Welcome to the IHoP v.2

[///M5 2,833]

1 hour ago, sandt38 said:

Decent tripods for under $100?

1/4" mount, 50+" high

$100, not if you have a real lens.  Better to spend the money on glass and not need the tripod.  Generically you should be able to hand hold up to 1/focal length.

[///M5 2,833]

51 minutes ago, MKader17 said:

Anyone ever researched a cell phone mount for a bike?

 

I use a Ram Mount.  Pretty rock solid.  Can't say that I have jumped off anything higher than 4', but I regularly get off the ground with it.

I have a cheaper one I don't like as much and the Delta is sort of the defacto standard, but for me it doesn't work as I can reach the volume control on the back of the G4 while it is in the Delta.  The low profile portion of the Delta is nice though as the Ram sticks up a bunch.

I prefer the older Ram holder with the fingers than the new Xgrip but if you have a big phone you have no choice.  You definitely need the rubber thingee it comes with though if you ride off road.  I did 17mi on the riverbed trails this weekend with mine, never even twitched.

[///M5 2,833]

Seth there are decent tripods probably for that, but it really depends on the weight of the glass.  Just the head of the tripod is normally more than that for a real hunk of glass....

That being said, an el cheapo can work to hold the camera.  Just don't expect to take 30 second exposures.  I have the big Gorilla pod and have taken some 20sec night time shots that worked pretty good.  If you peep there is motion, but I didn't spend $500 yet on a CF one and wasn't carrying a 90lb aluminum one to Singapore.

[///M5 2,833]

This was shot on a Gorilla pod

 

[///M5 2,833]

This as well hung on a bridge

 

[///M5 2,833]

The first shot is from one of the restaurants you see on the right of the second.  Boat Quay....right next to where the crazy fucks air condition OUTSIDE.

[///M5 2,833]

the lack of sharpness on both is exclusively due to the tripod.

Both shot using the 17-55 2.8 at somewhere near F11 and 17mm.  And yes that is the $750 lens that makes the Nikkor $1500 lens just seem WAY overpriced.  L quality in picture without the extra expense of materials in the body.

I still feel like you haven't spent time shopping for glass if you are still looking at Nikon....or you haven't shared.  Albeit years ago when I shopped I realized it was futile in the Nikkor world.

[///M5 2,833]

You may have a different used market than we do here in MN though.

[///M5 2,833]

What you need to focus on are:

50mm 1.4 $450

Either the 35mm 1.8 $200 or the 17-55mm 2.8 $1500

 and 70-200mm 2.8 $2100

11-16mm 2.8 Tokina $450

*all prices msrp from Nikonusa/Tokina

I put them in the order I would buy.  You could argue that jumping to the 70-200 before the 35/17.55 but that wouldn't work for me.  The 50 will take the bottom end of the 70 pretty darn well and getting the width to take more than portraits inside or during gatherings you will probably want.  The ultra wide is just in case you start to dig on big outdoor shots with a tripod.

[///M5 2,833]

The killer for me on Nikon is the daily zoom.  The 17-55 is painfully expensive on Nikon.

[///M5 2,833]

Matt would probably say grab the 24-70 instead, but that extra premium and losing the wide end I wouldn't do on a crop.

IIRC you can still use a crop lens on a full frame Nikon, which is not the case for Canon.  If I go full at some point I'll be pissed I have two crop lenses...although I can still sell them for what I paid and don't expect that to change much.

[///M5 2,833]

I guess all I know for sure in that regard is that my colleagues 11-16 Tokina works on his full frame Nikon.  It of course vignettes like a mother pucker, but the inside pixels are perfect.  Not positive if other Nikkor lenses do.

[///M5 2,833]

Full Frame and 11mm, non-fish eye lol

[///M5 2,833]

Something I shot with my cell phone in China.

Wait for it.

 

[dem beats 1,223]

2 hours ago, ///M5 said:

Matt would probably say grab the 24-70 instead, but that extra premium and losing the wide end I wouldn't do on a crop.

IIRC you can still use a crop lens on a full frame Nikon, which is not the case for Canon.  If I go full at some point I'll be pissed I have two crop lenses...although I can still sell them for what I paid and don't expect that to change much.

The 24-70 stays on my t4I second camera most of the time.  When I bring both.

It's great with a FF for shooting in people's space when you can't get back. I actually got a tamron instead of the Canon. At the time the game in has VR and no one else did.

[nem 2,019]

Pulled her hair right out! No blood, nothing.

 

I pulled a lady out of a machine that had her hair caught in a large flat belt and holy fuck that was bad. Her hair was pulled so hard it pulled the skin from the skull and massive swelling instantly.

[///M5 2,833]

7 hours ago, dem beats said:

The 24-70 stays on my t4I second camera most of the time.  When I bring both.

It's great with a FF for shooting in people's space when you can't get back. I actually got a tamron instead of the Canon. At the time the game in has VR and no one else did.

If you only have a  crop I think the 17-55 is better, but of course it won't work on a full so it would make zero sense for you.  17 crop ~ 24 full and I find myself shooting a bunch at 17'ish.

If I were being cheap on Canon I'd grab:

24mm 2.8 STM $150 - for video and wide shots.  2.8 is fine when shooting this wide

50mm 1.4 $330  (1.8 for $150 works if really cheap)

85mm 1.8 $350 (would prefer a tighter F stop but the 1.2 is $1900 )

70-200 F4  $600

 

 

 

[///M5 2,833]

Of course I haven't decided if I am cheap or not yet so I don't own a 70-200.  I do have a superzoom that I can use for long shots though.

[MKader17 332]

Are primes inherently better than zooms?

If I had the 17-55 f2.8 set at 24mm would I get the same shot as a 24mm f2.8 prime lens?

[///M5 2,833]

29 minutes ago, MKader17 said:

Are primes inherently better than zooms?

If I had the 17-55 f2.8 set at 24mm would I get the same shot as a 24mm f2.8 prime lens?

Yes, inherently WAY better.  The more the range of zoom the worse.  That and more importantly there are no really low Fstop zooms.  My 50mm 1.4 I normally pretty much always shoot below F2.  Regularly right at 1.4.

[///M5 2,833]

Even up at 2.8 comparing to my 17-55 the 50 kills it.  You also gain a ton of artistic understanding from NOT having a zoom.  Zooms are not helpful for learning and definitely should be avoided at first.  I of course started with a super zoom and it set me back a ton.

[///M5 2,833]

I should add that it does depend on what you are shooting.

Just like reading megapixel numbers is pointless, so is the comparison of sharpness.  If you make decisions based on either it is foolish.  The 1.8 50mm regularly get "tested" as better than the 1.4's, but they forget to include the purpose in the lens for those tests.  This is absurd.  A 1.4 50 is a portrait lens on a crop.  Discounting its performance based on vignetting (which is desirable in a portrait) is stupidity.

You really won't shoot anything but people (or people like things, ie animals and such) with the 50.  It is terrible for buildings or anything that you can't get a mile away from as it is just too much zoom.  Having something on a crop that goes much closer to the teens is really helpful for that.

Which brings me to the next point, it is absurd to compare lenses for what they won't be used for.  A lot of comparisons on zooms they do this.  Let's test a 70mm lens at f22?  That would be idiotic, no one should ever shoot at 70mm and F22.  Sure if you need to slow the shutter down for some reason and don't want a ton of light you can, but that will be one in a 100,000 shots and not a test to focus on.  All of the camera review websites are horseshit in this regard.  They focus on specs, and not usability.  This regularly misleads the consumer terribly.

[///M5 2,833]

My niece was over for dinner last night.  She is 15mo.  Was in a great mood and I wanted to catch it.  The 17-55 2.8 was pointless for this.  Flat out just wouldn't work.  The 50mm at 1.4 however took some amazing portrait like shots with all sorts of shit all over the house (4 kids had been playing for 3 hours and took out everything...)

[MKader17 332]

52 minutes ago, ///M5 said:

My niece was over for dinner last night.  She is 15mo.  Was in a great mood and I wanted to catch it.  The 17-55 2.8 was pointless for this.  Flat out just wouldn't work.  The 50mm at 1.4 however took some amazing portrait like shots with all sorts of shit all over the house (4 kids had been playing for 3 hours and took out everything...)

What caused the zoom to be useless in this situation?

Was it just the depth of field (DOF?) of the 2.8 compared to the 1.4?

I hear a lot about portraits at a low fstop where the eyes are in focus, but the ears aren't. Is that actually desirable? When buying a 50mm for a crop, am I really getting a 70-75mm equivalent?

I spent some time today talking with our resident camera expert. He gave me a lot of good advice (which is very similar what you guys have said here). I can also ask him the stupid questions and get quick responses

[MKader17 332]

14 hours ago, ///M5 said:

I use a Ram Mount.  Pretty rock solid.  Can't say that I have jumped off anything higher than 4', but I regularly get off the ground with it.

I have a cheaper one I don't like as much and the Delta is sort of the defacto standard, but for me it doesn't work as I can reach the volume control on the back of the G4 while it is in the Delta.  The low profile portion of the Delta is nice though as the Ram sticks up a bunch.

I prefer the older Ram holder with the fingers than the new Xgrip but if you have a big phone you have no choice.  You definitely need the rubber thingee it comes with though if you ride off road.  I did 17mi on the riverbed trails this weekend with mine, never even twitched.

I came across this Delta one. It attaches to the top of the stem, which I though was kinda cool.

http://www.amazon.com/Delta-Cycle-Smart-Holder-Handlebar/dp/B00K8PYT2M?ie=UTF8&ascsubtag=pfb-DPD-1-2-144748521270817&ref_=pfb_DPD_1_2_144748521270817&tag=hydfbook0e-20