|
AlienApeBoy posted:It's a compromise, but for daytime recreational activities where photography is not the main attraction, it's nice to carry just one lens on your camera, and not have to be worrying about swapping. Obviously for pros/aspiring pros, and for times when photography is the whole reason you left the house that day, this is not a compromise you'd be as apt to make. But for amateurs not yet ready for a bag of primes and/or high-$ f2.8 zooms, the convenience factor can't be ignored. Oh no, you'll have to switch a lens when you want to go to more than 80mm equivalent focal length  If you're broke and just starting out, the 18-55mm IS/VRs are great but slow, but there's no real reason to drop a bunch of money on a slow superzoom when the 17-50s are so cheap nowadays. That covers the focal lengths a beginner will use 95% of the time and you will really, really appreciate a lens usable at f/2.8. As for longer stuff, don't forget you can adapt a manual-focus 105/135mm prime to use for portraits for dirt cheap. Every system has piles of 135mm f/3.5s that usually go for $25 or so, plus an adapter. The 70-300s aren't sexy but are usually much better than superzooms, I'd take a 17-50 + 70-300 over a 28-200 any day (both setups roughly $500). Or you could keep the kit and buy a 70-200 f/4 if you sometimes shoot sports or something (also roughly $500). e: The number for the 28-200 is probably high since it looks like the lens I was comparing against has been discontinued. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jun 24, 2012 |
#
¿
Jun 24, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
And if you're just starting out, don't underestimate the value in being forced to use one focal length. Zooms make people lazy and encourage you to turn the dial rather than considering perspective distortion as a composition element. Shooting with a normal lens or a normal+wide prime kit is something I encourage everyone to try for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Wow, apparently my homeowners insurance is going to offer to either replace my stolen old Leica gear with brand new stuff from B&H, or give a payout based on depreciated values. Still waiting for the replacement list, but from what they told me on the phone, I'm guessing that means I'll end up with a new M7 to replace my 50 year old M2. I almost feel guilty accepting it. I suggest you get the "other" M7, the Mamiya 7. The lenses'll blow your Leica stuff out of the water, it's a rangefinder so it's a similar idea, and oh god I want one so bad please live vicariously for me 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Canon 40D + Tamron 17-50 + a nice ballhead and plate. The m4/3 option doesn't sound bad either, 35mm is a very usable focal length.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:You and I are like the Bebop and Rocksteady of ME Super advocacy. And I'm the cheapskate who keeps pointing out that MEs are just as good 99% of the time and even cheaper 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Unless you want to shoot manual AND you're hard up against the max/min ISO limits because otherwise you can just tweak the exposure comp/ISO dial to adjust the (probably almost accurate) shutter selection to whatever you want.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
thevoiceofdog posted:I've remained mostly uninformed about Leica for the last decade since I started studying photography. Anyone want to summarize what makes them worth their ridiculous prices? I'm assuming the glass must be really high quality and the focus extremely sharp, but that alone can't be worth several thousand dollars, can it? Brand mystique, it's a status symbol. It's high quality stuff, sure enough, it's compact and light. But for most uses a Mamiya 7 will cockslap the Leica for a similar/lower price and there's usually specific alternatives that you can turn to that aren't the cost of a used car. For example, low light wideangle shooting, get a Samyang 35mm f/1.4 and a Pentax ME or Nikon FM2 and it'll be every bit as good as the Leica (although SLR). I mean, even Rolleiflex isn't that expensive and their stuff has insane build quality with incredible lenses. They've been viewed as the most bang for the size for basically their entire production span (like 1930 to 1990), but they're not status symbols and thus don't command the insane prices of Leica. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jul 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
tijag posted:Specifically though, there is no reason a rangefinder is superior to an SLR is there? Yes. Better low-light and wide-angle focusing accuracy. Split prisms black out if there's too little light, even matte rings will go dark if it's low enough, and that makes it harder to focus. Wideangle lenses don't have as much depth-of-field so the prism doesn't show as much movement and the matte ring isn't as snappy. Some of this can be countered by using fast lenses, f/1.4 will keep things going in all but the darkest situations. Rangefinders you just line up the edges and it's in focus, no matter the lens. Also there's specific types of lenses that protrude close to the film, allowing wider lenses and better correction. SLRs have a mirror in there and can't mount that type of lens, so they have to make more optical compromises. Of course there's other things SLRs do better, like macro and close-up shooting, you're guaranteed that the image in the VF is the image going onto the film. vvv And that's another way to do it, plus 100 speed films own. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jul 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I wonder if one day people will be buying Nikon D4s by the boxful. You can see this already with the early electronic cameras. You can't get a replacement meter board for a Pentax ME/Super, you need a donor camera. Same thing with the Nikon FG or EM, the boards wear out and the camera's a writeoff. The reality is that a Leica or a Nikon FM2 or a Pentax MX is just going to age infinitely better than anything electronic (digital or not) because there's something there to repair.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
tijag posted:I just have a hard time understanding why I would want this Leica, instead of an F100 for example. It won't take better pictures (almost certainly worse since modern 50mms have become a science) but the process is totally different and that can yield better results. The F100 is an autofocus camera that can literally do everything for you, just push the button, drop the film off, and look at your prints. The Leica isn't going to handhold you, there's no matrix meter, no autofocus, no motor drive, certainly no program mode. It's just you and a lens. It's sort of like the difference between zooms and primes, primes force you to slow down and really consider which tool you want to use for a particular photograph. For that matter you could say the same thing about nearly any old film camera, in absolute terms a Pentax ME Super is totally inferior to a F5 with some modern AF lenses. It doesn't even have autofocus or a matrix meter to go with its auto-indexed open-aperture aperture-priority shooting modes 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jul 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
moonduck posted:Eh, a Rolleiflex 2.8F in good condition will sell for $1500+, which is probably more than a solid DS M3 and a collapsible 50 mm Summicron will run you. And modern Rolleiflex's sell for like $5K, which is right in line with what Leica sells the M7 and MP for. If you buy the latest models, yeah. But you're not comparing against a top-of-the-line Leica there. I got a 3.5E Xenotar for $400 and there's a freshly CLA'd T with a Tessar that's been sitting in my local store for over a year. I've seen quite a few 2.8s going for $600-800. And you can get a Mamiya 7 for roughly $1200-1300.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Yeah in all honesty what I really need is something like an S90 that shoots in RAW and can get me a decent ISO1600 image while maintaining the size. CHDK is available in beta for the S90, that'll get you RAW which will open up some noise reduction in Lightroom/Aperture. Otherwise, Fuji X10/X100.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:No doubt the big stuff is amazing gear, but when you have zero desire to carry it around you tend to not shoot as much as you'd like. Yes, the best gear is the stuff you can take with you. So far I love my GS645, despite the pain it's been, because it packs a huge negative into something small and relatively cheap. The Rollei 35S is as tiny as it's possible for a 35mm camera to really be, and the lenses are as good as it gets. The Olympus XA is tiny yet packs full aperture-priority rangefinder shooting in. I flew out to Santa Barbara last week and took a drive in the mountains. I was keeping things light, so I took the GS645 and my Olympus XA. That was more than enough for snapping some landscapes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Comedy option Nikon V1 with a 500mm f/4. Pentax Q (5x crop factor) and a 500 or 400mm.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
Just a Fish posted:Could someone help me? My mom is planning on selling her house and is now going trough my late fathers stuff and she happened to found a one particulary old camera. Dime-a-dozen. Looks like a viewfinder camera (scale-focus or fixed-focus), probably has a triplet or meniscus lens. Never say never on the collector values, box cameras are getting more valuable as time wears on (because everyone threw them out), but right now it's not worth anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Haha, no. The K1000 is overhyped, the ME blows it away in terms of features. Not to mention screen quality. The ME has a huge loving screen, it's really bright, and the focus aids are the best I've ever used.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
I'm kind of thinking of ditching my Canon 40D. I prefer to shoot manual focus, and I've mostly ended up using alt glass. I'm thinking about switching to something better suited to that. The NEX-5N is pretty sexy, especially since it can mount a fair amount of wonky alt glass that I'd never get infinity with on a DSLR. Focus peaking sounds cool, but I'd have to get used to shooting with no viewfinder ($250 is pretty steep for the EVF). The other direction I could go is to something like a Nikon D200 and throw a manual-focus screen on there. That'd get me access to Nikon's legacy lens library with auto-metering and stopdown, right?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
Can you still get film for that thing?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:77mm is the pro filter diameter 77mm is optimal for most people. For the P67 crowd, I recommend the 82mm for compatibility with the 75mm and some of the long lenses. Step up rings are cheap as hell. e: 49mm is inferior, get 52 or 58mm and use an adapter.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 02:45
|
|
.
|
whereismyshoe posted:So I have like $40 in eBay bucks, what's the most useful photo thing I could buy for around that price? Pentax ME (non-super) plus a 50/1.7
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:So I have like $40 in eBay bucks, what's the most useful photo thing I could buy for around that price? Alternately a cheap Yashica Lynx or Konica Auto S2 rangefinder if you prefer that. Or see if you can scare up an Olympus XA, no-fucks-given take-everywhere cameras own.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
caberham posted:Another option is to dump everything and go to the dark side, medium format. Just use a smart phone for regular facebook food pictures or what not, a rx100. and go medium format 645 or 6X6. Buy a lightmeter, and go to town. Options, options, options... Only you can decide what gear you want. It kind of seems like you're changing gear just to change it. Why the 5d3 all at once? That's a pretty big jump from the 50D, have you considered getting a 5d or 5d2 and pocketing the difference for lenses and such? The 24-70 is basically the equivalent of the 17-50, and the 17-40 is regarded as better than the 16-35 if I'm remembering right. If you like manual focus shooting, you could go the other direction. Get a mirrorless (the NEX series have APS-C sensors) and adapt old manual-focus glass. You can even adapt rangefinder lenses since there's no mirror. The NEX series have focus peaking, they mark a red area in the viewfinder where the image is sharpest so you can use that to focus. Alternately Nikon lenses can be used pretty directly manual focus if you have a non-entry-level body. You can also get a film body for any system and get a wider perspective out of your existing FF lenses. Finally, medium format isn't that expensive to get into. $500 will get you a solid start in a Pentax 67 system and I'm pretty sure the Hasselblad system as well. It will get you a nice Fuji GS/GSW690 rangefinder. Or it will get you a really nice Pentax/Mamiya 645 or Bronica SQ/ETRS. Or if you just want to dip your toes in there's plenty of cheap options like a TLR, a folder, or a Kodak Medalist (needs to be converted or have film rerolled onto 620 spools).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Bunch of shots wide open with the new Sigma 35/1.4 Canon and Nikon are getting seriously outclassed in the fast-FF-35/1.4 market. Samyang's got one that beats them at 1/3 their price, and now Sigma's got one with AF that beats them at 2/3 their price. Time to bring the A-game, drop their price to $900 and bring out a 35/1.2L at the $1500 price point  e: Actually it would have to be cheaper than $900 since that's the Sigma's price point and the Sigma is straight up better plus includes things like setting the lens's micro-AF adjustment. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
DoctaFun posted:I think I am just going to buy a 72mm filter since that's the diameter of my largest lens, I saw a Hoya one on B&H for about $37, that seems pretty not crazy as far as photo stuff goes. It has 3 stops worth of light filtering power, that should be enough for most uses I would think(as I proved earlier that could be dangerous). It's $48, and a piece of poo poo. Very few people around here are going to tell you anything other than to buy a Marumi Super DHG, because they're the best on the market and don't cost much more. The plain old DHG are also great, they clock in slightly below B+W and the other 'pro' filters and will be cheaper than the Hoya after you pay for B+H shipping. http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-72mm-Super-Filter-Japan/dp/B003OEJLF4 http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-72mm-DHG-Circular-Polarizer/dp/B000SVXTAO vvv Whoops! 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
Im That One Guy posted:What's the general opinion here regarding Rokinon/Samyang lenses? It depends on the lens. The 85mm f/1.4 is OK. The 35mm f/1.4 is great, beats the Nikon and Canon 35/1.4s. The 24/1.4 equals the Canon/Nikon counterparts. Quality control seems to be a little on the hit-or-miss side, but not terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Honestly, if you have access to a hand drill and a spare bodycap, its probably not even worth it to buy a premade one. Depends on which premade one. A lovely one made from a plastic body cap? Yeah, it'll suck. Laser cut pinholes are the poo poo, though, they're very small and very round and thus make a pretty perfect aperture. Some people use apertures for electron microscopes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
FACKER posted:I've been doing some research on a new 35mm lens for mainly my Nikon D80, sometimes my Nikon FM2 and hopefully a D600 sometime in the not too distant future. I'll mostly be using it for street and landscape so I'm thinking that high speed is not very important. It seems that the Nikon 35 f2 would be my best bet. And then after that would be the Samyang 35 f1.4. Is the Samyang and Rokinon the same lens under different names? It appears to be the case but they're usually different prices which is throwing me off. Is there something else worth considering, like an AI-S version, or just get the Nikon f2 and call it a day? Samyang sells their lenses to third parties who rebrand it as Rokinon/Bower/Pro-Optic/Vivitar. This practice used to be a lot more common before we ended up with 4 big lens makers with 80% of the market. The Samyang is Ai-S only, it does not have rabbit ears if that matters to you. The Nikon 35/2 is a good enough lens but it won't match the wide-open performance of the Samyang. Bubbacub posted:How is it different from the Sigma 30mm f/1.4? Better optics? Covers full frame. The 30/1.4 is a scaled-down normal lens for APS-C, while the 35 is a wideangle lens for full frame (that acts like a normal on a crop camera). If you have the money it sounds like the Sigma is a nicer lens than anything else on the market, but the Samyang still outclasses the Canon and Nikon 35/1.4s if you can deal with manual focus.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:It's the best performing fast 35, surprisingly. Better then Canons 35 1.4, Zeiss, Sigma, etc. To clarify this a bit, the 35/1.4 is the best-performing lens on the market at the moment. From what I know about the 30/1.4, it is a little bit mediocre on the wide-open performance like most fast normal lenses (50/1.4s). The 35/1.4 has a lot more elements, better elements (aspheric, low-dispersion, ultra-low-dispersion), covers full frame, and is correspondingly a lot more expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
Wyeth posted:I have had the Sigma 35 1.4 for about two weeks now. It's absolutely brilliant so far. Can you comment on the manual-focus ergonomics? Is it focus-by-wire or mechanical? If the latter, is there much slop in the ring? I'd like a fast 35 at some point but it would also get used on manual-focus bodies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
As others have said, that's a very good deal, and FF cameras have no crop factor which can open up a lot of opportunities for cheap adapted glass. And at that price you could flip it no problem if you didn't like it. However, for the same money you could get a current-gen something like a used NEX-5N or a new Pentax K-01 or Olympus OM-D which will have far superior high-ISO performance (usable at 1600? Try usable at 25,600) as well as video. The NEX series is somewhat limited in terms of available glass, but has great adaptability and a great sensor. The K-01 has one of the best sensors on the market and lately they've been running deals like $316 body-only or $300 body+40mm lens, but the autofocus sucks and the camera is ugly as poo poo. The OM-D is fairly refined and has good, cheap glass selection, but lacks some features for adapting glass and has a higher crop factor than the others. Just food for thought. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Dec 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
milk thug posted:Also what's the verdict on adapting FD lenses onto EOS D bodies? Anything I should keep in mind? Got offered a load of nice old FD glass cheap as poo poo and I'm willing to give it a go after seeing the quality of shots some people online have managed to get. There are three ways to go. One, a simple mechanical/glassless adapter. This means you lose infinity focus. Two, a glass adapter. You get an additional crop factor, usually something in the neighborhood of 1.3x. You also get a pretty significant loss in quality. As mentioned, there was a special adapter produced by Canon, it was primarily intended for pros who had big investments in superfast supertele lenses like 400 f2.8s and things like that, they weren't offered for general sale so there aren't many and I don't know how they perform (if at all) on non-tele lenses. Finally, there's also the option of conversion. There used to be a couple places that would physically take the FD mount off, machine the lens down, and put an EOS mount on. It's expensive and you get manual stopdown/aperture/focus, usually not worth it and especially if the glass isn't L-series. If there's fast primes in there, I might be interested if it's cheap. I've been thinking real strongly about picking up a NEX and some of these lenses that can't really be put onto DSLRs anymore. For the record, you should also be able to put it on one of the EOS mirrorless bodies if you made the laughably bad decision to purchase one of those. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Dec 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Used OM-Ds are already going for less than half price? bobfather posted:No, I think he's thinking only of the NEX-5N, which is a fantastic deal. You could buy the 5D in question and an NEX-5N for about the same price as a used OM-D. I actually don't track Olympus and M4/3 prices very closely, I just assumed that they weren't too far out of the ballpark of their competition since I've seen them talked about as a "budget" option because of all the relatively cheap good lenses available. I had no idea they were still that spendy, I figured with $300 NEX-5Ns they couldn't be THAT much. In hindsight I guess I must have been thinking of other M4/3 cameras and made the connection because of the M4/3 mount. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Dec 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a big problem with finding primes for crop sensor cameras, anything FF wider than 20mm or so was a specialty superwide lens when it came out and is going to be insanely expensive ($800 for an 18mm is the ballpark I remember). There are a few newer options like the Samyang 14mm, but that one suffers from really strong distortion. You're probably better off looking at the wide crop zooms.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
powderific posted:This is a key point that a lot of people in the internet video blogosphere seem to be missing. For a lot of users that doesn't matter. The fact that it's concentrating light and increasing the effective aperture will give an advantage in sports shooting and let you get away with lower ISOs in a lot of other places as well. It's not a cure-all but if it performs as well as it seems to it'll be a major boon to mirrorless crop cameras. I want this, in a Pentax-1.7x-AF-style moving-element focuser, on an APS-C body with phase-detection-focus sensor a la the Fuji X200. That would basically destroy the advantage of full frame DSLRs in the low-end market.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Musket posted:I got a speedbooster + gas saving device for your car Id like to sell you along with a device that turns stagnant water into unlimited power. These are devices the Government doesnt want you to know about. For $600bux... Concentrating and shaping light is a lie, Fresnel lenses are black magic, constant-aperture zoom lenses are large scale fraud...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Not sure we are talking about the same thing. If you mean light-capturing he's correct. More specifically, it captures the same amount of light but compresses it into a smaller area, making the image brighter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
SKULE123 posted:I guess I want something that won't feel junky or limiting (like my Olympus Stylus Tough with slow turn on and bad focus and slow shutter trigger time) compared to my DSLR. Is there a reasonable consensus on what is the best option (or the bang-for-buck option)for a Sunday driver (shooter?) like myself? I'll be trying to keep costs down where possible, so it seems like m43 and NEX are a fair amount cheaper than an X100, but if an X100 is all that and a bag of chips and will last me 5 years, I'd spring for a used one. Am I overlooking anything obvious? Do you like zoom lenses? If so, look at the bridge camera lineups from Canon and Nikon or the Fuji X10. If you like fixed lenses, the X100 is a real nice camera. They're coming out with an X100s soon so if you're going to buy used you might want to hang on a bit and buy as people upgrade. The NEX bodies are great but they lack selection of glass unless you buy third party or adapt some other glass. M43 bodies run the gamut from cheap to awesome and have a pretty good selection of glass at this point, but they have small sensors even compared against APS-C. There's also the Fuji X1 which is Fuji's stab at the NEX's niche.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
I would get the 35/1.8. It's cheap and works properly and a good focal length. There really aren't a lot of APS-C primes in that focal length, there's the Sigma 30/1.4 which is OK and then you skip down to like the 14mm range and wider. Unfortunately full frame primes have to cover a lot more sensor and are usually a lot bigger, heavier, and more expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
RoryGilmore posted:I just started photography a few months ago, and started with a film camera, and have been only using that camera. Although I really like it, I want to be able to do digital as well, so I'm looking to start doing that and am looking for purchasing advice! (Budget is ~500$) The majority of my time is spent in parks/woods shooting architecture and scenery, but I also like to street shoot (which I guess I can save for film, since I doubt there's a camera that's the best of both worlds). Ability to shoot in low light would be great. I'm not sure if I should be looking for a low end DSLR kit, or if a P&S would be the best option for me right now starting out. If I need to buy lenses, I wouldn't mind starting out with a cheaper one and moving up once I learn more. Any advice would be great, thanks! No offense, you have about $150 of Nikon lenses, tops, and they will be manual focus. MF is significantly more difficult on crop bodies with tiny little viewfinders and no focus aids, I would get a camera that can take a split-prism screen. Something like a D200 sounds like it might fit your needs. For low light shooting, though, it's hard to beat the latest generation of sensors. They can run ISO3200 and it'll look as good as 200 on previous generations of cameras, or you can punch it up to 25600 or so and shoot in the dark and it'll look like 1600 or 3200 on an older DSLR. The NEX-5N is a great body but has a limited selection of native glass, you could adapt your Nikon lenses but you'll lose auto-aperture. The K-01 is recently discontinued but it was also great bang for the buck (albeit horrifically ugly). If you're not interested in interchangeable lenses Ricoh makes some fixed-lens P+S that seem like they'd be good for street shooting, a used X100 isn't too far above your price range (and will drop as the new version comes out), etc. Your requirements seem like you'd be fine with a fixed 28mm or 35mm equivalent.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
RoryGilmore posted:None taken. I didn't actually buy any of it, it was second hand. If my lenses are worth that little, I'd rather have options with auto focus and just purchase a new lens like what was recommended earlier. I am interested in interchangeable lenses, I think my film cameras are already mobile enough for street, but I'm not really sure if I need it for what I'm trying to do. Reading up on the 5100 seems like it's a good bet, is that latest generation of sensors or should I be looking at the ones you mentioned for low light shooting? You can play with the cameras over on DPReview's site. This is a comparison of four cameras at ISO 12800, which is a stretch with the older sensors but reasonably possible with the newish Sony sensor in the NEX-5N/K-01. Do note that 12800 is pretty fast, you should be able to shoot available-light for pretty much anything with a reasonably fast lens. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Feb 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 22:39
|
|