my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » The "What did you buy today (or recently)?" Thread (Page 25)

This topic comprises 39 pages: 1  2  3  ...  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  ...  37  38  39

Author Topic: The "What did you buy today (or recently)?" Thread Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-20-2010 11:44 PM                        Awesome, Adam! Now can someone tell me why they can't make a beef, bean and cheese burrito? It's either beef and bean or bean and cheese. Unacceptable!  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-21-2010 12:47 AM                     All those burritos... and a big package of toilet paper. Ironic. Isn't it?  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-21-2010 01:09 AM                        I'm pretty sure that was the point.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-21-2010 04:18 PM                     It's a perpetual motion machine with the human digestive track caught in the middle.  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 05-21-2010 06:32 PM                        Purchased a Stanley rolling tote-style plastic tool box, thinking it would work for airline travel to various install jobs. At about $32 bucks at Home Depot, the price was right. Good idea, bad execution - after just one round-trip with SWA's baggage handlers, the evidence indicates this wasn't the best choice. Even before the flight, the wheels felt like they wouldn't stay with the rest of the box for too much longer. When pulling it along, the clearance between the bottom of the box, and any kind of carpet is so low that the box drags. And the fold-up tote handle is too short - even for me at 5'6". I noticed these shortcomings when I bought this but I was in a hurry and figured I could make this work at least until I could afford a better box. I figured wrong. On its first slide down the arrivals carousel, one of my sockets and a small screwdriver managed to pop out of the box due to flexing between the upper and lower latched-together sections. Not a good sign, even though that didn't happen on the return flight. Fortunately I'm driving to the next install, so I'll have some time and money (first paycheck in over a year next Friday... yay!) to pick a better box. I expect I'll pay at least $200 for my next one (a good Pelican-style one), even with online pricing. So, my verdict on this Stanley rolling tote plastic tool box? For around the house and maybe around town - OK, but only that. For airline travel - epic fail.  |  IP: Logged Tom Mundell Expert Film Handler Posts: 120 From: Silver Spring, MD, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 05-26-2010 06:20 PM                        Finally got one of these  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-26-2010 07:38 PM                     The price for the f/1.4 version is a bargain compared to the f/1.2L version. A $1150 price difference.  |  IP: Logged Tom Mundell Expert Film Handler Posts: 120 From: Silver Spring, MD, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 05-26-2010 08:25 PM                        Yeah, seriously! The f/1.2L version was far beyond my budget...  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-26-2010 10:11 PM                     Unless you are a professional photographer who can recover the money through his business, I don't think the gains you will get by going from an ƒ-1.4 to an ƒ-1.2 lens are worth the money. You're only getting an extra half-stop. Unless you're trying to reshoot "Barry Lyndon" the $1,500 isn't worth it. What's more, the depth of field you get at ƒ-1.2 is going to be very narrow. From a 10 foot distance, your DOF is going to be less than a foot. Depending on the camera, it could be less than 6 inches. For the gains you get: for the trouble you will have using it: for the extra money you will spend, you're better off with the ƒ-1.4 I have a hard enough time shooting with an ƒ-1.7 lens on my 35mm.  |  IP: Logged Tom Mundell Expert Film Handler Posts: 120 From: Silver Spring, MD, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 05-26-2010 10:43 PM                        Definitely, those are some of the same things that I considered in not waiting until I could afford the f/1.2 lens. Even at f/1.4 the depth of field is brutally narrow. I'm definitely not a professional photographer, but I've had enough fun seeing what I can do with the f/1.4 lens to be worth it; however the extra cost of the f/1.2 would have been exceedingly tough to justify even if I could afford it!  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-26-2010 10:47 PM                     It's tough to justify the price premium for the f/1.2L 50mm lens over its far less costly f/1.4 brother. Pros: The L-series 50mm lens is weather sealed. It has better control over flare and chromatic abberation. Its aperture has 8 circular blades for properly spherical bokeh (the other two 50mm models have 8 blade and 5 blade apertures whose bokeh looks more like octagons or pentagons). Cons: Autofocus performance is slow (the f/1.2L 85mm lens is even slower in AF speed). The lens is not quite as sharp as the f/1.4 model when set at f/2, f/2.8 and possibly even tighter. I think you have to be at least a somewhat successful portrait or wedding photographer to justify the expense of the 50mm f/1.2L lens. Most photographers will get more bang for their buck with the f/1.4 model. Canon's 85mm f/1.8 lens is also popular for its performance to price value. Personally, I have the itch to buy the new 100mm f/2.8L Hybrid IS macro lens. It currently costs $884 after a $65 instant rebate.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-27-2010 01:10 AM                        Here is yet another post not justifying the cost of the ƒ1.2, which nobody bought. I have a hard time with my ƒ1.8... damn thing must be on a tripod for best results. Granted, I did have it on a Glidecam once for a cool shot in a video where I was going down an escalator. Nothing was blurry, I was only using it to get the light.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-27-2010 11:02 AM                     It would seem a large f/1.8 aperture setting would allow in a lot more light for much faster exposure speeds, lessening the need for a tripod unless you're shooting in really dim conditions. The big apertures achieve that nice, artsy blurred background and other areas of the image. But it sometimes turns into a pain. Even with fairly close portrait shots of people at f/2.8 are challenging to get both eyes in focus. At f/1.2 you might get the tip of the person's nose in focus with everything else falling off into blur-o-vision.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-27-2010 12:08 PM                     At a 10 foot distance, jumping from ƒ-1.4 to ƒ-1.2 cuts your DoF down from 5 inches to 4.2 inches. If you are shooting from arm's length, say 5 ft., your DoF goes from 1.2 inches to 1.0 inches. Your hyperfocal distance jumps from 467 ft. to 545 ft. For all of that messing around, you only get a half-stop of extra light. My fastest lens is ƒ-1.7. That's pain enough. I can barely imagine working with an ƒ-1.2.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-27-2010 02:05 PM                        quote: Bobby Henderson It would seem a large f/1.8 aperture setting would allow in a lot more light for much faster exposure speeds, lessening the need for a tripod unless you're shooting in really dim conditions. For stills, possibly yes. But the 50mm focal distance over-exaggerates any movement your hand may make as well. Why can't someone make a 10mm ƒ0.5? Or maybe ƒ0.0? Also, I want to be able to zoom all the way in to 500mm without any change in the ƒ stop. Make it happen, Bobby!  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 39 pages: 1  2  3  ...  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  ...  37  38  39

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.