Damn your right....Any other mirror-less camera I should look into? I am trying to get my feet dirty so I want to do a bit of everything.
P.S. I love your pictures in the photography thread.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
NeoGAF Camera Equipment Thread | MK II
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
Damn your right....Any other mirror-less camera I should look into? I am trying to get my feet dirty so I want to do a bit of everything.
P.S. I love your pictures in the photography thread.
Fuji's lenses arent that much cheaper that Sony's.
Canon M's native lenses are laughable.
That's your options on apsc mirrorless.
JadedWriter
Member
As true as this is I feel Fuji puts more thought into their lens ecosystem than Sony does. Not to mention that Fuji is all in on crop sensor whereas I feel Sony spits out a few crop sensor lenses and then says fuck you move into full frame, which is pretty much also the Nikon approach...at least to me. I personally just buy my stuff used on Ebay or at least refurbished. Last time I checked for used Sony lenses on Ebay there didn't seem to be a huge market for it.
If I got a mirrorless it would be a Fuji. I prefer their layout over Sony's personally. I personally feel Sony's are too menu driven and I'm not the biggest fan of just program it to a Fn button. I like dedicated buttons so when I once said "I don't buy shit without an iso button" I meant it. I know the Fuji XT20 is coming out soon and that's pretty much a slightly dumbed down XT-2 so I'd look into that. And thanks for liking my pictures. I have no idea if anybody likes what I put up on their at times. All I know is I've gotten a lot better since I've been posting. My first pictures are ghastly.
Type_Raver
Member
Any other film shooters here?
I sold my digital kit over a year ago, consisting of a Nikon d800 plus a few lenses.
Now I shoot medium and large format film, using a Hasselblad 500c and a Linhof Master Technika. It's a steep learning curve, with everything done manually from the focus, metering and shutter/aperture speeds. However, once you begin to nail the shots, it's so much more rewarding than the instant gratification of digital. Plus it forces you to be patient leading towards being a better photographer.
Granted, the speed and accessibility of digital is great for the sports/event photographers, but if this isn't what you do, pick up a cheap 2nd hand 35mm film camera and give it a go.
I sold my digital kit over a year ago, consisting of a Nikon d800 plus a few lenses.
Now I shoot medium and large format film, using a Hasselblad 500c and a Linhof Master Technika. It's a steep learning curve, with everything done manually from the focus, metering and shutter/aperture speeds. However, once you begin to nail the shots, it's so much more rewarding than the instant gratification of digital. Plus it forces you to be patient leading towards being a better photographer.
Granted, the speed and accessibility of digital is great for the sports/event photographers, but if this isn't what you do, pick up a cheap 2nd hand 35mm film camera and give it a go.
I shoot a GW690III, Bronica RF645, Leica M3, Nikon S2, Fuji TX-2, Olympus XA, XA2, Canon A-1, and Rolleiflex 111A.
I like film.
But I also still shoot digital, Fuji XT-2, Fuji X-Pro 2, Leica M8, Fuji X100T (switching up to the F shortly) and I think I'm going to get the Fuji GFX-50S as well. Digital stuff is more for work (Fuji stuff) and the M8/x100 is for walk around for me.
jongkookie
Member
A lot of the the hate the kit lens get seems like it's due to the build quality(plastic) and some minor optics/IQ issues and if you're a firm believer of DxOMark then you'll see a 3 point difference between the two which is pretty surprising.
I still want to get the 24-70 f/2.8 G Master in the future but I think I'm gonna save my money for the moment and wait for the A7III instead.
Tbh I sorta have no clue what this really means lol. I know that flange distance is the gap from the lens to the sensor or vice versa, but beyond that, I figure it's not that important(mostly coz I don't care about Canon's lol) so I never bothered to read up on it haha.
I primarily shoot with a Nikon N8008, I tried my EL2 and I like it but I prefer the automated features of the N8008 so that's my go to right now.
That said film is a little expensive for me right now since I've totally forgotten how to work in the darkroom so I have to send it out to get developed and scanned/printed so I don't do it as much. Mostly for fun and the occasional client who really wants a physical copy of their photos.
BigJonsson
Member
Thinking about buying my first L series lens but not sure which one
Is the 70-200mm F4 USM without image stabilization hard to use? I've heard it's really heavy? I mostly take pics at the zoo
I currently have a t3I with the 18-55mm kit lens, the 55-250mm kinda crappy lens and a Sigma 70mm 2.8 macro EX lens that is pretty awesome
I'm also thinking about the 24-105 F4 or the 24-70 F4 IS.....
I may also decide spending that much money is silly like I've done every other time I've considered this lol
Is the 70-200mm F4 USM without image stabilization hard to use? I've heard it's really heavy? I mostly take pics at the zoo
I currently have a t3I with the 18-55mm kit lens, the 55-250mm kinda crappy lens and a Sigma 70mm 2.8 macro EX lens that is pretty awesome
I'm also thinking about the 24-105 F4 or the 24-70 F4 IS.....
I may also decide spending that much money is silly like I've done every other time I've considered this lol
Ahahaha, just checked and the 28-70 is actually rated as sharper on DXO
DXO puts a lot of stock in light transfer which is why f1.4 lenses are so highly rated.
The early FE lenses had pretty big variance in optical performance, but the Zeiss 24-70 doesn't look that bad. Kinda bad for an f4 zoom, but much better than the 70-200.
It is worth keeping in mind DXO (and other reviewers) only tests one copy so if they got really lucky, its performance will be too good and if they got a dog it'll look worse than it really is.
Elfotografoalocado
Banned
The 70-200 is not heavy at all, and as long as it's used in daylight the lack of IS will not be that bothersome.
If you don't plan on moving to full frame, get a Sigma 17-50 or Canon 17-55 for normal lens, it's cheaper, lighter and a full stop brighter than the full frame lenses. Spend the difference on selling the t3i and getting an 80D.
Astral/H3X
Member
You're right, the flange distance is the space between the lens mount and the sensor. But the light that comes through is only focused correctly at that exact flange distance. If the flange distance is off, then the light would be correctly focusing at a point either ahead of or behind the sensor.
This flange distance is why you cannot properly use Pentax K or Canon FD lenses on a Canon EOS camera without extra optics -- the new Canon cameras actually have a larger flange distance, so the lenses will always be at least a little farther from the sensor than they should be, and the result is that you can never focus to infinity with those lenses (without optics in the adapter that will compromise IQ)
The very short flange distance of a mirror less camera is actually what makes them so easy to adapt lenses on to -- since the flange distance doesnt need to have space for a mirror, the lens mount design can be much closer to the sensor, leaving plenty of room for adapters to make up that difference for lenses that expect the mount to be much further away.
(technically it also allows for shorter, smaller lenses, however lens design seems to be INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT, so they tend to reuse or modify lens designs that centered around large flange distances anyway.)
New Sigma ART lenses announced. Probably will pick up the 14mm 1.8 if it reviews well. My ART series 35mm pretty much never leaves my camera now. Love that lens.
Maybe someday grab the 135 mm but I've already got the 70-200 L from canon that covers that focal length...hmm.
No release date or price yet from what I've seen.
Maybe someday grab the 135 mm but I've already got the 70-200 L from canon that covers that focal length...hmm.
No release date or price yet from what I've seen.
I'm hoping the 135 is priced similarly to the Canon, which is already pretty cheap for what you get.
I used to shoot a Fuji GX617.
To me a great shot is a great shot no matter the format and I find them all rewarding. My problems were dusting off the files, a 3200dpi scan of a 6x17 was about 800mb and like 20000+ pixels wide, which is like a ~150mega pixel image.
The one thing i do miss is the extremely long exposures you could do with Velvia at ISO 35 and add in the reciprocity factor, a 20 second exposure ends up being like 45 seconds, there's something different about doing a long exposure like that its very difficult to get my D800 to go that long, even at the lowest possible ISO and F11 or higher.
For me the best of both worlds was the Phase One IQ180 i had.
JadedWriter
Member
Is it just me or am I the only one turned off by Sigma's big ass primes? I think I'd get a 35 and the biggest the 50, but after that? Nope. The size of the 85 is a turn off and I'm starting to think they defeat the purpose of a prime...or at least one of them to be smaller and compact. An 85 the size of my 2.8 24-70 is fucking huge.
Optical performance trumps everything for me. A 135 on a full frame is dreamy.
JadedWriter
Member
I get it. I've just had enough of Sigma...granted I do want that 135 cause I would really like a good telephoto prime for portraits and I'm not touching the Nikon 1.4 105. My next lenses seem to be the Tamron 70-200 SP, the 90mm Macro and the 45 or 35 SP, also looking at Nikon's F4 16-35VR or the Tamron 15-30 2.8 though that thing looks like a "don't fuck up" lens.
BigJonsson
Member
JadedWriter
Member
Swivel screen, more AF points, better AF system, better ISO range, newer sensor, higher MP, most likely just a straight up better built camera. I would never buy a Rebel series, but it depends on what you need it for.
Canon 80D
m_shortpants
Member
Is that Sigma 28-70 going to be available on e mount?
Might be interested in picking that up.
Might be interested in picking that up.
JadedWriter
Member
No. You're going to need to buy the Sigma adapter and get the lens you want in Canon mount.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
IMO, Fuji's offerings are better than Sony's for mirrorless cameras.
True, but for me, the main purpose is image quality. I don't really give a hoot how big the lens is. Nikon's 200mm+ prime lenses are yuuuge, for example. My concern, actually, is that these lenses are made by SIGMA. I find their build quality and long term reliability to be spotty.
JadedWriter
Member
Yeah I do my best to kind of divert "I wanna Sony" people to Fuji. I mean they can buy whatever they like but at the same time Sony is not the end all be all of mirrorless. I fully agree with you. I don't 100% care about lens size. I have used a 70-200 2.8 as a walk around lens, what really gets me about Sigam is their long term reliability. I have 3, 2 DX and 1 FX. I found the 17-50 to be spotty as hell with AF and the 18-35 isn't that accurate either, especially wide open, which is why they haven't moved out of the blue Trader Joe's bag I store my excess gear in since I moved to FX. I don't miss shooting on them.
Thanks I'll look into it. It will be my first high end camera so I'll have to buy it next month when I save up enough. Hopefully my hands aren't too big .
JadedWriter
Member
Depending on what your budget is I'd look into a Fuji XT-20, if you want that extra in build quality and/or weather sealing than the XT-2 is excellent. I'd like to trade in my two DX Sigma lenses and D7100 in for it, but I have no clue if it's worth it.
Thanks for the tips, and I'll be looking into the Fuji XT-20 as my starter camera. I wish I could get the XT-2 since I have sweaty hands and I live in Miami but the cost is too much.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Is there a local shop you can get a hands on experience at? Alternately, if you're an Amazon Prime member, the customer service is very lenient, and you could totally buy a camera and then return it before 30 days. The most you'd pay is shipping.
jongkookie
Member
Yeah, I personally don't use DXO a lot other than for a quick look at lens performance. I find that looking at real world images are a better "review" of how a lens is rather than scientific tests.
I see, so how are speed boosters acceptable then? Are they manufactured in a way that IQ doesn't even take a hit?
good speedboosters (Metabones) are manufactured with very high tolerances and materials. Image quality will almost always take a hit with adapters but that can be mitigated with those factors.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Fuck speedboosters. Rely on Zen like diaphram breathing and crouching tiger stance to make up for 1/2 stop of light 🐯
Astral/H3X
Member
Speedboosters are *always* going to cause a drop in IQ, as every single piece of glass between your subject and your sensor (to include those in your lens) will create some level of IQ drop, however minor it may be (and obviously you do need SOME glass lol). Theoretically, a speed booster *could* be made such that IQ drop is insignificant, but that would be expensive, and the point is that speedboosters are supposed to be comparatively cheap.
They are really only acceptable, IMO, if you have a vintage lens for a 35mm camera, and you really want to use it on an ASPC camera at the "original" focal length, since they also adjust that.
Other than that, it'd be pretty hard for me to recommend one.
JadedWriter
Member
I always find speed boosters and depending on brand lens adapters to be the same as a new lens so I don't even look into them. Not to mention it's one extra thing to pack or forget to pack in your photographic go bag. I personally try to stay as native as possible.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
So, after all these years of shooting I've never owned an average to good tripod. Ive always used those shitty Best buy, grey colored, plastic POS that just hold the camera kind of steady. Its always been a weakness in my setup. Having recently wanting to shoot on a tripod ive been looking around for a good tripod and ballhead for the value.
Decided on the Sirui T004X with the C10S Ballhead. 8.8lb load but my current setup is very minimal, with a Sony A7. Heaviest lens sits at 2lbs. So I'm looking at 4lb max capacity ceiling currently.
Also the blue color is pretty...
The tripod itself weighs in at 2.5lbs. Not bad at all.
Decided on the Sirui T004X with the C10S Ballhead. 8.8lb load but my current setup is very minimal, with a Sony A7. Heaviest lens sits at 2lbs. So I'm looking at 4lb max capacity ceiling currently.
Also the blue color is pretty...
The tripod itself weighs in at 2.5lbs. Not bad at all.
Astral/H3X
Member
It seems like the Sigma MC11 adapter is pretty sweet, so I think that'll open me up to Sigma lenses to help me get a few affordable AF lenses. In particular, the 150-600 would be nice for my gf if I spontaneously have money for it.
JadedWriter
Member
Just remember to get the lens in Canon mount. Like you could buy the Sigma mount lens, but why? Sigma makes horrible cameras so there's no point.
Astral/H3X
Member
But what if, and hear me out on this, what if that helps me out by making the lenses cheaper?
And it's only be one or two lenses.
JadedWriter
Member
The way I see it I'd rather have a lens that could be used on 2 relevant systems instead of just one. Sigma mount is meaningless and it's not even a popular system so it might actually be cheaper to get the Canon mount. Edit: I just checked on Ebay looking for art lenses in the Sigma mount, the 50 and 35...yeah not happening. Can't save money on something you can't find. Edit #2 I just checked their own site and the prices seem to be the same regardless of mount.
Astral/H3X
Member
In that case yeah, Canon it is. That's weird, you would think they'd adjust those prices.
JadedWriter
Member
I have watched one review on Sigma's most recent mirrorless and it ain't great. It probably costs them more to make a lens in their own mount cause nobody buys the damn things. Think of it this way if you ever get curious or want a full frame dslr you can get a Canon and have a lens for it already. Bodies can be found for a bargain. Shit starts getting pricey when you need to get a lens with it.
Astral/H3X
Member
I've got enough full frame, I certainly don't think I'll ever want a full frame dslr. Those things are straight up bricks. And not small ones either.
I'm very much satisfied with my a7ii.
JadedWriter
Member
A vertical gripped D810 ain't small but I love the damn thing. It's pretty much different strokes for different folks. Though a camera is only as big/small as the lens on it. Put a 2.8 zoom on your A7ii and it ceases to be small. Same if you throw on a battery grip at the end of the day depending on what you're doing you're not really saving that much weight. Not to mention an A7R2 for example with an adapter and 18-35 Sigma is a big ass set up as well.
Nah I wish and I might renew my amazon prime thanks!
rockinreelin
Member
Not so sure about that..
Here's a canon vs a panny with equivalent lenses. Not even close in size.
Astral/H3X
Member
That m4/3rds vs full frame. My mirrorless camera is full frame, so I would need a lens about the same size as the Canon.Not so sure about that..
Here's a canon vs a panny with equivalent lenses. Not even close in size.
But, throw a prime on there, and I have a nice tiny compact camera, something that a 5D can't ever try.
Elfotografoalocado
Banned
Most importantly for me, twin dials, better AF system, better grip and a much better viewfinder. On top of that the sensor is better, but here I am looking for a 7D because it's cheaper and has a slightly better viewfinder with the same IQ (Marginally superior because of better sensor samples) as my 600D.
Rebel line cameras are bad, flimsy and it's impossible to compose properly with their terrible viewfinders. I find myself shooting from the hip more than I should because of that.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Yeah you cant discount the small footprint of the A7. Large zooms still exist but, as stated, you can throw on a tiny prime that makes use of the smaller mount to sensor distance and youre now working with a very portable camera.
JadedWriter
Member
I mainly meant it in regards to full frame dslr vs full frame mirrorless. M43's stilts it a little bit...a lot actually.Not so sure about that..
Here's a canon vs a panny with equivalent lenses. Not even close in size.
These vintage primes are the native Sony primes? I've seen some biggish primes from Sony, but I get what you mean. I can put a 50 on my 810 and it reduces the size and weight significantly. It ain't pocketable, but it less of a work out to work with. I'm just more used to the weight these days.
Once you get used to a 100% viewfinder anything else pisses you off. Same with two dials for shutter and aperture settings. I started shooting this way and can not go back. Not to mention build quality means a lot. If it don't feel good in my hands, I don't buy it, not to mention dedicated iso buttons cause I change that often depending on lighting conditions.
GAF I am planning to go to Nepal at the end of the year. I want to get a DSLR but spend as little as possible. I have an LG G4 as a phone - which takes pretty good pictures but I am looking for something that will take pictures better than a hypothetical Iphone 10 would. I want something future proof in comparison to smartphone cameras (at least 4 years ahead). My budget is anything less than $500 and the camera itself doesnt have to be new and can be body only. Will the Nikon D3300 be sufficient? D5500?
Edit: Out of interest which entry level (very cheapest) dslr will give me better pictures than the best smartphone camera on the market will at the moment?
Edit: Out of interest which entry level (very cheapest) dslr will give me better pictures than the best smartphone camera on the market will at the moment?
Hiro_Kunimi_80
Member
it's not equivalent for the prime purpose of a 2.8 lens such as bokeh
the f/2.8 on a micro4:3 sensor does not have same depth of field of a 2.8 aperture on a Full Frame camera
Similar threads
- Deleted member 47027
- Off-Topic Community Archive