Posts for: mwsilvers
Feb 10, 2024 00:08:26 #
Ysarex wrote:
If you're going to post work that isn't yours provide a citation, otherwise it's plagiarism. Here's the citation for what you posted: https://www.picturecorrect.com/how-aperture-blades-affect-image-quality/
Feb 9, 2024 18:23:45 #
fantom wrote:
Is saving a few bucks worth the risk of the possible dire consequences?
Other than the possibility of wasting a few dollars, what other dire circumstances are you alluding to?
Feb 9, 2024 18:19:09 #
soxfan941 wrote:
Look at this Ebay add. Must be a scam...Right, however, look at the sellers feedback rating.
I'm tempted, what do you think?
I'm tempted, what do you think?
It is most likely used. If so it should say so in the offer. The seller has 99.4% positive feedback. First thing I would do is see how much that's specific filter iat that size is sold for new. The ad should also indicate the condition. Finally, you can always contact the seller and ask about it.
Feb 9, 2024 18:17:05 #
LFingar wrote:
Might be legit, or it might be a $15.62 learning experience. Unless, of course, what they are really after is your credit card info. Never dealt with E-Bay so I have no idea how closely they monitor such things.
eBay customers and sellers generally use PayPal which is very secure.
Feb 9, 2024 01:42:57 #
Mwilliamsphotography wrote:
The Sigma 18-35/1.8 is an APS-C coverage lens ... ... (show quote)
My day to day preference is fast manual focus prime lenses. I rarely shoot zoom lenses anymore. Again, I was responding only to a very specific statement you posted.
Feb 8, 2024 01:27:55 #
Mwilliamsphotography wrote:
> mwsilvers: br br I guess you didn't read my ... (show quote)
I read your post carefully. I was specifically responding to the first sentence in it, "Primes offer faster maximum apertures." I was just pointing out that there are also very fast maximum aperture zoom lenses. The Sigma 18-35mm has great bokeh and also isolate subjects when used wide open.
Feb 6, 2024 19:40:50 #
Mwilliamsphotography wrote:
Primes offer faster maximum apertures. This provides more control over subject isolation from the background, or to highlight a specific part of the image.
Primes are smaller, even fast aperture telephoto primes are often smaller than zooms. A 70-200/1.4 zoom would be gigantic, and prohibitively expensive if it could even be built.
Primes are smaller, even fast aperture telephoto primes are often smaller than zooms. A 70-200/1.4 zoom would be gigantic, and prohibitively expensive if it could even be built.
""Primes offer faster maximum apertures."
Not always. Specifically, I used to own a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM | Art crop sensor lens which had an f/1.8 maximum aperture throughout the focal range. It was also extremely sharp edge to edge. It was like having a bagful of fast, high quality prime lenses, including a 20mm, a 24mm, a 28mm, and a 35mm... and, of course, everything in between! It had internal zooming and internal focusing and was built like a tank. It was not small or light, but its size and weight were extremely reasonable considering its capabilities and professional build.
Feb 5, 2024 03:34:02 #
JZA B1 wrote:
I understand that prime lenses usually offer higher image quality. But given the fact that people use smart phones to take pics these days and quality seems to be good enough, does it even matter that primes offer slight advantage while having major disadvantage of fixed focal length?
Do you still use primes at all? For what purpose?
Do you still use primes at all? For what purpose?
I use fast manual focus wide angle prime lenses most of the time. They are tiny and sharp with great contrast and a lot of character. Using primes lenses forces me to frame my images much differently than I would if I used zoom lenses which I love..
Feb 3, 2024 10:38:27 #
jerryc41 wrote:
I have some cameras that require with very small connectors - annoying.
I'm sure there were older cameras that had cables with proprietary connectors before there were universal standards.
Feb 3, 2024 10:32:11 #
BebuLamar wrote:
I never used the USB cable that came with my Nikon Df. I wonder if I use it often can I buy a replacement when it breaks?
That would depend on whether it's some sort of proprietary cable designed specifically for that camera and no longer made. However, I would be surprised about that. It is more than likely you could find a cable to replace it.
Feb 3, 2024 10:20:40 #
Ioannis wrote:
An old subject with many preferences from each one of the readers. I find the usb cable more reliable in my opinion , opening the camera door and taking the card out it could very easily be scratched, and then replace it back in the camera, those are few steps more than plugging the cable into the camera. Some saying something about running the battery low, this could happen as we taking photos. My usb cable is always plugged into to my computer, not a big deal!
"I find the usb cable more reliable in my opinion , opening the camera door and taking the card out it could very easily be scratched, and then replace it back in the camera"
Scratched? How? Are you saying that cards are damaged in some way as a result of this "scratching"? In all the years I've been doing this, I have never noticed an SD card ever being scratched, and certainly not damaged by removing and reinserting it into my camera body or my card reader. I've never had an SD card fail on me yet. The only reason I have acquired new ones over time has been for their greater speed or capacity.
The only cards I avoided taking out of my camera bodies alot were the older compact flash cards due to the possibility of pins in the camera getting bent when reinserting the card, although I personally never personally had that problem.
Feb 1, 2024 01:18:32 #
Crutch wrote:
Depending how you plan on using a tripod, but this is an idea:
https://www.platypod.com/
https://www.platypod.com/
While it may be a useful tool for some, I suspect that it doesn't fit the definition or meet the expectations of a camera tripod for most people,
Jan 28, 2024 11:10:51 #
jeffhacker wrote:
I just spent another small fortune on another lens... (show quote)
Your definition of all over the map for the price of a 77 mm UV filter is quite limited. Any filter selling for $50 would be at the low end of decent 77 mm filters, not the high end. One of the top manufacturers is B+W and its 77 mm UV filters cost around $138 USD. Many manufacturers make clear filters specifically for protection. Some people use a Haze filter and many people don't bother with any filters at all except perhaps in extreme weather conditions since the front elements of their lenses are much stronger than any filters. The UV aspect of filters is not needed for digital photography but does not hurt. Some manufacturers suggest using filters with some of their high end lenses to complete their resistance to harsh environmental conditions. Canon L lenses are an example of that.
Jan 26, 2024 18:42:29 #
Jan 26, 2024 15:53:02 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
Those prices get you a year of updates. After that it’ll still work but you won’t get updates.
Correct. Topaz's perpetual license pricing model is not very different than that of perpetual licensed software from many other software publishers. I think many posters on this thread were under the impression the costs mentioned by the OP were annual subscription costs rather than upgrades to the latest perpetual licensed version.