|
Nameless Dread posted:Luckily, I go to a photography school so i can check out the Mamiya 7 for free whenever, but that's all they really have i'm interested in. I was just wondering if it's worth the extra cost, and it seems like it might be. Though i will look into the Koni Omega. I admit i'm spoiled to with my DSLR so i'm not sure i could handle a Rolleiflex. I just want something idiot-proof. If you like rangefinders and you like medium format then the Mamiya 7 is the top of the line, no question. It's got modern lenses with computer-aided design and it's very measurably better than any other major medium format system on the market. That said I'm a huge fan of the P67 system. It's not lightweight at all, but it's very handholdable, and the glass selection is fantastic. You've got a super-great 45mm, 55mm, 75mm (including a late aspheric lens), a shift lens, a good ultra-fast 105mm, modern EDIF long lenses, and modern zooms, and all of them are extremely affordable. You will pay about half of what a comparable Hasselbad lens would cost, and it's just as good if not better. The Mamiya 7 system is even sharper but it's much more expensive, and the selection is more limited (no zooms or long lenses).
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:That said I'm a huge fan of the P67 system. It's not lightweight at all, but it's very handholdable, and the glass selection is fantastic. You've got a super-great 45mm, 55mm, 75mm (including a late aspheric lens), a shift lens, a good ultra-fast 105mm, modern EDIF long lenses, and modern zooms, and all of them are extremely affordable. You will pay about half of what a comparable Hasselbad lens would cost, and it's just as good if not better. Since we're on the subject of P67s, what are the 'must have' lenses? I've been shooting a lot with mine lately and only have the 75mm f/4.5 which is supposedly one of the best lenses for it, but have been thinking about rounding out the kit a bit more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Shellman posted:Since we're on the subject of P67s, what are the 'must have' lenses? I've been shooting a lot with mine lately and only have the 75mm f/4.5 which is supposedly one of the best lenses for it, but have been thinking about rounding out the kit a bit more. The latest model 200mm f/4 is real good and was the only other P67 lens I owned aside from the 75mm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Good info, now i'm torn. I can afford the Mamiya 7 but saving money would be nice, and that wood grip looks badass. I think i will play with the Mamiya 7 for a couple weeks, and if it doesn't seem worth the money i'll get the Pentax. The repair thing concerns me, i guess if something happens i'll just sell it for parts and buy a Pentax.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Jesus, seriously. Get a Rolleiflex. It's light, relatively compact, takes insane photos, no electronics to goof up and it looks cool as gently caress. Plus it has a leaf shutter so it can flash sync at whatever speed it goddamn well feels like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
HPL posted:Jesus, seriously. Get a Rolleiflex. It's light, relatively compact, takes insane photos, no electronics to goof up and it looks cool as gently caress. Plus it has a leaf shutter so it can flash sync at whatever speed it goddamn well feels like. Doesn't sound like he wants a WLF TLR
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:A K-50 + the pair of kit zooms would be a good option. Certainly that will get you up and running and do for 99% of what you're likely to try to shoot. One (very) nice feature of Pentax is the gigantic back-catalogue of long-obsolete lenses that will fit on any modern Pentax DSLR without needing modification or an adaptor. Great landscapes will be possible for you right out of the box, but wildlife is going to send you down the path of bigger, longer, and wider (aperture) very quickly. The good news there is that on a Pentax you can get 500mm f/4.5 for less than $500 (sometimes as low as $200, but don't hold your breath for that) by finding a 40-year-old (or older) Pentax / Asahi / Takumar monster. There are similarly cheap-ish ways to get more modest reach, everybody and their dog sold a 400mm f/crappy back in the 80's in every possible mount. Awesome. Thanks for the advice. Reading the posts about the RX100 made it tempting, but it felt so awkward looking through that viewfinder when I visited my local shop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Doesn't sound like he wants a WLF TLR And wants something that is 6x7
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:I always recomened anyone looking at the Mamiya 7 to look into a Koni Omega Rapid M. They are cheap but have the same issue all med format RFs have in that glass is slow and limited in choice. It's nearly P67 sized tho so don't think you are getting any weight benefits on the cheap. I wish I could find one locally because the Koni Omega is one of the hottest cameras ever  I mean, look at it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
If you want something similar, look up a Mamiya press camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:GA645? Didn't even know that this existed honestly, seems cool. Looks inexpensive too. And yeah, i'm mainly interested in square or 6x7, 645 is cool but i kinda want to try something new.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Nameless Dread posted:Didn't even know that this existed honestly, seems cool. Looks inexpensive too. Fair enough. When your main requirements were small and idiot proof, the first thing I thought of was the fujis
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Vinestalk posted:Awesome. Thanks for the advice. Reading the posts about the RX100 made it tempting, but it felt so awkward looking through that viewfinder when I visited my local shop. Make sure you fondle a Pentax before you buy one, I really like mine but YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
I still want to retrofit the giant gently caress off wooden handle to my k3-ii. I think it would class it up considerably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Vinestalk posted:Awesome. Thanks for the advice. Reading the posts about the RX100 made it tempting, but it felt so awkward looking through that viewfinder when I visited my local shop. Yeah the viewfinder is really too small but it is helpful in direct glaring sunlight!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Thanks to a reasonable tax return this year and an upcoming honeymoon to Hawaii I've decided I want to go ahead with getting something of a long term camera. Something considerably more flexible and higher quality that what I presently have available with my iPhone. I was looking for something light, portable, and capable of mounting both a relatively fast and zoom lens. Oh and ~$600-1000 w/ lens. That seems to point me right at the entry level micro 4/3 cameras. Besides for the general "happy couple in exotic locale" shots I'd like something that will work for general (cat)dad photography, outdoors stuff while hiking, and even maybe with a T-Ring adapter to my telescope. I have a ton of technical knowledge about the workings of the various parts of cameras and lenses (btw the trick Pocketwizard uses for their hypersync feature is pretty drat inspired) but am relatively inexperienced with picking things on the fly but want to learn. But at times I'll want to just capture a thing so I need to be able to put it in auto and have a decent chance at OK focus/metering. I was looking at the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mk II at Precision Camera here in Austin. I can't say I'm a huge fan of touch to focus but it seems touchscreens are unavoidable now and the camera certainly seemed to fit my (smaller) hands pretty well. It looks like it check all the boxes I want without being stuffed with completely useless features. The IS was particularly impressive. Is there anything that would disqualify this body? Should I go pester the mirrorless thread instead? The kit is $750 with a 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 but I was considering instead going with the body only for $600 and springing for a Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 prime lens for $250 because I'm really tired of missing things in low light or quick movement situations. I would think a 50mm equivalent would be a pretty versatile lens, but which would be the better way to go? Also how does buying generally go in a camera shop? is there much negotiation on price or getting them to throw in accessories or are the margins so thin that that is a fool's errand?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
You could always get the em5 mk1 for about $450 including the 14-42, over at b&h. Do note that olympus' menus are like a complete mess, and are deep and try to dumb it down by adding more menus with even more opaque wording. Camera buying in a camera shop is mostly a set process; the margins are already razor thin, so you have no room there. Expect to be pressured into buying filters, which you shouldn't buy. Do buy a good strap and a good bag. it will make carrying the camera around that much better. I really like the blackrapid straps, and I would recommend them to every single person in the world. There are other choices in your pricerange: - Fujifilm XT-10, but you'd have to stretch a bit to get the glorious 18-55. - Sony A6000, but there aren't that many lenses and there are even more "features" - Panasonic makes some micro 4/3 cameras as well. The interface is better. - There are also some really, really small dslrs now. They're not as small as mirrorless. The canon rebel SL-1 and the Nikon D3300 in particular. An added bonus with these is that there are a lot more lenses, including cheap fast lenses. The D3300 in particular has the glorious 24mp sensor, and nikon makes the wonderful 35mm f1.8. Pair the two together and you'll have an extremely competent camera for $600. - Used gear is cheap. It loses value fast. - Someone will probably say something about the pentax Q, canon eos-m1/2/3, and the nikon one jwhatever. - Sony makes the wonderful RX100mk4. On the high end of your budget, and smaller sensor, but it is good and also it is tiny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:- Someone will probably say something about the pentax Q, canon eos-m1/2/3, and the nikon one jwhatever. I've never met the eos-m1/2/3 cameras, but the Pentax Q is widely regarded as overpriced and underperforming, and the Nikon One system is apparently very, very good for one key customer demographic: bored Japanese housewives. By reputation, I honestly haven't spent enough time around any of those to have a solid opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Thanks to a reasonable tax return this year and an upcoming honeymoon to Hawaii I've decided I want to go ahead with getting something of a long term camera. Something considerably more flexible and higher quality that what I presently have available with my iPhone. I was looking for something light, portable, and capable of mounting both a relatively fast and zoom lens. Oh and ~$600-1000 w/ lens. That seems to point me right at the entry level micro 4/3 cameras. I've had an E-M10 (first gen) as my first camera for about 6 months now and I'm extremely happy with it. If you're using it for "exotic locale"/travel, I'd lean towards a wide angle lens for your needs. I left my lenses at home (long story) during a recent 3-month trip to Europe, so I picked up the Panasonic 14mm lens, which is the smallest M43 lens, and it was a perfect compact setup. An E-M10 with the kit lens and a cheap prime (Panasonic 14, Panasonic 20, Olympus or Panasonic 25, Olympus 45) is a great setup for under $1000. You can even get the Olympus 45-150 f4-5.6 for $99 as a very solid and cheap telephoto zoom. Edit: If you're going for one of the cheap primes, you can some great used deals on eBay, especially on the Panasonic 14 and 20 lenses. Those two were frequently bundled with kits, and you can get them for about $150-200 in excellent shape.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
Well since we're already generously on 4/3 Olympus chat I'll crosspost my questions from the mirrorless thread: I have about $4k of use or lose money in an education fund that I can put towards new gear (it's complicated). I'm overseas and want to shoot mostly around town and some some longer shots when we go out in the bush. Currently thinking an E-M5 mk2 with the Zuiko 25mm f/1.8 and the 40-150mm f/2.8 pro. Would love any thoughts/considerations to look out for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I was looking at the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mk II at Precision Camera here in Austin. I can't say I'm a huge fan of touch to focus but it seems touchscreens are unavoidable now and the camera certainly seemed to fit my (smaller) hands pretty well. It looks like it check all the boxes I want without being stuffed with completely useless features. The IS was particularly impressive. Is there anything that would disqualify this body? Should I go pester the mirrorless thread instead? The Mantis posted:Well since we're already generously on 4/3 Olympus chat I'll crosspost my questions from the mirrorless thread:
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:You can get a 25 100usd on sale; the 12-40 pro is also absolutely amazing and you could probably get that + 40-150. woah people seem to love the 12-40 pro. will have to give that a look
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:You could always get the em5 mk1 for about $450 including the 14-42, over at b&h. Awesome thanks for the ideas. Yes the menus were everything I would expect. They are clearly trying to shove every possible customization and settings in there yet still want it to seem simple at first glance, so they just bury everything under a bunch of layers. That's a really tempting price and would let me pick up a decent used lens or two as well. The wifi in the em10 ii would be a nice convenience feature but for that price savings I can grab a case, a few extra cards, batteries, and the apple lightning to SD adapter. Weather resistance is a real bonus too. I'm ruling out a full size dslr and even the larger Panasonic M43 cameras because I just wouldn't carry it around as much. On the other side of things I'm a bit concerned that the Sony RX100 wouldn't be as flexible or have as good low light performance. Does the cutting-edge sensor make up for having half the area of something like the em5?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
What about a used E-M 10 1? They are really cheap too and it has Wifi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
FYI Shifty Pony: The EM10 doesn't have weather sealing. That's just the EM5 (the old and new model) and EM1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
DJExile posted:FYI Shifty Pony: The EM10 doesn't have weather sealing. That's just the EM5 (the old and new model) and EM1. Right right, I was talking myself through whether to go with the older EM5 or an EM10 ii. I really am leaning toward the EM5 kit from B&H because that gives me the budget breathing room to pick up accessories and an extra lens. Edit: went ahead and ordered it. If I don't like it I suppose I can take advantage of their good return policy Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Right right, I was talking myself through whether to go with the older EM5 or an EM10 ii. Right on, you'll love it  Also yo people, Lexar SD cards are today's amazon gold box  E: Crucial SSDs and RAM as well
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
When I was kid, I used to take a ton of photos. Most of them were pretty bad on cheap point and shoots using cheap film stock (many times even dispable cameras), but I enjoyed it and it was a fun hobby some things didn't turn out half bad (in a limited way.) I really started to get away from it about 6 years ago for whatever reason. The pinnacle of camera equipment I owned at that point was Canon PowerShot SD790IS which I still have. Before that, it was a Powershot S410. No real manual control, the best you could do is set the ISO and then use spot metering to try to get the exposure you wanted, but it was interesting working in that limitation. Fast forward to this year and I got taken in by a 'gimmick' camera, the Nikon P900. I am fully aware of it's limitations (smartphone sized sensor, no RAW) but drat if it hasn't been a fun toy. Taking shots of the moon at 83x zoom never gets old and neither does plane spotting. More importantly, this camera gave me something I haven't had before, full manual control. So, I've been playing with that, experimenting, and now I want "something" in a more portable form factor but higher quality that gives me full manual control. I'm at the point in my life that I could afford to toss a bit of money in the direction of a hobby. One obvious next step seems to be the Sony RX100. Full manual control, RAW, sensor that's twice as large as the Nikon, and a much more portable package. But I don't know if a 1" sensor point and shoot is really something I want to buy right now for that price rather than swing a bit bigger. Another choice is an APS-C camera with fixed prime lens. Rioch GR, the new Fuji X70, or (in the high end) X100T. This gives me a large sensor and amazing optics as well as full manual control in more compact package. Having a fixed prime lens might be a good place to start since it removes one variable when trying to learn and would force me to concentrate on other aspects of photography. Moving beyond that would be a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera and picking up a prime lens to make the package a bit more portable. Some things that have caught my eye in this range has been the X-T10 or the Sony A6000. I'm sure I'm missing a few good options in there (especially in that last group), but these are the choices that have bubbled to the top in my cursory searches. For now, I'm not really interested in a DSLR since I'm trying to balance some portability into this equation to encourage more shooting. That's also why I'm probably going to concentrate on prime lenses for now. If I need reach in the near term, I always have my P900 even if it's tiny sensor isn't really any better than a smartphone camera. Now for the important questions, what am I shooting and how much do I want to spend. To the first, I've been thinking about that and I'm not quite sure what (if any one thing) I want to pick as a primary interest. There's a very large park close by and I'm not really far from the city. I also like to go biking on rail trails quite a bit and I could see taking this camera with me on some of those outings (again, some portability.) So, I would say a little bit of urban photography, a chunk of nature photography (but not necessarily of animals), and some candid photos of friends and family. I've also always liked shooting the sky whether it be sunsets or stormclouds. For price, I'm centering around the $1k range with upper limits around $1500 (especially if I want a specific lens) but wouldn't mind keeping it under $1k if I'm not leaving a good chunk of functionality on the floor. The next phase of this would be getting into post processing which will be exceptionally challenging for me as I have moderate to strong protanomaly (which means I'm red-green colorblind of the red deficient variety.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
My friend is lending me his Canon EOS 550D to get me started on photography. The issue is, he doesn't have any functional lens for it, as he's moved on to a Sony a6000 and the Canon-compatible lenses got all moldy or broken. So I need to get my own lens for it. There's a sale in one of our local online stores and I'm choosing between the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM ($230, converted from local currency), and the Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di ($260). The Sigma one has a bigger discount (it's $500 if full price), but the Tamron has a bigger focal range and my friend used to have one and swears by it. Which should I get? I don't have a preference yet whether it's landscape, street, portrait, sports photography, but I'm probably going to take lots of photos of my girlfriend and her cats so... there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
The Tamron's range might be bigger, but the focal range on the Sigma is a lot more useful. e: nevermind me I'm just an idiot Xabi fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Jan 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
The Sigmas focal range is the crop sensor equivalent of the Tamron, which is designed for the more expensive full frame cameras. I'm a big fan of buying equivalent ranges personally, all my good lenses are offsets of full frame ones (ie instead of a 70-200, I have a 50-150). You'll kick yourself for losing the wide angle end on your normal lens, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Words
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
The Tamron doesn't have a bigger range anyway. A 17-50 is a 2.94x zoom, and a 28-75 is a 2.67x zoom. The Tamron has more telephoto range, but not a larger overall range.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:Sigma or Tamron The 17-50 is going to be much more useful and a better ergonomic match for a relatively small camera like a 550D. Stabilizer is a huge plus too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:Sounds like you want mirrorless. IMO find a shop and see what you like in your hand. I was going to get an a6000 due to the specs on paper but ended up with going with Olympus after handling the cameras. The lens catalog for Sony isn't the best but will probably improve if they don't abandon the crop mount. Yeah, mirrorless is the direction I'm leaning. I wish I could get my hands on more cameras. There's only one camera store locally that I know about and it's pretty small. Best Buy is pathetic (and water is wet.) The only mirrorless camera they have on display there is an A5100. They have tons of empty spots for cameras, but don't actually have any. Trying to evaluate all the choices in the mirrorless space. Nikon - Nikon 1 seems to be their line and it's a small 1" sensor and very limited lens range, cheap and compact though (at least when looking at the J5.) Canon - EOS M series. APS-C sensor, price seems ok, literally next to no one is talking about it and those that are say it's a half effort with recycled parts Olympus - a bunch of great options if I want to down in size to micro 4/3rds rather than APS-C. Tons of lens choices because of that though. I could get a weatherproof OM-D E-M5 with the retractable 14-42 lens as a very portable starting point for under $1200. Not a bad combo (though I have seen some people mention some iffy build quality.) Fuji - A few options here, but the X-T10 seems to be the one in my price range, everyone seems really positive about the camera, somewhat limited lens selection Sony- A6000, as mentioned, seems to be the right Sony choice for me I have a few options here for lens kits or body one and buy some lenses. I think I would absolutely pick up the 20mm prime pancake for portability. Besides that, I would either get the kit with the 16-50mm lens or go body only and buy the 50mm prime. 20mm and 50mm prime seem like a neat combo to start with. Costco also has a kit with the 18-55 + 55-210 (along with a few accessories) for $900 which isn't bad. Panasonic - Lumix G7 would be the camera here. Micro 4/3rds. Decently priced, but I don't see anything that makes it standout from competitors. So, it seems like if I want to go with APS-C, my choices are Canon, Sony, and Fuji. Is it irrational for me to highly prefer to that over micro 4/3rds? 40% difference in sensor size seems pretty significant. Though, I do understand with the micro 4/3rds, there will be a much greater (and cheaper) lens selection and they are all more compact. If I were to go micro 4/3rds, I think the Olympus brings a lot to the table. I feel as though I'm centering on the A6000 as the best choice for me, but I could be missing something obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
I had an a6000 and liked it. Buuuut, I think that the Fuji or olympus experience may be nicer overall. After experimenting with various mirrorless systems I wound up sticking with Nikon slrs and a Ricoh GR. The a6000 is an extraordinarily capable camera going by the spec sheet, but I didn't enjoy using it so much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:
All of the cameras you are looking at are good cameras. I wouldn't worry about any technical distinctions between them. I suggest you try to get your hands on a couple and see what feels right to you. A camera you enjoy holding and using is more useful than a camera you leave home. You can rent these cameras from lensrental.com or borrowlenses.com for about 5% of the purchase price if you want to do a trial run. They all feel very different (I have a RX100, X100T and 5DIII). They are all good cameras though. Personally I agree with you that APS-C is more compelling that m4/3 because you get a bit more DOF control, but there are still great m4/3 cameras. Just get a camera that feels good in your hands, and has a good shooting experience for the way you like to shoot. I think Fuji has the most compelling APS-C lineup since that's where they put the full focus of the company. Sony and Canon split their efforts with full frame (where they have good lenses). Unless you are doing really specialized shooting all three have great primes, and great standard zooms, and there's no meaningful difference in your lens options. No offense, but you seem like you're overthinking it. The important differences between the cameras you're considering are a intangibles around how you like the design choices that each manufacturer makes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
You'll make waaay more friends over in the mirrorless thread if you get a Fuji.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:
Oh, I guarantee it. That's just my decision making process. I get a bug up in my rear end to get something which leads to exhaustively researching all my options. Then eventually I make a snap decision. Splinter posted:You'll make waaay more friends over in the mirrorless thread if you get a Fuji. Yeah, I've already noticed that. I actually did manage to get my hands on the Sony today. The Best Buy near my house had a more complete inventory than the one near my work. It seemed pretty intuitive more the most part. I like the compact size. Even with the 16-50mm included lens it's almost pocket-able. Looks like Sony is pushing the $899 two lens bundle (16-50, 55-210, with case) to all retailers. The 55-210 doesn't seem like a mind blowing lens, but it may be worth the $200 over the 16-50 only bundle. I may stop by the local camera store this weekend and see if they have any Fujis I can handle. Outside of renting one, that's probably the only chance i have of trying out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
Thanks for all helpful answers, everyone! I'll aim for that Sigma.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 05:34
|
|