|
President Beep posted:Yeah, but all of those “cameras” you mention lack character. Yeah you can’t really match the look of an image made with a pentaprism and the feedback of that mirror slap vibrating through your hands.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
rio posted:Yeah you can’t really match the look of an image made with a pentaprism and the feedback of that mirror slap vibrating through your hands. Camera kickstarter: 5D Mark IV mod kit to make the mirror clunkier ($1200)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 11:49
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
rio posted:Yeah you can’t really match the look of an image made with a pentaprism and the feedback of that mirror slap vibrating through your hands. man if u like mirror slap may I recommend film slr medium format?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
akadajet posted:man if u like mirror slap may I recommend film slr medium format? The metal shutter on my Arax 88 sounds like a train crash when it closes and you can feel the mirror bouncing off the stopper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I'm not saying don't buy a DSLR. Maybe your use cases are mostly static and the size is in no way an issue for you. Maybe you like having 2kg of plastic and glass hanging off your neck. I'm saying that you should understand what the options are and that it's not simply about the technical specs, but the usability differences between different form factors are at least as important. There's no point in getting a screaming deal on a camera that will sit in a cupboard for ever. Based on my shopping research so far, I can appreciate the benefits for mirrorless compared to DSLRs for non-professional photography when looking at the $1000 plus market. I'm not as convinced on the middle ground in the $500-$650 range though. Thanks to some Nikon insider discounts I should be able to get the D5600 w/18-55mm and 70-300mm Lenses for $640 plus tax. I admit I'm biased against mirrorless having purchased a Sony NEX-3 7 years ago. I hated the poor battery life, which still seems to be a thing. And lenses options seem more limited and more expensive. And I have to wonder how easy it is to end up with the "too heavy, left my camera and gear at home, I'll just take photos with my iPhone" excuse with a mirrorless as it is a DSLR once you start adding in the weight of the bag, lenses and other gear. But I'd be happy to hear about any specific models in the $650 range that anyone has experience with. Must have an viewfinder and must be able to do timelapse / interval shots so I can play around with star trail photos. Yes, this is a dumb thing I will only do a few times, but I still want to be able to do it. Because.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
SimplyCosmic posted:Based on my shopping research so far, I can appreciate the benefits for mirrorless compared to DSLRs for non-professional photography when looking at the $1000 plus market. I'm not as convinced on the middle ground in the $500-$650 range though. Thanks to some Nikon insider discounts I should be able to get the D5600 w/18-55mm and 70-300mm Lenses for $640 plus tax. Mirrorless has come a long way - IQ was good at the time on NEX cameras but usability was a bit of a dumpster fire. My daughter uses my old 5n and I have a couple friends who got NEX cameras after seeing me use them, the size and the results I got but they all use them with the kit lens on full auto. You can get an X-t1 for around that price and that is a hell of an improvement over an NEX 3. That Nikon has a good sensor though and you will go over that price getting lenses for the Fuji. You could also sell the long lens and get a prime for the Nikon so it does sound like in terms of price it would be hard to beat that deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
SimplyCosmic posted:Based on my shopping research so far, I can appreciate the benefits for mirrorless compared to DSLRs for non-professional photography when looking at the $1000 plus market. I'm not as convinced on the middle ground in the $500-$650 range though. Thanks to some Nikon insider discounts I should be able to get the D5600 w/18-55mm and 70-300mm Lenses for $640 plus tax. For the budget you've got that's a great set to start with. The extra zoom lens will make it a very versatile set to use, so I'd say just go for it. Sure, you might get better image quality with a Fuji but you will be more limited in other ways, especially if you end up wanting more zoom. Budgetary constraints mean you'll have to make concessions, and I think you'll probably be happy with the Nikon set you picked. Lots of people love mirrorless, for the size, weight and IQ, but it also has some downsides. Personally I love an optical viewfinder and the battery life DSLRs have. You won't know what's the right fit for you unless you buy something and take a ton of pictures, that way you'll figure out what you like best.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Is there any reason not to consider a new D750 these days? My girlfriend is looking for a full-frame with excellent low-light performance, and it seems to fit the bill for the price.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
If you can stomach the weight and size it's excellent
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
Bought my daughter a Nikon 3100 second hand. I thought we could swap lenses with my D3400 but the AF-P 18-55mm d3100 is not compatible with the D3100 Now she has to use my other ones that do work. I thought all Nikon camera's would be able to use all nikor lenses apparently not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Orions Lord posted:Bought my daughter a Nikon 3100 second hand. It's because it's the latest generation of autofocus lenses from Nikon. That particular lens has a very limited list of fully compatible bodies (i.e. 6) and an only slightly less limited list of bodies that are partially compatible. Stick to AF-S lenses, which are far more plentiful, and they'll be fully interchangeable. Don't feel bad, my D7200 is on the list of 'maybe compatible, who knows?' and I don't feel like I'm missing out. You can get an AF-S 18-55mm on eBay if you really want and they're normally piss cheap because they get bundled with bodies. As useful as mine was for learning how to take pictures on my D3200, as soon as I got a 35mm prime it's been sat in the box, never to be disturbed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Yeah get her the 2nd version of that lens. Cheap as chips, slightly better than the 1st edition, has a good zoom range, has VR, is surprisingly sharp and is all in all a pretty great lens. I still have mine too despite owning better glass as it’s no worth selling - but plenty of people do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
SimplyCosmic posted:
The newer a7r3 and a9 has great battery life with a newer battery that’s on similar level as the higher end slr. And that should trickle down in the next mainstream refresh of a series. Most of the older mirrorless lenses are just “regular full frame lens with an weird extended part at the back” where they added an empty back focusing distance to the regular lens to make it work on mirrorless. Therefore you’re right that you won’t be saving much weight especially if you go full frame. However newer lens design that sets the elements right against the mirrorless mount is much better with smaller size and better IQ. Check out the sony 12-24 f4 and samyang 35 f2 to see what those kind of designs can do!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Encrypted posted:The newer a7r3 and a9 Man. Sony churns out new bodies so quickly. At least with Canon I know I won't have buyers remorse for like 4 or 5 years before the next camera comes out. With only marginal improvements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
akadajet posted:Man. Sony churns out new bodies so quickly. At least with Canon I know I won't have buyers remorse for like 4 or 5 years before the next camera comes out. With only marginal improvements. I’ve said it a lot in the mirrorless thread but that’s why I left Sony, ultimately ending up with Fuji who actually supports their bodies rather than just churning out new ones. I guess that is a plus for some people who like the feeling of having the newest thing since they can then buy the newest thing every 6 mo this to a year when the next So y body comes out but that is a big turnoff for me. Meanwhile Fuji puts out killer updates regularly for their bodies, fixing problems, improving and adding features.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Must be nice. Whenever Canon adds a useful feature via firmware you have to send it in and pay like $100 for them to "enable it".
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
What crazy universe do you live in where Canon updates their software?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
xzzy posted:What crazy universe do you live in where Canon updates their software? https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/about/newsroom/press-releases/press-release-details/2017/20170420-C-Log/20170420-C-Log
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
akadajet posted:https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/about/newsroom/press-releases/press-release-details/2017/20170420-C-Log/20170420-C-Log So newly bought cameras come with it and they are charging 99 bucks for people who already got the camera to upgrade it? That is bullshit unless I am missing something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
rio posted:So newly bought cameras come with it and they are charging 99 bucks for people who already got the camera to upgrade it? That is bullshit unless I am missing something. the new version with c-log already on it costs 99$ more than the original versions MSRP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Yeah, $100 plus shipping to have a goddamn flat video profile added.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Edit:
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
89 posted:That is this lens, correct? Panasonic G8 + that lense still the way to go? I almost bought all of this back earlier this year. But something came up. Nearly have the funds now. Trying to shoot 4K video for a YouTube channel and also still have the functionality to take portraits This probably sounds crazy... But would an iPhone X work comparably? I didn't picture myself buying that expensive phone. But, I saw it's trying to tackle DSLR cameras. 89 fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
A regular smartphone is probably all you need for YouTube. You’d probably get more bang for your buck investing in good lighting and audio than a $1000 cellphone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Getting a mirror less like the g85 or gh4 will do you a million times better than a smartphone and get you better video if you’re trying anything “cinematic”.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Adorama has Nikon D3100 bodies for $199 right now - what's a decent general purpose lens I can add to that for like under a hundred bucks for a budget starter kit? I can't really throw much more at this project. Just to spitball on specs - I got to play with my brother's Rebel last week and I think he had an 18-55mm on it which was pretty great for all-around use. Alternately, there's a "used - very good" D5000 with an 18-55 on Amazon for $279. Or I'm open to suggestions for other options I'm not aware of to get into this relatively inexpensively. Javid fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Dec 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Javid posted:Adorama has Nikon D3100 bodies for $199 right now - what's a decent general purpose lens I can add to that for like under a hundred bucks for a budget starter kit? I can't really throw much more at this project.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
So I ran across this on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01CQJHJ2E?ref_=ams_ad_dp_ttl Canon T6 Camera kit for $449 Is this as good of a purchase it seems for a beginner?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
The general rule is to avoid that series. They're deliberately crippled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
What do you mean? I've been taking tons of photos just with my iphone and have been wanting to buy an actual camera and randomly ran across that kit on Amazon. I don't know anything about what I'm looking for in a first purchase beyond what you guys post here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
It's should be a small jump up price-wise to the next level (t6i or 700D or whatever it's called). The t6 line has worse ergonomics and worse innards I believe. If you are making the jump from a cell phone in order to explore photography with a DSLR, it's worth it to move above the bad gimped cheapest model. The Canon Crop-sensor DSLR lines t5/t6 etc = purposefully bad- old tech in a crummy package t5i/t6i = pretty good starter camera (I started on the t2i many years back) SL1/SL2 = also decent, very compact (good if you have tiny hands or want to travel really light) 70D/77D/80D = step up from the previous, better controls/ergonomics, great video AF, and I think new sensors and/or processors. 7D2 = Semi-pro wildlife/sport Also, the 75-300mm lens in that kit is not the best- it doesn't have image stabilization. the Canon 55-250mm is probably the better super-cheap option. e: same price- here's the t5i. BetterLekNextTime fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Dec 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Canon keeps doing this T# vs. T#i thing and it traps a lot of folks. Essentially the one without the "i" is old technology and deliberately limited. It's nowhere near on par with the same generation's "i" version like you might expect. I remember someone here a while back saying the T5 (which came out two years ago) is approximately equal in image quality to the T2i (which came out five years ago), but with fewer options. The only way I'd ever recommend the T# version is if you're giving one to some brat that you expect will use it about ten times and then throw it in their closet, and only then if you can get it used for a hundo. If you're even casually interested in photography, get the "i" every time. Broadening out the question a bit: a lower-end Canon is still a good choice for first camera. It's solid, dependable, has a buck ton of lens options, and won't kill your wallet unless you get into something very specific like birding or professional sports photography. I started with a T3i, a kit lens and a 55-250, and that held me for years. Nikon is similar but not quite as many lens options. Panasonic has some impressive low-end cameras but lenses get expensive quick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Also, the 75-300mm lens in that kit is not the best- it doesn't have image stabilization. the Canon 55-250mm is probably the better super-cheap option. Having used both lenses recently I definitely agree. You may get a little more reach with the longer of the two, but yeah, no IS, chromatic aberration when zoomed out, and (I think) generally poorer image quality. I was able to find a practically new copy of the series II 55-250 (previous version) for what the 75-300 costs new. Go for the former. E: Also, Mustang, from one noob to another, don’t make the same mistake I did in only looking at brand new camera bodies! There are a lot of great used/factory refurb options out there. Check out KEH.com, Canon’s very own refurb store, and other online outlets. President Beep fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Dec 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Also, the 75-300mm lens in that kit is not the best It's the shittiest lens Canon makes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
akadajet posted:It's the shittiest lens Canon makes. ^^ Not hyperbole. It is literally the worst thing they make, and I don't know why it's still manufactured. Anyone buying a crop camera should be buying the 55-250 STM, and anyone who has enough money for a FF body, what the gently caress are you doing cheaping out and getting this turd?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
lol. I forgot it was an EF lens. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
With the t5i package I linked, the 75-300 is literally a free add-on. So I guess if it's free, go for it, but start looking for a replacement if you find yourself using it but being disappointed by the sharpness and color of the photos you get from it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
it made sense when Canon sold 35mm rebels for chump change and people wanted a tele to go with it, and they were never printing anything but 4x6's from it anyway. It makes zero sense to manufacture such a garbage FF lens now
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
People buy rebels to get better pictures, then use that lens because it came with it. Then they get these low contrast, muddy images and think the cameras are crap. Canon is doing themselves no favors with those things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
Tell me the Sony a6500 is not way more awesome than a Panasonic G8. And I shouldn’t just dump another $600 into it all because it’s a bad bad camera and takes bad pictures and videos eapecially videos
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 06:24
|
|