Dyxum forums

Lens talk area : Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:19:33 +0000

Author: troublestylist
Subject: Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 23:19

Originally posted by wimski99

And what if you're looking for months and there is no steal? That's what happened to me...

Then you pay full price and keep looking. If you find one cheaper, you sell one off. Or you find something ELSE cheaper, sell IT off, and apply the profits to your "overpriced" lens.

In the aggregrate, your checkbook ends up being in almost the same place, and sometimes being able to compare two copies is a bonus.

Greg

Lens talk area : Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:18:56 +0000

Author: wimski99
Subject: Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 23:18

Originally posted by ricardovaste

If you have the skills to manual focus to set points, to study your subject inside out, you can capture all those moments if you want to.

Fair enough, but what if the pace in which I'm developing skills isn't fast enough ? Equipment can help...

Dyxum Galleries : Japan thru gaijin eyes! Photo-blog -- many pics

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:18:52 +0000

Author: TallPaul
Subject: Japan thru gaijin eyes! Photo-blog -- many pics
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 23:18

I would also say that Japan does not have to be expensive, especuially travel if you buy the rail pass outside Japan (only available to tourists outside japan, don't wait till you get there!) which gives unlimited travel on all trains, including the bullet trains (with few exceptions of the ultra-fast ones, but they run same routes as normal bullet trains, just a bit quicker). I think in 2005 it was about �200 ($400) for two weeks, but we went all over the country and it was very good value. If you did not like where you were, just get on a train somewhere else!

Also, they do have macdonalds... if you really really must...

Lens talk area : Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:16:55 +0000

Author: troublestylist
Subject: Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 23:16

Hey Pirate, don't turn this into the "Gloat Forum". There's one for that already.

Besides, I lost count how many 5000's w/ mint 50mm 1.7's I've gotten for half that

Originally posted by Pirate

I would never pay silly money for anything. Worth and value . . the 2 rules of thumb.

Right...but that's entirely subjective, ESPECIALLY in lens buying. Is the 24-70 worth 6x (new prices) as the 28-75? Only if you need it. You could get by with a kit lens, 50mm, and beercan, and get out for under $200.

But if you want good lenses, you have to pay for them. Even if you get a "score", like Lattiboy did with his 100/2, you still have to decide to sell for a profit (like he did), or enjoy the glass by paying the "opportunity cost" of not cashing out at market rate.

Greg

Dyxum Critics Corner : Rework the shadows in this sunset?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:16:36 +0000

Author: Mr_Canuck
Subject: Rework the shadows in this sunset?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 23:16

Here's a shot from last month on the Saskatchewan prairies in Canada. I was visiting the farm in Weyburn and saw a fast-appearing, gorgeous sunset after dinner. I ran out to the field... and then panicked. Where to shoot from?! On foot, on a half-section of land, the sun dropping out of the sky. I hoofed it to the nearest round hay bales and started shooting. This is one I like, shot with a700, Minolta 135/f2.8, at f9, 1/250, iso320, with a little cropping.

Apart from any other suggestions, would you have done something different with the bales and stubble? Either pumped up the dynamic range and made them ligher and more vivid? OR gone the opposite direction and contrasted them to silhouettes? OR left it as is?

Lens talk area : Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:13:19 +0000

Author: wimski99
Subject: Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 23:13

Originally posted by Pirate

I would never pay silly money for anything. Worth and value . . the 2 rules of thumb.

Don't be to sure about that.... maybe this stuff forefills your needs today. But tomorrow is an other day and you'll be looking for something better. And what if you're looking for months and there is no steal? That's what happened to me...

Lens talk area : Ghosts: Help!!!

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:12:55 +0000

Author: georko
Subject: Ghosts: Help!!!
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 23:12

Thank you all for the help.
How do I get one of those charts from the last link? I have a new lens Sig 24-60mm f2.8 that I want to test.

Lens talk area : Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:12:26 +0000

Author: Hobgoblin
Subject: Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 23:12

Pirate I can beat your Sigma 100-300 EX + 1.4x TC. Got mine for �300 in total.

Lens talk area : Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:11:29 +0000

Author: ricardovaste
Subject: Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 23:11

Originally posted by wimski99

I know that you're still a student but imagine yourself having little (< 5 years) children: they never stop moving. A qute expression will be gone in the next second. You don't want your equipment letting you down.
The same holds IMHO for shooting BIF, sports and performing arts.

Well, my friends are only just moving from being little children, they still move pretty fast . I don't see how equipment could make any difference though, only skill level. 30 years ago, did no1 capture split second candid moments? Well, of course they did.

Likewise, you dont need the latest and greatest for BIF photography, sports or anything else fast moving.

If you have the skills to manual focus to set points, to study your subject inside out, you can capture all those moments if you want to.

But does everyone really want to? Some people are obsessed with capturing ever single moment of their life on camera, they never put it down. Sometimes you just have to take things in, actually live them and enjoy them, rather than snapping away at what you think is happening, when most of us probably can't fully appreciate what happening around us if we're stuck behing a fat lens all day.

^ That's not pointed at you Wim :-). I'm just leading to other thoughts from what you've said.

In General : Thanks

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:07:05 +0000

Author: Dave2006
Subject: Thanks
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 23:07

Just to say thank you to all who have helped me with advice on lenses and equipment. I have jusy finished aquiring all the lenses and kit I need, all of which just fits into a Lowepro A200 bag.
Sony a100
Sony DT 18-200
Minolta 28mm 2.8
''      35-70 f4
''      50mm 1.7
''      70-210 beercan
Sony HVL F36AM flash
along with
shutter release
cleaning swabs and fluid
1 x Hoya polariser filter
1 x Hoya IR filter
1 x Cokin system wide angle holder and ring
1 x Cokin ND filter
1 x spare battery
1 x arctic butterfly
batteries for butterfly & flash
1 x blower
1 x flash diffuser
1 x lens pen
1 x lens cloth

Again many thanks ..........Dave

Lens talk area : Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:05:54 +0000

Author: Pirate
Subject: Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 23:05

Ahoy!

Actually . . no! All my used (like new) purchases have been well below retail price for current (and even older models). Maybe I struck lens gold . . maybe it's because I'm a Pirate! How's these for deals:

Minolta 5000 body (mint), AF 50mm f/1.7, and Vivitar zoom lens, with filters, bags, flash and slide gizmo . . . . �50.00 the lot! Best deal ever!

Sigma 100-300mm EX + 1.4x EX TC (mint) . . . $873.00. Oh man!

Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 1:1 macro (vgc) . . . $110.00. Not too shabby!

Dell Vostro 1500 laptop (new) . . . ordered to spec . . . $600.00 or less . . can't remember exact price . . ! Bingo!

Sigma 24-70 EX DG f/2.8 lens . . . (like new) . . �135.00. Deal and a half!

I would never pay silly money for anything. Worth and value . . the 2 rules of thumb.

Now in the market for Sigma 10-20mm lens or similar.

Lens talk area : Image quality:SAL70200G+SAL20TC or any 400 native lens?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:00:40 +0000

Author: PBnbaByJ
Subject: Image quality:SAL70200G+SAL20TC or any 400 native lens?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 23:00

My bad, I certainly did not mean to put it up against the Mino 400. I would however, put overall image quality ahead of the Sigma.

Dyxum Open Views : In Wales...

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:59:07 +0000

Author: Glyn R
Subject: In Wales...
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:59

You didn't show enough rain. Great set of images though.

Lens talk area : Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:58:34 +0000

Author: wimski99
Subject: Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:58

Yes... I agree on it's the photographer etc... as long as you're shooting landscapes or have willing model.

I know that you're still a student but imagine yourself having little (< 5 years) children: they never stop moving. A qute expression will be gone in the next second. You don't want your equipment letting you down.
The same holds IMHO for shooting BIF, sports and performing arts.

Lens talk area : Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:56:05 +0000

Author: troublestylist
Subject: Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:56

I'd say "Yeah, they're worth it"...take one shot that you couldn't get otherwise...and I'm happy.

But then...I focus on fast primes and shoot wide open. Accordingly, I find a lens like the $1800 24-70 to be not worth trying, since I get fine picks with my $300 28-75 (or my $300 28/2 or my $400 35/1.4 or my $700 85/1.4, etc.)

I even got all three 100 primes...just to have them all. I could have gotten the 70-200SSM for that price.

I look at it as balancing the steals out with the overpriced lenses...that brings the average price much further down. The willingness of people to continue selling 50mm lenses under $50 and buying them for over $120 helps out, too.

Greg

Film cameras : Getting B&W film developed in NZ?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:55:25 +0000

Author: zk-cessnaguy
Subject: Getting B&W film developed in NZ?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:55

And you can pick up developing gear from Trademe for next to nothing.

Camera Talk : Memory Card Data Recovery

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:54:58 +0000

Author: TallPaul
Subject: Memory Card Data Recovery
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:54

Originally posted by amflmnt

Just be awatre that this raises a security issue about what's on your card or anyone else's.

Thats why you want to make sure you really scrub your old hard disks, or physically destroy them, before you throw them away!

(from the point of view of personal data, banking, etc, not inferring anyone has any inappropriate data)

Digital Darkroom : Help with Photomatix Pro and HDR

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:49:46 +0000

Author: troublestylist
Subject: Help with Photomatix Pro and HDR
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:49

Odd...I just used it for the first time and it worked fine.

Greg

Lens talk area : Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:46:58 +0000

Author: ricardovaste
Subject: Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:46

The questions you pose are debated by many photo enthusiasts I think. Damn you for asking it !

Me, I've never paid top doller really. But having been in full time education since I took up photography, I havent exactly had the funds to splash around.

However, I have churned out a bit of cash the last 10 months or so. I've been able to buy a few items (though still at good prices, non new) that I've "wanted".

A few times, I contemplate just selling it all.

I've come to the place where I realise that the camera, the lens have a minute impact on the photographs that I produce. Some are just more of a joy to use, some have different qualities. Some are DEFINATELY more expensive. But why keep them all? Well, I don't know if I will. They're nice to use I guess, I like the results I sometimes get with them. I've worked reasonably hard to pay for them, so I keep them. I have to spend my money on something, why not it be on something I enjoy and want to follow in the future?

One thing for sure, we could all benefit from putting out wallets away. Well, I know I could. Trying lenses every five seconds gets in the way of photography and has definately stunted any potential progress on my behalf.

"Too Expensive"? Well, my 300/2.8 Tok is living on the edge. Doesn't get enough use for the price I paid for it. And I know that I'm taking the photos, not the lens. I think this one may wave goodbye soon sadly. I have taken some photos with it that I am quite proud of though, so it will be a sad loss if I do part with it. Not sure it will go yet, just thinking things over...

Lens talk area : 70mm is eye sight?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:46:55 +0000

Author: somethingtohide
Subject: 70mm is eye sight?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:46

One of these days I'll put back on my kit lens and see if I can get a better estimate for mine.

It might actually be lower, but the lowest I checked was of course as low as it went.

Digital Darkroom : RAWHide Update

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:44:08 +0000

Author: my-spot
Subject: RAWHide Update
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:44

Alian,
Excellent suggestion! I'm always learning how to improve the programming and the site...

Digital Darkroom : Help with Photomatix Pro and HDR

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:39:54 +0000

Author: drumsavant
Subject: Help with Photomatix Pro and HDR
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:39

I am trying out this software and I'm having no luck with it??

When I try to combine and Generate HDR images and then "Tone Map" them using the "Details Enhancer" - When I proccess them all I get is a black frame???? Has anyone else here had this problem? The wierd thing is that the "tone compressor" and "exposure blending" all work fine, just the "details enhancer" always result in a black frame after proccessing?

I have tried every combination of jpegs, raws, and raw converted to tiff. All I get is a black frame... (I managed once to get a result when I just used the defalt settings - but even that most always results in a black frame?)

I am using the A100 - I can post sample pics that i am using if it will help

Thanks in advance

I am dying to get into this HDR thing after seeing the results from the HDR contest here a while back.

Edited by drumsavant - Today at 22:48

Lens talk area : Image quality:SAL70200G+SAL20TC or any 400 native lens?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:38:57 +0000

Author: madcat207
Subject: Image quality:SAL70200G+SAL20TC or any 400 native lens?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:38

Originally posted by csiems

PB
It sounds strange, that you think, a cropped 70-200 image should be as good as the 400/4,5 uncropped.
I simply don't believe you :-)

Agreed. There is no way that any 70-200 image blown up 200% could be sharper than a 400G, let alone a cheaper Sigma 400mm 5.6....

Lens talk area : Image quality:SAL70200G+SAL20TC or any 400 native lens?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:36:22 +0000

Author: tpetpe
Subject: Image quality:SAL70200G+SAL20TC or any 400 native lens?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:36

Those are great examples pavel. I think in terms of quality it is very difficult to beleive that a prime would be beaten by a zoom tc combo, no matter how good they are. I must have to try the tc and resize comparison one day just to see if it is better to save the weight and crop as i have always carried around at least one tc :).

tim

Lens talk area : Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:30:41 +0000

Author: wimski99
Subject: Used lenses: your (relatively) priciest?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:30

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of Dyxummers who own several used lenses... just like me. I bought some of them for a steal, but for others I've paid top dollar (euro). The latter for several reasons: 'got to have it', 'very rare' and 'immaculate condition' and etc.

This made me wonder: are they worth it?

Well for me, my relatively most expensive lens was my 200G. I paid almost 800 euro's to get it... but I like it so much that I don't mind.

At the other hand... I have a Sony 70-200mm that I've got for almost nothing (� 1400) that I never use. I guess I've paid to much for that one...

You thoughts? Any (too) expensive lenses in your line up... given the use they get?

Lens talk area : New CZ 24-70 2.8 vs Minolta 28-70 2.8 g?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:28:42 +0000

Author: groovyone
Subject: New CZ 24-70 2.8 vs Minolta 28-70 2.8 g?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:28

I have not used the G, but I did get to borrow a Zeiss for a little while this Sunday. I was absolutely floored by it! Amazingly fast AF, dead silent SSM, even great macro shots! I was able to get accurate focus about 3" from a rosebud. I can say I think the Zeiss is worth the money on its own, but like I said, I have never used the 28-70G so I cannot say if it is worth the upgrade.

Compared to my 70-200G, faster AF and quieter operation. I bought the 70-200G over the 24-70Z because I needed the focal length, but if that was not an issue I'd go with the Z first.

Edited by groovyone - Today at 22:30

Camera Talk : Memory Card Data Recovery

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:28:19 +0000

Author: fxcarden
Subject: Memory Card Data Recovery
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:28

There is a free program called "restoration.exe" that I've used to recover files from a USB drive. I can only assume that it would work on a CF card as well.

About dyxum.com website : RubberDials' best picture & a 'problem' with Dyxum

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:25:35 +0000

Author: FineArt
Subject: RubberDials' best picture & a 'problem' with Dyxum
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:25

I read to the end of p 5 before posting so if i say anything others have already said its that i didnt get to it yet.

On the original pictures:
id say your favorite shot brings 2 things to mind when i first see it. Would it work if it didnt have the print of a painting on it? If it was a plain bag what would be the compositional value? It seems to ride on the piece of the painting print. Ok, maybe its a commentary on how art paintings are used for marketing. Seems a bit ironic that this image does it too.

The first shot would have been great if you went for a hand gesture in the position of holding the stem.

The funny legs in the middle i like the most. The standout in the crowd i like a bit. The others dont mean anything to me.

I think what street photographers are looking for are the same as what wildlife photographers look for. Maybe many people dont appreciate street as much because its every day stuff to them. In their photography they look for something different - an escape...

I think the themed thread of street is a good idea. If few people frequent it that is not a "problem", that is their interest.

Lens talk area : Image quality:SAL70200G+SAL20TC or any 400 native lens?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:24:59 +0000

Author: csiems
Subject: Image quality:SAL70200G+SAL20TC or any 400 native lens?
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:24

PB
It sounds strange, that you think, a cropped 70-200 image should be as good as the 400/4,5 uncropped.
I simply don't believe you :-)

Digital Darkroom : RAWHide Update

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:24:57 +0000

Author: Alain
Subject: RAWHide Update
Posted: 19 August 2008 at 22:24

Hi Frank

A quick remark : It's best to prefix all you're downloadable files with "RAWHide_" --> those can be found quick by the user. The video's aren't prefixed.

Alain