|
The Olympus TG-6 seems like it would fit your needs, too. Also a point and shoot. It’s about the size of a cell phone, just thicker. Waterproof and drop resistant, for the hiking/outdoors stuff. I’ve got one and it’s a lot of fun to walk around with.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
yea, that one, or get a powershot digicam. i recommend the "newer" powershot G series, no, not the newest. Look for a G9, G10, G12 or G15 (these have all the manual and av/tv controls you need to get creative) or look at the Canon SD790 (with CHDK for raw) or something that has RAW support built in, like the Lumix FX150 (my main digicam) They're perfect for what you want to do - snapshot photography. Example G15  Example FX150  Example SD790 
bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Nov 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 22:12
|
|
|
Ricoh GR with the wider lens is the best for your needs I think. Best image quality in that small pocketable form factor. Get a generation or two older and save a good bit of money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 23:09
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Ricoh GR with the wider lens is the best for your needs I think. Best image quality in that small pocketable form factor. Get a generation or two older and save a good bit of money. Nah, there’s no auto mode on those
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
Fujifilm x-e1?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 00:07
|
|
|
i’m considering a 35mm lens which is a huge deal for me I’m looking at the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM for EF mount it’s a 2016 lens .. and my 135mm is a sigma art too the other alternative is the RF canon 35mm f/2 which is much more affordable i have a feeling that if I am gonna go down this path I should get the sigma and not wish I’d done it thoughts? should I be worried it’s almost ten years old?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 00:22
|
|
|
my sigma is EF and I an adapter to the R camera, and it works flawlessly. I am hopeful this would be the same
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
35mm good
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 00:24
|
|
|
yeah it’s taken me a long time to accept maybe need another length lens than 135mm, even tho for a LOT of my use cases the longer lens is the gold standard, especially for torso/head shots historically when I’ve used shorter lenses I’ve always felt like the photos suck. others can do it just not me
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
thanks for all of the responses so far! leaning toward one of the ricohs.blue squares posted:Nah, there’s no auto mode on those or is this a big deal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 01:17
|
|
|
Well, if you don’t want to shoot manual all the time (I.e. you need to choose iso, aperture and shutter speed each time you take a shot), it’s important. If you just want to be able to press a button and get a properly exposed picture, you need some sort of auto mode, or at least something like aperture priority
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 01:21
|
|
|
abelwingnut posted:thanks for all of the responses so far! leaning toward one of the ricohs. Based on what you described as your needs, yes. Don’t get a camera without auto unless you want to learn some technical aspects of photography
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 01:26
|
|
|
The internet says they have all the usual shooting modes including auto.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 01:32
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Nah, there’s no auto mode on those Huh? Looking at the photos for the GR through to GRIII they all have a program mode. e: They also all have an auto mode... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 01:34
|
|
|
Beve Stuscemi posted:Well, if you don’t want to shoot manual all the time (I.e. you need to choose iso, aperture and shutter speed each time you take a shot), it’s important. If you just want to be able to press a button and get a properly exposed picture, you need some sort of auto mode, or at least something like aperture priority There are zero production digital cameras that are full manual what is this post
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 01:49
|
|
|
My bad. I have a GR3x and there’s no auto mode. There’s P but I don’t even know what that does. I just use M
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 01:56
|
|
|
blue squares posted:My bad. I have a GR3x and there’s no auto mode. There’s P but I don’t even know what that does. I just use M P is program auto, it's an auto mode but with more input if you want it
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 02:15
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:There are zero production digital cameras that are full manual what is this post Someone said that the camera doesn’t have auto mode and my post is a response to OP’s question about if that’s important. Not super confusing
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 02:15
|
|
|
 Read your cameras manual maybe
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 02:17
|
|
|
Beve Stuscemi posted:Someone said that the camera doesn’t have auto mode and my post is a response to OP’s question about if that’s important. Yeah but it was more misleading info to OP because no cameras are manual only. It is literally confusing info to them. OP buy the Ricoh unless you really want zoom capabilities. It’s great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 02:28
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:i’m considering a 35mm lens which is a huge deal for me there's a newer high end Tamron 35mm 1.4 that I've seen compared favorably to the Sigma and is slightly cheaper if you like big chonky Sigma lenses there is also their 40mm which is supposed to be excellent
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 05:30
|
|
|
I noticed my mirror might be a bit scuzzy in my Dynax 9 and was wondering if it’d be worth it to take it to a shop to have it cleaned or if the risk outweighs it. I can see through the viewfinder fine and the AF seems to work fine but I do notice sometimes there’s a haze around lights in the viewfinder. But everything I’ve seen online says not to touch a SLR mirror at all and just live with a mirror if the dirt doesn’t seem to impact performance. I’m just worried about autofocus not behaving properly down the line. Here’s a little video of it where you can see it more when the camera is angled:  and here’s some stills showing it, but the phone flash may have made it look worse than it is given the angle.   Or is this all normal and I’m just being an idiot 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 09:41
|
|
|
abelwingnut posted:thanks for all of the responses so far! leaning toward one of the ricohs. I had the gr2, and have the gr3, and while I used them extensively and they produce amazing quality photos, the fixed fov was always the most annoying thing and is why I ended up getting the G15. I haven't touched the gr3 in 2-3 years. In my use case I like to do environmental photos - family snapshots etc - and also detail oriented photos - take a photo of just one thing without the noise surrounding it. The step zoom feature is perfect for that. I used to crop/get closer with the ricoh but it didn't quite work out. You can also get the Canon G5X ii if you want something newer than a G15. A caveat and warning - point and shoots can suffer from dust going on the sensor and you not being able to remove it without disassembling the whole cam. My G15 has no dust and is an old camera and i don't baby it. But ymmv. For that reason you could also consider going with a m43 camera. bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Nov 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 14:45
|
|
|
Fellatio del Toro posted:there's a newer high end Tamron 35mm 1.4 that I've seen compared favorably to the Sigma and is slightly cheaper thankyou for this, that 40mm appeals, especially if it’s weather sealed unlike the 35mm, is newer too, and very similar in price do love me a chonky sigma
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:i’m considering a 35mm lens which is a huge deal for me Just get the Rf 35 1.8. It has IS and outperforms the rest easily.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Just get the Rf 35 1.8. It has IS and outperforms the rest easily. outperforms how? sharpness? you know how much I hate sharpness lol I am intrigued by it, but everything I read basically boils down to “convenient but nothing magical” the sigma has 0.4 better number and hence more cream and that might be the deciding factor, and people say mega good things about the tamron
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
that tamron 35mm f/1.4 has a LOT of VERY GOOD words said about it on the internet and I love chonky lenses. part of being a good portrait photographer is impressing people with the size of your lens and also the size of the front element. something I love about my 135mm is when it’s pointed at you, it’s a huge piece of glass
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
went with the ricoh gr iii. got a decent deal from keh, and it looks like this thing should last me a lifetime. thanks for the input! hell, maybe i'll end up wanting to do some more advanced things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 22:31
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:outperforms how? sharpness? you know how much I hate sharpness lol goddamn you're the fuckin worst
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:goddamn you're the fuckin worst lmao but I am curious why you think the RF outperforms?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 00:36
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:thankyou for this, that 40mm appeals, especially if it’s weather sealed unlike the 35mm, is newer too, and very similar in price The Siggy 40 is just ridiculously good. Bought one when it was released and I am never letting go of it. I swear I can spot the shots from it in the thumbnails in Lightroom because it’s just that special. But yeah, it is a big bitch of a lens. And weather sealed. If I remember right Roger Cicala of Lensrentals showed it performing on par with the Otus 55. I think the Sigma 105/1.4 puts out equally impressive performance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
I got my Sigma 135f1.8 art coz of how stellar all the reviews etc were. I love that lens and it’ll prolly forever be my fave but I have had to accept a 135mm isn’t suitable for every situation. But a lot of my fave images look the way they do coz it’s longer. I ended up getting the Sig35f1.4 simply because I came across a second hand one at a very good price. If not that was prolly gonna get the Tamron 35mmf1.4 I doubt I’ll use it all that much, but time may tell a different tale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
need some “sigma grindset” stickers
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
also lowballed a dude on a canon ef 50mmf1.4 and did NOT expect him to say yes lol so guess got two new lenses spose the 50mm will be redundant unless it takes gorgeous pics
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:also lowballed a dude on a canon ef 50mmf1.4 and did NOT expect him to say yes lol so guess got two new lenses The 50 1.4 takes nice, dreamy pics wide open, just never ever drop it more than two inches.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 03:38
|
|
|
Are there charts out there I can refer to for ideal aperture setting for particular types of shots? I realize this is a newbie question and I'm definitely not new; I can dial in my poo poo no problem for portraits, crowd shots etc. Like for example I know to stay around the f/2.4-3.2 range for portraits and group shots at events - wide open is cool but it's a bit too shallow to get someone's whole head in focus especially if there are multiple people at slightly different distances - but I'm sometimes unsure about whether a move one stop in either direction is ideal, and usually just make the decision in the moment based on the exposure, not the depth-of-field. Sometimes I'm a few beers deep and only using my monitor instead of the viewfinder, which can complicate things. Actually what'd be really cool is a chart outlining the DoF range, for example showing that at 1.8 you've got approximately 6" of sharpness. Having thought this, maybe it's variable depending on the focal length or even the brand of glass? Just thinking out loud at this point. I think I want to more mindfully practice focusing manually for some of these event shots (obviously not dancefloor or DJ poo poo), certain AF modes on my camera are frustratingly slow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Are there charts out there I can refer to for ideal aperture setting for particular types of shots? I realize this is a newbie question and I'm definitely not new; I can dial in my poo poo no problem for portraits, crowd shots etc. Like for example I know to stay around the f/2.4-3.2 range for portraits and group shots at events - wide open is cool but it's a bit too shallow to get someone's whole head in focus especially if there are multiple people at slightly different distances - but I'm sometimes unsure about whether a move one stop in either direction is ideal, and usually just make the decision in the moment based on the exposure, not the depth-of-field. Sometimes I'm a few beers deep and only using my monitor instead of the viewfinder, which can complicate things. There are apps for apple or android.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
There is a formula to calculate the physical size of the depth of field, and yes sensor size factors into it. But other than that you only need the focal distance, aperture, and focus distance. Probably all kinds of apps out there to calculate it for you.. make it a weekend project and build your own chart!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
Adapt old glass that has depth of field markings
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
Most modern cameras can give you a DoP preview button or engage it when you focus. The rule of thumb though is that wider angles give larger focal range so 2.8 at 24mm is going to be fine for groups, but probably too shallow at 200mm. In general, f/4 is a safe go to for anything when you're worried about being too shallow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 18:38
|
|