Astral/H3X
Member
Astrophotography is another big one, and a large part of why I switched to an A7. And night shooting. And anything where light is a concern.
-
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
JadedWriter
Member
I have bought 2 crop sensor lenses, I'm done. Rest from here on I'm quite sure will be full frame.
Joel Was Right
Member
There is a bigger jump in IQ between a good lens and an excellent one than there is between a Crop and Full-Frame. And considering the price, I'm not sure how people measure that performance gap and come away seeing any justification.
If money is no object to you, then sure I can understand. But when your budget is above $700 for a body, then you're going to get great images regardless. The only factors that influence purchases are handling, range of lenses and aesthetics.
Why not just buy used lenses if the resale value is terrible?
Astral/H3X
Member
There's also the A7II having IBIS for all vintage lenses, which is huge IMO. The A7II was such an improvement at night and old lenses, which I use heavily, that it was a no brainer.
Your assumption is that people do thorough research and fully understand their needs, which usually isn't the case, at least anecdotally. More often than not, when I ask people why they choose FF instead of crop, or certain brand of camera, the answer is 'friend told me to get this'.
On the flip side, if you don't have some photography experiences on hand, you can't really say definitively that you don't need this or that. It's a bit of chicken and egg problem imo.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
If photography is a hobby, then it's not a good idea to spend more money than your disposable income allows. When it comes to deciding what to get, I find that most hobbyists think they want more than they actually need, and more than their wallets can realistically handle.
Joel Was Right
Member
IBIS seems more suited to handheld video (as opposed to using a tripod). For photography, I don't shoot at anything under 1/60s for still subjects. Does IBIS make shots like 1/30s possible or something?
If it's wide to normal end, 1/5 or 1/10 is not uncommon for me. Too many places don't allow tripod.
Yeah, it can be a real mess to find the perfect camera
First things first, one of the big advantages to full frame is low light. I used DPReviews studio tool where you can compare different cameras and you can see here the D750 vs D7200 in RAW (JPEG is harder to compare because manufacturers will use different settings):
As a rule of thumb ISO 3200 on full frame will look like ISO 1600 on crop, 6400 will look like 3200 etc. It varies, but for the most part a full frame camera will look one stop better.
Shutter speed 1/4000 and 1/8000 doesn't mean much in most situations. 1/8000 is most valuable for shooting with a wide aperture in bright sunlight, but you can get the same effect with an ND filter on the lens (basically sunglasses).
One reality check is that APS-C is by no means bad. I was just wondering if the D750 fit your budget. Like many have said the main issue with APS-C is that camera manufacturers treat them as second grade citizens and put the most effort in full frame lenses. The "exciting" lenses are usually made for full frame while APS-C get boring consumer zooms that soccer moms will like.
If I were you I'd look at two Nikon options. One is the D610 which is full frame and has pretty much the same image quality as the D750, but is much cheaper. The D610 lacks aperture control in video mode, has a more primitive autofocus and light metering system (the D750 can recognize faces, the D610 and I think D7200 can't) and hasn't got a tilt screen. The main difference between the two is that the D610 autofocus points are concentrated in the center.
D7100 and D7200 have the same autofocus points.
I only found kits with the 24-85mm lens which is ok, but doesn't zoom as much as the other lenses. The 24-120mm is 1000$ new, but can be found for much less (600$ boxed) on ebay because a lot of people buy it in a kit and resell the lens for a profit.
The second would be the Nikon D7200 (or a used D7100 if you want to save money) and a cheaper kit lens to start from like the 18-105 or 18-140. The 18-55 is cheap, but not that bad. One advantage with APS-C is you get more reach for your money if you imagine yourself taking a lot of pictures needing long lenses. For concerts the D7200 will also have better autofocus in low light, but on the flip side if you have a long enough lens the D610 will give you cleaner images.
D610 - better image quality, bigger viewfinder
D7200 - cheaper and more modern camera with better video (60 fps) and autofocus and has wifi
D7100 - cheaper than the D7200 and mostly the same apart from no 60fps video, no wifi, smaller buffer (how many pictures you can take in a fast burst) and slightly worse AF in low light (that doesn't mean it's bad, just means the D7200 can focus in moonlight).
I wouldn't be afraid to go for the cheap option and if find out it wasn't the right option you can always sell it and upgrade. I checked ebay and found a D7000 with the 18-105 lens (from 2010-2013) advertised for 500$ so don't be scared thinking it will be worth nothing in a few years.
Older models are also quite a lot cheaper than newer models, even if they're not big upgrades. B&H are selling a brand new Nikon D7100 with the 18-140mm kit zoom for 1100$ and they throw in a 32GB memory card and third party battery. Amazon has a brand new Nikon D7100 with the 18-105 kit zoom for 870$.
Edit:
TL;DR
I was thinking that your budget was higher, but I definitely think the D750 is stretching it a lot for a 2500 budget. One of the reasons I thought of something cheaper is you can then focus a lot of the remaining budget on other things. Say you find out you really like shooting wildlife, but need a lot more reach. Now you have 1000$ for the Tamron 150-600. Or if you much prefer shooting in low light concerts you could buy the Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 (also 1000$).
It's really the lens that takes the picture and where it's worth really spending the extra money. Just make sure it's worth the money. Google camera lenses to find reviews with sample pictures and if you're checking full frame lenses just add "APS-C" to find reviews with APS-C samples. Don't worry if it's a different camera.
----------------------------
If you're steady and take a lot of pictures (take a bunch and choose the sharpest, I can do sharp 1/15, maybe 1/8, unstabilized with this) 1 second handheld exposures are possible. 1/30th will probably have a really high hit rate unless you're using a long lens.
Wow, thank you very much for this!
This was really insightful and gives me a lot to think about. I'm going to let this sink in for a night or two as I'm going to read more about everything you mentioned. This post brought me forward quite a bit as I am now leaning more towards the full frame cameras - even though I am just doing this as a hobby
I actually didn't really think about it and the question just popped into my head when I saw the pic, haha.
Totally agree on that.
JadedWriter
Member
Don't be afraid to buy refurbished cameras and used lenses, just be careful though and shop around. Good deals can be found I kid you not.Wow, thank you very much for this!
This was really insightful and gives me a lot to think about. I'm going to let this sink in for a night or two as I'm going to read more about everything you mentioned. This post brought me forward quite a bit as I am now leaning more towards the full frame cameras - even though I am just doing this as a hobby
I actually didn't really think about it and the question just popped into my head when I saw the pic, haha.
Totally agree on that.
I will definitely keep that in mind, thanks!
JadedWriter
Member
Yeah, my current camera was refurbished and there is nothing wrong with it and my two most used lenses are used and they're fine. I've never bought a lens in store, other stuff yeah, lenses, no. Just make sure you talk to the online seller and check their ratings and what they normally sell. I do my best not to buy anything from a person that isn't known for selling camera lenses.
Oh Ebay. Apparently "very good" really means as-is.
I haven't found it again, but I think I once found a lens in "EXC" condition with fungus. It was probably just "VG" though.
Yeah. Camera equipment is tough to buy and sell. Have to be diligent on both ends. Just sold a Japanese Summilux and the buyer was great as they engaged me in a conversation to figure out if the lens was for them. Such hit and misses really. The good thing is if you are a buyer you have a lot of protection.
Yeah, I know it can be really hard for sellers on Ebay. I just find it funny how skewed many of the ratings are.
JadedWriter
Member
I always ask about lenses and look at pics with a microscope. I once had to inform a seller that their "like new 9.5" lens had a scratch on the barrel. It's very easy to get burned but you just really need to be diligent. I haven't been burned once luckily.Oh Ebay. Apparently "very good" really means as-is.
I haven't found it again, but I think I once found a lens in "EXC" condition with fungus. It was probably just "VG" though.
Yeah it carries over to games too. Their descriptors are ridiculous.
Astral/H3X
Member
There's also the fact that wide angle lenses have a very different look to them. Lots of times you can tell the FOV of the lens a photo was taken with just looking at it, regardless of knowing how far back a person was.
Skel1ingt0n
I can't *believe* these lazy developers keep making file sizes so damn large. Btw, how does technology work?
There's a Fuji 14 2.8 for $490 all-in on FM right now. Debating on snagging it before my two week honeymoon in the Nordic countries next month.
I don't need it, but I do want it...
I don't need it, but I do want it...
Yeah, the dolly zoom is a good example of how drastically the FOV can change the look.
Getting a good wide shot is hard though. Whenever I shoot landscapes there's always something in the way if I shoot wide and if you're shooting a subject there's usually something ugly in the background that is hard to avoid.
JadedWriter
Member
I've honestly just learned to accept that shit's going to be in the picture and stopped obsessing over it. That might just be me though. I photograph in a city, stuff's everywhere. I've just learned to embrace a part of it to be honest. "There's a halal cart there...well fuck it, halal cart is NYC."
Astral/H3X
Member
I agree that wide angle is hard, but for a completely different reason.
"Are you close enough"
"No"
"You didn't look"
"Don't have to"
Yeah, outside of studio photography I don't worry too much about other shit being in frame. It's going to happen. Sure I'll try to avoid some of it but I don't fret if there's some there.
JadedWriter
Member
Plus you could also crop out some shit. If I care enough I'll crop out some random dude cut in half. If not, no. Sometimes I think something like a person dashing into your shot adds to it a bit. I think I've just gotten more lenient about shit cause well shit happens.
Anyone looking to get into the Fuji ecosystem. Good deal on the X-T10 here.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fujifilm-X-...hash=item28160da7b4:m:mYc6HPKoMVLpugJ1Jsd_I8Q
Grey Market but I've never had issues with Grey Market stuff though your mileage may vary.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fujifilm-X-...hash=item28160da7b4:m:mYc6HPKoMVLpugJ1Jsd_I8Q
Grey Market but I've never had issues with Grey Market stuff though your mileage may vary.
Astral/H3X
Member
You'll want to look up an exposure guide that teaches you the relationship between Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO, and how they affect your image. From there, you'll start using Aperture priority or shutter priority, and then maybe full manual.So I went ahead and bought my first proper camera. The Sony a6000. As someone whose experience with photography has been limited to camera phones, the available functions and options on the a6000 is very overwhelming! I think I'll be using the auto settings for awhile.
theepicoftyler
Member
I agree with this, start out with aperture priority. The more "hands on" you are with your photos the better. It's good to start getting comfortable with adjusting things on your camera on the fly.
nintendork666
Member
Camera GAF, I need your advice. So recently, on a trip to Toledo, the strap on my Sony a58 came undone which sent the camera crashing onto the sidewalk. Unfortunately for me, the camera has since been giving me a SteadyShot error whenever I boot it up. I reset the camera to default settings, turned it on and off, and swapped out the lenses several times to only get the same error. The SteadyShot reads as 'on' in the menu, but is greyed out completely.
After having a staff member at a local PROCAM shop take a look at it, he advised me to call up our most local camera repair shop. Upon calling and explaining the situation, I was told that I'd have to ship the camera out to Sony to have it fixed.
Sony quoted me $206 to have the camera repaired, which is a bummer, seeing that the camera itself only costs about $325 used at my local PROCAM shop.
I mostly do videowork with this camera, and only take pictures here and there. How necessary is the SteadyShot for me? Am I better off sending in the camera for repair, trying to scoop up another a58 for a similar price or buying something better like an a77 when I can afford it?
I already own three a-mount lenses, and am not really interested in needing an adapter. I've only had this a58 for a few months now.
Idk guys, just need some advice. Figure you all could help.
After having a staff member at a local PROCAM shop take a look at it, he advised me to call up our most local camera repair shop. Upon calling and explaining the situation, I was told that I'd have to ship the camera out to Sony to have it fixed.
Sony quoted me $206 to have the camera repaired, which is a bummer, seeing that the camera itself only costs about $325 used at my local PROCAM shop.
I mostly do videowork with this camera, and only take pictures here and there. How necessary is the SteadyShot for me? Am I better off sending in the camera for repair, trying to scoop up another a58 for a similar price or buying something better like an a77 when I can afford it?
I already own three a-mount lenses, and am not really interested in needing an adapter. I've only had this a58 for a few months now.
Idk guys, just need some advice. Figure you all could help.
Art Teitlebaum
Member
Maybe a used/refurbished a77 (II) or a68? Repairing your a58 really doesn't make any sense for that money. BTW Which lenses do you own?
Astral/H3X
Member
I would consider that camera borked. If there's an issue with the steady shot, which moves the sensor to compensate for movement, it might be permanently stuck in some misaligned position. I don't know enough about the steadyshot specifics on this sort of situation to say definitively, but that would be my first thought.
nintendork666
Member
I own the a58 kit lens, a Sony 35mm f/1.8 prime lens, and lastly a Sony 55-200mm f/4-5.6 telephoto zoom lens. Since I'm mostly a video guy, I use the prime lens more than the other two.
I'll keep an eye out for what I can afford though.
Art Teitlebaum
Member
The 35mm18 is a very nice lens that is worth keeping. So getting a new body would make sense, I guess. And you would need a body only, as you already have the stuff you can use with the newer body as batteries and flash.
As said before, without a working IBIS, I wouldn't trust the camera to work reliably in important sessions.
Squirrel Killer
Member
It still nominally works besides the SteadyShot function, right? I'd start saving and pull the trigger on a replacement body only once the lack of SteadyShot impacts your work. Maybe that's today, maybe it's next year, but holding off may help you step up to the next generation tech or give you enough time to save up enough money to move to the next step closer to pro gear.
formasymphonic
Member
Hey CameraGAF, I went to Paris a few weeks ago and took a load of of noob photos with an a6300. The camera itself is awesome, but I'm pretty much just getting into photography as a hobby now so I can't say I'm making anything artistic.
Anyways, I wanted to share - so if you want to vicariously see some of Paris, I have about 3k pics of Arc de Triomphe, Notre Dame, Pantheon, some of the Louvre, Catacombs, Palace of Versailles,a few modern art museums, some stuff on Parisian streets/travel and the excellent Musée D'Orsay and more
Edit: I took the Sony 35mm & the Rokinon 12mm for those interested. The 35mm was excellent, it's only drawback being that I found it wasn't always wide enough when walking around. I am gonna have to look around for something in the 16-24 ish range but don't really want the pancakes and can't afford the Zony 24mm.
Gutted, with some rookie mistakes I make with continuous / auto focus at the aquarium, and I still need to get a better handle on shooting manually
Anyways, I wanted to share - so if you want to vicariously see some of Paris, I have about 3k pics of Arc de Triomphe, Notre Dame, Pantheon, some of the Louvre, Catacombs, Palace of Versailles,a few modern art museums, some stuff on Parisian streets/travel and the excellent Musée D'Orsay and more
Edit: I took the Sony 35mm & the Rokinon 12mm for those interested. The 35mm was excellent, it's only drawback being that I found it wasn't always wide enough when walking around. I am gonna have to look around for something in the 16-24 ish range but don't really want the pancakes and can't afford the Zony 24mm.
Joel Was Right
Member
.
23mm f/2?
Joel Was Right
Member
1.4 or bust, baby
Edit: Wait, why isn't there a 1.4 written on the lens in that image?
Edit 2: Must be the reflection hiding it.
Ha, I was wondering. That looked like the 1.4 and I know the f/2 is rumored but expected something similar to the look of the 35 f/2.
I waffled between the 23 and the 16 and just got the 16 yesterday. Sweet deal on eBay used with the metal hood for about $850.
JadedWriter
Member
I must say. People notice you when you're doing a photo shoot with a 70-200.
Joel Was Right
Member
Large lens annoy me. I feel that technology should progress on that front in regards to glass; we shouldn't be carrying things half the length of our arm. You'll never see me trodding along with that unless I'm earning a living from it.
I saw a guy with a 16-55 f2/8 around his neck recently, hands in his pockets. Poor sod. He bought a small, mirrorless camera only to be carrying a fucking canon around his neck.
JadedWriter
Member
I agree. At least it isn't some 400mm F4 prime or some shit. Is the 16-55 bigger than the sigma 2.8 17-50 or 18-35 art? I use those for walk around lenses just fine.
Can't out-technology physics
JadedWriter
Member
Yeh this makes sense. 70-200 is a must have focal length if you're doing journalistic, event or fashion work with it. If you dont then yeah you don't need it, but you can't really cram the amount of glass needed for that lens at aperture 2.8 into a smaller body.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
New technology has ironically made lenses bigger
With more powerful computers they can more easily design advance lens designs that use more elements. When you could get away with softer lenses in the 90s we saw much smaller, fast-ish zooms.
JadedWriter
Member
Lol. I've managed to get use to the weight of the 2.8 70-200, it's not as unwieldy as people make it seem.New technology has ironically made lenses bigger
With more powerful computers they can more easily design advance lens designs that use more elements. When you could get away with softer lenses in the 90s we saw much smaller, fast-ish zooms.
Why don't you share your best shots in the photo thread? I wouldn't mind checking out your photos but linking to 3000 pics I would assume most people won't bother.