|
Legdiian posted:Is there a thread dedicated to capturing audio? I have a D7100 and I'd like to add an external microphone to it. I will be filming loud things (streetbikes at full throttle very close to me). Maybe check the Musician's Lounge (under NMD), at least they know about audio recording gear there.
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
Legdiian posted:Is there a thread dedicated to capturing audio? I have a D7100 and I'd like to add an external microphone to it. I will be filming loud things (streetbikes at full throttle very close to me). Is there any reason why you need the audio to be on the camera? I use a Zoom H4N, which has a decent built in stereo mic, plus inputs for external microphones, and I sync the audio during editing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
The DSLR video thread would be the place to go for audio into a DSLR discussion. edit: if it were me I'd probably just get a Rode VideoMic Pro or something similar instead of doing second system audio if the mic's going to be mounted on the camera.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
Setting levels is probably tough if he's up close to the bikes, I'd want my mics farther back from the camera.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
I've run the Rode on a D800 and you can get the gain waaaay down if you need to. I was shooting pretty loud stuff and I'd set the mic gain to +20 db and adjust the camera gain so that'd work for the quieter times, and then click down to -10db if I knew it was going to be louder. Street bikes can be super loud but I think you'd still be within the mic's limits even with straight pipes as long as you weren't right on the exhaust.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Pentax has such a fantastic line of APS-C cameras. Weather sealing, decent autofocus, advanced features, great sensors, legacy lens compatibility, selection of modern primes, the list goes on. The downsides are 1. availability and price of lenses in general, especially higher end. 2. No upgrade beyond the K5ii (which is arguably one of the best APS-C cameras ever made so whatevs) If you're not lusting after full frame or planning on shooting NFL games then Pentax is a great choice. It all comes down to what appeals to you the most.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:The downsides are wait, are you seriously saying that availability of PK mount lenses is an issue? Because PK and Nikon F are about on par in terms of how many lenses are out there. Pentax/Ricoh may not have the most available lenses on their books today. But you shouldn't have any trouble finding quality lenses made in the last 40 years. (Although IIRC Nikon were quicker to add auto-focus to the F mount than Pentax, so there might be more PK (manual) than PKA (AF) lenses out there)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:wait, are you seriously saying that availability of PK mount lenses is an issue? Because PK and Nikon F are about on par in terms of how many lenses are out there. I guess I should have qualified that statement with "other than manual focus lenses". You are correct that there are fewer AF Penatx lenses than CaNikon (Pentax doesn't even make an AF 70-200F2.8). The ones that do exist are not as common to find used. Also, Pentax keeps raising prices (77mm 1.8 for 1k in Pentax vs 85mm 1.8 for ~400 from CaNikon). Anyways even after all that I would still recommend Pentax in general, as long as it suits your use.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
I'd avoid Pentax because it doesn't seem to be a good system to grow into. You're not buying a camera now, you're buying into a system. It seems there isn't much on the high end as lenses go and you're going to get a lot less third party support (like say no TTL pocketwizards for your system). If you're just mostly shooting on vacation and a few times during the year, then you'll probably be fine. Otherwise, if you're hoping to one day get very serious/professional, you'll probably just end up selling all your gear and going Canon/Nikon. About 7 years ago I was in your same shoes. To choose, I took a hard look at about where I eventually wanted to be and what system had the gear I liked. I ended up going with Canon because I liked their high end stuff and they didn't have any weird lens comparability issues that Nikon had (not really a big deal but I found it confusing at the time). You really can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon. Hell, maybe even Sony too. They're starting to look better and better every day
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
I did the same thing. I entered with Olympus and saw the prices for new lenses and the lack of a solid used market as a reason to leave. When I switched to Canon I had to buy everything, body, lenses, batteries, flash. It was a pain but now I have a wide variety of lens options and the used market makes getting good glass relatively cheap and easy. The other positive is that canon gear is available pretty much anywhere. Renting lenses is easy and you can find more places that will have a canon or nikon accessory than sony/pentax/oly/etc. I hate to say pick Canon or Nikon, but it is much easier later down the road if you go that route than the others.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:(Pentax doesn't even make an AF 70-200F2.8). They do have this guy though: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/485184-USA/Pentax_21660_SMCP_DA_50_135mm_f_2_8_ED.html I have to have Nikon or Canon at this point in my photography life due to professional requirements, but if I didn't Pentax's stuff would meet all of my hobby needs really well—better than Nikon/Canon in a some ways. To me the it's mainly an issue if you need something particularly specialized (tilt shift lenses come to mind) or plan on moving into more of a professional setting. Not everyone is going to inevitably want things that you can only get with Canon/Nikon. And just picking Canon/Nikon doesn't make you immune to switching brands down the line—I switched from Canon to Nikon, there are people in the mirrorless thread switching from Canon/Nikon to Fuji and Olympus, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Well if you do switch, you'll probably get better prices for your gear if its Canon or Nikon.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I'd avoid Pentax because it doesn't seem to be a good system to grow into. You're not buying a camera now, you're buying into a system. It seems there isn't much on the high end as lenses go and you're going to get a lot less third party support (like say no TTL pocketwizards for your system). For example, it's true that Pentax doesn't make a 70-200 f/2.8. Sigma and Tamron do, in Pentax K-mount. All those facts could change in the future, of course, but I'm going to concentrate on what's available right now. Pentax does make a 60-250 f/4 (The DA*), neither Tamron nor Sigma makes a comparable lens in P-K (i.e. f/4 constant aperture). Imagine you've decided you want a telezoom, something in very popular focal length range between 50mm and 300mm. For around $1200 you can get either the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and get a very good constant-aperture sports zoom. For the same price you can get the Pentax DA, with a wider focal length range but a narrower maximum aperture, plus weathersealing. For considerably less money ($400-$600, or even less) you can choose from a numer of options from all three that have narrower, not-constant apertures. Ninja edit: Powderific's example with the 50-135/2.8 came in while I was typing this up. Another option! In Canon EF-S you don't have anything directly comparable with weathersealing, but the 70-200 f/4L about the same price ($1150 on B&H) and it's an L-lens, besides being extremely well regarded by everybody who has ever used one. And of course there's the f/2.8 L as well, for about $2200. So Canon has some different options to choose from (Tamron's and Sigma's lenses are also available in EF-S). I don't know anything about Nikon, but I assume it's similar. At much higher budget points, around the $2000-$3000 range for one lens (or body), you see not much from Pentax or in P-K from the third-party manufacturers. There's nothing comparable to the full-frame bodies from Canon or Nikon, nor is there anything like the full-frame lens lines, such as the ever-popular 24-70. If you have a Pentax system and you really feel the need to spend that much money, your options are really specialized, basically you're looking at super-telephoto lenses, because you want to shoot birds. Pentax includes some features in their cameras that other manufacturers do not at comparable prices - like weathersealing (both bodies and lenses), and built-in wireless flash support (bodies, flashes, and some 3rd-party flashes). Sony and Pentax both have in-body image stabilization, compared to Canon and Nikon placing this function in some lenses (and Sigma/Tamron put it in lenses, because the market for it there is larger). I don't know why Pentax bodies do PTTL but not ETTL (or really what the difference is, except I believe ETTL has some advantages). Most accessories from third parties (flashes, wireless triggers, remote trigger releases) come in Pentax-compatible forms, or are universal (filters, tripods, etc). I suspect Canon's professional speedlights (e.g. the 540), combined with something like a 7D or a 5Dii would blow away anything in Pentax or Pentax-compatible for shooting a wedding or for portrait photography. I do not think a Canon telephoto setup (e.g. 7D + 300mm f/4, $2600 on B&H) would be much better than a Pentax telephoto setup at around the same cost (K-5ii + DA*300mm f/4, $2400). It depends entirely on the kind of photography you will do. Professional? Go Canon or Nikon, yes. Spend thousands, be awesome. But in my opinion, the differences aren't there if you're doing anything from really casual (kit lenses are all the same) up to what I might call "enthusiastic amateur" - birds, landscapes, the office christmas party, whatever - that you're putting some real effort into as a hobby or as a minor source of income on the side. I will never be a professional photographer, which is the area that Canon and Nikon rightly deserve their reputations for excellence. I will be trying to get a photo of a bird in the rain. I could do that with Canon or Nikon, but I'd have to spend much more money (and yes, thus own nicer gear) to get there. This is getting too long. I'll summarize: if you see yourself with a budget of several thousand dollars in a few years, there's more to choose from in Canon or Nikon. If you see yourself with a budget of maybe $1000-$1500 in a couple of years, there's no real difference in available options. Haggins posted:Well if you do switch, you'll probably get better prices for your gear if its Canon or Nikon. EDIT: I had described the body+300 as "supertele", but I changed it to "telephoto".
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Yes, don't buy something that isn't canon or nikon because in 2 years you could be doing photography as a full time professional, and god forbid you aren't ready for such a scenario!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
I'd assume you'd have more buyers if you have a more popular mount and be able to sell it for a higher price. Or at the very least it will be easier to sell. So really the only advantage is a couple ok entry level teles and a universal weather sealing (I'm assuming you'd need to use Pentax lenses?). As far as Tamron and Sigma gear filling the gaps, you have all that on Canon and Nikon too.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
You also just plain get more camera for your money from Pentax.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
But didn't you hear, camera's are literally poo poo if they don't say CANON or NIKON on them! And you can't have poo poo, cause you're a PRO baby!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I'd assume you'd have more buyers if you have a more popular mount and be able to sell it for a higher price. Or at the very least it will be easier to sell. I used the tele zooms as an example, any other application would fit about the same, I think. Kit lenses are boring to talk about, the always-in-my-camera-bag set of primes (wide, normal, portrait) are something well outside my area of interest/knowledge (my camera bag is too unstable and built on spur-of-the-moment purchases for that level of rigour), ultrawides and superteles are very rarely part of a my-first-DSLR purchase. I mentioned the availability of Sigma and Tamron for Canon and Nikon, their lenses are almost all available in any current DSLR mount. This was to avoid getting bogged down in a discussion of first-party-lenses only. I wasn't trying to describe a clear advantage for Pentax. I was countering the point that Pentax is inherently inferior. I think the differences between brands at any budget (body + a nice set of lenses) up to either "I'm a dentist" or "I can write this off because I'm a professional" are negligible and amount to a series of trade-offs. Low-light vs. burst speed; weathersealing vs. maximum ISO; it depends on the features you most value in your camera. For myself, weathersealing is a big deal (and yes, only Pentax lenses have it, as far as I am aware. Sigma's teles and superteles have a good reputation in unpleasant conditions, though). For somebody else, it might be pointless. I'm sure the same arguments could be made about Sony, but I don't know enough about them. Olympus has apparently abandoned the APS-C market in favour of mirrorless.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
If you don't have any aspirations of being a serious amateur or pro why even get a DSLR? If I were a just a hobbyist I'd either get a high end point and shoot if I didn't want to deal with expensive lenses or start looking into micro 4/3ds if I needed more flexibility.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
why even own a camera, really
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
The Canon is self‐immolating in protest of your bad opinions. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Just what is photography, anyway? I buy my cameras as investment vehicles.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
Haggins posted:If you don't have any aspirations of being a serious amateur or pro why even get a DSLR? If I were a just a hobbyist I'd either get a high end point and shoot if I didn't want to deal with expensive lenses or start looking into micro 4/3ds if I needed more flexibility. This is stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
dukeku posted:This is stupid. Yeah that is an intensely wrong opinion. Haggins', I mean.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Haggins posted:If you don't have any aspirations of being a serious amateur or pro why even get a DSLR? If I were a just a hobbyist I'd either get a high end point and shoot if I didn't want to deal with expensive lenses or start looking into micro 4/3ds if I needed more flexibility. I think this is not a stupid opinion. It's worthwhile to consider one's reasons for buying a particular item, especially if the cost is in the same region as major living expenses like rent. Current cameras span a range that includes some really nice P&S (with manual control), compact and very capable mirrorless systems, and consumer-level DSLRs that some purchases may never really grow into, as well as reasonably-priced fantastically good devices that can be used to produce mind-blowing images in the right hands. That opinion could be presented better, though. Perhaps by moving the condescension slider a bit to the left.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Perhaps by moving the condescension slider a bit to the left. I didn't like this post up until I read this.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
Haggins posted:If you don't have any aspirations of being a serious amateur or pro why even get a DSLR? If I were a just a hobbyist I'd either get a high end point and shoot if I didn't want to deal with expensive lenses or start looking into micro 4/3ds if I needed more flexibility. So what your saying is that he should invest in a K-30 and only buy 645 lenses until he can purchase a 645D? Because I'm pretty certain the 645D is a professional level camera (more so than say, a D600 or 6D).
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:why even own a camera, really where else would yospos get cat pics from
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
fivre posted:where else would yospos get cat pics from iPhones, like they do now.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Haggins posted:If you don't have any aspirations of being a serious amateur or pro why even get a DSLR? If I were a just a hobbyist I'd either get a high end point and shoot if I didn't want to deal with expensive lenses or start looking into micro 4/3ds if I needed more flexibility. I suppose this all depends on your definition of amateur. If you don't plan on understanding how ISO, shutter speed and aperture work I can see the advice of just buy a point and shoot (with an optical zoom if you want to take pictures of your kids playing soccer).
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I didn't like this post up until I read this. Ah, so you're also a part of Adobe's beta testing of software for improved Internet experiences? Are the mod buttons some kind of DLC that you have pay more for? 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Execudork is racist. No blacks
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
I don't get how I was being condescending but whatever. If I wasn't really into photography as I am now, I wouldn't be motivated enough to carry around a bunch of heavy rear end gear. In fact, I would be unhappy at myself for wasting the money on something I'm not getting the full benefit from.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I don't get how I was being condescending but whatever. If I wasn't really into photography as I am now, I wouldn't be motivated enough to carry around a bunch of heavy rear end gear. In fact, I would be unhappy at myself for wasting the money on something I'm not getting the full benefit from. I guess what "the full benefit" is varies from person to person. And also you're equating not being into photography with not wanting to become a pro.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
If you buy used DSLR stuff, you're not going to lose too much money if you sell it a year later. I think, if you can afford it, picking up an older DSLR and whatever lenses is a good way to find out how much you like photography. It's much different than using a P&S. There's a much more physical feeling involved in holding a big rear end DSLR. I feel more connected to the images I'm taking. It makes me happy for some weird reason. Maybe it's just the viewfinder. I dunno. Maybe we need a fruity "why do you take pictures?" thread.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I don't get how I was being condescending but whatever. If I wasn't really into photography as I am now, I wouldn't be motivated enough to carry around a bunch of heavy rear end gear. In fact, I would be unhappy at myself for wasting the money on something I'm not getting the full benefit from. I'm sorry if this isn't what you're trying to say, but the idea that all photographic efforts should culminate in "becoming a pro" as some sort of end goal is absurd and completely ignores a very proud tradition of amateurs, hobbyists, and artists who pursue photography because they enjoy it not because they might make a few dollars or even a living.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Ah, so you're also a part of Adobe's beta testing of software for improved Internet experiences? Are the mod buttons some kind of DLC that you have pay more for? It's not often I crosspost stuff from here to modforum, but drat.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Yeah, it's probably the idea that if Pentax's system covered your needs you're not a serious amateur and are by default only using the camera a few times a year. Granted, you can't go full frame and there aren't pro bodies, but you could be a pretty drat serious amature and still do well within Pentax's framework. If being a serious amateur means you need more than what Pentax offers, that means you're only serious if you need:
I'm not saying that Pentax is a be all and end all or anything, but it seems like a pretty valid option even for a serious amateur who takes lots of pictures. The Lensrentals.com guy has a couple good blog posts where he's buying an entirely new camera system and deciding between Sony, Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax. Admittedly, he rules Pentax out in the end because he liked the flexibility of the other options (which is a totally valid reason to go Canon or Nikon--not denying that advantage), but the Pentax seemed like a decent contender anyway. Here's the blogs if anyone's interested: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/02/roger-buys-a-camera-system-refining-my-choices http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/02/roger-buys-a-camera-system-finally Also: his budget was $9000. That's a serious investment and I don't think you're talking holiday only shooting at that level. powderific fucked around with this message at 02:05 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:It's not often I crosspost stuff from here to modforum, but drat. Saint Fu posted:Execudork is racist. No blacks Makes me wonder why we call it "white balance" though.  casa de mi padre posted:It makes me happy for some weird reason.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 02:00
|
|