May 1, 20169 yr 4 hours ago, nem said: Is this a cheap one? http://www.sears.com/craftsman-190-hps-ultra-quiet-belt-drive-garage/p-00954918000P?prdNo=3&blockNo=3&blockType=G3 Yes, think I have the same, but paid about $130 each with coupon/sale
May 1, 20169 yr Having outside wall keypad is AMAZING if you have friends and relatives coming and going all the time
May 1, 20169 yr Send me off on the morning breeze So far away from here Fill your eyes in the strains of thought Outside the warm embracing air I'm moving slow like a glacier melting Watch me dissipate I searched for love in an empty world But all I found was hate
May 1, 20169 yr How do you feel? That is the question But I forget, you don't expect an easy answer When something like a soul becomes initialized And folded up like paper dolls and little notes You can't expect a bit of hope And while you're outside looking in Describing what you see Remember what you're staring at is me 'Cause I'm looking at you through the glass Don't know how much time has passed All I know is that it feels like forever When no one ever tells you that forever feels like home Sitting all alone inside your head How much is real? So much to question An epidemic of the mannequins Contaminating everything We thought came from the heart It never did right from the start Just listen to the noises No more sad voices Before you tell yourself It's just a different scene Remember it's just different from what you've seen Edited May 1, 20169 yr by Penguin4x4
May 1, 20169 yr 10 hours ago, dem beats said: We got good food and hot chicks. And some nice artillery like machine guns. Also most of the world records for BAC are Polish...... Yes they are. I have a very good friendship with this family, so I can look and not get the star back.
May 1, 20169 yr 9 hours ago, ///M5 said: Yes, think I have the same, but paid about $130 each with coupon/sale Ok, I will but a watch on it. Our friend owns the local Sears store and she will beat prices for me. Thanks Sean.
May 1, 20169 yr 11 hours ago, dem beats said: Canon has better glass for the last 4-5 years. I don't know about bodies. I can't imagine much being better than the 7dmkii. Bodies mean dick. They are like receivers. Speakers matter more. Features are usually worthless. How a sensor handles ISO and speed are the only things you need to really care about dynamic range is not that important for 99% of photos. Perhaps Sean would use it for his landscapes but the moment he wants to shoot the kids it goes back to how ISO is handled, in some cases total megapixels matter but I am going to let you know that the DX line up is 12 megapixels and can make images that are poster sized without batting an eye. If you have a dollar amount I can compare bodies for you but the glass from Canon is better. It just simply is. If you care about bodies go Sony. They have the best of everything when it comes to bodies. They kill on video. Low Light stuff is hysterical how good they are. But the glass is horseshit. The system is pucking horseshit. Seriously. pucking crap. See, I keep reading this, but keep seeing compares like this: Nikon/Canon 100 iso And honestly as ISO increases the clarity, color, and dynamics all lean more to the Nikon with almost double the effective ISO and 20% better color depth and dynamic range. I am still looking, but stock glass with the kit looks a lot better on the Nikon. I like the built in Wi-Fi for instant photo transfer to tablet/phone/PC for sharing on the go on the Nikon and I can see where the GPS could be helpful when traveling.
May 1, 20169 yr In those 3 pictures the only one with a winner was the label with the white and black contrast. I Also don't care about 1:100 comparisons. I don't shoot in a studio. Ever. I use a tripod, 1 in 10,000. Maybe less. The speed of finding focus, what the IS buys you in stability, and the ability to get to the features I want quickly and effectively matter more than everything else. Dynamic range is cool. But not at the cost of a less efficient and less user friendly shooting experience. The 70-200 from Nikon takes ages longer to focus. Especially with the long/short focus bias switch on the 70-200 I use. The IS is so much better. It let's me get more shots at lower ISO. I don't care if at the same ISO the Nikon is better. I have to use a higher ISO On the comparable Nikon.
May 1, 20169 yr Despite Nikon being able to deal better with ISO it has a harder time hunting for focus at night. Sony beats both of them with ease. The Sony feature set and sensor wizardry destroys Canon and Nikon. If you want the best features its all Sony. They win. Back to glass... The 70-200 from canon is actually 70-200. Nikon shorts you and it's not like a 90-180. It also has much worse distortion fringing, and the shots are harder to edit. I can pull the datasheets for you. Wedding and other photogs that blend glamour and action left entire established collections of bodies and lenses because the 70-200 is that good. Also Nikon doesn't have a 50mm that can hold candle to the 1.8 or the 1.2 from Canon. The 1.4 is an unknown to me and I think Canon has a new version in the works.
May 1, 20169 yr I know you are keeping your brand choices close to the chest but if you tell me the bodies you like, or the dollar amount you want to spend I can give you a lot of input on how the body will work when actually having to use it VS what it says on paper. So often in camera bodies what looks good on paper is just bad design when it comes to actually Using it. I'll go to the shop I keep the doors open on and I'll bet they have a pro who owns it and can walk me through. Then I can get you 2 opinions on the product before you spend $$$. I don't care if you pick Nikon or Canon. For nearly anyone they will all be the same. For me it would nearly all be the same. The deal breaker for me was the much superior glass for the exact lenses that I use for a huge portion of my shooting.
May 1, 20169 yr Knowing what you plan on shooting would be super awesome. There is a huge difference in what you want in your bag depending on what you shoot. Sean can travel with a wide and maybe standard prime and be GTG for any travels. Then he wants to shoot the kids and my big white lens turns into the best choice. Maybe a 24-70 since he is using a crop. Knowing the style of photos you like also changes what you pick. If you like color and isolation, you can fake a shallow DOF by Using a longer zoom rather than just a really wide aperature. Tons of tricks you can exploit so you can make your experience better. If you have a budget and expectations I'll give you the best options from all the big brands.
May 1, 20169 yr Good ole Talledega http://blackflag.jalopnik.com/enormous-bigger-one-crash-takes-out-half-the-field-at-t-1774133431
May 1, 20169 yr 5 hours ago, dem beats said: Knowing what you plan on shooting would be super awesome. There is a huge difference in what you want in your bag depending on what you shoot. Sean can travel with a wide and maybe standard prime and be GTG for any travels. See, right now I don't really know. That would simplify things, I know. I don't really foresee using this for family gatherings or other quick shooting events. I have a point and shoot for that, and I would really rather enjoy the event than nurse a camera. I can see using it for travel, or bigger events like my youngest son's upcoming graduation... maybe some nature shots. More like a colorful Ansel Adams, landscapes and such being the focus. I love that type of photography and living in NC I have worlds of nature and landscape to play with. But I don't really know, as I have never picked up a camera to start shooting. It runs in my family, though. My father was a photographer, my sister loves photography and both her kids are good at it. I see a lot of romance in photography. I like the more artsy side of it. The reality is, it will fall to Canon or Nikon. I refuse to own a product from Sony anymore. Reliability and implementation of their products' feature sets have been a weak point for the once amazing company. My goal is to spend under $1000, ideally under $750 for a body and a couple lenses. The D5300 is the front runner for me at this juncture. I can grab it with 2 Nikor lenses for under a grand easily. The Canon T5i will put me, with similar spec'd glass, at over a grand. I don't think it is fair to compare it to the T5, as everything I have seen about this comparison the Nikon trounces it in every category except cost. I'm not opposed to just snagging a D3300 just to save some cash and see if I'll really enjoy it. A better comparison to the T5 is the D3300 and here again the D3300 simply lays the wood to the Canon.
May 1, 20169 yr So Gavin picked what I would call a hybrid. He wants to go to the bike park with me, but said he wanted to ride trails to, se he chose this one .
May 2, 20169 yr Do not buy anything with a kit lens. They all suck donkey. Buy an older body and better glass for the same dough
May 2, 20169 yr 1 hour ago, sandt38 said: See, right now I don't really know. That would simplify things, I know. I don't really foresee using this for family gatherings or other quick shooting events. I have a point and shoot for that, and I would really rather enjoy the event than nurse a camera. I can see using it for travel, or bigger events like my youngest son's upcoming graduation... maybe some nature shots. More like a colorful Ansel Adams, landscapes and such being the focus. I love that type of photography and living in NC I have worlds of nature and landscape to play with. But I don't really know, as I have never picked up a camera to start shooting. It runs in my family, though. My father was a photographer, my sister loves photography and both her kids are good at it. I see a lot of romance in photography. I like the more artsy side of it. The reality is, it will fall to Canon or Nikon. I refuse to own a product from Sony anymore. Reliability and implementation of their products' feature sets have been a weak point for the once amazing company. My goal is to spend under $1000, ideally under $750 for a body and a couple lenses. The D5300 is the front runner for me at this juncture. I can grab it with 2 Nikor lenses for under a grand easily. The Canon T5i will put me, with similar spec'd glass, at over a grand. I don't think it is fair to compare it to the T5, as everything I have seen about this comparison the Nikon trounces it in every category except cost. I'm not opposed to just snagging a D3300 just to save some cash and see if I'll really enjoy it. A better comparison to the T5 is the D3300 and here again the D3300 simply lays the wood to the Canon. If you shoot still objects the Nikon might do better. Both of these are not pro so loose features. The Canon is better in low light and when you need to focus quickly. From the review page on a side by side.
May 2, 20169 yr Canon.... Excellent image quality; 9 cross-type AF points; Stereo microphones; Built-in touchscreen; Multi-shot modes; Improved kit lens; Even more affordable. Little-changed from the earlier T4i; Slow Live View and video autofocus; High ISO performance is unimproved; Below-average battery life; No dedicated AF illuminator
May 2, 20169 yr Nikon Excellent image quality with lots of fine detail; Very good high ISO performance; Good dynamic range; Good print quality; Deep buffers with JPEGs; 1080/60p video; Uncompressed HDMI output. AF struggles in low-light; Contrast-detect AF in live view is slow; Buffer depth is shallow with RAW files; No AE bracketing; No built-in Wi-Fi.
May 2, 20169 yr So the Nikon will not perform in the dark as well as the Canon, if you need snappy focus even in ideal situations it is less responsive, and the Nikon isn't as good with RAW as the reviewer expected. If you shoot people or things that move the Canon is on top. If you love to shoot landscapes that do not have motion you want to capture, the Nikon will do amazingly well sitting on the tripod and allowing you to really get in there with manual focus. When you have time to set up the perfect shot, it will be better due to the finer detail and dynamic range. This is the opposite of how I shoot. I would be looking for a 7Dmk1 on the cheep, or whatever Nikon equivalent is. That would be amazing. It can take the landscape shots, but when you want to snap birds, kids, whatever, it will be a wonderful tool. As Sean said a slightly older body with better glass will go a long way. Edited May 2, 20169 yr by dem beats
May 2, 20169 yr Shops were closed but I should have a chance to go into a store quickly tomorrow. Some of the problems don't make sense to me. Nikon is using a really nice sensor for a body at this cost. What is crazy is the lower cross type AF points and why it has problems in the dark despite a higher dynamic range. Small buffer too? They may have put all the $$ into the sensor and not the processor. I don't know. Maybe when I talk to a sales guy or get it in my hands things will make more sense.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.