The Official Camera Equipment Megathread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anastacio said:
Yea, I just asked them and it doesn't solve it. I thought the 60D were really great for video and I need more than 12 minutes.

I'll take a look at what you suggest. How many minutes will I be able to record then?
Click to expand...
This bothers me. I read in several tests that the 60D is great for video, but that doesn't make any sense if it can only record 12 minutes at the time! I'm holding off my purchase and subscribing this thread for more info.
 
Hammer24 said:
Looks definitely interesting, just going by the tech specs. Is this the best autofocus to be had in this price segment?
Oh, and ideally I´d like to use my EF lenses - aside from the C300 I´d be shit outta luck there, right?

And thx for helping me! :)
Click to expand...
Ya, it's a great camera. The EX1R saves you a couple thousand if you're not too interested in the interchangeable lens setup on the EX3. They're comparable cameras.

Not sure if it has the best autofocus in its class but it would be much better than manually focusing with a DSLR. At that price, the next thing you're probably stepping up to is either a Scarlet or broadcast camera. No go on the EF lenses unfortunately.

edit - Forgot the C300 doesn't have autofocus...
 
Kong Fisso said:
This bothers me. I read in several tests that the 60D is great for video, but that doesn't make any sense if it can only record 12 minutes at the time! I'm holding off my purchase and subscribing this thread for more info.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the sensor gets hot due to extended use in addition to the filesize limits. What are you guys planning on doing that requires cuts that long?
 
Kong Fisso said:
This bothers me. I read in several tests that the 60D is great for video, but that doesn't make any sense if it can only record 12 minutes at the time! I'm holding off my purchase and subscribing this thread for more info.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I saw a lot of video reviews and the 60D should be great for video, and it sure is, but 12 minutes makes no sense. That's not even good enough for vacations or the bedroom. :/

For vacations we tend to film a lot, sometimes for more than a hour, but I guess I'll need a video camera then. And i have no idea what's great.

By the way, 60D is an awesome camera!
 
honestly i don't think any traditional DSLR is "great for video". apart from time limit issues focusing is a pain, you can't use the viewfinder, and the form factor isn't really suited to it. the quality can turn out pretty good, but on something like a 60D i'd say it's a novelty at best — anyone buying a 60D should be doing so 99% because they want to take great photos. anyone with a more even split of desire between photos and videos would be better off with something like a panasonic GH2.
 
I mean, DSLR's aren't well suited to being vacation camera video recorders. Unless you have IS is the lens, it's going to end up looking jerky, it'll be awkward to hold, it's sensor assembly isn't designed for prolonged periods of video recording, autofocus sucks, etc etc.

DSLRs are intended to be Still Photograph cameras, that also have a nice artistic video mode that'll let you get nice DOF and other effects useful for piecing together high-amature to low-professional quality looking video.

The new Cinema EOS cameras are the first canon dslr's to break out of that mould, and it's VERY EXPENSIVE.
 
DSLRs can replace a typical video camera (well, maybe except for events due to lack of a few key features) but it requires quite a bit of support equipment to do so. External monitors, audio recorders, shoulder mount, etc.

I think they really excel at narrative work which is what I primarily use mine for if I'm doing video stuff.
 
Futureman said:
I believe it's a licensing issue with some European country where the camera would cost more if records longer than 12 minutes.

It does also have to do with the sensor overheating.

The new Canons, not sure exactly when, have a feature where they start a new file after 12 minutes and it's seamless.
Click to expand...

I believe the European regulation on max video clip length for digital cameras actually kicks in at 29 minutes. I personally can't imagine needing a longer clip length than that, given the nature of shooting video on a DSLR.

I once put my NEX into my camera bag with it in power save mode instead of completely powered off, and when I made it home I opened the bag to see the camera had been recording 27 minutes of lens cap. It was pretty warm, but probably would have made it to 29 minutes.
 
XMonkey said:
Ya, it's a great camera. The EX1R saves you a couple thousand if you're not too interested in the interchangeable lens setup on the EX3. They're comparable cameras.

Not sure if it has the best autofocus in its class but it would be much better than manually focusing with a DSLR. At that price, the next thing you're probably stepping up to is either a Scarlet or broadcast camera. No go on the EF lenses unfortunately.

edit - Forgot the C300 doesn't have autofocus...
Click to expand...

I had looked into the Scarlet, but the associated prices for batteries, media etc. are definitely offputting.

BTW, does anyone by chance know what cameras have been used for the ARTE documentaries "Big Five Southamerica", especially the Giant Otter docu?
 
Really at an impasse in terms of my next camera purchase. The question is what do I want to sacrifice or compromise. Currently I shoot with a Rebel XSi with the 50mm 1.4. My issues with this are the bulk of the camera (I really would like something more compact) and the effective 80mm focal length is too restricting. I shoot with the prime lens 95% of the time.

For a year I have wanted an X100, but I worry that fixed 35mm will be too wide. I think for day to day shooting a normal lens would suit me best. And of course, it is higher in cost (though not too high, IMHO). That said I would love the size of the camera and the sensor/lens combo is great, and the high ISO performance. I also obviously cannot add a zoom lens, which is something I need to consider as my kids get older (sports, etc.).

The other option is to stick with my current body and get some lenses. I am specifically thinking about the 28mm 1.8 (effective normal lens for day to day shooting) and the 70–200mm F 4 L lens (for kids stuff and other occasional things). Downside is still a large camera and multiple lenses to worry about.

I was hoping the X Pro1 would be my savior but it's just too expensive. I'd rather get a 5D Mk II for that price.
 
Anastacio said:
Would it be better to shoot video with an iPhone 4 compared to the 60D?
I guess not?
Click to expand...

Rolling shutter on the iphone is pretty bad. Pretty much worse in every category that matters.

ISO, lens performance, compression, rolling shutter, audio... but it will do in a pinch.

I actually have seen the local news crew doing "personality" segments recorded on an iphone with a wireless mic and a LED hot light on a monopod. Made me LOL.
 
That's why you get a GH2 for video not a Canon. A hacked GH2 can capture amazing results while offering continuous Auto-Focus.
 
345triangle said:
i got my NEX-7 today as well! i'd take a picture but it'd either be with my iphone or on film : /

anyway it is pretty amazing, the usability improvements over the other NEX cameras are unbelievable. not only that, but i think manual mode in basically every DSLR ever made is going to feel gimped for me from now on - why don't all cameras have separate dials for ISO, aperture, and shutter speed!

it sucks that i only have the kit lens to play with right now (though it is nice in black). i'm going to buy a used nex-5 16mm kit just for the lens and extra battery as it'll work out cheaper than getting them separately, then i need to re-buy the 30mm macro (essential for work), get the 50 1.8 asap and maybe the 55-210 at some point.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the 16mm pancake though, yes it looks pretty good and handy, but most reviews I've read says that it is pretty mediocre lens. :/
 
The 16mm is useful in the sense that its an accessory for the ECU1. Or you crop out the edge and use it as a 28mm lens.
 
BlueTsunami said:
Rumor of a ZE/ZF Zeiss 15mm f/2.8

Source Photorumors: http://tinyurl.com/6p3qs55



6v5OR.jpg


9dNzu.jpg


In my buuuuttttt
Click to expand...

Oh boy. I've been saving for the 21mm for quite some time now. But since I'd be using it on a crop sensor I felt it wouldn't be wide enough. I started considering getting a Canon instead.

Not anymore. Please be true!
 
My wife is traveling abroad at the end of this month and doesn't want to carry around my Nikon D5100, so we are looking into a compact around $150 or under. Any recommendations?

Looking at these, three but open to any others that take a decent picture
Panasonic lumix dmc-fh25
Sony cyber shot wx9
Canon elph 300hs
 
The Main Event said:
Oh boy. I've been saving for the 21mm for quite some time now. But since I'd be using it on a crop sensor I felt it wouldn't be wide enough. I started considering getting a Canon instead.

Not anymore. Please be true!
Click to expand...

I have a feeling this baby is gonna be expensive though. A price tier above the 21 Distagon (definitely in the +2K realm).
 
devon the dude said:
My wife is traveling abroad at the end of this month and doesn't want to carry around my Nikon D5100, so we are looking into a compact around $150 or under. Any recommendations?

Looking at these, three but open to any others that take a decent picture
Panasonic lumix dmc-fh25
Sony cyber shot wx9
Canon elph 300hs
Click to expand...

A used Panasonic LX3?
 
Radec said:
I'm not sure about the 16mm pancake though, yes it looks pretty good and handy, but most reviews I've read says that it is pretty mediocre lens. :/
Click to expand...

it's really useful for certain things, and the conversion lenses are actually excellent. i know i'll miss it if i don't replace it.
 
My dilemma above did not elicit any responses, so I'll be more direct with a specific question: I prefer to shoot with a prime lens as my walkaround lens and don't want to swap 95% of the time, which is one of the reasons I am considering the X100. If you have an opinion: would you use a ~50mm or 35mm as your only lens if that was all you could use?

I think my biggest concern with 35mm is having to be a step away from someone for a closeup.
 
shantyman said:
My dilemma above did not elicit any responses, so I'll be more direct with a specific question: I prefer to shoot with a prime lens as my walkaround lens and don't want to swap 95% of the time, which is one of the reasons I am considering the X100. If you have an opinion: would you use a ~50mm or 35mm as your only lens if that was all you could use?

I think my biggest concern with 35mm is having to be a step away from someone for a closeup.
Click to expand...

35mm all day. 50mm is just too tight on a APS-C sensor.
 
It kind of depends on your shooting style. I really like wide angle so 35mm is more appealing to me, but if I had to only pick one focal length? Probably 50mm because it's a bit more versatile.
 
Pepto said:
35mm all day. 50mm is just too tight on a APS-C sensor.
Click to expand...

I should clarify, I am talking about effective focal lengths. the X100 is technically 23mm, with crop effectively a 35mm.

For me the concern is now I am shooting with a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop sensor for an effective 80mm. I slapped my kits lens on and kept it around an approximate effective focal length of 35mm and it was slightly jarring going so tight to so wide.
 
shantyman said:
I should clarify, I am talking about effective focal lengths. the X100 is technically 23mm, with crop effectively a 35mm.

For me the concern is now I am shooting with a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop sensor for an effective 80mm. I slapped my kits lens on and kept it around an approximate effective focal length of 35mm and it was slightly jarring going so tight to so wide.
Click to expand...

35mm (35mm eqivalent) is a hell lot more conformtible to me than 50mm. My theory about 50mm is that it became a standard lens in the film days becasue it was the cheapest to make. It had nothing to do with a "standard" field of view.

some people argue that looking through a 50mm lens the image appear same size as what you see with a naked eye, that's why its the "standard" focal length. But that has more do to with the prism magnification than anything else.
 
tino said:
some people argue that looking through a 50mm lens the image appear same size as what you see with a naked eye, that's why its the "standard" focal length. But that has more do to with the prism magnification than anything else.
Click to expand...

I've always thought 50mm being normal has to do with what you have in focus when you are looking straight ahead, not necessarily what you want in a photo.

Thanks for your comments.
 
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=1520

Close up: the new super wide angle lens from Carl Zeiss

It is here: the lens at the top of the wish list of our community on Facebook and Flickr. Now you can look forward to exploring entirely new creative opportunities. In the next few days, this is where we will be showing you everything our new SLR lens has to offer.

By the way: If you register as a Facebook fan, you can be one of the first to get all the latest news about our new super wide, and lots of pictures, too. Join like-minded friends of Carl Zeiss on Facebook, or here on the Camera Lens Blog, discuss what you think and let us know what you are expecting from our latest lens.
Click to expand...

Tag-1-Detail-Mount-622x414.jpg


:drool
 
Does someone have experience with the Minolta 50mm 1.7? Because I've read good things about this lens and I can get it for cheap, just looking for advice :)
 
I'm looking for a good compact travel camera for my trip to Japan, around 4'000 SEK price range, what models should I take a look at?
 
Flo_Evans said:
50mm is normal because it is the diagonal (or close to it, its actually 43mm) of the sensor (or film).
Click to expand...

Besides that, it's also normal because it most closely approximates a normal human eye in terms of perspective, distance between objects, etc. This changes depending on sensor size, though.
 
f0lken said:
Does someone have experience with the Minolta 50mm 1.7? Because I've read good things about this lens and I can get it for cheap, just looking for advice :)
Click to expand...

Most manual 50/1.7 lenses have pretty similar design. Sharp, compact and mediocre bokeh. If you can find one in good condition for 60 or great condition for 80, it's a good deal.

I rather spend the money on a manual 55/1.4 though.
 
f0lken said:
Is in really good condition for $70, AF Mount, I will use it in a Sony A35
Click to expand...

I like this 80's prime on my Maxxum film bodies.
Pretty sharp stopped down and decent bokeh, but prone to flare.
The build quality is way better than my Canon 50mm f/1.8 II.
It has a metal mount, a distance scale, and focus ring doesn't feel flimsy like the aforementioned Canon.

The AF 50 f/1.7 should be a "75-80mm like" portrait lens on your Sony's APS-C 1.5x crop sensor.
This lens has a retractable hood that isn't obscured by filters, but I doubt you'll be using it much. Just make a note to use your hand to guard against the flare instead.

$70 is not a bad price. Go ahead and pick it up.
 
Hey guys,

Just about to get my nice little bonus through from work and will be buying the tamron 18-50 f2, however I'm also looking to buy a new superwide to go with my d7000, something like 10-20mm.

So, I'll have about £500 to spend on it, which would you guys recommend out of the sigma, tokima and tamron? Or is there a Nikon equivalent you'd recommended.

Thanks.
 
Lumix said:
I like this 80's prime on my Maxxum film bodies.
Pretty sharp stopped down and descent bokeh, but prone to flare.
The build quality is way better than my Canon 50mm f/1.8 II.
It has a metal mount, a distance scale, and focus ring doesn't feel flimsy like the aforementioned Canon.

The AF 50 f/1.7 should be a "75-80mm like" portrait lens on your Sony's APS-C 1.5x crop sensor.
This lens has a retractable hood that isn't obscured by filters, but I doubt you'll be using it much. Just make a note to use your hand to guard against the flare instead.

$70 is not a bad price. Go ahead and pick it up.
Click to expand...

Thanks, tomorrow it will be mine!!, but I didn't understand the bolded =S
 
What he means is that shooting a 50mm lens on a 1.5x cropped sensor will give you closer to 80mm, coincidentally a favorite portrait length.
 
slothmeister said:
Hey guys,

Just about to get my nice little bonus through from work and will be buying the tamron 18-50 f2, however I'm also looking to buy a new superwide to go with my d7000, something like 10-20mm.

So, I'll have about £500 to spend on it, which would you guys recommend out of the sigma, tokima and tamron? Or is there a Nikon equivalent you'd recommended.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Lots of people recommend the Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX AF 11-16mm f/2.8:

http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx116prodx-a.html

A GAFfer here in the camera thread is even selling theirs too but they're in the US:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35771112&postcount=9574

I'd want it for my D7000 as well but I'm saving up for m4/3 gear right now...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NeoGAF Camera Equipment Thread | MK II
146 147 148 149 150
7K
650K
Deleted member 17706 replied
  • Locked
Resetera and the pedo problem (updates)
NSFW  43 44 45 46 47
2K
488K
notkeylime replied
  • Locked
What relaxes you the most?
0
4K
Halo is Back replied
The Crisis in Venezula
2
2K
God Enel replied
  • Locked
What is the most painless way to commit suicide?
3
4K
EviLore replied
Top Bottom