|
Pentax: Weatersealing/crop only(no digital FF) Nikon: Do you own an android? Like to janitor/research everything for compatibility or the cheapest gear? Canon: Video/photojournalis Mirrorless: Fuji: Are you a vain hipster? If speed doesn't matter fuji is cool Micro 4/3: Are you a nerd who shoots action or birds or esoteric glass something no one cares about? I have the system for you. Also it's light for you hikers/travelers who only shoot in daylight. Videographers can hang. Canon M: no Nikon V: no Pentax Q: no
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
I've read hundreds of reviews, done all the comparisons. I went and looked at the Canon and Nikon line tonight and felt a little underwhelmed with the T5i and D5300. I was tethered to the display case so that didn't help. Maybe I just have too high of expectations for the price point I am shopping in. Of course this is how I felt about the build quality/general feel, without being able to take something home and play with it I can't comment too much on anything else. I would love to check out a Pentax K-50 but there's none in my area that I know of. I am currently looking online and the price point and weather proofing is a big plus for me. I am trying to decide if I should just take the plunge on the Pentax but am hesitant because of not handling one, no audio in, mono microphone. Those are things I could overcome though. If I do decide to go that route I guess my next question is should I just buy the body and a couple lenses separate? Or get one of the kit lenses? I'm looking at kits with the 18-55mm/55-200mm or the more expensive kit with the 18-135mm. Costco of all places has a Pentax K-50 2 lens kit with some other stuff for $649. But by the time you add in shipping, tax and not being a member, I'm looking at around $750. The 18-135mm kits are $850-900. Which is still cheaper than the T5i or D5300 with similar setups. I like the way the K-50 looks/setup and what I've read about the K-50. It takes some beautiful pictures. I'm just not sure if it'll meet my video desires. I know much of what I'm asking comes down to personal preferences but I differ to you guys to steer me in the right direction. I apologize to keep dragging this out like this and I truly appreciate all the input I've received.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Rent a camera and a kit lens for a couple days and see how you like it, what bugs you about it, etc. None of us can answer your questions since you don't know what you want or what you're doing. Also be prepared to be disappointed because cheap cameras generally have build/interface issues that get in the way of usability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
If you're serious about this then I'd look more closely at your budget and see if you can't afford something like a used 60D. The build quality between entry level stuff and "pro-sumer" models is pretty steep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Yeah, bumping up a notch from the lowest cameras could get you a bit more of a good feel. I suspect that Pentax will feel a little better since it has front and rear dials. For audio you could use an external recorder if you get that into it. It's a bit of a pain, but less so than it once was thanks to automated syncing tools.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
powderific posted:Yeah, bumping up a notch from the lowest cameras could get you a bit more of a good feel. I suspect that Pentax will feel a little better since it has front and rear dials. For audio you could use an external recorder if you get that into it. It's a bit of a pain, but less so than it once was thanks to automated syncing tools. This is basically what I do with video on my NEX 5N. If you're thinking about the Pentax, it doesn't have manual audio level adjustment so I'd say even if it had a mic input it'd be useless. Even a cheapo voice recorder will have external mic input these days. What I do is stick the recorder in my pocket, put my mic on the camera with a coldshoe adapter, and shoot. Later I'll sync the audio with final cut or premiere. It works pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
feigning interest posted:Pentax: Weatersealing/crop only(no digital FF) holy poo poo you're an idiot just thought i'd save everyone else the trouble of saying it
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:holy poo poo you're an idiot How dare you reserve them their right fascist
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
but im right so w/e
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
feigning interest posted:but im right so w/e Only about the last three systems, which are idiot piss garbage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
I work as a clown at the circus so I should know
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Only about the last three systems, which are idiot piss garbage. Hey man, Canon M mount is up to THREE lenses now. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
grack posted:Hey man, Canon M mount is up to THREE lenses now. Three more than it needs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
It's odd that Canon focused on the wide end for mirrorless and Nikon focused on the tight end. Both are rear end ends. Or bell ends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
If you are looking at T5i and D5300 new (about $750-800 for the body), consider an older used camera. You can buy a D7000 or a Canon 60D (one generations behind the latest) for about $600 in like-new condition. Then pick up the appropriate lens to suit (Nikon 18-140 F3.5-5.6G ED DX AF-S VR BBQ for $364 or the Canon 18-135 F3.5-5.6 EF-S (I'm actually not sure about this one, I'm not a Canon owner) for $265) and you're set for $865-964. Try a bunch of things out, check out photo stores, etc. Both the D7000 and 60D are in the prosumer category, and both should be better than the T5i and D5300. I'm not really a fan of superzooms, so I'd say pick up something else, for example something in the 17-55 range, a 50-200, and a 35mm prime
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
404notfound posted:But yeah, there's more to cameras than the pure numbers, plus sensor performance can be difficult to quantify as a single number.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
That goon doesn't want to bother with post processing, so the higher dynamic range isn't going to mean that much. At this point the feel in hand and user experience is much more important for a beginner, I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Three more than it needs. I really like my Eos-M. Obviously not as a primary camera, but for bike rides and vacations where you wouldn't want to bring a full size DSLR and several lenses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Eos-M could actually become a thing too, unlike Nikon 1 where the sensor size pretty much means you'll always be better off with M43.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
1st AD posted:That goon doesn't want to bother with post processing, so the higher dynamic range isn't going to mean that much. yeah, if you don't want to mess with processing I'd vote for shooting a fuji in jpg mode all the time. For video well I don't get why he wouldn't want to mess with post-processing but is looking for the ability to manually control things like audio inputs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
grack posted:Hey man, Canon M mount is up to THREE lenses now. Given canon's history of releasing new lenses, I think this counts as a full-on, full-power, full-speed launch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
You could always buy an adaptor and use their +20 yr old line of EF lenses 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:You could always buy an adaptor and use their +20 yr old line of EF lenses Hey, it works for Sony, though generally you're using an adapter to use someone else's 30 year old lenses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
bisticles posted:I really like my Eos-M. Obviously not as a primary camera, but for bike rides and vacations where you wouldn't want to bring a full size DSLR and several lenses. I just took mine to Disneyworld with us. Pancake for most stuff, 55-250 stm for animal kingdom, 90EX for fill. It got the job done and did not take up much space or make me hate lugging it around in the hot sun. Super happy birthday girl alert 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Eos-M could actually become a thing too, unlike Nikon 1 where the sensor size pretty much means you'll always be better off with M43. If Nikon or Canon want either of their mirrorless systems to succeed they have to start treating the cameras like actual cameras and not rich toys for people who shoot in Auto all the time. Also, Nikon needs to drastically reduce the MSRP because $1200 for a body with a lovely kit lens is laughable
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
grack posted:If Nikon or Canon want either of their mirrorless systems to succeed they have to start treating the cameras like actual cameras and not rich toys for people who shoot in Auto all the time. You'd be surprised - I saw a LOT of moms with J1's @ Disney. I think the salesmen hook them with the "AF that can actually keep up with your toddler, without gigantic lenses your husband wants to show off his penis" line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:You'd be surprised - I saw a LOT of moms with J1's @ Disney. I think the salesmen hook them with the "AF that can actually keep up with your toddler, without gigantic lenses your husband wants to show off his penis" line. I honestly believe it's as simple as interchangeable lens so it seems like an SLR and not like a p&s + known brand from SLRs + easily fits in purse. Also, the J1's got dirt cheap to the point where they weren't a bad deal. (are they still even for sale?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:You'd be surprised - I saw a LOT of moms with J1's @ Disney. I think the salesmen hook them with the "AF that can actually keep up with your toddler, without gigantic lenses your husband wants to show off his penis" line. Were they actually sold at a price that would generate Nikon any money? I see S1's old all over for $200 and given normal retail markups I have to believe that Nikon is taking a pretty big loss on each body sold. If it's being sold to Moms to take pictures of their kids they're probably not selling a heck of a lot of lenses or branded accessories, either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
I think Nikon's wondering that too.quote:Nikon has lowered its estimates for sales volume, sales amount, and operating income downward for the entire fiscal year, which ends on March 31st, 2014. Reasons for this include slow economic recovery worldwide, even worse compact camera sales than predicted, and slowed growth in mirrorless cameras.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
grack posted:Were they actually sold at a price that would generate Nikon any money? I see S1's old all over for $200 and given normal retail markups I have to believe that Nikon is taking a pretty big loss on each body sold. If it's being sold to Moms to take pictures of their kids they're probably not selling a heck of a lot of lenses or branded accessories, either. Yeah, I would imagine they probably bought them at cut rate prices - but, I guess in some ways if you get the bodies in peoples hands, there's a better chance of continuing the system than if not. Was just surprised to see so many of them
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Dren posted:I honestly believe it's as simple as interchangeable lens so it seems like an SLR and not like a p&s + known brand from SLRs + easily fits in purse. Also, the J1's got dirt cheap to the point where they weren't a bad deal. (are they still even for sale?) I think you can still get one with the 10-30 for 300-350 or so. I think the idea of a camera that small , that has AF that can actually keep up with a little kid is a very attractive package for a mom with little ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:I think you can still get one with the 10-30 for 300-350 or so. I think the idea of a camera that small , that has AF that can actually keep up with a little kid is a very attractive package for a mom with little ones. You're right about the AF being good but I've not met a non-camera geek who really understood AF and what it meant for the pictures they took. I don't think that's why moms are buying the cameras but heck I could be wrong. For 300-350 their better than a p&s in most every way and not much more expensive so I think that's the real reason. Besides, the J1 has (or had) lovely auto settings that set the shutter to 1/60 and would leave action shots blurry when the camera was totally capable of pushing the ISO and getting a good shot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Dren posted:You're right about the AF being good but I've not met a non-camera geek who really understood AF and what it meant for the pictures they took. I don't think that's why moms are buying the cameras but heck I could be wrong. For 300-350 their better than a p&s in most every way and not much more expensive so I think that's the real reason. Besides, the J1 has (or had) lovely auto settings that set the shutter to 1/60 and would leave action shots blurry when the camera was totally capable of pushing the ISO and getting a good shot. Maybe - I was just putting together a scenario of a best buy sales guy dumping them on moms who came in complaining they couldn't take pics of their 2 year old running around like a miniature drunkard with their iphone anymore because he knows nobody else is buying them. I saw a lot of dads humping around giant bags of lenses too, which made me glad I brought my M. My precious family memories will have to live without covering every possible focal length.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:I think you can still get one with the 10-30 for 300-350 or so. I think the idea of a camera that small , that has AF that can actually keep up with a little kid is a very attractive package for a mom with little ones. Just noting for people who might be interested in one, they're about $250 on Amazon right now, actually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
You should still get a m43 of similar vintage instead. Also I tried an x100s yesterday and realized how badly my DSLR spoiled my tolerance for lazy AF. There's no way I could use one as a daily camera 8(. How much better is the XT1?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Just to reply to a couple of the posts. When I first started looking I didn't fully understand what I was getting into. I still don't fully but I understand that in order to do the things I want I'm looking at more than a camera. It's not that I don't want to do post processing but more I want to take good pictures. As for video, its obviously an exception and post processing would be a requirement. If I end up taking this seriously I will be investing in the proper equipment/software. I'm pretty excited to go down this road. After lots of research and indecision I picked up the Olympus OM-D E10. I think it's a good starting point for someone like me. I really like the ergonomics and seems to be pretty feature rich. It doesn't have everything I was looking for but it comes close. I highly doubt this will end up being my only camera and am still eyeballing the K-50 or possibly 70D sooner rather than later. Right now, this camera is beautiful, feels great although the grip is a little shallow. Not to mention it takes great pictures. I'm really liking the EVF. Couple of questions tho, I got it home late last night and noticed in the EVF there seems to be a single pixel that looks green somewhat. Its mostly apparent when I half press the shutter during autofocus. I don't know yet if this is a bad pixel in the EVF itself or on the sensor. I'm already wondering if I should exchange it or be concerned? Its not a huge deal but enough I noticed it right away without looking for it. Is there anything else that could cause this? Second question, suggestions on some lenses? It came with the 14-42 R ii as a kit. What else should I be looking at that's affordable and a must have? I'd like to have a little more range, macro, maybe something for some decent bokeh shots. I read that effect is hard to get on a M43? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks again. Also, feel free to tell me if I made a bad decision and why. Moonbloodsflow fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Apr 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Moonbloodsflow posted:After lots of research and indecision I picked up the Olympus OM-D E10.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
The green pixel thing sounds like you have a stuck pixel in the EVF, if it really bothers you either Olympus or the store can replace the camera to fix it. edit: This is the 20mm 1.7 he's talking about. I think most people consider it the best lens on the system. Remember that you can buy any Micro 4/3 lens, you're not restricted to just Olympus's. Karasu Tengu fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Apr 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Could do a whole lot worse. Next step is 20/1.7 and shoot shoot shoot. Got a particular lense suggestion? I'm still sorting out what will work on this camera and what won't. I see a 17mm 1.8.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
20/1.7 is the panasonic 20mm f/1.7
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 19:06
|
|