Support NeoGAF

[sixteen-bit]

What would you recommend for a noob interested in getting into manual photography? I obtained some old consumer level SLRs from my family including a Canon AE-1 and FTb, as well as a Canonet 28 rangefinder. What about digital? Would it be smart to invest in Canon for use with those old lenses?

thx

 

[Astral/H3X]

What would you recommend for a noob interested in getting into manual photography? I obtained some old consumer level SLRs from my family including a Canon AE-1 and FTb, as well as a Canonet 28 rangefinder. What about digital? Would it be smart to invest in Canon for use with those old lenses?

thx

ahahaha no

If you want to use old Canon lenses, you get a Sony.
Why? Old Canon lenses don't work on new Canon cameras! But they do work on Sony cameras.

 

[sixteen-bit]

ahahaha no

If you want to use old Canon lenses, you get a Sony.
Why? Old Canon lenses don't work on new Canon cameras! But they do work on Sony cameras.

lmao, really? thanks

 

[e90Mark]

Yes I'd personally get an A7ii over the A7, I do believe the integration of IBIS and the better grip and control layouts are the selling points. What glass do you have for it? Body is simple to find for a decent price. The glass is a different story.

I have some Canon L's left over. I've been looking at E mount lenses. Good condition a7ii's are going for about $1300 used from what I've seen. Any cheaper, and the camera looks pretty used, and not something I'd probably spend money on.

I've sold my Canon body a long time ago, and I'm just now getting ready to get another body, but I wanted to try mirrorless and the sizing down with size/weight is a huge selling point for me, which made me look at the a7 originally, but I keep reading that the a7ii brings a bunch of improvements.

IBISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
yes

I do like the idea of having the flexibility of IBIS.

 

[Astral/H3X]

lmao, really? thanks

Every time I see your avatar I think you're that guy making the Bayonetta combo videos as Gekka Jeanne. Just throwing that out there.


But anyway, yes. When Canon went to EOS for AF and such, they went with a new mount that had a greater distance from the film/digital sensor and the lens -- this prevents the use of any adapters, since an adapter must take physical space and have room to be there, which there isn't. An adapter *could* use optics to "correct" this, and compensate for the extra distance between a Canon FD lens (what you have) and the sensor/film in a Canon EOS camera (a new camera), but that would degrade the optics and be expensive to boot.

But mirrorless cameras, (Sony, Fujifilm, Micro 4/3rds, etc) don't have a mirror, and their mount is much, much closer to the film/sensor than DSLR's (because they don't need to make room for a mirror of course). So with a Canon FD lens, there's plenty of room between a Sony mount, and where the FD lens needs to be to focus, to make and have an adapter.

If you want to use vintage lenses of any kind, the answer is pretty much always a Mirrorless camera. You can mount essentially anything to a MILC (outside of going from one MILC mount to another anyway).

That being said don't just run out and get a Sony immediately. There are some very polarizing differences between Mirrorless Cameras (or MILCs) and DSLRs. I personally fall very heavily in favor of MILC's, but it's all a matter of opinion. I've made many posts in this thread going over why neither is better than the other, outside of what fits for you, and I'm sure I could dig one up if needed.

 

[jongkookie]

Yeah if you're just out to have fun with a camera, I'd definitely recommend a mirrorless but if you want to learn how to use a camera then go with a DSLR then switch to a mirrorless once you've mastered a DSLR and if you want to.

-----

RE: A7 vs A7ii

As a A7 user, definitely get the A7ii if you can. I dunno how much better it is than the A7 but I do know it is from all the reviews and comments I've read.

On the other hand, you can get an A7 for the cheap these days. I got mine used in decent condition with a "shutter count" (in quotes because it's a figurative number lol) of 10K for $800 last year. So I imagine the prices must be lower by now.

 

[JadedWriter]

I have some Canon L's left over. I've been looking at E mount lenses. Good condition a7ii's are going for about $1300 used from what I've seen. Any cheaper, and the camera looks pretty used, and not something I'd probably spend money on.

I've sold my Canon body a long time ago, and I'm just now getting ready to get another body, but I wanted to try mirrorless and the sizing down with size/weight is a huge selling point for me, which made me look at the a7 originally, but I keep reading that the a7ii brings a bunch of improvements.


I do like the idea of having the flexibility of IBIS.

Which L lenses? You should most likely just get the Metabones Canon to E mount adapter. Nobody really spends money on Sony lenses.

 

[KalBalboa]

Which L lenses? You should most likely just get the Metabones Canon to E mount adapter. Nobody really spends money on Sony lenses.

I'm a dope and have a good mount of Sony glass, but I picked up a Canon 24-105L for documentary work. A good workhorse lens I'm not afraid to put a lot of miles on. My Sony lenses include the 55 1.8 FE, 16-70 Zeiss APS-C, the kit A7 lens I can never convince myself to sell, and the 20mm APS-C pancake. I also own the Rokinon 35mm cine and 14mm clicked.

I wish the Speed Boosters from Metabones weren't so prohibitively expensive.

 

[e90Mark]

Which L lenses? You should most likely just get the Metabones Canon to E mount adapter. Nobody really spends money on Sony lenses.

Really, not even the Zeiss ones? So, the best way is to go adapter and Canon, for example?

35 1.4
24-70 4
is what I have left.

 

[Lasthope106]

Really, not even the Zeiss ones? So, the best way is to go adapters and Canon/Nikon/etc?

35 1.4
24-70 4
is what I have left.

As with everything else, you need to do your research. Not having AF or having slow performance with a Metabones are deal breakers for a lot of people.

I own the Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.l8, and that lens is worth every penny I paid for it. I hear the new Sony 85mm is outstanding value. Ultra wide or longer focal length macro lenses are the only lenses that I don't mind getting vintage glass for. But if I'm out street shooting, or covering an event then I absolutely need the auto focus.

 

[owlbeak]

Been having a great time since picking up an E-M10 Mk. II a while back. I shoot in manual and know the ins and outs (for the most part) of things and "the triangle". I feel like I'm ready to step up to a new camera, but I really love the dial system on the O-MD line with one for shutter and other for aperture. It's just so nice having easy access to both without having to go through menus, in addition to the in body IS. I'm thinking I will probably upgrade to the E-M5 II or the E-M1 down the road, but the X-T2 looks super enticing, and way out of my budget. I also own an older Canon Rebel T3 which I have barely touched since getting the E-M10 II.

Not really sure where to upgrade from here, or if I even need to, really. Would be nice to own some more expensive glass, but before I drop the cash on that I want to make sure I'm not going to jump ship anytime soon. I currently have the kit 14-40, a 40-150, and a 25. Does anyone know if Olympus plans on updating their m4/3 line, or move to a larger sensor in the near future?

 

[Astral/H3X]

Really, not even the Zeiss ones? So, the best way is to go adapter and Canon, for example?

35 1.4
24-70 4
is what I have left.

eeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh this is becoming less true over time, though Sony still isn't out of the woods.

Sony's 'issue' is that they started with the high end glass, to the detriment of the affordable glass. And, in a lot of ways, they make it worse by then bringing out G Master lenses. So you've got mid-high end ($$$) lenses with the G Lenses, and now high end ($$$$) with G Master.

And in a lot of ways they are still "ignoring" the low end -- but now they've got the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 as their "budget" lenses. Apparently Sony doesn't want to make actual cheap lenses, though, so while they are supposed to be comparable to what Canon and Nikon have, they end up being optically better but more expensive (I think both are about $100 more than the competition, which hurts the 50 1.8 way more than the 85mm).

The 85mm has gotten some rave reviews, especially for the price, where the 50 1.8 is left in a bit of an awkward place, being more expensive than a lot of people would like, and with sluggish AF, but good actual images.

 

[BUNTING1243]

To anyone who has gone from a good M4/3 to a good full-frame, how notable is the difference?

Maybe a hard question without specifics: I’ve been getting into some freelance work for extra money, and been thinking about upgrading from my GH4 to a A7rii

 

[JadedWriter]

As with everything else, you need to do your research. Not having AF or having slow performance with a Metabones are deal breakers for a lot of people.

I own the Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.l8, and that lens is worth every penny I paid for it. I hear the new Sony 85mm is outstanding value. Ultra wide or longer focal length macro lenses are the only lenses that I don't mind getting vintage glass for. But if I'm out street shooting, or covering an event then I absolutely need the auto focus.

I thought the Metabones adapters did have AF for Canon lenses? I know the Nikon stuff is a "you're fucked" scenario. I know it's not an issue for videographers.

 

[KalBalboa]

I thought the Metabones adapters did have AF for Canon lenses? I know the Nikon stuff is a "you're fucked" scenario. I know it's not an issue for videographers.

They do but their speed isn't the best. Sony lenses on Sony bodies are incredibly fast these days, by comparison.

With Canon glass + Metabones adapter + Sony body, you'll get autofocus but it takes multiple seconds to work sometimes.

 

[JadedWriter]

They do but their speed isn't the best. Sony lenses on Sony bodies are incredibly fast these days, by comparison.

With Canon glass + Metabones adapter + Sony body, you'll get autofocus but it takes multiple seconds to work sometimes.

Yikes. That...that would drive me crazy at events and street photography. I always thought it was faster than that.

 

[Lasthope106]

Been having a great time since picking up an E-M10 Mk. II a while back. I shoot in manual and know the ins and outs (for the most part) of things and "the triangle". I feel like I'm ready to step up to a new camera, but I really love the dial system on the O-MD line with one for shutter and other for aperture. It's just so nice having easy access to both without having to go through menus, in addition to the in body IS. I'm thinking I will probably upgrade to the E-M5 II or the E-M1 down the road, but the X-T2 looks super enticing, and way out of my budget. I also own an older Canon Rebel T3 which I have barely touched since getting the E-M10 II.

Not really sure where to upgrade from here, or if I even need to, really. Would be nice to own some more expensive glass, but before I drop the cash on that I want to make sure I'm not going to jump ship anytime soon. I currently have the kit 14-40, a 40-150, and a 25. Does anyone know if Olympus plans on updating their m4/3 line, or move to a larger sensor in the near future?

I thought I had replied to you earlier. I must have closed my browser.

Using lenses designed for a smaller sensor on a camera with a bigger sensor doesn't work. I mean it can. The Sony E APS-C lenses can be used on their full frame cameras but the quality is compromised. So it's probably best to discard that possibility from your options.

What I'm hearing you say is that your current setup is working for you, but you have a bout of "GAS." We have all been there. If you have the money and you really do think a better camera will make a significant improvement in your photography, then get a better body.

From my experience, better glass and better technique are going to make a bigger difference. Whatever you do, if you get a fancier camera, you probably need to consider it quite carefully because you will be committing to that system as you invest in more glass, accessories, and getting used to the system, menus, ergonomics, etc.

A lot of people like Olympus M4/3 cameras. If you decided to get better lenses now, you will still be able to use them in the future if you decide to get one of their mid to to top-tier camera models.

If you go with a Fuji X-T2, you are starting from scratch. And that means learning a new system, and all the Idiosyncrasies that entails.

For me I went from a Sony a6000 to an a7ii. Used the a6000 for about 8 months, and then started running into issues. It didn't work as well on low-light, the vintage glass I got wasn't the FF FOV, it didn't have IBIS, it didn't feel sturdy enough, the better lenses were all designed for Sony's FF cameras, etc., etc. Now that I have an FF camera, I often find myself still reaching out for my a6000. The camera wasn't the issue. My creativity and composition were.

Yikes. That...that would drive me crazy at events and street photography. I always thought it was faster than that.

Nope. And now you see why Sony needs to bring the price of their glass down. Using adapted lenses is not the solution.

 

[Saturnman]

To anyone who has gone from a good M4/3 to a good full-frame, how notable is the difference?

Maybe a hard question without specifics: I’ve been getting into some freelance work for extra money, and been thinking about upgrading from my GH4 to a A7rii

I own both and use both. I like toys. Difference in IQ can be... subjective. In good light with equivalent aperture and exposure, FF still has some abstract color richness and microcontrast advantage, if you pixel peep. With prints, it's harder to tell unless it's a large print. I find the way different manufacturers render images sometimes a bigger difference than sensor size alone (I like Oly colors and details, Panny colors not so much).

If you dim the lights, IQ degrades faster on m43, by roughly 2 stops.

The two stops rule obviously apply to DoF control. So if you want really shallow DoF, FF has an advantage and though you can match it or approach it on m43, it can get really expensive to do so. But by personal experience, if I shoot only one person, I will prefer the flexibility of FF but if more people are involved, I will favor m43, because F16-F22 is often not enough on FF to get everything in focus like I want it to be.

FF tends to have higher pixel count than m43 so if you want lots of details like with landscapes, FF is the way to go. But pixel-shifting (hi-res mode) in some Olympus cameras can produce some really amazing, highly detailed photos but you're limited to still life whereas you can still shoot moving subjects with D800 or a A7rII.

On the same subject of hi-res mode, many fun features can be almost completely manufacturer-specific. Sony has had that pan and spray feature that creates panorama photos so easy. Panasonic doesn't have exclusivity on it, but it has what might be the very best digital teleconverter in the industry where it crops the image and but keeps it at full res with little IQ loss for some extra zoom. Depending on your priorities, this can make one camera more attractive than another. Similarly, the whole way a camera operates and handles can be quite different from different manufacturers and it can make and break a camera. It can't deal with Sonys myself.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Nobody really spends money on Sony lenses.

"Nobody?" Plenty of people buy Sony lenses.

They do but their speed isn't the best. Sony lenses on Sony bodies are incredibly fast these days, by comparison.

With Canon glass + Metabones adapter + Sony body, you'll get autofocus but it takes multiple seconds to work sometimes.

It totally depends on the lens. Native Sony E mount lenses will always work better. Here's a good list:

http://briansmith.com/sony-a7rii-canon-ef-smart-adapter-tests/

You can find plenty of other testing videos on YouTube. Just do your research before buying the lens or adapter.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

Sooo I'm interested in the Blackrapid style straps, I want something that can be used with a big backpack, that allows for free movement of the camera and that isn't cumbersome for hip style shooting. Should I just go for a standard Blackrapid or is there something special you guys love?

 

[BlueTsunami]

Sony has actually been making amazing in roads with mid range lenses. Their 28mm amd 50mm primes. Then you have Zeiss selling higher end autofocus and manual lenses specific to thr E mount. Its much better off than it was a couple of years ago. I'm still using off mount lenses though lol

 

[JadedWriter]

"Nobody?" Plenty of people buy Sony lenses.

Nobody is probably too strong a word, but out in the photography wilds of NYC I see a lot more off mount users than native E mount users.

 

[Saturnman]

Been having a great time since picking up an E-M10 Mk. II a while back. I shoot in manual and know the ins and outs (for the most part) of things and "the triangle". I feel like I'm ready to step up to a new camera, but I really love the dial system on the O-MD line with one for shutter and other for aperture. It's just so nice having easy access to both without having to go through menus, in addition to the in body IS. I'm thinking I will probably upgrade to the E-M5 II or the E-M1 down the road, but the X-T2 looks super enticing, and way out of my budget. I also own an older Canon Rebel T3 which I have barely touched since getting the E-M10 II.

Not really sure where to upgrade from here, or if I even need to, really. Would be nice to own some more expensive glass, but before I drop the cash on that I want to make sure I'm not going to jump ship anytime soon. I currently have the kit 14-40, a 40-150, and a 25. Does anyone know if Olympus plans on updating their m4/3 line, or move to a larger sensor in the near future?

If you upgrade to... whatever, what do you expect to gain? You may just be suffering from Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

There are always rumors about Olympus' future, but aside from some FF lens patents which which may remain patent or be sold to other manufacturers, it's quite doubtful Olympus will move to FF. They already have their niche and few believe they have the financial capability to enter an even more niche market segment. Yes, Sony largely has that market to itself, but the big open secret is Canon and Nikon are strongly expected to enter it as well. That will be a bloodbath.

 

[JadedWriter]

If you upgrade to... whatever, what do you expect to gain? You may just be suffering from Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

There are always rumors about Olympus' future, but aside from some FF lens patents which which may remain patent or be sold to other manufacturers, it's quite doubtful Olympus will move to FF. They already have their niche and few believe they have the financial capability to enter an even more niche market segment. Yes, Sony largely has that market to itself, but the big open secret is Canon and Nikon are strongly expected to enter it as well. That will be a bloodbath.

What would Olympus even gain from going FF? They'd just be competing with Sony, Nikon and Canon. Olympus is fine enough as long as you're not shooting in complete darkness.

 

[mrklaw]

Sooo I'm interested in the Blackrapid style straps, I want something that can be used with a big backpack, that allows for free movement of the camera and that isn't cumbersome for hip style shooting. Should I just go for a standard Blackrapid or is there something special you guys love?

I just have the standard (RS4?) and it's fine with or without a backpack. The only difference is you need to adjust the stopper because the strap can't slip around your shoulder with a backpack on. But its great. I used to prefer a hand strap and just hang it from my right hand while walking around, but this gives me more security from falling

 

[owlbeak]

I thought I had replied to you earlier. I must have closed my browser.....

If you upgrade to... whatever, what do you expect to gain? You may just be suffering from Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

There are always rumors about Olympus' future, but aside from some FF lens patents which which may remain patent or be sold to other manufacturers, it's quite doubtful Olympus will move to FF. They already have their niche and few believe they have the financial capability to enter an even more niche market segment. Yes, Sony largely has that market to itself, but the big open secret is Canon and Nikon are strongly expected to enter it as well. That will be a bloodbath.

Honestly, the only thing I am looking to gain is better low light performance, which is sort of the problem with M43. Outside of that, I'm loving the smaller form factor and lenses. I figure I'll end up sticking with Olympus for a while and see what they have to offer down the road. But I think it is a bit of a case of GAS, as I'm pretty happy with my equipment outside of having the pro 14-40 lens and having a 17mm, which I hope to pick up in the near future. I think I have more money invested in Canon lenses at this point, but that is because I have managed to buy all my current glass for my Oly when they were all on ridiculous sales.

I'm nowhere near a "pro", but I think I take some good photos from time to time. It's just my main hobby, and I love it. I'm not trying to acquire the most expensive gear out there, just some things that will allow me to be a bit more versatile, which I think the E-M5 or E-M1 will probably do for me.

 

[KalBalboa]

It totally depends on the lens. Native Sony E mount lenses will always work better.

I mean, yeah, that's pretty much what I posted.

Just do your research before buying the lens or adapter.

I usually am adapting Canon lenses to my Sony bodies for video work. I almost never use autofocus when doing cinema, so the speed of them isn't a high priority, but for anyone out there looking to do photography with Canon lenses adapter onto Sony bodies... it's rough.

I've tried Metabones Mkiii on a A7rii, a Commlite with A6000 + A7S, and a Fotodiox with a A6000 + A7S. I put a 24-105L and the nifty 50 on all these bodies with the adapters listed and the autofocus was not only slow (1-3 seconds) but unreliable. You might have better luck with the Metabones Mk iv or Speed Booster on the A7rii/A7sii, but just know that nothing will compare to the speed of autofocus you'll get with E-mouth native lenses on a Sony body.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I mean, yeah, that's pretty much what I posted.

I interpreted "sometimes" to mean something different than "in some cases" or "with some lenses."

I usually am adapting Canon lenses to my Sony bodies for video work. I almost never use autofocus when doing cinema, so the speed of them isn't a high priority, but for anyone out there looking to do photography with Canon lenses adapter onto Sony bodies... it's rough.

I've tried Metabones Mkiii on a A7rii, a Commlite with A6000 + A7S, and a Fotodiox with a A6000 + A7S. I put a 24-105L and the nifty 50 on all these bodies with the adapters listed and the autofocus was not only slow (1-3 seconds) but unreliable. You might have better luck with the Metabones Mk iv or Speed Booster on the A7rii/A7sii, but just know that nothing will compare to the speed of autofocus you'll get with E-mouth native lenses on a Sony body.

There's now even a Mark V of the Metabones and apparently they keep getting better with each revision, with some lenses even performing just about the same as their equivalent native lens.

 

[Astral/H3X]

Nobody is probably too strong a word, but out in the photography wilds of NYC I see a lot more off mount users than native E mount users.

Keep in mind, the A7 mk 1 came out only in 2013. The product "refresh/upgrade" cycle Sony goes through might be making it seem like it's been around forever, but this is ultimately a system that's in its infancy. Short of people who have only started shooting (well, FF at least... But that actually includes me) since late 2013, few A7 owners will have never had any lenses.... whether they switched from an already robust ecosystem, or picked up zooms that were cheaper or made up for early gaps in the ecosystem, I'd hardly place that as a knock against Sony and more just a sign of how early it really is for them, combined with how easy it is to adapt other lenses.

I mean shit correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there lenses being sold at retail right now for Canon/Nikon that have been around longer than Sony has even made cameras?

 

[KalBalboa]

There's now even a Mark V of the Metabones and apparently they keep getting better with each revision, with some lenses even performing just about the same as their equivalent native lens.

Now if only the adapters cost less than a new FE lens.

I didn't own any Canon lenses before buying my Sony cameras, so I feel such little inclination to pick up a Metabones adapter. If I owned, say, 2-3 L series lenses, I'd have bought a $600+ Speed Booster years ago.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Now if only the adapters cost less than a new FE lens.

I didn't own any Canon lenses before buying my Sony cameras, so I feel such little inclination to pick up a Metabones adapter. If I owned, say, 2-3 L series lenses, I'd have bought a $600+ Speed Booster years ago.

Yeah, it really doesn't make a lot of sense for people who didn't already own a decent number of good Canon lenses to go out of their way to buy an adapter just for the ability to possibly pick up Canon glass down the road.

 

[Ty4on]

I mean shit correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there lenses being sold at retail right now for Canon/Nikon that have been around longer than Sony has even made cameras?

Pretty sure they have lenses still for sale that were designed in the 90s

 

[Miniature Kaiju]

Pretty sure they have lenses still for sale that were designed in the 90s

From the top of my mind, the 85mm f/1.8D, 35mm f/2D and 20mm f/2.8D were introduced in the early 90s but are actually minor revisions of designs Nikon introduced in the 80s.

 

[JadedWriter]

Keep in mind, the A7 mk 1 came out only in 2013. The product "refresh/upgrade" cycle Sony goes through might be making it seem like it's been around forever, but this is ultimately a system that's in its infancy. Short of people who have only started shooting (well, FF at least... But that actually includes me) since late 2013, few A7 owners will have never had any lenses.... whether they switched from an already robust ecosystem, or picked up zooms that were cheaper or made up for early gaps in the ecosystem, I'd hardly place that as a knock against Sony and more just a sign of how early it really is for them, combined with how easy it is to adapt other lenses.

I mean shit correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there lenses being sold at retail right now for Canon/Nikon that have been around longer than Sony has even made cameras?

You can still walk into a store and get a new Nikon 135 F2 DC which has been around since 2007. You can still walk into a B&H and buy D series lenses, which is a line that debuted in 94.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

Sony has actually been making amazing in roads with mid range lenses. Their 28mm amd 50mm primes. Then you have Zeiss selling higher end autofocus and manual lenses specific to thr E mount. Its much better off than it was a couple of years ago. I'm still using off mount lenses though lol

I still remember the day when only ONE native FF prime lens (Sony Zeiss 35mm/2.8) was available, four years ago.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I still remember the day when only ONE native FF prime lens (Sony Zeiss 35mm/2.8) was available, four years ago.

Sounds like they launched with a strong one, at least.

That's easily my favorite overall model of the FE lenses that I've had a chance to use.

 

[Rentahamster]

I mean shit correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there lenses being sold at retail right now for Canon/Nikon that have been around longer than Sony has even made cameras?

Yup. Muuuuch longer.

 

[Ty4on]

From the top of my mind, the 85mm f/1.8D, 35mm f/2D and 20mm f/2.8D were introduced in the early 90s but are actually minor revisions of designs Nikon introduced in the 80s.

Yeah, lol.

D in Nikon speech btw just means distance coding for flash metering so they're probably older models updated with that feature.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Basically yes. They're not bad lenses and do most things ok. You're not getting any better image quality from a 55-200 or 18-55 kit-lens.

They also teach what focal lengths you like so you know what you could invest in should you want to progress.

The biggest downside is they will never be very sharp, but if you're used to compact cameras the right images will look sharp in comparison. They also don't let in a lot of light, but with some patience and maybe some grain from high ISO you can get decent indoor pictures without flash. Just don't expect to shoot moving action stuff indoors without some motion blur.

Lots of photographers use similar lenses when they're out travelling and don't wanna bother with switching and carrying lenses.

Sounds good, thanks!

So I had a chance to handle a couple cameras. I poked around the Fuji XT20 (XT10 wasn't avaliable where I went), Olympus OMD EM10 II, Sony a6000, and a couple Nikons - a d3200 and d5500.

I really liked the Olympus functions/controls. And from reading/looking online, the IQ tends to be pretty great. It's also small, which is a plus - yet offers tons of customization on lenses/features. The reviews have been exciting. Drawback is battery life, but I'm figuring I'll be picking up a second battery sometime anyway.

The Sony was ok. I think I would get the functions, but it just wasn't as intuitive as the Olympus I thought. Just didn't really like the Fuji.

As for the Nikons, I'm really looking at the d5300 - just too many positive reviews online and obviously the IQ is great on that one too. But I figured the d5500 would be close enough to try out - and it was fine.

I'm just surprised how much I liked the Olympus. I really think it'll come down between the d5300 and Olympus.

 

[JadedWriter]

Sounds good, thanks!

So I had a chance to handle a couple cameras. I poked around the Fuji XT20 (XT10 wasn't avaliable where I went), Olympus OMD EM10 II, Sony a6000, and a couple Nikons - a d3200 and d5500.

I really liked the Olympus functions/controls. And from reading/looking online, the IQ tends to be pretty great. It's also small, which is a plus - yet offers tons of customization on lenses/features. The reviews have been exciting. Drawback is battery life, but I'm figuring I'll be picking up a second battery sometime anyway.

The Sony was ok. I think I would get the functions, but it just wasn't as intuitive as the Olympus I thought. Just didn't really like the Fuji.

As for the Nikons, I'm really looking at the d5300 - just too many positive reviews online and obviously the IQ is great on that one too. But I figured the d5500 would be close enough to try out - and it was fine.

I'm just surprised how much I liked the Olympus. I really think it'll come down between the d5300 and Olympus.

One normally buys what they didn't expect to buy. As long as you don't do anything in low light the Olympus is fine. Battery life is a MILC draw back regardless of brand. The Fuji's take a bit to get used to though granted the XT-20 isn't the full amount of buttons. The D5xxx cameras are fine, I just hate the 95% viewfinder and button layout.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

One normally buys what they didn't expect to buy. As long as you don't do anything in low light the Olympus is fine. Battery life is a MILC draw back regardless of brand. The Fuji's take a bit to get used to though granted the XT-20 isn't the full amount of buttons. The D5xxx cameras are fine, I just hate the 95% viewfinder and button layout.

I was actually impressed with some of the examples of low light performance on the Olympus. That didn't deter me necessarily. I assumed the smaller sensor and lower pixel count would introduce more issues, but I felt like it held it's own in those conditions even against some of the similar DSLR/APS-C models.

 

[StopMakingSense]

From the top of my mind, the 85mm f/1.8D, 35mm f/2D and 20mm f/2.8D were introduced in the early 90s but are actually minor revisions of designs Nikon introduced in the 80s.

Also there are a handful of AI-S lenses still in production.

 

[nhlducks35]

Keep in mind, the A7 mk 1 came out only in 2013. The product "refresh/upgrade" cycle Sony goes through might be making it seem like it's been around forever, but this is ultimately a system that's in its infancy. Short of people who have only started shooting (well, FF at least... But that actually includes me) since late 2013, few A7 owners will have never had any lenses.... whether they switched from an already robust ecosystem, or picked up zooms that were cheaper or made up for early gaps in the ecosystem, I'd hardly place that as a knock against Sony and more just a sign of how early it really is for them, combined with how easy it is to adapt other lenses.

I mean shit correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there lenses being sold at retail right now for Canon/Nikon that have been around longer than Sony has even made cameras?

Canon's 50mm 1.4 lens was released 24 years ago to put it into perspective

 

[sankt-Antonio]

Sounds like they launched with a strong one, at least.

That's easily my favorite overall model of the FE lenses that I've had a chance to use.

It really is, I was using nothing but that lens for a good two years.

 

[Snkfanatic]

I am currently looking at getting a mirrorless camera, right now my main camera is a Nikon D7000 but I would love to upgrade to a simple setup. Looking at two Fujifilm cameras right now, the X100F and the X-T1. I really don't mind the fixed lens on the X100F since this will be more of a everyday setup and just to have with me at all times.

Anyone have any thoughts? Experience with one of these? I did look at a few Sony options as well...so much to choose from.

 

[Ty4on]

What would you recommend for a noob interested in getting into manual photography? I obtained some old consumer level SLRs from my family including a Canon AE-1 and FTb, as well as a Canonet 28 rangefinder. What about digital? Would it be smart to invest in Canon for use with those old lenses?

thx

I'd read a little about film photography and then try to shoot a roll of cheap film. Processing can cost a fair bit (maybe 10-20 bucks, not familiar with us prices) so look that up first.

If you want stuff you can use on digital too get a Nikon or Pentax SLR. Those can be used on modern cameras with some caveats like no automatic metering and obviously manual focus only.

 

[Astral/H3X]

I am currently looking at getting a mirrorless camera, right now my main camera is a Nikon D7000 but I would love to upgrade to a simple setup. Looking at two Fujifilm cameras right now, the X100F and the X-T1. I really don't mind the fixed lens on the X100F since this will be more of a everyday setup and just to have with me at all times.

Anyone have any thoughts? Experience with one of these? I did look at a few Sony options as well...so much to choose from.

Sony has a sort of full frame upgrade path, and has better tech, but Fujifilm has a better feel.

Personally I'd get the X100 camera of the two, but that's me thinking of it as a secondary camera.

 

[Snkfanatic]

Sony has a sort of full frame upgrade path, and has better tech, but Fujifilm has a better feel.

Personally I'd get the X100 camera of the two, but that's me thinking of it as a secondary camera.

I am really drawn to the X100 as well. The two lenses I use the most on my Nikon are my 35 and 50mm so the focal length would be fine for me. I do wish it had the touchscreen feature but it's nothing deal breaking for me. Without a doubt it will be a second camera but I plan to use it a lot more than my 7000 just because of it's form factor.

Also I cannot help but say that I adore the way the camera looks. lol

 

[sixteen-bit]

I'd read a little about film photography and then try to shoot a roll of cheap film. Processing can cost a fair bit (maybe 10-20 bucks, not familiar with us prices) so look that up first.

If you want stuff you can use on digital too get a Nikon or Pentax SLR. Those can be used on modern cameras with some caveats like no automatic metering and obviously manual focus only.

Thank you for the tips. I'm excited!

 

[Astral/H3X]

Thank you for the tips. I'm excited!

Pentax, while a bit weird, is really good value wise. There's some weird ergonomic quirks (They have a really weird setting dial that makes absolutely no sense to me), but I know their K mount 50mm 1.4 is some good stuff -- I bought my mom one to go with her K1000, and got kinda jelly when I was testing it on my A7 to make sure there was nothing wrong with it. And their Full Frame was like what, $600 or some shit? Do I remember that right? I remember it was stupid cheap for what it was.