Getting A TON of new gear. What do you think about all of it? KARMA POINTS FOR ANSWERS

FatWhore

FatWhore

Active member
Well right now my set up is at almost $900 and all I have is a T3i with kit lens, 2 16gb mem cards, a camera handle, and cases.

To improve my set up I'm looking at all of this.

Fisheye:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?is=REG&sku=769428&Q=&O=&A=detailsv

Rode Mic:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1FBE2PA0H45890RR1FCP

More Batteries (Either The Legit Canons for $50:http://www.amazon.com/Canon-LP-E8-B...ireless&ie=UTF8&qid=1326044795&sr=1-1-catcorr , or the 3 market ones for $10 each:http://www.amazon.com/EOS-Rebel-Digital-Battery-Lithium-Ion/dp/B004NEJ7HQ)

And a new tripod:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...=3741077&is=REG&A=details&Q=#pr-header-243272

Ideas about all this gear would be AWESOME! Karma points boost as well
 
the link to the fisheye goes to the b&h homepage

what other lenses do you have, and what is your budget?

the rode mic is solid, pretty popular choice, nothing amazing compared to an external recorder, but a noticeable improvement

can't comment on batteries, I would always go with manufacturer ones. even though they are more expensive, it is usually because they have a chip that tells the camera to allow them and how full they are (at least for panasonic).

and not sure about the tripod, did you look at how it compared to the 717 i posted in your other thread?
 
checked the other thread and saw you had the kit lens. what is your total budget?

if you have the cash, buy a tamron 17-50, sell the kit lens. Buy a solid 701 setup, and then a rode mic. you should be able to get all that for $600-$700, and then maybe a little cash back from the kit lens. I really think you will limit yourself with only a fisheye and the kit
 
So basically, don't get a davis and sanford tripod, i have/had one(don't use it anymore) the fluid head freezes at some points. Then i would invest in a tamron 17-50 rather than a rokinon fisheye, or whatever you were going to get, i don't use it as much as i thought i would and a 17-50 is much much more useful imo, also, just buy the off brand ebay batteries theres really not much of a difference. As far as a tripod would go, it all depends on your budget, but i would go with a Libec LS22, its great for the price, 300 something i believe or so, or a bunch of people are gonna come in here and say to get a sachtler ace or something along those lines, that would be best, but most likely too pricey for your budget. I know nothing about mics so thats up to you
 
haha you had some stuff I didn't say, like you have actually used the tripod. Also, if he made a thread, he wants more than one opinion, and 2 people saying the same thing should convince him that its at least decent advice
 
i'd replace the kit lens before buying a fisheye or mic. the kit lens sucks. it's ok for the first month or so but you REALLY need to ditch it after that.
 
Yeah the 717 tripod looks extremely sketch to me for some reason. And why is everyone telling me to go with the tarmon 17-55? Isn't that a wide angle?
 
No it is just a good walk around lens that is much better then the kit lens and is more important then a fisheye at the moment...
 
fisheyes are only good for very specific shots. you will probably need a 'walk-around' lens as well, with a more standard range. the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is perfect for that. why are you so insistent on getting a fisheye? if you want wide, the tamron will be good, or at least get the tokina 11-16 f/2.8. fisheyes just have so much distortion and the most of the fisheye stuff i see looks like shit.

obviously i don't know your shooting style, but i would want to kill myself if my only decent lens was a fisheye.
 
You are limiting yourself so much by spending money on a fisheye. It has no practical use other than the 'skateboard angle'. Get something that you can actually use for something other than filming skiing. As Will said above get the 11-16, it's a much more useful lens, its fast, sharp and doesn't give much distortion. Get a lens that is versatile, like the 17-50. If you're just filming to show your friends, everyone thinks fisheyes are cool. If you want to have a more professional look I would suggest not buying one.
 
Get it used. You can find a used one for around 300-400 dollars in good condition. Get the Non-vc version, it's sharper, and the vc doesn't really make a difference in shooting video.
 
Honestly, you'd have to be pretty damn experienced composition-wise in order to make a fisheye not look like shit. Of all the fisheye shots I've ever seen, I can count probably no more than five that I didn't think were horrendous.

The Tamron 17-50 is a good starting point because not only is it a great lens, it has an extremely versatile range. A variable walk around lens is handy in the beginning because it allows you to experiment with different focal lengths and see what you like. Some people gravitate more towards wide angles, while others prefer telephotos. Asking people which is better is pointless because only you can discover that yourself through personal experience. Further down the road, you won't have to ask what kind of lens to get because you'll already know.
 
Wider angle than what? Unless you're asking what constitutes a wide angle in general, which would technically be anything under 50mm.

Here's a handy video to put focal lengths in perspective:

 
well i was generally looking for something that would be similar to a fisheye so i could capture more in the frame. But yes everyone i do need a good walk around lens
 
Like I said above, 17mm is pretty wide. You will be getting plenty in the frame. If you want to spend 600 bucks on a UWA then go for it. The only downside is you lose the zoom capabilities of the 17-50.
 
Just curious, why do you want to do this? I mean I understand the practical use of a specialty lens for a specific purpose, but as a primary lens, a fisheye (or UWA) is a horrible choice. People keep saying this because good photography, as you will learn in time, is about simplifying things. Beginners tend to want to capture everything in the frame, but doing so is actually counterproductive because the eye gets "lost" in the frame.

The reason why 50mm lenses are often the first lens that is recommended to beginners is because you are limited to what you can fit in the frame, which is a perfect tool for learning how to emphasize the forms and idiosyncrasies of your subject and capture its essence rather than pointing a wide angle at it and getting everything with a "web cam" perspective.

Again, fisheyes and UWAs can be used tastefully, but in the beginning stages it's very difficult (dare I say impossible) to do so because you haven't learned basic composition yet. A Tamron 17-50 will give you a moderately wide perspective (17mm) that is useful for walking around, along with a longer perspective that is good for capturing specific properties of subjects (50mm), and everything in between.
 
Well I'm not doing so much photography more video! and i know but one says its aspherical or something?
 
Haaa good one, but i still don't under stand how video fisheye shoots are bad!? I mean I'm not a rookie at filming
 
im not making a joke dude, i detest fisheyes. I have really only seen horrible done skate style fisheye edits. I want to see some that are actually decent
 
Doesn't matter. Painting, photography, videography - it's all the same when it comes to composition.
 
How much experience do you have with filming? You sound like you have very limited experience when it comes to cameras. Think of all the places a zoom lens, for example the 17-50, will come in handy. Now try and think how many shots would be better when replaced by the fisheye...
 
they're pretty much all made for photos. but they all work fine for video. and i've seen some decent fish photos, but no videos. if it were on my wish list, a fisheye would be really low priority.
 
maybe a good thing for me to do is get the 17-55 and see how i like it, Either keep or return and then if i like it ill keep it and maybe in a year or so get the fisheye!
 
I wouldn't even know where to find them...

Here's one I came across recently. I think fisheyes only work with straight angular/architectural type stuff.

001.jpeg
 
Probably a good plan.

I started with a 50mm, which I really loved because like landis said, it forced me to look at something and very carefully compose it to get only what I really need to get in the frame. At first I was kicking myself for getting it, and always wanting something wider, but then got used to it. I think I improved my photography much more quickly with the 50mm than I would have with something wider.

So, applied to the fisheye, not only will you have distortion that usually looks bad unless you're doing followcams and handrails (and I honestly prefer non-fisheye shots in almost every case anyways, personal preference), but you'll often end up with too much in the frame. Also, if you want to take photos sometimes instead of video, a fisheye becomes even more specific and not useful for most situations. There are a lot of more useful lenses I'd get before going for a fisheye.

Also, the tamron 17-50 comes in versions with or without vibration compensation. The vc version is more expensive, not as sharp, heavier, and not really useful because for skiing you will want more stabilization than it provides anyways. The non-vc version is probably the most-recommended lens on this site.
 
So as of right now im going with the: After Marker Batteries, Rode Mic, and maybe a 17-55 tarmon Still need tripod help! BUMP
 
"Cheap" tripods are under $1,000. "Pro" tripods are fluid heads that can cost up to $5k.

The Libec ls22 is as cheap as it's going to get. Any cheaper and you're wasting your money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top