General Photography Chat - Page 51

diskojoe · #**1001** Posted **Mar 21, 2011, 8:36 PM**

i saw a couple nice sigma point and shoots that had f2.0 35mm equivalent lenses that give raw output but they were $699 to start. didnt know if you wanted to spend that much. seemed pricey for a back up camera. didnt really see anything i would call "cost effective".

you could try digging on this site. they have a large selection including this leica slr i would love to have for the small price of $28k.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Po...2/N/4288586279

mr.John · #**1002** Posted **Mar 21, 2011, 11:16 PM**

Other than lightroom 3 is there any other program I can download to edit RAW files something cheap basic easy to use?

bulliver · #**1003** Posted **Mar 21, 2011, 11:22 PM**

Raw Therapee (http://www.rawtherapee.com/) and UFRaw (http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/) are both free. I use Raw Therapee myself.

flar · #**1004** Posted **Mar 21, 2011, 11:30 PM**

I use Darktable, which is almost the same as Lightroom, but free (Lighttable/Darkroom, get it). I'm sold on the Lightroom style workflow.

Darktable only works on Mac and Linux though. I used to use UFRaw and I've tried Raw Therapee, but they don't do everything I would like. Also worth a mention are Bibble and Lightzone, each has a free trial.

Btw, thanks for the camera suggestions, Doady.

mr.John · #**1005** Posted **Mar 22, 2011, 12:02 AM**

thanks bulliver and flar for your help,I'm going to try raw therapee first -one question and please bare with me because when it comes to computers and software I really am that stupid,after I edit a RAW file can I save the orignal file size(maybe 7 mb) and make a jpeg copy file that's maybe 900x600 to upload to flickr

bulliver · #**1006** Posted **Mar 22, 2011, 12:20 AM**

Yes, you can save the file into several formats: JPG (8 Bit), TIFF (8 bit), TIFF (16 bit), PNG (8 bit), and PNG (16 bit).

Raw Therapee also creates a 'sidecar' plain-text file which saves your settings so you can produce identical output files without re-editing.

I generally output 16 bit tiffs which I edit further, and save as jpg to upload to flickr from there.

Other programs are likely similar, though I can't say for sure.

flar · #**1007** Posted **Mar 22, 2011, 2:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bulliver

Other programs are likely similar, though I can't say for sure.

Yes, Lightroom, Bibble, Lightzone, Raw Therapee, Darktable, Capture One, DXO, all work this way. The key is they're non-destructive. They basically save your processing history. When you want to output, it applies the edits and saves it as .tif (high quality) or .jpg (for the web).

The other workflow aspect of these programs is they organize your files, so you combine browsing, selecting, processing and output all in one software. I recently switched to this style of working and really like it. Before, I opened each file to work on individually.

diskojoe · #**1008** Posted **Mar 22, 2011, 4:55 PM**

you could check this software out. It is free tonemapping software and actually pretty decent.

http://www.oloneo.com/

Aleks · #**1009** Posted **Apr 4, 2011, 9:46 AM**

ok guys... more lens questions

so as many of you know i recently ordered the Tokina 11-16 f.2.8. Currently it's out of stock though, and with the situation in Japan I'm wondering how long it will take (ordered it on the 19th).

But recently I've been wondering whether I should just cancel my order and instead get a mid-range f2.8 and sell this crappy 18-105 vr which would get me at least 200 bucks.

here are the lenses i've been seriously looking into and it seems like they all have their ups and downs. can anyone recommend any of give me any input of them? i also included some 'notes'

-sigma 17-50 f2.8 vr: ~$670; internal focus; macro; zoom ring close to body, focus farther
-nikon 24-85 f2.8-4: ~$630; pretty old i believe, around 2000; macro; no vr; no internal focus
-tokina 16-50 f2.8: ~$550; bad CA (those blue/pink lines around bright edges); tough and great build quality; macro; focus ring close to body, zoom farther
-tamron 17-50 f2.8 "vr": ~$600; macro; zoom closer to body, focus further; softer than the non 'vr', but recommended for indoors/low light?; no internal motor (might be wrong)
-tamrom 17-50 f2.8 non "vr": ~$450; cheapest; sharper than 'vr' version; no internal motor

on google shop they all have 5 stars which makes it though to chose and review sites are just confusing me.

so i guess my question is, should i cancel my wide angle? it seems like a wide angle would most likely be a self-present, but i could find so many more uses with some of these midranges (macro, portraits) i just would be sad if i got a bad copy

also, if i get a mid-range i would just end up getting the 11-16 later on... and if i do, what would be the point of say, getting the tokina 16-50?

The Chemist · #**1010** Posted **Apr 4, 2011, 11:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by diskojoe

They only make the good stuff in Japan.

Some of their 'good stuff' is made out of Japan - for example, the EF-S 15-85, which is widely considered one of their best non-L lenses, with image quality at least on par with many L lenses, is made in Taiwan.

diskojoe · #**1011** Posted **Apr 4, 2011, 3:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleks

ok guys... more lens questions

so as many of you know i recently ordered the Tokina 11-16 f.2.8. Currently it's out of stock though, and with the situation in Japan I'm wondering how long it will take (ordered it on the 19th).

But recently I've been wondering whether I should just cancel my order and instead get a mid-range f2.8 and sell this crappy 18-105 vr which would get me at least 200 bucks.

here are the lenses i've been seriously looking into and it seems like they all have their ups and downs. can anyone recommend any of give me any input of them? i also included some 'notes'

-sigma 17-50 f2.8 vr: ~$670; internal focus; macro; zoom ring close to body, focus farther
-nikon 24-85 f2.8-4: ~$630; pretty old i believe, around 2000; macro; no vr; no internal focus
-tokina 16-50 f2.8: ~$550; bad CA (those blue/pink lines around bright edges); tough and great build quality; macro; focus ring close to body, zoom farther
-tamron 17-50 f2.8 "vr": ~$600; macro; zoom closer to body, focus further; softer than the non 'vr', but recommended for indoors/low light?; no internal motor (might be wrong)
-tamrom 17-50 f2.8 non "vr": ~$450; cheapest; sharper than 'vr' version; no internal motor

on google shop they all have 5 stars which makes it though to chose and review sites are just confusing me.

so i guess my question is, should i cancel my wide angle? it seems like a wide angle would most likely be a self-present, but i could find so many more uses with some of these midranges (macro, portraits) i just would be sad if i got a bad copy

also, if i get a mid-range i would just end up getting the 11-16 later on... and if i do, what would be the point of say, getting the tokina 16-50?

sounds like you need to make a trip to a local camera shop and do some testing.

photoLith · #**1012** Posted **Apr 4, 2011, 6:43 PM**

Aleks, did you get the Tokina 11-16 because I got it

HomeInMyShoes · #**1013** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 1:33 AM**

I want a Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8. Anyone got one to sell?

diskojoe · #**1014** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 5:47 PM**

i would love to get a 24-70 f2.8. tokina makes a 24-70 that does f2.6-2.8 for the same price as many 24-70 f2.8's.

flar · #**1015** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 6:00 PM**

I've thought about a fast zoom before but 24 is not wide enough and 70 is not long enough on DX. Just like the very tempting 35-70 f2.8, it's an awesome lens for full frame, but not the most useful focal length range on DX, IMO. There's also the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, more useful on the wide end, but 50mm is really not very long. 50mm doesn't get you any telephoto perpsective. On the other hand, 70mm is getting well into portrait/short telephoto territory, but 2.8 is not really that fast.

The 35 f1.8 and 85 f1.8 provide nice focal lengths on DX, but together cost a little more than a zoom would.

HomeInMyShoes · #**1016** Posted **Apr 6, 2011, 2:49 AM**

^It would be an investment. A bit for now, but a lot for future. It would let me do a little more portrait stuff right now. The 50mm is nice, but when I did some shooting for a friend, a bit of range would have been handy. I've thought about the 85mm, but if I'm going to go to an FX body at some point, the 24-70 would be a great lens to have along with the 12-24 I've already got.

I've thought about the much cheaper 18-200? But it's not quite as fast. 3.5-4.6 I think. Anyone think that's a good option? It's about half the cost.

I shoot everything right now with just a 50mm and a 12-24mm right now. When friends want me to take photos for them, it's a tad restricting.

flar · #**1017** Posted **Apr 6, 2011, 3:32 AM**

If you plan to go full frame, go for it.

I have the 85mm and 35mm primes, which I now carry with the 12-24. 85mm is a very nice focal length on DX, it gives a bit of telephoto compression, not too much. But on a full frame it would be like the 50mm on DX, a focal length I haven't found that useful. I also have an old 105mm (all manual, unfortunately) which is a bit long for portraits on DX, but would be nice on FX.

HomeInMyShoes · #**1018** Posted **Apr 6, 2011, 11:19 AM**

Hmmm...checks the used pages...$1100 - Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D. Interesting.

mr.John · #**1019** Posted **Apr 6, 2011, 3:17 PM**

Looks like I've found a great replacement for my D80 shitbox, the new D5100 http://www.lozeau.com/en-CA/catalogu...100-body-only/
check out the low price for a camera that's more or less a scaled down D7000 (same great sensor)

diskojoe · #**1020** Posted **Apr 6, 2011, 7:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

^It would be an investment. A bit for now, but a lot for future. It would let me do a little more portrait stuff right now. The 50mm is nice, but when I did some shooting for a friend, a bit of range would have been handy. I've thought about the 85mm, but if I'm going to go to an FX body at some point, the 24-70 would be a great lens to have along with the 12-24 I've already got.

I've thought about the much cheaper 18-200? But it's not quite as fast. 3.5-4.6 I think. Anyone think that's a good option? It's about half the cost.

I shoot everything right now with just a 50mm and a 12-24mm right now. When friends want me to take photos for them, it's a tad restricting.

You deserve something nicer than the crappy 18-200. thats for noob. i have heard good things about the 24-70f2.8. and as far as i have seen there is nothing faster unless you go prime but then there is a lot of musical lens going on. 70-200F2.8 is awesome and handy. but if you get a 24-70 and a 70-200 then you have the full range from 12-200 with only three lens. thats pretty light. but with my sigma 70-210 i can get night shots at f2.8 at shutter speed of about 1/10. but you do have to jack the iso up. but with apo glass there is still not a lot of noise.