|
Anyone have any thoughts on the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 DC OS MACRO HSM lens? I was doing some research on upgrades to the kit lens for a D5100 and have seen some discussion where people are recommending that along with the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Sigma 17-50/2.8. It's closer in price to the non-VC Tamron lenses, but obviously it's not 2.8 throughout the range, although it sounds like people think it's pretty sharp and usable throughout the range. Any thoughts?
McCoy Pauley fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Dec 11, 2013 |
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:the VC isn't worth it at those focal lengths for the extra amount they charge. Only Michael J. Fox needs VC on an 18mm f/2.8. GunForumMeme posted:I don't mind laying out some coin (up to about $200) for a decent tripod. I don't mind something with weight to it. My biggest concern is durability. Mostly will be general use type stuff, but I do intend to do a fair amount of landscapes. McCoy Pauley posted:It's closer in price to the non-VC Tamron lenses, but obviously it's not 2.8 throughout the range, although it sounds like people think it's pretty sharp and usable throughout the range. Any thoughts? Personally, I'd go with one of the 17-50mm f/2.8s and the fastest (or barring that, most tank-like) affordable 70/80-200/300mm as my two lenses (primes and/or a lens covering every focal length are nice, but heavy and bulky. If you're carrying your kit around all day every day, as you should, more than two lenses will just make you an inch shorter with no real benefit. And if you want to look like a pro/be prepared for anything/bluff your way onto the sidelines, pick up a beater second body to keep the other lens on.) You really don't need the 50-70mm range (that's covered by walking forward/back three steps), and when you do, you want it on the long lens, not the short -- I've shot for a middlin' daily newspaper for years with only a 17-35 and 80-200, both f/2.8. The only time I've ever really wanted anything in-between was when the running back came up my sideline; I've a lot of closeups of helmets that would've been great photos if my long lens went down to 50mm. I warn you, though, once you have an f/2.8, every slower lens will disappoint you. I'm currently rocking the 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, and I really miss that half stop. I could shoot half stop under and push it in RAW, but it's just not the same, y'know? On that note, I've been using fully manual exposure for ten years at work, but I leave my personal camera in P mode unless I'm doing something super artsy or in really hosed-up lighting (e.g. Friday nights). Is that weird? In other news, I really like the D7000's custom slots on the mode dial. I don't have to reset everything for football and remember to put it back to normal Saturday morning, just turn the knob to U1 (manual exposure, AF-C, 1/500s, f/2.8, ISO 6400.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 10:50
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:In other news, I really like the D7000's custom slots on the mode dial. I don't have to reset everything for football and remember to put it back to normal Saturday morning, just turn the knob to U1 (manual exposure, AF-C, 1/500s, f/2.8, ISO 6400.) Yeah, it's nice. I have U1 set for full auto everything, so if I'm taking a group photo with people and need someone to take a picture for me, I flip it to U1, turn on live view, and show them how to zoom, if applicable. The auto setting on the dial doesn't disable my back button focus, which I don't trust random strangers with, so U1 re-enables half shutter focus. U2 is my "gotta get that shot" setting: shutter priority with auto-ISO, half shutter focus (more convenient than back button focus in a hurry), and AF-C with auto focus point select, so it'll grab a subject and follow it. If I see something happening and don't feel like I can set exposure/focus quickly enough, I snap to U2, point it in the general direction, mash that shutter button, and hope for the best. I suspect it might be good for shooting from the hip for discreet street photography, though I haven't tried that yet. Speaking of which, the focus options for Nikon are pretty drat confusing. Ken Rockwell actually breaks it down pretty well here, but the takeaways are:
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 11:27
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Yeah, it's nice. I have U1 set for full auto everything, so if I'm taking a group photo with people and need someone to take a picture for me, I flip it to U1, turn on live view, and show them how to zoom, if applicable. The auto setting on the dial doesn't disable my back button focus, which I don't trust random strangers with, so U1 re-enables half shutter focus. Wow, I'm still manually directing the AF points on my D50 because there's only 5 points so AF-C is pointless. Any modern DSLR must feel insane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:Anyone have any thoughts on the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 DC OS MACRO HSM lens? I was doing some research on upgrades to the kit lens for a D5100 and have seen some discussion where people are recommending that along with the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Sigma 17-50/2.8. It's closer in price to the non-VC Tamron lenses, but obviously it's not 2.8 throughout the range, although it sounds like people think it's pretty sharp and usable throughout the range. Any thoughts? THAT BEING SAID, it was a really fun lens. I got tired of not being able to stay at 2.8 all the time, so I sold it and got something else. The macro abilities are super fun at 17mm. You can get some really cool effects with the close focusing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Wow, I'm still manually directing the AF points on my D50 because there's only 5 points so AF-C is pointless. Any modern DSLR must feel insane. Shockingly not as bad as you think. I had a D50 for a long time as it was the last good Dxx body with an AF-Screw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Musket posted:Shockingly not as bad as you think. I had a D50 for a long time as it was the last good Dxx body with an AF-Screw. I mean, that's why I bought it, and for the $150 I paid, it's gotten me far. But something with modern features like 3D AF or live view...I can't imagine. Life with a 8 year old Dslr I guess. Although an X100 is coming my way soon...
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
Musket posted:Shockingly not as bad as you think. I had a D50 for a long time as it was the last good Dxx body with an AF-Screw. The D70s might beg to disagree, but the D50 is pretty solid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
D90 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 10:50
|
|
|
Wasnt good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
Musket posted:Wasnt good. It was ok if you pretended the video feature didn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:It was ok if you pretended the video feature didn't exist. The D80/90 imo were the worst cameras Nikon ever made followed by the F100.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Wow, D70s are cheap. Might be a good "fun" camera I wouldn't have to worry about and use the old screw-type AF lenses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
For ~$400, what would be the best 'bang for the buck' Canon setup? I got an XSi w/ kit lens for $300 several years ago and it's been fantastic, and one of my coworkers is looking to upgrade from her iPhone to something more serious. I'm thinking a T3i w/ kit lens would be the sweet spot, but I don't know if there's something I'm looking past. This'd probably have to be new rather than used, since I don't want to open the possibility for used equipment to fail on my recommendation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:For ~$400, what would be the best 'bang for the buck' Canon setup? I got an XSi w/ kit lens for $300 several years ago and it's been fantastic, and one of my coworkers is looking to upgrade from her iPhone to something more serious. I'm thinking a T3i w/ kit lens would be the sweet spot, but I don't know if there's something I'm looking past. This'd probably have to be new rather than used, since I don't want to open the possibility for used equipment to fail on my recommendation. SL1 with the kit lens is only a hundred more
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
FYI, the SL1 is pretty small, so if the plan is to order online, make her go in a shop and hold it in hand first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:FYI, the SL1 is pretty small, so if the plan is to order online, make her go in a shop and hold it in hand first. True - it is pretty well sized for most female hands (at least my wife seems to think so), but it is best to try it out as it's very different from most DSLRs
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Turns out I can't use airmiles to fly anytime I have days off. But I have enough to get a camera... I'm just planning on playing around with a kit camera as the OP suggests, nothing excessive unless I end up really liking photography. My options are pretty limited, I can get cheaper ones for free, or pay a bit more to upgrade a little. I think these are all the standard issue kits you see everywhere. T5i Kit $245 Pentax K-50 Kit $245 t3i Kit Free D3200 Kit Free k-500 Kit Free Knowing nothing about cameras and venturing into this forum yesterday... Does this sound sane? I am generally unfriendly to electronics, and I will likely haul this hiking into the mountains. I should get the K-50 because unlike the K-500 is weather resistant. Being in a backpack full of crumbs from granola bars and leaking water bottles, it will extend its useful life in my case. Or is $245 extra too much when you could get the t3i for free, because apparently the t5i is lies and deceit. I would be better off using the $200 on an extra lens later.. I will be taking pictures of landscapes, which apparently is better to have one of those full frame cameras, but to hell with how much those cost for my noob hands. Wise photo-goons, what would you recommend?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
T5i is far and away the best option for video, but it's a relatively below average stills camera by 2014 standards. The Pentax k-50 would be my choice as a good all rounder, in addition to being weather sealed. Some would argue that going Pentax might limit you in the future, but the way I see it is most people who go from entry level to whatever else end up selling most or all of their gear anyways. The Nikons are in the middle. They share sensors and image quality with the Pentaxes but lack weather sealing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
Complete photography novice here, fair warning. I've been fascinated with airplanes since I was tiny and after years of mooning over spotting photos I'd like to take the plunge and start taking some of my own. I've got a work bonus coming up plus I plan on dumping some stuff related to some old hobbies that I no longer want, so I should have a good chunk of money to spend. My budget's going to be in the $500-$700 range to start with, though I can go upwards of $1000 if I find the right stuff. I've been looking primarily at the Nikon D3200, though the D5200 is intriguing as well. From what I gather, the main advantage (at least for me) that the D5200 would give me is 60fps video, vs. 30fps max for the D3200. I do anticipate wanting to record some arrivals/takeoffs vs. just shooting them, so I'd like a camera that isn't a total slouch in the video department, and for me I don't think 30fps is going to cut it, though maybe I am overestimating the need for higher framerate. Right now, I am looking to be able to both take shots somewhat like this and this, as well as video quality somewhat comparable to this kind of stuff. I know the video probably involves a tripod for the stationary shots and a lot of his steady hand is just practice and experience, but that's stuff I'll obtain/learn over time; I don't want to be hampered off the bat by dogshit video recording quality. Note that the video is just from a guy whose stuff I enjoy, but the photos are at two airports that are actually close to me and represent realistic angles/lighting conditions/etc that I could encounter. Stuff I've read has indicated that I'll want an 18-55mm lens which seems to be standard, as well as a much longer focal length lens (one site suggested a 70-300mm) for longer distance stuff. Does this sound right? I've been looking at some of the kits available on Amazon and other sites as well as stuff on B&H but reading both here and elsewhere has suggested that a lot of the stuff that comes with kits like that is trash that will fall apart fast, so maybe I am better off buying just the camera body and picking and choosing my lens/accessories/etc? Of course it without saying that even with some choice equipment I am a long way from turning out nice photos and videos like the ones I linked; I'll be picking up some books and possibly even enrolling in a photography course as well, just to better understand all the particulars, but I wanted to at least get an idea of what kind of equipment I should be focusing (HA HA) on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
The biggest advantage for you would probably be the fact that the d5200 has a more advanced AF system. 39 focus points versus 11, and 9 cross type versus 1. So it should do a better job focusing and tracking airplanes or whatever else. It also has a slightly faster framerate for stills. The d7000 would be another option to look at, it's a bit older body but it's got a faster max shutter speed, weather sealing, support for more lenses, bigger viewfinder, and a bigger battery. Can probably be found for about the price of a d5200 nowadays. I don't know if 30fps is really that important though. The nikon kit lens for those cameras (the 18-55 vr) is pretty good for a kit lens. It's super cheap, lightweight, and plenty sharp at f/8 or so (and if you're shooting airplanes you aren't going to be shooting wide open most likely). No reason not to start with it and figure out if there's something specific you want from your lens that might be better served by something else. For the longer ranges the Tamron 70-300 VC is your best bang for your buck, good build quality, nice range, the stabilization is excellent. These are shots with a d5000 and the Tamron 70-300VC, it's a pretty solid combo if you don't gently caress up and leave your camera in aperture priority instead of shutter priority.  DSC_0799.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_0073.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr If you don't want something heavy a m43 camera might be a good idea, you can get a lot more reach in a smaller package, but a good tripod can make sitting by a runway for a while a lot easier even with a heavy camera. Either way read Understanding Exposure before spending money on a photography class, and give the free lightroom trial a try once you have a camera to mess with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:T5i is far and away the best option for video, but it's a relatively below average stills camera by 2014 standards. Cool beans, thanks! I'm going to a camera store tomorrow in a nearby city in order to get my hands on one, see how it feels. Poor salesman will be disappointed in the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Corkscrew posted:Complete photography novice here, fair warning. I just bought an "EX+" rated d7000 from KEH for about $550. It had less than 4000 clicks on it and was in perfect condition. Only thing missing was the box it came in and the instruction manual (free download). I also got a BARGAIN rated 35mm 1.8 for $140, making my total for that just under $700. As a corollary - KEH also has a D5200 with the kit lens for $579, listed in LN- condition. Buy used, be happy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
On the note of KEH, wife got me a Tamron 17-50 2.8 on there for Christmas. It was about $290 and other than a slight smudge on the focus ring (pretty sure I could clean it off even), looks and operates completely brand new. That lens and a starter body from there would be hard to go wrong for a very small amount of money. After browsing KEH a while seeing the starting kits in stores is pretty humorous. Bob Mundon fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
KEH is pretty great. I bought an old BGN-rated Nikon film lens from them. It was in much better than BGN condition, and it was also cheap. Shipping to Canada, though, wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 07:19
|
|
|
Awesome tip for KEH, thanks. I'm totally fine with getting a used camera if it means paying less, especially since I'm not intending this sucker for heavy duty use, just for recreational shooting as well as all the normal things one buys a camera for. The D7000 is tempting but I think the 24fps vs. 30fps difference is too big to ignore. Not to mention I can get a LN- D5200 with an 18-55mm lens for the same price as an EX+ D7000 body only. It's close but the D5200 has too many things that appeal to me to go the other way. Tamron 70-300 is probably going to be part of the same purchase, the distances I'm looking at shooting from make the extra focal length seemingly a necessity. I will definitely check out Understanding Exposure. I realize this is probably a silly question but I couldn't help but notice that there exists a "Nikon D5200 For Dummies" book; is that worth checking out as well, or should I be able to get what I need from the manual, UE, and simple experimentation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Just so I'm not going insane... Amazon seems to think than a Tamron 70-300 (model A17NII) is incompatible with the D5200, but the Tamron site itself seems to disagree. Which is right? I'm planning on buying from KEH anyway but just so's I don't end up buying the wrong poo poo, I figured I'd check.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Corkscrew posted:Just so I'm not going insane... Amazon seems to think than a Tamron 70-300 (model A17NII) is incompatible with the D5200, but the Tamron site itself seems to disagree. Which is right? If the Amazon page has a picture of the back of the lens you can find out pretty easily (by seeing if there's a screw drive). Or just call up KEH and ask them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Corkscrew posted:Just so I'm not going insane... Amazon seems to think than a Tamron 70-300 (model A17NII) is incompatible with the D5200, but the Tamron site itself seems to disagree. Which is right? Its compatible. Amazon makes mistakes at times. 90% of all F mount glass will mount and at the very least give you meterless, manual mode. I hate Krock but he did one thing decent: http://bit.ly/KhuhY0
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
A couple questions, I am brand new to DSLR's and just read the whole OP. One thing that kept being brought up is "full frame" dslr's. What is a "full frame"? What would a non-full frame be? Secondly, I think I would like something that can handle lowlight better, perhaps long exposure night sky or something along those lines. I know the OP recommended nikon over cannon for that but all my canon toting DSLR friends swear by their canon's low light capabilities. Is the situation that both are really quite good and the nikon is only ever so slightly better?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Modern dslrs have awesome low light capabilities, and especially if you're able to do a long exposure, you'll be happy with either. Buy into the same system as your friends so you can borrow their lenses. Full frame and crop sensors are effectively two different incompatible lens mount options. Full frame uses more of the image-capturing sensor (and often has larger sensors I think) so images are a little larger and better quality. It also changes the focal length, that's why you'll see people multiplying FF lengths by 1.6 to get the equivalent crop sensor length.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
ante posted:(and often has larger sensors I think) The crop factor, as in these 1.5 and 1.6 numbers, are how much smaller the APS-C sensors are in diagonal. The Canon APS-C sensor's diagonal is 1/1.6th of that of a 35mm full frame sensor, and other manufacturer's APS-C is usually 1/1.5th. Other formats from APS-C, with even smaller sensors, have different crop factors. The same crop factor is also used to calculate the 35mm focal length equivalent. 30mm on Canon APS-C is close to 50mm on full frame (30*1.6) for the same field of view. The other way around, to get the same field of view of a 85mm on a fullframe on an APS-C Nikon, you divide 85mm by 1.5, which gets you around 55mm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
A full-frame digital camera is one that has a sensor with the same dimensions as one frame of 35mm film (24mm x 36mm). Less expensive models will have a smaller sensor, or "crop sensor." A larger sensor gives you a couple advantages that roughly translate overall into better image quality. If you're just getting into photography, however, it probably doesn't make much sense to jump right to full-frame, as everything tends to be way more expensive. There's nothing particularly special about being exactly the same size as a 35mm frame, but it's just sort of become the standard, and makes it easy to translate focal lengths from film (more on that below). Full-frame and crop aren't necessarily incompatible. I think Canon's EF-S lenses (their designed-for-crop lineup) won't work on their full-frame cameras, but Nikon's DX lenses (their equivalent term) will still work, albeit with some vignetting since the lenses are designed for a smaller sensor. In fact, Nikon full-frame cameras have a "crop mode" where it'll only use part of the sensor to avoid the vignetting. One thing to note about crop sensors is that there will be a "crop factor," where a particular focal length on crop will give you an equivalent field of view (not equivalent focal length, as you might read in some places) as a longer focal length on FF. This factor is 1.5 for Nikon DSLRs and 1.6 for Canon because they have slightly different crop sensor sizes. For example, if you take a 50mm lens and put it on a Nikon D5200 (with a crop sensor), you will be able to see approximately as much as if you had a 75mm lens on the D600 (a full-frame sensor). The composition won't be identical (50mm is 50mm and 75mm is 75mm regardless of the sensor size; read up on how focal lengths change the look of a picture), but it will give you an idea of what focal length you'd want for achieving a particular look when you're comparing between FF/film and crop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:The crop factor, as in these 1.5 and 1.6 numbers, are how much smaller the APS-C sensors are in diagonal. Just as a side note in case dude was going to look stuff up, the fact that they're called APS-C actually bears almost no relation to the ill-fated APS film format, other than the fact that APS was still sort of a thing in the early days of decent-sensor-size digital, and a 1.5-1.6x crop just sorta happens to be about the same sensor size as the APS-C frame size. Other than that the two things have nothing to do with each other, it was just a convenient sensor size.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
I started off with a Canon and love it, but the equivalent sensors and lens options for crop sensors are a little better on the Nikon side. That being said, as much as I'd love the first party lens options, my hands just do not like Nikon cameras at all, so I'm really glad I went with Canon. They are all good, so that should probably be your determining factor. And even if the first party crop lenses don't have quite the selection, you can find some really good 3rd party ones that go with any brand (once I replace my cheap zoom, all my lenses will either be Sigma or Tamron, who needs brand names). Another thing to keep in mind is if all your friends have Canon, I might do that just so you could And it can't be said enough, buy used, and KEH is awesome for that. On all the gear I've gotten used, I could probably sell it for as much or more than I paid for it. At least when it comes to lenses, they take the one time hit when you buy new, but then stay pretty flat in value over time. Bob Mundon fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Jan 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:And even if the first party crop lenses don't have quite the selection, you can find some really good 3rd party ones that go with any brand (once I replace my cheap zoom, all my lenses will either be Sigma or Tamron, who needs brand names). This is true but also sometimes the first-party option is the legit best option regardless of brand name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:This is true but also sometimes the first-party option is the legit best option regardless of brand name. Yeah, not to say they aren't at all, just that you don't necessarily have to go that route. Between my Tamron 17-50, Sigma 30 1.4, and future purchase of a Tamron 70-300 VC, not sure I'd rather go Canon even if they offered a comparable lens for the same price. On the other hand, will never get rid of my Canon 50 1.8, and it's impossibly cheap for how good of a lens it is. Also get envious of the cheap primes Nikon offers, but it's not worth my hands cramping up trying to use the controls either (that's me, everyone is going to be different there).
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
I currently have a Sigma 30/1.4, Nikon 50/1.8, Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Nikon 70-300/4-5.6. I also have a Fuji X100. I'm thinking of relegating my standard prime duties to the Fuji. Would it be unheard of if I sold my 30mm and 50mm and instead picked up an 85/1.8? I've barely used the 30mm since I bought the X100 and the 50mm since I bought the 17-50. Body is a D50 by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Could someone please recommend a camera for me? I tried to read the OP, and while it is really informative, everything just goes over my head. I think I'd do better if I settled on a camera, and then learned what its features mean, rather than having no reference point to apply it to. I've used point and shoots up until now, but got my old camera wet when I was salamandering, and while it still works, the flash is broken and I think it's time to move on to something nicer. The main thing I use my camera is for closeup macro shots, like of reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates, but I also take habitat shots and photos of enclosures. Something that might also take good pictures of animals in water (in the wild, aquariums, or plastic containers with clear water) would be great, and it would be a huge plus if it was waterproof (I don't know if this is a thing or not). I also breed and sell amphibians, and I'd like to be able to take photos for my website or classified ads that would actually help me sell animals or enclosures, rather than just showing what they look like. I don't have a lot of money, but I should be able to manage the $400-600 range. There are quite a few cameras on Amazon for $350-$450, but I have no idea what any of that means or if they're decent cameras, whether or not I'll need to buy other accessories, or if spending an extra hundred dollars would be worth the investment or not. If anyone could help me out, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:Could someone please recommend a camera for me? I tried to read the OP, and while it is really informative, everything just goes over my head. I think I'd do better if I settled on a camera, and then learned what its features mean, rather than having no reference point to apply it to. You probably won't find a waterproof SLR. Since the lenses are interchangeable, there are too many risks for potentially frying the components to support that kind of feature. You'd have to look for waterproof housings, which from what little research I've done, can be expensive. You'd probably be better off finding a waterproof point and shoot. Almost all the manufacturers make one at this point. If your looking for a weatherproof camera (can handle things like rain, not being fully submerged) look for Pentax cameras. They'll provide the best cameras with weathersealing at your price point. I would either look for a K-30 kit that has the 18-55 WR or a similar kit with the K-5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 18:34
|
|
