|
OneTwentySix posted:Could someone please recommend a camera for me? I tried to read the OP, and while it is really informative, everything just goes over my head. I think I'd do better if I settled on a camera, and then learned what its features mean, rather than having no reference point to apply it to. You can get waterproof/weather proof cameras. For point and shoots there are things like the Pentax wg-1 and Olympus TG-1 (I think those are model numbers) and their associated versions in their model lines. Last years models can be found for under 200, and are waterproof/shockproof. These are point and shoots, but they are pretty solid and do basically everything you might want. http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-WG-3-G...rds=pentax+wg-3 has shake reduction, gps, waterproof to 45 feet, and even has a built in ring light for better macro shots. The non gps version is under 200. For things with interchangable lenses there aren't as many options for full on waterproof , but nikon has the Nikon 1 AW1 http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Nikon1/27669/Nikon-1-AW1.html which also meats your criterea, but it very new and the price is on the higher side still. If you're ok with things just being weather proof you have a lot more options for camera bodies, a lot of them are probably going to be more than 4-600. I use an Olympus OM-D and it works great in the rain, but even used the body + lens is probably going to be above 800. Old higher end dslr's with canon or nikon that have weather sealing can probably be found in your price range, but you might have to take care about what lenses you use as they might not be weather sealed. Pentax has some good weather sealed bodies and lenses for relatively cheap.
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:Thank you for the recommendations. Being water-proof isn't very important, since I don't SCUBA or snorkel, but it would be useful for an accident - I'd just keep it away from the water, then. Water resistant would be nice, though; with weather proofing, I'd still be fine in rain? I do go out in the rain sometimes. Yup, you'd be just fine in the rain. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:This might be a better question for the lighting thread, but since it's a newbie question I thought I'd toss it out here: Yongnuo 560 is the best way to go if you don't neeeeed TTL (you probably don't!). The the ex3 version has a wireless trigger receiver built in too, otherwise any cheap trigger will work fine for casual use.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
The sigma 28-80 that I had for my sd14 was p. solid too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
sirbeefalot posted:So with an EF and EF-S lens of equal focal length on my SL1, I'll get a smaller portion of the scene with the EF lens... is that right? In other words the EF lens would appear more zoomed in? Or am I totally off base and they would both give me the same field of view? No, both lenses would give you the same Field of View on the SL1. Focal length never ever changes, it's the effective field of view that does (since the size of the image circle projected onto the sensor, or the size of the sensor). If you were to use both lenses on a FF camera the EF lens would work fine, but the EF-S lens would leave a black circle since it doesn't project a big enough image to cover a FF sensor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Yeah, but when someone's fawning over the perspectives of my pictures taken with a FF, telling him that I've used a lens with a certain focal length won't help him trying to replicate it, tho. So I'll be telling him about an adjusted focal length. Good job perpetuating stupidity I guess. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I think the D5xxx has a slightly bigger sensor but only slightly (1.5 crop vs. 1.6). Slightly higher maximum ISO, more autofocus points, and a flip-out screen. Not much else. I don't think it's a bigger sensor at all, and the rest of that really depend son which d5xxx you're comparing to your d3xxx (apart from the flip out screen).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
The OM-Ds are pretty close too, although they're more me super in size than FM2.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
On the other hand, a 50mm reverse mounted to an 18-55 can get you decent results. Can get you some halfway decent results with the right software to step the focus motor and focus stack some shots.  12-08-30_202119_M=B_R=8_S=4.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickrand  12-08-31_224757_M=B_R=8_S=4.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickrwere both done that way, using controlmynikon to step the focus motor between each shot. A reverse mounted 50mm lens is still probably my favorite way to macro on a nikon crop body though. Get a flash to control the lighting too!  DSC_0236.jpg by MrDespair, on FlickrAlthough really for model ships like that I'm not sure you really want a true macro lens, rather just something with a decent close working distance.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:I don't have either Tamron, but I note that Tamron about to be on Amazon Black Friday sale is the older one, without vibration compensation. This one, with VC, is the recommended one from the OP. I've been eyeing that one with the VC, and I'm think the VC would be handy at those ranges. Save up and get the one with VC (you can find it used for pretty good, and they run rebates pretty often [and tamron's rebate service is p. good!]). It's the best long zoom and it's comparable to the nikon/canon brands that cost 600+, it's an amazing deal if you get one for around 300. The cheap ones are passable, but not great, and a reversed 50mm lens is probably a bit nicer for macro, and it's not really good at 300mm.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
I'd rather use the old Rebel XS that I have sitting around than a T5.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
For 229 if they ship the camera you might be come out ahead selling the t5 and picking up a used t3i or something to go along with the lenses. Would still rather look for a used tamron 70-300 VC for that price range though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Glorious Takumar Asahi Pentax Ricoh mods, tia
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
codo27 posted:Rebel SL1, T5i or D3200? for what?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Roundboy posted:d7100 (or 7000) vs a 60D Im not invested in lenses or brand, but I'm trying to narrow choices to jump when i'm ready to buy next month or when a good deal comes along. step 1: buy a d7100, step 2: rip the '/' key out of your keyboard and throw it away. step 3: realize it doesn't matter what camera you use and just buy a copy of understanding exposure to figure out what you're doing. step 4" regret all the money you invested in the camera body instead of lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:There are good reasons not to go mirrorless but for the vast majority of people those reasons don't apply. (one is if you need really long reach for sports or wildlife photography, there are very few long telephotos available for mirrorless systems yet) On the other hand, a shorter lens will get you farther on a mft sensor. And oly's 40-150 and upcoming 300/2.8 are nuts. And there's plenty of 43 lenses you can adapt if you don't want to wait (but then it won't be cheap either).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Your shutter speed during video is independent of (but bounded by) the frame rate. You can shoot 1/1000 at 30fps, for example. So you can shoot the exact same exposure at 24fps or 30fps or 60fps, as long as you have enough light to play with. I really doubt your shutter is going to be closing every single frame. You'd never get more than 11 fps or so out of a camera if you were doing that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Good point. I don't actually know what's going on inside my camera, I just make guesses. Either way, 1/30 at 30fps seems unlikely. Really all depends on how fast the camera can buffer frames and write them to disk. At least with a go pro the listed max shutter speed for video is 1/(frame rate), so it's possible!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
windex posted:Realistically, though - if this is a hobby she has been into for awhile and has already exceeded phone cameras, the middle ground fixed lens cameras are good moves from that on a budget, but she'll hit the limits of them promptly if I had to guess. holy loving poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
When I got started I got a d40 + kit lens for ~$200, and it was great. Would still be pretty great. Everyone in here saying you should spend 2000 at a minimum to get into the hobby should probably be banned since they have so much extra money to blow on poo poo, they could use it to buy a new account. Or even better yet, stop posting!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 17:46
|
|