Minimal difference. The Canon 50mm 1.4 is a god tier lens, performs amazingly well both for video and photography with my 5d mkIII, can't even remember the number of jobs I've done using it exclusively.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NeoGAF Camera Equipment Thread | MK II
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
Minimal difference. The Canon 50mm 1.4 is a god tier lens, performs amazingly well both for video and photography with my 5d mkIII, can't even remember the number of jobs I've done using it exclusively.
VisceralBowl
Member
Anybody with a Canon system want to help answer a question?
Can you autofocus while DOF preview is on? I'm aware it's not ideal but I'm wondering if it's possible.
Can you autofocus while DOF preview is on? I'm aware it's not ideal but I'm wondering if it's possible.
Leeroy3101
Banned
How weather resistant is the D7100? Can I take it out into the pouring rain, and everything will be okay? Obviously I'd wipe it down. What if my lenses aren't weather sealed? Same thing goes for snow and dust?
if the lenses aren't weather sealed it's a zero sum game. you need both to work properly and at full capacity
JadedWriter
Member
If your lens isn't weather sealed than you better be smart with everything. I've gotten drops of rain on my stuff just fine, but as I said be smart.
And as LensRental's Roger Cicala says, weather sealed means the warranty does not cover water damage. They should usually be fine in rain, but most won't survive submersion and aren't water proof.
boviscopophobic
Member
Weather resistance is basically wishful thinking if there's no IP rating. The warranty doesn't cover water damage. You might very well be fine exposing the camera to the elements (I have been so far), and "weather resistance" might decrease the probability of an adverse outcome, but it is not guaranteed.
Having IP rating doesn't necessarily mean the warranty will cover it either. That said, my camera just went through 3 days of down pour and survived - knock on wood.
After much deliberation, and driving myself borderline crazy, I finally broke down and ordered the X100T last night. It was between that, the RX100 IV, and the a6300 though I could still see adding the other two at some point.
To be honest, I sort of hate buying cameras. There are so many choices, so many details, so many tradeoffs, it's maddening almost. Anyway, I hope I like the X100T.
To be honest, I sort of hate buying cameras. There are so many choices, so many details, so many tradeoffs, it's maddening almost. Anyway, I hope I like the X100T.
Does anyone have experience with the Sigma 24-35mm F2 art lens? I really like the sharpness and quality of it in the photos and reviews I've looked at but I am trying to decide. I will be using it for engagement, product, (possibly) weddings, and as an environmental portrait lens. I will probably also use it for events that involve photographing different types of lighting for a company I've started getting jobs from. I thought about the 18-35mm ART lens but I am planning to make my primary camera a full frame by the end of this year and keep my Canon 70d as backup, so a crop only lens does not make too much sense. I know that 24-35mm is a limited amount of range, but I really like the points it covers. I am not into super wide angles (I rarely use my 10-22mm Canon lens). My lenses right now are: canon 50mm 1.4, canon 85mm 1.8, canon 10-22 3.5-4.5 and a canon 40mm 2.8.
Astral/H3X
Member
I think I'm gonna spring for that Venus 2:1 Macro lens...
jongkookie
Member
Got a circular polarizer today...
I feel like I've been living a lie as a car photographer.
Even if it was a cheap $10 CPL, it has a huuuge effect on getting glare and reflections out. If only it wasn't going to rain like hell this weekend, I'd actually wash my car and go out for a shoot.
I feel like I've been living a lie as a car photographer.
Even if it was a cheap $10 CPL, it has a huuuge effect on getting glare and reflections out. If only it wasn't going to rain like hell this weekend, I'd actually wash my car and go out for a shoot.
Cheesehead9099
Neo Member
Is the T1i a good starting camera, or should I buy something better? Been meaning to get into photography for a bit.
i am utterly clueless on this topic so please go easy
Pentax K50, cheap AF super effective.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
You've been photographing shiny things this whole time without a polarizer?
jongkookie
Member
Lmao yeah.
It's something that honestly never occurred to me until a week ago when I was watching a buddy do some crazy ass car photoshops. The reflections didn't bother me at all, and it didn't seem to bother my clients so I didn't really think about it until then.
My buddy does those composite like car photos where it's basically perfect while I tend to take a WYSIWYG approach since most of my clients are going sell their cars after the shoot and they want a memory of their cars as well as the ability to show the buyer the real thing so yeah.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I might make the case that it still is the real thing, just a very ideal visualization of it under optimal lighting and viewing conditions. But yeah, it's sort of a case by case basis, especially if how you're doing it already aligns with the aesthetic tastes of whoever is paying you to do it. It's also a case of time spent vs. return. Using a polarizer when needed is a pretty easy thing to do since it's so fast. The Photoshopping your friend does, on the other hand, may or may not be worth the time spent.
DarkJediKnight
Member
Go t2i. 1080p video and a better sensor, ie better pic quality.
Squirrel Killer
Member
It's an older Canon DLSR so it won't have the specs of current cameras and will be a bit bulkier than the mirrorless cameras that are all the rage nowadays. Every camera has trade-offs, so it's important to know what you want out of the camera to be able to evaluate those trade-offs.
It would be a perfectly fine, if not exciting, camera to learn on.
Keep in mind that when you move up from the point and shoot cameras, it's not just the body you're buying, it's the ecosystem/platform you're buying in to. Once you start off in Canon's ecosystem, it will be easier for you to stay in it. Like the hobby enough to buy the EF 50mm f/1.8 I'm about to recommend, and you'll be able to seamless take that lens to the 80D when you upgrade the body in five years. It will work on other platforms, but you'd have to fiddle with adapters. It's not impossible to switch platforms, but there's a reason you hear people refer to themselves as Nikon-shooters or Canon-shooters.
Are you specifying a T1i because the listings for it on websites is in you budget or because an acquaintance is actively offering it to you?
jongkookie
Member
Yeah. This is basically how my pics look like for car clients. Easy to do and I can spit out the pics in the same day lol.
My friend's process on the other hand is too damn crazy. He does the shoot himself, usually the same angle multiple times due to the lighting and the polarizer taking effect. Then he blends all of those shots into one then start adding stuff like changing the background, making it look like it's actually moving, it looks really cool but very very time consuming to do.
As for the polarizer, yeah I'm definitely gonna start using it a lot more after playing around with it earlier. I even got some pics!
Here's one without the polarizer:
Here's one with the polarizer and some minor photoshopping:
The photoshopping here is pretty simple, took 2 pics, one with the polarizer taking effect on the windshield and the other on the windows. Merged the two together and there it is. It's also a little grainy since the polarizer takes up huge amount of light and I completely forgot to change the shutter speed with the polarizer on so I had to bump it up in LR lol.
Anyway, the difference with and without the polarizer is seriously outstanding... and this is a $10 product from Amazon! I was about to buy the $35 Tiffen or Hoya, but since I didn't think it was necessary, I went for the cheapest option to test it out lol. Once this breaks, I'm definitely splurging on a more expensive one haha.
Astral/H3X
Member
And then you have Sony users who use whatever the fuck they want. 
JadedWriter
Member
Anybody here recommend a bag for lighting stuff that's actually durable in the 60 dollar range? The one I had got mysteriously ripped to shit in my office.
I really want to jump on the DSLR train now and I finally decided that my first camera will be the Nikon D7200.
Besides smartphone photography, I don't really know that much about DSLRs yet, but I'm reading into it and want to learn a lot.
So what I would like to know is: Is the Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor ED VR 16-80mm a good lens for someone like me, who wants a good allround lens to keep on the DSLR all the time and learn with it for the next year or two?
I'm shooting pretty much everything with my phone so far (street, nature, concerts, etc.) and would like to replace the phone with the DSLR.
Will the lens be good enough to keep me busy for a while or do you have better recommendations? For the beginning I would prefer a Nikon lens on the Nikon camera... just because. But I'm open minded for anything else, too.
Besides smartphone photography, I don't really know that much about DSLRs yet, but I'm reading into it and want to learn a lot.
So what I would like to know is: Is the Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor ED VR 16-80mm a good lens for someone like me, who wants a good allround lens to keep on the DSLR all the time and learn with it for the next year or two?
I'm shooting pretty much everything with my phone so far (street, nature, concerts, etc.) and would like to replace the phone with the DSLR.
Will the lens be good enough to keep me busy for a while or do you have better recommendations? For the beginning I would prefer a Nikon lens on the Nikon camera... just because. But I'm open minded for anything else, too.
JadedWriter
Member
That shouldn't be too bad of a lens. It's probably only 2.8 from 16-30mm tops though, but for overall photography it'll do fine. It's expensive. I'll say this now, check the price of that on ebay cause you can find some really damn good deals for lenses on there. That's also a really good camera. I use a D7100 and my dad has the 7200 and loves it. He's a bit of a pain in the ass regarding the need for full frame camera's, but he's not dumb, just stubbornly stupid regarding certain things. Also look into the Sigma 18-35 1.8 Art Lens, it's a really damn good lens. Bulky, but I love it.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I dunno about lighting stuff, but this Tenba bag is selling at a huge discount right now.
http://www.adorama.com/TBMCBOR.html?EmailPrice=T
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
My usual advice to people jumping in to DSLRs for the first time is to get a cheap prime lens like this.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001S2PPT0/?tag=neogaf0e-20
It's cheap, has good optical quality, and it's very sensitive to low light.
Once you've played around with it for a while, you can then go about answering questions like:
Do I wish I had zoom? Do I prefer to take photos of landscapes? People? Animals? Non-moving objects? Large objects? Small objects? The answers to these questions should inform your subsequent purchases.
The kit also has a wide range of zoom, so that should go about helping you to decide as well.
JadedWriter
Member
I need a light stand bag. How's the padding on that thing though? I will admit to being a bit of a Lowepro whore though. I love their bags.
I started off on the Nikon 1.8 50. Pretty much I think a person starts having a better idea regarding lenses acquisitions based upon what it is that they do with the camera. I went from "I don't need reach" to "holy shit I need a 70-200" within 11 months? Granted nobody needs a 70-200 unless they're doing event photography of some sort.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I dunno about the Tenba bag. I already got enough bags. Some of my friends ordered that one but haven't gotten it yet. Tenba is a good manufacturer, though.
For light stands, I use my uncle's old golf bag
Hey, free's free.
JadedWriter
Member
Lol free is definitely free. That just sounds hilarious though.I dunno about the Tenba bag. I already got enough bags. Some of my friends ordered that one but haven't gotten it yet. Tenba is a good manufacturer, though.
For light stands, I use my uncle's old golf bag
Hey, free's free.
Leeroy3101
Banned
Thanks for all the answers on my D7100 question. Doesn't seem worth the investment in a new body after all you told me. Quite happy with my D3300, and it's a bummer to hear about needing weather resistant/sealed lenses.
Instead I purchased me last lens, photographers famous last words, for quite some time. Found all that I photograph could benefit from a wide angle lens. I sprung on the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II today. Now to wait a bit while it gets to me here. I eagerly await the astrophotography I can pull off with it.
Instead I purchased me last lens, photographers famous last words, for quite some time. Found all that I photograph could benefit from a wide angle lens. I sprung on the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II today. Now to wait a bit while it gets to me here. I eagerly await the astrophotography I can pull off with it.
The 16-80mm isn't a bad lens, but a bit overpriced. For your first zoom I'd recommend a kit with a cheaper lens like the Nikon 18-105mm or 18-140mm and upgrade from there.
I think someone else on this forum has experience with the Sigma 17-70mm which is a good value.
Another path could be full frame. You can get a Nikon D750 kit for 2300. Full frame is a step up in image quality with a bigger sensor that captures more of the image.
If you put a full frame lens on then the "APS-C" rectangle is the picture you'd get from a D7200 and the "Full Frame" rectangle is the picture you'd get from the D750. Lenses like the 16-80mm however don't cover full frame so you would get black corners, but most Nikon lenses are "FX" and cover full frame. DX lenses only cover APS-C.
Full frame will have better low light because the pixels can be much bigger. APS-C is cheaper and advantageous if you need to get closer.
That Nikon D750 kit is 300$ more expensive than body only, but if you check ebay you'll see that same lens sold for almost 500$ so you should be able to sell it for a profit.
JadedWriter
Member
I have a Sigma 17-50...I'm not exactly sure if I like how it deals with lower light situations, but for the most part I like it. It kind of just turns people into amorphous blobs at high iso, but I think that's just my hassle cause I tend to view shit at 1:1 while most people will not even bother with that stuff. I showed one of my pics of him to a subway musician and he was like, "oh that's dope." Meanwhile I was like "what the fuck happened here?" while I was editing it. The 18-105, isn't too bad, I just don't like how soft the damn thing gets once you get to a certain point. Long story short I have enough decent lenses to the point where I kick it to the curb. A good alternative might be like the Sigma 18-200 or something, but I'm not sure if I want to waste money on a lens that I'd probably never use. I heard the 24-120 F4 that comes in the D750 kit is actually pretty good though and for a basic walk around lens it would get you quite far actually. And yeah his next camera probably should be a 750 since it's probably one of the best all around cameras available. I'd put the 7100 a clear step above the 3300 though, it just depends on what you do with it and how much menu driving you want to do. Stuff like a dedicated iso button, shutter speed wheel, dual sd cards and other such things are worth more than a person initially thinks, but it just depends on what you. 3300 is perfectly fine though.
Are you sure it wasn't the noise reduction that ruined high ISOs pictures? Not sure if you still have that lens, but I'd try tweaking that. I personally don't mind the look when you apply enough color noise reduction to keep that under control, but limit luminous noise reduction and keep the grain in. Not that I want the grain, but it's much better than the smushed look you get when it tries to remove it.
The selection standard zooms for crop sensored cameras makes me want to scream at Nikon, Canon, Sony. Unless you start paying over 1k most aren't a big leap over the 18-55 in image quality. They might even be beaten by it in some focal lengths. It's especially frustrating when they're able to make decent mid-range full frame zooms like the 24-120 and Canon's 24-105. They're also all so slow. I wish I knew what made 3.5-5.6 such a special number.
I know Sony's full frame 28-70mm has turned into a popular lens for crop sensored cameras because it's cheap on the used market and as sharp or sharper than any of the crop zooms in tests by DXO. A cheap, plasticky kit lens you can get for 300$ on the used market shouldn't equal their 1000$ "Zeiss" zooms.
JadedWriter
Member
Noise Reduction is turned off on my camera, been like that for months and I just double checked. Might just be what happens when I fiddle around with the exposure compensation too much on my camera.
I got my RX100 III today. Really cool camera and incredibly compact for what it is, but still this thing is barely pocketable unless you're wearing cargo shorts or something. It feels like it will break in my jeans pocket.
The video features on this camera are amazing. I know it lacks external mic support but as a family video camera it's incredibly easy to use and the video stabilization works so much better than I had anticipated. I'm very excited about that.
The video features on this camera are amazing. I know it lacks external mic support but as a family video camera it's incredibly easy to use and the video stabilization works so much better than I had anticipated. I'm very excited about that.
Thank you all for your responses!
But, oh well, now I feel insecure and I'm torn between the D7200 and the D750 again, like I was in the beginning about a month or two ago. Haha
Moneywise, the 2500 I would have to pay for the D750 with the 24-120mm Kit-Lens are pretty much my limit, since I also have to get some accessories like SD cards, a bag and maybe a screenprotector. I like watching TheCameraStoreTV's videos on YouTube, and they seem to love the D750 with that Kit-Lens. But that's when the D7200 wasn't out, yet.
This might cause some laughter here, but are the benefits from a Full Frame camera really that big? I mean, with the example Ty4on posted, wouldn't I be able to just step a few steps back with the APS-C to get a similar wide/big picture?
Thank you, I will keep that in mind. But especially for the start, I would prefer to have a zoom-lens right away, since I imagine I would be more flexible with it and could test out a little more.
This kind of sounds like you would jump on the Full Frame train, too? Would you prefer the D750 over your D7100 or isn't the difference that big?
If I compare the D7200 to the D750 on this site http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D7200-vs-Nikon-D750/detailed it seems like only the boost ISO and shutter speed are better on the D7200. How important is it to have a shutter speed of 1/8000s vs 1/4000s?
/noob post
But, oh well, now I feel insecure and I'm torn between the D7200 and the D750 again, like I was in the beginning about a month or two ago. Haha
Moneywise, the 2500 I would have to pay for the D750 with the 24-120mm Kit-Lens are pretty much my limit, since I also have to get some accessories like SD cards, a bag and maybe a screenprotector. I like watching TheCameraStoreTV's videos on YouTube, and they seem to love the D750 with that Kit-Lens. But that's when the D7200 wasn't out, yet.
This might cause some laughter here, but are the benefits from a Full Frame camera really that big? I mean, with the example Ty4on posted, wouldn't I be able to just step a few steps back with the APS-C to get a similar wide/big picture?
Thank you, I will keep that in mind. But especially for the start, I would prefer to have a zoom-lens right away, since I imagine I would be more flexible with it and could test out a little more.
This kind of sounds like you would jump on the Full Frame train, too? Would you prefer the D750 over your D7100 or isn't the difference that big?
If I compare the D7200 to the D750 on this site http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D7200-vs-Nikon-D750/detailed it seems like only the boost ISO and shutter speed are better on the D7200. How important is it to have a shutter speed of 1/8000s vs 1/4000s?
/noob post
To me they are. You not only get a wider angle, but also more bokeh and better performance in lowly lit situations. Also den Nikon full frame cameras have some of the best dynamic ranges there are, which means they capture more information between the brightest and darkest parts of the image than other cameras.
You would be in some ways, but in other ways a good fixed focal range lens might make it easier for you to get a feel for what you need in your second lens.
Find a review that has picture comparisons. Especially ones of test settings with different ISO values to see how the cameras actually perform at similar/max ISO.
There're plenty of time you simply can't cover as wide as FF no matter what you do (but it doesn't mean you can't come up with a different composition). There are times when APS-C is more beneficial and there are times when FF is just the way to go. It really depends on what you shoot and your priorities. As always, it's a trade off. Performance wise, at base/low iso, it's not that big of difference. It's when you are in trickier situation that FF will stand out more.
Only if you are using the same lens. But then again why would you ever buy a wide angle FF lens for an APS-C body...
JadedWriter
Member
Just because the 7200 has higher iso numbers doesn't mean it gives you usable pictures at that iso range. Compare an image at 3200 iso on a 750 and 3200 on the 7200 and there will be a big difference. I just started doing event coverage for my job and I'm starting to see that there is a need for FF for these things. Corporate events really don't care too much if you have enough lighting or not and what you have is what you have. For the most part APSC is perfectly, it just depends on what you're doing with the camera. If you're going to be taking a lot of pictures in low light and charging people for it and printing it, then you really might want a FF if not just APSC should be enough.
Joel Was Right
Member
I don't really understand the main draw for Full Frame cameras from amateurs or those who just use photography has a hobby. Unless you want to blow up your images/print them large, why would you want it?
JadedWriter
Member
I don't either. I didn't really start caring till I got thrown into some low light events for my job. I've made it work, but my god the last one I did was grueling.
For the same reason a pro would want it? Just because you do something for fun does not have to mean you do not either have use for something or a desire for the best possible tools. But that is ery much the same no matter the hobby. You could also ask why anyone would need multiple gaming devices, or more than just a basic car.
JadedWriter
Member
I think he's only really arguing that point cause of the money invested. Granted if part of your hobby is stylized fashion shoots and it gets printed out then I can really see it making a lot of sense.
He's asked why you can't just take a few steps back to get the same wide angle FOV. There are plenty of situation where you simply can't step back. Also widest, non-fish-eye, lens for FF might still be wider than the widest APSC offering.
Big viewfinder + shallower dof + better iso perf.
want vs need often are very different and people are taught FF is simply superior in every way
edit: plus, manufactures often gives fuller offering and leave APSC with holes when they produce both formats
jongkookie
Member
Here's your answer:
Besides, APS-C lenses are goddamned expensive, have terrible resale value, and are essentially useless if you ever decide to upgrade to FF. You might as well switch camera mounts/manufacturers since it would be cheaper to go from APS-C Nikon to FF Canon or vice versa.
I now exclusively use a 28-90mm lens on my D3200... even factoring the crop factor, 42-135mm isn't actually that bad. If it was, I wouldn't be getting any gigs or clients lol.