• Post your camera gear/gear discussion thread
    2,407 replies, posted
Why wouldn't it? Not like it's a lot of money
Looking at flash guns, is the SB-400 adequate enough?
[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;30277117]28mm f2.8 + 80-200mm f4.5~5.6 FD mount for 20£ + 6.5£ shipping. Worth it?[/QUOTE] If those are just third party brand lenses i wouldn't do it, but if they are real Canon lenses, then it's a nice deal. 20pound just for a 28/2.8 is not expensive, plus you will get a 80-200 with it, which makes the deal real nice. BTW, if you are looking for a good inexpensive telezoom, look for the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm lens :wink: [editline]6th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Emz;30279235]Looking at flash guns, is the SB-400 adequate enough?[/QUOTE] That flash is really a good no brainer when using, but it's not very powerfull. For somewhat more versatility i would take a SB600. That one is bounce-able, and it's a bit more powerfull and not really more expensive ;)
Yeah I probably will go for the SB-600, you're right it looks a lot more flexible. I will be getting a Sigma 24-70mm tomorrow :dance:. I decided to dip into my reserve account then put it back in with my wage monthly as I am too impatient. I've also been looking at bodies (mostly out of curiosity) and found some are much more affordable than I imagined. I was wondering if a D5000 is worth it when I have a D3000, the most useful differences seem to be the larger sensor and ISO sensitivity.
make sure the sigma is AF-S
[QUOTE=Emz;30288831]Yeah I probably will go for the SB-600, you're right it looks a lot more flexible. I will be getting a Sigma 24-70mm tomorrow :dance:. I decided to dip into my reserve account then put it back in with my wage monthly as I am too impatient. I've also been looking at bodies (mostly out of curiosity) and found some are much more affordable than I imagined. I was wondering if a D5000 is worth it when I have a D3000, the most useful differences seem to be the larger sensor and ISO sensitivity.[/QUOTE] I think it would be worth it.
[QUOTE=Emz;30288831]Yeah I probably will go for the SB-600, you're right it looks a lot more flexible. I will be getting a Sigma 24-70mm tomorrow :dance:. I decided to dip into my reserve account then put it back in with my wage monthly as I am too impatient. I've also been looking at bodies (mostly out of curiosity) and found some are much more affordable than I imagined. I was wondering if a D5000 is worth it when I have a D3000, the most useful differences seem to be the larger sensor and ISO sensitivity.[/QUOTE] D3000 and D5000 have the same sensor size, just different MP/ISO sensitivity. A D5000 or D5100 would be a good idea if you are looking to upgrade.
[QUOTE=B-hazard;30289415]D3000 and D5000 have the same sensor size, just different MP/ISO sensitivity. A D5000 or D5100 would be a good idea if you are looking to upgrade.[/QUOTE] Ah I guess the article I read was slightly wrong then thanks for clarifying.
Why not just get a d90 instead of another entry level body? You'd probably find at around the same price too.
The ergonomics alone are a massive upgrade from a smaller entry level body.
or a D7000
Yeah, a D7000 too, if you have about £300 more.
I did also look at the D90 actually and have a scan about on ebay for a rough idea on the prices. I can technically afford one but it all winds down to if I want to dive more into my savings or not yet or if I want to wait and stick with the body I have for now. The ergonomics of it do look much nicer from looking at a few online reviews and I did intend to get a better body one day. You guys make it hard not to cave in to peer pressure. :v:
More related to motion picture but I just upgraded my Motion Picture end in terms of cameras. From the Sony CCD-V5000 to this: The JVC GY-X2 [IMG]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a166/ballsandy/100_1926.jpg[/IMG] It's got some mad optics too. [IMG]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a166/ballsandy/100_1930.jpg[/IMG] It was a freebie because the DC/DC voltage regulator board needs to be recapped and it's buried deep inside the camera. As a bonus though it has the optional Timecode module and it's a Tri-CCD S-VHS camera that can actually compare well with Betacam. On the photograph front though I'm still stuck with this damn Easyshare C875 while my Canon PowerShot S3 IS is being repaired and of course on the 35mm front I still have the Canon AE-1 with a set of 50mm and 300mm lenses. Edit: Oh yeah, also picked this up while I was heading back with the camera. [IMG]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a166/ballsandy/Computer%20related/100_1939.jpg[/IMG]
Is that a camera, or a TANK? Jesus. That's awesome!
I think I saw that thing in the Armored Core V trailer
Speaking of BetaCam [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGo_IEjIeFM&feature=channel_video_title[/media]
[QUOTE=Xera;30297239]Speaking of BetaCam [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGo_IEjIeFM&feature=channel_video_title[/media][/QUOTE] I hope he didn't. Betacam SP is still fairly good. Most stations in Canada still use it for field recording and the head units still fetch around $500. Edit: Oh, camera was dead.
The camera was dead before they took it apart. And who didn't want to see that sexy prism?
I can get a 50 1.8 for £75 and a 17-50mm 2.8 for £200. Right now I have £130, what do?
[QUOTE=B-hazard;30311731]I can get a 50 1.8 for £75 and a 17-50mm 2.8 for £200. Right now I have £130, what do?[/QUOTE] How are you supposed to purchase something that costs £200 when all you have is £130?
Save up more or borrow money off my parents. It takes me a month to get £80 with my shitty paper round, as no-where around me employs 15 year olds and I'm not 16 until October.
my OM-1 should be arriving in a few days hopefully, now i just need to find a lens for it. the zuiko 50 1.4 looks good, though expensive D: also thinking of getting a tamron 17-50 2.8 for my 450d
Took the same picture, but one with my 50mm and the other with my 18-200mm. Both the same settings yet they came out differently? Any ideas? [url]http://gaboer.kodingen.com/pictures/testshot.jpg[/url]
[QUOTE=gaboer;30312662]Took the same picture, but one with my 50mm and the other with my 18-200mm. Both the same settings yet they came out differently? Any ideas? [url]http://gaboer.kodingen.com/pictures/testshot.jpg[/url][/QUOTE] Woah the sky. Uh, the only thing that comes to mind is that the 50mm is just that much better. But it seems like a huuuuge difference, I don't even know. Maybe someone else knows better.
Get the 50 imo.
[QUOTE=Funny;30312891]Get the 50 imo.[/QUOTE] Your the one selling it to me so that doesn't help much :v:
[QUOTE=B-hazard;30313980]Your[B]'re[/B] the one selling it to me so that doesn't help much :v:[/QUOTE] I fucking hate you're/your used incorrectly I don't even know why. It's just so annoying.
After spending 3 hours doing written exams today I just don't give a fuck about grammar.
badass moFUCKA
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.