If you have questions about a new camera, what lenses to buy and anything related to gear or wondering about getting into photography, post it in this thread.
Do not attempt to make a new thread for your new Rabal, broken glass and being new. You have been warned!
I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!
And don't forget, be polite!
Previous thread: >>2757777
Depends on the price.
Seems to be the story for the X100 line, though. I got mine with about the same number of shots run through it. Dudes buy it thinking they're going to be the next HCB and then never use it.
But it's also not extremely rare. Not too few people think they are going to shoot quite a bit with a specific model of camera, realize that they don't, and sell when they get something else...
That is quite a normal shutter count for a used camera of that age. Even used DSLRs with fast burst rates have shutter counts in that range on ebay.
Don't be a gearfag, go outside and shoot some people on the street.
Depends. Entry level DSLRs have shutters designed for 100,000 actuations, mid/high level ones are designed for 150,000-200,000 actuations, pro bodies have shutters designed for 400,000 actuations with real exposure time sensors to adjust for wear induced slack.
Get either and find out if you like it yourself. Live and learn, man. Personally right now I like using the 50 because it makes "quiet" pictures easy to make... but sometimes I do use the 35.
Really the only way you can say one is better than the other is if you've tried them, and it's just your personal preference anyway. That being said the 50mm does tend to have an advantageous wide aperture which allows for easier (and sharper) low-light shots. Bokeh is also a thing if you care about that. So those might be two reasons to go with a 50.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model EZ Controller Camera Software EZ Controller 6.20.027 (141211) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:01:05 16:22:32
People did excellent nightscapes and low light photos with worse cameras.
Stop blaming your gear, a new camera won't make you a better photographer. Start experimenting, look up tutorials and look at the exifs and when you actually run into limiting factors, then switch bodies. If you would have legit needs you wouldn't stop at FF and go for a Pentax 645D or 645Z instead.
Since the announcement of the amazing OG Sony Lenses, For my a7 I was wondering should I get them? Or should I buy a Tamron and adapt it?
Sony Lenses are cool but damn expensive, I could get 24-70 and 70-200 in the same price of one sony lens. What do?
> currently I take working stills, which is why I need the zoom
Which part of working stills "need" zoom?
> Good E mount or M mount lenses to use for that?
Street photography has no particular rules or standards. It's pretty much "do whatever the fuck you want". You can do it with a tele lens from afar, or shoot like, a 12mm Samyang from only inches away.
I think you need to know what you like to do there, not us.
Well, it's a matter of shooting style and location, I guess.
But unless it is very crowded, I personally usually prefer to stick on a prime lens on, and just do the extra step or two to "zoom", in return for more sharpness (which is good to have when cropping and just for the overall result).
You barely save any walking with zoom lenses in many people settings anyway, simply because most walking tends to be to position yourself in the right angle. A few extra steps to "zoom" into the right distance aren't too noticeable. Plus you might also kinda have to do the distance steps either way when using speedlights...
> how do you maximize battery life with mirrorless cameras with EVF?
What for? Just have another one or two of these tiny 45g (for Sony) batteries in your bag if you even need them. In most situations, you won't.
I also tend to have a ~$12 10Ah Xiaomi battery pack for my smartphone and stuff on big trips, you can theoretically charge no only your smartphone but also cameras with USB in a bind, and other gizmos (reading light, small fan, whatever).
> if I carry the camera by my side, won't my camera turn the evf on as the eye detector senses my body?
Uh, yes, if you have it turned on? There's an on-off swich on all cameras. It usually is off when you just "carry it by your side", though.
Also, the automatic switching between EVF and live view is quick and automatic in actual shooting situations - that is, it will also switch back to live view when you take the camera off your eyes.
>What for? Just have another one or two of these tiny 45g (for Sony) batteries in your bag if you even need them. In most situations, you won't.
because I dont want to spend so much time fiddling with batteries, and because i'd like to stretch one battery to a day's worth of shooting
>Uh, yes, if you have it turned on? There's an on-off swich on all cameras. It usually is off when you just "carry it by your side", though.
what good is a camera that takes a whole second to turn on though? is there any sort of sleep mode where the displays and sensor is off, but the camera is ready to leap into action? specifically looking at the olympus cameras.
>Also, the automatic switching between EVF and live view is quick and automatic in actual shooting situations - that is, it will also switch back to live view when you take the camera off your eyes.
oh great, now it'll eat even more battery? I only need live view on demand.
> because I dont want to spend so much time fiddling with batteries and because i'd like to stretch one battery to a day's worth of shooting
That simply will depends on how many shots you take. But either way it's going to be a ridiculously insignificant fraction of that shooting day. It's like 1/15th or less than the frequency you'd have to swap out film or something.
And really just nothing in general. You can amortize like a decade worth of swapping these batteries by not spending as much time coming up with and writing this kind of "concern" for a day.
> what good is a camera that takes a whole second to turn on though?
Not good enough for The Flash, is the answer. Cameras presumably must turn on and focus in Planck time - nay, even when time runs backwards- else shots become very difficult!
> is there any sort of sleep mode where the displays and sensor is off, but the camera is ready to leap into action? specifically looking at the olympus cameras.
I don't know. Maybe?
> oh great, now it'll eat even more battery? I only need live view on demand.
The difference is next to nothing. On some cameras the EVF is what uses a bit more power even.
According to the people who use "gearfag" nomenclature, probably just about never or only once the cameras are cheap & weak.
I'd suggest to upgrade when you have good reason to suspect to get something significant enough from it. Doesn't need to be the camera though, might as well be your glass or speedlights or whatever...
Should I avoid over-reliance of the EVF on a x100 if I'm just starting to learn the fundamentals of exposure, or is it a helpful tool that I should use to see what exposure I'll get before I take a shot?
When you're trying to knock down a wall, are you worried about an over reliance on sledge hammers in stead of small nail-driving hammers?
All that matters is the final photo. If there's a tool that will help you get that photo, use it.
Looks like good glass. But so is this 12mm (even if you rectilinearize it).
You can also get the already rectilinear 12mm APS-C variant from the same brand.
Looking to start branching out a bit more with my photography. I currently have an X100S. I don't think I want to upgrade to a mirrorless/DSLR yet, so I'm considering one of the converter lenses to change something up.
Which one is more practical to get, the wide angle converter or the teleconverter?
> Which one is more practical to get, the wide angle converter or the teleconverter?
This is completely dependent on what you shoot. 6mm focal length also isn't "more practical" than 600mm.
One makes your FoV wider, "zoom out". The other narrower "zoom in".
Pick whatever you had more problems with shooting until now.
That said, I'd suggest you actually do what you don't want to do: Switch to an IL camera. [If you want more, what are the odds that this one converter lens is just exactly it and nothing else is required...? Especially since you were not like "a bit more range as an option, and it's perfect!"...]
Neither is "More versatile in general"
A zoom lens is more versatile in general, and a prime lens needs to suit your uses.
If you don't know whether you need a wider lens, or a more zoomed in lens, then don't buy anything. You don't need it.
That this "general" case does not exist is exactly what I meant with my explanation from before.
If you need a another analogy, microscopes aren't "more versatile in general" than telescopes either. They are catering for different needs.
How much would Conon EOS-1D Mark I (2001) cost, a few body scratches otherwise works perfectly.? I want to sell it and get something full frame with video support.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 20D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0 Windows Photographer Elliot Lowe Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2006:10:28 16:28:01 Exposure Time 1/8 sec F-Number f/16.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/16.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 42.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 683 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
Why not google it? They'll be on sale at Amazon, ebay, keh, etc. You can see what they're selling for.
Be sure to mention that it still shares the exact same sensor and specs as the upcoming 1Dxmk2.
I just found a Voigtländer Vitoret in excellent conditions in an antique shop, but the focus ring seems almost loose, like very very quick to turn
Is that a normal thing or is it just this camera ?
Also it feels pretty damn stiff when I rewind the film
>8.5 fps burst
>muh ff sensor (but its canon so its shit)
just buy a K-3 or k-3 ii
>solid high ISO performance
>8.3 fps burst
>smaller, sweet ergonomics
>non shit, non canon sensor
k-3 can be had new for 650, similar to a used 1d. k-3 ii has dat sweet pixel shift for ultra resolution tho
Oh mighty gods of gear, please enlighten me:
>CHEAPEST zoom lens that covers 35 and 50 mm
>As fast as possible (2.8 at least, preferable fixed but could be 2.8-4 or something like that)
>With built in auto focus motor (AF-S or third party equivalent)
If you name one that besides all that has zoom lock I'll jizz my pants on the spot.
Something all-arounder would be too vague? I'm planning to buy a camera for the first time so I found that the X-T10 is kind of good but I was wondering if I there are any better choices. Thanks!
shopping for my first DSLR. Not gonna ask for recs but,
Are EVFs worth it? I figured I should learn on an EVF if that's to be the standard in the future, but I'm turned off by the initial lag you get when holding it up to your eye (they sense your eye then turn on) because you could very well lose your shot in that split second.
(narrowed it down to Canon T6s and Sony a77ii)
Get the Canon, but not the T6s. Go for a used 60D or 70D instead. Better viewfinder, rugged build, some limited sealing.
With the Sony you will limit yourself because the A-mount is dead. You will have much difficulty finding lenses. Even a Pentax K-3 is better on lens selection.
I enjoy my EVF, but I have an X-T1 which is one of the best. People using slower lower quality ones (Like in the X-E1) are not usually as pleased.
If you're worried about that eye-sensor lag (which really isn't an issue because of how quick it is) you can (on the X-T1) Turn that off and just leave the EVF on the entire time the camera is on.
If noise turns images to shit after ISO 1600 or 3200 on most cameras, why do manufacturers keep raising the sensitivity?
Are people using 1D Xs' and D4s' for nighttime surveillance? Why are medium format cameras the only cameras designed to go below ISO 100 without losing dynamic range?
since you need an in-lens focus motor, you're clearly a cropfag. in which case, your only choice for a fast normal zoom is the Sigma 18-35.
if you weren't such a jew, you'd be able to choose from the 35-70/2.8D, 24-85/2.8-4D (the only lens in this post that's actually cheapish), and 28-70/2.8 AFS. of course, you could buy the 16-85 VR or the 16-80E for loadsemone too.
no nikon has zoom lock, unless you count the collapsed position on the 18-55 VR II.
what're the EVF power rankings?
something vaguely like that?
metrics include EVF black out under continuous shooting, color/level accuracy, refresh rate, lag, brightness, and I guess some other stuff.
see above. again, news outlets dont give a shit if the image is a noisy mess, as long as they can lower the chroma, run it through some de-noising algorithms, and the subjects in the photos are clear.
the average photographer might see ISO 12800 with a modern camera. That's 5 stops faster than ISO 400. at 1/250 f2.8, you're getting a good exposure at EV ~5. that's good enough for night streets. not that the average gearfag would hit the streets at night with their toys.
No. IBIS is constrained by the size of the image circle and sensor size. Sony FF IBIS is worth 4 stops? Sony IBIS+OIS is worth 5 stops? Olympus IBIS is worth 5 stops. Panasonic IBIS is worth 2 stops. Panasonic dual IS is worth 4-5 stops. Fuji/Canon/Nikon OIS are worth 3-4 stops?
ISO 12,800 is still low compared to the numbers that they are boasting about.
Is the 1D X MkIII going to undermine their 10,000,000 ISO specialty camera?
Why don't they spend any research on low ISOs besides their limited 50 that would be of more use to people?
>so for full frame, Sony has the only IBIS system?
no other FF camera has IBIS, so it's hard to compare. but yes.
well canon was advertising that 3mil ISO wildlife remote capture sensor a while ago, and then Nikon says they can boost the D5 to 3 mil ISO. it's all marketing either way, max usable ISO for any camera is topping out at around 100k right now.
Well the X-E2 doesn't come with a tiny little lens (X-E2 with the 23mm is dramatically larger), and also doesn't have an optical viewfinder.
Your priorities are not everyone's priorities.
i have a konica minolta maxxum 5d. it's a sony alpha mount. i currently have the kit 35-70 lens, and a $60 50mm i got on ebay. I'm going on a trip to Maine next week, what lens should I pick up for it
No. The D610 is an entry level FF, the D7100 is a high level semi-pro APS-C.
The D610 might have a bigger sensor but in features, ergonomics and build quality the D7100 is much higher.
Just a tip: sensor size is a secondary or tertiary aspect to a camera, first and foremost it's build and the available lenses are what counts. Judging only by sensor size is a sure way to gearfaggotry.
Oh, no existing glass and it also has to fit in a budget that isn't much larger?
Get an A6000, D7100/D7200, Pentax K-50 or K-3 or something like that instead, spend a little more on glass. It's the correct choice for almost everyone.
> The autofocus, lowlight performance make me want to change.
Well, I'd have suggested the A7R II. That one would essentially have it all - autofocus, low light performance, and it's only about half the cost of a 1D X or 5DS (R).
But since you say the D750 is already too expensive, perhaps get the D7200 or A6000. Or wait for the A6300 - even if that one will cost around $1k at release.
Maybe even an A7S or A7S II if you're primarily doing low light (costs more, but you can theoretically amortize a lot of "fast lens" expenditures with that sensor). Though it will not have particularly great AF in daylight situations.
Guys I have to decide what camera to buy from this two models of choice.
They both are excellent to me but I can't really decide...I'd buy the Sammy but it uses only NX lenses, on other hand the Panasonic has much much more choice.
Also, I'm afraid that the NX1 won't have support because of the Samsung photo department situation.
Destination of use: stills photos, animals and landscapes, also videos at amateur level (nothing serious).
Buy the NX1 if it seems better now.
> Also, I'm afraid that the NX1 won't have support because of the Samsung photo department situation.
Move on to another camera once you actually have a problem.
[If future prospects were the primary base for your choice right now, how could you not go with Sony, Nikon or Canon?]
> d750's swiveling back - is that sturdy?
Sturdy enough that you can't easily break it by hand.
Not rugged "can drop it anywhere" - like the rest of the camera and your lenses.
> d750's weight
Do you need help opening a soda bottle yet? No? Then this is not going to be a huge problem.
> oil issues with the d750?
Sporadic reports, not really frequent like on past models.
> I'm doing mostly street photography with the occasional studio session.
> light weight is key since I'm shooting all day long
RX1R II, RX100 IV, A6300, A7 II, ... all usually lighter on average, even with pro lenses on the IL cameras and DSLR both.
> and occasionally have to use the camera as a flail in case I can get in a fight
Pentax in a box seems like the way to go, but I think this is really something that should not be in your list of requirements any more than it being able to catch bullets when you get shot at.
Cameras are not sane weapon choices.
it's all about the mm's. I've grown a love relation with the 28mm/2.8 in street.. that I can't get the equivalent of it in a crop body and maintain a stealth look. my tamron 17-50 is just too big, awkward and screams 'look at me". also, depth of field
>maintain a stealth look
That's not a real thing, but you'll figure that out for yourself.
Spend the money on a GR. Perfect for street, 28mm, and you still have your D7000 for portraits.
NX1 is an excellent camera, but Samsung has really dropped the ball by killing its photo department. So get it only if you don't mind that you'll have to sell both the camera and all of the lenses when it becomes obsolete.
Micro4/3 has slightly worse sensors, but a far wider lens choice. Why GH4 though? If you're mainly shooting stills, you should be looking at E-M1.
You can adapt almost any SLR lens, but you'll only get manual focus and aperture control - NX adapters are passive.
Micro4/3 has an adapter to use Canon EF lenses with autofocus (from a dodgy company, but said to work ok)
This might be a dumb question, but I'm curious:
Those of you who wear glasses, how do you deal with viewfinders? I'm finding it just a tad hard to see everything in the viewfinder of my X100S at once. I can scan through and find everything I need to, but I don't always get to see the full shot.
Do you just deal, use contacts, crop stuff out afterwards if it sneaks in on the edge of your picture?
Depends on the camera and viewfinder in question. I have the same problem with the X100S, I just kinda got used to it. I have zero problems with the viewfinder on my D800, on the other hand.
> I feel like it would be annoying to constantly pull my glasses up though.
If that bothers you, a MILC would just let you use its backside LCD without the drawbacks of having to go into some live view mode.
Completely new here
I'm trying to get into photography/filmmaking and I've checked the video thread, but it seems like every camera in there (unsurprisingly) is dedicated towards video. Can I get a DSLR that will serve as a kind of multipurpose camera for both stills and video or is it really only for stills?
If a DSLR might be good for both, what are some cameras you could recommend?
The X100S probably works the same.
For a DSLR, "live view" is a special mode - usually CDAF only with the mirror up, no PDAF.
Okay, some DSLR camera models can put the mirror down, do PDAF, then up again, but that's not really quite the same either.
> Can I get a DSLR that will serve as a kind of multipurpose camera for both stills and video or is it really only for stills?
Most MILC (Panasonic and Sony especially get frequently used) and some DSLR (Canon cameras compatible with the "Magic Lantern" firmware are noteworthy) can do okay amateur video.
Well, other DSLR/MILC also can record video, but these are often chosen, from what I can tell.
Thinking of buying the a6000 in a couple of days.
What lenses would you guys recommend? I'm looking to buy two. I primarily do portraits (and some street photography/scenery here or there). I'm on a budget with the lenses so please keep each under $300 or so. Thanks.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 285 Image Height 400
Whats a good entry camera for a complete newbie? Im planning on mainly use it to take photos of people swimming since im working on a project related to that sport. After that I'll use it for my camping and field trips maybe or some amateur photography as a hobby.
I've read about people recommending any Canon EOS Rebel for newcomers but I know jack shit.. pls respond
If you plan on shooting near water and going into dirty and wet environments, your best bet is a Pentax with weather sealed lens.
A Pentax K-S2 or a K-3 would be a great start, or if you are on a budget the K-50 or a K-5IIs. The 18-55 WR and HD 18-50 WR kit lenses are weather sealed, makes a nice sealed system with the body. It doesn't mean you can chuck it into the water, it's against water spray/splash, rain and dirt. If you need telephoto for field trips then get the HD 55-300 WR. Don't bother with the 50-200 WR, it's ass.
Ultimately you can get the two cheap primes, DA 35 and DA 50 for street and portrait shots.
I'd recommend buying used, most used cameras are well maintained.
I am buying my first DSLR on Monday. Think it would be either Nikon D5200 or D3300. The former one costs 50$ more in local shops. Which one should I get?
Their specifications look quite similiar. The key features that I like about D5200 are 39 focus points and bracketing. Are they useful?
I am concerned because D3300 is newer. Can there be some subtle improvements that are not reflected in the specification (e.g. better noise reduction)? Or am I just overthinking this?
Here is the comparison chart for them:
I've got a bunch of film rolls stored at room temperature I bought a couple days ago. The thing is I probably won't be using all of them in around 4 months.
Should I store some of the film rolls in the fridge?
Rolls are Ektar and Superia 400 negatives btw.
It doesn't hurt to keep them in the fridge. Indeed, some people will buy Gold as fresh off the line as they can, refrigerate it, then shoot the whole roll off and develop it the same day for more vibrant colours.
>The key features that I like about D5200 are 39 focus points and bracketing. Are they useful?
AE Bracketing is useful for far more quicker capture of the source shots you need to create HDR compositions, or some other tricks. (Shame on Nikon for removing this software feature from lower-end cameras).
More and better focus points help you focus more reliably / quicker / over a larger area of the sensor - this is where an A6000 or A6300 would shine, though.
> I am concerned because D3300 is newer. Can there be some subtle improvements that are not reflected in the specification (e.g. better noise reduction)?
It has a bit higher ISO sensitivity, but that's on various spec sheets you can find online.
You usually run noise reduction algorithms as part of your postprocessing workflow, maybe in DxO Optics Pro, Photo Ninja or Lightroom.
For swimming you probably need a very long lens.
And a large aperture if it's indoors.
If it's just for a project consider renting a lens instead of buying.
Or buy a second hand professional lens and then try to sell it again for the same amount.
Buy a body to fit your lens.
The CAM4800 is a vast improvement over the CAM1000 in the D3200. The minor improvements in noise handling and other software features isn't really worth going for compared to an all around better body in the D5200.
So I've got a k-50 and the da 50mm 1.8, 35mm 2.4
Is there any decent real wide lens like the 21mm but maybe a bit wider around 16 or 18mm?
I think if I had the 55-300 and a real wide lens I'd be set with my pentax shit forever
i dont have it, but i've heard the 16-45 is good, and the tamron 17-50 f2.8
you'll love the HD 55-300. just got mine a few weeks ago. fantastic for the price
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 450 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:01:31 17:06:39 Exposure Time 1/400 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 1000 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 300.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Distant View
Are there any '80s-'90s Canon EOS lenses that are valuable and aren't obvious? (Obviously anything 1.2/1.4/2.8 is still worth something.)
The long story is that my aunt was a serious amateur photog with a huge gear budget, but passed away around 10 years ago. My uncle is getting ready to sell the house, which has basically sat empty for the last few years, and my cousins don't want any of the photo stuff, so I've got free reign over pretty much anything I can find. I know there's a Hasselblad setup with at least one lens and some studio gear, which I'll be taking all of, but she also had a lot of Canon 35mm, and I'm a Nikon guy, so it's not really useful to me. I might be able to sell or trade some of it, though.
She had a custom-built dedicated darkroom with C41 processing and enlarging gear too, I wish I could take that stuff but I've got nowhere to store or set it up.
Depends on your budget, if you can afford it, the HD DA 16-85 is an excellent lens, fixed aperture, sharp allaround and has weather sealing.
Budget option is the DA 16-45 (I have this one) which doesn't have weather sealing and you can forget about using it indoors with flash because the barrel extends towards the wide end and casts a huge shadow. Apart from that it has a very good image quality, sharp, has excellent color contrast and aberrations are well controlled. Also fixed aperture and can focus quite close so you can use it as a sort of pseudo macro lens. It was a good step up from the kit lens.
>She had a custom-built dedicated darkroom with C41 processing and enlarging gear too, I wish I could take that stuff but I've got nowhere to store or set it up.
Take it and figure out where to put it. You'll regret it if you wont have it.
How long will the battery for the light meter last in a Pentax K1000 if I leave the cap off? I don't want to have to constantly remove the lens hood when I'm out shooting, but I don't want the battery to die if I just leave the cap off.
No, but that's from the perspective of someone who wouldn't buy Fuji even if he had to start from scratch right now.
However, I figure that to some Fuji buyers, the ISO dial, focus assist button & larger buffer is worth it already...?
I have the X-T10 and have fiddled with the X-T1 many times at a store, because it's what I initially wanted.
The X-T1 feels much more solid and the viewfinder is just beautiful. The ISO dial is also nice.
Yet I ended up with the X-T10 because it essentially does all the same stuff for much cheaper. Only thing I really miss is weatherproofing, I've been out shooting in the rain and snow and I'm a bit afraid for the X-T10, which has handled it fine though.
I'm looking for a Tripod + Head setup that will reliably support a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II + Canon 6D.
That is my maximum weight setup, I have other lenses but here are my wants:
Ability to do panoramic shots with ease. Durable enough to withstand beaches / saltwater. Approx. 3-5# Tripod + Head, so carbon fiber.
Other uses will be for action shots, and macro photography. I probably won't be doing macro photography for ground level things very often, but something with the ability to go low or an accessory to purchase in the future to go low would be nice.
I do not and never will do studio work, almost never will do portraits. I will do some animals and nature.
A monopod recommendation would be welcome, as well. Thank you.
Dic & Mic E302C, unless you're really frequently exposing it to salt water.
Constant exposure to salt water (even putting it in there) leaves you with like, Gitzo Ocean or Sirui W. Way higher up in the price range.
> Ability to do panoramic shots with ease.
Feature of your chosen head. Should be workable enough for Hugin with a Dic&Mic standard head already.
But if you do your panoramas manually I'd advise getting a specialized panorama head thing that can do exact steps with some precision.
> A monopod recommendation would be welcome, as well.
Dic&Mic and others can be reassembled into a classic monopod.
But generally: Sirui PS, because of mini ripod feet. Haven't tried the Dic&Mic variant of this, but I can tell you that the the smaller foot on Manfrotto's variant sucked.
Looking to buy some sort of photography gear as a present for someone who mainly likes to photograph events, weddings and stuff like that. Was thinking of maybe a softbox, but have no knowledge about photostuff. Is this the place to ask for help?
IMO, not really. Well, it is that way with craptastic tripods, but the legs of a Sirui / Gitzo can take noticeably higher loads than specified. Dic&Mic also a little higher.
(Result of my own unscientific testing, on only one tripod model each).
Now sure, the ball head is usually rated for mostly centered weights. If your lens is shifting the center of mass of your setup a long distance forward, it's probably just time for a lens tripod collar near the center of mass anyways (maybe mounted on a gimbal head in that instance).
Only if you don't want to do this, you'll maybe only be able to put 50% of the rated load on that ball head.
But eh, even the cheap Dic&Mic E302C ($110-120 on Aliexpress with DHL) with its stock head is more than sufficient even in this instance, and so would a lot of Sirui heads be.
You're not heavily invested into Fuji? Also not a complete fan?
Then I'd look around on the current market for glass and cameras and just decide freely.
Is the Sony A6300 or A6000 or A7 II perhaps nicer? Or a D750 or D3x00-D7x00? Or perhaps some Olympus or Pentax? All with their corresponding glass options of course...
Oh, I like the camera a great deal, I'm just not heavily invested in it since it's all I have and isn't interchangeable or anything.
But I assume I'd feel more comfortable with an X-Pro1 than changing to something else.
I would go $100 on a T1i, max. What is your budget on this, and what do you plan on doing? Canon/Nikon isn't a bad route though, since there's a ton of decent used lenses floating around and not a whole lot of hassle with them.
The problem with Sony is the native lens selection is shit.
The first thing you need to ask yourself, is what exactly do you plan on doing? There's literally thousands of great choices, but there isn't any one size fits all option.
Well, to me personally some of the ones I mentioned look *far* better (A6300, A7 II, D7200, D750, ...).
But tastes, needs and budgets are different. Without any particular requirements, listing some that seemed interesting to me is all I can do.
It depends on your feelings about the X100. If you love the feeling and the files, then you'll be happy with other Fuji stuff. If not, check elsewhere.
If you do just have an X100 (not the S or T) then the XPro1 will be more or less the same, just with interchangeable lenses.
If you want a little more horsepower at the expense of a bit of the unique styling, look into the X-E2 or the X-T10
>love shooting wildlife
>super tele lenses are expensive as fuck
>still in uni, no aspirations to be pro photog, just a hobyy
>can't justify spending the dough
the tamron 150-600mm isnt too bad but still cant justify spending 1000 bucks for a lens
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 450 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 99999999 dpi Vertical Resolution 99999999 dpi Image Created 2016:02:06 17:22:56 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 250 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 300.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Distant View
By the way, though not nearly the most expensive of cameras, it's also not going to be really cheap.
You'll be paying $1k for the body plus possibly more than $1k for glass - just depending on what you want there.
Stupidly put, it really looks like it will be a great camera - but if you just want to make five photos of your cat and a shot of the sunset, I figure you could have that much cheaper...
That doesn't seem to work out:
D500 costs twice as much
Only 20MP rather than 24MP resolution on the A6300
Less video capabilities (A6300 can do 120FPS FullHD with S-Log)
55 visible and 153 invisible AF points vs 425 PDAF points
10 FPS vs 11FPS burst
No built-in flash
And some more. We will see when the reviews are out if the A6300 has some big non-obvious problems, but I suspect it will be just better.
Doesnt matter when the sony cameras are such a beast at low light photography. this is why sony is the best, you don't need to spend thousands on f1.0 lenses just to shoot at night time.
What's your budget?
I have Feisol CT-3342 3-section legs with a Photo Clam head (I think it's the 38NS) and love it. It's not the most compact tripod on earth, but it's rock solid and reasonably light. I spent around $700 on the setup, including a custom camera plate and a lens foot plate, and it's super stable with a D3S+70-200.
I personally don't recommend a monopod for a 70-200, it's not a heavy enough lens to need one and you get a weird fulcrum point when panning or tracking targets because the foot is so close to the body. I have a Calumet-brand (sadly defunct now) CF one and it's great for big lenses, I especially like that it's almost 7' long when fully extended, which means I can shoot from a short stepladder or when standing on a hill.
a6000 or g7 ?
I really can't decide. I like taking pictures and video. Only downside to each camera for me is that the g7 has only 16 megapickles and the a6000 has no 4k or a dedicated external mic jack.
I know about the a6300 but I'm not dropping 1,000+ on a body just yet.
i have a 55-300 for my k-3 but sometimes its not enough. this shot for example. even cropped it's not enough. i would have loved just a tight shot of one bird a lot closer but 300mm wasnt enough
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 450 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 99999999 dpi Vertical Resolution 99999999 dpi Image Created 2016:02:05 17:48:51 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 300.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Distant View
The 150-450 will have the same viewangle on the FF as your 55-300.
Have you tried trying to get closer to the birds? At a certain range your 300 would be more than enough but it needs practice.
yeah, i've gotten some good ones (wont dump but if you want to see any others https://www.flickr.com/cameraroll), but songbirds especially are skiddish and hard to get close to. sometimes ill have to crop, but with 24 Mpx its not too big a problem. i mentioned keeping the k-3 because of the crop factor that i could use with the 150-450. id really like to get the FA* 600mm but like i said i cant justify the price currently, and i've only been shooting since Christmas
Thanks guys, I have more money, but I can't spend it on a camera right now, since it's only going to be a hobby for me.
So I repeat my question : between the Nikon D3100 and a Canon T1i which one would you say is more suitable for a complete beginner?
If you wanna suggest another camera, make sure it costs less than $250 (used is fine for me).
>16-50mm f/2.0-2.6 S
> 30mm f/2
>4 years of total warranty
2200$. All brand new.
Choose one. I honestly think you're better off sticking with a cell phone or a high end P&S until you can afford something decent. I did what you're thinking of and I still regret it years later.
> Shouldn't I be trying to get the best camera
That's certainly an option and not wrong if you ask me.
If the figures I quoted don't bother you too much, then why not? Unless some reviewers find -against all expectations- a good reason to pan the A6300, I think it'll be *extremely* nice to work with that camera and some good glass.
It was already very nice with the A6000.
> Shouldn't I be trying to get the at least a decent camera
You can also see it that way.
And a camera could be decent from like $350 up, at least when the situation and conditions at the shooting location are okay, and you don't want extremely much details in your image.
It's not that paying more is nonsense for everyone, but some people have enough at this point. They can shoot their cat, sunset, stuff quite okay during the day and early evening, and then it's good.
Or some can do what they want after they have a slightly different lens than the kit lens. You get the idea...
I'd seriously consider >>2763035
Or something along those lines. Budget wise you won't get anything better though, Pentax offers a lot of camera for the money.
For the same price as a K-50 you can get a Canon or Nikon but you will miss a lot of features later on. Weather sealing is one thing, but the seamless integration of old manual lenses, high sensitivity sensor, bright and accurate viewfinder, well designed UI is something you can't get form the others.
You said you wanted to get into the hobby, but with that small budget you would ending up wasting it all on a too old camera or a p&s bridge. Your best bet to really get into the hobby is shelling out a bit more for a decent DSLR, you won't regret it.
Hey guys, I'm looking to start filming and I'm looking for a camera.
I'm interested in narrative video (film, basically), so it doesn't need to be practical for YouTube vlogging or anything.
I hear a lot of people talk about the Canon EOS 70D, but I think that one might be a little pricey for a starter. Is the 70D a good camera to start with? If not, what are some good/better alternatives?
Ïm currently usng canon 7D, im thinking of getting a second Fullframe body for landscape and stuff. I know what canon has to offer, but i really like to know what other brands i should look at. Any recommendations?
I mostly have APC-S Lenses so i have to get new ones anyway.
This is more a technical question than it is gearfaggotry but I don't think it deserves a thread.
So I recently acquired some pretty fast glass (1.4) and I'm into portraits among other things.
So straight to the point, I use flashes to light up my subjects, the problem is that even at minimum ISO, all the flashes at minimum power it is sometimes hard not to overexpose my subjects due to the glass being pretty fast.
What's the solution to this? ND filters? Darkening filters on the flashes?? Can't think of any other logical solution really.
How about just using short 1/4000 or 8000 exposure time (if you don't want to close the aperture for shallow DoF and bokeh effects)?
With a quick shutter, you shouldn't have huge overexposure problems...
Could be, but I'm trying to get massive catch lights in the eyes and I like
>muh inverse square law falloff
when they're close to the subject as well.
I'm trying to get something similar to Peter Hurley's work, but he uses medium format so he gets lots of bokeh even with f6.3 lenses, that's cheating.
I guess ND it is.
> my flashes are not capable of that
Would be easiest to fix this if you frequently do flash photography with such lenses.
Using a HSS flash when you have already encountered a situation where it's easiest to do so isn't gear addiction for shit.
But fine, go about it with a ND filter or some diffuser or something that takes light out of the flash...
fire a HSS flash at 1/8000 and front curtain sync and minimum power. this gives you the shortest pulse possible at the start of the exposure, triggering another flash at max power. the max power flash gives a long high power pulse that lasts the entire length of the exposure, instead of being chopped off like you'd experience when normally shooting at above max sync speed. look it up.
You don't have to spend huge amounts to have a decent DSLR.
You can get a used Pentax K-50 or K-30, Nikon D3300, Canon 550D for around $300, put on a fast 35mm lens and you are set. Later on you can invest in specialised glass depending on your needs (wide-angle zooms, telephoto zooms, portrait lens etc...)
If you can't afford $200-300 to buy a used point and shoot or dslr on Craigslist or whatever used marketplace you have available, you can't afford a year of shooting film. Film is expensive, and developing/scanning is even more so. Consider that shooting 36 pictures on film, including the inevitable blurry, improperly exposed, or out of focus pictures you will make, will cost anywhere from $15-30. Every time.you can do this at home, but will pay $100 for a black and white developing kit and then another $200 for a scanner.
With digital, you pay up front and then you pay nothing later. Film is fun, but it will make you broke.
It's 2.4m dot EVF that's as big as most mirrorless AND it's oled 120fps. No other camera has that. The lens selection is good, tell me one lense that isn't covered or is lacking in quality with no alternative. As for battery life, doesn't matter as they are cheap and small to carry.
Negligible? Down right slaughter of the competition.
>It's 2.4m dot EVF that's as big as most mirrorless AND it's oled 120fps. No other camera has that. The lens selection is good, tell me one lense that isn't covered or is lacking in quality with no alternative. As for battery life, doesn't matter as they are cheap and small to carry.
resolution isn't size. The size isn't as big as the X-T1. The quality should be very good.
fast 85mm equivalent for portraiture
f/2.8 24-70 equivalent
f/2.8 70-200 equivalent
>battery life doesn't matter
To you, but to others it may.
G7X vs. RX100 mkIII? On paper G7X seems better (longer lens while still being fairly fast), but some sites say the RAWs are bad or something? Or it might be the overall handling (RAW shot-to-shot, AF etc). I don't really care about the EVF on the RX100.
I'm traveling through China again this summer and last time I went I found an Instax was a great way to break the ice with local kids but it's a bulky camera in itself and the lens is crummy. A Selphy seems like it might be a good digital alternative and would pay for itself in one trip in terms of reduced media costs (last time, I burnt through about 20 packs of Instax and paid a small fortune to have some shipped to the middle of nowhere). Are they any good?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D4 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Photographer Jeff Kravitz Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 1065 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 240 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2014:01:09 18:15:32 Exposure Time 1/500 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 6400 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 240.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3441 Image Height 2388 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
Into photography for about 3 years, always used my friends T3i or my grandmother's D5500 whenever I got a chance. I am now in a position to get my own shit and I think I have decided on a T6s. I figured it will give me plenty more room to grow and learn how to shoot at a decent level before I would ever need to get something better. Good, bad or retarded? On a side note I really enjoy stills but my friends are shooting videos at the moment and I thought that the video capabilities of the T6s were sufficient.
I don't think we have that kind of agreement.
Most also only seem to know their one camera system well, some are heavily partisan to it.
And people's budgets and preferences also vary vastly.
Basically, that list would probably be quite shit. Better provide some requirements, preferences and price range and investigate the suggestions as not necessarily neutral / objective ones.
alright cheers for the advice, I forget about the extent of brand loyalty among some. I have about £350-£450 budget for the body and a lens which I want to be as versatile and adjustable as possible as it's really my entry type camera as I've only ever used my Pentax Optio wg2 until now. Without asking the impossible, I'd like to be able to take photos in low light while still having a decent shutter speed etc. but as I say, most importantly I just want to be able to manually change the ISO, aperture, focus and so on without some software correcting it for me as i'd prefer to experiment
Pentax k-50 user here. I've got these two and they're both perfect
The 35mm is a bit wider and sharper wide open. The 50mm is much faster and has a real nice dof
The only thing that I'd ever be left wanting for are the 55-300, 18-135, or 16-85 depending on which zoom I'd want to settle with for me personally
Low light won't be easy on that budget. Usually the A7S is one of the cheapest actually viable options.
Below that, I'd suggest to just accept that you might need to use a speedlight when it gets darker, either built-in or external. (The external variant usually can be done fairly cheaply, too. $65 already gets you a very neat manual flash with built-in RF trigger / controls.)
> most importantly I just want to be able to manually change the ISO, aperture, focus and so on without some software correcting it for me as i'd prefer to experiment
Those are standard features on really just about any IL DSLR / MILC.
Doesn't narrow it down a lot. I think you could look at Pentax K-50, Nikon's D5300, Sony's A6000 at the very least, but there are probably more cameras. And if you picked something lower-end, you might have more for a better lens, too. Also an option.
Both are nice. Really depends on your budget, if you can afford the K-S2 then go for it. Has a newer 20MP sensor wthout AA filter.
The K-50 16MP with AA filter is still a good resolution and has pretty good noise performance.
Well, it's not a clean-cut "the NEX3 is always looking better".
The RX100 (version 1 of it) has a bit better color reproduction and resolution.
It however also starts to get noise far more immediately when lighting isn't perfect. NR then can easily cost you >=3/4 of the pixels you'd have had without noise.
Also, you can of course stick better lenses on the NEX3. A good prime (example: the stellar deal that is the 60mm Sigma Art f/2.8) will also give you higher image quality in good light than what the RX100 will do.
*Overall* I'd just summarily say the NEX3 will be better for IQ. [But I also suggested just side-stepping the issue by getting newer and more definitely nice cameras, eh.]