Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
100% JPG is overkill. Usually around 70-80 is perfectly fine.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
NeoGAF Camera Equipment Thread | MK II
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
VisceralBowl
Member
I partially disagree with that. 90-98 is the sweet spot imo. Anything under (esp under like 85) and compression artifacts become obvious. Anything over is definitely overkill.
StopMakingSense
Member
The way your screenshots were compressed, it was hard to tell what was the compression in the screenshot and what was compression in the export.
JadedWriter
Member
Yeah, I used to do 60 and such for my website pictures, the compression was quite obvious. I've been trying to do 80 and the results are improved. Maybe I should just use 90% and call it a day.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Nobody seems to notice, in my experience.
Having never bought a nice camera before, I find myself falling into the, "but this one does this..." hole after looking for a bit. Basically, I'm looking at camera's that I don't need, but would love to have... I think?
The two cameras I'm looking at are the Sony a7R II and the Nikon D500. I can afford either body, so right now I'm thinking the Nikon D500, because the price of the a7R II plus lenses for it would be pushing it on price. That said, I probably don't need either of them. I am going to Arizona in April and want a nice camera to shoot pictures with, both at the wedding I am attending and when I am out hiking or sight-seeing.
My typical problem with buying a lesser piece of equipment is that I would be spending more in the long run if like doing it and want to upgrade soon, versus just buying something high quality that I could use for a long time. This works well for TV's, computer parts, phones, etc. However, I recognize that photography is something people actually make their living on, and that the high end cameras are priced accordingly, so I know I'm right now looking at cameras that are much more on the professional end than on the consumer end.
So, any recommendations to help pull me out of this seemingly endless abyss I've got myself into? While I can afford the cameras I mentioned, something cheaper but near as good is perfectly fine with me. In this case, I feel like I'm in information overload in this world and would be alright with a complete reset of what I think I know.
The two cameras I'm looking at are the Sony a7R II and the Nikon D500. I can afford either body, so right now I'm thinking the Nikon D500, because the price of the a7R II plus lenses for it would be pushing it on price. That said, I probably don't need either of them. I am going to Arizona in April and want a nice camera to shoot pictures with, both at the wedding I am attending and when I am out hiking or sight-seeing.
My typical problem with buying a lesser piece of equipment is that I would be spending more in the long run if like doing it and want to upgrade soon, versus just buying something high quality that I could use for a long time. This works well for TV's, computer parts, phones, etc. However, I recognize that photography is something people actually make their living on, and that the high end cameras are priced accordingly, so I know I'm right now looking at cameras that are much more on the professional end than on the consumer end.
So, any recommendations to help pull me out of this seemingly endless abyss I've got myself into? While I can afford the cameras I mentioned, something cheaper but near as good is perfectly fine with me. In this case, I feel like I'm in information overload in this world and would be alright with a complete reset of what I think I know.
JadedWriter
Member
Why the A7R2? If you want full frame you can get either a Nikon D810 or D750 for cheaper than the Sony. D500 is a great camera too though.
I guess I was looking at it because I've read pretty much everywhere it has the best image quality possible. I know all of the problems - slow, battery drains absurdly fast, overheats, etc. But, and this is full well admitting again I know nothing about cameras, I could see mirrorless becoming the way forward for cameras, and grabbing one now would get me in that ecosystem in terms of lenses. Plus, those problems are ones that will, I would assume, be fixed with more iterations. I've also read that the Sony has the best dynamic range, though the D810 isn't far behind.
But, I suppose I could pick up the D810 now and buy a few lenses for it (They wouldn't be amazing, I don't think? I'm looking at the NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8 and/or the Sigma 35mm f/1.4) for just over what I would pay for the Sony. Then if Sony ever fixes their problems, and assuming they maintain their image quality lead, grab a Sony 5-10 years down the road and grab a metabones adapter for lenses?
J
Jpop
Unconfirmed Member
Image quality is largely inherent on the person taking the shots, and the lens being used.
Get an entry/mid-range DSLR and start off with an entry level 18-50mm zoom. Get acclimated from there, see what type of shots you like, develop your composition and go on from there.
Don't go and blow thousands of dollars on a body , get it and still wonder why your photos don't look good. Then go spend hundreds on lenses and still not have your photos turn out the way you want.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
The thing about the A7RII is that you are paying extra for its video capabilities; great if you plan to shoot semi-pro video, but may not need if you only plan to do photography.
maybe you want to take a look at what the fuji x-t20 offers if you rather not go for the $2K+ price range with your first camera.
edit: For instance, take away some of those extra features from the A7RII and you end with the A7 II or A7R. Both still expensive, but under $2000.
http://cameradecision.com/multi-com...-Alpha-7-II-vs-Sony-Alpha-7S-vs-Sony-Alpha-7R
maybe you want to take a look at what the fuji x-t20 offers if you rather not go for the $2K+ price range with your first camera.
edit: For instance, take away some of those extra features from the A7RII and you end with the A7 II or A7R. Both still expensive, but under $2000.
http://cameradecision.com/multi-com...-Alpha-7-II-vs-Sony-Alpha-7S-vs-Sony-Alpha-7R
Any recommendations for a low/mid range? I've read the Nikon D3300 is the go to on the low end, but not sure in the mid.
Hm... good point on the video. I don't plan on taking much, so it would probably mostly go to waste with the a7R II. I'll keep the x-t20 in mind. I have a month to figure out which to buy, so any recommendations you guys have will certainly be under consideration.
J
Jpop
Unconfirmed Member
Have you done any type of photography before?
Are you looking for something with video capabilities?
Do you want something more compact or bulkier?
What are you primarily going to be using it for? Portrait shots, landscape, night photos, day to day stuff ect..?
TerryLee81
Member
Got a basically new E-M1 for $450. Couldn't resist.
I wanted a E-M1 II, but it's just too expensive right now.
I wanted a E-M1 II, but it's just too expensive right now.
Astral/H3X
Member
Yeah, I would heartily NOT recommend an A7RII as a first camera.
You won't notice the difference going to something like an A6300, which is also a premium camera, but not as large and bulky as an A7RII (which is more or less Sony's largest camera).
Honestly, I would go with a Fuji though. It's going to be much easier for someone who's learning, and 99% of why you'd get an A7 series over a Fuji isn't going to matter to someone who hasn't had good time behind cameras first.
You won't notice the difference going to something like an A6300, which is also a premium camera, but not as large and bulky as an A7RII (which is more or less Sony's largest camera).
Honestly, I would go with a Fuji though. It's going to be much easier for someone who's learning, and 99% of why you'd get an A7 series over a Fuji isn't going to matter to someone who hasn't had good time behind cameras first.
Alright, I think I've been told enough, and Sony is off the table. One step closer.
Outside of with my phone, none.
Not really? It would be nice for when I'd want to use it, but that would probably be rarely, so it is not in any way necessary to have great video.
Size doesn't matter. If I buy a DSLR this time and don't like the size, I'll just keep that in mind for the next time I buy a camera.
Like I mentioned, I'm going out to AZ for a wedding, some hiking, and going to national parks, so focus on those. Once I get home, it will mainly be landscape and sports.
I am perfectly fine buying used to mitigate some of the cost, so keep that in mind if factoring in price.
Outside of with my phone, none.
Not really? It would be nice for when I'd want to use it, but that would probably be rarely, so it is not in any way necessary to have great video.
Size doesn't matter. If I buy a DSLR this time and don't like the size, I'll just keep that in mind for the next time I buy a camera.
Like I mentioned, I'm going out to AZ for a wedding, some hiking, and going to national parks, so focus on those. Once I get home, it will mainly be landscape and sports.
I am perfectly fine buying used to mitigate some of the cost, so keep that in mind if factoring in price.
JadedWriter
Member
You should try looking at either a refurbished D7100 or 7200. They're both crop sensor, but the ergonomics on them is way better than the entry brands, not to mention better AF systems and AF points. I don't touch the entry level cameras, build quality is effing atrocious in my opinion. Pretty much my photography path was Nikon P530, Nikon D7100, Nikon D600 and then to a Nikon D810. Once you build up your knowledge base you can pretty much transfer from camera to camera without getting thrown off too heavily minus buttons being in different places. If you need a mirrorless then Fuji is your best bet in my opinion. Finding either an XT-1 kit at a good price or an XT-20 is the best answer. I'm anti Sony mainly because I think they have the most anemic native lens ecosystem. You either get over priced Zeiss primes or over expensive zooms. Their G Master lenses are way fucking over priced. Pretty much you're running around with adapted Canon glass or manual focus lenses.
And don't sleep on the Nikon 1.8 85, it's a damn good affordable 85. All shot on a D810.
DSC_2031 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
DSC_1993 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
DSC_0714 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
On the one hand, something like the Fuji XT-2 would be convenient to carry for hikes and travel, but on the other hand, the wider field of view from a Nikon full frame camera is really nice for landscapes. It kinda depends what's more important to you.
J
Jpop
Unconfirmed Member
To be honest I think the Pentax K Series is a great way to start for mid-range DSLRs for beginners.
The bodies are relatively cheap compared to Cannon et al, and there are a wide variety of lens available. At the same time you have really good build quality, and really cool lenses to get in on.
Pentax has a really good ecosystem, though they aren't as mainstream.
I think one question I need to ask is this - I know full frame is better in general, and especially for portraits and for landscapes. But, how much better it is?
I want a full frame, but there is a D500 on Amazon for $1500 with 11k shutter count that I have sitting in my cart. My thought process is that, while I want a full frame, the D500 is at a great price. I can buy that now, buy lenses (since Nikon DX and FX sensors take the same lens mount), then sell the D500 when the next iteration of the D750 and/or D810 comes out and use the money I get towards that. Or, I might just fall in love the D500 and be perfectly content. Decent idea? (And yes, I know some math is involved when putting full frame lenses onto a APS-C sensor.)
I want a full frame, but there is a D500 on Amazon for $1500 with 11k shutter count that I have sitting in my cart. My thought process is that, while I want a full frame, the D500 is at a great price. I can buy that now, buy lenses (since Nikon DX and FX sensors take the same lens mount), then sell the D500 when the next iteration of the D750 and/or D810 comes out and use the money I get towards that. Or, I might just fall in love the D500 and be perfectly content. Decent idea? (And yes, I know some math is involved when putting full frame lenses onto a APS-C sensor.)
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
That's too bad. I own an A7RII and it is an absolutely fantastic camera. I bet we'll see an A7RIII this year, though, so might not be a good idea to buy now.
I think Sony's offerings are pretty damn incredible right now.
Why do you want a full frame? APS-C has enormous advantages in price, size, and weight, and the disadvantages compared to full frame (increased noise due to smaller sensor, etc.) are much less relevant with modern cameras. If you do go with APS-C, I would recommend checking out Fujifilm mirrorless cameras, namely the Fujifilm X-T2. They seem fully dedicated to APS-C as a format and produce really good bodies and lenses. Sony makes great stuff, too, but their focus seems to be more on full frame lenses. At the very least, their priorities are split.
JadedWriter
Member
It all depends on what it is that you do. If you do a lot of low light stuff then get a full frame. Doing birding and wildlife then get crop sensor. I do a lot of low light and portrait photography not to mention event work so I pretty much just went the FX route and never looked back. I think even if you got the D500 the chances of you eventually owning an FX lens or two are strong since Nikon DX lenses are shit minus like 3 or something. We did say get something cheap first. The D500 has the better buffer and AF speed though, it really does depend on what you're intending to use it for.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
The difference in image quality between crop and full frame isn't as huge as it used to be. I'd say the difference is pretty negligible nowadays. The D500 is even pretty good for low light performance as well, something that full frame cameras used to have the outright advantage in. The only relevant things that you can't get with a crop sensor that you can get with a full frame sensor nowadays is a wider field of view, better dynamic range, or a slightly shallower depth of field. Even then, you can still take perfectly fine pics (portraits, landscapes, macro, action, whatever) with either full frame or crop.
If your minimum quality camera body would be a D500, I'd say that you'd probably find more utility out of spending the rest of your money on diversifying your lenses and getting helpful accessories (like a tripod or flash, or lighting modifiers) rather than upgrading your body.
I haven't bought it yet, and it isn't my minimum body. I'm still kicking around the idea of a D7200 and a great lens or two for the same price as I'd be spending on the D500. I just saw the D500 for, what I think is, a good deal and figured I'd ask about it on here.
I looked at the Pentax, Jpop, and just didn't see the lens diversity that Nikon and Canon has. And I like what I've seen from Nikon cameras when looking around, so I think that's where I want to go.
I looked at the Pentax, Jpop, and just didn't see the lens diversity that Nikon and Canon has. And I like what I've seen from Nikon cameras when looking around, so I think that's where I want to go.
JadedWriter
Member
They are both good cameras. What lenses are you looking at for the D7200?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Oh, well, the reason to get a D500 over the D7200 would be for shooting sports/action or low light, since the D500 has a frame rate twice as fast and is a better performer in dark areas. So, just decide if that matters to you or not.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I still think you should go for mirrorless, especially if you're considering APS-C.
I think the technology is just far superior to DSLR at this point and is the way of the future.
I think the technology is just far superior to DSLR at this point and is the way of the future.
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art and Nikkor 85mm f/1.8. I know that they translate to like a 53mm equivalent and a 130mm equivalent due to the crop sensor, which I can figure out, but I've read good things about both of them.
JadedWriter
Member
These are already FX lenses any way. At least if you ever do opt for FX you have lenses for it. Warning you now that 85 will be cramped indoors, but I do love it...oddly enough I didn't appreciate my primes till I moved up the FX.
Yeah I do consider Fuji to have the best crop sensor ecosystem.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
What are you planning on using your camera for most of the time?
JadedWriter
Member
Sadly Fuji is horrible at meeting demand. Still a pain in the ass finding an XT-2.
JadedWriter
Member
itsbenoclock
Member
Having problems with my Mavic Pro. Can anyone watch this short clip I shot with it and tell me if they see anything wrong with it? I'll put what I'm seeing in spoiler tags to not influence anyone before viewing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqtRNxd2AvM
Weird colour casting / blotchy green hues and general unpleasant image quality
Yeah, retailers outside of the normal B&H and Adorama seem to have them more readily available.
QualityPixel
Banned
Max quality jpg is fine. I like to send files sized and cropped. So if I'm getting a 8x10 I'll crop it in photoshop to 8x10 @ 300 dpi and you'll end up with a 2400x3000 pixel image which is way more detail than an pretty much any printer can handle anyway.
Printing typically loses detail, especially with luster paper.
graphite will definitely be hard to find as it's so new and in demand more than black. that place was outstanding to order from. they have my business from now on as B&H and Adorama's supply issues are not worth the wait anymore.
depends. Fuji is still having some issues catching up due to earthquake issues. could be a bit.
J
Jpop
Unconfirmed Member
Fuck it, I have become an Instagram phore.
Lightroom -> Insta Uploader is too easy.
Lightroom -> Insta Uploader is too easy.
the better twin
Member
To throw another option out there; if a7r2 is the dream get a Sony crop (6000/6300/6500) and get the full frame lenses for it. That's the beauty of e mount, unlike other manufactures you can use full frame lenses on crop and vice versa. That way you could discover if it's something you want to invest more time/money into and you wouldn't be stuck regretting not being able to easily upgrade to the a7r2 down the line.
Hey,
I've got a Canon 1000D and I feel like I have reached the limits of its possibilities, especially with the kit lens that came with it. I'm wondering if it's smart to buy a new lens for it, and if I do will I be able to use that new lens if I buy a new body someday? What kind of lens would you recommend? I'm mostly into landscape photography at the moment, but I wanna try new things which I feel like the current lens/body is holding me back.
I've got a Canon 1000D and I feel like I have reached the limits of its possibilities, especially with the kit lens that came with it. I'm wondering if it's smart to buy a new lens for it, and if I do will I be able to use that new lens if I buy a new body someday? What kind of lens would you recommend? I'm mostly into landscape photography at the moment, but I wanna try new things which I feel like the current lens/body is holding me back.
sankt-Antonio
Banned
So I have a huge problem with the Sony A7II of mine. I'm in Mauritius. So its quite hot. The camera ,as soon as I take pictures in the sun, will slow down to a halt and just kind of shut down. As soon as I go indoors everything is fine. Of course it stopped working when I was on a speedboat meeting monkeys and visiting some nice waterfalls etc. this is just with shooting fotos. No videos.
I could be because I was using third party batteries (forgot my Sony at home). But man, this is maddening. Can take five pictures on the beach before it shuts down and stops working. How can that be possible? Im sure the climate in large parts of Asia is like this - the camera should withstand that. Other people on the beach with their nikons don't have this problem, and some even outright said "I know why I have a Nikon and not a sony" like
I really hope it's the battery and not the cam. Does anyone of you had similar problems with the sonys. If it's not the battery I'll sell my Sony stuff and move to a other brand. While I absolutely love the formfactor, especially with the 35mm 2.8 - I'll rather carry a much heavier brick around me and have pictures taken when it counts then to stand there with a literal brick in my hands.
I could be because I was using third party batteries (forgot my Sony at home). But man, this is maddening. Can take five pictures on the beach before it shuts down and stops working. How can that be possible? Im sure the climate in large parts of Asia is like this - the camera should withstand that. Other people on the beach with their nikons don't have this problem, and some even outright said "I know why I have a Nikon and not a sony" like
I really hope it's the battery and not the cam. Does anyone of you had similar problems with the sonys. If it's not the battery I'll sell my Sony stuff and move to a other brand. While I absolutely love the formfactor, especially with the 35mm 2.8 - I'll rather carry a much heavier brick around me and have pictures taken when it counts then to stand there with a literal brick in my hands.
jongkookie
Member
^It is a 3rd party battery issue.
I've taken my A7 to below freezing temps and left in the car under the baking sun for a few hours and I haven't had any issues with it.
What kind of 3rd party batteries do you have?
I used to have a pair of RAVPower batteries and they were great initially but after about a couple of months, they stopped holding their charge so now I'm back to 3 Sony batteries. I'm thinking of picking up Wasabi batteries next but I haven't had the need for it, plus a lot of the reviews in Amazon don't seem to be consistent so I'm kinda weary about getting a set.
I've taken my A7 to below freezing temps and left in the car under the baking sun for a few hours and I haven't had any issues with it.
What kind of 3rd party batteries do you have?
I used to have a pair of RAVPower batteries and they were great initially but after about a couple of months, they stopped holding their charge so now I'm back to 3 Sony batteries. I'm thinking of picking up Wasabi batteries next but I haven't had the need for it, plus a lot of the reviews in Amazon don't seem to be consistent so I'm kinda weary about getting a set.
sankt-Antonio
Banned
I have two red Baxxtar batteries. I could punch myself for not taking the Sony one with me.
Skel1ingt0n
I can't *believe* these lazy developers keep making file sizes so damn large. Btw, how does technology work?
Good friend of mine purchased his first "real" camera recently - an X-T20.
It delivered yesterday and so he brought it over. I have an X-T1 and it's pretty clearly an upgrade over mine on every single thing except the viewfinder and body size. Too small for me - but otherwise, holy shit what a phenomenal device for the price.
He was very thankful I talked him into going Fuji almost the moment he got his hands on it. The build quality and "heft" is great.
It delivered yesterday and so he brought it over. I have an X-T1 and it's pretty clearly an upgrade over mine on every single thing except the viewfinder and body size. Too small for me - but otherwise, holy shit what a phenomenal device for the price.
He was very thankful I talked him into going Fuji almost the moment he got his hands on it. The build quality and "heft" is great.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 47027
- Off-Topic Community Archive