-
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
- Thread starter demon
- Start date
- Status
nabbed it. Been curious ever since I saw here (or the other camera threads) about how awesome this thing is. Current camera is a Pentax K-X w/ kit and one 40mm prime lens, if it can get pretty close on indoor performance I'll be stoked.
It should be pretty good minus times when you need higher shutter speed in the dark or something. I'm pretty happy with Q7 + f1.9 lens for non-critical photos and I bring that almost every where. RX100 has slightly bigger sensor than Q7 but I really like the 01 prime's rendering so this one has to pass.
RumblingRosco
Member
GAF, my fiancee and I want a new camera to bring with us for our honeymoon to Maui in September. We're looking for ideas between $300 - $600 dollars, maybe upwards of $800. We have no interest in video recording, just looking for solid photos. I don't know much about cameras, so I'm not sure what else to include in this post. Does anyone have any recommendations or at least able to point me to a reliable website to learn more about cameras?
Really, I appreciate any help provided.
Really, I appreciate any help provided.
Pagusas
Elden Member
Grab an RX100 ii, perfect pocket camera with great IQ and you wont have to fuss with it, just pull it out and use it. Enjoy your honeymoon!
RX100
September?
Wait for the RX100 Mark III
Rumored to have a freaking 28-100mm f/1.8-2.8 lens and a pop-up viewfinder.
See above, I don't see that minor incremental changes.
RumblingRosco
Member
Thanks all for the advice. The RX100 looks good. I'll keep an eye out for the release date of the Mark III too.
M2 shouldn't have existed IMO. But maybe they will keep all 3 in the market at different price ranges. I wouldn't be surprised if the new one hits close to 1k.
Hmm RX100 MKIII would be perfect for my upcoming festival in september with lots of night outdoor/indoor venues with low light. Easy to fit it in my jeans to dance on after some nice pics /videos.
Took a NEX-5N last time with me with a 30mm Sigma which fitted in a small fanny pack (strapped over my shoulder). Now i have the 1650 PZ which is smaller (off) but the NEX-6 body is bigger and the 1650PZ is not really the best lens for low light :/
Only con for RX100 MKIII is the price and the handling although it seems from the leaked manual (SAR) that the MKIII has a "grip" you can put to the front side of the camera.
Probably going to take the NEX6 with me and also besiege my mother to borrow me her RX100 MKII for the festival week. Someone here posted a nice looking thumb grip for the hotshoe which i could try.
Had the possbility to tinker around with the Fuji XT1 and that thing is really nice. Only thought that the grip could be a tad bit bigger to carry it with the right hand. But that camera ist total overkill for me anyway.
Heard a MediaMarkt clerk yesterday saying to a customer that you don't need a separate camera anymore when you buy the Samsung Galaxy S5 smartphone because it has awesome 16 MP and the pics are same quality as dedicated cameras. Only professionals would use these anyway. And with the S5 you could add nice effects on the go.
True facepalm moment.
Took a NEX-5N last time with me with a 30mm Sigma which fitted in a small fanny pack (strapped over my shoulder). Now i have the 1650 PZ which is smaller (off) but the NEX-6 body is bigger and the 1650PZ is not really the best lens for low light :/
Only con for RX100 MKIII is the price and the handling although it seems from the leaked manual (SAR) that the MKIII has a "grip" you can put to the front side of the camera.
Probably going to take the NEX6 with me and also besiege my mother to borrow me her RX100 MKII for the festival week. Someone here posted a nice looking thumb grip for the hotshoe which i could try.
Had the possbility to tinker around with the Fuji XT1 and that thing is really nice. Only thought that the grip could be a tad bit bigger to carry it with the right hand. But that camera ist total overkill for me anyway.
Heard a MediaMarkt clerk yesterday saying to a customer that you don't need a separate camera anymore when you buy the Samsung Galaxy S5 smartphone because it has awesome 16 MP and the pics are same quality as dedicated cameras. Only professionals would use these anyway. And with the S5 you could add nice effects on the go.
True facepalm moment.
So I guess they were getting rid of those RX100s for a reason...
Feel like I could get away w/ the MK1 considering I'm starting to get used to shooting w/ a fixed lens, but a variable one that's bright all the way would certainly not hurt. Guess I'll have to see how much money they're going to ask for MK3.
Feel like I could get away w/ the MK1 considering I'm starting to get used to shooting w/ a fixed lens, but a variable one that's bright all the way would certainly not hurt. Guess I'll have to see how much money they're going to ask for MK3.
345triangle
Member
went to a festival today and used the RX100 (mk I) for the first time in a while. forgot how great that thing can be i could well be in for a mk III with viewfinder/faster lens/wi-fi.
i was briefly considering a firesale nikon 1 as a holiday cam in a moment of madness, but then i remembered the RX100's lens is better than every zoom available for that system and i already own it.
i was briefly considering a firesale nikon 1 as a holiday cam in a moment of madness, but then i remembered the RX100's lens is better than every zoom available for that system and i already own it.
Skel1ingt0n
I can't *believe* these lazy developers keep making file sizes so damn large. Btw, how does technology work?
Just searched this thread to see if anyone was talking about the a7s.
A buddy of mine and myself were toying with the idea of getting a BlackMagic Cinemacam for a while to shoot some test ideas we had for a movie. We never went for it - but the new a7s has me intrigued again with video.
SAR updated rumours again:
Nothing about the FE lenses previously mentioned, though, nor the a7s.
- A77M2 and RX100M3 will be announced on May 1st at 10am in London.
- The RX100M3 will have a 24-70mm f/1.8-2.8 lens, instead of the previously stated 28-100mm f/1.8-2.8.
- It will still have the built-in EVF.
Nothing about the FE lenses previously mentioned, though, nor the a7s.
Those rumors of the RX100 are very exciting, I can't imagine the price being the same as the prior 2 models at launch though if it has a lens that wide and an EVF. If it came in pink then I'd sell my girlfriend's NEX 3N in a heartbeat for it. She doesn't shoot often but when she does she constantly mentions how she'd love to have a viewfinder for sunny weather.
Also, how the hell is a popup EVF going to work? Maybe I should just wait until the announcement before I write it off as black magic.
Also, how the hell is a popup EVF going to work? Maybe I should just wait until the announcement before I write it off as black magic.
^ That's what I imagine too but seems like it would be awkward to use, even more so without an eyecup.
edit: Maybe it actually is just right on the top of the camera with an eyecup and you can pop it up and fold it back. But if you don't pop it up you look straight down into the camera.
edit: Maybe it actually is just right on the top of the camera with an eyecup and you can pop it up and fold it back. But if you don't pop it up you look straight down into the camera.
Pagusas
Elden Member
if true I'll pick one up when available, sounds perfect.
TerryLee81
Member
Saw the Canon G1X MII in a store today. I think it's too big, especially the lens. 1.5" sensor is nice, but it isn't more pocketable than my X100s.
The 1" sensor of the RX100 seems to be the limit for a camera that still fits in your pocket.
The 1" sensor of the RX100 seems to be the limit for a camera that still fits in your pocket.
Having used both, get the Tamron (70-200 2.8 VC). Very similar if not the same IQ for like $1000 less.
Nice, BUT now the canon 135L has emerged as another option lol. I will be using said lens on my second camera(5d Mark III) in tandem with a Sigma 35mm 1.4 on my main camera.
Any opinions?
I don't own the latter two and don't hold much of an interest in Sigma's 35 f1.4, so I can't really say. All I can tell you is that if you're looking for a 70-200 2.8, Tamron's with VC is bar none the best option.
I've used both the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and found both to be super disappointing in different ways.
The first one I owned was the Sigma and I found it to be incredibly soft at f2.8 and only started to match my cheapo nifty fifty once I stopped it down to f3.5.
I returned the Sigma after 4 days and then picked up the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and found that it was no slouch when it came to the optics but the autofocus was sluggish overall and really struggled in low light even at f2.8.
Even with those qualms, the Tamron is still a pretty good value when compared to the Canon L equivalent but I couldn't justify keeping a lens that expensive that I had so many reservations with.
That's a body thing, not a lens issue.
BuggyDClown
Member
It's funny outside of my Canon EOS M lenses the only Canon lens I own anymore is the 85mm 1.2 L
Still can't find anything close to as good, that lens is a work of art.
With that said I need a 35mm. Looking at the sigma.
Still can't find anything close to as good, that lens is a work of art.
With that said I need a 35mm. Looking at the sigma.
BUNTING1243
Banned
Second that Sigma 35 recommendation. Fantastic lens.
Yeah that's a good price, just make sure its not sticky aperature prone model.
Date changed to the 15th I think. They're supposed to have another announcement today though, possibly the a7s pricing.
Anyone here have any experience with anamorphic lenses? I feel like this question would be better served in the filmmaking thread but I came across this article recently that looked super interesting:
Using Anamorphic Lenses on DSLRs
Back in the day when filmmakers were itching for wider and wider field of views (FOV) for their movies, it got to a point where they wanted to get so wide that the 35mm film and spherical lenses they were shooting with couldnt hold all the horizontal imagery they wanted without cropping the image.
The solution? Literally squish the image horizontally using a special lens so it could take up more vertical space, fitting a wider image on the finite area available to them on 35mm film. They could then un-squish the footage in post using a lens with the exact opposite amount of squeeze, returning the proportions to normal. The resulting effect is a panoramic aspect ratio that has the depth of field (DoF) of a longer telephoto lens but with a wider FOV.
Heres an example of the original image as it looked in my cameras viewfinder. It was made with the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 with the 1.9x anamorphic lens in front of it:
I then un-squish the image so her proportions return to normal and the result is a beautiful cinematic, bokehlicous, pin sharp still image. In fact, what youre seeing is the fog of a ~47mm with the depth of field of an 85mm at f/1.4:
This is all one single actuation. All Im doing is mounting a 1.9X squeeze anamorphic lens in front of my normal camera lens to create the beautifully wide and shallow image. You can find anamorphic lenses that dont have that much of a squeeze. The range varies a lot and here you can find a 1.3X or 1.5X, but I prefer the 1.9X squeeze because it creates a more cinematic and narrow aspect ratio.
345triangle
Member
thought some of you guys might be interested in a feature i did on fujifilm i went up to their HQ, spoke to a bunch of the X-T1 design team, saw some early sketches and prototypes and so on. they were refreshingly candid to speak to.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/8/5695310/fuji-x-t1-beautiful-blueprints-for-camera-of-the-future
http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/8/5695310/fuji-x-t1-beautiful-blueprints-for-camera-of-the-future
Not sure if this is the correct thread to ask this question but how important are tripods on compact cameras? I recently got a QX100 and it has a tripod mount but I'm not too sure if it's needed or not. The QX100 is equivalent to the RX100ii but the problem with it is that there's no real control. And what I mean by that is that the lack of a manual mode is missing but there are modes like Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority. There's also a lack of saving as RAW
Anyway, would a tripod benefit this kind of camera? I always just assumed that a tripod would benefit the larger more expensive DSLRs that need the longer shutter when taking night photos and such.
Anyway, would a tripod benefit this kind of camera? I always just assumed that a tripod would benefit the larger more expensive DSLRs that need the longer shutter when taking night photos and such.
JORMBO
Darkness no more
Anyone have an experience with the Sigma 85mm 1.4? I have the Canon 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 ISII already. I want to add something else that will stop down really low. My options are to grab the Sigma now since it falls within my budget, or hold off for a long time until I have the funds for the Canon 85 f/1.2. I know the Canon gets rave reviews, but I am not sure if it is worth the extra $1200 over the Sigma.
Tripods can be for all sorts of stuff. So always useful if you want the kind of image.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Nice job! I was just reading this before seeing your post. If I didn't have the x100s I would have bought this camera already. I think I'll wait till the next x-pro
DrAg0nBoY
Member
I have a question and I hope this is the right thread.
I need a camera for taking pictures for a magazine. Now the problem is I have no idea what camera to pick. I was looking at the Nikon D3200 model, which is kinda cheap (yeah money also plays a role in this) so I was just curious should I pick this one or another one?
Thanks for the help.
I need a camera for taking pictures for a magazine. Now the problem is I have no idea what camera to pick. I was looking at the Nikon D3200 model, which is kinda cheap (yeah money also plays a role in this) so I was just curious should I pick this one or another one?
Thanks for the help.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
As always, it depends what you are doing with the camera.
There's plenty of times a tripod might be useful - anytime you want the camera steady and don't have enough hands spare. That includes long exposures of course; but also still lifes where you might want to keep the camera in place while moving objects around, anything studio(for which read "stuff on a table")-based where you needs to mess around with the position of lights and so on, repeat shots of a single location (like timelapse stuff).
It's got nothing to do with what camera you have.
That's a bit vague! Pretty well any modern camera will be able to take magazine-quality shots provided the person holding it knows what they are doing.
So by all means go with the D3200 if that is what seems sensible.
What exactly are you looking to do?
- Status