some people prefer rangefinder focusing Being able to use the (pretty much) best small format lenses The M-Monochrom also has a unique b/w sensor which is a lot sharper than a b/w conversion from a bayer sensor and it also has better high iso than the M9.

[QUOTE=dwt110;41979242]so what exactly is the appeal to like a Leica M-Monochrom or an M9, they don't seem very amazing specs or feature wise besides the large sensors.[/QUOTE] Leica lens mount to use Leica lenses which both have heritage in taking some of the world's most famous photographs, and style in that they lack the type of 'perfection' you get with Japanese lenses but instead having unique character.

I am shopping for a wide angle lens for my minolta, should I go with the 35mm 2.8, or the 28mm 2.8? I already have the 45mm 2, and the 50mm 1.7.

28 or 24, otherwise you won't see as much of a difference. usually i try to get primes as close to a factor of 2 as possible (24, 50, 100, etc) so that way you get a visible and noticeable perspective shift. 35 wouldn't feel much wider than a 45 i think. i would go for the 28mm, should be cheap, easy to find, and offer pretty good performance. a 24 would be much more expensive. i would recommend though looking for a minolta 35mm 1.8, those are good lenses from what i've heard. a bit pricey but has a decent shallow aperture and is moderately wide angle.

Wait I thought f stops were directly related to how muich light goes through, AKA a f stop of 1,0 would mean you lose no light through the lens. So how can it be related to the focal length?

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;41981129]Wait I thought f stops were directly related to how muich light goes through, AKA a f stop of 1,0 would mean you lose no light through the lens. So how can it be related to the focal length?[/QUOTE] aperture = focal length/aperture diameter so the physical size of the aperture will be bigger in an 85mm 1.4 lens than a 50mm 1.4 lens. but even this lenses can be different sizes based on the focal length, the size of the image it projects matters too. this is why a 25mm 1.4 panasonic leica lens (for a m4/3rds sensor) is smaller than a canon 24mm 1.4 (which covers a 24x36 sensor), because the panaleica covers a smaller sensor and projects a more narrow angle of view and such... optics math hurts i wouldn't look into it too much

[QUOTE=Trogdon;41980859]28 or 24, otherwise you won't see as much of a difference. usually i try to get primes as close to a factor of 2 as possible (24, 50, 100, etc) so that way you get a visible and noticeable perspective shift. 35 wouldn't feel much wider than a 45 i think. i would go for the 28mm, should be cheap, easy to find, and offer pretty good performance. a 24 would be much more expensive. i would recommend though looking for a minolta 35mm 1.8, those are good lenses from what i've heard. a bit pricey but has a decent shallow aperture and is moderately wide angle.[/QUOTE] why is it so much more expensive?

a 24mm lens is just much more difficult to make than a 28mm. but the 55mm filter thread version of the lens has some "leica family" optical formula or something allegedly which is why it is expensive. minolta and leica did some things together actually (minolta had some M mount lenses, and then apparently leica helped make minolta lenses), but i couldn't tell you if there was any truth behind this. either way those prices were much higher than i was expecting so i would just go for the 28mm in that case. either that or a 3rd party 24mm lens would be a decent performer i imagine, and for most film printing purposes wouldn't end up being that different in performance stopped down.

Thats interesting. The more minolta lenses I learn about makes me want a faster minolta body. Is there a minolta body that goes to 1/4000? Or at least higher than 1/1000?

I think the only body that does 1/2000 is the Minolta XK, it's a bit different than the x-700 as it is a much earlier model. I'd just use a polarizer (but not on lenses wider than 28mm, otherwise it makes a weird polarizing cast)

[QUOTE=Angus513;41976830] The 24-105 and the 24-70 are slightly oddball. They both extend outwards but keep the same aperture, i've got the 24-105 and have tried to see how its keeping the same aperture, what is looks like is Canon have designed it so the lens hole naturally closes when you zoom out to purposely keep it @f4 throughout rather than what would probably be something like f2.8-f4 as its much easier having a constant aperture because you don't need to keep re-metering the light everytime you zoom ...[/QUOTE] So essentially the 24-70 f/2.8 could be f/1.4-f/2.8 or wider?

Sooo, Sony came out with their first model of their new Alpha line: [IMG]http://ic.tweakimg.net/ext/i/imagelarge/1377537736.jpeg[/IMG] Word goes Sony wants to ditch their old Alpha (Minolta AF) line and replace them with all E mount camera's. Also they are going to bring out a fullframe nex, but most likely under the new Alpha series name.

about zoom lenses with constant aperture: [url]http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41116550[/url] [quote][URL="josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#aperture"]josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#aperture[/URL] [I]The term "aperture", by itself, is vague -- we need a qualifying adjective to be clear. There are three different terms using "aperture": [B]1. [/B]The physical aperture (iris) is the smallest opening within a lens. [B]2. [/B]The virtual aperture (entrance pupil) is the image of the physical aperture when looking through the FE (front element). [B]3.[/B] The relative aperture (f-ratio) is the quotient of the focal length and the virtual aperture. For example, a 50mm lens whose entrance pupil (virtual aperture) has a diameter of 25mm will have an f-ratio (relative aperture) of 50mm / 25mm = f/2. Alternatively, a 50mm lens at f/2 has an entrance pupil (virtual aperture) diameter of 50mm / 2 = 25mm. Interestingly, a "constant aperture" zoom is a zoom lens where physical aperture (iris) remains constant, but the virtual aperture (entrance pupil) scales with the focal length, thus keeping the relative aperture (f-ratio) constant as well. Let's consider a 70-200 / 2.8 zoom: [url]http://dslranswers.com/blogs/dslr-camera-news/archive/2011/04/02/canon-ef-70-200mm-f2-8-l-is-ii-usm-lens-goes-on-sale.aspx[/url] If the diagram is accurate, then since the FE (front element) diameter is 77mm, that makes the diameter of the physical aperture (iris) to be 38.5mm. The image of the physical aperture (iris) at 70mm f/2.8 is the virtual aperture (entrance pupil), and has a diameter of 70mm / 2.8 = 25mm. At 200mm f/2.8, the diameter of the virtual aperture (entrance pupil) is 200mm / 2.8 = 71mm. So, as the lens zooms, neither the physical aperture (iris) nor the relative aperture (f-ratio) change, but the virtual aperture (entrance pupil) does change.[/I][/quote]

[QUOTE=frag4life;41985819]Sooo, Sony came out with their first model of their new Alpha line: [IMG]http://ic.tweakimg.net/ext/i/imagelarge/1377537736.jpeg[/IMG] Word goes Sony wants to ditch their old Alpha (Minolta AF) line and replace them with all E mount camera's. Also they are going to bring out a fullframe nex, but most likely under the new Alpha series name.[/QUOTE] this is gonna take a massive shit on the mirrorless market and will only send the cost of old lenses up. and it's pretty cool.

[QUOTE=frag4life;41985819]Sooo, Sony came out with their first model of their new Alpha line: [IMG]http://ic.tweakimg.net/ext/i/imagelarge/1377537736.jpeg[/IMG] Word goes Sony wants to ditch their old Alpha (Minolta AF) line and replace them with all E mount camera's. Also they are going to bring out a fullframe nex, but most likely under the new Alpha series name.[/QUOTE] I'm sure Sony won't ditch the A mount, but rather just focus it differently. Like E-mount will have compact and cine focus (nex series and the cam line), then A mount for higher end DSLR still type things. But I could be wrong, either way I own both so it doesn't really matter to me. Hoping the nex FF does come in a nex 7 style body though, I'd prefer e mount on nex styled bodies That camera is pretty crazy though, $400 for a 20mp APS-C sensor camera with a really good kit lens is crazy. I haven't owned one myself but next to other cameras the lens extends naturally, has a real hood, and completely silent focusing. Certainly makes the canon SL1 look very expensive. The viewfinder and LCD look to be low resolution but damn that price is still insane. Also they announced E mount zooms, a zeiss 16-70mm f4 with OSS ($1000), and an 18-105mm f4 G PZ ($600). If only the G lens was in A mount I would be all over that thing, guess its time to get a new nex! Maybe my shutter will die soon and my insurance company will get me the 5T!

Wow, and it does 1080/60p video. Good job Sony!

[QUOTE=dwt110;41986306]Wow, and it does 1080/60p video. Good job Sony![/QUOTE] It's actually interlaced, so it's 1080i/60fps, another way to say it is 1080/60i. Converting interlaced video into progressive almost always degrades the video quality since you're blending the missing lines. But for it's price point, it's pretty good.

I am looking to get a fullframe body with Canon EF mount. I don't want to spend a fortune and I want to get into shooting with film so I found a EOS 300V for 15 euro. Good deal or should I look for something else? It needs a Canon EF mount so I can use my current lenses.

[QUOTE=Zeemlapje;41986445]I am looking to get a fullframe body with Canon EF mount. I don't want to spend a fortune and I want to get into shooting with film so I found a EOS 300V for 15 euro. Good deal or should I look for something else? It needs a Canon EF mount so I can use my current lenses.[/QUOTE] Got a EOS 10 for 10 euro if you want it. Also in Holland. ;)

Man I wish there was an Ektar 400. ISO 100 is just not enough with an f/4 lens.

[QUOTE=garychencool;41986413]It's actually interlaced, so it's 1080i/60fps, another way to say it is 1080/60i. Converting interlaced video into progressive almost always degrades the video quality since you're blending the missing lines. But for it's price point, it's pretty good.[/QUOTE] Well it's AVCHD so the 60i is basically just 30p on playback. It's basically 30p in a 60i wrapper, because that's how a blu ray player would play it back or something. AVCHD is designed by Sony with blu ray in mind so they opted for that style of playback. It's not really true interlaced footage. That's what I've read anyway, but either way the footage conforms to 30p with little problems. Not quite the 60p that sony usually puts on their cameras but its not bad

[QUOTE=frag4life;41986911]Got a EOS 10 for 10 euro if you want it. Also in Holland. ;)[/QUOTE] The cheapest I can find is 60+ euro. And would 6.3 megapixels be enough for poster format prints? Oops nevermind I searched EOS 10D not EOS 10 my bad [editline]28th August 2013[/editline] How is the state and what city can I pick it up? cheapest I can find anywhere else is 50+ euro so 10 is a bargain. Also, what brand film do you recommend from personal experience??

[QUOTE=Trogdon;41985304]I think the only body that does 1/2000 is the Minolta XK, it's a bit different than the x-700 as it is a much earlier model. I'd just use a polarizer (but not on lenses wider than 28mm, otherwise it makes a weird polarizing cast)[/QUOTE] I just wanted to catch action better. The 1/1000th can still be blurry.

snip im a fucking idiot and didnt read [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] is it worth it to get a new tamron over a used? after rebate is like a $40-$50 price difference.

[QUOTE=notlabbet;41989171]I just wanted to catch action better. The 1/1000th can still be blurry.[/QUOTE] hmm that's odd, i guess it depends on what you are shooting but a flash would make the most difference for actually stopping motion. i haven't had anything on 1/1000th blur, what are you trying to shoot? [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=dwt110;41989789]snip im a fucking idiot and didnt read [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] is it worth it to get a new tamron over a used? after rebate is like a $40-$50 price difference.[/QUOTE] i would just buy new if that was the difference

[QUOTE=Trogdon;41990748]hmm that's odd, i guess it depends on what you are shooting but a flash would make the most difference for actually stopping motion. i haven't had anything on 1/1000th blur, what are you trying to shoot? [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] i would just buy new if that was the difference[/QUOTE] Stuff like cars, in broad daylight. Maybe my aperture priory mode is lying to me about the shutter speed?

Was talking to a friend about the 70D since I'm going to get it "why the fuck would you use the 70 for video, AF is terrible in video" "no dude it's literally designed for it" "i bet it's terrible" I showed him this video [video=youtube;G6LmMR6FwUE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6LmMR6FwUE[/video] "well i'd rather just use the focus ring"

That's in such optimal conditions though. It's no replacement but it's a definite step in the right direction

[QUOTE=Trogdon;41992365]That's in such optimal conditions though. It's no replacement but it's a definite step in the right direction[/QUOTE] Compared to my T3i, it's a good upgrade imo. 7FPS, 20MP, 19 Focus Points, Better Low Light Performance, WiFi video monitor and control; it's pretty much all the features I like except the lack of a full frame. Which brings me to my second question, should I get my glidecam or the 70d body first?