|
Chroisman posted:I haven't had a lot of experience with modern camera gear and I'm looking to completely revamp what I have. Honestly if you hike a lot I would really reconsider mirrorless. You can get awesome glass for very little money if you go legacy, and since you're shooting landscapes you don't really need fast autofocus, the main advantage on a DSLR. In exchange, you get comparable image quality and lower weight, which really makes or breaks a long hike. Weather sealing is an advantage on some DSLRs, but unless you're buying one especifically designed for outdoor use, a good mirrorless will be as resistant. And really, the 3 or 4 pounds you can save on body + lenses + being able to use a lighter tripod make all the difference if you're doing long hikes. I also consider there's a lot of scare around "oh my god it's super easy to get dirt on your sensor". But them, i'm thinking about week-long, 10 miles a day or more hikes with full gear, where every ounce counts a lot. If you do lighter hiking the weight difference might not matter that much.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:58 |
|
|
If you're interested in landscape mostly, you might want to consider going with a full frame camera. I'm not sure how Nikon FF's price out but Canon has two that are generally in your price range - the 5D and 5D mkII. The original 5D is pretty compact and lightweight for a DSLR and usually sells for ~$600-$700 USD used. It's an older model and its missing a lot of modern features, most notably video, but it's a great (and cheap) way to get the advantages of a FF camera. The 5DmkII is even better and, of course, more expensive at ~$1300 - $1500 USD used. Pair either one of those with a wide or standard zoom like a 17-40 f/4 or 24-70 f/2.8 or the excellent-for-the-price 24-105 f/4L IS and you're good for landscape and pretty much any other type of common photography. e: Primo Itch posted:But them, i'm thinking about week-long, 10 miles a day or more hikes with full gear, where every ounce counts a lot. If you do lighter hiking the weight difference might not matter that much. Yeah if you're doing multi day hiking you'll probably want something super compact and not a DSLR system. 800peepee51doodoo fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Nov 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:But them, i'm thinking about week-long, 10 miles a day or more hikes with full gear, where every ounce counts a lot. If you do lighter hiking the weight difference might not matter that much. Thanks for your advice. Yeah my friends and I usually do multi-day hikes that go up to 20 km/day, but I used to carry 15-20 kg and recently completely revamped the rest of my gear which got me a huge 30% weight reduction so I can afford to carry a bigger camera and still be carrying less weight than I used to. 800peepee51doodoo posted:If you're interested in landscape mostly, you might want to consider going with a full frame camera. I'm not sure how Nikon FF's price out but Canon has two that are generally in your price range - the 5D and 5D mkII. The original 5D is pretty compact and lightweight for a DSLR and usually sells for ~$600-$700 USD used. It's an older model and its missing a lot of modern features, most notably video, but it's a great (and cheap) way to get the advantages of a FF camera. The 5DmkII is even better and, of course, more expensive at ~$1300 - $1500 USD used. Pair either one of those with a wide or standard zoom like a 17-40 f/4 or 24-70 f/2.8 or the excellent-for-the-price 24-105 f/4L IS and you're good for landscape and pretty much any other type of common photography. Thanks for the suggestion about the 5D i/ii. I hadn't really considered getting used gear, and I don't know if I'm entirely comfortable with that because of manufacturer warranty and stuff. I just kind of thought that APS-C or thereabouts would be a good balance between price and image quality. Casu Marzu posted:If you're into landscapes, you should really look into MF or LF film photography. Nothing else is gonna get you that amazing IQ. Thanks but I'm not really too keen on returning to film haha, I feel like I would get more improvement with my know-how if I could see my pics straight away. Also especially while my skills are lovely, I'll probably need a decent volume of available photos to take. Chroisman fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Nov 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
If you're into landscapes, you should really look into MF or LF film photography. Nothing else is gonna get you that amazing IQ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
You absolutely need to be considering used gear. It's a fraction of the price of used gear and if you buy it from a reputable seller (KEH.com) you just aren't going to get hosed over. MF/LF are big and heavy, if he wants to travel light they aren't really worth several times the weight. On the other hand instant feedback isn't really all its cracked up to be unless you're totally new to photography and want to make sure you didn't just take a totally black image or something. You aren't taking portraits where you need to know if they blinked or not. And in fact the opposite can be true, the thought of missing a shot can force you to slow down, build up a routine, and think things through, which builds skill and makes missing a shot less likely. With practice you don't even need a meter. FF has one major advantage for landscape photography, a wider field of view. The shallower depth of field is a negative, and you're giving up generations of sensor improvements. A Nex-5n is $250 and a Sigma 19mm f2.8 is $94. And you'll be able to get great results at ISO3200, passable results at ISO12800, and be able to get something at ISO25600. I believe those numbers are 800, 1600, and 3200 respectively for the 5D. The 5D2 is slightly better than the 5D, but you're talking some serious cash. On the high end I suppose you could consider the Sony Alpha A7 or A7r. I would really worry more about glass than the body though. You'll have a much better time putting good glass in front of something a generation or two behind state-of-the-art than buying the whiz-bang new body and shooting a kit lens. It doesn't matter how many megapixels you have if the lens in front of it is lovely. If you buy used and take care of them, good lenses don't really deteriorate. Cheap consumer lenses and camera bodies depreciate like no one's business. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Nov 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:FF has one major advantage for landscape photography, a wider field of view. The shallower depth of field is a negative, and you're giving up generations of sensor improvements. The larger sensor also has a huge advantage in light gathering which helps with long exposures and low-light/high ISO performance. The shallower DOF isn't really much of a factor with wider lenses. The improvements to sensor tech don't add up to overcome the differences in the physical size advantage of a full frame sensor when comparing to crop. Unless video (or burst rate or AF or some other specific, non-sensor related factor) was a requirement, I'd take a 5D classic over any current crop especially given how relatively cheap they are on the used market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:The larger sensor also has a huge advantage in light gathering which helps with long exposures and low-light/high ISO performance. The shallower DOF isn't really much of a factor with wider lenses. The improvements to sensor tech don't add up to overcome the differences in the physical size advantage of a full frame sensor when comparing to crop. Unless video (or burst rate or AF or some other specific, non-sensor related factor) was a requirement, I'd take a 5D classic over any current crop especially given how relatively cheap they are on the used market. No it doesn't. There's a small advantage in noise performance for a given generation of technology. Approximately one stop is a decent rule of thumb. However, that's not because there's an inherent advantage in the sensor, it's because there's more signal spread out over equal noise (per receptor). As sensors get lower and lower levels of noise, that advantage decreases. It's not like full frame sensors are made with a different CMOS/CCD chemistry that gives them a physical advantage in light gathering. Something like a Nex-5N is going to beat the pants off a 5D in terms of performance in low light. Here's a comparison of the 5d2 and the Nex-5N at ISO 3200 and 12800 (low light). The 5N is developing significantly more real resolution at roughly equal levels of noise (less at 12800). And the 5D is significantly worse than the 5D2. Full frame is not a magic bullet people. There was a serious improvement in sensor quality recently, between the Nex-5 and Nex-5N generations (3 generations ago?). FF isn't enough to outweigh that by far. On the other hand, you can't continue to increase real resolution just by shrinking the pixel pitch, the diffraction limit is a very serious thing for 24mp crop cameras like the D5200, or the M4/3 cameras. The D5200 is diffraction limited at f/5.6 (as is the OM-D). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:If you're into landscapes, you should really look into MF or LF film photography. Nothing else is gonna get you that amazing IQ. If it were me I'd go either mirrorless or full frame. Kit lenses are very good to start with, you can get a wide angle zoom later if you think you need it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Yeah the generation of dx sony/nikon sensors that appeared starting in 2010 were a huge leap forward. Fuji's X-trans sensor is pretty remarkable as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Dren posted:Yeah the generation of dx sony/nikon sensors that appeared starting in 2010 were a huge leap forward. Fuji's X-trans sensor is pretty remarkable as well. The X series mirrorless bodies are another decent option if you want something small and light with high IQ. I don't shoot it but the Fuji guys appear pretty satisfied with the lens lineup and they're starting to clear out last year's models. Lens lineup was/is a bit of a problem with NEX, they were very slow on the rollout and rely fairly heavily on third parties like Sigma. If you want to travel ultra super light with maximum IQ the X100s would also be a great option, assuming you can deal with a fixed 35mm equivalent prime (the best all around focal length in my experience). It's tiny and light and sharp and you get a f/2 lens. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Lole. This is the worst thing I've read in the past week and bear in mind I've been reading the GBS Nite Crew thread so that's saying something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
Thanks for all the input but I got confused by all the more technical talk haha. What if I just got a D7100 and called it a day?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Here's a comparison of the 5d2 and the Nex-5N at ISO 3200 and 12800 (low light). The 5N is developing significantly more real resolution at roughly equal levels of noise (less at 12800). And the 5D is significantly worse than the 5D2. --edit: Actually, the 5D2 sample suffers from the lens. They're better in the corners and softer in the center. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Chroisman posted:Thanks for all the input but I got confused by all the more technical talk haha. What if I just got a D7100 and called it a day? Thd d7100 is a great camera, so you wouldn't be going wrong with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
Chroisman posted:Thanks for all the input but I got confused by all the more technical talk haha. What if I just got a D7100 and called it a day? You'd be fine. Get that, go shoot stuff, get used to the camera and take advantage of the steep part of the learning curve (*this* is what happens when I set it to aperture priority and shoot at f/8; *this* is what happens when I fiddle with the exposure compensation; *this* is what high-ISO noise looks like; etc.) before you go on your big awesome trip to Nepal. The really technical stuff only matters when you've shot tens of thousands of frames (digital) or hundreds of rolls (film) and you care about poo poo like diffraction limits. Subject matter (great trips, great friends, great times) matters much, much more than that. Get your D7100, grab a good couple of lenses (bug the people in the Nikon thread), have fun. Post results in the Dorkroom, because WELCOME. Nobody seems to have done that yet, so let me be the first to say WELCOME.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Chroisman posted:Thanks for all the input but I got confused by all the more technical talk haha. What if I just got a D7100 and called it a day? Take a look at the fuji x series (x-e1 or x-e2 for interchangeable lenses, x100s if you don't mind fixed lens) if you're interested in mirrorless for a lighter weight option. IQ is a bit better than the D7100. Otherwise, D7100 is a great camera and you'll probably be really happy with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
Thanks very much for the advice everyone, I'll read some more about the 7100 to make sure it's exactly what I want, and maybe take a look at those Fujis and stuff as well. Thanks again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Something like a Nex-5N is going to beat the pants off a 5D in terms of performance in low light. Here's a comparison of the 5d2 and the Nex-5N at ISO 3200 and 12800 (low light). The 5N is developing significantly more real resolution at roughly equal levels of noise (less at 12800). And the 5D is significantly worse than the 5D2. That's not what I'm getting from that comparison. Here's a screenshot of the same comparison in RAW at 12800 and 6400. The 5DII is clearly less noisy. Maybe Sony has better jpeg algorithms?  It looks to me that the NEX-5N is closer to the 7D than the 5DII in noise handling. I'm having trouble googling them at the moment, but I've read articles that get into the physics of why it is that larger sensors handle noise better and why there is a limit to how well any sensor can handle noise but I'm not an engineer or anything so I can't really explain it off the top of my head. Suffice it to say that I've been convinced that bigger sensors are better for low light and overall image quality. Not a magic bullet, sure, but certainly better in most IQ comparisons. My 5Dc was definitely cleaner than my 7D, no doubt. Dren posted:Take a look at the fuji x series (x-e1 or x-e2 for interchangeable lenses, x100s if you don't mind fixed lens) if you're interested in mirrorless for a lighter weight option. IQ is a bit better than the D7100. These seem like good options for backpacking. I just bought an XE-1 so that I can have something small and lightweight to carry around but I haven't received it yet so I can't vouch for the system. I'm hoping its as good as people say!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:That's not what I'm getting from that comparison. Here's a screenshot of the same comparison in RAW at 12800 and 6400. The 5DII is clearly less noisy. Maybe Sony has better jpeg algorithms? Here's the sample I was looking at (my usual comparison on DPReview images) at the ISOs I was discussing. That's the center of the image, it should be sharpest.  I see a higher contrast image for sure. I don't know about noisier. I also don't see the 5d2 as sharper. Regardless I think the fact that a $250 crop camera is even remotely competitive with a $1500 FF body says something about that value proposition. And it does 720p video and all that fun stuff. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
I love how as soon as someone asks for a simple recommendation, we delve into pixel peeping noise comparisons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Well, when a $1500 camera is being touted as clearly better than a $250 camera and it's really not, it's kinda important. The 5d2 is a great camera, but there really was a quantum leap forward there and now those first gen 2010 sensors are really cheap in comparison. DPreview doesn't even have the 5d anymore, what would that look like in comparison for double the price of the NEX? Full frame does have technical advantages, but it's way more expensive for equal image quality. And he's not shooting something where super shallow depth of field is critical. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
Chroisman posted:Thanks very much for the advice everyone, I'll read some more about the 7100 to make sure it's exactly what I want, and maybe take a look at those Fujis and stuff as well. Thanks again. Go to a store and handle some cameras. It's really the only way to actually see and feel the advantages (size and weight) mirrorless cameras (like the Fuji) have over a DSLR. As for image quality, a full frame sensor is better, but even micro-four thirds is so good nowadays that it's unlikely that you will care about the difference until you get really good at photography.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:Go to a store and handle some cameras. It's really the only way to actually see and feel the advantages (size and weight) mirrorless cameras (like the Fuji) have over a DSLR. As for image quality, a full frame sensor is better, but even micro-four thirds is so good nowadays that it's unlikely that you will care about the difference until you get really good at photography. Yeah I'm going to head in to a shop next week to check everything out. I was actually reconsidering what I was thinking a few hours ago, and do like other people said and just get a cheap body and invest in lenses instead. I was reading about some mirrorless ones as well and it turns out that a lot are APS-C now so that makes my decision really hard yet again. I hate this part of getting into a new hobby where everything is too hard to choose between  .Edit: How would a combo of D7000 and either Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED DX AF-S Nikkor OR Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF DX AF-S Nikkor be? Edit 2: Apparently the Sigma Lens 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 DG HSM II is also really decent? Edit 3: I'm also not that keen on KEH.com since it's always such a pain in the rear end getting stuff shipped to Australia. Chroisman fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
Compare KEH.com to your local shop. Dealers charge a fuckload for instant satisfaction. I support local shops by buying film and processing, and buying gear where it's reasonable, but my shop definitely has its items where they're double the KEH price (KEH comes with a 6 month warranty which I have used when my gear didn't work). I recommend you spend a bit on a semi-decent body (like a D5100 or NEX 5N or Pentax K-5 or something) but don't obsess on getting the latest. 8mp is really more than enough, 16mp is great to give you a margin for cropping, 24mp is really superfluous. Spend the difference on good modern or vintage glass. The Fuji options are really small and light and great if you can live with a fixed lens or small kit. The only exception is if there's some make-or-break feature you absolutely have to have, like the IBIS/Astrotrac on the Pentax K-5 or the Phase-Detect AF on the latest Fuji X-series bodies or something. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
Chroisman posted:Edit: How would a combo of D7000 and either Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED DX AF-S Nikkor OR Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF DX AF-S Nikkor be? If you're going for a Nikon DSLR, make sure you at least keep that 50 mm f/1.4 lens from the old FE. Even if the camera is dead the lens is likely still good. The D7x00 series will be able to do auto-exposure with it, although the lens is still manual focus, and you shouldn't underestimate the usefulness of longer focal lengths for landscape.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 11:09
|
|
|
nielsm posted:If you're going for a Nikon DSLR, make sure you at least keep that 50 mm f/1.4 lens from the old FE. Even if the camera is dead the lens is likely still good. The D7x00 series will be able to do auto-exposure with it, although the lens is still manual focus, and you shouldn't underestimate the usefulness of longer focal lengths for landscape. Yeah thanks for the advice, I was planning to keep it. I had to look it up to make sure it would work on a D7X00 and thankfully it does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 11:12
|
|
|
Chroisman posted:Yeah I'm going to head in to a shop next week to check everything out. I was actually reconsidering what I was thinking a few hours ago, and do like other people said and just get a cheap body and invest in lenses instead. I was reading about some mirrorless ones as well and it turns out that a lot are APS-C now so that makes my decision really hard yet again. I hate this part of getting into a new hobby where everything is too hard to choose between If you think you'll only want a wide angle lens for landscapes also look into the Ricoh GR. It has an APS-c sized sensor and a sharp, fast, fixed 18.3mm lens in a small, pocketable package. It's about the same price as a d7000(body only) with a very similar sensor but it's not much larger or heavier than most compacts. If you can live with a wide focal length then IMO it can't be beat considering its diminutive size.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Edit: Nevermind. I impulse shopped for a ME Super and ended up getting one that was broken. I ended up returning it for a Chinon CG-5 and a Pentax 50mm 1.7.
ZippySLC fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Nov 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Here's the sample I was looking at (my usual comparison on DPReview images) at the ISOs I was discussing. That's the center of the image, it should be sharpest. At the end, sharpness is the job of the lens, not the sensor, altho bigger photo sites can hide resolution issues of the lens design. The sensor's mostly about noise, and the 5D2 beats the NEX easily. If you want a proper alternative comparison of the sensors, compare their dynamic ranges. I'm sure Canon's going to lose that one. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:At the end, sharpness is the job of the lens, not the sensor, altho bigger photo sites can hide resolution issues of the lens design. The sensor's mostly about noise, and the 5D2 beats the NEX easily. If you want a proper alternative comparison of the sensors, compare their dynamic ranges. I'm sure Canon's going to lose that one. Well, then DPReview hosed it up, and they hosed it up consistently across every shot at every ISO, so it's not a focus issue. I really don't think they're big enough idiots to use a kit lens when I'm sure they have all kinds of L glass to use. I don't think it's surprising they would be pretty close in terms of resolution, 16 vs 21mp is not a noticeable difference, and you're right, sensors don't really have all that much impact on resolution. As for dynamic range, nope. The 5d has 11.1 stops of dynamic range, 5d Mark II has 11.9 stops, and the Nex-5N has 12.7 stops, so the Nex actually has the edge in DR. I took a peek at the DXO measurements, they do support the claim that the 5d mark 2 is slightly better in the range of ISO800 to ISO6400 (after which the NEX takes over again). In terms of DXOmark scores, a $235 Nex-5N gets you a score of 77, a $525 5d classic gets you a score of 71, and a $1500 5d2 gets you a score of 79. You pay a premium for full frame and there's diminishing returns. On top of being more expensive for a given level of quality, full frame gear is also larger and heavier. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
You would have to pry my luscious viewfinder on my DSLR from my cold dead hands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:In terms of DXOmark scores, a $235 Nex-5N gets you a score of 77, a $525 5d classic gets you a score of 71, and a $1500 5d2 gets you a score of 79. You're comparing apples and oranges. Full frame confers advantages beyond DxO scores. Even if all you look at is test scores, the FF from 2005 outperforms the Sony crop from 2010 (and even the Nikon d7100!) in noise handling, which was all I was saying to begin with. Getting into dynamic range, color depth and all that other stuff is a different discussion and probably better reflects advancing sensor tech. I'll say it again, though, I've shot a 5D classic along with a 7D crop and the 5D just plain looks better. I never put much stock in FF until I shot with one. The fact that there is a FF DSLR available for less than $600 is pretty cool and worth mentioning, if you ask me. I was offering Chroisman a cheaper, used alternative that would provide better image quality than the ~$1000 DSLR they were asking about, not making a declarative statement that it was the absolute best solution for them. I posted the 5D as an option not really considering multi-day hikes. I wouldn't recommend any DSLR at all for long hikes where photography wasn't the primary goal. Even a tiny little Rebel-sized DSLR gets pretty bulky with a lens attached.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Chroisman posted:Yeah I'm going to head in to a shop next week to check everything out. I was actually reconsidering what I was thinking a few hours ago, and do like other people said and just get a cheap body and invest in lenses instead. I was reading about some mirrorless ones as well and it turns out that a lot are APS-C now so that makes my decision really hard yet again. I hate this part of getting into a new hobby where everything is too hard to choose between I have a D7000 and the 10-24. I like them a lot. The 10-24 is a fairly beefy lens both in terms of weight and size, however, it has wonderful utility for landscapes and people shots. For me, 24mm on DX is the widest I want to go when shooting people. At wider than 24 there tends to be distortion that makes people look weird if they are too close to the edges of the frame. I would venture to say that as long as you don't want a telephoto, 10-24 on DX will be the only lens you need on a hike. D7100 vs D7000 to me is all about the improved AF system on the D7100. 51 AF points would certainly be nicer than 39. Whether or not that's worth the price difference is up to you, 39 is more than adequate. The extra megapixels on the 7100 don't impress me much. 16.1 is already a lot. The raw files clock in at 21 megs. I would be remiss to skip the opportunity to mention that I have a tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (the first version, not the newer II version) for sale in the buy/sell thread. It's a great sharp lens for landscape but I have found that I value the utility of the 10-24's focal range more than the sharpness and 2.8 of the tokina. Dunno if the price would make sense for you since shipping to australia is ridiculous but I figured I'd mention it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Dren posted:D7100 vs D7000 to me is all about the improved AF system on the D7100. 51 AF points would certainly be nicer than 39. Whether or not that's worth the price difference is up to you, 39 is more than adequate. Personally, I just focus and recompose using a single focus point right in the center. Leaving it up to the 39 points spread across the viewfinder means that it sometimes doesn't lock onto what I want in focus. If my depth of field is super shallow, I'll flip the lock switch and move the focus point directly onto my subject so I don't have to recompose (since the object technically isn't at the same distance anymore if you recompose by simply pivoting from your body), but 95% of the time I just center-focus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Personally, I just focus and recompose using a single focus point right in the center. Leaving it up to the 39 points spread across the viewfinder means that it sometimes doesn't lock onto what I want in focus. Try out the 3D AF tracking mode. 3D tracking mode uses a single point (positionable with the d-pad) to grab focus when the shutter is half depressed. As long as the original point of focus stays within the bounds of the AF points the focus point will move with it. This means it is possible to grab focus and recompose without worrying about the error introduced by moving after focusing. I have a feeling the 3D tracking mode would be extra awesome with more AF points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:You're comparing apples and oranges. Full frame confers advantages beyond DxO scores....I'll say it again, though, I've shot a 5D classic along with a 7D crop and the 5D just plain looks better. I never put much stock in FF until I shot with one. You know how people mocked that guy who said you really needed MF/LF to get that great IQ for landscapes? That's the same thing you're doing right here. Modern sensors are incredibly good. Any one of these beats my old 40D hands-down and that did just fine at landscapes. If the 5d2 is really as good as a 5N then it can pretty much shoot in pitch black and the noise levels remain impressively low all the way. Pretty much every camera on the market nowadays is "good" - all that's left is arguing about DxO scores and discussing the merits of buying a sensor that has 0.8 stops less noise at 6 times the cost. Of course there are certain things like shallower depth of field, but that's not an advantage for landscapes. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
all gear is good enough, hail satan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Jesus christ you spergs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
So I have a Panasonic Lumix SZ7 point-and-shoot which I originally bought as a "nice enough" vacation camera. It's served me well and I'm pretty happy. It even takes decent HD video which was a surprise. However, I've recently gotten into taking photos of small painted miniatures - basically macro photography. I've built a lightbox, lots of lamps, cheesecloth to cut hotspots, etc. The photos that I'm producing with the SZ7 are...ok. I don't have anything to compare against, but I'm wondering if the camera itself is hurting the image quality, since it is just a point-and-shoot. I'm curious if upgrading to an entry DSLR will help? I don't really want to buy a DSLR and a macro lens, so I'd be using the kit lens. I'm worried that a kit lens won't really be much better than my point-and-shoot, even though the camera itself will be much nicer. I don't really have intentions to get into general photography. Maybe take it out on hikes and snap shots of birds or frogs, but I have no desire to get into photography itself as a hobby (I have too many hobbies as it is!). So I'm a little hesitant to upgrade to a DSLR if the image quality isn't going to be vastly different from my SZ7. Thoughts? Edit: I've been doing some reading about "close up" lenses that clip to the front of your non-macro lens. They look like they may work for macro-on-a-budget? Do these work, or are they just a waste of money? polyfractal fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Nov 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:58 |
|
|
It would be helpful if you could post some of your shots and point out some things you would like to improve about them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 18:39
|
|