The 50-140 isn't exactly 2.8 70-200GM big so it might be fine. You can always just get the Slide to over compensate, it's honestly just a pretty comfortable strap.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Also the awesome part is it takes two seconds to swap straps, so you can get Lite for general purpose and the regular Slide for bird buttcrack photos.
Yeah I honestly should swap my straps around, but whatever I still need to get more PD straps any way.
I was interested in this and you never sent me the deets. How can I buy this?
Kind of at a 24-70GM vs 24-105G cross roads. Think I still want the GM since I'm an indoor event photographer, the G is just cheaper.
The G is a damn fine lens, and honestly, image quality-wise, I think it's right up there with the GM, but you would probably constantly be second guessing yourself if you got it, wondering if you should have gone with the GM instead. It's a heavy trade off for one stop of aperture, though. A lot heavier and more expensive, less reach, and no OSS.
I already have a 70-200 so I really don't mind the lack of reach. It's usually just that if I'm in a room and I have an option between iso 1600 and iso 3200 I'm going to shoot at 1600 every day of the week. Same with 2000 iso and 4000 iso even if 4000 iso isn't really that bad. I am probably at some funky iso ranges more than a lot of people in here so it is something I try to pay attention to. Not to mention I don't mind stopping down to F4 if I have to and not starting at F4, I like having flexibility. I'd get the Tamron, but they're A) a pain in the ass to find and B) not wide enough. Shoot a group shot in someones abandoned office room and you'll start caring instantly about 24mm.
Yeah, I hear you on the Tamron. It sounds like they got the AF in a good place, and it apparently even has slightly better light transmission than the GM lens, but 24mm vs 28mm is a pretty big different in terms of general usefulness.
Yeah it's definitely a lens I thought I'd want upon hearing about it and seeing the price then I hit LR once looked at some metadata for some events and saw that I use 24mm a lot more than I realized. 28mm is if you kind of sort of don't care or if you don't mainly work in office spaces. I could get the 24-105 and just use it with a flash, but I don't always like to shoot like that.
Got my GR III and have used it for a wee bit yesterday during a walk about. Some quick impressions:
- Snap focus is super
- Lens is crazy sharp like the GR II and the extra mega pixels help a lot
- The positive film sim is lovely
- Touch screen helps a ton through menus because the small dials and buttons are annoying to use
- Would have liked for it to be weather sealed...
- USB-C connection is way more useful than I thought
- Snap focus is super
- Lens is crazy sharp like the GR II and the extra mega pixels help a lot
- The positive film sim is lovely
- Touch screen helps a ton through menus because the small dials and buttons are annoying to use
- Would have liked for it to be weather sealed...
- USB-C connection is way more useful than I thought
After many years with a NIkon D60 I grabbed a Cannon 800D.
I'm just a casual photographer but are there any settings that should be changed immediately on a new camera? Or leave defaults?
I'm just a casual photographer but are there any settings that should be changed immediately on a new camera? Or leave defaults?
Leave things as they are until something starts bugging you. The DPreview review on this camera does mention that it is a little hesitant to go to higher ISO ranges vs slowing the shutter speed, so maybe check that out if you are going to be shooting indoors a lot.
I think I finally decided to get this after I get the 24-70GM, I need a very versatile all purpose zoom over this, but I will get this lens. Also sounds like your delivery man did his best to half ass his way into doing his job, good that you got it.I stayed home today to accept this delivery but the FedEx guy barely knocked and already had a note on the door when I opened it, lol
I shoot in a ton of indoor office spaces for work. Like I have legit photography PTSD over a group shot I had to do in a narrow hallway. Like I was back to the wall at 24mm doing a group shot in the skinny part of the hallway and my mind just keeps flashbacking to it whenever I hear "You don't need 24mm" or "28 is wide enough." For video work it would also be good to have since if I want a wide to mid zoom for video I can only use my Fuji, but I also have to take into consideration what the lighting is going to be like since I do a lot of hybrid shooting as well and I'm starting to really like the output from my A7RII. The Fuji is a great run and gun lighter bag as it proved for a last minute shoot at work. I just don't think the Tamron offers me the versatility that I want...not to mention that it doesn't even have an AF/MF switch. I really don't want to have to constantly menu dive for something like this.
Yesterday I shot an event with another guy on the complete opposite side of the room, sitting in his corner with some telephoto lens, shooting away on his Nikon.
CLACKACLACKACLACKACLACKA
CLACKACLACKACLACKACLACKA
That is my Nikon D4. I can't exactly side eye another photographer on that, but I am definitely starting to use my more shutter dampened mirrorless cameras these days.
Haha, that's such a relatable situation!
I wish my A7iii could do silent shooting in combination with anti-flicker, I still wind up clickaclacking at indoor events a lot.
For the most part I don't think the mirrorless cameras are that bad sound wise. The D4 is a fucking distraction though.
They aren't "silent" but they're not a distraction at all, wish a full frame camera was like that. I think the A7RII sounds weird, but I've gotten used to it.
The R sounds like a WWII anti aircraft canon. The Sonys are kind of obnoxious too.
It cannot be Nikon D4 loud. I know they got rid of whatever was making the A7RII make that squeak sound though.
Leica rumours roundup courtesy of leicarumors.com:
https://leicarumors.com/2019/05/06/...evf-apo-summilux-m-50mm-f-1-4-asph-lens.aspx/
- The new Leica SL2 will not be announced in June but more likely in the 3rd quarter of 2019 - 47MP with similar sensor to the new Leica Q2.
- No new Leica M11 in 2020 but there could be a new Leica M10X with a 47MP sensor rumored for Photokina 2020 (not sure what X stands for - maybe "xtra resolution").
- New Leica M mount camera with EVFis rumored to be in the works (already rumored before here): 24MP sensor, body similar to the M240. The camera will have a native M mount and will be offered as an alternative to the M10 (the pictures above are just a concept sent in by a reader).
- New Leica APO Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 Asph lens with closer focusing capabilities (not close enough for macro photography).
https://leicarumors.com/2019/05/06/...evf-apo-summilux-m-50mm-f-1-4-asph-lens.aspx/
Just picked up a 1D2 body as back-up weekender. Looking to pick up a new lens but unsure on which works best on the x1.3 crop. Was leaning toward primes (Sigma 35 and 50) but might just grab a nifty fifty to cover that length. With that said, a telephoto or wide angle is the next item on the list. Goals are sports — i know 24 - 1xx doesn't really cover the length i'll need, Id rather have an all-in-one lens right now — and daily walk around lens.
Here's my choices:
Canon 24-105 f4
Canon 24-70
Sigma 18-35 1.8
Or I just keep a 70-200 f4 attached
Also, is there any decent telephoto that covers 100-400 at f/2.8 or 4? Really would want something for wildlife and sports. Besides the bazooka 70-200.
Here's my choices:
Canon 24-105 f4
Canon 24-70
Sigma 18-35 1.8
Or I just keep a 70-200 f4 attached
Also, is there any decent telephoto that covers 100-400 at f/2.8 or 4? Really would want something for wildlife and sports. Besides the bazooka 70-200.
If you want a cheap 50 please get the Tamron 45mm VC. There is no such thing as a 100-400 F2.8 or F4 since those would be some huge pieces of glass. Also the 70-200F4 isn't much of a bazooka, it's bigger than a prime, but it's not a bazooka at all. There are several 100-400 zoom options:
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens
Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens for Canon EF
Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens for Canon EF
Plus you have the 150-600 options:
Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens for Canon EF
Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon EF
For primes regarding the telephoto range I'll link them, but you probably can't afford them:
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Lens (This one is actually priced a lot better than I was expecting, which means it's old, but look into it)
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM Lens (12K)
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens
Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens
I actually looked at the specs of this camera...why did you buy this? The fps are fine, but MP and highly limited iso is a bit of a problem. Please tell me you don't do anything indoors.
The 1D2 is quite old, and those bodies are large and heavy, specifically meant for pro sports photographers sitting within their designated sections, with tripods etc. So I think fairly unwieldy for walkaround kit. But YMMV.
That said, these are some of your options for tele that are reasonably priced:
200mm f/2.8 L
300mm f/4 L
400mm f/5.6 L
70 - 300mm L
For the daily I'd get a prime in the 24mm to the 40mm range in my budget.
That said, these are some of your options for tele that are reasonably priced:
200mm f/2.8 L
300mm f/4 L
400mm f/5.6 L
70 - 300mm L
For the daily I'd get a prime in the 24mm to the 40mm range in my budget.
I have used a Nikon D4 for street photography. My main complaint with the 1D2 is that it's a full frame sized camera without any of the benefits of being a full frame camera. I didn't even bother to search for a 400 5.6.
That's right, the 1Dx were meant only for pros, at that time 1.3 crop was a nice balance between image quality and speed. The FF cameras just were not fast enough burst speed wise and were meant for studio pros. The 400 5.6L is actually a very sharp lens, meant for bird watchers or sports photographers on a budget, it's very old, and there's no IS. It's well loved by most that own it because of image quality.
Turns out video from the X-T3 on whatever settings I was using with 200mbs is complete fucking overkill and needed to be dumbed down to play properly in Adobe Premiere. So why exactly are people demanding even more from cameras again? I have a 16 minute clip in 1080P taking up 22.2 gigs of space for example. How monstrous would this be in 4K?
I'll look into the Tamron 45. Thanks.
Regarding the body, they're a work horse backup, especially for sub $100. Weather-sealing in itself is worth having it as a backup for events (e.g. local soccer matches) with an attached zoom. That's why I was leaning toward the 70-200 because shooting anything longer, you can find the 300 2.8 used for <$2,000 most of the time, but that's not something i'm going to pick up right now.
5Dm2 for indoor
Ha, someone on FM is actually listing a 400 2.8L IS in excellent condition. Only a cool $5,900
The 1D series is comparable to Nikon's D4 series so yes, I know all about the pros and cons of the massive flagship bodies. If I absolutely have to photograph something and don't mind making a bit of noise the D4 is going into my bag. I want a mirrorless flagship, but that's probably not happening for a while (please god nobody tell me about the EM1-X). I'm actually looking at what 1D cameras were available and found some really good prices for a Canon 1DS mkIII at less than 1K it would be a really good deal, but that's just my thought process. Also less than 2K for a 2.8 300 is pretty good.
I haven't had the chance to use the Dx series but I have a friend who works with fashion designers has built his livelihood on them. He would live and die by his D3 & D4. Beautiful pictures. Would you consider the latter Nikon's greatest all-in-one choice body?
Besides that, have you look at the Fuji X-T3 for a mirrorless choice? Capable of 4K (IIRC) and good skin tones; you should be able to find it used for less than $1,000 or a kit for a couple hundred more.
I have had the X-T3 since October. I love the camera minus the low light capabilities of it. Once you hit about 2000 iso you really can't push the exposure too much. I pretty much shoot Fuji and Sony a good amount unless I really need to use my Nikons for event coverage. Would I recommend the D5? Yeah if you have the budget for one. If not the D4 and D4s are still really good cameras. I actually shot an ad for work on my D4 so yeah I'd recommend it, I chose it over the cheaper Nikon D750. The D4 is a workhorse tank of a camera that sounds like an AK-47.
Haven't used a telephoto lens in a long time and tested the Fuji 55-200mm yesterday and my conclusion: I need to use this more for landscapes! Love how the mountains seem so close! I usually only use wide angle lenses for my landscape pics, but with a 24mm for example you could hardly see the mountains (unfortunately I didn't take a comparison pic).
The telephotos are really great at brining out the detail in landscapes. I'm mostly a fan of the 50-140, but if the 55-200 works for you then get that. Then again I'd probably go lighter myself for traveling.Haven't used a telephoto lens in a long time and tested the Fuji 55-200mm yesterday and my conclusion: I need to use this more for landscapes! Love how the mountains seem so close! I usually only use wide angle lenses for my landscape pics, but with a 24mm for example you could hardly see the mountains (unfortunately I didn't take a comparison pic).
Nice! I find myself gravitating to telephoto landscapes these days, usually much more interesting than a wide angle shot.Haven't used a telephoto lens in a long time and tested the Fuji 55-200mm yesterday and my conclusion: I need to use this more for landscapes! Love how the mountains seem so close! I usually only use wide angle lenses for my landscape pics, but with a 24mm for example you could hardly see the mountains (unfortunately I didn't take a comparison pic).
Yeah the 50-140 is probably the better lens, but the size and weight difference is pretty substantial, and for hiking lighter with more reach is nice. And the lens is sharp stopped down.
Yeah I tend to buy first for stuff I do for work so I had no interest in the 55-200, for more practical applications I'd probably definitely be down for the 55-200. I probably have no real clue what I'd pack for travel. I'd probably either get a 70-200F4 or 24-105 for the Sony and bring the 35 1.4 and the 85 1.8 and call it a day because I think I'm getting really close to getting the 24-70GM and I'd most likely like to bring that.Yeah the 50-140 is probably the better lens, but the size and weight difference is pretty substantial, and for hiking lighter with more reach is nice. And the lens is sharp stopped down.
Nice shot. Yeah telephoto landscapes are a thing, specially around mountains where wide angles can't really show their true nature/beauty. And the 55-200 seems to be a great lens, read a lot of good stuff. Basically Fuji's non red zoom lenses are actually really good, unlike most other brands. As long as it's not a XC lens you are good.Haven't used a telephoto lens in a long time and tested the Fuji 55-200mm yesterday and my conclusion: I need to use this more for landscapes! Love how the mountains seem so close! I usually only use wide angle lenses for my landscape pics, but with a 24mm for example you could hardly see the mountains (unfortunately I didn't take a comparison pic).