|
If you're looking for a small compact with good IQ, the Sony RX-100 is probably one of the best bets right now. It shoots RAW, has a sensor three times the size of the Canon S series, and a brighter lens overall too. Yes, it costs more, but the premium looks to be worth it. I had the same problem as Marty, and that's how I chose to solve it.
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2012 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
The 18-135 is a new lens. Not sure what the performance is on it. The 18-55 and the other lenses are what they are. The 18-135 is certainly better built; has metal mount, silent motor, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:My boss has asked me to buy a new camera for our department to document events and site visits. The pictures will be used for things like brochures and annual reports. Our company has a photography department but they aren't always available when we go on site visits to grantees. I have a budget of $750. Sony RX100. If budget is not an issue it'll blow the rest away. If size isn't an issue (e.g. doesn't have to fit in a pocket) then any entry-level mirrorless (NEX, m4/3rds) will do the job.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
I believe the first lens to have a sliding door for the polarizer was the Minolta 70-200 SSM. A tradition handily carried on to its Sony progeny.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Theoretically such an adapter could be made to give autofocus to manual focus lenses by moving the optics in the adapter back and forth to focus.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
They are very, very good. But you might want to get the Micro center model, which has a DisplayPort and a usable OSD.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
dakana posted:Would someone take pity on me and explain to me, start to finish, how the gently caress color profiles and monitor calibration and printer profiles and color spaces and color management in photoshop and all that poo poo actually works and interfaces with each other? Buy this book: http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Color-Management-Edition/dp/0321267222/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373244900
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
Since it's based on the RX100, with the same lens and sensor, it's definitely genius. It'll blow any smartphone's image quality away.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
You've learned a $400 lesson: don't leave batteries in the flash. The acid has probably destroyed most of the terminals and associated wiring; cleaning it up isn't going to fix it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Considering that Manfrotto (finally) separated the lock control and friction from each other in modern ballheads (e.g. 49X series), it should be far less of a problem than it used to be.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Tamron uses its USD (Ultrasonic Drive) motor now in its high end lenses. All mounts have ultrasonic motors Tamron lenses, either USD or their PZD (Piezoelectric drive) for cheaper lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
RX100mk2 added: Tilting screen. Hot shoe (allows use of flashes, EVF) Wired remote control via the multi (USB) port and Sony's newer remote commander NFC/WiFi shooting Better sensor with faster AF/better high ISO performance.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
I just put Tamron lens caps on everything. They're great.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I've ebayed a cheap, and hopefully in a good enough condition, Sigma 70-200m. Seeing how big that thing is, I was wondering, how stable is that tripod collar of it? Can it double as carrying handle without breaking on the longterm? You can always buy the Sigma tripod collar that has the carry handle as a replacement.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Sony 70-300G or 70-400G, but will require the LA-EA2/4 for his NEX. The former is affordable enough for your average amateur, the latter is expensive but worth every cent.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Verman posted:Is the sony RX100 mk1 still a solid option for a compact? I want something other than my gripped 50d/lenses for travel and backpacking trips where weight and space - or the lack thereof - is important. $400 is sort of the upper end of what I would ideally like to spend but I wasn't sure if anything out there came close to the rx100 for less. All the reviews I've come across have said this is a solid camera and the video samples Ive seen have been incredibly high quality. The RX100 still takes great pics. I mean, a MkIII will be better, but if you're looking for a good outdoor camera it's tough to beat an RX100. I might upgrade to a MkIII but I've had a Mk1 since release date and I've actually used it more than my full frame simply because I have it on me more often.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
I have a Yeti (the BR guys gave me one for free last year to replace my aging RS-5) and it indeed lets you do two cameras easily while looking like less of a dork/cyborg. I don't generally use the twin-camera attachment but it is nice to have.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
grack posted:Anybody got $166,000 laying around that they aren't using? I wonder if it's the same one that came up for sale at B&H a few years back.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
Even pros have to think twice about spending the price of a new compact car on a lens.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
In 2001 I bought a 128MB CF card on Amazon for $105.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Nomenclature posted:I actually played with the low-end Sony DSLT they had, and I didn't find the EVF any quicker to focus with than the rear screen. The low end DLST's viewfinders have compromised resolutions and older tech (scanning LCD) compared to anything using the XGA OLED finders. They're two different beasts. But they'll both show the same focus off the sensor. A problem with most modern optical viewfinder screens is that they don't show true depth of field, so unless you get the focusing-optimized screen, you will have a more difficult time getting perfect focus. Modern screens are biased towards brightness and clarity, not focusing accuracy. Plus, there's always shims/balance involved so there's a risk that your viewfinder, when in focus, might be a bit off compared to off-the-sensor. The rear screen (or an EVF) always shows you the focus off the sensor, so presuming you nail the focus there, it will be good. Plus, everyone's sight is different and they may have an easier time viewing a screen from a little bit away versus an eyepiece. I like focusing off the rear screen because it gets the camera out of my face and it's easier to move around the "100% window" when you've got some space to work. But that's on a tripod. Speaking of viewfinders, I helped some random person on the street take their picture in town the other day, and they had a Rebel something-or-other. What an atrocious viewfinder. I've been spoiled by a full frame EVF and glass prisms before that. Compared against one of those suckers, even a mediocre EVF is an improvement.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Chill Callahan posted:The only place I could see an EVF as being better than an analog one for manual lenses would be in low light situations like concert shooting. EVFs do not darken when you stop down and will show you true depth of field when you do, so you'll know exactly where you're focusing and how the DOF will work. But an EVF may not necessarily be faster than using a split-collar microprism, which is still the fastest way to manually focus for me. You can also zoom in and focus on any point of the frame, so you're not reliant on the split prism being in the center of the frame.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
That's a known problem with those LCD screens. Extreme temperature shifts can be one cause. Once the bleeding starts, it will only get worse. Sometimes it consumes the display and it will be rendered unreadable or fail entirely. Unfortunately, you're boned. Only way to fix it is to replace the LCD screen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
The Nikkor 24-120 is a perfectly cromulent lens that has excellent results for the range. You won't be shooting f/2.8 but I think the rose is off f/2.8 zooms since full frame is back, has excellent high ISO performance, and people generally want a little more range on the long end.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Olympus actually rates their interchangeable lens cameras to an IPX rating, which no other manufacturer does.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
The 645Z, though, has really upped the ante compared to the 645D. The 50mpx CMOS medium formats can all produce stunning image quality, and Pentax delivers the exact same thing for a third of the price.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Friend of mine has one for F-mount, they're quite robust. They're good airshow lens carriers because they're getting really painful with bringing bags in these days.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
I still prefer 400mm on full frame versus 300-ish mm on a crop. The framing might be similar and a 24 MP crop / FF body might have similar resolution but the shadow performance on non-Canon FF bodies make a significant difference in IQ. It's hard to let go once you get used to it. But sometimes you need more resolution and unless you want to shell out for a 600 f/4 then crop's your bag.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Do Sony sensors do better with retrofocus lenses or deep-glass lenses? Entirely dependent on the particular sensor. The a7RII is rumored to be better in the corners with legacy lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Sweet! Well, hopefully I find a camera store in loving whitefish, Montana LOL. Middle of nowhere 😐 Kalispell is right down the road but unfortunately there doesn't appear to be a full service photo store there. The only photo-related store appears to be primarily a lab/studio, Photo Video Plus. Where does your friend live? Where are you flying into? Do you mind taking a drive down to Missoula (it'll be a 2.5 hour drive from Kalispell)? Missoula and Bozeman would be much better places to buy stuff, but you might be better off ordering something online and having it delivered overnight via Fedex to your friend's place. Here's a list of MT dealers. Good luck. http://www.photographypros.com/equipment/montana.php
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:It's also really only cost effective to do your own prints on a nice inkjet if you do it constantly IMO. Otherwise they dry up and you waste a ton of ink getting them going again A 3880/P800 does not clog very much at all. Compared to 4900s/7900s, you can leave it sitting for a while (weeks to two months) and it'll come back to life with just a regular clean. I think I've had to do a power clean a grand total of once for the nearly two years I've owned mine. For an advanced amateur/semi-pro it is probably the best bang for buck printer you can buy, especially since you can print 17x25 with no issues. You need to look at the cost per print after you amoritize the cost of the printer... that is, if you are selling prints. Also you'll need to learn color management. Try BayPhoto; their prices are quite reasonable and their products are excellent.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
red19fire posted:I'm thinking about just swinging for the fences and getting a large format printer. Either a Pixma Pro 100, or finding a used Epson 3880 which people seem to swear by, also 17x25 prints I own a 3880, it is a workhorse machine that won't bankrupt you. If you can get a deal on a P800, you might be better off getting it, since actual new/refurb 3880s will be harder to get. I'm not really one to get used inkjet equipment; that poo poo gets ran into the ground and you have no idea how the person before you maintained it. Many fine art papers and reputable manufacturers will do canned ICC profiles which (unless your particular printer is way off) will serve you for 99% of your prints. All bets are off if you go third party inks, though. Canon's got a new 17 inch machine coming out soon, it has neat things like a vacuum paper feed (no pizza wheel marks) but I've never run the Canons so I can't really tell you how well they do economically.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 05:27
|
|
about lately. Then get the printer, a few paper types, and refillable cartridges with color-matched generic ink or bulk Epson Ink for frugality. Calibrate everything, and I should be ok, right?
|
The UI between the RX and the a6000 are basically the same. They have the same menu/FN system and the same amount of complexity. It's really whether you want a true pocket camera (the RX) or something with more room to grow (a6000). The a6000 is better for moving subjects and continuous drive, so if you want to do anything relating to higher speed shooting it will be your choice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
I still use the RX100 mk1 (bought it on release day) and it's probably the best bang for buck in image quality I've ever spent money on. It takes great photos while being able to fit in a pocket and not draw attention. The a6000 takes better photos, but it's not as stealthy. Still not as obnoxious as a full frame DSLR though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
You should check out the Rokkor files for all your MF Minolta needs. http://www.rokkorfiles.com
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Minolta meters are what Sekonic meters used to be (before they sold it off when they got out of the camera biz). They're the gold standard.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
RX100 (any variety) or an LX1 is the choice. G7X if he's a Canon fanboy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
DPreview has, IMO, gone downhill. The best reviews are a one-two punch of Imaging Resource and The Camera Store TV on Youtube.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Find a used copy or raise your budget to get a Sony RX100.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
Lightroom is not very multithreaded. Until they release their performance update throwing more cores at it will not make the system faster. Even LR's threaded tasks can't take advantage of more than four cores. Stick with Intel, the single threaded performance will be important for now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2017 19:40
|
|