Support NeoGAF

[tino]

I put tons of crap on ebay over the weekend and so far have sold $600 worth of camera and video game gears. I am thinking about throwing either my PS3 or 360 on it to fund my next camera.

 

[Represent.]

Hmmm.. Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 for landscape.. yay or nay?

 

[Herpes Reasons]

Hmmm.. Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 for landscape.. yay or nay?

i'd like this answered as well.
but for video.
is f/2.8 aperture wide enough for night shots?
need a vintage prime lens for my t3i.

 

[Radec]

Hmmm.. Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 for landscape.. yay or nay?

If you're using a FF then yay.

If it's a DX, then nay.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Hmmm.. Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 for landscape.. yay or nay?

It is decent for the used price but there are much better lenses out there now. If you are looking for that WOW prime factor I would pass. If you just need a relatively cheap/semi quick 24mm it's ok.

 

[ScientificNinja]

Hmmm.. Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 for landscape.. yay or nay?

Nay. I picked one up cheap a few years ago while visiting NYC to take sunset pics from the top of rock. Used it on a DX body. Handheld. Pics were great, but it was *barely* enough.

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

Zeiss is releasing 3 primes for E and X-mount early next year with AF. The E-mounts can be focused manually, and the X-mounts with have a manual aperture ring.

http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=2864

 

[radios shipping overview]

Zeiss is releasing 3 primes for E and X-mount early next year with AF. The E-mounts can be focused manually, and the X-mounts with have a manual aperture ring.

http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=2864

At a grand each, those are an investment (but about the same as other Zeiss stuff).

Sigma also announced E-mount 35/1.4, 17-70/2.8-4, 120-300/2.8.

Hasselblad just announced what's basically a rebranded NEX-7 for 5000 euro. My god, it looks hilarious.

 

[Antiwhippy]

Holy christ dat design.

Is that e-mount or are hasselblad making their own lenses?

 

[reggieandTFE]

Zeiss is releasing 3 primes for E and X-mount early next year with AF. The E-mounts can be focused manually, and the X-mounts with have a manual aperture ring.

http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=2864

It's interesting that Zeiss will be ignoring micro 4/3 considering the new Sony/Olympus relationship. However, the Schneider lenses were finally announced for micro 4/3 and they look stellar, fast and weather-sealed.

 

[East Lake]

loooooooooool @ that Hasselblad. Up there in the standings for worst looking camera ever.

 

[radios shipping overview]

Holy christ dat design.

Is that e-mount or are hasselblad making their own lenses?

E-mount. Works with the LA-EA2 to use A-mount lenses. I'm sure Sony's building it for them.

 

[Antiwhippy]

I actually do really like hasselblad medium format camera designs though.

 

[Kenka]

loooooooooool @ that Hasselblad. Up there in the standings for worst looking camera ever.

Hey, I like it.

 

[radios shipping overview]

I actually do really like hasselblad medium format camera designs though.

Me too, but they're the opposite of...that.

 

[reggieandTFE]

Holy christ dat design.

Is that e-mount or are hasselblad making their own lenses?

E-mount and they somehow made the Nex-7 design even uglier! (Put me in the Fuji/Olympus aesthetic camp)

 

[mclaren777]

loooooooooool @ that Hasselblad. Up there in the standings for worst looking camera ever.

Nothing beats the hideous Leicas earlier on this page.

 

[radios shipping overview]

Nothing beats the hideous Leicas earlier on this page.

Those would be fightin' words... if they weren't digital Ms. They all look overweight.

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

At a grand each, those are an investment (but about the same as other Zeiss stuff).

I think the 12mm f2.8 looks like a real winner since it'll only be marginally more expensive than Sony's wide-angle zoom, but a lot faster and certainly have better IQ. Although the Sony will have OSS.

 

[shantyman]

Nothing beats the hideous Leicas earlier on this page.

For god's sake, just admit it you are in the minority.

 

[tino]

It's interesting that Zeiss will be ignoring micro 4/3 considering the new Sony/Olympus relationship. However, the Schneider lenses were finally announced for micro 4/3 and they look stellar, fast and weather-sealed.

What sizes are the lenses designed for?

To showcase our high demands on imaging quality, we decided to focus on cameras with sensor size APS-C.

They probably have plan to build EOS-M mount soon and when Nikon's "real" mirrorless system is announced, Nikon mirrorless mount.

This is significant. Zeiss usually do MF for SLR mounts. And their AF alpha lens are pretty much build by Sony. So this AF system is from Zeiss.

Out of the three lens 2.8/12, 1.8/32 and 2.8/50 macro, the ultrawide is probably most competitive in X mount land since Fuji's ultrawide is also very expensive.

I can't believe Hasselblad rebrand NEX-7 into a clown camera, thats all I am going to say.

edit:

OK this one is even worse, we are talking about ricer bling bad

 

[mclaren777]

For god's sake, just admit it you are in the minority.

I bet most people (not camera hipsters – real people) think this camera looks both cheap and clumsy. It's as if a first-year design student made it for a class project.

I honestly think this might be the ugliest camera I've ever seen.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Hasselblad trying to make a boutiqe camera. At least the Leicas have a FF sensor and are actually ergonomically functional. This Hasselblad 'Lunar' just looks awful when compared to the Leicas on multiple levels.

 

[Thraktor]

I bet most people (not camera hipsters – real people) think this camera looks both cheap and clumsy. It's as if a first-year design student made it for a class project.

I honestly think this might be the ugliest camera I've ever seen.

You, sir, are fucking crazy.

Spoiler

Admittedly, I don't like the screens and controls on the back of digital Leicas, they look out of place given how beautifully crafted the rest of the camera is.

 

[tino]

I bet most people (not camera hipsters – real people) think this camera looks both cheap and clumsy. It's as if a first-year design student made it for a class project.

I honestly think this might be the ugliest camera I've ever seen.

[]

Its still very clean and professional looking. What the hell is "clumsy"? Thats not a word to describe a design. You can't even articulate why the design is bad.

 

[mclaren777]

What the hell is "clumsy"?

I think it has bad proportions, an awkward looking layout, and poor use of space.

For example, why doesn't the viewfinder line up with the row of buttons?

Edit: here's 90 seconds of Photoshop effort...

 

[Radec]

lol, that Hasselblad NEX7 came out of nowhere.

Hasselblad and Sony doing a Leica-Panasonic! hilarious.

 

[radios shipping overview]

Edit: here's 90 seconds of Photoshop effort...

Sorry, that's much worse. It breaks all the camera's lines, and it would be impossible to hold. Leicas look the way they do for some very good reasons.

Anyway, I'm not a huge fan of the digital M designs - they're a bit brutalist and sparse - but they do have a clean efficiency. They're not beautiful. I prefer this:

 

[Synth_floyd]

Anyone have a recommendation for a <$300 digital camera that is small and takes good quality photos AND videos?

 

[Ill Saint]

I think it has bad proportions, an awkward looking layout, and poor use of space.

For example, why doesn't the viewfinder line up with the row of buttons?

http://i.minus.com/iDKZiUWcP6hB6.jpg


Edit: here's 90 seconds of Photoshop effort...

http://i.minus.com/ib0PdFlZR5PTjQ.jpg

This is very strange. Why should the viewfinder line up with the buttons? is there some point to that other than aesthetics? And you want to get rid of the curved edge and have the user's hand grip the menu dial? Also the thumb would be all over that screen.

 

[tino]

I think it has bad proportions, an awkward looking layout, and poor use of space.

For example, why doesn't the viewfinder line up with the row of buttons?

Edit: here's 90 seconds of Photoshop effort...

Your wrong. You sound like Steve Jobs btw.

 

[mclaren777]

Also the thumb would be all over that screen.

I left plenty of room for a thumb.

You sound like Steve Jobs btw.

Them's fightin' words!

 

[radios shipping overview]

I left plenty of room for a thumb.

Here's the problem:

You can't hold a Leica like that. It'd slip right out of your hand. It's a lot bigger and heavier than a NEX.

 

[mclaren777]

Fair enough. I still think only a hipster or an idiot would buy a digital Leica body.

$5,450 for a camera that only has a 230,000-pixel display is utter madness.

 

[tino]

Fair enough. I still think only a hipster or an idiot would buy a digital Leica body.

$5,450 for a camera that only has a 230,000-pixel display is utter madness.

You can call Leica buyers whatever you want, but you can't call Leica ugly. Plus you are the one who call all classic cameras ugly right? That's why I don't waste time argue.

 

[radios shipping overview]

Fair enough. I still think only a hipster or an idiot would buy a digital Leica body.

$5,450 for a camera that only has a 230,000-pixel display is utter madness.

Leica has a reputation for being slow to adapt to changes in technology, going all the way back to the 1970s. A 230k pixel display is the least significant example of that.

The only people who buy Leicas now (new) are 1) serious photographers who are very serious about a certain kind of manual-focus photography and 2) the wealthy. Hipsters don't fall into either category. Hipsters buy Holgas.

 

[Parallacs]

2) the wealthy. Hipsters don't fall into either category. Hipsters buy Holgas.

This probably isn't true. The Hipsterism outbreak started in New York: wealthy kids who didn't need to work after school and would hang out and try to show off by dressing to clash and listening to cassettes. Being ironic of course. Hipsters buy Leicas, and then buy Holgas to take pictures of their Leicas.

In terms of Leica, the case could be made that they don't need cutting edge technology. The camera isn't very important compared to the glass. Leica lenses still have the reputation as being the best. And for people that can spend $4,000 on a lens, spending that much on a camera isn't an issue.

 

[mclaren777]

Have you heard of Canon's supposed "preference" for ISO in multiples of 160? I just stumbled upon this theory last night, but apparently it isn't 100% true.

So, here's what I take away from all this:

&#8226; More photons trumps less pattern noise, so use lower ISOs when possible and expose to the right to get longer exposure times and capture more photons (signal). If you are exposing to the right (without clipping highlights) then 100, 200, 400, 800 are your best bet. Shooting ISO 160 just means that the camera is shooting automatically exposing ISO 200 to the right and dialing back the exposure 20% in the RAW file.

&#8226; For those of us who have been conditioned to shoot ISO 100 at all costs, you can shoot at ISO 160, 200, 320, 400, and 640 when you need the extra shutter speed and still maintain a good signal to noise ratio, at least with the 5D Mark II. Increased pattern noise at 125, 250 and 500 caused by manipulation of the RAW data is problematic because it lowers the S/N ratio.

&#8226; There is some loss of dynamic range at higher ISOs but on the 5D Mark II it is minimal until you go higher than ISO 800. Still, ISO 100 will give you the most dynamic range.

Still Test
Video Test

 

[radios shipping overview]

From all I've seen of photo culture online, young people are barely even aware of Leica until they learn about Henri Cartier-Bresson. And then they buy a film Leica, if they have the cash. There may be a few NYC princelings running around with M9s, sure, but they're more of a Hamptons affectation.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/18/hasselblad-lunar-mirrorless-camera-hands-on/

Lollin' hard

 

[zephervack]

From all I've seen of photo culture online, young people are barely even aware of Leica until they learn about Henri Cartier-Bresson. And then they buy a film Leica, if they have the cash. There may be a few NYC princelings running around with M9s, sure, but they're more of a Hamptons affectation.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/18/hasselblad-lunar-mirrorless-camera-hands-on/

Lollin' hard

Maybe its just me but it looks really "cheap", like, if I didnt know what Hasselblad is I would have guessed this was a $300 camera that came out in 2005.

 

[tino]

Maybe its just me but it looks really "cheap", like, if I didnt know what Hasselblad is I would have guessed this was a $300 camera that came out in 2005.

Kodak 15X superzoom point and shoot.

 

[Radec]

The grip looks comfy though.

 

[giga]

Sigma 35/1.4 announced. Looks really hot. Maybe a replacement to the 30mm? Looks like its FF so it can compete with the 35L. 9 rounded blades.

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_35_14.html

 

[Flo_Evans]

D600 shipped!

OH man.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I don't get the love for the Leicas either. So overpriced!

 

[BlueTsunami]

I don't get the love for the Leicas either. So overpriced!

Its mainly due to build quality and the actual rangefinder mechanism. I believe each body is hand assembled too instead of the typical automated assembly. Same goes for their lenses. Of course the Leica name commands the price too but there are other factors involved. With that said I personally disregard Digital Leica bodies, more interested in their lenses which almost deserve their lavish price tags.

And Digital Leicas are far from hipster cams. Theres a reason why they're associated with dentists. Hipsters wish they could sniff 1/3rd of what it costs to get a Digital Leica.

 

[Rookje]

So I'm thinking of getting a Sony RX -100. I want to make little movies, take pictures on the street (think Tumblr menswear shots), and also portraits. I want something DSLR quality, but not a huge DSLR. I could deal with something a bit bigger than the RX-100, but I don't want to spend more than $1k really.

I know virtually nothing about photography right now though. Would there be better lenses for the RX-100 in the future? Should I wait for some other camera?

 

[teiresias]

D600 shipped!

OH man.

Will expect full impressions, thinking of moving up from my D90.

 

[dmshaposv]

So I'm thinking of getting a Sony RX -100. I want to make little movies, take pictures on the street (think Tumblr menswear shots), and also portraits. I want something DSLR quality, but not a huge DSLR. I could deal with something a bit bigger than the RX-100, but I don't want to spend more than $1k really.

I know virtually nothing about photography right now though. Would there be better lenses for the RX-100 in the future? Should I wait for some other camera?

Soxy RX-100 is a fixed lens point and shoot camera, albeit a very very good point and shoot.

If you want an ILC (interchangeable lens camera), consider the Sony NEX5n or the upcoming NEX6 - which actually use DSLR sensors on a smaller body and are around the same price point as a rx-100 (without a lens though).

RX-100 can't be upgraded or changed, but a NEX can.

D600 shipped!

OH man.

Let us know how it goes Flo! I have the money to buy the body today - but am holding off untill I see review and impressions. I also need to sell my two remaining canon lenses (sold off 2 already!)

Especially let us know about the video low-light performance.

Apparently it has the same problem as D7000 - you can't change the aperture in live view mode. FFFFUUUU nikon, why?

Still not too much of a biggy - I am investing in the samyang manual lenses (with aperture rings) for video anyway so I can still control it through them.

 

[shantyman]

Let us know how it goes Flo! I have the money to buy the body today - but am holding off untill I see review and impressions. I also need to sell my two remaining canon lenses (sold off 2 already!).

You were so disappointed in the 6D you sold (or are in the process of selling) all of your glass?