Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 244
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 1 month later...

 

 

 

* Basically: http://www.kenrockwell.com

That Rockwell is an interesting character.

 

 

+2 on that site. Very informative...I see a purchase in my immediate future...I'm thinking the Nikon D3100*. Anyone have any comments about that one?

 

 

*...and maybe one of the nicer pocket cameras he reviews, so I'd be splitting my budget.

Link to post
Share on other sites

+2 on that site. Very informative...I see a purchase in my immediate future...I'm thinking the Nikon D3100*. Anyone have any comments about that one?

 

 

*...and maybe one of the nicer pocket cameras he reviews, so I'd be splitting my budget.

 

I've reviewed (for me) Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Sony alpha 35/55, and all performed about the same (for my criteria).

 

The only ones with a really different feature set are the Sonys: the semi-permeable mirror and electronic view-finder put them apart: they focus bloody fast in live-view as well (to be more precise: live-view's all they have, they merely switch between internal and external LCD), and the electronic viewfinder enables them to display all sorts of information within the picture. Don't let anyone say that those electronic viewfinders are bad and can't compare with an optical one - try it.

The price for that is some missing light into the sensor, and an issue with mirror images which may appear if very high differences in brightness, say a night shot with lamps in the picture. The effect is negligible for standard pictures (and the camera software might even remove it from the picture if the lights aren't overexposured) so again decide for yourself.

 

You might want to spend some time here and here.

 

Keep the money for the pocket camera. Once you've used a DSLR you'll likely cry at the picture quality of those critters.

 

Oh, I eventually bought a Canon 600D / Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a Canon 55-250 f??? (the less expensive one). Not because it's above the others, but my local dealer had a special deal one saturday and ...

 

EDIT: as far's the site's concerned I found it a bit (rather: a Mbit) leaning towards Nikon and Canon without so much as a honorable mention of other brands.

 

2nd EDIT: Found another site, this site to compare DSLRs.

Edited by APF
Link to post
Share on other sites

APF, enjoy the Canon. The Tamron lens has received some stellar reviews.

 

Last week I bought a Sony NEX-5N. I am very happy with this camera, minus one little issue (clicking noise during video which will be taken care of). My two choices:

 

Sony NEX-5N

16 MP

Mirror-less, interchangeable lenses

Very good low light. ISO 3200 is very usable

1080p at 24 fps or 60 fps, not interlaced

Adapters to use most brand lenses

Focus peaking for manual focus lenses. It is so easy.

Optional OLED viewfinder (same as A65 and A77)

18-55 kit lens is surprisingly good. Non-rotating and comes with a lens shade

 

Sony A65

24 MP

Semi-transparent mirror (you lose some light)

Amazingly fast autofocus and tracking

Superb OLED viewfinder, lets you view historgrams live

Same 1080p 24 or 60 fps

Very good ergonomics

The 18-55 SLR kit lens is okay, has a rotating front element

 

The video on the NEX is superb. There is a clicking noise that involves sending the camera to New Jersey for calibration. I'm not thrilled about that. But I followed some advice and set the camera to portrait mode and manually set the saturation to negative. At 24 fps on my big TV via HDMI the video looks like a feature film.

 

Over the weekend I bought a really old Nikkor 105mm F2.5 Auto P (pre-AI). It is built like a tank and the glass is flawless. Using an adapter it works beautifully. Wide open it's pretty sharp and the bokeh (out-of-focus) areas are nice and smooth. $60 for the lens and $50 for the adapter. I'm going to use this lens at concerts.

 

Now I'm looking for a Zeiss 21mm 2.8 Biogon (from the Contax G system). That will give me a nice, really small camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

APF, enjoy the Canon. The Tamron lens has received some stellar reviews.

 

I do, I really do! Up to the point where spouse and kids are getting this "oh no, not again!" look....

 

One small thing I find interesting is that I've found much more use for the 17-50 (27-80) than the 55-250 (90-400 - old school values for 35 mm film troglodytes). Apart from portraits it's too long for everyday work, and there are only a few times where you can't close the range for the 17-50. Well, that's fine for me as fast long lenses tend to dig huge craters into the resources. OTOH the 17-50 might still be a bit shorter to be really happy with it for indoor photography - there's still the odd wall creeping up from behind.

But if I'd buy *another* lens right now I'd be in serious trouble. And while I could do with a shorter lens, I guess I will rather buy a really fast 25-50 mm - probably the Sigma 30 mm f1.4, and a flash - Nissin DI866 MkII.

 

Last week I bought a Sony NEX-5N. I am very happy with this camera, minus one little issue (clicking noise during video which will be taken care of). My two choices:

 

Sony NEX-5N

16 MP

Mirror-less, interchangeable lenses

[...]

 

Sony A65

24 MP

Semi-transparent mirror (you lose some light)

Amazingly fast autofocus and tracking

 

If I wouldn't have wanted a DSLR really badly I probably would've gotten myself one of those mirrorless cameras. I guess that's the semi-pro camera of the future, because removing the mirror shrinks the whole system (body and lenses) and will make them more affordable to buy and carry around. OTOH there's a myriad of DSLR lenses lying around, and I guess for at least another ten years or so any mayor manufacturer which drops his DSLR line will receive a mayor bashing.

In my eyes the A65 - like the A35/55 - are a nice idea, but compromise too much: they retain most of the size of the mirror housing (for the semipermeable one), so the optics are about the same size, add another optical element which provides significant distortion in high contrast environments, and yet don't provide an optical viewfinder (which would've been the reason for the semipermeable mirror in the first place). Yes, I know, they need the light for the phase AF system, but I wonder wether it wouldn't be possible to integrate the phase AF into the main sensor (into a buried deeper layer, perhaps?) which would do away with the mirror and the steps needed to calibrate the position of the picture sensor and AF sensor to each other. But we will see...

 

Over the weekend I bought a really old Nikkor 105mm F2.5 Auto P (pre-AI). It is built like a tank and the glass is flawless. Using an adapter it works beautifully. Wide open it's pretty sharp and the bokeh (out-of-focus) areas are nice and smooth. $60 for the lens and $50 for the adapter. I'm going to use this lens at concerts.

 

Now I'm looking for a Zeiss 21mm 2.8 Biogon (from the Contax G system). That will give me a nice, really small camera.

 

First thing I'm looking at now is to start some psychological preparation to get the ok for another piece of kit. And another...

 

Greetings

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/542121/a-high-end-camera-in-a-small-package/

 

The rectangular black camera can capture images of up to 52 megapixels. Unlike most cameras, which use just one lens and image sensor, the L16 will squeeze in 16 camera modules with three different focal lengths—five 35-millimeter ones, five 70-millimeter ones, and six 150-millimeter ones. Each of the camera modules will have a 13-megapixel image sensor. The cameras will simultaneously snap their own shots from different perspectives when you take a picture, and software will combine them automatically into one image that mimics what you’d get from a DSLR camera with a large lens attached to it.

 

I've been expecting this. Using multiple sensors and image stitching.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...

 

Hi. Please satisfy my narcissism by checking out my Flickr page :lol:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/185082777@N03/with/49068803162/

 

:D :D :D

 

Nice, now you need an appropiate nickname, like Philippine Dingo or something...

 

 

:lol:

 

Pusang Ulol aka Rabid Cat :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

 

Hi. Please satisfy my narcissism by checking out my Flickr page :lol:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/185082777@N03/with/49068803162/

 

:D :D :D

 

Nice! I especially liked the pictures of the stars.

 

 

Thank you! I am constantly updating my Flickr page. :) Hoping to shoot the night sky very soon again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I recently did a short photography course. 12 hours over six weeks (one evening a week). I have, as a result, packed most of my cameras away acknowledging my weaknesses. I will still take some photos of family and in a project to document graves in an historic cemetery, but will not consider myself to be a photographer any longer. Thinking of the works of St Ansell Adams has convinced me of that.

 

Having said that, a member of the tanknet facebook page has pointed me to these websites, that are worth reading.

 

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/basics.htm?fbclid=IwAR1VxHTjfTrES0CGIqNynfWIlj3tgfUOCGpCMHey432WCvs_q0HMKHFlAo8

 

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

 

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Please satisfy my narcissism by checking out my Flickr page :lol:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/185082777@N03/with/49068803162/

 

:D :D :D

 

Very nice work.

I finally bought a cheapy DSLR a couple of years ago and have been getting back into the groove of still shooting. I've been a television photojournalist for more than 31 years, but still shooting was my first love.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned it in the Good Old Fashioned Tank Porn thread, but I recently hooked up the photo/negative scanner that my wife got me for Fathers Day a couple of years ago. During my Christmas vacation I scanned 500-something negatives and have been repairing and editing them as I have time. Some were in pretty bad shape considering that they've been in negative sleeves for nearly thirty years.

 

All the negatives are color, but I've converted a few to grayscale.

All photos made with a Pentax MX Super using Kodak Gold100 film.

 

tzav9Im.jpg

 

4qZmJk0.jpg

 

hREXDH9.jpg

 

qyqwOO6.jpg

 

5n3G3q4.jpg

 

drOuRCc.jpg

 

OkQ3kMJ.jpg

 

ijZRbFT.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

shootER5: Thanks! Very nice tank photos you got there. M60 is one of my favourite tanks. :wub:

 

DougRichards: Those links are awesome. My weakness is composing. I really should be less rigid of mind when taking photos. Those links will be important if I want to improve my photography. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

shootER5: Thanks! Very nice tank photos you got there. M60 is one of my favourite tanks. :wub:

 

DougRichards: Those links are awesome. My weakness is composing. I really should be less rigid of mind when taking photos. Those links will be important if I want to improve my photography. :)

 

Thank you.

 

I disagree with you, though. Your composition is very solid. Nothing wrong with it at all, from my point of view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...