Support NeoGAF

[kkaabboomm]

This is a decent place to start - http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Guides/dslr_buying_guide_01.htm

You can then read reviews of entry level DSLR from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, etc to learn more terminology as you go through them and Google terms you don't understand. It takes a while but that way you can start getting a feel for pros and cons of each company's offering as well.

There isn't a bad one, go see what feels good in your hand. Also, you may wish to see what's available in your price range for telephoto lenses, you're going to need one for safari, so do some reading and if one make/mount has a better bang-for-buck lens for you, let that weigh your decision.

Give yourself lots of time to learn your new camera, don't get the week before your trip.

After buying your camera, the best thing to do just do is shoot a metric shit-ton of pictures and fiddle with the settings, seeing what you can reproduce. Reading up on the basics is a wurthwhile endeavor as well. I've found these sites to be good for my needs:

http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#macro (this one has a bunch more pages of information, but I bookmarked the lenses section as I was focusing on that at the time)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ (really helpful reviews)

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm (more technical info, but a good source for basics)

http://strobist.blogspot.com/ (a nice blog with an interesting slant)

get a Canon - either a new 1100d would be enough, or perhaps a used 500d or even 40d.

Spend your money on lenses. For a Safari, consider renting a 100-400IS. Fantastic lens and not something matched at that price on the Nikon side (which is why I recommended Canon)

Eh? The Nikon 80-400 VR is pretty much the same lens and cost roughly the same (would not be an issue renting) the main difference is the Nikon is old and will not AF on the new low end bodies.

If I was going to Africa (yes please...!) I would take the kit lens of whatever system you end up with for wide angle, sunset, around town pics, and rent a 300 or 400 prime plus an extra teleconverter. I have shot with the Nikon 80-400 (at the zoo) and used every bit of it. In real life wildlife you want 600mm++ the primes will be much better on image quality and focus speed than the super zooms. Unless you are just going to game parks where they feed the animals (in that case don't even get a huge zoom, they will be very close) but then you might as well just visit the zoo...

You should also consider a tripod for this, the VR lenses work well @400mm and fast shutter speeds but when you get to 600mm handholding is not going to be an option.

Good luck I am jelly!

He could pick up a used d90 and use the Nikon lens fine. Canon/Nikon try and match each other across the board, again it comes to body feel and layout as to which system you prefer.

I am a big fan of Nikon because of familiarity (my dad/me shot Nikon film cameras back in the day) I am used to the controls, and every lens made for Nikon SLRs* works perfectly with my new D7000.

I also have a 7d that I use for work, great camera, beats the equivalent Nikon (D300s) in some regards but loses in others.

*there are some exceptions (pre-1977 lens have to be modified with a $10 aperture ring) some lenses will not autofocus or meter on lower end bodies

lol that guy is great.

He will go on and on about how 6mp is enough, he shoots his digital cameras at jpg low, and VIVID color, but if you are a real photographer you need a medium format wooden view camera...

ah, sorry. I didn't realise there was a more affordable long zoom, I was thinking of the constant f4. Agree on the prime then, and in that case pick whichever system you feel comfortable with - canon or nikon are both perfectly good systems to buy into, but they handle differently.

Well there is the AF compatibility issue (fine if he gets a used D90) but will not AF on D5100/3100 series. The Nikon 80-400 VR is due for an update, the new one should be out soon but who knows when and if he will be able to rent in time if he gets the lower end body...

Another bonus with canon is the shorter mount to sensor distance means you can get adapters to use Nikon glass (no AF though) and tons of old other MF lenses where with Nikon you need expensive adapters or lose focus range... I wouldn't worry about that just starting though, just go with whatever camera feels right!

So I've been reading and reading. And reading. I plan on going to a store this weekend and start feeling things, but here's a Q for you all:

Micro four-thirds (a 'compact' interchangable) or a APS-C (the standard entry DSLR)?

Pros and cons:
1) I'm not a super photographer, but I'd like to learn and I need a better camera than my point and shoot.

2) APS-C/entry level DSLR's will work, lens wise, with any updated models I might get years down the road. Micro four-thirds will only work with that format.

3) Weight. This is kind of crucial - any weight I put into a camera kit, that's less stuff I can bring to Africa, period. I'm flying into the Masai Mara and staying at a tent camp out in the middle of it, taking a jeep out 3x day, every day. The max weight limit is like 15kg for all of my 'stuff', so with boots on my feet, it's a combined weight of duffel+backpack. A camera kit of total maybe 2 lbs or so, that's 1/15th of my entire weight allowance...and anything more is, well, heavier.

Anyways, if anyone has any experience between using both of these, or thinks the micro four-thirds is just foolish period, let me know. I appreciate all of the links, I've learned a lot so far, but I'm still plowing through it when I have free time.

 

[Antiwhippy]

If you want a long zoom you can probably snag a olympus epm1 and the panasonic 100-300mm around $1000 if you want to explore the m43 option. That's essentially 200-600mm range.

 

[RuGalz]

So I've been reading and reading. And reading. I plan on going to a store this weekend and start feeling things, but here's a Q for you all:

Micro four-thirds (a 'compact' interchangable) or a APS-C (the standard entry DSLR)?

Here's a cool site to compare sizes and weight of large number of popular cameras that you may find helpful: http://camerasize.com/

However, DO go into store and play with the cameras to see how they feel in your hand. (smaller isn't always easier to use) Also you may prefer how one brand or model operates over the other. For instance, I can't stand having the dial on top of the camera sitting vertically; it needs to be either in the front or on/close to the back for me. Not sure how frequent you will be in harsh weather conditions but weather sealing might be good to have in the future too (not only it helps with water but, more importantly, for me, dusts). I'm not a m4/3 guy just because lens selection is lacking and price to performance ratio is high right now. But I expect that to change a few years down the road.

Edit: if 2lb is your limit then m43 might be inevitable.

 

[AVclub]

I could use some advice. Want to buy my first DSLR. I've had lots of experience using professional video equipment, and been playing around for years with my friends DSLRs but I think it's finally time for me to have my own.

I'd like to know what would be the best way to get the most bang for my buck. Ideally, I'd like to spend under a thousand and have enough equipment to be fairly flexible. So I was considering buying the T3i bundle at Costco which comes with 2 lenses, a memory card, hdmi, and bag for $880.

But my friends are saying I should hunt down a bargain on used equipment at Craig's List or Ebay. I've never had a lot of confidence in those two sites. Any guidance would really be appreciated.

 

[Flo_Evans]

So I've been reading and reading. And reading. I plan on going to a store this weekend and start feeling things, but here's a Q for you all:

Micro four-thirds (a 'compact' interchangable) or a APS-C (the standard entry DSLR)?

Pros and cons:
1) I'm not a super photographer, but I'd like to learn and I need a better camera than my point and shoot.

2) APS-C/entry level DSLR's will work, lens wise, with any updated models I might get years down the road. Micro four-thirds will only work with that format.

3) Weight. This is kind of crucial - any weight I put into a camera kit, that's less stuff I can bring to Africa, period. I'm flying into the Masai Mara and staying at a tent camp out in the middle of it, taking a jeep out 3x day, every day. The max weight limit is like 15kg for all of my 'stuff', so with boots on my feet, it's a combined weight of duffel+backpack. A camera kit of total maybe 2 lbs or so, that's 1/15th of my entire weight allowance...and anything more is, well, heavier.

Anyways, if anyone has any experience between using both of these, or thinks the micro four-thirds is just foolish period, let me know. I appreciate all of the links, I've learned a lot so far, but I'm still plowing through it when I have free time.

hmm if weight/space is an issue that makes a difference.

I don't know much about m4/3s... that might be the best option if you need to travel light.

read this http://bythom.com/bigtrip.htm he has allot of experience going to africa.

another excellent piece on packing light http://bythom.com/weight.htm

I would say beyond weight, your biggest consideration will be batteries out there. Make sure whatever you get has good battery life and if it can run off disposables, even better.

I forgot what you said your budget was, but the olympus OMD looks very nice. Weather sealed (important!) compact, large lens selection, can take a extra battery grip (I think?).

 

[NathanMcMahon]

I could use some advice. Want to buy my first DSLR. I've had lots of experience using professional video equipment, and been playing around for years with my friends DSLRs but I think it's finally time for me to have my own.

I'd like to know what would be the best way to get the most bang for my buck. Ideally, I'd like to spend under a thousand and have enough equipment to be fairly flexible. So I was considering buying the T3i bundle at Costco which comes with 2 lenses, a memory card, hdmi, and bag for $880.

But my friends are saying I should hunt down a bargain on used equipment at Craig's List or Ebay. I've never had a lot of confidence in those two sites. Any guidance would really be appreciated.

That deal seems okay and you can figure out what you like with those two lenses as a basis.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I could use some advice. Want to buy my first DSLR. I've had lots of experience using professional video equipment, and been playing around for years with my friends DSLRs but I think it's finally time for me to have my own.

I'd like to know what would be the best way to get the most bang for my buck. Ideally, I'd like to spend under a thousand and have enough equipment to be fairly flexible. So I was considering buying the T3i bundle at Costco which comes with 2 lenses, a memory card, hdmi, and bag for $880.

But my friends are saying I should hunt down a bargain on used equipment at Craig's List or Ebay. I've never had a lot of confidence in those two sites. Any guidance would really be appreciated.

Personally I would rather have a new body and then buy old lenses on ebay.

The camera body is allot more complicated and delicate then the lenses, and lens problems are fairly obvious. Would rather have a body warranty then a lens, ect.

 

[kkaabboomm]

Here's a cool site to compare sizes and weight of large number of popular cameras that you may find helpful: http://camerasize.com/

However, DO go into store and play with the cameras to see how they feel in your hand. (smaller isn't always easier to use) Also you may prefer how one brand or model operates over the other. For instance, I can't stand having the dial on top of the camera sitting vertically; it needs to be either in the front or on/close to the back for me. Not sure how frequent you will be in harsh weather conditions but weather sealing might be good to have in the future too (not only it helps with water but, more importantly, for me, dusts). I'm not a m4/3 guy just because lens selection is lacking and price to performance ratio is high right now. But I expect that to change a few years down the road.

Edit: if 2lb is your limit then m43 might be inevitable.

hmm if weight/space is an issue that makes a difference.

I don't know much about m4/3s... that might be the best option if you need to travel light.

read this http://bythom.com/bigtrip.htm he has allot of experience going to africa.

another excellent piece on packing light http://bythom.com/weight.htm

I would say beyond weight, your biggest consideration will be batteries out there. Make sure whatever you get has good battery life and if it can run off disposables, even better.

I was tossing out 2lbs because 2.2 lbs is 1/15 of my entire weight allowance, and I was unsure of the typical weight on a smaller APS-C camera v. a m4/3

As for batteries - I'll be bringing 1 or 2 extra, and using a solar charging system they have out at the camp to recharge them while I'm out. weather/conditions will be 'sunny' and 'you're driving on the savanah in a topless/windowless jeep. dust is possible'.

i liked the big trip article - since i'm also going up kilimanjaro, I've been prepping for a while yet for this trip.

Do you all think I'll be missing much in terms of functionality/photo quality going w/a m4/3 v. a APS-C? How much of a jump is it from a point and shoot, to a m4/3, to a APS-C typical DSLR? I'm having trouble finding much about this, especially since nikon came out with their 1 line which is like a point and shoot w/lenses, which I'm not a fan of. I'm just slightly worried about weight the more I read about these and look at size differentials.

 

[Antiwhippy]

With smaller sensors like the m43 and Nikon 1 sensors you lose out on great high iso performance and shallow DoF, but otherwise give pretty sharp and great quality photos at normal use and at normal sized prints. I'm guessing you won't be printing them out to like, say 20X30 inch prints, etc. etc.?

I actually don't think the V1 looks too bad. Despite what people might think of steve huff, I like the user reports he does and this article about going to vietnam with a V1 might be insightful.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/02/15/the-nikon-v1-in-vietnam-by-colin-steel/

I like the images of myammar more.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/01/24/traveling-light-in-myanmar-with-a-nikon-v1-by-colin-steel/

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Personally I would rather have a new body and then buy old lenses on ebay.

The camera body is allot more complicated and delicate then the lenses, and lens problems are fairly obvious. Would rather have a body warranty then a lens, ect.

Also, you shouldn;t be worried about purchasing from eBay. As a seller, I can tell you that buyer's are pretty much covered for anything that may go wrong. Buyers can game the system like crazy so you shouldn't worry abut dealing on there.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I was tossing out 2lbs because 2.2 lbs is 1/15 of my entire weight allowance, and I was unsure of the typical weight on a smaller APS-C camera v. a m4/3

As for batteries - I'll be bringing 1 or 2 extra, and using a solar charging system they have out at the camp to recharge them while I'm out. weather/conditions will be 'sunny' and 'you're driving on the savanah in a topless/windowless jeep. dust is possible'.

i liked the big trip article - since i'm also going up kilimanjaro, I've been prepping for a while yet for this trip.

Do you all think I'll be missing much in terms of functionality/photo quality going w/a m4/3 v. a APS-C? How much of a jump is it from a point and shoot, to a m4/3, to a APS-C typical DSLR? I'm having trouble finding much about this, especially since nikon came out with their 1 line which is like a point and shoot w/lenses, which I'm not a fan of. I'm just slightly worried about weight the more I read about these and look at size differentials.

Well the biggest difference is the crop factor. This is hard to explain... but the smaller the sensor, the more cropped the image is. This will actually work to your advantage as you need as much zoom as possible in the smallest package. What you lose on a smaller sensor is low light ability, and wide angle ability.

 

[tino]

Well my monocle popped when I saw a Nikon D600 leaked photo today on my RSS feeds. Can't tell if its real yet.

 

[MRORANGE]

Well my monocle popped when I see a Nikon D600 leaked photo today on my RSS feeds. Can't tell if its real yet.

Looks very real, or someone has a lot of time to troll nikon users:

 

[Flo_Evans]

Looks very real, or someone has a lot of time to troll nikon users:

ITS STILL REAL TO ME!

I hope it is the exact same as the D7000 and I can use my battery grip... that is probably hoping for too much though!

 

[kkaabboomm]

Well the biggest difference is the crop factor. This is hard to explain... but the smaller the sensor, the more cropped the image is. This will actually work to your advantage as you need as much zoom as possible in the smallest package. What you lose on a smaller sensor is low light ability, and wide angle ability.

Right, I read/saw at DPreview this:

which makes smaller sensors appear to have a longer focal point.

The wide angle ability issue is alright, obviously I'd prefer the widest range of options, wide angle included, but have to balance that with the weight issue. The low light ability reduction is also a concern. Besides these general 'smaller sensor = less XYZ' type of issues, do m4/3 allow for much of the same tinkering with the photo settings/etc, like a more traditional DSLR?

I am worried that if I go this route, I'll be limiting myself needlessly in the long run for a short-term concern over weight. Like the EOS Rebel T2i (reviews seem to say it's better than the T3i). It weighs .53kg, whereas the Olympus OM-D E-M5 (one of the best m4/3 cameras I've found) weighs .4kg. Lenses for the Canon will obviously weigh more than those for the Olympus, just because they're bigger. The Nikon 1 V1 only uses NIKKOR lenses, and weighs .07kg less than the Olympus. Granted, the OM-D is like $1100 whereas the V1 kit is $750 and the T2i is $660 (all amazon prices).

Needless to say I'm going to the store this weekend to feel these guys, but I'd like to decide on m4/3 of a more traditional APS-C entry level DSLR. I'm gonna rule out the Nikon 1 series - my mom has a J1 she took horseback riding through the Andes this last January and liked it, but I don't know if that's something I want to 'invest' in as it were. I appreciate everyone's help thus far, btw. Much appreciated.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Right, I read/saw at DPreview this:

which makes smaller sensors appear to have a longer focal point.

The wide angle ability issue is alright, obviously I'd prefer the widest range of options, wide angle included, but have to balance that with the weight issue. The low light ability reduction is also a concern. Besides these general 'smaller sensor = less XYZ' type of issues, do m4/3 allow for much of the same tinkering with the photo settings/etc, like a more traditional DSLR?

I am worried that if I go this route, I'll be limiting myself needlessly in the long run for a short-term concern over weight. Like the EOS Rebel T2i (reviews seem to say it's better than the T3i). It weighs .53kg, whereas the Olympus OM-D E-M5 (one of the best m4/3 cameras I've found) weighs .4kg. Lenses for the Canon will obviously weigh more than those for the Olympus, just because they're bigger. The Nikon 1 V1 only uses NIKKOR lenses, and weighs .07kg less than the Olympus. Granted, the OM-D is like $1100 whereas the V1 kit is $750 and the T2i is $660 (all amazon prices).

Needless to say I'm going to the store this weekend to feel these guys, but I'd like to decide on m4/3 of a more traditional APS-C entry level DSLR. I'm gonna rule out the Nikon 1 series - my mom has a J1 she took horseback riding through the Andes this last January and liked it, but I don't know if that's something I want to 'invest' in as it were. I appreciate everyone's help thus far, btw. Much appreciated.

Most micro 4/3 cameras have all the same functionality and adjustability. The difference is the smaller body size doesn't allow for as many external "pro" controls to be rapidly accesible. This is the same though with lower end DSLRs.

One area they are behind (severely in some cases) is autofocus. Because there is no mirror, there is not a separate sensor for measuring focus, its all done on the main sensor. Some cameras do better than others, but all of them will be beaten by the most basic DSLR.

You also miss out on a true through the lens view. Some cameras have fancy OLED viewfinders, but I find even these are lacking vs a true optical view at this point.

 

[phisheep]

I could use some advice. Want to buy my first DSLR. I've had lots of experience using professional video equipment, and been playing around for years with my friends DSLRs but I think it's finally time for me to have my own.

I'd like to know what would be the best way to get the most bang for my buck. Ideally, I'd like to spend under a thousand and have enough equipment to be fairly flexible. So I was considering buying the T3i bundle at Costco which comes with 2 lenses, a memory card, hdmi, and bag for $880.

But my friends are saying I should hunt down a bargain on used equipment at Craig's List or Ebay. I've never had a lot of confidence in those two sites. Any guidance would really be appreciated.

I'd tend to avoid Craiglist/Ebay for expensive stuff like this. there's plenty around used from people who know their stuff/know how to do refurbishment/know how to describe faults and so on.

I use these guys in the UK - very reliable. Don't know if there are equivalents in the States.

 

[BlueTsunami]

So D800 at $3000, D600 at $2000? $1500 sounds way too good to be true but that's one way to combat used 5D2's hitting the used market. Assuming the D600 is a real thing I wonder how the supposed 24MP FF sensor will stack up against the 5DMKIII? Sony hit a homerun with the NEX5N's and D7000's sensor, also did a very good job with the NEX7's 24MP sensor. But even with that in mind the 5DMKIII's sensor capabilities are pretty much good enough for me, only negative is the lack of flexibility with Post Processing its files.

 

[Zyzyxxz]

Now Canon's combining the 60D and 7D series into the 70D as a entry level full frame.

Makes sense considering the entry level cameras are becoming very good and the 60D didn't seem like a good buy. Also basically would confirm the D600's existence as a entry level FF.

 

[tino]

Now Canon's combining the 60D and 7D series into the 70D as a entry level full frame.

Makes sense considering the entry level cameras are becoming very good and the 60D didn't seem like a good buy. Also basically would confirm the D600's existence as a entry level FF.

No It would have to be 7D II or 6D. Actually Canon made the naming mistake and ran out of number to name the entry level FF. To be fair D600 doesn't follow Nikon's previous naming conventions either.

If D600 is real, I am guessing 2200 and 1600 for D400. And the Sony entry level FF would be 2000.

 

[the_log_ride]

Jeez if by some chance the D600 came in at $1.5K, I would be one happy camper.

 

[fat pat]

No It would have to be 7D II or 6D. Actually Canon made the naming mistake and ran out of number to name the entry level FF. To be fair D600 doesn't follow Nikon's previous naming conventions either.

If D600 is real, I am guessing 2200 and 1600 for D400. And the Sony entry level FF would be 2000.

i think it would make sense to make the 7d mark II a full frame, and make the 70d whats is essentially the current 7d in the 60d form factor.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

Decided I'm keeping my 60D. I decided to pick up a 17-55mm to compliment it. What's a good used price to pick one up at? I'm scouring eBay right now.


I also need a new bag/ sling. I own a 60D, 70-200mm F/4L, 50mm f/1.8, 430 , and soon a 17-55 f/2.8.

 

[subversus]

I'd buy D600 if it has FF.

 

[Zyzyxxz]

I'd buy D600 if it has FF.

If it exists it is a FF for sure. In fact there was a leaked picture on Xitek.

 

[Blackhead]

Nokia 808 PureView blind test: The sum of all pixels

... Needless to say, the PureView is one of the most-hyped devices we've seen for a while now, and Nokia have put a lot of talk behind the ridiculously large sensor. We've all seen video and camera samples of the device in action, but how does it really fare against what's on the market?

This is where the blind test comes in. We want to provide a no-hype, no-nonsense look at how good the PureView camera really is, without the rampant fanboy-ism that surrounds all popular brands and devices.

Here, we'll post just the results from the shootout, and randomly designate each contestant with a letter from A - F. You're welcome to guess which device stands behind each of the letters, but that's not the main point here.

We've aimed to select some of the best in the cameraphone game. Here's the full list of participants (in no particular order).

• Nokia 808 PureView (8MP PureView mode)
• HTC One X
• iPhone 4S
• Samsung Galaxy S III
• Nokia N8 (downsampled from 12MP to 8MP)
• Olympus E-PL2 interchangable lens, large sensor camera (downsampled from 12MP to 8MP)

[PICS]

.... So which one do you think is the the PureView and does it beat out the dedicated large-sensor camera? Share with the rest of us which image you like the most in the comments section. We'll reveal the contenders in a few days, as well as tally up all of the first place votes.

?

 

[reggieandTFE]

Most micro 4/3 cameras have all the same functionality and adjustability. The difference is the smaller body size doesn't allow for as many external "pro" controls to be rapidly accesible. This is the same though with lower end DSLRs.

One area they are behind (severely in some cases) is autofocus. Because there is no mirror, there is not a separate sensor for measuring focus, its all done on the main sensor. Some cameras do better than others, but all of them will be beaten by the most basic DSLR.

You also miss out on a true through the lens view. Some cameras have fancy OLED viewfinders, but I find even these are lacking vs a true optical view at this point.

This is not true anymore. The OM-D focuses faster than any DSLR for single-point AF and because it's CDAF, it will be more accurate with no focus shift. DSLRS that rely on PDAF will still be a million times better for tracking AF, but most people aren't shooting sports.

 

[giga]

This is not true anymore. The OM-D focuses faster than any DSLR for single-point AF and because it's CDAF, it will be more accurate with no focus shift. DSLRS that rely on PDAF will still be a million times better for tracking AF, but most people aren't shooting sports.

Not in all situations. Contrast detection still fails horribly in low light and in other very common low contrast situations like snow and sunsets. Tracking isn't just for sports either. It can be as common as kids playing.

 

[kkaabboomm]

Not in all situations. Contrast detection still fails horribly in low light and in other very common low contrast situations like snow and sunsets. Tracking isn't just for sports either. It can be as common as kids playing.

or, in my specific case, animals running around the savannah - lions chasing zebras, wildebeests, etc.

I did a lot of research last night, and it seems the weight difference isn't as pronounced. 530g v. 400g, + two? lenses, it'll be right around a kg no matter which system I go for. And judging from the sheer availability, looks like I'm leaning towards APS-C, and not m4/3. I think I'll be able to shop around and get a good price on them -- the T4i was just announced and looks like a good model. I was looking at a T2i because the T3i wasn't much of an upgrade for the price, but the T4i apparently is (and they're discontinuing the T2i).

Any thoughts on either of these two systems, or something else in that price range/size? I'm not bound to Cannon, just the reviews all seem good thus far.

 

[derder]

My coworker just asked me what the best camera to get with low-light performance for $100-$200 range was. I can't think of any old DSLRs with kit lenses for that cheap.

Thoughts?

 

[tino]

My coworker just asked me what the best camera to get with low-light performance for $100-$200 range was. I can't think of any old DSLRs with kit lenses for that cheap.

Thoughts?

Tell your coworker good low light camera equipment cost money.

 

[Flo_Evans]

This is not true anymore. The OM-D focuses faster than any DSLR for single-point AF and because it's CDAF, it will be more accurate with no focus shift. DSLRS that rely on PDAF will still be a million times better for tracking AF, but most people aren't shooting sports.

More accurate? DSLRs can also do contrast detect in live view. The issue is speed/tracking. Also he will probably want to fiddle with settings, DSLRs generally offer way more options as to subject tracking, AF hold, area AF, continuos focus, 3d subject recognition... ect.

The AF in DSLRs is simply more advanced. It is more of a learning curve, but if you know what you are doing it is far superior to mirror-less contrast systems.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

My coworker just asked me what the best camera to get with low-light performance for $100-$200 range was. I can't think of any old DSLRs with kit lenses for that cheap.

Thoughts?

Lol no way.

 

[RuGalz]

I did a lot of research last night, and it seems the weight difference isn't as pronounced. 530g v. 400g, + two? lenses, it'll be right around a kg no matter which system I go for. And judging from the sheer availability, looks like I'm leaning towards APS-C, and not m4/3. I think I'll be able to shop around and get a good price on them -- the T4i was just announced and looks like a good model. I was looking at a T2i because the T3i wasn't much of an upgrade for the price, but the T4i apparently is (and they're discontinuing the T2i).

Any thoughts on either of these two systems, or something else in that price range/size? I'm not bound to Cannon, just the reviews all seem good thus far.

T4i looks pretty good to me on paper but there hasn't been that much, on the field, samples yet. It's definitely more appealing than T3i.

I'd suggest taking a look at Pentax K-5 for that price, since the camera is at that point right before replacement comes where the price is probably as low as it is going to go before it goes back up. So you are paying the price of T4i for something that's a couple steps up (in terms of performance and control, not necessarily features). Ergonomically even my Canon friend loves the way mine handles. And it's always fun to see them rushing for covers as I continue shooting when there's some rain drops. The only reason I'm not saying you should absolutely get it, even though I love mine, is that Pentax's AF is slower than Nikon and Canon when comparing high end cameras. There are plenty of techniques to use to make up for it. But then again, it really just depends on what you plan to shoot and if the system offers the type of lenses you need for what you want to do.

Speaking of control, for me, if I am switching brands, I think I'd go with Nikon. It just feels a bit more natural to me. So yea, go feel those cameras out before you make a decision...

 

[Antiwhippy]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/0...ess-including-14mm-F2-0-for-Micro-Four-Thirds

What's the reputation of Schneider Krueznach like?

 

[Flo_Evans]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/0...ess-including-14mm-F2-0-for-Micro-Four-Thirds

What's the reputation of Schneider Krueznach like?

They make research and lab optics IIRC... should be excellent.

edit: they make B+W filters, highly regarded as the best available.

 

[chaostrophy]

They make research and lab optics IIRC... should be excellent.

edit: they make B+W filters, highly regarded as the best available.

They also have a reputation for great view camera lenses. This new 14mm will probably be fantastic but expensive: around $1500.

 

[Antiwhippy]

So what's the best general purpose zoom lens for M4/3?

 

[Instigator]

So what's the best general purpose zoom lens for M4/3?

The current king is the Lumix 12-35 f2.8. If you're willing to sacrifice AF speed and portability, the 4/3 Zuiko 14-35 f2 and the 4/3 Zuiko 12-60 f2.8-f4 (both with a 4/3 to m4/3adapter) are alternatives in pure IQ. All these lenses are pricey.

If you keep it cheap and entirely m4/3, my understanding is that the old Lumix 14-42 is best, followed by the newer Zuiko collapsible zoom 14-42, then the newer Lumix 14-45, then the Zuiko 12-50 and finally the tiny powerzoom Lumix 14-42X.

 

[radios shipping overview]

Schneider is on the same level as Zeiss. They just haven't been as active in small-format photography over the past few decades.

 

[EviLore]

Wrestling with myself for the last week about whether to bring my X100 with me to Europe for this extended backpacking trip or to get an X-Pro1 with a couple lenses. Pragmatically, I know the X100 is a great travel camera: lightweight, compact, awesome image quality, its fixed lens's focal length is one of the most flexible and appropriate for travel (35mm equivalent), it's discreet and retro and much cheaper so a less obvious liability.

I'm going to primarily be shooting street, architecture, landscape, and people...so why am I being so retarded and wanting a somewhat bulkier much more expensive less discreet greater liability of a camera kit? Haha, that 35mm f1.4 on the X-Pro1 is just too damned sexy though, I'd like the shallower dof capability and better low light performance and outstanding image quality there as a primary lens, and I could pair it with the 18mm f2 or even a voigtlander 12mm f5.6 to cover the wide end pretty well. Of course, we're now talking like 3x the price of the X100 at that point for a two lens kit, totally nonsensical, but I'm going to be photoblogging this trip for GAF for months, so bringing gear I'm happy with is important.

*continues wrestling*

 

[Damaged]

Anybody have any experience with the Nikor 85mm 1.8 afs lens? Thinking I could use a good portrait lens and it would work out as 135mm on my D3100

 

[Instigator]

Wrestling with myself for the last week about whether to bring my X100 with me to Europe for this extended backpacking trip or to get an X-Pro1 with a couple lenses. Pragmatically, I know the X100 is a great travel camera: lightweight, compact, awesome image quality, its fixed lens's focal length is one of the most flexible and appropriate for travel (35mm equivalent), it's discreet and retro and much cheaper so a less obvious liability.

I'm going to primarily be shooting street, architecture, landscape, and people...so why am I being so retarded and wanting a somewhat bulkier much more expensive less discreet greater liability of a camera kit? Haha, that 35mm f1.4 on the X-Pro1 is just too damned sexy though, I'd like the shallower dof capability and better low light performance and outstanding image quality there as a primary lens, and I could pair it with the 18mm f2 or even a voigtlander 12mm f5.6 to cover the wide end pretty well. Of course, we're now talking like 3x the price of the X100 at that point for a two lens kit, totally nonsensical, but I'm going to be photoblogging this trip for GAF for months, so bringing gear I'm happy with is important.

*continues wrestling*

If you can command people (or any moving target for that matter) to stop moving so you can lock focus then the X-Pro1 might be for you.

Though if I were you, I'd just go full frame at that price range.

 

[tino]

Evilore the XP1 with the f1.4 lens does have considerable better street lowlight performance. If you decide to go with the X100 only. You may want to have a backup plan if the camera stop working.

I had an argument with my wife recently and bumped my Sigma DP1 just slightly and the lens open mechanism shat the bed. Granted I am an idiot but this could happen to anybody. Bringing 2 expensive camera on a single person backpack trip is probably not a good idea either but I definitely would find out all the "camera street" places in big countries.

 

[MRORANGE]

Wrestling with myself for the last week about whether to bring my X100 with me to Europe for this extended backpacking trip or to get an X-Pro1 with a couple lenses. Pragmatically, I know the X100 is a great travel camera: lightweight, compact, awesome image quality, its fixed lens's focal length is one of the most flexible and appropriate for travel (35mm equivalent), it's discreet and retro and much cheaper so a less obvious liability.

I'm going to primarily be shooting street, architecture, landscape, and people...so why am I being so retarded and wanting a somewhat bulkier much more expensive less discreet greater liability of a camera kit? Haha, that 35mm f1.4 on the X-Pro1 is just too damned sexy though, I'd like the shallower dof capability and better low light performance and outstanding image quality there as a primary lens, and I could pair it with the 18mm f2 or even a voigtlander 12mm f5.6 to cover the wide end pretty well. Of course, we're now talking like 3x the price of the X100 at that point for a two lens kit, totally nonsensical, but I'm going to be photoblogging this trip for GAF for months, so bringing gear I'm happy with is important.

*continues wrestling*

keep x100, get a Full Frame DSLR, else sell x100 and get the x-pro 1 (I personally can't see the point of having both)

another note: won't the voigtlander 12mm f5.6 give a fov of 18mm on the x-pro1 since it's a aps-c sensor? if so just stick stick to Fuji 18mm f2

 

[EviLore]

Full frame DSLR is a no chance in hell proposition to carry with me everywhere on my travels for months, wouldn't even be able to fit the gear in my messenger bag. I'm into photography but not so much to compromise my whole experience to be centered around it.

Yeah, I would sell the X100, not much point in having both. Probably wouldn't lose much money if any, either, since I got mine used for $900 with a heap of accessories including the legit official leather case.

another note: won't the voigtlander 12mm f5.6 give a fov of 18mm on the x-pro1 since it's a aps-c sensor? if so just stick stick to Fuji 18mm f2

Yeah, the voigtlander would be 18mm equivalent mounted on the x-pro1, no @ the fuji since the fuji 18mm is not labeled in terms of full frame equivalent focal length.

Fuji 18mm f2 --> 27mm equivalent
Fuji 35mm f1.4 --> 53mm equivalent
Fuji 60mm f2.4 macro --> 91mm equivalent.

 

[shantyman]

Wrestling with myself for the last week about whether to bring my X100 with me to Europe for this extended backpacking trip or to get an X-Pro1 with a couple lenses. Pragmatically, I know the X100 is a great travel camera: lightweight, compact, awesome image quality, its fixed lens's focal length is one of the most flexible and appropriate for travel (35mm equivalent), it's discreet and retro and much cheaper so a less obvious liability.

I'm going to primarily be shooting street, architecture, landscape, and people...so why am I being so retarded and wanting a somewhat bulkier much more expensive less discreet greater liability of a camera kit? Haha, that 35mm f1.4 on the X-Pro1 is just too damned sexy though, I'd like the shallower dof capability and better low light performance and outstanding image quality there as a primary lens, and I could pair it with the 18mm f2 or even a voigtlander 12mm f5.6 to cover the wide end pretty well. Of course, we're now talking like 3x the price of the X100 at that point for a two lens kit, totally nonsensical, but I'm going to be photoblogging this trip for GAF for months, so bringing gear I'm happy with is important.

*continues wrestling*

Mentally as well as physically you will have so much less to deal with using the X100. No swapping of lenses, no overthinking about things before you pull it out, etc. I would think that would be a better solution overall, with the perfect focal length for a variety of needs.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I think if you want the emphasize the traveling experience without a large emphasis on photography the X100 would be the best choice. When you start talking about using multiple lenses (especially primes) it becomes way more involved.

Although the X-PRO1 could be brought with a single lens and a good one may be the 18/2 since the nearly 28mm Area of View makes a great all-around focal length. The 35/1.4 may be a little limiting for more expansive shots but the extra stop could come in handy.

 

[EviLore]

I think if you want the emphasize the traveling experience without a large emphasis on photography the X100 would be the best choice. When you start talking about using multiple lenses (especially primes) it becomes way more involved.

Although the X-PRO1 could be brought with a single lens and a good one may be the 18/2 since the nearly 28mm Area of View makes a great all-around focal length. The 35/1.4 may be a little limiting for more expansive shots but the extra stop could come in handy.

In terms of results the 18/2 + X-Pro1 and the X100 w/ its 23/2 are pretty similar from what I've seen, and I'd probably rather the 23mm X100 lens in terms of being stuck with one focal length. The 35mm 1.4 and 60mm 2.4 lenses have significantly better optics though. So if I were to go with the X-Pro1 and a one lens solution, it'd be really senseless to get the 18mm since I already have an X100, that's dropping over a grand more for a lot of drawbacks and not many gains (better sensor performance mainly).

I mean, keep in mind that I only do photography when I'm traveling, so it's not like I would use more lenses at home than abroad; this is all purely designed for being a travel solution and nothing else. My basic gear loadout will basically just be my messenger bag when I'm out and about, maybe a lightweight sling instead when I'm hiking, and the camera either around my neck or tucked away in the bag when I'm not shooting. With my X100 right now I just keep a spare battery in my bag. With an X-Pro1 I could keep a spare battery and a second lens in there without being a pain in the ass I'm sure, but yes, I would probably end up fiddling with things when I'm doing photography, "oh, let's go wider here" or, "oh, I want shallow DoF here," etc. etc. and it could end up being more cumbersome compared to just taking the X100 with me and not being able to worry about it.

I think I mainly just love all the results I've seen with the 35 1.4 and it's turning me into a moron ;b

 

[Antiwhippy]

How about an OM-D EM5 with a better selection of glass? >_> <_<