|
First I wanted to say thank you so much both of you for taking the time to explain all of this to me, I really do appreciate it. One other thing I should mention is I have a degenerative eye condition and for extra fun I impaled my right (& dominant) eye on a branch a few years ago. From what I've read I don't think this is going to matter at all, there seem to be excellent legally blind photographers, but I just thought I would mention it incase any suggestions would involve being able to see out of both eyes. Haggins posted:I can see why this is driving you nuts, a shot like that can be tricky. The problem is the camera doesn't know what to expose correctly. Is it going to choose the black dress, your skin, or the white wall? In the first shot, the camera is leaning towards exposing your skin correctly, leaving the dress without details. In the second, it chose to over expose a bit to get the details of your leggings. It's a good example of why you want manual control; so you can choose what details you want. IIRC, I think the book has a guide on shots very similar to the ones you posted. That's me in the shots and thank you. I'm going through registering as a business and since I'm doing a sole proprietorship it's better to have me as the only person involved with the sewing/photography/modelling/advertising is what I gather. I would love to hear your recommendations for gear. $2000 isn't something I can swing quite yet but I can certainly start budgeting for it. And I apologize for the dumb question but when you say SLR do you mean one specifically with film or would digital work for what I want? I live on an isolated base in the Mojave, it would be a 60+mile drive to get film developed. So if possible digital is definitely my preference. powderific posted:I think you could get serviceable to very good results for a lot less than that though, especially if decent product shots are the main concern rather than getting into photography as a hobby/profession. The biggest thing to me would be to pick up Light, Science and Magic (as you suggested) and a camera with full manual controls so she can try working with the soft boxes she already has first. The only thing I'd worry about having so as not to outgrow the camera immediately would be a hot shoe or PC sync port. There's a ton of cheap-ish cameras that could fit the bill, and even adding in some battery strobes you could keep it under $1000 very easily. Just a decent camera shouldn't be more than $500. I don't have a mannequin but that is a very good idea I will get one, that would be great for close up detail shots too. Do you mind if I ask what kind of camera you would recommend? I could pick up something for that price a bit sooner and then perhaps I would be able to sell it when I need to upgrade to a dslr. One other question. My parents sent me the canon A1 they bought on their honeymoon along with a couple of lenses. I'm pretty sure the answer to this is no but is there any adapter or anyway to use those lenses with a modern camera? From what I've read you can't but it would mean a lot to my parents if it got some use so I figured I should check.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
Haggins and I are definitely talking digital. It's the way to go unless you want to do film because that's what you enjoy doing. You can absolutely adapt those lenses to modern cameras and it's something a lot of people like to do—you'll just have to make sure the camera you get will work with the adapters. Nikon and Canon won't work, but mirrorless cameras from Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus will work great. You'll be manually focusing, which might be trickier with poor eyesight, but the adapters themselves aren't particularly expensive so trying it out will only cost an extra $30 or less. The biggest thing I'd be concerned with is getting focus right with self portraits—it might be a little tricky but I think you could get a system down with some trial and error and a piece of tape on the floor. For cameras that would work with your FD lenses I'm most well versed in Panasonic. Olympus and Sony have good options as well but I can't really offer much of a recommendation. The people in the mirrorless thread might have some suggestions. On the Panasonic side, you could get a used G5 for around $350 or a GX1 for about $225 from KEH. The G5 is bigger and has a flip out screen so you can see if you're framed up right (I'm not sure how useful that'd actually be with eye issues though.) The Panasonic GX1 is smaller and doesn't have a flip out screen. I'd suggest getting a lens or two with autofocus to supplement the FD lenses as well. The 14mm 2.5 is under $200 (it'd be a little more zoomed out than the iPhone you're shooting with now), or you could get a cheapo kit lens for under $100. Both cameras have hot shoes so you could upgrade add strobes to you lighting setup later if need be. The good thing about going that direction with cameras is that there are lots and lots of good camera choices, unlike P&S's where there are something like two or three main options. edit: just to clarify, DSLR's generally aren't adaptable to FD mount. The cameras I'm talking about are known as "mirrorless" cameras. They have bigger sensors and interchangeable lenses like a DSLR, but they don't have the mirror box that lets you look directly through the lens. It makes them more compact and the difference in lens mounting makes compatibility with older lenses much easier. They used to be thought of as a sortof stepping stone between P&S cameras and DSLRs but have reached a quality level where many people don't feel the jump to a DSLR necessary or even desirable. powderific fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
I'm looking for a serious compact camera around the region of $400. With the extent of options out there I've narrowed it down to 2 choices; the Canon G15 and the Fujifulm XF1. I was swooning pretty hard on the G15, it seems to get entirely fantastic reviews and seems like it has a good set up with its sensor size (1/1.7" CMOS), fast lens, and low light performance. The XF1, though, has a 2/3" CMOS. Most reviews focus on silly poo poo like button positions rather than how the cameras actually perform. Which one takes the better quality pictures? The G15 has a reputedly good lens, does that make up for some of the disparity in sensor size? Is there any way in which the XF1 isn't just straight up the better camera?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Have you looked at the Pentax MX-1 as well? A 1/1.7" sized sensor, but it's backlit and supposed to have real good high iso compared to other sensors that size. Not to mention it's got a faster shutter, image stabalization, higher res lcd screen that flips out, 1080p instead of 1080i video. It's supposed to be pretty good!\ Not to mention the lens on the pentax is f/2.5 on the long end, instead of f/4.5. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909856-REG/Pentax_12633_MX_1_Digital_Camera_Silver.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
I've been using the Lumix LX5 for a few years and, although it's a great camera, it has let me down in low lighting a few times. Is there anything more recent that would do a better job? I've no interest in changing the lens and have about £350 to spend, but I won't bother if the difference would be marginal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Looks like the rx100 is close to your budget (within if you don't mind used), so there's definitely room to upgrade. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-Cybershot-DSC-RX100-Digital-Optical/dp/B008CNMZDW/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1377786976&sr=8-5&keywords=ricoh+gr
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
You're right, I hadn't even looked at the MX-1. It looks like a clever piece of hardware. Brass plating too! Style. Hah... but you know, Past couple days I've been comparing the virtues of the g15 with these other cameras, all pretty good in their own right. The g15 is no doubt a well built, acclaimed and capable camera. However it's becoming increasingly apparent that instead of getting one of these neat but fundamentally average small-sensor cameras I could instead save up just a liiiitle bit more money and go for something spectacular. The RX100. Like you advised HTJ, probably used or 'like new'. Are there any major issues in lens quality when buying a used camera online? From reputed sources, of course. I have no experience with these things and probably couldn't tell if I was losing image quality to a slightly worn lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
You can get the XF1 really cheap on ebay, like under 250. It doesn't sell because Fuji doesn't offer a black version. For the money is a non brainer. You can get a s110 S100, but its not a better camera. Unless you want to do time lapse, then s110 is better. If I am going to spend the RX100 money I would just get the NEX5r kit for 440 on adorama instead. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Sep 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
I hope this is the right thread to ask about this. I'm looking for an older point and shoot that I can give my kids to play around with at making stop motion animation, and the two features I'm most interested in are that it works with some kind of remote trigger, and that it uses SD cards. The trigger is the most important part for me, so I can set up the camera for them on a tripod and then they can take pictures with the remote, rather than poking at the camera itself and throwing things out of alignment. Something older and cheaper (maybe in the $50 range used), that I could trust them with but not be upset if they knock over the tripod would be good. I have an old PowerShot SD600 which I'd be comfortable letting them use, and it has SD, but so far as I can tell, there is no remote trigger solution for this model, so it fails my main requirement. A little googling suggested an older Olympus Stylus might work, although I'm not 100% sure about the trigger. But that takes XD cards so far as I can tell, and I'd prefer SD, since I have spares sitting around. I know there are various animation kits that come with webcams, but I'd prefer to set them up with an old digital point and shoot, so they don't need a computer out by the table where they'll be doing animation. Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the older Olympus Tough models can use radio triggers and your kids can beat them to kingdom come.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I'm pretty sure the older Olympus Tough models can use radio triggers and your kids can beat them to kingdom come. This is the second time i've seen a reference to the "older" tough models. Is there something wrong with the tg-2? I was considering getting this, because i take a lot of shots while I'm biking/skiing. But would I be better off just getting a cannon s100 and trying to take good care of it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
Turds in magma posted:This is the second time i've seen a reference to the "older" tough models. Is there something wrong with the tg-2? Not a drat thing but he wanted to keep the budget down, from the looks of his post. I have a TG-1 myself and I love it, but it's not exactly inexpensive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Not a drat thing but he wanted to keep the budget down, from the looks of his post. I have a TG-1 myself and I love it, but it's not exactly inexpensive. So does anyone have any suggestions? S100, which i can get for 292 on amazon right now, or olympus tg-2, for 379? Mainly for taking scenery and wildlife shots while biking/skiing, so durability is needed, but maybe it's not that big of an issue?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
As long as you're not habitually dropping it in the snow or drenching it in water, the S100 will be perfect. My S90 has been dropped, knocked around in a dirty bag for months on end, sweated on, gone skiing dozens of times, and basically been abused its whole life. At the ~$300 level I'd get the S100 anyday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
My previous point-and-shoot was a Canon SD700 (2007). It was a good camera for the time but I recently fell in love with HDR mode on my Nexus4 (reason: mobile flashes are horrible and for the first time I have a cell camera that is useful indoors). I'm looking at the Canon S110 for its on-board HDR. After form-factor (must fit in my pocket) the most important aspect to me is low-light pictures without a flash. Should I be looking at something else for the money? DPReview has a decent search function but I'm interested in your opinions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Imodium AD posted:I'm looking at the Canon S110 for its on-board HDR. After form-factor (must fit in my pocket) the most important aspect to me is low-light pictures without a flash. Should I be looking at something else for the money? If you have the budget, the Sony RX100 II has really good low-light performance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
And the original RX 100 is no slouch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
What are the differences between the RX100 I and II?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Off the top of my head, II has: -newer sensor (but I is still better than all the competition) -flash shoe -tilt LCD edit: Some of my low-light shots:  Torche  Breeders  MS MR  Eels Max zoom + cropped, from the back of a concert hall:  New Order teethgrinder fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Haggins posted:
Hey I just wanted to check back in and say thank you so very much to everyone who recommended this book. I skimmed through it the first time and found lots of small adjustments I could make to fix common problems I was having. Since then I've been referring back to it often. I did a shoot today of about 10 ish new products, I think I took about 100 pictures and not one of them needed any adjustment in light room it was absolutely amazing. Lighting position makes a huge difference apparently! Thanks again guys, and anyone thinking of grabbing this book do it, I think it's only like $25 and totally worth it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:Off the top of my head, II has: I'm looking at both but there's a price difference of €200 right now which is steep. Is the I being heavily discounted or will the II drop to that price? Going to buy in the next month or two. Honestly I don't care that much for the flash shoe or the tilt LCD, is the new sensor that much better to be worth a significant premium?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Pvt Dancer posted:I'm looking at both but there's a price difference of €200 right now which is steep. Is the I being heavily discounted or will the II drop to that price? Going to buy in the next month or two. I've recently purchased the Sony RX100 II for my wife and she loves it. It has NFC built in as well, so sharing photos over whatsapp\text\email\facebook takes but a minute or two with an NFC enabled phone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
I don't think the new sensor is 200 euros better, but I'm a biased owner of the original (i.e. if money were no object I'd surely upgrade). This article will probably help answer most of your questions: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m2/4 Dpreview hasn't done their standard test shots for the M2 yet unfortunately for more objective comparison.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
I don't think it's worth the extra myself--the RX100 v1 is still better than nearly anything on the market already. If I was going to pay that much more I'd probably think about the new APC Ricoh instead. Once again, I'm a biased V1 owner so maybe take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies, I could've guessed there's not a lot of people who have experienced both. Right now the new features are not that convincing and I'd rather have a slightly smaller one. NFC might be nice (and my phone supports it) but I usually just stick the card in my laptop and start up Lightroom which doesn't leave that much to improve on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:Some of my low-light shots: Those are breathtaking pictures. There's an RX100 about an hour drive from me for about $420, but thats still out of my budget. I got a new S110 from Amazon for $260 (someone sold their Adorama rebate from the looks of the original receipt that was included). I'd much rather something with the capability of the RX100 but it looks like it'll have to wait until the next cycle. Thanks for sharing!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
booze lol canon ixus 100is found out yesterday that CHDK supports it by now. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Hello, I'm going to Europe in 2 weeks and unfortunately with all the poo poo I've had to do to get ready for the trip, figuring out what I'm doing about a camera was pushed out until now. I've read great things about the RX-100, and I'd like to have a good camera for after the trip, but I'm not really a photography enthusiast. I'm willing to spend the RX-100 money if I'm going to get a lot of value out of it over the next few years, but I'm worried I'll end up regretting getting such a souped-up point and shoot camera with features I'm not using, or regretting getting it over a similarly-priced entry DSLR for when I'm not traveling out of the country. I'm not 100% sure what I'm asking, but I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
The rx100 is a really good camera, so I doubt you'd regret it. Especially for traveling, lugging around a dslr can be a real chore compared to having something you can slip into a pocket everywhere you go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
hand of luke posted:Hello, If you worry about the cost so much, get the s110 for about $250, Fuji XF1 for $250, they are about 70% as good as the RX100. Its up tp you to decide if you want to spend that extra $200.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
If you are going to Europe and can spend for the RX 100, might as well go all out and get the RX 100 mk 2. The new wifi access and using your smart phone as a remote shutter is awesome. It allows quick sharing with your smart phone and live view too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
I think most of what makes the RX100 such a good camera would be noticeable to even a novice photographer. It's a joy to shoot with and if you can spend the money I'd say it's worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
Also shoot in RAW and be amazed with what inexperienced shots of your memories you can later salvage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
Chalk me up as someone else looking for a cheap P&S. Looking for sub-$200. I need something that records at least 720p at 30fps. Said camera needs to be in my hands tonight as I have to get a camera for a photography project pretty much instantly, so I'm limited to B&M stores like Best Buy and Office Depot. The more control I have over it the better, but I'll take decent autofocus and auto exposure control if the camera has it. I already trawled Craigslist and couldn't find a drat thing. However, my local Best Buy has the following 4 on clearance/open box: Canon SX500 - $158.99 - It's a pretty good discount compared to other cameras, but it's a superzoom and I don't do a lot of long-distance photography. Sony W730 - $91.99 - Actually pocketable, cheaper price, MSRP nowadays seems to be $100 so I don't seem to be getting a huge discount. Canon A4000 - $82.99 - Cheapest of the bunch, but doesn't seem to have a lot of control and seems to be more-entry level than the others Nikon S6500 - $156.99 - Not much cheaper than the SX500 but doesn't have purple fringing and seems to have better quality at the same ISO as the SX500. Cameras that aren't specific to my local Best Buy include the Nikon L820 at $200, which again is superzoom which isn't something I particularly care about. The XF1 is $270 which is very uncomfortable but seems to still be a very solid point and shoot at a (relative to other advanced cameras) comfortable price. The Sony WX300 is $280, which is out of my price range again but seems to be a solid shooter. Beyond that, anyone have anything to recommend from these cameras or something around my price range? Like I said, it has to be buyable from a physical retail store. Ones close to me are Best Buy (preferred), Walmart, Office Depot, and Target.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
Not sure if this belongs in the P&S or DSLR thread cause it's one of those DSLR-lite cameras. Can I get some words on the Powershot SX50? My sister in law is going on an Africa trip and is after a new compact-ish camera for her trip. She has never really used anything more advanced than a P&S on auto. 50x zoom seems loving ridiculous and I'm not sure how it will work in the real world, but the reviews seem positive and I think it will come in handy for those "sleeping lion in the distance" shots that she is bound to come across in Africa. I plan on giving her some info to get her out of using auto, do you think this is a smart buy for her? If you have other recommendations, i would love to hear them. I think her "must haves" are a decent zoom, not huge, and view finder (taking pictures in live view in the desert sucks). http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_sx50hs/specifications
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
If I was going to get a bridge camera I'd get Panasonic's FZ200 for the constant 2.8 aperture lens: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200 It also has a better viewfinder, shoots at 5 frames per second vs. 1 (or 12 fps in single focus mode), and has better battery life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
powderific posted:I think most of what makes the RX100 such a good camera would be noticeable to even a novice photographer. It's a joy to shoot with and if you can spend the money I'd say it's worth it. Has anyone seen any deals popping up on the RX100 now that the second version is around? I bring my X100 everywhere and it certainly does the job as a "bring everywhere camera" but I guess I am getting so spoiled that I would like to have something that will fit in my pocket in the winter. And I have heard so many good things about the RX100.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
Used ones in good shape go for $450ish on eBay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
My wife wants a portable camera that works well in both extremely dark and extremely bright conditions. Basically, concerts. Her Canon SD1200 isn't cutting it. Zoom isn't important, but clear pictures in Auto mode and smaller form factor are. Is the S100 my best bet, with its larger sensor? I was hoping to find a good solution for closer to $200. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
FistEnergy posted:My wife wants a portable camera that works well in both extremely dark and extremely bright conditions. Basically, concerts. Her Canon SD1200 isn't cutting it. Zoom isn't important, but clear pictures in Auto mode and smaller form factor are. Taking good picture in concert ..... taking good picture of moving baby ..... equal expensive camera. Try the Ricoh GR or Coolpix A.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 00:24
|
|