JadedWriter
Member
That lens isn't even a 50mm on that camera, but all in all it's still a great lens. It's always in my lens bag just in case I need it.
-
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
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
Can anyone help with a Lightroom issue?
I've just got a new laptop - Dell XPS 15 - and at the same time subscribed to Adobe CC. So basically I've changed from a very old PC and old version of Lightroom to the latest hardware and software.
I'm finding that after about an hour of using lightroom I'm no longer able to view an image full screen unless I close everything down and start again. It looks like it tries to open up full screen, displaying the image for a second and then flicking back to the main view, then back and forth while being completely unresponsive. The laptop remains responsive outside of the application.
Is this a lightroom bug or a driver issue? Not using any plugins in LR & its fully up to date, machine is on Win10 fully up to date.
I've just got a new laptop - Dell XPS 15 - and at the same time subscribed to Adobe CC. So basically I've changed from a very old PC and old version of Lightroom to the latest hardware and software.
I'm finding that after about an hour of using lightroom I'm no longer able to view an image full screen unless I close everything down and start again. It looks like it tries to open up full screen, displaying the image for a second and then flicking back to the main view, then back and forth while being completely unresponsive. The laptop remains responsive outside of the application.
Is this a lightroom bug or a driver issue? Not using any plugins in LR & its fully up to date, machine is on Win10 fully up to date.
Hmm strange, the fact it happens with different lenses suggests a body fault. Are you focusing using the central point?
sorijealut
Member
edit
JadedWriter
Member
This is either because I'm very used to my D7100 or the Canon 60d has flat out horrible button layout. Nothing makes sense at all. The scroll wheel layout is dumb and I can't use any buttons to adjust focus points. I have to hold a button and use the secondary function on a scroll wheel and that is how you change something holding down a different button and using a scroll wheel. It seems like it's like that because they couldn't put buttons on the back to make room for the multi directional floppy screen.
Yes, I've tried everything. I get fuzzy pictures at any point I focus on.
I'm not going to put too much effort in trying to fix it, so I'll probably look for a new body.
What is the best Canon body I can get second hand for 300€ or less? I'm thinking of either the 40D or 50D. Or should I consider a more recent budget camera like 550D/600D?
JadedWriter
Member
Thank god I learn cameras fast. I did fine I at the event switching between the canon and nikon.
Googling around there is a tiny screw you can adjust to fix back/front focusing.
AF can also be really fuzzy. It's possible for lens X to work perfectly with body A, but misfocus on body B while lens Y works perfectly with body B, but misfocus on body A.
Lens X and Y and body A and B don't have to be different models even.
JadedWriter
Member
Anybody here use and recommend a Sigma 2.8 70-200?
I had one of those for my Canon a few years ago, it was a great lens and way more affordable than the canon glass
JadedWriter
Member
Good to know. I was going to get a Nikon 2.8 80-200 but it lacks stabilization and those things are not easy to keep steady at all.
I would think so. Most likely handles noise better, more focus points, shoots 4K video. Different lens ecosystem but that doesn't matter if you still only have a Nikon kit lens. What is your intended usage?
That sounds good. Well I'm going to use the camera just for taking nature pictures, animals and stuff. Probably use it for taking pictures at bars as I usually do sometimes a year. I'm not an expert, so either I keep my old camera or buy this one
If you just take pictures I'd invest in better glass instead unless you need to switch systems.
The A6300 is a good upgrade if you want better video though.
If you're referring to the non-OS version then I had nothing but bad luck with my copy. The macro range is ridiculously soft below f4.0 and the rest of the range has sharpness comparable to cheap zooms unless you stop down. I had better results, cheaper with the Canon 70-200 f4L.
But that's just me.
JadedWriter
Member
There are sadly like 8 versions of that damn thing. No I was asking about the most recent OS version. I'm not touching non OS version for event photography.
If that's all I'm going to echo the get better glass sentiment. What lenses are you currently using? No sense buying into a new ecosystem if you don't have to and even with the 6300 you would need good glass. I almost think glass is 60% of photography depending on what it is that you're doing.
I wonder how many have experience with high end bridge cameras like the Panasonic FZ1000. I've thought about recommending it to new people asking here, but I have no experience with a bridge camera.
The RX100, X100 and the like are favorites on this forum, but they're made more for enthusiast who like the focal length(s) or want a second camera that is much smaller. For someone who's new and wants to get into it the FZ1000 (or RX10) doesn't look that bad. Sure it's a smaller sensor, but it's way better than a point and shoot and the reasonably fast lens makes up for some of that. It's also quite affordable at 800$ when you factor in the lens.
The RX100, X100 and the like are favorites on this forum, but they're made more for enthusiast who like the focal length(s) or want a second camera that is much smaller. For someone who's new and wants to get into it the FZ1000 (or RX10) doesn't look that bad. Sure it's a smaller sensor, but it's way better than a point and shoot and the reasonably fast lens makes up for some of that. It's also quite affordable at 800$ when you factor in the lens.
JadedWriter
Member
There's nothing wrong with a bridge camera. I got started on a Coolpix 530, which from what I recall people on here told me not to buy. But I managed to learn on it just fine. It's really all about the amount of time and research you're willing to put into it in my opinion.
andythinkpad
Member
Why don't you just get a SLR body and a 18-270mm, 16-300mm. They cost the same and weight the same.
And after owning for a year, you won't feel like using it anymore because its so clunky.
The Tamron 16-300 alone is over 500$ and as a camera body the FZ1000 is well featured with the big EVF and 4k video recording.
andythinkpad
Member
I am sure you can easily find a $300 used/new DSLR body that can destroy the image quality of your bridge camera.
Leeroy3101
Banned
Upgrade to a refurbished 7100 or a Tokina 10-20mm 2.8f wide angle without warranty?
Currently I have a year old D3300, but the weather sealing and gratuitous amount of focus points could benefit my photography.
Currently I have a year old D3300, but the weather sealing and gratuitous amount of focus points could benefit my photography.
JadedWriter
Member
How badly do you need an ultra wide angle? I use and love my 7100.
Leeroy3101
Banned
Not "badly". It could help a ton with astrophotography, and I live somewhere 9 months out of the year with no light pollution. But, I also live in a wet, and windy climate. It's the last type of lens I want to complete my arsenal. Have a 55-300 telephoto, 50mm, and the 18-55 kit.
Can refurbished cameras be of high quality despite the "refurbished" part?
I truly love my D3300. I hoped to not upgrade until I felt ready for a full frame.
Can refurbished cameras be of high quality despite the "refurbished" part?
I truly love my D3300. I hoped to not upgrade until I felt ready for a full frame.
JadedWriter
Member
I've seen this before. He pretty much just says that you only really need first party if you're a working pro that can't take care of your stuff and even still Canon lenses die since my office killed both a 70-200 and 24-70 L lens. As much as I'd like a Nikon I can't afford one. Even still with the price difference he said I could buy a Sigma or Tamron and furnish a studio with the price difference.
To me the Tamron and Sigma both seemed better than the Canon. Both of those companies have come a long way.
JadedWriter
Member
Well that's cool since I used the Canon yesterday for event shots during the speech sessions. I was impressed with it, but at the same time it was on a 6 year old APSC camera body with 9 autofocus points so I know the camera didn't do the lens any sort of justice. If they've improved so much then why do people keep trash talking them? Granted I love my 18-35 Art lens to pieces.
JadedWriter
Member
I always forget about that 2x crop value. I know that feeling of getting a new lens, it's...euphoria.
haha yeah it is the best. Essentially it's 24-80mm. Still very wide though. Widest lens I'll own.
JadedWriter
Member
That's a very very versatile focal range. Pretty the bog standard event photography range. I've been doing mine recently with an 18-35, but I have a 17-50 just in case and a 50mm prime. Now well I'm hitting "I need more reach" territory with events. That's "expensive" territory.
Mmmm sure, focal lenght-wise it is, but seeing as I shoot in the dark, nothing above f2.8 is gonna be good enough. Not on micro 4/3 where I need to stick to somewhat low ISO. I need the wide aperture. I've been shooting mostly with the 25mm (50mm dslr) f1.8 until now. I am a little bit worried for the f2.8 but that lens has such magnificent sharp optics, I'm hoping it'll be fine.
If I'm not mistaken the Nikon 18-35 and 17-50 are like f3.5+ so that would be challenging on a concert imo. Possible, but quite grainy and not good for print. Not that anyone cares for print these days. The 50mm prime is a better choice for dark shots imo.
JadedWriter
Member
I use the Sigma versions of those lenses. The 18-35 is 1.8 and the Sigma 17-50 is 2.8. The 18.35 is like my mainstay, but if I ever need the stabilization or extra reach I just keep the 17-50 in my bag. If I need further reach I have the 50 which is a full frame lens so it's actually a 75mm. As long as your camera handles noise well you can just up the ISO a bit and maybe stop it down if need be for added sharpness. I very rarely shoot wide open these days just because it gives me a better depth of field and a sharpness bump. Nikon makes a 2.8 17-55, but that shit is A) expensive as fuck, B) heavy as fuck and C) lacks image stabilization so I wrote that thing off immediately.
Yolo just ordered the Fujifilm XF35mm f2 to use on my friend's XE2 the next 10 weeks till I get my own body.
So now I got an X100T and an XE2, the kit lens, and the 35mm f2 to work with, with covers the focal lengths I need.
Not sure if I'll be able to swing an XPRO2 by summer, so expensive...
So now I got an X100T and an XE2, the kit lens, and the 35mm f2 to work with, with covers the focal lengths I need.
Not sure if I'll be able to swing an XPRO2 by summer, so expensive...
The XE-2 with the 4.0 firmware is much improved, so I think you'll be alright
Nice. Debating keeping my 1.4 or selling it and getting the f/2
JadedWriter
Member
Me and my dad are discussing full frames and he thinks it's all hype. Out of curiosity is a full frame really 100% for event photography where you can't control lighting for shit?
no. full frame is just a sensor size that mimics the 35mm film size. the bigger the sensor the more information is captured. sounds like your dad has no idea what he's talking about.
I keep wanting to jump on that full frame bandwagon, but there is nothing out yet for me to justify it. My 70D is serving me well and unless I am going to start doing weddings soon, I am just going to pick up a sigma 35 MM ART for now. Full Frame is amazing for high ISO performance and I am sure it couldn't help for events, but I try to know my limits and figure out a solution to whatever I am shooting. I will let you know for sure once I start doing some events I am picking up soon, though. Thankfully, all modern cameras have much better ISO performance than before. Noise cancelling software has come to an insane point as well. I still will end up with full frame by next year depending on the price point for either a 6D Mark II or the drop in price on the 5d Mark III when the IV arrives.
JadedWriter
Member
He's really just like "I don't want to spend the money. An image is an image regardless of what you use." He does a lot of stuff and knows a ton about lighting but he doesn't shoot corporate events for example where your available light IS your light and you can't just bring a 2 or 3 flash setup and just shoot with augmented light, which is becoming the thing I'm learning about. He's not dumb and he helps me a lot, just stubborn.
It's absurd to say an image is an image no matter what you use. Sounds like someone who is set in their ways no matter how wrong they are. To compensate for less light and the inability to put more light where you need it, you can get better lenses with faster apertures. Those apertures won't perform as well if the sensor size is smaller than full frame though. Nothing wrong with using crop or m4/3rd's but there is a difference in how much information is gathered. That's just reality.
JadedWriter
Member
Yeah I've hit the "you need full frame" wall while doing event photography but my dad hasn't hit that wall. I think apsc is fine for his usage but event photography is a whole nother animal.
What is your lens set up? I'd hold off the 30 for a decent zoom lens if you don't have one yet. Event photography can be weird with what it demands from you just warning you now.
andythinkpad
Member
Depends on how much you get paid for by the events. Obviously bigger sensor is always better. All sensors are basically made by one company anyway.
Oh. The events I am going to be doing are more for products and art events. A lighting company wants me to come to wedding expos and some other events so he can update his website plus also use his futuristic lighting he is trying to market in upcoming conceptual fashion photo shoots. The other event is for an art show some eccentric entrepreneur wants me to attend. Which type of Events are you doing? I will eventually get a zoom lens. I am using a 50 1.4 and 85mm mostly right now. My 40 2.8 pancake is fun but I wish the aperture was wider. I think the Sigma 35mm and I would be best friends for many things, especially family portraits and artistic outside portraits.
JadedWriter
Member
I'd honestly get an 18-35 Art lens if I were you it covers you in the wide end as well it's honestly a really good lens. I mean I know I was screamed at for suggesting stuff in I think the photo thread, but a bag full of primes isn't always the best option. You take that and I think the 50 and 85 to an event and you should be fine as long as you don't need a 70-200.
jongkookie
Member
As somebody wanting to jump on full frame...
In terms of slow events, fashion shoots, and even general videography, an APS-C sensor is mooooooooore than enough for everyone.
I only carry two lenses with me these days, a 28-90mm Vivitar Series 1 and a 50mm Nikon Series E, and since my D3200 is APS-C, those lenses are effectively 42-135mm and 75mm respectively. Yep, they're very very odd focal lengths but I've never had any issues with it out on shoots or whatever.
Honestly, the only reason why I want to switch to full frame is simply because of a wider field of view. I'd be able to get closer to subjects and get some decent depth of field which is what I really want.
In terms of slow events, fashion shoots, and even general videography, an APS-C sensor is mooooooooore than enough for everyone.
I only carry two lenses with me these days, a 28-90mm Vivitar Series 1 and a 50mm Nikon Series E, and since my D3200 is APS-C, those lenses are effectively 42-135mm and 75mm respectively. Yep, they're very very odd focal lengths but I've never had any issues with it out on shoots or whatever.
Honestly, the only reason why I want to switch to full frame is simply because of a wider field of view. I'd be able to get closer to subjects and get some decent depth of field which is what I really want.
I'm a bokeh whore lol.
JadedWriter
Member
Let me know when you're in a museum with like 4 overheads for available light and using 2 overheads for available light in a theater. My apsc was fine with the former and borderline useless for the latter. If I didn't have my jobs 2.8 70-200 I would've been toast. This event shooting stuff has been a constant lesson. Even with the 70-200 I had to chuck a lot of stuff cause the Canon was a six year old apsc and it barely handles iso 1250 and I couldn't bump that up any higher. And of course nobody that uses that thing shoots actual events with it. It's mainly a head shot and spare video camera so nobody really knows the iso limitations of it. Frankly I've been saved by having really good glass. If all I had was an 18-55 3.5-5.6 kit lens I'd have nothing to show for anything.
I've probably grown picky looking at pictures blown up, but I always find MFT and to a lesser extent APS-C noisy at base ISO. If you make a big print it will be visible.
It's hard to find good apples to apples comparisons, but for whatever reason FF also tends to look sharper even with quite mundane lenses. Perhaps more so because of the low noise at base ISO.
When it comes to sharp lenses nothing beats the selection FF cameras have. I think someone did the math and figured that the Otus could benefit from a 100-200MP FF sensor.
JadedWriter
Member
Well this might explain why he doesn't think there's much of a difference. We really don't print our stuff out and with that he's got nothing to compare it to.