Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

YellowJersey

Member
  • Content Count

    357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by YellowJersey


  1. 3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

    I'm now curious if there will be a calendar reset when we hit the year 10,000. Like, yeah, that's enough let's start over from 0 for the next 10,000 years. I already sort of don't like saying it's the year twenty twenty, but twenty... five hundred o two?

    It's hard to say. I imagine our current anno domini system will fall out of use one way or another. If the world stays connected, then I imagine switching to something more universal could seem appealing. There's already a push for this. If we experience a widespread collapse, then it wouldn't be surprising to see more regional calendars pop up.

     

     Ultimately, I think the issue is one of practicality. Would the switch be done because there's a practical reason for it, or would it be "just because?" Unless there's a practical need to switch, I don't see it being done due to the inconvenience and cost of transition. I don't see much of a practical need to switch unless/until we become a multi-planet species and need to take into account the difference between the orbits of the moon, Mars, Earth, etc.

     


  2. On 12/18/2019 at 5:04 PM, laminutederire said:

    Sounds like I'm overthinking it a but then :) seems like Fuji's have a tough metal body and solid build at least!

    well thanks that's reassuring me, I'll still protect it decently to not tempt my faith, but I guess I can get along fine with something that's not like those gigantic rain sleeves that protect super well the camera but also take 3 times more space than the camera itself!

    A classic. Even after being frozen, shot, dropped down stairs, and set on fire, it still worked.

     


  3. My 15 year old Camry definitely beats modern cars in privacy. It doesn't even have an aux jack! It just needs a new timing belt and it should be good for another 140,000km.

     

     I'm hoping to keep her going until around 20205 when I hope that electric cars have come down in price enough for me to afford one. Plus, hopefully we'll have a more mature electric ecosystem, fleshed out privacy laws (pfffft), and maybe some solid state batteries.


  4. You'd be surprised how much punishment a non-weather sealed camera can take. I have no experience with Fuji, but my old Canon OG 5D and 10D went through hell. I was cycling in a total downpoor with my 5D in my panniers and, at the end of the day, it was completely soaked through. I didn't want to tempt a short, so I took off the lens, took out the battery, and left all the doors open, and left it to bake in my tent on a blisteringly hot day. Once everything had cooled off and the camera dried out, it worked just fine and continued to serve me well for another four years until I upgraded. That said, you don't want to have to rely on that.

     So, yeah, a simple sleeve or plastic bag rain shell would be a good idea. My point is that you have to get even non-weather sealed cameras pretty wet before things become a problem.


  5. 28 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

    No, I have not. And yes, I know the original A7 wis never know for its AF performance but what lens you use really do make a difference. When paired with the 24-105mm, the pictures are almost always in focus, and it doesn't take long at all. However, with the 28-70mm, maybe a quarter of the pictures (if not more), the focus is slightly off and it takes a noticeable amount of time for the AF to do its thing. 

    Ah, I get it now.


  6. 15 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

    I would do this if I had $50k sitting around for camera gear. I love dragging my Bronica ETRSi setup around, because with the speed-grip on it looks serious, especially compared to everyone getting their smartphone out of their pockets to take a picture; Lots of staring and sometimes questions.

     

    Maybe some day medium-format digital will be accessible for hobbyists...

    The Pentax 645Z can be had for less than $5000 USD. Same with some of the Fuji medium-format cameras. While still pricey, it's not totally unobtainable. Hell, it's less expensive than the launch price of a D5 or 1DxMkII.

     


  7. I don't have anything particularly old. I always sell my old stuff to help pay for new stuff. Until recently, the oldest bit of kit I had was a Canon EF 100-300mm 4.5-5.6 lens; the old push-pull one from the 80s that pre-dated the USM. I think I've got an old film Rebel kicking around somewhere, which I guess would be the oldest thing I currently have.


  8. Just curious to know how other people approach building out their list of photo/video gear. There are all kinds of factors to consider, like size, weight, capabilities, ergonomics, ecosystem, price, and so on and each photographer is going to have their own priorities when balancing all of these.

     

    I'm mostly a landscape guy who is very much into pixel peeping and most of my photos have been taken on hiking and cycling trips. So weight and size are a priority for me, but due to the pixel peeping tendencies of my brain, I also demand max(ish) image quality and, to a point, am willing to pay for it. I don't really care that much about ergonomics; that's something I'm willing to sacrifice, especially since I'm often shooting on a tripod anyway. I usually try to limit myself to a one or two lens set up for most of my shooting due to size and weight. I'm also willing to trade convenience for image quality or something else. 

     

    So my kit currently consists of

    Sony A7rIII

    Sony 24-105mm f/4 G

    Tamron 17-28mm 2.8

    Tokina 20mm f/2 (dedicated astro lens)

    (not including accessories)

     

    Rational:

     I got the A7rIII shortly after it launched, giving up my Canon 5DmkIII. I was tempted by the A7rII, but it had too many deal breakers, like single card slot and small battery, all of which were fixed with the A7rIII. I like the smaller, lighter body, despite the mediocre ergonomics. The A7rIV doesn't interest me as I don't really need anything it offers over the rIII for my purposes, like the real-time tracking AF, 10-FPS, or dual USH-II card slots. I'm a landscape guy. My answer to definitely change if I were shooting sports or wildlife. The Sony and Canon trade blows in terms of convenience. I find Canon's menus and layout better, but the Sony's tilty screen and EVF make shooting easier since I'm not contorting my body to see through the viewfinder anymore and I'm not rattling off frames since the EVF allows me to see my exposure in-viewfinder, plus the extra dynamic range makes bracketing less necessary. While the colour science of Sony has a ways to go, I work extensively with my photos in post, so I'm willing to put up with that in exchange for the much better sensor compared to the Canon.

     

     While the Sony 24-105mm f/4 isn't cheap, it's not unreasonably expensive, imo, compared to the competition or Sony's own GM lenses, and, as of writing, there still isn't a third-party alternative that doesn't require an adaptor. IQ is excellent, size and weight are acceptable, and the flexibility of the 24-105mm zoom range means I can take it as my only lens on hiking or cycling trips, where size and weight are always an issue.

     

     I replaced my Sony 16-35mm 2.8 GM lens with the Tamron 17-28mm 2.8. I'm usually shooting at the wider end anyway, but don't lose much by giving up 1mm. The Tamron is smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the Sony while delivering comparable IQ. The lack of a dedicated AF switch on the lens is annoying, but far from a deal-breaker. Plus, I was able to sell my Sony for nearly twice the going-rate of the Tamron. While I'm willing to pay for good glass, the low cost of the Tamron was definitely a point in its favour. By comparison, now that the Tamron exists, I think the Sony is pretty over-priced.

     

    List of priorities: on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest)

    Size -  7

    Weight - 7

    Image quality - 9

    Video - 1

    Price - 5

    Weather sealing - 7

    Convenience - 5

     

     

     So, what are your priorities and how did they factor into putting your kit together? (There's no right answer, btw. Everyone has their own priorities, some of which cannot be easily quantified.)


  9. TMI Alert!

     So I've been using boxers for about 25 years and I think it may be time for a change. My upper inner thighs have been chaffing something fierce and it's causing irritation, so I've been thinking of switching to boxer briefs or something else. Problem is, I have a bad vericocele (google it) and my doctor says I should wear loose fitting underwear to keep everything cool and hanging as nature intended. So I'm looking for something that's more form fitting around the upper thighs but quite loose around the junk.

     

     Any ideas?

     

     Bonus points for Canadian companies.

     

     Super extra bonus points if its made in Canada.


  10. When @AlexTheGreatish likes your post.  :P

     I need to get out more, lol

      Context so it doesn't seem weird: My best friend in undergrad was an engineering student and Alex reminds me a lot of him, even down to the crazy shenanigans and building random stuff. We (my friend and I, not Alex) once built a miniature trebuchet out of a pizza box, some string, a few sticks, and a sock full of pennies as our counter-weight. He rigged it up once to launch a potato at my face when I opened my door in the morning. Ah, the good ol' days. Dude's now a professional polar explorer and lives up in Iqaluit.
     

    noticeme.jpg


  11. Explaining the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation is why my sister in law hates me so much because I force fed her a dose of science and reality when she wanted to indulge in her crystals and homeopathy. (context: she was bragging about how she was going to stop using her phone and turn off the wifi router when she got pregnant with my poor brother's kid)

     

     Ionizing radiation, if it hasn't already been mentioned, is radiation (ie, light) with a short enough wavelength (ie, enough energy) to knock electrons off of atoms, which makes the molecules those atoms are apart of (like in your DNA) more likely to bond with other atoms/molecules and cause problems (like mutations in DNA). But, as has been mentioned, ionizing radiation starts with UV light and goes into X-rays and then gamma rays, none of which are involved in bluetooth, which uses radio waves. Radio waves, fyi, have significantly less energy than visible light, infrared, or microwaves. So there's not much reason to fret.

     

×