Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

Not so sure about that..

Here's a canon vs a panny with equivalent lenses. Not even close in size.

You need to keep the sensor sizes the same, otherwise it's not a relevant comparison.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.514,596.7,290.107,ha,t

 

[z3phon]

Some photos taken with the Olympus EM1 M II and 12-40mm f2.8 lens

 

[TerryLee81]

Some photos taken with the Olympus EM1 M II and 12-40mm f2.8 lens

Great pics. The 12-40mm is an amazing lens.

 

[RipperGrim]

GAF I am planning to go to Nepal at the end of the year. I want to get a DSLR but spend as little as possible. I have an LG G4 as a phone - which takes pretty good pictures but I am looking for something that will take pictures better than a hypothetical Iphone 10 would. I want something future proof in comparison to smartphone cameras (at least 4 years ahead). My budget is anything less than $500 and the camera itself doesnt have to be new and can be body only. Will the Nikon D3300 be sufficient? D5500?

Edit: Out of interest which entry level (very cheapest) dslr will give me better pictures than the best smartphone camera on the market will at the moment?

D3300 should be fine, also a lot better than a smart phone. It's all about the lens.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

GAF I am planning to go to Nepal at the end of the year. I want to get a DSLR but spend as little as possible. I have an LG G4 as a phone - which takes pretty good pictures but I am looking for something that will take pictures better than a hypothetical Iphone 10 would. I want something future proof in comparison to smartphone cameras (at least 4 years ahead). My budget is anything less than $500 and the camera itself doesnt have to be new and can be body only. Will the Nikon D3300 be sufficient? D5500?

Edit: Out of interest which entry level (very cheapest) dslr will give me better pictures than the best smartphone camera on the market will at the moment?

If you intend on learning going forward, grab a second hand higher end body, anything with a good viewfinder.
If you want Nikon, an almost new 7100 goes for 500$, by getting a d7000 you can get a lens with it.
With Canon you can even get full frame, get a used 5D (Yes, the Mark I) with the 40mm STM pancake lens and you'll have a compact package with about the same focal length as phones (A good natural view lens) with a low light performance that is nothing to scoff at and plenty of play with out of focus scenes. As old as it is, it has better low light performance than any APS-C camera in the market, and a big, bright viewfinder that is a pleasure to shoot through.
For something newer, the 60D is dirt cheap today, though personally I'd prefer the big sister 7D (Overkill for many purposes, too much of a pro camera, and bulky for being APS-C)
If compact is what you want, get a Fuji XT10. Fuji lenses are expensive though.

 

[diaspora]

Not so sure about that..

Here's a canon vs a panny with equivalent lenses. Not even close in size.

Did you just compare a lens and body designed for 4/3rds to a lens and body designed around a significantly bigger sensor?

 

[JadedWriter]

Did you just compare a lens and body designed for 4/3rds to a lens and body designed around a significantly bigger sensor?

Sometimes you gotta love an apples to grapes comparison.

 

[TerryLee81]

I still think m4/3 is the best compromise between camera/lens size and image quality.

I have a D750 which takes nice pictures, especially in low light, but I never use it because I always grab the Oly if I go out.

 

[JadedWriter]

I still think m4/3 is the best compromise between camera/lens size and image quality.

I have a D750 which takes nice pictures, especially in low light, but I never use it because I always grab the Oly if I go out.

I mainly think it depends on what you're doing. Ample light M43's is perfectly fine. If I'm running around in a low light event I'm taking my full frame, granted I do a lot of low light photography so I pretty much pack my full frame stuff all the time.

 

[Rentahamster]

I mainly think it depends on what you're doing.

Yep.

 

[JadedWriter]

Yep.

Yeah I want something smaller like a crop sensor mirrorless or m43 but investing in a separate system is expensive which is why I haven't done it yet.

 

[Jpop]

How do you guys feel automatic vs manual?

I hate Automatic, probably because I never use it, but it feels like I don't have control over my shots.

I also love analog lenses and generally only use primes.

 

[Rentahamster]

How do you guys feel automatic vs manual?

I use manual most of the time, and only switch to aperture priority mode sometimes if the lighting is going to be changing a lot and I don't have time or patience to adjust it myself manually. Occasionally in dark scenes, I do manual + auto ISO since there is a minimum shutter and aperture I want to use, and all that's left to adjust is ISO.

 

[Jpop]

I use manual most of the time, and only switch to aperture priority mode sometimes if the lighting is going to be changing a lot and I don't have time or patience to adjust it myself manually. Occasionally in dark scenes, I do manual + auto ISO since there is a minimum shutter and aperture I want to use, and all that's left to adjust is ISO.

I think manual builds better habits as you take.more time to think about how you want to compose your shot.

Automatic ISO is okay, but I know how I like my shots.more than a cameras sensors do. At least my two cents.

 

[Rentahamster]

I think manual builds better habits as you take.more time to think about how you want to compose your shot.

Automatic ISO is okay, but I know how I like my shots.more than a cameras sensors do. At least my two cents.

Depending on what you're doing, sometimes you don't have that luxury.

 

[Jpop]

Depending on what you're doing, sometimes you don't have that luxury.

I'm not talking always, but the vast majority of the time you will get a better picture. And it will always be a better way to build better habits as it forces you to think.

Now I haven't dabbled much in fast moving photography and I understand that is a different beast.

 

[VisceralBowl]

How do you guys feel automatic vs manual?

I hate Automatic, probably because I never use it, but it feels like I don't have control over my shots.

I also love analog lenses and generally only use primes.

Unless I'm doing something incredibly specific I generally use AV with a locked ISO. I can adjust ISO and exposure compensation if I need them with the control dials.

I used to be into manual for everything but now I find it annoying.

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm not talking always, but the vast majority of the time you will get a better picture. And it will always be a better way to build better habits as it forces you to think.

As long as the user knows what they are doing, yes. Everyone's different, though. Some people like the automatic modes because they work well enough, and it frees up mental energy to concentrate on composition, timing, and focus.

 

[jongkookie]

How do you guys feel automatic vs manual?

I use automatic when people don't care lol. For example, this new gig I'm starting this week, the company doesn't care that I shoot in basic JPG and at the lowest resolution.

But when quality is of utmost importance then that's when I'll go manual.

 

[Jpop]

On another note I've been oddly fascinated with moving light photography since I got started.

Dunno why, looks cool as shit? I like squiggly neon lines, hahaha.

 

[z3phon]

Great pics. The 12-40mm is an amazing lens.

Thanks. I was on the fence about getting the lens but happy that I pulled the trigger.

 

[JadedWriter]

How do you guys feel automatic vs manual?

I hate Automatic, probably because I never use it, but it feels like I don't have control over my shots.

I also love analog lenses and generally only use primes.

I'm pretty much in manual these days. I used to use Aperture Priority every so often, but I got weened off that fast covering parades. The camera will just pick the wrong shutter at times and just blur the shit out of my shots so I'm usually in manual. At most I'll use more iso than I should and just use the shutter speed or aperture to compensate for the excess gain, it really just depends on what's going on with the lighting. Manual don't even bother me, it's actually what I'm most comfortable with as long as I'm paying actual attention to the exposure meter. Also helps that I have a better idea of how far I can under expose an image better than the camera does. I actually find it funny how other photographers I run into don't trust themselves setting everything for low light indoors events. I'm like, "it's what I do...often" do it enough times and it don't even bother you, though I do like ambient sunny day light. I recently did some with the light actually fucking out and ran my cameras at base iso and the pictures looked great.

 

[Jpop]

Just got my Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 In today. This thing takes gorgeous pictures.

 

[BlueTsunami]

In anticipation of spring, foliage and waterfalls, finally bought a Circular Polarizer. Primarily shooting nature based subjects, I'm surprised it took me this long.

How do you guys feel automatic vs manual?

I hate Automatic, probably because I never use it, but it feels like I don't have control over my shots.

I also love analog lenses and generally only use primes.

Totally situational dependent for me. I'm in Aperture priority most of the time, in good light, shutter priority when the light is failing and I want to maintain hand holdable shutter speeds, and Manual when I know the light I want to expose for is constant or in tricky lighing situations (like shooting in bright to dark environments where I dont want the camera to keep metering for me).

 

[f0lken]

Hi guys! I have a Sony A7 that I use to work, but sadly I had my lenses bag stolen , since I had previously Sony cameras I bought an adapter to use its A mount lenses on mine, but I am thinking of selling my adapter and start buying E-mount lenses.I was planning to do it anyway but not now, so my Budget is not that big.

I do mainly portraits, so between the oficial Sony FE 1.8 (for full frame) and the Sigma 30mm F1.4 Contemporary DC (for APS-C, so crop factor) which would you get?

 

[cyborg009]

On the FujiFilm X-T20 bundle is it worth it to go for the camera that has the XF 18-55 mm lens over the XC16-50mm lens?

 

[Radec]

Hi guys! I have a Sony A7 that I use to work, but sadly I had my lenses bag stolen , since I had previously Sony cameras I bought an adapter to use its A mount lenses on mine, but I am thinking of selling my adapter and start buying E-mount lenses.I was planning to do it anyway but not now, so my Budget is not that big.

I do mainly portraits, so between the oficial Sony FE 1.8 (for full frame) and the Sigma 30mm F1.4 Contemporary DC (for APS-C, so crop factor) which would you get?

The new sony 85mm 1.8 is about $600

 

[f0lken]

The new sony 85mm 1.8 is about $600

Sadly it goes overbudget here in Mexico, around $720 at the cheapest, and I can maybe stretch my budget right now to like $500

 

[QualityPixel]

I just got a roll of film developed that was at least 16-17 years old. Amazingly I think the photos on it may actually turn out, the negatives look fairly decent. It's mostly old family photos, but if there is anything worth sharing I'll post them.

 

[Dazzla]

On the FujiFilm X-T20 bundle is it worth it to go for the camera that has the XF 18-55 mm lens over the XC16-50mm lens?

I think it depends on your usage. I had the same decision to make, and I chose the 16-50. I read a lot of reviews and comparisons and there isn't a massive difference, and I felt the extra £200 was better spent on other stuff like lenses. I'm using it to go towards a 23mm f2. I think if you're doing for a X-T20 then cost is a consideration. Some reviewers will always say go for the 18-55 but they're not paying for their kit. Spend the money on other things for the camera (batteries, cards, cases, filters, lenses etc).

I have my X-T20 by the way, it's really an excellent camera. It's so intuitive to use, I really hated my OM-D E-M10 II. The film simulations are lovely as well. Comparing Across to the monochrome on the Olympus is night and day. And from what I've shot so far, it's easily fine up to 6400, any noise is handled really well. Couldn't say that about the Olympus.

I also bought the Fujian 35mm f1.7 CCTV lens to play with, that's a fun lens for £17.

 

[Jpop]

GAF where the fuck are my color curves in Lightoom 6?

I don't want sliders =(

 

[Rentahamster]

GAF where the fuck are my color curves in Lightoom 6?

I don't want sliders =(

Click on the curve icon on the bottom right corner of the Tone Curve panel and then you can adjust individual colors.

 

[Jpop]

Click on the curve icon on the bottom right corner of the Tone Curve panel and then you can adjust individual colors.

I can't find the tone curve either... I only see the shadow, ect... curve.

wtf...



LightRoom 7*****

Guess I should read the manual *grumbles*

 

[Rentahamster]

I can't find the tone curve either... I only see the shadow, ect... curve.

wtf...



LightRoom 7*****

Guess I should read the manual *grumbles*

The tone curve panel is the second one.

It's right after the basic panel.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

How do you guys feel automatic vs manual?

I hate Automatic, probably because I never use it, but it feels like I don't have control over my shots.

I also love analog lenses and generally only use primes.

It feels like you don't have control over your shots because you don't, other than the composition. Your camera has no idea what kind of shot you intend to take.

I don't see any reason to ever use Automatic if you have a decent understanding of what Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO do to an image.

I often leave the ISO setting on automatic, because I still do not have a good idea of what ISO setting is best to get a correct exposure in any given light setting, so it requires me to experiment and check the light meter until I get the desired one. This often takes way too much time if I'm trying to get good shots of people moving around (kids, for example).

I like to have full control over my aperture and shutter speed, though, for obvious reasons.

 

[cyborg009]

I think it depends on your usage. I had the same decision to make, and I chose the 16-50. I read a lot of reviews and comparisons and there isn't a massive difference, and I felt the extra £200 was better spent on other stuff like lenses. I'm using it to go towards a 23mm f2. I think if you're doing for a X-T20 then cost is a consideration. Some reviewers will always say go for the 18-55 but they're not paying for their kit. Spend the money on other things for the camera (batteries, cards, cases, filters, lenses etc).

I have my X-T20 by the way, it's really an excellent camera. It's so intuitive to use, I really hated my OM-D E-M10 II. The film simulations are lovely as well. Comparing Across to the monochrome on the Olympus is night and day. And from what I've shot so far, it's easily fine up to 6400, any noise is handled really well. Couldn't say that about the Olympus.

I also bought the Fujian 35mm f1.7 CCTV lens to play with, that's a fun lens for £17.

Hmm I'm going to look into that. And the Fujian 35mm f1.7 CCTV too

 

[Jpop]

The tone curve panel is the second one.

It's right after the basic panel.

I'm an idiot lol, I was looking at the wrong place.

 

[Mist]

What do you guys think of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6? I'm going bacpacking for quite some time this year and I'd like to take some good pictures so I wanted to buy a nice camera. I've looked at compact cameras as well (Sony Cyber-Shot RX100), but since I might want to do more photography than just vacations I'd like a camera that I can upgrade.

I tried to answer the standard questions from the first post:

1. What is your budget budget?
€ 300-400,-
2. Main purpose of the camera?
Making nice pictures of landscapes, animals, people, cities etc..
3. What form factor is most appealing to you?
I'm not sure if I understand this question correctly, but I guess it has to do with the size etc.. I think the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 is kind of what I'm looking for in terms of size.
4. Will you be investing in the camera? (buying more stuff for it later).
Yes, probably.
5. Any cameras you've used before or liked?
It's been quite a while since I've used a "professional camera" (read: something other than my phone), so I'll skip answering this question.

Wi-Fi would be a nice feature as well.

My knowledge about cameras in general isn't very vast. But I'm very open to learn about it. Hopefully someone here can give me some advice!

 

[Jpop]

I'm getting artifacts on pictures I am exporting from Lightroom to Flickr

Example below

Light Room Top
Flickr Bottom

I have the quality set to 100 on the flickr exports, and the image type is JPEG.

Not sure what to do to fix this issue?

 

[BlueTsunami]

Playing with my new Luzid CPL. And the darkening of the sky is what I've been doing in post all this time to mixed results. Being able to accentuate dramatic clouds more in B&W via a filter is absolutely useful.

 

[StopMakingSense]

I'm getting artifacts on pictures I am exporting from Lightroom to Flickr

Example below

Light Room Top
Flickr Bottom

I have the quality set to 100 on the flickr exports, and the image type is JPEG.

Not sure what to do to fix this issue?

Can't see shit. Also, your screenshots are lossy compressed so I have no idea what I am supposed to be looking at.

 

[Jpop]

Can't see shit. Also, your screenshots are lossy compressed so I have no idea what I am supposed to be looking at.

Expand the image.


You can see the artifacts circled in red vs the Lightoom Viewer.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Expand the image.


You can see the artifacts circled in red vs the Lightoom Viewer.

I did. Can't see shit besides resized noise, if that's what you are referring to.

 

[Jpop]

I did. Can't see shit besides resized noise, if that's what you are referring to.

It must have to do with how Flickr algorithim resizes photos at different resolutions. It's the only explanation I can think of.

To be honest I don't see how you can't see the massive compression and artifacting in the Flickr upload.


Edit:

Yup, I've tested Flickr is compressing any downsized photos and only leaving the original untouched.

 

[JadedWriter]

I am really really really really trying to fight the urge to buy Tamron's 70-200 2.8 G2 lens. I've already decided that I'm going to buy the damn thing, only real question is when.

 

[Jpop]

SmugMug has even worse compression than Flickr, and 500px isn't working for me right now.

Google photos also has compression going on. Seems to only be an issue with Photos with heavy light sources in a night environment.


Hmm....

=/

 

[VisceralBowl]

SmugMug has even worse compression than Flickr, and 500px isn't working for me right now.

Google photos also has compression going on. Seems to only be an issue with Photos with heavy light sources in a night environment.


Hmm....

=/

aka high contrast.

Just link the full size images resized to whatever you want. You probably don't need to link some 12/16/24/50+ megapixel picture. Most things I post on the internet these days that aren't super super important get resized to whatever I want to post them at + 98% jpg compression.

 

[Jpop]

aka high contrast.

Just link the full size images resized to whatever you want. You probably don't need to link some 12/16/24/50+ megapixel picture. Most things I post on the internet these days that aren't super super important get resized to whatever I want to post them at + 98% jpg compression.

I was just surprised as I never used to encounter this issue on Flickr years ago.

Though I've also been doing more high contrast shots.

Just disappointing is all. I don't want to have photos up if they look like shit because of the site they are uploaded too.

Le Sigh...

I've tried playing around with a few different sizes but it seems the compression is there no matter what, guess I can fiddle around some more and see if I can get some good quality uploads.

Really we could do with a site that doesn't compress at all, don't know why Flickr decided to fuck up everything in the past year or so with their algorithm.

 

[VisceralBowl]

I was just surprised as I never used to encounter this issue on Flickr years ago.

Though I've also been doing more high contrast shots.

Just disappointing is all. I don't want to have photos up if they look like shit because of the site they are uploaded too.

Le Sigh...

I've tried playing around with a few different sizes but it seems the compression is there no matter what, guess I can fiddle around some more and see if I can get some good quality uploads.

Really we could do with a site that doesn't compress at all, don't know why Flickr decided to fuck up everything in the past year or so with their algorithm.

what I'm saying is save the image in either PNG max compression or JPG 100 (or 98 because really the 2% is basically a big filesize gain with almost zero difference) at say 1280x wide or something and then link to the "original" size from flickr. It'd be prescaled and whatever compression settings you used will be preserved.

 

[Jpop]

what I'm saying is save the image in either PNG max compression or JPG 100 (or 98 because really the 2% is basically a big filesize gain with almost zero difference) at say 1280x wide or something and then link to the "original" size from flickr. It'd be prescaled and whatever compression settings you used will be preserved.

I see what you are saying didn't quite catch it the first time.

Lightroom doesn't seem to support PNG, so I have been using JPG @ 100% quality.

I'll try like you have suggested to see if I get better results.