|
President Beep posted:Woah, that’s weird. Sometimes I get the suspicion that a lot of constant aperture zooms have a little bit of aperture variation across their range like that. Maybe a shift from f/2.7 to /2.9; something basically insignificant. Like, it doesn't have any operational impact so just gets reported as /2.8. But honestly I have no idea.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
Apologies in advance, I'm sure it's a question that's asked often, but I didn't see anything in the op. My girlfriend has mentioned a couple times wanting to have a nicer camera than her iPhone. I guarantee she has absolutely no interest in learning about apertures, lenses, and other camera terms. Is there a point and shoot camera in the 100-150 range that is legitimately going to take noticably better photos than an iPhone? I know it's an expensive hobby, so I'm certainly not expecting some miraculous cheap, amazing camera, just curious if the price point I'm looking at even makes sense over your average smart phone. My guess is the main advantage will be optical zoom? Her primary use would be landscape/wildlife photos while we're out fishing/kayaking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
I swear I don't mean to sound like a jackass with this. Would she even know the camera was better than her iphone? Iphones have pretty good cameras for a smart phone. Is she really asking for more features and controls? In any case. The same spiel applies here. Go as expensive you can, avoid bridge cameras (super zooms), make sure you play with the model before you buy it to make sure it's what you want from a size/feature standpoint. And here, have a long compare list of everything in your budget. But be warned, $150 is an extremely small budget. um excuse me fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:Apologies in advance, I'm sure it's a question that's asked often, but I didn't see anything in the op. You could get a used Canon S100 for that price but honestly if she has a current iPhone I don’t know that it would be any better if she doesn’t have any interest in actually learning. Learning is the best way to take better photos and iPhones now are quite capable, have a longer lens in addition to the normal lens in some models from the 7+ onwards, can shoot raw and be edited well right on the phone. I would be curious if an older S100 would perform better in low light or in any other ways (it does have an optical zoom) but I wouldn’t think it would get better final results if she wasn’t going to work on the images considering how far phones have come. There’s a reason that the point and shoot market was killed by phones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:Apologies in advance, I'm sure it's a question that's asked often, but I didn't see anything in the op. gently caress, bad news for me. I was going to recommend picking up some Photojojo lenses. They made neat lenses you could just attach onto phones and popular phones like iPhones were particularly well supported. I love the little macro lens I have. Unfortunately, thanks to this post, I just found out they closed up shop.  You could still probably pick some up on Amazon. An easily attached telephoto lens and a macro lens for a phone might give her a little more of that "photographer" feel without needing a new camera, since, as others have said, the iPhone has a pretty great camera that's going to be hard to beat in a low-end point and shoot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
A camera at that price point definitely would not feel like an upgrade, especially considering the added hassle of bringing it/getting photos off of it. If her photos are destined for the web, or even small print sizes, and she doesn't have any specific requirements (manual controls, low light shooting, sports/bird shooting, etc), her cellphone camera is more than enough. You don't need to dive into technical details, but you do need to learn to get better results. Putting a little thought into composing your shots makes a world of difference. Moment also make lens attachments for cellphones, I don't know if this would provide her any real benefit, but it might be an encouraging gift in your price range. There used to be similar offerings from other companies from dollar store to very expensive, but I'm not sure how compatible with newer phones they are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
Gunna go against the grain and say that if she has no interest in aperture, shutter speed, etc, and just wants a "better camera" then almost anything will do, as it will likely be placebo at that point. As others have said, an iPhone will take comparable pictures to a $100 camera, but I think someone as not-into-photography as your girlfriend sounds like just sees actual camera = better photos. A lens for her phone may please her, but I think it's likely she might think it's a weird thing that makes her phone look ugly and not fit in her pocket anymore. Unfortunately I don't have any specific recommendations, I'd head to a local best buy or something with her and try out some cameras and see what she likes and if she thinks the photos are better than her phone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
When a lady friend wanted a small but more capable camera at a budget that was newbie friendly, we looked at the low-end Panasonic micro4/3rds offering. In the UK it's the GX-800. It's pretty basic but: - It's tiny, even with a lens attached, so easily carried in a handbag or even a roomy pocket. - It's a 'real camera' with as many or as few manual controls as you like. Pick an auto scene or adjust controls separately as you prefer. - It has a flippy selfie screen. - You can change lenses on it if she wants to do something different like a day at the zoo where she'll want a bit more reach. For everyday shooting the 12-32mm lens that comes with it is just fine though. Cons: - It's a bit over your £100-150 budget (looks to be around £250 or so in the UK) There's also the Fuji XA-20 at the same price point and with very similar features. The lens on it is a lot bigger than the Panasonic one though making it a bit less pocketable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
If she isn’t adverse to an actual camera with a removable lense (that she wouldn’t have to remove if she didn’t want to) Sony NEX cameras are absurdly cheap in camera bucks, are quite small bodies comparable to some point and shoots (the lens being used being the main size factor) and the sensors are not at all bad even 6 years later. They are APS-C sensors so the potential image quality will blow away a point and shoot or iPhone, the kit lens will let you zoom and they are at your price point. I have a few friends I recommended them to who wanted to have higher quality pictures of their kids and they are still using them this many years later, basically having used them like a point and shoot with no true interest in learning photography. Might be worth considering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:camera in the 100-150 range that is legitimately going to take noticably better photos than an iPhone? As has been said, add a zero to that and it might be plausible. The iphone camera is pretty good, so might as well go big or go home. I'm a former photojournalist with a Nikon D7000 and a variety of lenses (in total, cost me about a kilobuck, my newspaper-issued gear was another order of magnitude more, but insured and paid for by somebody else), but unless it's dark or I need the shutter speed/long lens, I just use my phone. Edit: the five-year-old HTC M8 I'm writing this on has a better camera than a lot of DSLRs I've used, as long as a wide-angle lens is your thing (and for landscapes, it is). Keep using the iphone, it's a serious investment to get a "real" camera that's better. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 07:51
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
How about a small tripod for the iPhone?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:10
|
|
|
Can you get like a 350d and nifty fifty for cheap? That’s the perfect starter to get into it id say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:24
|
|
|
Surprised nobody has mentioned the Sony RX100s as meeting that “compact and simple but a real camera” requirement. Because otherwise yeah, the cheapest I could recommend would be at least $500.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 10:52
|
|
|
Thanks a ton for the info, kind of what I was figuring. A couple little snap on lenses for the iPhone may just do the trick for her purposes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
Try the snap-on lenses, yeah. Worst-case, you're out a few bucks and she has some goofy photos.Slugworth posted:Her primary use would be landscape/wildlife photos while we're out fishing/kayaking. Wildlife is one of the you-must-spend-more categories of photography. Landscapes are not. If you're out on the water and you see something cool 200 m away, you're not going to get a great picture of it without carrying some bigger, heavier gear and knowing how to use it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:Thanks a ton for the info, kind of what I was figuring. A couple little snap on lenses for the iPhone may just do the trick for her purposes. I bought a used Sony NEX for my then 10 year old, with a 30mm lens. Look at adorama or keh for used, you might be surprised. And yes, part of what she wants is the camera experience, so go for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
I gave my five-year-old my old Powershot a590is. It could be going worse. Hasn't broken it yet! e: I also mounted it on a mega-cheapo Targus tripod we had kicking around, which he gets a kick out of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I bought a used Sony NEX for my then 10 year old, with a 30mm lens. Look at adorama or keh for used, you might be surprised. And yes, part of what she wants is the camera experience, so go for it. I forgot to mention when I was talking about the NEX that my daughter uses mine now. It might be lacking as a “real camera” but it is pretty killer as a point and shoot since it is so small and has a good sensor. The 30mm is a cheap and well performing lens too, although in this case (looking for an optical zoom) it wouldn’t help this guy’s girlfriend since the fov would be similar to her phone. The power zoom kit would probably be the best option due to its size, but the older NEX cameras that are going for 100-150 are the ones that have the larger kit lens. I still think it’d be a good option for what she’s looking for - it would certainly have the potential for higher quality than a cell phone. It even has a cool low light mode where it will snap several photos at max speed and combine them in camera to reduce noise in low light.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
Hey gang, I'm looking for some testimonials. I'm planning to sell my X100F and get an X-T3 for various reasons, but chief among them is that, while I love the X100F in a lot of ways, Ive learned that I strongly prefer a 50mm equivalent FOV to the native 35mm equivalent on the X100F, and while the teleconverter isn't bad optically, it completely obliterates the balance of the camera in hand. My initial plan was to get the 3 and a 35mm f/2, and I may still get that lens eventually, but I've heard some good things about the 7artisans 35mm f/1.2. I'm not really doing any applications where autofocus is necessary and I'm relatively good at snap focusing on manual anyway, so it being a fully analog lens isn't a deal breaker, especially with focus peaking. I've heard it both ways about the optical quality, that its well made but flares super hard, etc. Has anyone here actually handled one of these, and what would your honest appraisal be? I only trust youtube reviews so far and figured it was worth asking.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Looking for a videocamera to do clean product videos, twirling on turntables and maybe toys walking around. Would like the camera to also be versatile enough to possibly do interviews on a greenscreen in the future. I've already gotten recommendations from friends for lighting setups/tascam audio, etc. A friend is recommending a GoPro 7 because it's 4K and has improved image stabilization. Does this sound feasible or should I go with a more traditional DSLR? Looking at a $1000 budget (separate from the audio/lighting, etc) I was told to post here Krakkles over at IYG said: quote:I'd try Dorkroom, and beyond that, a DSLR or mirrorless would be much better. Even a bridge camera would probably be better. Redoes over at SHSC said: quote:Not GoPro. I'd probably get something like a Sony Alpha mirrorless. Still, lighting is going to be super important.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Video people seem to love Panasonic bodies, and yeah using a GoPro for that kind of work just seems way out of its designed usage scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
Even at its tightest crop I think a Gopro tops out at, like, a 90 degree field of view? Basically equivalent to an 18mm on full frame, which is significantly wider than most video would ever go outside of sports poo poo, which is what gopros were made for.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
I have a similar question to the "upgrade from an iPhone" question about, but with a twist. Or maybe not, since I'm a newbie. I hike and camp a lot, and travel some. My photos are just for me and my wife/family, and I'm very happy with my phone (Pixel) for the majority of my pictures. However, I'm often disappointed with its ability to capture the scale of mountains and such that I can see from my hikes. Wide landscapes are beautiful, but the impressive or dramatic scale of faraway things is definitely lost in the phone lens. Also, I saw an owl last week just sitting in a branch maybe 100ft away, but without a proper zoom it was little more than a fuzzy blob in the picture I grabbed with my phone. I'm reluctant to go down the rabbit hole of expensive cameras and their accessories. I'm scared it'd get its hooks in me and I'd spend more money than I could justify, especially given how little post-trip effort I'd likely put into touching up the photos. I also don't want to put a ton of time into learning minutia of all the many settings cameras might have. I have a (very, very) basic understanding of aperture, shutter speed, white balance, etc., but I've been spoiled by my Pixel just taking nice photos with little input from me. Finally, because it's often used hiking, smaller/lighter is better. I'm not backpacking ultralight or anything, but I don't want a massive camera and lens collection weighing me down, either. Where should I start my searching? I assume (perhaps wrongly) that my issue is the wide angle and lack of zoom on my cell phone. Would something like the Panasonic LX10 or Sony RX100 line be what I'm looking for (names I just grabbed from a Wirecutter article), or am I still going to be disappointed when it comes to my desired uses? I'd prefer to keep things under $1000, ideally even around $500, although that's not a hard limit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
Your phone is great for landscapes. From what you describe it sounds like you could achieve what you want with just a little more motive. Look at scenery photos you like and ask why you like it. I often copy photos I see online to figure out the process to take such a photo. Like what time of day it needs to be, the weather conditions, framing, eye drawing feature, etc. By the time I get the photo that is just as good as the inspiring example, I'm blown by the effort and attention to detail you need to have. But once you do it a few times, it becomes second nature and you'll fly up the learning curve really quickly. Zoom is expensive. Very expensive. Zoom with your feet as much as you can. It's free and well worth the effort. But you can only get so close and sometimes you'll have to settle with what you can get for the budget you spend. You very much get what you pay for when it comes to birding. As someone who's spent the money to take good photos, I don't have the patience to do it with competence. I sold the equipment just about a year after I bought it. Luckily I didn't take a big hit because I bought used. I was shooting 800mm and still not getting anything I wanted to keep a discouraging percentage of the time. Technique and patience makes up more than half of taking a good bird photo. The gear only gets you there. I had the range but the light distortion from the air between the target and I was the limiting factor. Small to medium subjects lose all sharpness after a quarter mile or so. But I have taken some pretty cool photos with my phone through a monocular and telescope. See if you can borrow stuff from an astronomy or birding enthusiast. I tried to keep my post somewhat gear related but it's extremely hard to do while giving good photography advice. Photo gear is only, like, a few percent of good photography.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
incogneato posted:I have a similar question to the "upgrade from an iPhone" question about, but with a twist. Or maybe not, since I'm a newbie. Phones are generally pretty good in terms of focal lengths for a landscape. You might want a little wider but in those cases you could take multiple photos and stitch them together if you learn how. Getting wider is something that landscape guys often want, not getting closer. In terms of scale that often comes down to context and what is in the frame (which is skill and experience). You will get nicer quality from a better camera but for the uses people are generally taking pictures for (which is online sharing) I doubt many could tell the difference between a shot taken with a phone or an actual camera if the photographer is good. As it was said above a good tele lens is going to cost you. However you could get some reach within your budget. From what you are describing, and from my assumption that you don’t want to edit, shoot raw etc. (I could be wrong but based on the questions that’s what I’m thinking) you might want to look into a Fuji in your budget and the 50-230 lens. It is a cheap lens, one of the cheapest in the Fuji lineup and made out of plastic, but it has great image quality and will get you much closer than a phone would (the furthest reach being roughly 350mm equivalent). You could get a wider lens as well or simply use you phone for wider shots and the Fuji for tele shots. Fuji has arguably the best straight out of camera images and even experienced photographers who know how to edit will sometimes use Fuji jpgs because they are just that good. You could easily come in under 1000 that way, getting an older generation body and that lens (used to save some cash). The RX100 is good and has a larger sensor than your phone but a smaller sensor than mirrorless cameras and dslrs. It is smaller of course but you might not see as much of an image quality increase based on how you are using it. Another option (that I gave to other guy) is to look into an old Sony NEX. They are really cheap and for someone basically using a camera as a point and shoot I think they are one of the best dollar to quality ratio cameras around now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
I hike with my rx100ii and I've got a Sony a7iii. The Rx100 is easier to carry and have available at all times. It's also not nearly as heavy so it's less of a burden on long hikes. The raw photos are beautiful and you can shoot magical if you really want to. Its one of the more impressive cameras I've ever used. But. The nex line or even the Sony a6000 series is also crazy good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
incogneato posted:However, I'm often disappointed with its ability to capture the scale of mountains and such that I can see from my hikes. Wide landscapes are beautiful, but the impressive or dramatic scale of faraway things is definitely lost in the phone lens. This is a composition problem not a gear problem. If you had a great pro-level camera, you'd be getting the same kind of shots with the same lack of dramatic scale. When you see a sweeping vista, those very rarely translate well into great photos because the faithful 2d render of the camera sensor isn't doing all of the contextual processing that your brain does with the signal from your eyes. You generally need to go narrower, not wider, and you should try and lead the eye into the photo - leading lines, foreground details, etc. All of those are things that you can do with your phone. The range problem is a gear issue though. You can't get around that without expensive and bulky gear unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
You could consider the RX10 iv...the zoom range is now up to 600mm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 09:44
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:You could consider the RX10 iv...the zoom range is now up to 600mm. Seconded, honestly the poster sounds like they want a super zoom for landscape details and the occasional wildlife photo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 11:08
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Looking for a videocamera to do clean product videos, twirling on turntables and maybe toys walking around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 12:09
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Looking for a videocamera to do clean product videos, twirling on turntables and maybe toys walking around. That would be a hell loving NO on using a GoPro. I'd suggest a Sony A6300 or a Panasonic GH4. Spring for the later models of these cameras if you can justify it but it'll likely exceed your budget. You should also try to get them used if possible so that you'll have enough money left over for a lens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
Anybody wanting longer reach for very low budgets, I'm thinking a used NEX body, an old manual-focus telephoto/supertele lens (like a 400mm), and the appropriate adaptor to mount the orphan-mount glass on your mirrorless, would be suitable. I've never used a NEX but I have taken a bunch of photos of birds and wildlife and tele-landscapes through old glass. Everything I've read about the NEX line makes me think it has the widest, easiest access to legacy glass in orphan mounts like Canon FD, Minolta MD, Konica AR, and Contax/Yashica from the 70's and 80's out of the mirrorless cameras on the second-hand market. For $500 I'm betting you could put together a kit of a NEX 3 or 5, a basic walk-around lens native to the NEX system for wide/normal shots, and a 300mm or 400mm Big Metal Tube with an adaptor. Bonus: you can shoot video through that Big Metal Tube, too! Tele-landscapes: shoot mountains and sunsets and poo poo through long glass. Sometimes you want to see the whole valley. More often, you want to see just the moonlight reflecting off the water, or the way that one boulder stands out in the sun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Anybody wanting longer reach for very low budgets, I'm thinking a used NEX body, an old manual-focus telephoto/supertele lens (like a 400mm), and the appropriate adaptor to mount the orphan-mount glass on your mirrorless, would be suitable. As far as manual teles go it is hard to beat a Vivitar Series 1 70-210, and as a bonus it is a macro as well. I had an old one from when I first started photography on an AE-1 but it got fungus so I recently bought a replacement. 12 bucks from KEH in excellent condition. That would get you about 300mm equivalent on a NEX and considering the prices of those bodies you could easily get a setup for long shots for around 150 bucks. The lack of stabilization and a viewfinder would make it hard for someone lacking experience but in terms of image quality potential it would be a pretty crazy deal and allow shots you could not get with a phone or point and shoot in that price range.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
rio posted:Phones are generally pretty good in terms of focal lengths for a landscape. You might want a little wider but in those cases you could take multiple photos and stitch them together if you learn how. Getting wider is something that landscape guys often want, not getting closer. Thanks for the responses everyone. It sounds like a new camera wouldn't help me much, and I'm happy to not spend the money if that's the case. With some searching online, I think what I had gotten stuck in my head was the compression of perspective with a telephoto in pictures like this and this (at least I think that's what's going on in those--maybe I have that wrong, too). Not that I want that particular effect--I had probably just seen it and become fixated on zoom being the key to capturing the breathtaking scale I see on my hikes. I'll continue to focus on composition and framing instead. Like I said, I've over all been very happy with my phone for landscapes and hiking photos. Wildlife like that owl I saw last week is rare enough that I wouldn't get a new camera just for that. At least not right now...
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
Yes, those shots are taken with long lenses but it's not a prerequisite to get the "big mountain" feel. As stated previously, working on composition with leading lines and/or an interesting foreground will get you the same feel. If you want to go full instagram, plop your significant other into the scene staring at the mountain. It instantly generates a sense of scale and is why that technique has become so popular.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
incogneato posted:Thanks for the responses everyone. It sounds like a new camera wouldn't help me much, and I'm happy to not spend the money if that's the case. xzzy posted:Yes, those shots are taken with long lenses but it's not a prerequisite to get the "big mountain" feel. As stated previously, working on composition with leading lines and/or an interesting foreground will get you the same feel. If you want to go full instagram, plop your significant other into the scene staring at the mountain. It instantly generates a sense of scale and is why that technique has become so popular. I think the “interesting foreground” part is something important to keep in mind. When you’re looking at a breathtaking mountain range or vast plain or something, it’s super easy to just focus on the huge scene that’s so far away from you. However, getting something close to you helps put those big objects into better perspective, and gives images more depth to them too. incogneato, take a look at both of those pictures you posted - they both have foreground objects that are visually interesting. The first has the road, which obviously leads the viewer’s eyes up to the big mountain. You could also get extra artsy and say that it gives the feeling of being out on the open road, like being out on a road trip - priming the viewer to already imagine big open landscapes. Then the big mountain comes in and impacts that as well, since it looks so much more huge than the street itself. The second image has the small shrubs along the bottom, which naturally lead into the trees in the middleground, which naturally lead to the mountain and skyscraper. Also getting artsy, you can say that the shrubs are juxtaposed against the trees (making the trees look even bigger than they would otherwise) - and then the trees are juxtaposed against he mountain. You’re primed to imagine the trees being huge, but then the mountain hits and is EVEN BIGGER.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
rio posted:As far as manual teles go it is hard to beat a Vivitar Series 1 70-210, and as a bonus it is a macro as well. I'm a big fan of the Vivitar S1 line. I own 5 of 'em, in three different mounts, and other than the V4 of the 70-210 in K-mount I've got, they're wonderful lenses. A NEX wearing a 70-210 would be a very fun thing to play with. Like, don't expect me back in time for supper, I'll be wandering around with a stupid grin on my face until the battery dies kinda fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I'm a big fan of the Vivitar S1 line. I own 5 of 'em, in three different mounts, and other than the V4 of the 70-210 in K-mount I've got, they're wonderful lenses. A NEX wearing a 70-210 would be a very fun thing to play with. Like, don't expect me back in time for supper, I'll be wandering around with a stupid grin on my face until the battery dies kinda fun. For sure. Back when the NEX was new it was my first mirrorless and one downside is how comically large the lens seems next to the body. Those bodies are tiny so the balance is really weird and you end up holding it all by the lens. Even with my a7ii I find that to be the case, to a lesser extent, but with a NEX the difference between the body and lens is really drastic. If you do go the NEX route it might be worth looking into if anyone is selling the electronic viewfinder. It is articulating and not at all bad for when it was made. I got it back in the day and it made manual focusing so much better. Not required at all but a neat bit of kit and quite useful. I really liked being able to articulate it straight up and look down while holding larger lenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Thanks for all the pro advice everyone
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
Got the speedlite and the 50mm f/1.8. Both alre baller as hell. Should've gone with the 35mm at same wide aperture and price for the smaller sensor, but I've used it, feels like a long body cap, the 50 has some metal inside and an aperture ring. The 50 is a real lens, albeit tiny. Probably gonna shoot the thing tomorrow with the 18-105mm f/3.5 at the wide end kit lens and flash, but I loves me a metal-bodied Nifty Fifty even on a DX sensor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 07:17
|
|