Support NeoGAF

[BigJonsson]

So my memory card's lock switch fell off somehow (I really have no idea how that happened lol) and it's stuck in write protect mode.

I was able to McGuyver a fix by using scotch tape as suggested via a google search so it works in my camera but not in my computer's card reader.


I should probably buy a new one and use the busted one as a backup.

What brands are reliable these days?

Still Sandisk and Lexar?

 

[diaspora]

So my memory card's lock switch fell off somehow (I really have no idea how that happened lol) and it's stuck in write protect mode.

I was able to McGuyver a fix by using scotch tape as suggested via a google search so it works in my camera but not in my computer's card reader.


I should probably buy a new one and use the busted one as a backup.

What brands are reliable these days?

Still Sandisk and Lexar?

Yes

 

[BigJonsson]

Yes

Any others?


The one that broke was a Blacks brand one lol, lasted for 3-4 years


Still amazed at how varied prices are between Blacks, The Source, Futureshop/Best Buy and Wal Mart

 

[diaspora]

Any others?


The one that broke was a Blacks brand one lol, lasted for 3-4 years


Still amazed at how varied prices are between Blacks, The Source, Futureshop/Best Buy and Wal Mart

IIRC, Black's memory cards and USB drives are rebranded Kingston stuff. You could always take a stab at Samsung or Panasonic (Gold) memory cards. Though TBH the sports shooters I know generally rely on higher end Lexar cards and I generally roll with Sandisk.

 

[BigJonsson]

IIRC, Black's memory cards and USB drives are rebranded Kingston stuff. You could always take a stab at Samsung or Panasonic (Gold) memory cards. Though TBH the sports shooters I know generally rely on higher end Lexar cards and I generally roll with Sandisk.

Futureshop has a Lexar class 10 32GB for 25 dollars, seems to be the best price

 

[diaspora]

Futureshop has a Lexar class 10 32GB for 25 dollars, seems to be the best price

The 30MB/s one? Yeah, that one is solid.

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

I was able to McGuyver a fix by using scotch tape as suggested via a google search so it works in my camera but not in my computer's card reader.

Really? For me it was the other way around; my computer happily ignores this bullshit tape-era write protection switch, but the card became useless in my camera until I blocked off the hole.

 

[Faith]

Bought an used Sigma 10-20mm F3,5 EX DC HSM for my Nikon D90.

400$. Really good deal IMO

 

[Anton Sugar]

I love my Fuji X100S, but would like a bit more variety in terms of focal length. Does anyone here own the 33mm (50mm equivalent) adapter lens for it?

 

[cablenathan]

I'm looking for an ultra compact camera to carry around with me regularly....

Appreciate GAF's advice.

I second this query! So I'm guessing Gaf's advice would be get the RX100 or go home?

 

[Forsete]

While it is slightly bigger, I also recommend the Ricoh GR. No zoom though, but I love it anyway.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Hmm trying out the nikon 16-35 f/4 to replace my cursed 17-35 f/2.8. Not sure about it. It is generally sharper, lighter and has VR. Hard to accept f/4 though after you get used to 2.8. It also has an extra mm on the wide end but at the cost of some pretty strong distortion so that is kind of a wash for me. It is $500 cheaper, since I am upgrading my body (D600>D810) I thought I would save a bit on my wide zoom but idk.

I think the 17-35 had more "personality" but that may have just been vignetting and blurry corners... The 16-35 feels more clinical.

 

[zbarron]

I just got a Sony A3000 open box from Best Buy for $120. All it came with was the body attached to the default 18-55 lens and a battery. I definitely need at least a lens cap but I was wondering if anyone could run down the necessary accessories that I should get immediately like a strap, hood, filter etc. Thanks.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I just got a Sony A3000 open box from Best Buy for $120. All it came with was the body attached to the default 18-55 lens and a battery. I definitely need at least a lens cap but I was wondering if anyone could run down the necessary accessories that I should get immediately like a strap, hood, filter etc. Thanks.

Strap - yes styles vary, its up to personal preference what kind you like.

Lens hood - depends, the main idea is to shade the front element from direct sunlight which causes flare and reduces contrast. Some people like flare as an artistic element. You can often just use your hand to shade the lens.

clear filter - maybe, depends on where you are. At the beach? YES. in the studio? NO. Filters, even good ones will alter image quality. To stick a $10 filter on a $1000 lens is silly stupid. A kit lens isn't that great of an investment. You are probably going to replace it if you really get into it. Do you really care if it gets a small nick? Sometimes a lens hood is better at keeping crap from the front of your lens and doesn't effect IQ negatively. If it is very dusty or whatever though it is much better to wipe off a filter than your expensive lens front element. If you do order one, order online as camera shops make a huge margin on filters (think monster cables) http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0000BZL4X/?tag=neogaf0e-20 These are the only filters I would bother using.

 

[Fox1304]

Woot, I'm back on the camera market

Currently have a Nikon J1 and a Samsung EXF2, both acquired through some wonderful deals, but I'm looking to get back in the DSLR game, and step up in compacity with another camera.

So right now I'm looking at both the Canon 700D (T5i in the american market) and the Sony RX100-iii.

Have anyone got in hands both the RX100M3 and the previous models? I'm a bit worried by the thickness increase since the Mark 1. The EXF2 that I currently have is -just- a bit too thick to my eyes. The J1 is frankly too big though. I really want a pocketable camera to go with a full sized reflex, a camera that I can dump in my pocket when leaving without regretting it later.

And about the 700D, is the new auto-focus system of the 70D really worth it ? I'm currently trying to decide between those two.

 

[mrklaw]

Woot, I'm back on the camera market

Currently have a Nikon J1 and a Samsung EXF2, both acquired through some wonderful deals, but I'm looking to get back in the DSLR game, and step up in compacity with another camera.

So right now I'm looking at both the Canon 700D (T5i in the american market) and the Sony RX100-iii.

Have anyone got in hands both the RX100M3 and the previous models? I'm a bit worried by the thickness increase since the Mark 1. The EXF2 that I currently have is -just- a bit too thick to my eyes. The J1 is frankly too big though. I really want a pocketable camera to go with a full sized reflex, a camera that I can dump in my pocket when leaving without regretting it later.

And about the 700D, is the new auto-focus system of the 70D really worth it ? I'm currently trying to decide between those two.

70D is probably worth it if you want to shoot a ton of wildlife or sports - fast moving things that need a quick lock and decent tracking. Otherwise the 700d would be plenty. I've shot car races and airshows with a 100-400L and a 40d back in the day and that was just fine. I was tempted by the 70D AF but in the end the more compact size of the 700d won out.

 

[Fox1304]

70D is probably worth it if you want to shoot a ton of wildlife or sports - fast moving things that need a quick lock and decent tracking. Otherwise the 700d would be plenty. I've shot car races and airshows with a 100-400L and a 40d back in the day and that was just fine. I was tempted by the 70D AF but in the end the more compact size of the 700d won out.

Thanks !
I'm not really planning to focus ( no pun intended ) on wildlife or sports especially. Will shoot some of course, but that's not a main point. I quite have the same thought as you about the size and ease of use, so that's why I'm leaning towards the 700D right now. Any other selling points of the 70D that I might be missing ?

 

[mrklaw]

Thanks !
I'm not really planning to focus ( no pun intended ) on wildlife or sports especially. Will shoot some of course, but that's not a main point. I quite have the same thought as you about the size and ease of use, so that's why I'm leaning towards the 700D right now. Any other selling points of the 70D that I might be missing ?

not really. larger, better build so more rugged etc. Dual dials is maybe something to point out - I definitely preferred the dual controls of the 40D but it wasn't enough to justify the extra cost, size and weight for me.

 

[Fox1304]

not really. larger, better build so more rugged etc. Dual dials is maybe something to point out - I definitely preferred the dual controls of the 40D but it wasn't enough to justify the extra cost, size and weight for me.

You're confirming my choice, thanks
Had a 550D a few years back, had to sell it for money reasons, but loved the device, it was my first DSLR and that was quite a device.

Now onto the RX100 ... I need to see the device and feel if the added thickness is really a problem.

Anyone has an idea of how big of a jump it'll be going from a EX2F to the RX100 ? I know the captor's size is a vast improvement, but the f/1.4 opening of the EX2F is quite a thing.

 

[Damaged]

Bought an used Sigma 10-20mm F3,5 EX DC HSM for my Nikon D90. 400$. Really good deal IMO

Great lens, picked one up a couple of years ago and I love it

 

[Aurongel]

Thanks !
I'm not really planning to focus ( no pun intended ) on wildlife or sports especially. Will shoot some of course, but that's not a main point. I quite have the same thought as you about the size and ease of use, so that's why I'm leaning towards the 700D right now. Any other selling points of the 70D that I might be missing ?

I'd advise against the 700D as it barely has any improvements over the older and cheaper 650D which also had only a few minor improvements over the 600D/T3i (touch screen being the biggest one). The 70D has a superior AF system which was VERY needed, dual control dials (a bigger plus than you'd think if you shoot in semi/full auto modes) and can do phase detect AF during liveview which is unique to the 70D alone. You'll get a solid camera either way but I see little reason to choose the 700D over any RX100 model or older Rebel model. I don't know what you shoot so I can't say which would be your best bet.

I usually recommend the 70D to people who shoot a lot of sports (7 fps burst rate), need the impressive continual AF for video or shoot exclusively through liveview for some reason.

I know the captor's size is a vast improvement, but the f/1.4 opening of the EX2F is quite a thing.

On a sensor that small, an aperture that wide's perceived effect is minimal at best. The RX100 at f1.8 on a 1 inch sensor is far more impressive considering 1.8 > 1.4 is only a 1/3 stop improvement.

 

[Fox1304]

I'd advise against the 700D as it barely has any improvements over the older and cheaper 650D which also had only a few minor improvements over the 600D/T3i (touch screen being the biggest one). The 70D has a superior AF system which was VERY needed, dual control dials (a bigger plus than you'd think if you shoot in semi/full auto modes) and can do phase detect AF during liveview which is unique to the 70D alone. You'll get a solid camera either way but I see little reason to choose the 700D over any RX100 model or older Rebel model. I don't know what you shoot so I can't say which would be your best bet.

I usually recommend the 70D to people who shoot a lot of sports (7 fps burst rate), need the impressive continual AF for video or shoot exclusively through liveview for some reason.



On a sensor that small, an aperture that wide's perceived effect is minimal at best. The RX100 at f1.8 on a 1 inch sensor is far more impressive considering 1.8 > 1.4 is only a 1/3 stop improvement.

Thanks for the advices.

I'm considering the 700D because the price ain't far from the 650&600D, but it's true that the only improvements seem pretty minor. The orientable and touch screen are some big plus to me.
The 70D on the other hand is quite a bit more pricey, so I'm weighting the advantages a bit more cautiously.

I'm note sure the Improved AF and dual dials are worth the 300/400€ of price difference for my needs.

And for the rx100 comparison ... I want a dslr for the pleasure of shooting : ovf ... Captor size ... The sound and "feel".
But I'll surely get one for the compacity and day to day use.

And yes, I think the captor size will show some nice changes from the ex2f.

How's the DOF on the rx100 ? Can it be attained easily ? I know i have some trouble getting some nice bokeh sith my J1 that has the same captor size.

 

[phisheep]

I'm note sure the Improved AF and dual dials are worth the 300/400€ of price difference for my needs.

Depends.

How much did you actually use the AF on your 550D and find it wanting? Only reason I mention this is that only last weekend is the first time I pulled out anything other than the standard AF mode on my 550D and it worked a treat with low-flying aircraft/seagulls/occasionally other stuff.

Dual dials - either you need to practise a lot to get the hang of doing it really quickly, or you don't really need it at all. If you are already accustomed to getting the right result another way I wouldn't spend money on it.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Hmm trying out the nikon 16-35 f/4 to replace my cursed 17-35 f/2.8. Not sure about it. It is generally sharper, lighter and has VR. Hard to accept f/4 though after you get used to 2.8. It also has an extra mm on the wide end but at the cost of some pretty strong distortion so that is kind of a wash for me. It is $500 cheaper, since I am upgrading my body (D600>D810) I thought I would save a bit on my wide zoom but idk.

I think the 17-35 had more "personality" but that may have just been vignetting and blurry corners... The 16-35 feels more clinical.

Have you tried the Tokina 16-28? Love mine.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Have you tried the Tokina 16-28? Love mine.

I haven't but now that you mention it I know a guy that has one, lemme see if I can steal it from him for awhile.

 

[Fox1304]

Depends.

How much did you actually use the AF on your 550D and find it wanting? Only reason I mention this is that only last weekend is the first time I pulled out anything other than the standard AF mode on my 550D and it worked a treat with low-flying aircraft/seagulls/occasionally other stuff.

Dual dials - either you need to practise a lot to get the hang of doing it really quickly, or you don't really need it at all. If you are already accustomed to getting the right result another way I wouldn't spend money on it.

Never really found it wanting, wether on my J1 for example i had a lot of problems.
Dual dials sure would be nice, but as you said I've learned how to do without during my time with the 550d.

 

[mrklaw]

I'd advise against the 700D as it barely has any improvements over the older and cheaper 650D which also had only a few minor improvements over the 600D/T3i (touch screen being the biggest one). The 70D has a superior AF system which was VERY needed, dual control dials (a bigger plus than you'd think if you shoot in semi/full auto modes) and can do phase detect AF during liveview which is unique to the 70D alone. You'll get a solid camera either way but I see little reason to choose the 700D over any RX100 model or older Rebel model. I don't know what you shoot so I can't say which would be your best bet.

I usually recommend the 70D to people who shoot a lot of sports (7 fps burst rate), need the impressive continual AF for video or shoot exclusively through liveview for some reason.



On a sensor that small, an aperture that wide's perceived effect is minimal at best. The RX100 at f1.8 on a 1 inch sensor is far more impressive considering 1.8 > 1.4 is only a 1/3 stop improvement.

Which is why I asked about whether dual dials would be important or fast AF critical. 700d was worth the small premium over 650d for me for the adjustable LCD screen, both for protection and lower battery usage (folded away when not needed), and flexibility for shooting - eg low angle shots.

There is a tendency in any thread like this (not just cameras, all kinds of kit) to automatically upsell people to higher end products when it isn't really necessary.

 

[Ty4on]

On a sensor that small, an aperture that wide's perceived effect is minimal at best. The RX100 at f1.8 on a 1 inch sensor is far more impressive considering 1.8 > 1.4 is only a 1/3 stop improvement.

2/3 stop improvement. Sounds like you mixed f1.8 being 1/3 stop faster than f2. The rarely used f1.7 is the half stop between f1.4 and f2

When 35mm focal lengths are used 35mm apertures should be used. Then the EX2F is f6.46 at the wide end while the RX100 III is f4.9. This way you get the total light gathering which in return gives you theoretical DOF, noise and even diffraction limit EQ to 35mm. I said theoretical because it could be worse. I dunno how those sensors deal with that.

 

[Fox1304]

2/3 stop improvement. Sounds like you mixed f1.8 being 1/3 stop faster than f2. The rarely used f1.7 is the half stop between f1.4 and f2

When 35mm focal lengths are used 35mm apertures should be used. Then the EX2F is f6.46 at the wide end while the RX100 III is f4.9. This way you get the total light gathering which in return gives you theoretical DOF, noise and even diffraction limit EQ to 35mm. I said theoretical because it could be worse. I dunno how those sensors deal with that.

I think I'll need to read this 3 or 4 times more to be able to contribute to the talk

 

[Ty4on]

I think I'll need to read this 3 or 4 times more to be able to contribute to the talk

Sorry, I assumed people knew what aperture equivalence was
Basically you multiply the aperture by the crop factor and get equivalent DOF and low light performance.
Here's a webpage (I think it was the first) dedicated to it, a recent DP article and a long video that takes it slow and gives some examples.

Pixel vignetting or large apertures scaling poorly (f1.4 being less than twice the brightness of f2.0) I think is caused by the walls in each pixel. Light rays hitting a sensor has to go down a well and when the aperture is large some light rays hit the sensor from sharp angles.
Pixel well:

Light ray from different apertures:

It's probably not an issue with it, but the issue has interested me. This doesn't seem to scale with sensor size which I believe is because the thickness of the sensor is usually the same.

 

[Fox1304]

So, in basic terms, what would it mean for the DOF on the rx100, compared to the ex2f?

 

[Aurongel]

I'm note sure the Improved AF and dual dials are worth the 300/400€ of price difference for my needs.

It's always good to weigh your options depending on your shooting style and budget. Keep in mind that you can also get slightly improved AF, build quality and dual dials with the 60D. Since the release of the 70D, the 60D body can be had for around the same price as the 700D if you know when/where to look. The differences are so minimal at this level that the best choice for you comes down to personal preference and you'd probably do just fine with any body at this price.

How's the DOF on the rx100 ? Can it be attained easily ? I know i have some trouble getting some nice bokeh sith my J1 that has the same captor size.

The RX100 mk III sports a wider aperture than the previous two models which makes some of the bokeh (especially towards 70mm) pretty impressive. The RX100 is a fixed lens system though so if sample images on Flickr aren't capturing the DOF you seek then you're out of luck.

There is a tendency in any thread like this (not just cameras, all kinds of kit) to automatically upsell people to higher end products when it isn't really necessary.

Which is why I mentioned I usually recommend the 70D to people who shoot sports/action and need the extra AF coverage and speed. I'm just listing potential candidates, the best value camera body depends almost entirely on the person's shooting style and budget preference.

2/3 stop improvement. Sounds like you mixed f1.8 being 1/3 stop faster than f2. The rarely used f1.7 is the half stop between f1.4 and f2

Oof, Good catch. I was actually remembering how the Canon 50mm f1.4 is only a ~1/3 stop improvement over the f1.8. I forgot about the mismatching aperture equivalency, my bad.

 

[Flo_Evans]

So, in basic terms, what would it mean for the DOF on the rx100, compared to the ex2f?

If my math is correct (I didn't actually do any, thank you Ty4on) you should be able to achieve shallower DoF on the rx100.

Basically if you are trying to achieve shallow DoF on life size human portraits, good luck. It is possible to achieve some background blur with careful subject positioning, but you are not going to be able to just blast the BG like you can with a 85mm 1.4 on a full frame. Macro shots will have a nice narrow DoF.

 

[Fox1304]

I think I'll go for the 700D or the 60D for now, and wait for a nice deal to replace the EX2F with a RX100m3.
Any hints on what I would lose by going with the 60D instead of the 700D ? Touch and orientable screen are some big assets for me, no idea if they are present on the 60D.

Edit : Ok, seems that the articulated screen is there too.

 

[Fox1304]

If my math is correct (I didn't actually do any, thank you Ty4on) you should be able to achieve shallower DoF on the rx100.

Basically if you are trying to achieve shallow DoF on life size human portraits, good luck. It is possible to achieve some background blur with careful subject positioning, but you are not going to be able to just blast the BG like you can with a 85mm 1.4 on a full frame. Macro shots will have a nice narrow DoF.

Thanks, shallow DOF is one of my photographer love, especially on portraits. I'll keep in mind that the RX100 is only a replacement for when I can"t/won't bother taking my DSLR with me. I know that it'll be much more limited than bigger sensors, but I just need to keep a good IQ in a pocket format to be happy

 

[Aurongel]

I think I'll go for the 700D or the 60D for now, and wait for a nice deal to replace the EX2F with a RX100m3.
Any hints on what I would lose by going with the 60D instead of the 700D ? Touch and orientable screen are some big assets for me, no idea if they are present on the 60D.

Edit : Ok, seems that the articulated screen is there too.

60D lacks touch screen but can articulate, can't do in camera HDR or continual AF during video and is larger. Despite missing a touch screen, the 60D's battery life almost doubles the Rebel line.

 

[RayStorm]

So... I recently got a Sony Alpha 6000 (due to a scandalous low price) to accompany my Nikon D600 and am not really that happy after my first day.

At least with the 16-50 kit lens it's actually bigger/harder to fit into my pants pocket than I expected. And what I didn't expect, but the user interface/menu structure/small software details are actually slightly off putting to me as well. It's small details like the clock being in 12h format instead of 24h as I would prefer, or when navigating the menus the uhm... disc and the wheel having pretty much the same use, while it could have been much more useful to have one jump to the next page and the other change the settings/navigate up/down on the page or anything not redundant. And then there are some inconsistencies in the behavior of the buttons/wheel/disc, the fairly cumbersome way of reviewing pictures and zooming in/out... Minor details all in all, but still a little disturbing.

What I feel somewhat bad about: I don't think I have an actual use for the a6000 next to the D600. While it's really nice and lightweight (in comparison) when dangling around my neck, to me it's actually rather redundant as it is too big to just carry it in a pant/jacket pocket. In conclusion I guess the RX100-3 actually would be the right secondary camera for me, given my actual needs? Also am I seeing things right that that the image quality of the RX100-3 is actually on par with the Alpha 6000?

Is my conclusion right? Or am I just a bit harsh on the a6000 after playing around with it for 3 hours? Would the 20mm pancake be a potential game changer in my quest for pocketability?

 

[Fox1304]

So... I recently got a Sony Alpha 6000 (due to a scandalous low price) to accompany my Nikon D600 and am not really that happy after my first day.

At least with the 16-50 kit lens it's actually bigger/harder to fit into my pants pocket than I expected. And what I didn't expect, but the user interface/menu structure/small software details are actually slightly off putting to me as well. It's small details like the clock being in 12h format instead of 24h as I would prefer, or when navigating the menus the uhm... disc and the wheel having pretty much the same use, while it could have been much more useful to have one jump to the next page and the other change the settings/navigate up/down on the page or anything not redundant. And then there are some inconsistencies in the behavior of the buttons/wheel/disc, the fairly cumbersome way of reviewing pictures and zooming in/out... Minor details all in all, but still a little disturbing.

What I feel somewhat bad about: I don't think I have an actual use for the a6000 next to the D600. While it's really nice and lightweight (in comparison) when dangling around my neck, to me it's actually rather redundant as it is too big to just carry it in a pant/jacket pocket. In conclusion I guess the RX100-3 actually would be the right secondary camera for me, given my actual needs? Also am I seeing things right that that the image quality of the RX100-3 is actually on par with the Alpha 6000?

Is my conclusion right? Or am I just a bit harsh on the a6000 after playing around with it for 3 hours? Would the 20mm pancake be a potential game changer in my quest for pocketability?

I had the exact same experience with my Nikon J1. Not pocketable enough to really use everywhere, even with a 10mm pancake, and not big enough to get some interesting photography elements.
So as you said, I'm now looking for a Sony RX100m3 ...

 

[diaspora]

So... I recently got a Sony Alpha 6000 (due to a scandalous low price) to accompany my Nikon D600 and am not really that happy after my first day.

At least with the 16-50 kit lens it's actually bigger/harder to fit into my pants pocket than I expected. And what I didn't expect, but the user interface/menu structure/small software details are actually slightly off putting to me as well. It's small details like the clock being in 12h format instead of 24h as I would prefer, or when navigating the menus the uhm... disc and the wheel having pretty much the same use, while it could have been much more useful to have one jump to the next page and the other change the settings/navigate up/down on the page or anything not redundant. And then there are some inconsistencies in the behavior of the buttons/wheel/disc, the fairly cumbersome way of reviewing pictures and zooming in/out... Minor details all in all, but still a little disturbing.

What I feel somewhat bad about: I don't think I have an actual use for the a6000 next to the D600. While it's really nice and lightweight (in comparison) when dangling around my neck, to me it's actually rather redundant as it is too big to just carry it in a pant/jacket pocket. In conclusion I guess the RX100-3 actually would be the right secondary camera for me, given my actual needs? Also am I seeing things right that that the image quality of the RX100-3 is actually on par with the Alpha 6000?

Is my conclusion right? Or am I just a bit harsh on the a6000 after playing around with it for 3 hours? Would the 20mm pancake be a potential game changer in my quest for pocketability?

You're not being too harsh- your experience is the same as mine- IMO get the Rx100. Cameras that aren't my 6D are pointless if they need an extra bag to be carried in since at that point I might as well take my fuckin 6D.

 

[RuGalz]

So... I recently got a Sony Alpha 6000 (due to a scandalous low price) to accompany my Nikon D600 and am not really that happy after my first day.

You can't defy physics. the lenses will still be rather bulky to accommodate the size of sensor no matter how small the body is. It may help in terms of size if they start making more lenses collapsible but I'm sure there are plenty of design complications. It's my primary reason that I'm not interest in MILC (yet) while I'm perfectly happy with a DSLR. Most likely I'll have to go smaller sensor (m43) just so the whole package will shrink in size and weight significant enough. RX100 is definitely a much better companion as a carry-everywhere type of camera.

 

[Flo_Evans]

mmmm yeah D810 all over my face.



with my favorite lens

Love it so far, not a major upgrade from the D800 but nice improvements in pretty much every category.

 

[diaspora]

As much as I fucking LOVE dual ISO, CR2HDR really doesn't know how to deal with pine needles.

 

[Faith]

Dude you make me depressive!

I want a 610 so badly! It would be such a huuuge upgrade from my D90!

 

[Flo_Evans]

Dude you make me depressive!

I want a 610 so badly! It would be such a huuuge upgrade from my D90!

Almost anything would be an upgrade form the D90 dude!

 

[Faith]

Almost anything would be an upgrade form the D90 dude!

Full-frame lenses are just too expensive. I could afford a 610, but not the lenses

 

[diaspora]

Full-frame lenses are just too expensive. I could afford a 610, but not the lenses

Are all of your lenses DX? If the 610 has peaking, manual lenses are easily usable and are cheap.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Full-frame lenses are just too expensive. I could afford a 610, but not the lenses

I would say get some old AF-D series lenses but allot of those are starting to show their age on these higher res sensors. Perfectly usable but your corners will be soft, focus slop will be an issue nailing narrow Dof, flare resistance is much lower than the new 'N' glass.

Are all of your lenses DX? If the 610 has peaking, manual lenses are easily usable and are cheap.

It doesn't AFAIK. Neither does the D810. They added exposure zebras to live view but no focus aids. Strange. The new 100% zoom is MUCH better though making manual focus on a tripod easier at least.

I am really loving this thing. My ISO 65 studio lit shots are STUNNING. The ISO 128000 low light shots are ACCEPTABLE. It is nuts! Say the word and I will post some samples! haha!

 

[diaspora]

I would say get some old AF-D series lenses but allot of those are starting to show their age on these higher res sensors. Perfectly usable but your corners will be soft, focus slop will be an issue nailing narrow Dof, flare resistance is much lower than the new 'N' glass.



It doesn't AFAIK. Neither does the D810. They added exposure zebras to live view but no focus aids. Strange. The new 100% zoom is MUCH better though making manual focus on a tripod easier at least.

I am really loving this thing. My ISO 65 studio lit shots are STUNNING. The ISO 128000 low light shots are ACCEPTABLE. It is nuts! Say the word and I will post some samples! haha!

Well, shit. The only reason I can use manual Zeiss lenses on my 6D is because I have zoom assist and peaking...

 

[Flo_Evans]

Well, shit. The only reason I can use manual Zeiss lenses on my 6D is because I have zoom assist and peaking...

Well the 3 dot > o < focus meter still works with MF lenses but it is far from ideal.

 

[Faith]

Post some ISO 128.000 pics