Support NeoGAF

[DBT85]

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 suppose it depends, are you shooting for Vogue or for a highschool magazine or somewhere in the middle? what is the subject matter? IF you are doing it for a birdwatching magazine for example then you'd want a different lens to that which you would want to do a magazine about insects, for example.

The D3200 is a very capable camera, like most modern DSLRS. What we don't know is if it'll help you do whatever it is you want to do or if it's even necessary!

 

[DrAg0nBoY]

It's for a nail magazine. So close ups of nails and shootings at nail shows and so on.

That is the main focus for my camera although I will probably use it for other things aswell.

edit: The lenses I get in the pack are: 18-55 AF-S DX VR II and 55-300 AF-S VR (I come from Slovenia and the page has them listed so, so I do hope, you know which lenses those are).

 

[phisheep]

It's for a nail magazine. So close ups of nails and shootings at nail shows and so on.

That is the main focus for my camera although I will probably use it for other things aswell.

edit: The lenses I get in the pack are: 18-55 AF-S DX VR II and 55-300 AF-S VR (I come from Slovenia and the page has them listed so, so I do hope, you know which lenses those are).

Maybe check this out?

Main thing you need is to get close up to the nails to get good detail. It sounds to me like the 18-55 AF-S DX VR II will do you just fine for that.

If you are taking lots of shots in the same place might be a good idea to get a tripod so you can have everything set up in advance.

 

[milkham]

How do you guys store your gear at home? I've accumulated enough stuff ( some i should probably get rid of ) that it would take a couple bags to hold it all and I'd rather not leave bags laying around on the floor. I am hoping for something like a large pelican case or some kind of multi-level trunk but I don't need the durability of a pelican, or the price, since It's just going to be staying home. Right now i just have things scattered on my desk, in bags, on bookshelves.

 

[RuGalz]

How do you guys store your gear at home? I've accumulated enough stuff ( some i should probably get rid of ) that it would take a couple bags to hold it all and I'd rather not leave bags laying around on the floor. I am hoping for something like a large pelican case or some kind of multi-level trunk but I don't need the durability of a pelican, or the price, since It's just going to be staying home. Right now i just have things scattered on my desk, in bags, on bookshelves.

I store mine in a bookshelf with glass door. Easier to find the pieces I want every time I head out since the bag I carry depends on where I am going.

 

[DrAg0nBoY]

Maybe check this out?

Main thing you need is to get close up to the nails to get good detail. It sounds to me like the 18-55 AF-S DX VR II will do you just fine for that.

If you are taking lots of shots in the same place might be a good idea to get a tripod so you can have everything set up in advance.

Thanks for the info.

Now only one more question. I can get the D3200 with those lenses for 699 €. But I could get the D3300 with AF-S DX Nikkor 18–55 mm f/3.5–5.6 VR II and Nikon DX 55–200 mm VR lenses for 719 €.

So my question is. Should I take the D3300 or is the D3200 with those lenses a better option?

 

[phisheep]

Thanks for the info.

Now only one more question. I can get the D3200 with those lenses for 699 €. But I could get the D3300 with AF-S DX Nikkor 18–55 mm f/3.5–5.6 VR II and Nikon DX 55–200 mm VR lenses for 719 €.

So my question is. Should I take the D3300 or is the D3200 with those lenses a better option?

It's marginal.

I'd be inclined to stick with the D3200 bundle. It's cheaper. You get the lens you actually need in both. But the extra reach of the -300 lens in the D3200 bundle gives you more room for experiment. Sure, the -200 lens might be better quality, but I'd pick the extra reach anytime for starting off with.

 

[reggieandTFE]

It's for a nail magazine. So close ups of nails and shootings at nail shows and so on.

That is the main focus for my camera although I will probably use it for other things aswell.

edit: The lenses I get in the pack are: 18-55 AF-S DX VR II and 55-300 AF-S VR (I come from Slovenia and the page has them listed so, so I do hope, you know which lenses those are).

You'll probably want a macro lens instead of the telephoto if close ups of fingernails are the priority.

 

[mrklaw]

It's for a nail magazine. So close ups of nails and shootings at nail shows and so on.

That is the main focus for my camera although I will probably use it for other things aswell.

edit: The lenses I get in the pack are: 18-55 AF-S DX VR II and 55-300 AF-S VR (I come from Slovenia and the page has them listed so, so I do hope, you know which lenses those are).

18-55 AF-S DX VR II (review here: photography blog) has a minimum focus distance of 25cm. That means you'll need to be about a foot away to be able to focus. Here is a shot from the review showing how much coverage you get in close-up

so that should be good for even single finger shots.

Even with stabilisation, you might want to eventually get a flash or even just something like a worklamp from a DIY store to light things up, to avoid blur from the model's hands shaking.

 

[DrAg0nBoY]

Thanks for all the help.

I do have one last question. Is the NIKKOR 55–300 mm VR lens worth the 100 € more? Because I have an option to get the same camera but with a NIKKOR 55–200 mm VR lens (I do get the AF-S DX Nikkor 18–55 mm f/3.5–5.6 VR II lens regardless).

I am asking because the difference is still 100 € in price. Thanks.

 

[Sec0nd]

Posted this question in the filmmaking thread but since this thread is way more active I figured why not post it here as well.

or a while now I've been thinking about upgrading my T3i to a better camera. Especially after a recent film gig I've noticed that my lovely T3i can't cut it anymore with image quality and especially low light capabilities. For the longest time I thought my next camera would either be the 5DIII or something like a 7D but with the release of the GH4 I'm not so certain anymore.

The image quality of the GH4 seems amazing and the fact that the camera has been made for the filmmakers is definitely showing. Focus peaking, zebrastrips and 1080p 96fps are features I'm super duper excited about. And it's super cheap compared to the 5DIII. But there are some features I'm not so excited about.

The cropfactor seems absolutely insane. I really like the feel of a full frame camera so a two times cropfactor seems ridiculous. And the other issue I have is the Micro 4/3 lens mount. I've got access to some amazing Canon and Nikon lenses which I won't be able to use without an adapter or speedbooster (which I'm still quite fuzzy about how they work). But on the other hand I've read that the Micro 4/3 lens mount is quite versatile and that you can even mount old ass lenses on it. It would be cool to be able to use my dad and granddad lenses.

So what does GAF think of the GH4? How does it compare to other camera's and how does it work with Canon and Nikon lenses? I would love to know what you guys think.

 

[Ty4on]

Posted this question in the filmmaking thread but since this thread is way more active I figured why not post it here as well.

I find it absolutely insane how much you can be charged for a 4/3 camera. They can have better rolling shutter, but the sensor is much cheaper than a full frame sensor. Lenses are also really expensive for the most part. Full frame cameras often need to use line skipping in video mode which makes it noisier than stills because only 50 or 25 percent of the sensor is used.

It can only shoot 4k with an external adapter and hasn't been reviewed yet, but the Sony A7s looks like a low light monster. You'll need adapters for lenses there as well, but you get the full frame and manual aperture and focus shouldn't be an issue in video. I want full frame just to be able to take shots like this with cheap, old lenses like this one.

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:

All I know is what I saw in this video. Really fascinating method that created the horizontal lens flares we know and love

 

[Sec0nd]

Thanks for the reply. It really is a shame that the GH4 doesn't have a full frame sensor and that the Speed boosters are pretty darn expensive. Otherwise I'd be all over it. The Sony A7S looks amazing as well. The ISO test Sony released is impossibly good. Shame the 4K need an external recorder since it looks amazing. The 1080p quality looks nice but nothing too special.

I'm leaning towards the GH4 but I'll just let it sink it for a bit. Maybe wait for the A7S to release.

 

[Radec]

Ta' da!

1) Zeiss 24-70mm f/1.8-2.8 lens which is wider and brighter than the previous Zeiss 28-100mm f/1.8-4.9 lens
2) 0.39″ SVGA electronic viewfinder pop-up OLED viewfinder with 1,440,000 dots.
3) Built-in ND filter
4) XAVC-S video recording just like the Sony A7s

Product Specifications

shit is expensive yo.

$899 CAD ~ $827 USD

 

[TerryLee81]

The pop-up viewfinder is very cool. Did the size stay the same?

Expensive, yeah, but I guess justified with the oled viewfinder.

 

[Groof]

How much was the mk 2 at release?
Also pop up viewfinder and 180° tiltable screen is pretty sweet

 

[Radec]

The pop-up viewfinder is very cool. Did the size stay the same?

Expensive, yeah, but I guess justified with the oled viewfinder.

The new camera is 2,5mm thicker than the RX100M2 (and 5mm thicker than the first generation RX100).

 

[Won]

Looks neat. I want one.

But damn, 849 Euro. :/

 

[DBT85]

So the question is, the MK3 or the MK2.

 

[hitsugi]

Good lord. I don't like the price (simply because I can't afford it), but the price seems about right for it to be honest..

 

[Donos]

Nice. But why don't they put another surface on the frontside where your fingers rest. Or a litte bump to have a better grip. The MKII is already quite heavy.

 

[RuGalz]

Nice. But why don't they put another surface on the frontside where your fingers rest. Or a litte bump to have a better grip. The MKII is already quite heavy.

Because it's sold separately (AG-R1 or AG-R2)

Very nice technically, however, at that price point, I think if I were shopping I'd just pick up A6000 instead it's really not that much bigger (imo) and much more versatile. But then again, I'm only willing to shell out a little bit more for miniaturization, not this much.

 

[phisheep]

Thanks for all the help.

I do have one last question. Is the NIKKOR 55–300 mm VR lens worth the 100 € more? Because I have an option to get the same camera but with a NIKKOR 55–200 mm VR lens (I do get the AF-S DX Nikkor 18–55 mm f/3.5–5.6 VR II lens regardless).

I am asking because the difference is still 100 € in price. Thanks.

As always, it depends what you are doing with it. But as it seems you are just starting out I'd say yes, the extra reach can make a whole lot of difference with landscapes and wildlife. Certainly the 300mm is what I would go for.

 

[TerryLee81]

Because it's sold separately (AG-R1 or AG-R2)

Very nice technically, however, at that price point, I think if I were shopping I'd just pick up A6000 instead it's really not that much bigger (imo) and much more versatile. But then again, I'm only willing to shell out a little bit more for miniaturization, not this much.

I had a RX100 and it really does fit in your pocket. I do not want to carry around a A6000 with lens in my pocket (not saying that it's not possible, but definitely not comfortable).

But I agree you do get more camera for the same price. I have a x100s now which I love but there's still some moments where I wish I had a small pocketable camera with me.

 

[RuGalz]

I had a RX100 and it really does fit in your pocket. I do not want to carry around a A6000 with lens in my pocket (not saying that it's not possible, but definitely not comfortable).

But I agree you do get more camera for the same price. I have a x100s now which I love but there's still some moments where I wish I had a small pocketable camera with me.

For me, I don't have a spare pocket to put a camera; I carry a smartphone in one pocket, wallet and keys in the other. So, even if it's the size of RX100, unless I'm wearing a jacket, I'd still be holding it in my hand. If I'm carrying it in my hand, rx100 or a6000 really wouldn't make that much difference so being less expensive and more vesatile wins.

I wish they'd implement electronic shutter option just in case you want something faster than 1/2000. Having built-in ND helps a bit I guess.

 

[Ty4on]

Thanks for the reply. It really is a shame that the GH4 doesn't have a full frame sensor and that the Speed boosters are pretty darn expensive. Otherwise I'd be all over it. The Sony A7S looks amazing as well. The ISO test Sony released is impossibly good. Shame the 4K need an external recorder since it looks amazing. The 1080p quality looks nice but nothing too special.

I'm leaning towards the GH4 but I'll just let it sink it for a bit. Maybe wait for the A7S to release.

I'm not a video guy myself ATM so I might be a bit too harsh on the GH4. For me I love that with a full frame you can properly use old lenses, but you might find what you need at a good price for the GH4. ISO performance should also not be that bad.

I was looking at APS-C cameras, but while the bodies weren't that expensive the lenses were rarely fast and cheap apart from 50mm which aren't very useful on that format. The MFT lenses I looked at where almost more expensive and the camera bodies were around the same price, but nothing as affordable as Pentax if I wanted some weather sealing. The I picked up an old Pentax ME (mostly manual film body that is locked at aperture priority with an exposure comp dial) with a Pentax 50mm f1.7 and a boring (but who cares, free lens) Sigma 70-200mm f4.5 for next to nothing. I adore the huge viewfinder (bigger than any DSLR today I think with almost 1x magnification) and cheap lens that is feels nice with a good focus ring and all metal and now I'm just waiting for an affordable Pentax FF which should be happening this millennium

 

[Chromax]

I'm thinking of picking up the Sony A6000. Can anyone recommend a lens around the $500-1000 range for general use?

Someone told me this:

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-Cameras/dp/B005IHAI8O

but after checking it out a bit I'm not even sure that works with A6000.

 

[Groof]

I'm thinking of picking up the Sony A6000. Can anyone recommend a lens around the $500-1000 range for general use?

Someone told me this:

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-Cameras/dp/B005IHAI8O

but after checking it out a bit I'm not even sure that works with A6000.

That should work. Why wouldn't it?

I've heard good things about it, and Zeiss glass is usually high quality.

 

[Donos]

I'm thinking of picking up the Sony A6000. Can anyone recommend a lens around the $500-1000 range for general use?

Someone told me this:

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-Cameras/dp/B005IHAI8O

but after checking it out a bit I'm not even sure that works with A6000.

SEL35F18 and the Zeiss SEL1670Z are good all round choices. One is a prime and the other a zoom. All E-Mount work with the A6000

List of all Sony E mount lenses + Tamron, Sigma and some others have e mount lenses.

 

[Ty4on]

I'm thinking of picking up the Sony A6000. Can anyone recommend a lens around the $500-1000 range for general use?

Someone told me this:

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-Cameras/dp/B005IHAI8O

but after checking it out a bit I'm not even sure that works with A6000.

It should work and take great photos. It is however really expensive for a prime without OIS or a very big aperture (cough ) and quite big for an NEX lens.

I would take a look at the zooms with OIS or the Sigma f2.8 19mm and 30mm primes. The Sigma lenses have poorer build quality and are slower, but are almost half the weight, almost a fifth the price and have gotten rave reviews for their sharpness and overall performance despite the low price. If you need a wide f1.8 though the Zeiss is the only option on NEX. Here's how happy the Sigma 30mm made someone on MFT

Edit:

I'm leaning towards the GH4 but I'll just let it sink it for a bit. Maybe wait for the A7S to release.

Double quoting, but the A7s price has been revealed and it is 2500$, more than the A7 and the A7r

I think I'd go for the GH4 as well.

 

[Radec]

Okay this is awkward.

 

[hitsugi]

That guy does look fairly gigantic....

 

[Sec0nd]

Double quoting, but the A7s price has been revealed and it is 2500$, more than the A7 and the A7r

I think I'd go for the GH4 as well.

Yeah crap. That's definitely out of my budget for now.

I've been looking at a lot of footage shot with the GH4 and I'm kind of torn. A lot of the footage looks almost too sharp and detailed. Very "video" like, whatever that means. Like it's shot with a camcorder. The footage also looks very cluncky. Could be that the camera wasn't set to 1/50 shutter speed or my computer just not handling the streaming of such a large file but it looks kind of weird.

 

[Ty4on]

Yeah crap. That's definitely out of my budget for now.

I've been looking at a lot of footage shot with the GH4 and I'm kind of torn. A lot of the footage looks almost too sharp and detailed. Very "video" like, whatever that means. Like it's shot with a camcorder. The footage also looks very cluncky. Could be that the camera wasn't set to 1/50 shutter speed or my computer just not handling the streaming of such a large file but it looks kind of weird.

Like it has been sharpened? Could be a camera setting or something that post can fix. From what I have seen it looks very impressive, but you probably know more than me. This is just DigitalRev's review and nothing professional, but I was amazed at the downscaled video's detail compared to the 5D Mk3. The disadvantage is yet more crop factor though

 

[zephervack]

Okay this is awkward.

The fuck? I wish the camera was that small hahaha.

 

[Callibretto]

I need some opinion, is it worth it to buy Sony A6000 if I already have Canon EOS T3i/600D?

I'm just a casual user and I like my current camera, usually only use it at home or for family gathering or event like wedding/birthday etc. the size actually start to bother me when the last time I went for holiday trip, which is why I'm starting to think to replace it to smaller camera like Sony A6000.

my question is whether the A6000 is actually an upgrade compared to my current T3i or I'm just buying for the size convenience while the actual photo quality I can get is maybe the same if not worse.

 

[Sec0nd]

Like it has been sharpened? Could be a camera setting or something that post can fix. From what I have seen it looks very impressive, but you probably know more than me. This is just DigitalRev's review and nothing professional, but I was amazed at the downscaled video's detail compared to the 5D Mk3. The disadvantage is yet more crop factor though

Yeah the downscaled 4k looks incredible compared to the 5Dm3. It blows it out of the water in these kind of screen grab comparisons. But for some reason the test footage I've seen from the GH4 doesn't look very 'cinematic' for some reason. I have no idea why or what makes something cinematic or not. It also depends on the light and the way it has been shot of course but something about the quality and the sharpness of the GH4 makes it look too real. Maybe it's some kind of soap like effect like 60 fps playback causes.

It's all very subjective and personal though so I could very well understand it if you guys think I'm crazy.

 

[diaspora]

I need some opinion, is it worth it to buy Sony A6000 if I already have Canon EOS T3i/600D?

I'm just a casual user and I like my current camera, usually only use it at home or for family gathering or event like wedding/birthday etc. the size actually start to bother me when the last time I went for holiday trip, which is why I'm starting to think to replace it to smaller camera like Sony A6000.

my question is whether the A6000 is actually an upgrade compared to my current T3i or I'm just buying for the size convenience while the actual photo quality I can get is maybe the same if not worse.

With most standard or tele zoom lenses on it, the A6000 size becomes largely irrelevant. Also, image quality is going to be largely identical.

 

[Callibretto]

With most standard or tele zoom lenses on it, the A6000 size becomes largely irrelevant. Also, image quality is going to be largely identical.

if size is a concern, would it be more practical to get something like Sony RX100 mk3 instead? how's the image quality for that one?

 

[sneaky77]

beaten

 

[RuGalz]

Rumor that Fuji X30 will have 1" X-trans sensor to compete with RX100? The 1" market is certainly heating up!

if size is a concern, would it be more practical to get something like Sony RX100 mk3 instead? how's the image quality for that one?

It probably is pretty comparable or better than a dated sensor in T3i.

 

[diaspora]

if size is a concern, would it be more practical to get something like Sony RX100 mk3 instead? how's the image quality for that one?

RX100 m3 IQ won't be much better than what you have now. but it is in a definitively smaller package.

 

[Aurongel]

I finally got some hands on time with the new RX100 this morning and I have to say that the new OLED viewfinder is pretty damn awesome and I really hope this feature starts to creep into other competing brands and possibly to the Sony mirrorless bodies.

My only gripe is that the actual eyepiece isn't spring loaded (like I imagined at least) in any way and requires you to give a little bit of effort to get the thing working. I also don't think the price is too crazy considering the improvements made to the aperture, IS and viewfinder easily place this on a higher tier than the previous 2 models.

 

[Fireblend]

So this is a very similar question to one above, but I'm also considering grabbing an a6000. I've been using a point and shoot (Lumix LX3) for a while and it's definitely time to upgrade. What I'm not sure of though is whether to grab the body-only option and couple it with a Sony 35mm 1.8f prime, or grab the kit lens along with a more budget-y prime (the Sigma 30mm one).

I'm worried I'd miss the zoom and flexibility of the 16-50mm it comes with (even though it's not that much of a zoom), and end up regretting going prime-only. I'm planning a trip for next year in which I'd like the camera to shine and I'm not sure I'd have the chance to get another lens by then. So, my question is, do you guys think it'd be still worth it to grab the a6000 with the kit lens *and* get a good 35mm prime? Or would my money be better spent buying the prime only, and then looking into a better zoom lens (like the 55-210)?

 

[RuGalz]

Imo, I wouldn't restrict myself to a prime right away, UNLESS you already know you are a prime shooter. Yes it can take better quality pictures and can do things that kit lens can't do. There are plenty of good pictures you can produce using a kit lens. Explore prime lenses after you are comfortable with a SLR instead of adding more restriction on top of the initial learning curve. A lot of people will probably say you grow out of kit lenses in a couple months... but honestly, you don't have to. I've seen lots people taking better pictures with kit lenses than those with better gears due to their skills.

 

[Cryst]

Just wanted to point out that the 55-210mm E-mount is currently on sale at woot! for $220. It's likely split off from a pack-in bundle, so you're only getting the lens, no official box, lens hood, or anything else.

As for your predicament, I agree with RuGalz and would stick with the kit lens. The 35mm is a pricey proposition for what it is. I wouldn't recommend spending that kind of money on a fixed prime so soon unless you know that you'll be comfortable shooting with it. You don't always get all the time in the world to frame a shot when you're on a trip.

If you're fairly certain you won't get the chance to pick up another lens before your trip, the kit lens will serve you fine. You get more flexibility, and it's not like it produces terrible pictures.

 

[345triangle]

i think a 35mm 1.8 is a pretty great first lens that will show drastic improvements over what you'll have been used to with a point and shoot. it's a versatile focal length that will let you experiment with depth of field and low-light shooting far more than a kit lens would.

i say get the kit for the convenience and the 35 for learning. a 55-200 zoom is a pretty niche thing for most people and can be used as a crutch, i'd say work on more useful focal lengths first.

 

[Radec]

You'll get bored with the 16-50mm easily.

Get only a prime and you'll see things differently.

 

[Donos]

Also you can always get a cheap Sigma 30mm 2.8 (gen1 has same quality as the newer model) an see how you like the shooting prime. Costs around 100 $new / 70 $ used. It's only a bit longer than the 1650 (off) so it still fits in jacket pockets.
It's pretty sharp. If you don't like it than the SEL35 is not worth it.

I used the Sigma all the time in the last couple month and left the 1650PZ at home.

 

[Fireblend]

Yeah, I'm definitely leaning towards picking up the camera with the 1650 and also grabbing the Sigma 30mm 2.8 prime. Being $200, I don't think I can justify buying the 35mm for more than twice that just yet, and the reviews for the Sigma are pretty encouraging.

Donos, where did you see it being sold for $100?
Also, is there some website for buying used lenses other than ebay and the other usual options?