|
ante posted: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. Worth mentioning that full frame lenses will mount just fine to crop sensor cameras, you'll just have a narrower field of view. You don't want to put a crop lens on a full frame sensor, though, there's a chance that the mirror will strike the back of the lens. At best, you'd have a ridiculously vignetted image. I think somebody in the Nikon thread posted about a mother in law who thinks you're always supposed to see a small circular image in a black viewfinder. 
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
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 can get waterproof/weather proof cameras. For point and shoots there are things like the Pentax wg-1 and Olympus TG-1 (I think those are model numbers) and their associated versions in their model lines. Last years models can be found for under 200, and are waterproof/shockproof. These are point and shoots, but they are pretty solid and do basically everything you might want. http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-WG-3-G...rds=pentax+wg-3 has shake reduction, gps, waterproof to 45 feet, and even has a built in ring light for better macro shots. The non gps version is under 200. For things with interchangable lenses there aren't as many options for full on waterproof , but nikon has the Nikon 1 AW1 http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Nikon1/27669/Nikon-1-AW1.html which also meats your criterea, but it very new and the price is on the higher side still. If you're ok with things just being weather proof you have a lot more options for camera bodies, a lot of them are probably going to be more than 4-600. I use an Olympus OM-D and it works great in the rain, but even used the body + lens is probably going to be above 800. Old higher end dslr's with canon or nikon that have weather sealing can probably be found in your price range, but you might have to take care about what lenses you use as they might not be weather sealed. Pentax has some good weather sealed bodies and lenses for relatively cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Just wanted to say thanks for the recommendations and information. I ended up ordering an LN- D5200 w/ 18-55mm and an EX+ Tamron 70-300mm from KEH. Much better price than I would have paid even on eBay and by all accounts I'm much more likely to get exactly what I paid for in terms of condition. Looking forward to my next day off so I can go out to the airport and take some horrible shots and hopefully learn a few things. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Thank you for the recommendations. Being water-proof isn't very important, since I don't SCUBA or snorkel, but it would be useful for an accident - I'd just keep it away from the water, then. Water resistant would be nice, though; with weather proofing, I'd still be fine in rain? I do go out in the rain sometimes. The Pentax K-30 is in my price range if I buy it used. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009W7WW26/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller= That's a really major price drop, though; is that something I should be concerned about?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:Thank you for the recommendations. Being water-proof isn't very important, since I don't SCUBA or snorkel, but it would be useful for an accident - I'd just keep it away from the water, then. Water resistant would be nice, though; with weather proofing, I'd still be fine in rain? I do go out in the rain sometimes. Yeah, nothing digital other than a few purpose-built point & shoots are going to be like reliably waterproof to the point you can immerse them entirely in water (unless you get an enclosure for infinity dollars), but Pentax's weathersealed bodies/lenses are more than good enough to go shooting in the rain or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:Thank you for the recommendations. Being water-proof isn't very important, since I don't SCUBA or snorkel, but it would be useful for an accident - I'd just keep it away from the water, then. Water resistant would be nice, though; with weather proofing, I'd still be fine in rain? I do go out in the rain sometimes. There is an updated version of the camera in the K-50. Pentax cameras tend to drop in price pretty dramatically once they stop getting manufactured.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:Thank you for the recommendations. Being water-proof isn't very important, since I don't SCUBA or snorkel, but it would be useful for an accident - I'd just keep it away from the water, then. Water resistant would be nice, though; with weather proofing, I'd still be fine in rain? I do go out in the rain sometimes. Yup, you'd be just fine in the rain. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for the help, I really appreciate it. I ended up going with the Pentax K-30, and now I'm very much looking forward to when it arrives!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
So I was hoping to get your guys opinion between a t5i: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-Digital-Camera-18-55mm/dp/B00BW6LWO4/ref=sr_1_3?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1388728629&sr=1-3&keywords=canon and a 60D: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital...&keywords=canon I likely won't be actually ordering from amazon, this is just for reference. I will likely be keeping an eye on craigslist. But purchase quality/location aside, is the 60 D really worth the extra bit of cash when compared to the t5i? In fact the t5i wasn't even in the OP where only the t3i was recommended. Can anyone speak to the t5i versus 60 D comaprison. I got to hold some canon's today and they definitely felt better in my hand than the nikon's did. Secondly, if I do purchase either of these, can anyone recommend a good versatile lens for them? Sorry for all the questions, I wanna get started proper is all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Unless you need the flippy screen, I'd say go for the 60D for the better ergonomics and pentaprism, unless you have really tiny hands. What Canon's did you hold? The 70D and 6D have pretty much the same size as the 60D.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Unless you need the flippy screen, I'd say go for the 60D for the better ergonomics and pentaprism, unless you have really tiny hands. What Canon's did you hold? The 70D and 6D have pretty much the same size as the 60D. I did hold a 6D and really liked it. I was doing some reading and some places say the t5i is better at low light, is it really all that different? Also is the 70D really that much better than the 60D? ScienceAndMusic fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Depending on how long you want to wait to make a purchase, I'm going to be cleaning up and selling my 60D gear in the near future. I love my 60D. The only real thing hampering it compared to the 70D is the autofocus. the 70D's is ridiculous compared to the 60D. Other than that, my 60D has been rock solid for the 2 years I've had it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Would it be better to get a 18-55 and then a 55-250 or just get a 18-135? Would this lens fit on a 70D: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250mm-4-0-5-6-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B0011NVMO8/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Yes, anything EF or EF-S will fit on a 60D. I really liked my 55-250 when I owned one. 60D is a really good value used right now. I would honestly skip the rebels, unless you desperately wanted the touchscreen and silent video autofocus of the T5i. Basically the image quality of the entry level Canon's has stayed the same since 2010, so it's all about the features of the body.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Yes, anything EF or EF-S will fit on a 60D. I really liked my 55-250 when I owned one. I'm also eyeing the 70D for its better low-light (I love low light), I am assuming all the lens will also fit just hte same as a 60D?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
ScienceAndMusic posted:I'm also eyeing the 70D for its better low-light (I love low light), I am assuming all the lens will also fit just hte same as a 60D? Yep, the 70D is also a crop body so you can use any EF or EF-S lens. The same holds true for any Canon body that is not the 5D, 6D, or 1D.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
ScienceAndMusic posted:I was doing some reading and some places say the t5i is better at low light, is it really all that different?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
70D isn't better in low light. Again, it has the same Canon crop sensor from 2009 but now with the added video and live view AF assist pixels. 7D, 60D, 70D, 550D, 600D, 650D, 700D, 100D, EOS-M all have very similar sensor performance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Nothing is better in lowlight than sculpting what you saw. Scrubs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:70D isn't better in low light. Again, it has the same Canon crop sensor from 2009 but now with the added video and live view AF assist pixels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
So what is the consensus of RAW versus Jpeg?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
ScienceAndMusic posted:So what is the consensus of RAW versus Jpeg?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Don't use JPEG. Unless you want to. Then go for it. Especially if you have one of the Fuji m4/3 cameras.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
ScienceAndMusic posted:So what is the consensus of RAW versus Jpeg? The biggest difference between RAW and jpg is that the camera itself converts the raw file into a jpg using the selected camera settings, if you notice in your camera there's a few settings for saturation, sharpening, etc. The raw files come out of camera unprocessed where you have to post-process the images typically. If you try shooting raw + jpg and compare the two files, you'll probably notice that the jpg file looks a bit more punchy and sharper then the raw, depending on what was set in camera of course. That being said, if you like the results that you're getting from your jpg, then go on and keep shooting jpg; some people on this forum like the results that they get from the raw image processor in the Fuji X series cameras better than how they can post-process their files for example. Raw gives you more information to work with and ultimately more control on the final image granted that you're willing to spend sometime post-processing the file.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
RAW requires some effort, because you have to process and convert them, altho the processing will speed up once you've a decent set of presets to start from. The ultimate advantage of RAW is that you can fix a variety of mistakes with next to no loss. Things like fixing white balance and colors, as well as exposure, all made possible by the high dynamic range of a RAW file. And you're in control of the noise filtering. A JPEG has no special dynamic range, so you can't fix exposure, colors or white balance without introducing color banding and eventually highlighting blocking artifacts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:Unless you want to. Then go for it. Especially if you have one of the Fuji m4/3 cameras. Sorry to be "that guy", but Fuji isn't m4/3. They have APS-C sized sensors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Sorry to be "that guy", but Fuji isn't m4/3. They have APS-C sized sensors.  That's what I get for posting right when I get out of bed in the morning. I knew that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Don't use JPEG. HAHAHAHAAH. Never ever use jpg, ever. All you end up with is poo poo results like:  (Fuji XE1, Leica 35mm R, JPG) Now shut up. Jpg is acceptable with certain cameras, and meh on others. Its a matter of preference and how your camera processes the jpg. There are some cameras that do JPG better than others and there are those that give bad results. Its up to you to decide which you want to use. RAW will give you a few extra instances where you can recover mistakes but the gap is closing and if you own a Fuji camera, you probably never need to ever look at a raw file ever again. The right answer is shut up and take pictures and edit however the gently caress you want. Musket fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jan 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Musket posted:The right answer is shut up and take pictures and edit however the gently caress you want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Until you start to edit more than just cropping a picture... Musket, are you seriously trying to imply that that photo wouldn't have been possible with RAW? Yes, you can take great photos with JPEG. But why limit yourself with it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
I spent the first year with my DSLR shooting JPG because 1) I wasn't doing much at all in terms of post-processing and 2) the file size is so much smaller, so it took up less card and harddrive space when I'd go out and "spray and pray" at birds and whatnot. Then I forgot to take the white balance out of some indoor/tungsten setting from the night before, and shot a ton of birds at a wetland in full, bright, mid-day sunlight. Blue blue blue blue blue. *sigh* Now I shoot RAW and pretend it matters on the 99% of my shots that are edited in 3 seconds (auto-WB, auto-tone, rotate, crop).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Yeah, this. I am in no way limited by JPG with my files. I used to shoot nothing but NEF files cuz lets face it, Nikon knows dick about JPG files. I shot RAF for a few weeks with my Fuji, Found that I dont need to shoot RAW, the JPG nails it. As for more detailed heavyhanded editing, I have had not one problem using jpg. If i really needed to have a raw file these days, I use slidefilm  JPG is very dependent on your camera maker. Most do not produce a very good one. You dont see people raving about Nikon or Canons jpgs. Shut up and take pictures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Musket posted:I am in no way limited by JPG with my files. I used to shoot nothing but NEF files cuz lets face it, Nikon knows dick about JPG files. I shot RAF for a few weeks with my Fuji, Found that I dont need to shoot RAW, the JPG nails it. As for more detailed heavyhanded editing, I have had not one problem using jpg. If i really needed to have a raw file these days, I use slidefilm Yes, your camera does well at jpegs, so what? The point isn't that the basic jpeg in camera is good enough, but it is inherently limiting. If you take snapshots or journalistic type shots, that's fine, but your camera can't, not ever, make selections, sharpen some, blur others, bring up the shadows and dial back the highlights. And, you can't edit jpegs well to do those things, either. Raw is simply more flexible, it has all the data, not all the data your camera's small processor thinks is important, which is less than half the data.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Yes, your camera does well at jpegs, so what? The point isn't that the basic jpeg in camera is good enough, but it is inherently limiting. If you take snapshots or journalistic type shots, that's fine, but your camera can't, not ever, make selections, sharpen some, blur others, bring up the shadows and dial back the highlights. And, you can't edit jpegs well to do those things, either. Raw is simply more flexible, it has all the data, not all the data your camera's small processor thinks is important, which is less than half the data. I shoot JPEG almost 100% of the time, including paid shoots. I might switch up to RAW if I know something's going to be a huge pain in the rear end later, but most of the time it ain't worth it (for me). I can push/pull JPEGs nearly a stop before it looks like poo poo, and if I have to do more than that, it means I'm an idiot who should have switched to RAW for those shots / should have checked his WB / should have looked at the image on the LCD / etc. So basically shoot whatever works best for what you're doing. Indeed, Fuji does JPEG really well, but I also never recall saying, at any point in my life, "Nikon's JPEG engine ruined this picture."
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I shoot JPEG almost 100% of the time, including paid shoots. I might switch up to RAW if I know something's going to be a huge pain in the rear end later, but most of the time it ain't worth it (for me). I can push/pull JPEGs nearly a stop before it looks like poo poo, and if I have to do more than that, it means I'm an idiot who should have switched to RAW for those shots / should have checked his WB / should have looked at the image on the LCD / etc. Sure, there are reasons to shoot jpeg, and they're not unworkable. But to say, "I'm in no way limited by jpeg," as he did, is simply a factually incorrect thing to say. Jpeg is much more limited, in every way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Sure, there are reasons to shoot jpeg, and they're not unworkable. But to say, "I'm in no way limited by jpeg," as he did, is simply a factually incorrect thing to say. Jpeg is much more limited, in every way. I should qualify that statement I guess. I am in no way limited by JPEG when shooting the type of photos I usually shoot. Primarily it's a convenience thing (card/disk space, etc), but even if I shot raw all the time my cold storage bill would only be a couple bucks more a month. RAW vs. JPEG chat is probably the most tedious thing ever other than brand warrior-ing, but to the person who originally asked the question, go shoot in some challenging conditions and see what benefit there is for you, then decide how many cares you have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I should qualify that statement I guess. I am in no way limited by JPEG when shooting the type of photos I usually shoot. Primarily it's a convenience thing (card/disk space, etc), but even if I shot raw all the time my cold storage bill would only be a couple bucks more a month. Yes. JPEG is great, and getting better. Musket is completely right to be happy with them, and I don't actually advise raw versus jpeg as an absolute position. Most of my shots involve little adjusting that make raw better. This forum is good about not being too crazy about that fight, which is why musket's absolutist position rubbed me wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Yeah I think it's really about whether you like to edit your photos or not. I only shoot in RAW because I want to have finer control over the range of editing I can do to a photo and still maintain the tonal quality of it, as compared to JPG. I do have a friend who uses the Fuji X cameras and was so happy with his JPGs SOOC that he never bothered to shoot raw, until recently he experimented with RAW and found that he can control highlight recovery/shadow boost etc etc all to his liking. But for convenience he still mostly shoots only JPG.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
It honestly depends on what you want to get out of it. I have shot RAW a lot in recent years but I also find I take the shots, process the SOOC RAW files to basic JPEGs with almost no touch-up (especially using Instant JPEG From RAW) and put the RAWs into cold storage on my external. Friends do a lot more work editing their photos than I do, and that's cool, but I'll probably only shoot RAW from now on if it's either a challenging thing to shoot (especially low light) or something really important. But much of what I shoot, I make sure I get the settings close to right, or it's well-lit enough to not worry too much about post-processing. Hell, my RAW post-processing is almost all in Photoshop anyways. What I'm saying to beginners is to try it a bit but worry more about learning and nailing good technique in the first place. Weigh up the advantages and disadvantages and make the choice. The only wrong answer is to not take pictures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
I'm totally new to this, but while I haven't noticed a huge difference in image quality (improving the quality of a bad photo is still bad), I've enjoyed shooting raw to learn about all of the different factors that go into a picture and what turning the knobs does in post processing .
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 15:14
|
|
