• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NeoGAF Camera Equipment Thread | MK II

KalBalboa

Banned
Just bought my second Konova Slider.

I now own the 24" and 40" variety, purely due to the 24" being easier to travel with and giving me less flex.
 
Check out brickseek.com and use dpci 056-10-0100 and your zip code to search.

Whenever I'm at target I check for clearance electronics (look for the orange stickers). Looks like this was a one in a million find.
 
Probably cool until the weight of a 2.8 24-70 and 70-200 on there drops your pants and sends them crashing to the floor.
Not mislabeled, just a unicorn. Target marks down clearance electronics every Monday. It probably sat unsold at $1400 and I happened to be there right after it was marked down to $998. I used the target card for another 5% off.
It's better than your A57, just keep it.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I really hope this improves performance. I've used Lightroom and multiple really powerful machines and it always bogs down at some point to the point of frustration. I've tried other programs, but none of them work for me quite as well as Lightroom, so I stick with it.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
I really hope this improves performance. I've used Lightroom and multiple really powerful machines and it always bogs down at some point to the point of frustration. I've tried other programs, but none of them work for me quite as well as Lightroom, so I stick with it.
Try the beta. I think by now anyone can join since they are almost done. You can probably Google for a link.
 
Thoughts on these 2 for the D500?



He'll take $500 for both.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
The 70-300 is a good lens. It's a nice backup for my 70-200mm if I don't need to shoot at f2.8. I dunno about the other one though.
 

Ty4on

Member
Thoughts on these 2 for the D500?



He'll take $500 for both.

24-85 ish focal lengths are usually not worth it on APS-C. Not very sharp for the price and don't go very wide, but may be fine if you don't find anything better and don't need very wide angles. 24mm is a narrower FoV than a cellphone camera on the D500. I would rather look for a 16-something or 18-something, but there sadly isn't that much decent from Nikon.
70-300 should be fine tho for the price.
 
On my A57 I use a Minolta beercan 70-210 and a sony 35mm f/1.8
Is there a crop factor with those. Also you doing all of these flash assisted or available light? I'm assuming with flash because I wouldn't be caught dead with either of the Nikon stuff you posted with available light. Nikon's 70-300 is pretty good, but the 24-85 is not really an indoor group shot lens for example.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Is there a crop factor with those. Also you doing all of these flash assisted or available light? I'm assuming with flash because I wouldn't be caught dead with either of the Nikon stuff you posted with available light. Nikon's 70-300 is pretty good, but the 24-85 is not really an indoor group shot lens for example.

The 70-300 can take good portraits as long as you have enough light to keep the ISO below 800 and the shutter speed below 200(handheld with VR) or 100 (tripod). Especially at 300mm, the isolation and compression is decent for the price, even if your max aperture there is f5.6. Like, if I had to choose, I'd rather take a portrait with the 70-300 rather than with, say, a 50mm 1.4.
 
The 70-300 can take good portraits as long as you have enough light to keep the ISO below 800 and the shutter speed below 200(handheld with VR) or 100 (tripod). Especially at 300mm, the isolation and compression is decent for the price, even if your max aperture there is f5.6. Like, if I had to choose, I'd rather take a portrait with the 70-300 rather than with, say, a 50mm 1.4.
Yeah because the background compression would be a lot better on the 70-300. This is why I'm normally using an 85 at the minimum for most portraits. I can do environmental portraits with my 35F2 on the Fuji, but headshots...just don't look as good with it as they do on the 90F2.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Yeah because the background compression would be a lot better on the 70-300. This is why I'm normally using an 85 at the minimum for most portraits. I can do environmental portraits with my 35F2 on the Fuji, but headshots...just don't look as good with it as they do on the 90F2.

Yup yup, very true. My main point, though, was that you can still use the 70-300 with natural light, as long as you have enough of it, and if you don't, you can always use a tripod, or bump up ISO (but not too much).

The trouble starts, though, when "enough natural light" doesn't have good character for portraits (e.g. bright, but overly harsh sunlight). The easy fix would be to just put the subject in the brightest shade possible, with a cheapo reflector or $2 white cardboard sheet from the store if you you're feeling fancy.
 
Yup yup, very true. My main point, though, was that you can still use the 70-300 with natural light, as long as you have enough of it, and if you don't, you can always use a tripod, or bump up ISO (but not too much).

The trouble starts, though, when "enough natural light" doesn't have good character for portraits (e.g. bright, but overly harsh sunlight). The easy fix would be to just put the subject in the brightest shade possible, with a cheapo reflector or $2 white cardboard sheet from the store if you you're feeling fancy.
I fucking hate harsh light. Can't even really over power it unless you have HSS if I'm not mistaken.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
I fucking hate harsh light. Can't even really over power it unless you have HSS if I'm not mistaken.

Well, you don't necessarily "need" HSS. You could always stick with 1/250s and adjust your aperture and ISO accordingly. You could also just move to a shaded spot, or use a scrim, or wait till you get some clouds. Then, you could choose to (or not) use the flash instead as fill or accent light.
 
Well, you don't necessarily "need" HSS. You could always stick with 1/250s and adjust your aperture and ISO accordingly. You could also just move to a shaded spot, or use a scrim, or wait till you get some clouds. Then, you could choose to (or not) use the flash instead as fill or accent light.
I have actually dealt with this recently on a rooftop shoot. It's not easy to deal with. I think I had to go to F8 to reduce an obvious hotspot on peoples foreheads and move the flash around. Was annoying.
 
You couldn't face the person away from the sun?
No. I had to take pretty much every picture using the same exact building back drop as mandated by the people that allowed us to do it. It was for a work thing...lots of suits and job titles involved. Not to mention a more shaded spot was being used for something else that I wasn't able to use till they were done with that area.
 

Zoc

Member
I'll be shocked if that thing isn't good for at least 150K. I have never checked though. My D810 has to be at that range I would think already.

That should be good. I just do not trust Sigma AF anymore. Though somebody on here told me it's definitely a lens by lens case.

I have a Sigma lens known to suffer from inaccurate AF, the 30mm f1.4, and yes, the AF is usually off when the lens is below f4.0 or so. However, that's only true with viewfinder AF. Liveview AF has no problems.

Take that for what it's worth.
 
Well, you don't necessarily "need" HSS. You could always stick with 1/250s and adjust your aperture and ISO accordingly. You could also just move to a shaded spot, or use a scrim, or wait till you get some clouds. Then, you could choose to (or not) use the flash instead as fill or accent light.

ND filter also helps when dealing with really intense, harsh lighting and you intend to have a large-ish aperture.
 
I have a Sigma lens known to suffer from inaccurate AF, the 30mm f1.4, and yes, the AF is usually off when the lens is below f4.0 or so. However, that's only true with viewfinder AF. Liveview AF has no problems.

Take that for what it's worth.
AF that is inaccurate through what I'm using to take my pictures 99% of the time is useless AF.
 
Used my Godox for a work shoot...I like it. I really like having a transmitter that can actually control my flash setting without having to walk over to the flash, lower it and then adjust the power, only to get it wrong, redo the process and figure out what to do.
 
New LR 'Classic' is indeed much faster. Especially in the spots where you'd just be waiting for several seconds and wondering 'what the fuck are you even doing LR?'
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
You want to use LR the way you've used it before, right? Not the new cloud version, right?

http://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography.html

The middle one. Or, if you're already a subscriber, just click the download button.

Alternatively, you can install the Adobe CC desktop app, login, and install LR from there.

http://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/desktop-app.html

"Before" no I've only used the cloud version. I've got the $10/month thing.

EDIT: Oooooh I see. I'll go ahead and try out the new one.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
"Before" no I've only used the cloud version. I've got the $10/month thing.

EDIT: Oooooh I see. I'll go ahead and try out the new one.

I personally prefer the Classic. It's the same old Lightroom, but with new features and improved performance. The new cloud-enabled version is okay, I guess, especially if you have multiple devices, but the features aren't all there yet, and it's only limited to one TB.

With the photography plan, you get access to both, but with only 20GB, so give it a try if you feel like it.
 
I personally prefer the Classic. It's the same old Lightroom, but with new features and improved performance. The new cloud-enabled version is okay, I guess, especially if you have multiple devices, but the features aren't all there yet, and it's only limited to one TB.

With the photography plan, you get access to both, but with only 20GB, so give it a try if you feel like it.

What new features? What's missing in the new one? I'm installing the new one atm to check it out.
 

dcll

Banned
I scored an unreal deal this week on craigslist. A guy had an ad for a Sony a7ii with two lenses for $1500. Just for the heck of it I asked if he would trade for a Macbook or a Phantom 4 I have, he was interested in the 4. I bought the 4 used for $450 and gave the guy $150 cash with the Phantom 4 so I am in the bundle $600! Come to find out on of the lenses is a very expensive Sony Ziess 16-35mm that is around $1000 by itself on amazon! The other lens is a 28-70 Sony lens. I have messed around with the camera the last couple days and it is nice, it has a metal frame mounted on the outside of the body, i am not sure what it is for. I can not get the wifi transfer to work with my phone, it just says connecting and does nothing. I see the camera has nfc but I do not see a way to use that with my phone to transfer pics

 

Similar threads

Top Bottom