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

[QUOTE=Funcoot;40199953]I'm looking to get into photography. I live in Florida and work for a property management company and would actually be quite interested in taking real estate photos (doesn't sound like the most exciting thing, but it actually interests me). I would also like to do portraits as well. Those would be my main two concentrations. I want to spend about $500 - $600. This is obviously a tight budget. The first thing I will mention though, is that I am not interested in having the best camera body in town, I just want to spend a good portion of that on some decent glass I wont mind keeping when I get a new body, so I have to invest in a system I plan to stick with. This makes me wonder if I should just go mirrorless and m43, or bite the bullet and go with a Nikon or Canon. Where do people see m43 going in the next 5 years? Are mirrorless cameras becoming a more viable option for professionals? The way I look at it is, I could spend $200 - $300 on a Nikon D80, Canon 40d, or Panasonic Lumix GX1. I would be able to invest the other $200 - $300 in a lens and tripod. The flash will be a separate budget. The only thing holding me back from getting a mirrorless camera is the stigma against mirrorless cameras. Do you think we'll start seeing more mirrorless cameras on professional sets as the downfalls start to dissapear? I just don't want to invest in a system and have it eventually be a giant waste of money having to switch in a few years to a new system.[/QUOTE] bear in mind that mirrorless cameras can take good lenses from most, if not all, other camera systems (especially old lenses, which you can get for p cheap and in great quality) there isn't really much stigma against mirrorless cameras apart from stuffy old camerawankers wanking on about their ff ultra mega 1d/m3/m9/dxxxxxxx [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] also i'm pretty sure trogodon and some other people shoot sony nex (but that might a bit out of your budge)

Well, I after months of saving up for being even able to afford it, the moment is finally here: [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/8627805745/"][IMG]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8399/8627805745_ed3e985703_c.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/8627805745/"]DSC01416.jpg[/URL] by [URL="http://www.flickr.com/people/leevmeister/"]Leevmeister[/URL], on Flickr The purchase of this M8 had been in the pipeline for about 4 months, but due to several complications it had to take so long, so I just picked it up this saturday. I got the M8 complete with it's original box, thumbs-up grip and a Leica Summarit-M 50mm f/2.5 lens. The Yashica MAT-124G was bought because I wanted a more compact medium format camera because I don't want to carry the RB67 with me all the time if I would like to shoot medium format. And I bought the Leica m3 because I got a financial break this week with something else, and I could buy this M3 for a good price. The lens that's on it in this picture is the Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/1.7, also a great lens. Because the M3 doesn't have 35mm framelines I put a Leica VIOOH 35-135mm zoomfinder on it that I also got with the M8 for free. I'm really happy that I finally got the M8, and I hope to be shooting with it a lot.

what's everyone opinion on SIGMA brand lenses? These 3rd-party lenses will work on Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc (depending on the mount version of course) using reverse engineered tech. It's interesting to me because I can get a 24-70mm f/2.8 for 2-3 times less than the Canon or Nikon equivalent.

So, I have a Canon EOS Rebel T3, and I'm needing more zoom than the stock 18-55 mm lens is giving me. I don't need anything crazy. Just so I could get closer to things, when I either physically can't, if it would be 'unreasonable' to, (Like standing in the middle of a busy street) or if getting closer would drive the subject away, like these [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmulharin/8631183621/in/photostream/"]damn ducks[/URL]! I'm not gonna be needing to be able to read the paper over someones shoulder a block away. :v: Any suggestions? I don't have any real budget, since I have no money right now. If you need any more details, I'll do my best to provide them. Oh, and I don't care about brand, as long as it works with my camera, and is worth the money. I don't know if there are people that [I]do[/I] care, but I know I [I]don't[/I].

[QUOTE=garychencool;40209590]what's everyone opinion on SIGMA brand lenses? These 3rd-party lenses will work on Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc (depending on the mount version of course) using reverse engineered tech. It's interesting to me because I can get a 24-70mm f/2.8 for 2-3 times less than the Canon or Nikon equivalent.[/QUOTE] sigma is a good company. specifically they make a ton of APS-C specific lenses that other companies haven't made equivalent lenses for (30mm 1.4, 50-150mm 2.8, 17-70mm 2.8-4, 24mm 1.8, among others) and a bunch of specialty glass. the 24-70mm 2.8 is probably a good performer, just make sure you get the right version. they have a bunch of weird complexities to their naming schemes (DG, EX, HSM, IF, and crap), which significantly affect the value of the lenses. buying new from reputable dealers will probably negate this problem though. My least favorite thing about their lenses are the finishes, most of them have like a sand paper textury finish. but their newest lenses don't have it, and their older lenses don't either. however I would recommend the new Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC. it has image stabilization, making it better for video.

[QUOTE=Trogdon;40209773]sigma is a good company. specifically they make a ton of APS-C specific lenses that other companies haven't made equivalent lenses for (30mm 1.4, 50-150mm 2.8, 17-70mm 2.8-4, 24mm 1.8, among others) and a bunch of specialty glass. the 24-70mm 2.8 is probably a good performer, just make sure you get the right version. they have a bunch of weird complexities to their naming schemes (DG, EX, HSM, IF, and crap), which significantly affect the value of the lenses. buying new from reputable dealers will probably negate this problem though. My least favorite thing about their lenses are the finishes, most of them have like a sand paper textury finish. but their newest lenses don't have it, and their older lenses don't either. however I would recommend the new Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC. it has image stabilization, making it better for video.[/QUOTE] me being poor, i'll probably get the sigma 24-70mm instead of the Tamron

[QUOTE=frag4life;40208769] [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/8627805745/"][IMG]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8399/8627805745_ed3e985703_c.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/8627805745/"]DSC01416.jpg[/URL] by [URL="http://www.flickr.com/people/leevmeister/"]Leevmeister[/URL], on Flickr[/QUOTE] You should get this lens to go with it! [url]http://www.amazon.com/Leica-50mm-f0-95-ASPH-E60/dp/B001IKEX68[/url]

What's the M8 like compared to SLRs?

[img]http://i.imgur.com/6Ycv9le.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=garychencool;40209865]me being poor, i'll probably get the sigma 24-70mm instead of the Tamron[/QUOTE] If you are going cheap the older Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 is a good lens. A little less wide but supposed to be sharp at 2.8, and it's $500

[QUOTE=karlhungus;40211628][img]http://i.imgur.com/6Ycv9le.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] some middle-of-the-mall shit ~

ma girl swagged me up with strap and grip, yee [img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8406/8637788588_f928159733_c.jpg[/img]

[url]http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/sys/3733529566.html[/url] I know Epson V500 would be good for scanning negatives, but would this be good as well?

[QUOTE=PenguinKris;40237576][url]http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/sys/3733529566.html[/url] I know Epson V500 would be good for scanning negatives, but would this be good as well?[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.fcenter.ru/img/article/scaners/EPSON_Perfection_2580/49125.jpg[/IMG] looks like it has the ability to, but a lot of people consider the v500 the "entry level" for decent film scans. I'd look around for a v500, they are still pretty cheap.

Just got a Canon EOS 30D with almost brand new battery grip for $159.50. Actually quite happy with that. Gives me more room to invest in decent glass. Should also note that this is my first DSLR :)

This might sound dumb but I'm raging over the fact that Nikon lenses, the rotation you use to zoom in and out, and pull focus is completely opposite from Canon lenses. If I go for Nikon and not Canon (where the years of experience with zooming and manual focus for photos and short films / videos), I'll have to adjust to the damn opposite-ness. #firstworldproblems

[QUOTE=FlippR;40238098][IMG]http://www.fcenter.ru/img/article/scaners/EPSON_Perfection_2580/49125.jpg[/IMG] looks like it has the ability to, but a lot of people consider the v500 the "entry level" for decent film scans. I'd look around for a v500, they are still pretty cheap.[/QUOTE] I'm about to go for a 645 format film system and I want to scan myself, is the v500 still a good scanner for me? I'm in Australia so it's going to be like $300 minimum, $450 from Epson's website, I do not understand why it's double the price.

hello i'm a newbie but how much does a lense actually affect the quality of your photos?

lots

[QUOTE=johnsten;40242517]hello i'm a newbie but how much does a lense actually affect the quality of your photos?[/QUOTE] you can have a Red Epic for photography but if you have a shitty lens, you will get shitty results than with a better lens. A cheaper body (like the rather popular T2i or Rebel series in general) with good glass will go a long way. Hell, you will go through more camera bodies than camera lenses, lenses last a long time and with todays lenses, these things will last you forever.

To be fair video is a lot more reliant on the body of the camera than the lenses, due to the complexities of video codec. I'm sure if you compared a t2i with a a great lens to a red with a not so great lens the codec from the red would still leave you with better looking video. But lenses are extremely important, but fortunately most lenses have a lot of capability to them.

[QUOTE=Trogdon;40245848]To be fair video is a lot more reliant on the body of the camera than the lenses, due to the complexities of video codec. I'm sure if you compared a t2i with a a great lens to a red with a not so great lens the codec from the red would still leave you with better looking video. But lenses are extremely important, but fortunately most lenses have a lot of capability to them.[/QUOTE] I really want to see some footage of a RED using a t2i kit lenses and a nifty fifty. Maybe if I land a job at a rental house this summer....

[QUOTE=johnsten;40242517]hello i'm a newbie but how much does a lense actually affect the quality of your photos?[/QUOTE] Here is a hands on video that answers this question with a great example. [hd][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk5IMmEDWH4[/URL][/hd]

[QUOTE=DuCT;40245960]I really want to see some footage of a RED using a t2i kit lenses and a nifty fifty. Maybe if I land a job at a rental house this summer....[/QUOTE] Not sure if you can mount those lenses to a PL mount. Also I would not recommend jumping into a red because they are very expensive to build up to a full working kit.

[QUOTE=Trogdon;40246242]Not sure if you can mount those lenses to a PL mount. Also I would not recommend jumping into a red because they are very expensive to build up to a full working kit.[/QUOTE] RED cameras come with Nikon and Canon mounts, pretty nifty. They can also have sensors that would work with the kit lenses. I think it's more for people who have a large investment in professional still photography and want to move into cinema.

they're for people with a big budget but a small weiner[SUB][SUB][SUP][B]unless they're real professionals[/B][/SUP][/SUB][/SUB]

[QUOTE=Trogdon;40246242]Not sure if you can mount those lenses to a PL mount. Also I would not recommend jumping into a red because they are very expensive to build up to a full working kit.[/QUOTE] Like Roll_Program said, REDs can have a Canon mount. And I'm not saying that I'm planning on getting a RED (even though it would be nice), but that a couple of rental houses that I sent some inquiries to about a summer job have RED packages, which would give me access to them to put shitty lenses on.

arri alexa master race

Trying to find a good 50mm lens for my 30D. I want to stay away from the cheap Canon 1.8 II, but the 1.4 version is almost 4x the price for a barely noticeable gain in IQ. And of course the L lens is way out of the ball park. I was going to consider the Sigma 1.4, but I heard that it just has so many issues, it is a luck of the draw kind of thing, I don't want to buy a lens and have to immediately send it off.

[QUOTE=DuCT;40247038]Like Roll_Program said, REDs can have a Canon mount. And I'm not saying that I'm planning on getting a RED (even though it would be nice), but that a couple of rental houses that I sent some inquiries to about a summer job have RED packages, which would give me access to them to put shitty lenses on.[/QUOTE] Ah I see, makes sense then. Didn't know they came with canon or Nikon mounts. [editline]11th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Funcoot;40247292]Trying to find a good 50mm lens for my 30D. I want to stay away from the cheap Canon 1.8 II, but the 1.4 version is almost 4x the price for a barely noticeable gain in IQ. And of course the L lens is way out of the ball park. I was going to consider the Sigma 1.4, but I heard that it just has so many issues, it is a luck of the draw kind of thing, I don't want to buy a lens and have to immediately send it off.[/QUOTE] The sigma 50mm is an amazing lens. Not sure about focusing issues on canon bodies like their 30mm, but realistically it's the most well rounded 50mm lens for DSLRs IMO