• 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.

The Official Camera Equipment Megathread

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tino

Banned
sh4mike said:
Any recommendations for an automatic mode point-and-shoot digital camera? I've spent a few hours on professional reviews that focus on advanced features that my family will never use.

We've had a Panasonic DMC-TZ5 for awhile now, which has been a good camera for us. Primary issue is that we like to pull it out and quickly shoot our 3-year old, and a lot of the shots are blurry using "Intelligent Auto" mode. So if there's a newer/better/faster camera out there that can do everything the DMC-TZ5 can do -- but better -- then we'd like to pick it up. Looking to spend less than $500.
Click to expand...


Nikon 1 series. Don't expect to buy a cheap camera because taking baby picture is always pretty demanding on the photo equipment.

Most point and shoot can't take indoor moving kid pictures no matter what "mode" you put it in.
 
L

luoapp

Member
planar1280 said:
For one i meant i want a replacement for both not 2 lenses
Click to expand...

Well, Canon has a 18-200mm, Sigma has various 18-200 or 18-250mm lenses, so does Tamron. From what I gather, the overall performance ( IQ, focusing speed, etc.) is generally proportional to the price. And unsurprisingly, Canon's lens carries the Canon premium. Those super zoom lenses are very convenient in deed, while maintain acceptable image quality. Just check out the reviews and samples, you should be able to find one fits your budget. One little FYI, that 70mm or 50mm at the far end, doesn't really make a big difference.
 
DietRob

DietRob

i've been begging for over 5 years.
Aomori said:
http://www.adorama.com/ICADRT2IK55.html

Is that the best deal for a Canon T2i? Getting the most for my money, etc.

Fellow Gaffer WhatRobEats recommended that deal, and I just wanted to get some more opinions.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't see your post for a while but I'd like to amend my recommendation a little. I've only just started in my obsession with photography but I feel like I've come to understand the limitations of the kit I suggested you get. That said I wouldn't go for a kit and instead get just a body and purchase lenses separate depending on what you need them for.

If I had it to do over again I would have expanded my initial budget a little more and got some better lenses. However, with a similar budget I still would have made some different decisions. Here is a cart I put together of what I should have gotten. For your budget I'd suggest getting the body and 1 good lens.
HCaWV.png



Also plan on getting a tri-pod. This is essential if you want your telephoto images to come out crisp.
 
D

dr3upmushroom

Banned
Hello, first time posting in this thread.

I came in to ask about the Nikon 1, I've noticed that there's been some talk about mirrorless cameras. I have a basic understanding of cameras and my mom was looking into getting a camera for taking shots and video of my younger siblings.

She got the Nikon 1, I've been playing with it for a few days. I personally love the video quality, and it seems to pick up audio well (Although I saw that it doesn't have an option for an external mic). It seems to take photos pretty well. So to get to my point, I was wondering if this is a great choice when looking into point and shoot and mirrorless classes or is there other cameras that would be better?
 
R

RuGalz

Member
dr3upmushroom said:
Hello, first time posting in this thread.

I came in to ask about the Nikon 1, I've noticed that there's been some talk about mirrorless cameras. I have a basic understanding of cameras and my mom was looking into getting a camera for taking shots and video of my younger siblings.

She got the Nikon 1, I've been playing with it for a few days. I personally love the video quality, and it seems to pick up audio well (Although I saw that it doesn't have an option for an external mic). It seems to take photos pretty well. So to get to my point, I was wondering if this is a great choice when looking into point and shoot and mirrorless classes or is there other cameras that would be better?
Click to expand...

If you plan to use it more than just P&S, I think other mirrorless with larger sensors and lens choices are better.
 
T

tino

Banned
So the Panasonic 12-35mm is actually f/2.8 constant. Too bad the price is about the same as the C/N 17-55. You would think it uses less optical glass.
 
R

RuGalz

Member
Specs.jpg

Pentax K-30 preview

I know no one cares here but I love my weather sealed APS-C camera - K-5 - and it being recognized outside of the mass market. :)
...with the K-5 - arguably the best APS-C DSLR currently on the market. With its latest offering, the Pentax K-30, it looks like the company, now owned by Ricoh, is planning to bring this capability to a wider audience.
Click to expand...

* 16.1MP CMOS sensor
* In-body image stabilization
* Weather-sealed polycarbonate body
* ISO 100-12800 (expandable to 25,600, with user-defined Auto ISO range)
* 1080p HD movie recording at 24, 25 or 30 frames per second
* 920,000 dot LCD

and two dials ftw.

Weather-sealed APS-C DSLR, 100% view pentaprism for < $1k, that's a first.
 
C

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
tino said:
So the Panasonic 12-35mm is actually f/2.8 constant. Too bad the price is about the same as the C/N 17-55. You would think it uses less optical glass.
Click to expand...

why? zooms are complicated, constant aperture zooms are even more complicated. I'm impressed its as small as it is and as lightweight as it is, in addition to being weather sealed.
 
T

tino

Banned
captive said:
why? zooms are complicated, constant aperture zooms are even more complicated. I'm impressed its as small as it is and as lightweight as it is, in addition to being weather sealed.
Click to expand...

Just look at the wright and you know it uses less glass. Nikon 17-55 weight 2.5 time more than the 12-35. It uses way more glass. They all buy raw optical glass from Hoya, about 1 dollar per gram. Pretty expensive. All 2.8 pro lens are weatherproof.
 
K

Krauser Kat

Member
WhatRobEats said:
Sorry I didn't see your post for a while but I'd like to amend my recommendation a little. I've only just started in my obsession with photography but I feel like I've come to understand the limitations of the kit I suggested you get. That said I wouldn't go for a kit and instead get just a body and purchase lenses separate depending on what you need them for.

If I had it to do over again I would have expanded my initial budget a little more and got some better lenses. However, with a similar budget I still would have made some different decisions. Here is a cart I put together of what I should have gotten. For your budget I'd suggest getting the body and 1 good lens.
HCaWV.png



Also plan on getting a tri-pod. This is essential if you want your telephoto images to come out crisp.
Click to expand...

Why not get a new 1.8 its only about 120 for it being brand new. The Optics on that tiny guy are heroic.
 
R

RuGalz

Member
tino said:
Just look at the wright and you know it uses less glass. Nikon 17-55 weight 2.5 time more than the 12-35. It uses way more glass. They all buy raw optical glass from Hoya, about 1 dollar per gram. Pretty expensive. All 2.8 pro lens are weatherproof.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact they need to cover r&d cost. Potentially the manufacturing cost is higher because more precise labor is required. And who knows what. The whole price to performance ratio for m43 is really high compared to aps-c in general anyway. If manufactures could charge lenses by amount of glasses used, lens prices should be like 1/10 of what they are usually...
 
T

tino

Banned
RuGalz said:
That doesn't change the fact they need to cover r&d cost. Potentially the manufacturing cost is higher because more precise labor is required. And who knows what. The whole price to performance ratio for m43 is really high compared to aps-c in general anyway. If manufactures could charge lenses by amount of glasses used, lens prices should be like 1/10 of what they are usually...
Click to expand...

The market will let Panasonic know what they think the proper price is. I still have no idea how big it is. Wish somebody post a size comparison to the 17-55.
 
B

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
tino said:
The market will let Panasonic know what they think the proper price is. I still have no idea how big it is. Wish somebody post a size comparison to the 17-55.
Click to expand...

The only size comparison I've seen is between it and the Tamron 24-70...

BL332.jpg
 
C

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
tino said:
Just look at the wright and you know it uses less glass. Nikon 17-55 weight 2.5 time more than the 12-35. It uses way more glass. They all buy raw optical glass from Hoya, about 1 dollar per gram. Pretty expensive. All 2.8 pro lens are weatherproof.
Click to expand...

1) not all 2.8 lenses are weather proof. also please define to me what a "pro" lens is exactly?
2) i hardly consider some of canikons offerings "weatherproof"
3) its still complicated piece of hardware. yes it does use less glass because its smaller, but it still has complicated glass in it because its a 2.8 constant aperture zoom. Which means it is exponentially harder to produce than a standard prime.
 
T

tino

Banned
captive said:
1) not all 2.8 lenses are weather proof. also please define to me what a "pro" lens is exactly?
2) i hardly consider some of canikons offerings "weatherproof"
3) its still complicated piece of hardware. yes it does use less glass because its smaller, but it still has complicated glass in it because its a 2.8 constant aperture zoom. Which means it is exponentially harder to produce than a standard prime.
Click to expand...

Both Nikon Canon 17-55mm are weatherproof pro lenses. I already mentioned them in my original post.

Did I compare it to a "standard prime", no I didn't. I didn't even compare them to the Sigma/Tarmon 16-50 non weatherproof f/2.8 zooms. I compared it to the C/N 17-55. Are you saying the Panasonic 12-35 is more complicated than the C/N 17-55?
 
F

Flo_Evans

Member
tino said:
Both Nikon Canon 17-55mm are weatherproof pro lenses. I already mentioned them in my original post.

Did I compare it to a "standard prime", no I didn't. I didn't even compare them to the Sigma/Tarmon 16-50 non weatherproof f/2.8 zooms. I compared it to the C/N 17-55. Are you saying the Panasonic 12-35 is more complicated than the C/N 17-55?
Click to expand...

eh, no.

I don't have the nikon 17-55 but the canon is definitely not weather sealed.


BlueTsunami said:
Good article on what effects Bokeh and Depth of Field in regards to the focal length chosen, camera to subject and background distance...

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b8b6f/embedtitelintern/cln_35_bokeh_en/$file/cln35_bokeh_en.pdf
Click to expand...


interesting link, allot of it is over my head german engineering. I've always wondered though why nikon lenses produce bokeh highlights with an outline and now I (sorta) know! thanks!
 
C

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
tino said:
Both Nikon Canon 17-55mm are weatherproof pro lenses. I already mentioned them in my original post.
Click to expand...
what flow said. In my experience theres "weathersealing" and then there is weathersealing olympus stuff falls in the latter, as in you can dump the whole thing in water and not have a single care in the world weather sealing. if panasonic borrowed any of olympus' weather sealing techniques it should fall into the latter as well.

Did I compare it to a "standard prime", no I didn't. I didn't even compare them to the Sigma/Tarmon 16-50 non weatherproof f/2.8 zooms. I compared it to the C/N 17-55. Are you saying the Panasonic 12-35 is more complicated than the C/N 17-55?
Click to expand...
its entirely possible that because it is so much smaller that is in infact more complicated. I dont know though. At the minimum it shouldn't be any less complicated simply because its smaller. You don't magically have less optical things to correct in a zoom simply because its size is smaller.

whats with your attitude? I wasn't going to say anything last post, but you've clearly got a bias against u4/3rds and it shows pretty plainly in your posting.
 
T

tino

Banned
captive said:
what flow said. In my experience theres "weathersealing" and then there is weathersealing olympus stuff falls in the latter, as in you can dump the whole thing in water and not have a single care in the world weather sealing. if panasonic borrowed any of olympus' weather sealing techniques it should fall into the latter as well.


its entirely possible that because it is so much smaller that is in infact more complicated. I dont know though. At the minimum it shouldn't be any less complicated simply because its smaller. You don't magically have less optical things to correct in a zoom simply because its size is smaller.

whats with your attitude? I wasn't going to say anything last post, but you've clearly got a bias against u4/3rds and it shows pretty plainly in your posting.
Click to expand...

OK I will take back the Canon lens comparison. I thought it must have weatherproof since it came out a few years after the Nikon version.

I am way past the stage of shitting on 4/3 sensors, let's put it this way. A few days ago I made a commemt about the the potential Canon APS mirrorless camera will make the Nikon 1 rapidly lose its popularity. Much to my surprise, the 4/3 defender came out of nowhere. It totally detrailed the discussion.

No where in my commemts in this page say 1) anything about the quality of 4/3 sensor and 2) quality of the Panasonic lens is lower. If you want to interpret my comments that way, whose problem is that. All I say is that The 12-35mm lens could have been cheaper. I mean I can easily find 5 photography blog articles that echo my opnion, but I won't, cause I am lazy.

And a cheaper panasonic lens would only benefit the 4/3 shooters, not Sony/Nikon/Canon users, do you realize that?
 
Z

Zyzyxxz

Member
Honestly I think M4/3 cameras can produce great shots. I owned a D90 and now a GF2 and the size difference really makes it worth the crappier ISO performance.
 
S

shantyman

WHO DEY!?
tino said:
OK I will take back the Canon lens comparison. I thought it must have weatherproof since it came out a few years after the Nikon version.

I am way past the stage of shitting on 4/3 sensors, let's put it this way. A few days ago I made a commemt about the the potential Canon APS mirrorless camera will make the Nikon 1 rapidly lose its popularity. Much to my surprise, the 4/3 defender came out of nowhere. It totally detrailed the discussion.

No where in my commemts in this page say 1) anything about the quality of 4/3 sensor and 2) quality of the Panasonic lens is lower. If you want to interpret my comments that way, whose problem is that. All I say is that The 12-35mm lens could have been cheaper. I mean I can easily find 5 photography blog articles that echo my opnion, but I won't, cause I am lazy.

And a cheaper panasonic lens would only benefit the 4/3 shooters, not Sony/Nikon/Canon users, do you realize that?
Click to expand...

Have they even announced a price for the 12-35mm lens yet?
 
R

RuGalz

Member
shantyman said:
Have they even announced a price for the 12-35mm lens yet?
Click to expand...

It's $1300.


tino said:
The market will let Panasonic know what they think the proper price is. I still have no idea how big it is. Wish somebody post a size comparison to the 17-55.
Click to expand...

Or they are simply trying to set a pricing standard hoping people will buy into it since lens choices are limited on m43 right now. I think m43 prices will drop in general once there are more competitions.
 
I

Instigator

Banned
tino said:
I am way past the stage of shitting on 4/3 sensors, let's put it this way. A few days ago I made a commemt about the the potential Canon APS mirrorless camera will make the Nikon 1 rapidly lose its popularity. Much to my surprise, the 4/3 defender came out of nowhere. It totally detrailed the discussion.
Click to expand...

Derailed? The discussion was and still is about cameras and lenses in general.

And you already got your answer about the GX1/future mirrorless plans, people are not interested in it much (too little too late). What was left was what you really meant with your comments which, considering your posting history, is not really surprising you got that kind of response.
 
M

mrklaw

MrArseFace
I'm contemplating selling my G3 and just buying something like a 600D. I find the range of lenses limiting and expensive. Legacy lenses with adapters is cute, but the size saving isn't that large.
 
L

Lumix

Member
ittoryu said:
Canon-GAF, I need your help.

I'm extremely confused on a couple of lens:

http://www.onestop-digital.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=33302
http://www.onestop-digital.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=33333

Did any of you guys have experience with these lens? Any suggestion? (I already got a 50mm and a 55-250mm, with a 60D and the unforgettable 18-55).

Thanks :)
Click to expand...

The answer would depend on whether you plan to make the switch to full frame any time soon.

With the 17-40L you are going to end up with a 27-64mm lens due to the 60D's 1.6x crop factor.

Since you already have the EF-S 18-55mm, I don't think you should get the 17-40L.
The EF-S 10-22mm seems to keep its value for a cropped lens, so you could probably sell it around $600 or more later.

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 & Tokina 12-24mm f/4 are other good alternatives if you want to explore out of Canon's own line of lenses.
 
M

man of science

Neo Member
mrklaw said:
I'm contemplating selling my G3 and just buying something like a 600D. I find the range of lenses limiting and expensive. Legacy lenses with adapters is cute, but the size saving isn't that large.
Click to expand...

I just went back to Canon from m43/nex. Got a 40d with a tamron 17-50 and an S90 for when the slr stays home. Found the compact mirrorless cameras to be too middle of the road. They're not pocketable so you can't take them everywhere and there are many compromises (lens selection/price, no optical viewfinder).
 
P

Papi

Member
Picked up a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II recently, and I've been using it for the last two days. Now my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM feels like a shitty plastic kids' toy.
 
V

Valkyr Junkie

Member
My Sigma 30mm E-mount lens finally showed up last night from Amazon. My initial impressions are that it's super sharp, but painfully slow to autofocus in low light. Hopefully it does better outdoors.
 
X

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
Canon is discontinuing these products:

Canon Speedlite 580EX II
Canon EF 24 f/2.8
Canon EF 28 f/2.8
Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L

Can't wait to pay out the nose for that 24-70 II if I want a new one. Same goes for the 24 and 28mm primes being replaced with their more expensive IS versions. Hurray.
 
Z

Zyzyxxz

Member
man of science said:
I just went back to Canon from m43/nex. Got a 40d with a tamron 17-50 and an S90 for when the slr stays home. Found the compact mirrorless cameras to be too middle of the road. They're not pocketable so you can't take them everywhere and there are many compromises (lens selection/price, no optical viewfinder).
Click to expand...

If I get back into Nikons I would probably save for the D600 since the updated rumored specs now include an AF motor.

I would keep my GF2 though because with the 14mm lens it's very small and handy, not pocketable but a good backup camera.
 
F

Flo_Evans

Member
RuGalz said:
You would think they purposely made the lens prone to flare with all the rainbow color marking on it. Is it not the case?
Click to expand...

I think it was the best they could do at the time. It's a fixed aperture zoom (f3.5) from 1963! no multicoating, no ED, hell no nano crystal. It's also surprisingly small. They steadily improved it over time so I don't think they made it crappy on purpose. :p
 
J

Jayayess1190

Member
My dreams have come true: Hot! the new G lens zoom (for NEX) is a pancake!!!


Yesterday I told you that Sony is ready to unveil the new 16-50mm G lens for the NEX system. Tonight super trusted sources told me that this lens is spectacular because of one simple reason&#8230;.it is a pancake zoom!!! It is almost as tiny as the Panasonic 14-42mm X pancake zoom which image I posted here on top of this post!

I know yesterday the first user reaction was very negative but I guess this will now change with that new information. I mean, one of the problems of the NEX system is the lack of tiny lenses (a part of the not so good quality 16mm f/2.8 lens). If the new G lens delivers a high quality expectations needed for the NEX-7 and if it&#8217;s really a pancake than I am in! It will be a perfect walk around lens and you can carry it in your pocket

Not bad I would say!
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A summary on Retro Games ports and collections on modern consoles
Analysis Retro
13
1K
Killer8 replied
DF - Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth: PS5 Pro vs PS5 - A Vast Improvement At 60FPS
9 10 11 12 13
649
37K
PaintTinJr replied
[DF Tech Interview] How God of War Ragnarök was ported to PC
Game Dev
24
2K
Skifi28 replied
[GI.biz] The future of storytelling with Ken Levine
27
1K
mitch1971 replied
Digital Foundry: Final Fantasy on PS5 Pro - Rebirth/14/16/Stranger of Paradise - Every FF Game Tested!
Analysis
24
2K
Salz01 replied
Top Bottom