JadedWriter
Member
He said work and portraits, mainly that's why, not to mention two SD cards...well at least in the D610's case.
NeoGAF Camera Equipment Thread | MK II
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
Astral/H3X
Member
I mean, the a6000 is great at those too?
I wouldn't say having 2 SD cards is much of anything to anyone who isn't a pro. I've never once felt constrained by a single SD card.
To answer the question, yes, the a6000 is a good "entry level" camera (it's really all in what you define as "entry level", though). Pros and consumers alike have used the a6000, and barring any need for marathon shooting should do well for you.
JadedWriter
Member
1 SD card is fine until you leave it in your card reader in the back of your computer, which has happened to me on a few occasions to be honest. I don't exactly know what he's doing, but I will agree out of the 3 cameras he was using the A6000 is the best of that set. They can be had for a steal and I'd actually get one as a "fun" camera if I actually liked the form factor of it...that and I shift my AF points all over the place constantly. Having to menu dive to do that really isn't my cup of tea.
Astral/H3X
Member
I've never taken my SD card out of my camera.
JadedWriter
Member
I've never done a straight transfer with a USB connected to the camera.
I've been thinking I should consider replacing my stills camera before the summer convention I'm attending this year rolls around.
1. Budget would be around £150-£220, though of course if there's one that would fit my needs for less than that I'd be interested.
2. Main purpose is taking pictures of people or groups of people in costumes in this venue (though for cosplay masquerades they set it up with a bit of a catwalk and light it differently).
3. I don't want anything mahoosively huge, but I'm not against having something larger than I have now, provided the price and feature set justify it.
4. No plans to invest in it further after the initial purchase. I'm not really interested in owning a camera where you have to keep buying addons and knickknacks and whatever for it. I'd probably want to buy a couple spare batteries and a case (assuming it wouldn't fit in the case I have) but that would be it.
5. My current camera is a Fuji FinePix F100fd. It still works but as you can see, its specifications are definitely showing their age. Something with a faster autofocus would be super great as that is a definite issue that I have currently.
Other points of note:
I'm sure this will be blasphemy for a lot of people here but I'm not interested in cameras where you have to get separate lenses and screw them on and whatnot.
I also don't want one where you have to twist the lens to zoom it (my current camera has what I think is called a "snapback" ring around the shutter button which operates the motorised zoom).
I do want optical zoom (my current camera can do 5x optical zoom).
It needs to be possible to attach it to a tripod if I want to.
I don't know if it's even an issue but it would obviously need to have a removeable, rechargeable battery that I can get spares of, and it needs to be possible to charge said spares outside of the camera.
Having a standard connector (e.g. microUSB or USB-C) as opposed to a proprietary connector, for connecting it to a computer, would be a nice-to-have, but ultimately I don't care that much as long as it comes with the appropriate cable (must have USB-A on the computer end though). Again not something that I would expect to be an issue but it needs to work on both PCs and Macs (I have a PC at home but also an old Mac laptop which I take with me to conventions).
Here are some pictures I took last year with my current camera which would give you some idea of the sort of subjects and environment I'd be using it in.
Given these requirements, has anyone got any recommendations?
EDIT: people on the GAF IRC channel are suggesting that my mobile phone camera has everything I want except for optical zoom. I don't want to use my phone for this, it's not a good fit for what I need. And if I'm going to spend money I'd rather buy a dedicated camera with optical zoom (which most phones do not have). I also do not have and will never have an iPhone, so even though that allegedly has optical zoom, I'm not interested thanks.
1. Budget would be around £150-£220, though of course if there's one that would fit my needs for less than that I'd be interested.
2. Main purpose is taking pictures of people or groups of people in costumes in this venue (though for cosplay masquerades they set it up with a bit of a catwalk and light it differently).
3. I don't want anything mahoosively huge, but I'm not against having something larger than I have now, provided the price and feature set justify it.
4. No plans to invest in it further after the initial purchase. I'm not really interested in owning a camera where you have to keep buying addons and knickknacks and whatever for it. I'd probably want to buy a couple spare batteries and a case (assuming it wouldn't fit in the case I have) but that would be it.
5. My current camera is a Fuji FinePix F100fd. It still works but as you can see, its specifications are definitely showing their age. Something with a faster autofocus would be super great as that is a definite issue that I have currently.
Other points of note:
I'm sure this will be blasphemy for a lot of people here but I'm not interested in cameras where you have to get separate lenses and screw them on and whatnot.
I also don't want one where you have to twist the lens to zoom it (my current camera has what I think is called a "snapback" ring around the shutter button which operates the motorised zoom).
I do want optical zoom (my current camera can do 5x optical zoom).
It needs to be possible to attach it to a tripod if I want to.
I don't know if it's even an issue but it would obviously need to have a removeable, rechargeable battery that I can get spares of, and it needs to be possible to charge said spares outside of the camera.
Having a standard connector (e.g. microUSB or USB-C) as opposed to a proprietary connector, for connecting it to a computer, would be a nice-to-have, but ultimately I don't care that much as long as it comes with the appropriate cable (must have USB-A on the computer end though). Again not something that I would expect to be an issue but it needs to work on both PCs and Macs (I have a PC at home but also an old Mac laptop which I take with me to conventions).
Here are some pictures I took last year with my current camera which would give you some idea of the sort of subjects and environment I'd be using it in.
Given these requirements, has anyone got any recommendations?
EDIT: people on the GAF IRC channel are suggesting that my mobile phone camera has everything I want except for optical zoom. I don't want to use my phone for this, it's not a good fit for what I need. And if I'm going to spend money I'd rather buy a dedicated camera with optical zoom (which most phones do not have). I also do not have and will never have an iPhone, so even though that allegedly has optical zoom, I'm not interested thanks.
I've found myself in the position where I now own 3 different interchangeable lens camera systems. I think I have a problem.
I'm going to sell the 5D MkII. Was planning to do so before I bought an a7II, but I got a very good deal on this one, in perfect condition, so I've done things slightly out of order.
JadedWriter
Member
See if you can afford one of the Sony RX10 models, they're usually pretty good bridge cameras. Or one of te Panasonic FZ1000.
Astral/H3X
Member
I've found myself in the position where I now own 3 different interchangeable lens camera systems. I think I have a problem.
I'm going to sell the 5D MkII. Was planning to do so before I bought an a7II, but I got a very good deal on this one, in perfect condition, so I've done things slightly out of order.
Brah, get that FD 50mm f1.4, awesome lens. Most used lens of mine (though I find other lenses more fun, the sheer goodness of the 50mm 1.4 just pushes itself onto my camera)
This is what my suggestion would have been, but I don't know EU prices haha.
Yeah, the FD 50mm f1.4 is first on my list, I'm just testing the camera out with the 1.8 as I happen to have it lying around. 50mm is my preferred focal length (as you may have guessed from the photo), so I can see it spending a lot of time on the camera. At the same time it will be nice to be able to experiment with different focal lengths at a relatively low cost. I'm going to look for a cheap wide angle (although I want to test out a Tokina 28mm FD mount lens I have first, just in case it's any use), and then 85mm and 135mm. Might even try to find myself a super-wide as well, although there don't seem to be many cheaper options on that front.
Astral/H3X
Member
Wide angles are both easier and harder in MF land, tbh.
While the DOF is super large, the out of focus areas aren't like, *really* out of focus, so sometimes you'll think it's in focus, but really isn't. There is of course doing hyper focal tricks where literally everything is in focus, but that depends on what you're doing.
As far as what to get in the super wide realm, the Samyang 14mm is the largest rectilinear lens you can get, IIRC. It's stupid wide. Sometimes I'm surprised that the camera isn't in the frame.
If you already have a lens, free is cheaper than anything. Definitely see what you can do with that Tokina.
85mm wise, I use the Samyang, though disappointingly it needs to be F2 to be sharp, it isn't sharp at 1.4. Which, as a bokeh whore, isn't the *worst* thing, but EH.
These are both 4x - 7x more expensive than my budget, so no. I am not buying a £600 camera and I am DEFINITELY not buying a £1,000 camera.
Please can someone offer serious suggestions that are within my budget? You can use www.amazon.co.uk to find UK prices.
Astral/H3X
Member
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B008CNMZDW/
There are used cameras as well.
Outside of that, you're not going to see much improvement. Your phone almost certainly has a better camera than anything that's in your budget, new. Cameras are either not worth having, or cost money. There's a reason that cheap consumer cameras are dying.
JadedWriter
Member
Go look for a Nikon P510 and see if the specs are an improvement for you.
Lucky Forward
Member
The other day after a bit of shooting macros around my yard, I was taking a 32GB SD card out of its spring-loaded slot in my 5Dmkiii when my finger slipped and the card actually shot up into the air and came down in my dog's water bowl. I fished it out immediately and dried it off, then put it in a baggie with a couple large bags of dessicant. After two days I tried reading it on my PC and it didn't register at all. I put it back in the bag with the dessicant and I'll give it a few more days and see what happens.
I usually don't even shoot with the SD card unless I fill up the 32GB CF card, but the camera had defaulted to the SD card when I had the CF out the last time, and I hadn't thought to switch it back. At least these weren't really important photos.
I usually don't even shoot with the SD card unless I fill up the 32GB CF card, but the camera had defaulted to the SD card when I had the CF out the last time, and I hadn't thought to switch it back. At least these weren't really important photos.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
I've found myself in the position where I now own 3 different interchangeable lens camera systems. I think I have a problem.
I'm going to sell the 5D MkII. Was planning to do so before I bought an a7II, but I got a very good deal on this one, in perfect condition, so I've done things slightly out of order.
Jesus, the 5D is a behemoth compared to the A7II. Mirrorless vintage lenses 4 lyfe
JadedWriter
Member
Oddly enough I like heft...for the most part. Still want a lighter mirrorless though.
milkham
Member
As a pretty happy owner of the eos M, I wouldn't recommend it for someone just starting out with photography at all. It performs like garbage in nearly every way, and I think would be extremely frustrating for a beginner. You can get great shots with it but you have to know what you're doing already and work around it's limitations. Gotta be pre-focused, and waiting for the shot.
Ironically I think its a great/fun camera for a proficient photographer who's got a collection of lenses and wants to go incognito with great image quality, because it really looks like a fat point and shoot with the pancake lens attached.
My phone's only an Xperia Z3 though. I'm eligible for an upgrade but I have to wait for the new phones to come out (don't want a Samsung as they explode).
It does look okay, but seems like it's discontinued? Seems to be difficult to find for sale?
While looking at Nikon cameras I did come across a Nikon B500, is that any good? Though it kinda sucks that it uses AA batteries instead of a proper rechargeable camera battery.
Given the suggestion of a bridge camera, I can see a couple of others that are in my price range: Sony H400, Canon SX420 - are either of these any good?
JadedWriter
Member
You can't find a used P510 on Ebay in decent enough condition? When it comes to older bridge cameras they're all pretty much the same thing unless you get into the upper echelon of that category, the two I recommended earlier. You can probably even find a P530, but it doesn't have a tilt screen like the 510.
With wide-angle I generally shoot at quite narrow apertures (and often it's landscapes where it's simply a matter of focussing to infinity anyway), so focussing shouldn't be too much of a problem. The main question with an ultra-wide is whether I'd actually use it all that much, so I'd prefer to go for something cheap, so even if I only use it occasionally I won't feel like I've wasted my money.
The other issue is size and weight. One of the main reasons I'm going mirrorless is that there are lots of options for much lighter/smaller lenses than you can find on EF-mount. With the 5D MkII and a couple of lenses it started to become a chore to go out shooting, so I'm trying to keep everything as small and light as reasonably possible for the a7II. This is why I'm not really looking at Samyang too much, they all tend to be pretty large lenses.
Ideally I'd pick up an old Voigtlander rangefinder ultra-wide, as they're compact, have good optics, and aren't crazy expensive. Unfortunately they tend to have issues on Sony A7/A9 cameras due to the sensor stack thickness, which has me pretty hesitant. They have started to make versions specifically for FE-mount (including a 10mm, if you want to go particular crazy), but at ~€1000 a piece they're well beyond my budget. I'm not in any hurry for this, though, so I might wait to see if I can find myself a deal on something interesting.
For 50mm and beyond I'm most likely going to stick with Canon FD glass. The aforementioned 50mm f1.4 obviously as it's extremely good value for money. Then the 85mm f1.2L, which is the exception to my "small and light" rule, because I do love wide aperture portraits at 85mm. Then I'll likely pick up the 135mm f2.8, as it seems to be very good value for money and reasonably compact for a 135mm to boot.
Yeah, hence the move. Once you add modern autofocus lenses there isn't that big of a difference, but I'm going all manual focus, so I should have a much more portable setup.
JadedWriter
Member
This is something I keep trying to tell people.
Astral/H3X
Member
holy bejeezus that 10mm
As far as the rangefinder lenses, I believe the issue was mainly that the light was coming in from a slightly off angle, so I think it was just a minor drop in IQ... I could be wrong though.
Please don't tell me about an 85mm 1.2
just don't
Also, is THAT the full frame 50mm on the 5D!? Holy shit.
JadedWriter
Member
If you think that's bad the 85 is bigger.
Astral/H3X
Member
Well that much I would expect.
But then, you have this:
http://www.paulmarbrook.com/sony-a7-canon-50mm-f0-95-dream-lens/
JadedWriter
Member
You are no longer a human being, you're bokeh now...
Astral/H3X
Member
Precisely. Once you add a 24-70 f/2.8 (or similar) on there's not really much of a meaningful difference between Sony/Canon/Nikon when it comes to size or weight. Where the Sony really benefits is with vintage manual focus lenses, or a handful of the more compact native primes (like the 55mm f/1.8).
Yeah, it's to do with the angle at which the light hits the sensor (and how that's refracted by the glass in the sensor stack). It's a bigger issue with ultra-wide lenses and those that have a short distance between rear element and sensor (i.e. rangefinder lenses), and it tends to be worse with wider apertures. Basically the tighter the angle at which the light hits the sensor the worse your problems will be.
There seem to be a few different reported issues with it. First off is field curvature (i.e. the plane of focus is no longer flat, but curves back towards the corners), which in most cases will just cause a general softening of the image around the corners. Then you have the possibility of colour casts, which usually present as a purple/magenta ring around the edges of the image. Finally, there's an increase in viginetting.
It varies from lens to lens, though, and I think there's even a difference between the different A7 models, so it's tricky to pin down how much of an issue you're going to get with any given lens. I also don't have particularly high standards when it comes to sharpness, so what's "blurry in the corners" to one person might be fine to me, or it might not.
That's the older Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (pre-Art). It's quite a bit larger than the Canon 50mm f/1.4, closer to the Canon f/1.2, but it was actually quite a nice lens for the money. The Art version is of course a big jump in quality, but it's also a lot more money (and even bigger/heavier). It's also made to look a lot bigger than it is in that photo by placing it next to the very small FD 50mm f/1.8 and tiny Olympus 25mm f/1.8.
I saw one of these selling locally for €1000 a few years back (in good condition and with the Canon 7s rangefinder camera it came with). I was honestly pretty tempted, but I would have only been able to shoot film with it, as the only full-frame digital cameras you could mount it to at the time were Leicas (this was pre Sony a7). I'm pretty pissed off I didn't jump on it now, as I've finally got a digital camera I can use it with, and prices are currently 2-3 times as high as that.
JadedWriter
Member
Yeah not to mention the balancing problems. I'm fine with 24-70's and 70-200's on my DSLR's, but they must be nightmares on mirrorless cameras.
ehh thats not really what I would call "good" bokeh.
JadedWriter
Member
So I'm not the only one that thinks it looks too harsh and migraine inducing?
No it was a bit motion sickness lol
JadedWriter
Member
Yeah I do prefer a smoother bokeh rendition, this is a bit too busy.
I would go used. The new cameras at that price range don't really beat a cellphone and sensor tech hit a soft ceiling around 2010 and improvements started tapering off a bit.
I looked at Micro Four thirds because they're cheap and small. The Panasonic GX1 is just around 100$ used and you can get a cheap kitzoom (14-42mm) for like 70. That'll give you something similar to a point and shoot, but with better image quality.
I didn't look at Olympus, but if you wanna focus money on a portrait lens (these can easily cost 300£) these will give you image stabilization with all lenses while Panasonic can only be stabilize with Panasonic OIS lenses (most zooms).
The other option would be used high end point and shoots. These came with a bigger sensor that is better in low light. The most well known is the Sony RX100, but there are others like the Canon G1X.
You can find used cameras at a lot of camera stores. Even if you buy from a private person these can be great to figure out used value. I recommend buying a kit with a lens as you usually save a bit of money versus buying each separately.
Well, at f/0.95 you're going to have 99.9% of the frame out of focus, so the out of focus area might as well be interesting.
Lasthope106
Member
Well, I called Best Buy and told them my Sony 55mm lens was defective and that the problem was the aperture blades were very loud when in auto mode. The guy offered me to keep the lens and to give me 10% off. I declined so he sent me another lens, which I received yesterday.
I put the new lens on my a7ii and it's just as loud, so unless all the lens Best Buy sells are defective it seems this is just how the 55mm lenses are. Now I regret not taking the 10% off.
A few hours ago i updated the firmware on the a7ii to see if there was any improvement with the noise. That doesn't seem to be the case. But now after playing with the camera, I started noticing the back by where the LCD gets warm. Nothing too bad, but I wasn't really pushing what it can do meaning no picture burst, no video. The camera was turned on and nothing more. For those of you with an a7ii, is this normal? Should I be worried about the camera?
I put the new lens on my a7ii and it's just as loud, so unless all the lens Best Buy sells are defective it seems this is just how the 55mm lenses are. Now I regret not taking the 10% off.
A few hours ago i updated the firmware on the a7ii to see if there was any improvement with the noise. That doesn't seem to be the case. But now after playing with the camera, I started noticing the back by where the LCD gets warm. Nothing too bad, but I wasn't really pushing what it can do meaning no picture burst, no video. The camera was turned on and nothing more. For those of you with an a7ii, is this normal? Should I be worried about the camera?
Astral/H3X
Member
Yeah, the Sony's are fine getting a bit warm, only a problem doing longform video recording from what I understand. I think people say they start to heat up at 30m or so of shooting?
Which is kind of annoying, given ya know, best video features, but EH.
I wish Sony would hire me to redo their UI. I like a good UI, and would love to overhaul it, but alas, I have no proven track record outside of always redoing shit at my workplaces because they annoy me. :/
cormack12
Gold Member
After a bit of advice here. I was messing round with camera yesterday and new lens. Nikon d3400, shooting only in RAW with a Nikkor prime lens. So, on the camera everything looks fine. Live view, viewfinder and the take image.
Copied the NEF files off for some PP and they have a very distinct red tinge/cast over the entire pic. I tried using RAWTHERAPEE and also UFRAW to open the images and they both display the same cast. AM running Linux with GiMP.
Is this normal? I just want to have the same quality and colours on my camera when I open them on the computer. Had a google, and it seems an issue for a few people but no real 'overarching solution' or setting.
Most of camera is default, they weren't any weird or challenging lighting conditions. If I mess with RGB curves in the aforementioned programs I can take the cast down, but I'd rather know why it's there and how to get accurate representation on the camera to what will be output on my computer for PP.
Copied the NEF files off for some PP and they have a very distinct red tinge/cast over the entire pic. I tried using RAWTHERAPEE and also UFRAW to open the images and they both display the same cast. AM running Linux with GiMP.
Is this normal? I just want to have the same quality and colours on my camera when I open them on the computer. Had a google, and it seems an issue for a few people but no real 'overarching solution' or setting.
Most of camera is default, they weren't any weird or challenging lighting conditions. If I mess with RGB curves in the aforementioned programs I can take the cast down, but I'd rather know why it's there and how to get accurate representation on the camera to what will be output on my computer for PP.
Art Teitlebaum
Member
First wild guess: Maybe a colour space problem? Here's some basic explaining: https://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/nikon-d3400-color-space-srgb-adobergb/
Astral/H3X
Member
In addition to what was said, your camera is displaying an already processed photo... For example, if you set it to shoot black and white, it'll show up as black and white on your camera, but in color on your computer. The camera saves the photo in the RAW format, but also processes an edited photo just like if you shot in jpg, and saves it as a thumbnail of sorts to display on camera.
I expect your issue is a combination of the two.
Lasthope106
Member
You kind of answered your own question. You clearly need a faster lens. And the trade off will be size. You could also consider the Sony 35mm f1.8 which is quite small. It might not be as fast as the Sigma but it produces gorgeous images.
If I was you i would do it. Either the Sigma or the Sony. I personally went with Sony but it is more expensive.
Darren870
Member
I have a Sony NEX 5R and am looking to upgrade. I take a lot of wild life photos and while the NEX is great for on the go stuff, I miss out on good shots with the lack of Zoom. Plus its on its way out.
Anyways, been looking and see at costco they have the nikon d5600 ($900) and canon 80d ($1300) kits.
Anyone have any suggestions on what to pick up? Doesn't have to be these either.
Cheers,
Darren
Anyways, been looking and see at costco they have the nikon d5600 ($900) and canon 80d ($1300) kits.
Anyone have any suggestions on what to pick up? Doesn't have to be these either.
Cheers,
Darren
Literally anything except bugs. But even discounting skittish bugs, such a short working distance can be tricky for lighting. Can you get little battery powered ring lights these days?
Yeah but I've never been a fan of the lighting they produce. Great for crime scene and dental photos...
Some people like larger ring lights for portraits but I am not a fan.
I like 105mm full frame eq macro length. I really haven't bothered looking at macro m43 lenses because they can all focus pretty damn close as it is.
Late edit: I may have played myself.
So my kid started kindergarten and I have been taking "dad snaps" of most of the activities and shit and giving them to the school to post on Facebook or whatever.
The PTO is throwing some kind of stupid gala and of course they want me to take some pics for them. I've already paid for tickets to go to this thing I don't really want to be at now they also want me to work for free.
What good excuse can I come up with for politely declining? :lol
I kind of feel bad but at the same time I have zero interest in doing it. Maybe I can donate an hour of studio time as a raffle prize instead.
Some people like larger ring lights for portraits but I am not a fan.
I like 105mm full frame eq macro length. I really haven't bothered looking at macro m43 lenses because they can all focus pretty damn close as it is.
Late edit: I may have played myself.
So my kid started kindergarten and I have been taking "dad snaps" of most of the activities and shit and giving them to the school to post on Facebook or whatever.
The PTO is throwing some kind of stupid gala and of course they want me to take some pics for them. I've already paid for tickets to go to this thing I don't really want to be at now they also want me to work for free.
What good excuse can I come up with for politely declining? :lol
I kind of feel bad but at the same time I have zero interest in doing it. Maybe I can donate an hour of studio time as a raffle prize instead.
Astral/H3X
Member
"Would you be paying me? "
You don't want a ringlight. Instead, you want to get a flash bracket, a flash diffuser, and a wireless flash. I can post what I use in more detail here in a bit.
JadedWriter
Member
If this is them requesting you see if they can compensate your time in some way. You're not doing this just cause your kid is there for this.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 47027
- Off-Topic Community Archive