Support NeoGAF

[Flo_Evans]

This is my standard low light high ISO test shot:




some more

I am pretty impressed. Yeah if you go 1:1 its a mess and there is some obvious heavy handed NR going on. Going to see if I can use nikons RAW converter and disable all that to see the true noise. No RAW support in LR or aperture yet.

edit: wow adobe! that was fast! http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cameraraw8-6/

 

[Faith]

Crazy, looks like ISO 3200 on my Nikon.

Received my Sigma 10-20mm/F3.5 today. Didn't have time to test it properly, just some random shots on my balcony:

Edit: Wow, much less distortion compared to my Nikon 18-105mm kitlens! And also a little bit more detailed. Compared both @18mm.

 

[TerryLee81]

Sometimes I wish there would be a camera like the Ricoh GR or Nikon Coolpix A but with a 35mm equivalent lens. 28mm is too wide for me.

I love my X100s, but I often wish it would be smaller.

 

[Fox1304]

Patiently waiting for my 700D to arrive ... With its 18-135 STM. Got a good deal for the kit.
Now ... I'll just have to try and be reasonable, and avoid looking at the 40mm 2.8 STM or the next addition to my kit : the 10-22mm.
Anybody got any of those here? I'm especially interested in the 10-22, and can't wait to put my hands on it.

 

[Label]

Hello! I am looking at getting my first DSLR. I am a complete beginner (just have experience with digital point and shoot cameras) but would like a camera to grow with me as I get better.

I am not looking to spend too much around £340.

So far I have been looking at:

• Canon EOS 1100D With 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 DC III Lens Kit (sensor is quite small compared to others, not sure if that will hold me back too much.)
  
• Canon EOS 1200D with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III Lens
  
• Nikon D3200 with 8-55mm VR Lens Kit

But I just do not know enough to make the right decision so any help would be appreciated

 

[Fox1304]

• Canon EOS 1100D With 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 DC III Lens Kit (sensor is quite small compared to others, not sure if that will hold me back too much.)
  
• Canon EOS 1200D with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III Lens
  

The basic 18-55 kit lens is quite bad, and can be bought really cheap if needed, so take that in consideration when choosing the kit.
The 18-55 STM seems to be quite a bit better, but you'd rather choose another kit lens or none if that allows you to find a good deal.

 

[Faith]

Go for the Nikon D3200. The advantages compared to a 1200D:

- Better picture quality (better color depth & more dynamic range)
- Lower noise at high ISO
- Higher resolution screen (921k instead of 460k)
- Has an external mic jack
- Self cleaning sensor
- 4fps instead of 3fps
- 11 AF points instead of 9

The only "disadvantage" is the slightly higher weight (505g instead of 480g).

 

[345triangle]

the question is why do you want a DSLR?

i wouldn't recommend an entry-level DSLR to anyone in the world unless they only had $500 to spend and had inherited an incredible library of F-mount lenses from a pro-photographer relative. they're unnecessarily bulky and awkward to use for anyone without much experience.

mirrorless cameras are a better option for the vast majority of people, because they'll give you the same image quality with less hassle in a smaller package. the advantages of DSLRs are very specific and if you knew what they were, you probably wouldn't be asking for advice on a model.

i'd say look at sony's A5000 or 6000, fujfilm's X-M1, X-A1 or X-E2, and olympus' OM-D E-M10 as starters.

 

[hitsugi]

i'd say look at sony's A5000 or 6000, fujfilm's X-M1, X-A1 or X-E2, and olympus' OM-D E-M10 as starters.

Why list the X-M1 and X-A1, then make the jump to the X-E2 instead of the X-E1? You get the viewfinder with the X-E1 and it's nearly a $500 jump to get to the X-E2

 

[StopMakingSense]

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.

Aren't you in LA? I'd let you kick around with my copy for a few days. Just did the monthlyish gig I mostly use it for so it's free for a bit.

 

[diaspora]

I'd say to actually try to hold these cameras in your hand before you buy them. Entry-level SLRs and crop mirrorless cameras have very similar IQs, so just go off of what feels better to hold imo. Mirrorless cameras are generally smaller, though their ergonomics are at an unparalleled level of bad, conversely SLRs are chunkier though they're much more comfortable for me to hold for extended periods of time.

 

[mrklaw]

I'd say to actually try to hold these cameras in your hand before you buy them. Entry-level SLRs and crop mirrorless cameras have very similar IQs, so just go off of what feels better to hold imo. Mirrorless cameras are generally smaller, though their ergonomics are at an unparalleled level of bad, conversely SLRs are chunkier though they're much more comfortable for me to hold for extended periods of time.

I'd agree. I went canon simply because they felt better to me. Nikon so felt like the dials were the wrong way around for me - entirely subjective but that's what you are down to with these things. Both will give you great images.

Get yourself down to jessops or a currys/pcworld and have a play.

Worth checking mirrorless too, but bear in mind what you want. I had a NEX 5 for a while but missed a viewfinder too much, so switched to a G3. But then it was almost like a tiny DSLR so I switched back to a 700d. The 11/1200d are very compact already

 

[Flo_Evans]

Aren't you in LA? I'd let you kick around with my copy for a few days. Just did the monthlyish gig I mostly use it for so it's free for a bit.

No I just go there a lot. In St Louis.

Gah Nikons software is kind of balls. Capture NX-D is the only thing that can read D810 RAW files as of right now and its such as pain in the ass to use.

Really hope apple updates the RAW processing for aperture before they completely stop developing for it.

 

[Faith]

Bought an used Tamron 28-75mm/f2.5 for 260$ today:

Can't wait to try it out. Might replace my 18-105mm kitlens

 

[RuGalz]

No I just go there a lot. In St Louis.

Gah Nikons software is kind of balls. Capture NX-D is the only thing that can read D810 RAW files as of right now and its such as pain in the ass to use.

Really hope apple updates the RAW processing for aperture before they completely stop developing for it.

Adobe raw has a release candidate that supports D810 right now.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Adobe raw has a release candidate that supports D810 right now.

Yeah I tried it briefly. Only works with CS6+ no Lightroom. Not as good as NX-D either.

 

[345triangle]

Why list the X-M1 and X-A1, then make the jump to the X-E2 instead of the X-E1? You get the viewfinder with the X-E1 and it's nearly a $500 jump to get to the X-E2

i have an X-E1 but is it even on sale any more?

if so, sure, it's a good camera too!

 

[hitsugi]

i have an X-E1 but is it even on sale any more?

if so, sure, it's a good camera too!

Yup! $700 with the kit lens; $500 body only. I've been tempted to get it to replace my Nex 3N.. but the 3N has practically no resale value and I don't know if it's worth it to drop so much on the X-E1 instead of an X100/X100s

 

[345triangle]

Yup! $700 with the kit lens; $500 body only. I've been tempted to get it to replace my Nex 3N.. but the 3N has practically no resale value and I don't know if it's worth it to drop so much on the X-E1 instead of an X100/X100s

depends on how much you've invested into sony, i guess. $700 with a truly great 18-55 is a pretty good way to get into fuji's lens ecosystem, which is one of the best reasons to shoot X in the first place.

i have an X100 and i use it more than my X-E1. but i have an X-T1 too! so.

the X-E1 is an awesome camera: its biggest flaws are AF performance (which has been fixed considerably by firmware, but is still just average) and a pretty poor screen. but i still take it out with the 18mm f/2 quite often because it makes a great compact package.

 

[Mengy]

Hi guys. I have a Fujifilm HS20EXR camera that I've been using for a few years now. It's a DSLR-like camera but with a fixed telephoto lens (up to 30X) instead of interchangeable lenses. It's done well for me but I would be lying to say that I'm completely happy with it. The pic IQ is good but not great, can get a bit grainy especially at high ISO's. It is horrible for long exposures, the max length for exposure time is 30 seconds, it absolutely is incapable of exposing any longer so I can't do any starry sky shots at all. The autofocus tends to search a bit especially at high zooms, and the manual focus is clunky to use.

All of that aside it's not a bad camera for what I use it mostly for: taking quick point and shoot shots while out riding the Harley or hiking or kayaking. I absolutely love the zoom range and options having the fixed lens gives me, it's a decent DSLR like camera but without the hassle of carrying around lots of lenses and having to change them out all the time.

But I want more, I want a better camera now, something with a better IQ, much longer bulb mode for long exposure shots, but still maintaining the convenience and portability of what the HS20EXR gives me.


Any suggestions for cameras to look at CameraGAF? There is a new model of mine, the FujifilmHS50EXR but it still has the crappy limitation of a 30s bulb mode and I don't like that at all. I could care less about the viewfinder on my Fuji as I don't ever use it, so maybe what I really want is a more modern mirrorless camera with a very good built in zoom range, any suggestions for camera like that?

 

[mrklaw]

you could take a bunch of 30s shots and merge them using stacking software to get nice star trails?

 

[Art Teitlebaum]

Any suggestions for cameras to look at CameraGAF? There is a new model of mine, the FujifilmHS50EXR but it still has the crappy limitation of a 30s bulb mode and I don't like that at all. I could care less about the viewfinder on my Fuji as I don't ever use it, so maybe what I really want is a more modern mirrorless camera with a very good built in zoom range, any suggestions for camera like that?

Might have a look at the Lumix FZ1000. 'Only' 400mm equiv. tele and BULB up to 60s. But the image quality is quite astounding for the 1" sensor.
The Sony RX10 is a fine camera, too, but the 200mm telerange might be too short for your needs coming from that Fuji. But it has a BULB mode for longer exposure times, though I'm not sure what the maximum there is. Maybe you can ask on a Sony forum for details.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

Guys a bit of advice needed

I'm after an entry level slr that will do semi decent video.

Is a Canon 700d (rebel t5i) a decent choice?

I think I'm nearly decided on it then just have to decide to pay full price for peace of mind (£550 locally) or settle for a grey import (£400 online)

 

[Fox1304]

How's the Tamron 70-300 ? not the VC model, the Di LD Macro one ?
I can have it for 75€ on amazon and I'm still to get a long zoom.

 

[diaspora]

How's the Tamron 70-300 ? not the VC model, the Di LD Macro one ?
I can have it for 75€ on amazon and I'm still to get a long zoom.

For that kind of reach I'd strongly recommend getting the VC one. As far as this one is concerned though, IIRC it's soft as fuck at 300mm.

 

[Fox1304]

For that kind of reach I'd strongly recommend getting the VC one. As far as this one is concerned though, IIRC it's soft as fuck at 300mm.

400€ more though.

 

[diaspora]

400€ more though.

It is, but given the slow speed of the lens (4-5.6) and the long reach, I can't really recommend going without VC imo.

 

[Fox1304]

It is, but given the slow speed of the lens (4-5.6) and the long reach, I can't really recommend going without VC imo.

Ok thank you.
I was looking at it as a "fuck it I don't have a telephoto this one is dirt cheap why not".
I kind of went overboard with the budget already

 

[Bob Dobalina]

Ok thank you.
I was looking at it as a "fuck it I don't have a telephoto this one is dirt cheap why not".
I kind of went overboard with the budget already

The 55-250 non STM is probably one of the best bang for the buck telephoto lenses you can get for a Canon dslr. I would strongly suggest you go with one of those, used ones typically go for $100-125 USD, hopefully not too much more where you live.

The STM version is better but its in the same price range as the 70-300 VC, and I would go with the tamron if I had to choose between those two because the stabilization is rock solid on that thing.

 

[Fox1304]

The 55-250 non STM is probably one of the best bang for the buck telephoto lenses you can get for a Canon dslr. I would strongly suggest you go with one of those, used ones typically go for $100-125 USD, hopefully not too much more where you live.

I had this lens with my previous 550D and found it really dull ... If it's supposedly better than the Tamron guess I'll pass, nearly never used the 55-250.

 

[mrklaw]

Ok thank you.
I was looking at it as a "fuck it I don't have a telephoto this one is dirt cheap why not".
I kind of went overboard with the budget already

The first good zoom you hit on canon IMO is the 70-300IS. Worth saving up for. In the meantime, why not have a play for $75? It'll help you understand if you like shooting with a long zoom and whether to invest in better glass later on.

 

[Fox1304]

The first good zoom you hit on canon IMO is the 70-300IS. Worth saving up for. In the meantime, why not have a play for $75? It'll help you understand if you like shooting with a long zoom and whether to invest in better glass later on.

I think I'll save those 75€ and put them in one of the two objectives I really want ( 40mm f/2.8 STM and Canon 10-22mm STM ), since I'm more of a portrait/wide angle shooter than zoom one.

 

[mrklaw]

Guys a bit of advice needed

I'm after an entry level slr that will do semi decent video.

Is a Canon 700d (rebel t5i) a decent choice?

I think I'm nearly decided on it then just have to decide to pay full price for peace of mind (£550 locally) or settle for a grey import (£400 online)

any particular reason going for the 700d over something cheaper like the 1200d? I think they both have continuous AF when shooting video - the 700d has an articulating screen which might be useful though.

fyi - canon have a £20 cashback on the 1200d and £30 off the 100d at the moment, and currys have the 1200d with 18-55 + 75-300 for £419 (so £399 after cashback).

although for video you may prefer the STM lens if you'll be using AF with it.

 

[345triangle]

just my two cents, but i think telephoto zooms are the kind of thing people often think are more important than they actually are — especially if they start at like 55mm. obviously there are specific use cases where you need one, but the focal length is pretty inconvenient for the vast majority of casual photography unless you're going on safari or something.

i find that well over 90% of the photos i want to take are under 85mm-equivalent, which means i'd never want to use a 55-200-type lens as a walkaround.

but if you're currently using a superzoom, i dunno, maybe it's the kind of thing you can't live without once used to it. for that kind of shooter, though, i'd think something like a sony RX10 or the similar new panasonic would make more sense as a step-up than any interchangeable lens camera.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

any particular reason going for the 700d over something cheaper like the 1200d? I think they both have continuous AF when shooting video - the 700d has an articulating screen which might be useful though.

fyi - canon have a £20 cashback on the 1200d and £30 off the 100d at the moment, and currys have the 1200d with 18-55 + 75-300 for £419 (so £399 after cashback).

although for video you may prefer the STM lens if you'll be using AF with it.

I fancied the articulated screen and being a bit thick I just liked the look of the 700 after reading reviews etc

 

[Fox1304]

just my two cents, but i think telephoto zooms are the kind of thing people often think are more important than they actually are — especially if they start at like 55mm. obviously there are specific use cases where you need one, but the focal length is pretty inconvenient for the vast majority of casual photography unless you're going on safari or something.

i find that well over 90% of the photos i want to take are under 85mm-equivalent, which means i'd never want to use a 55-200-type lens as a walkaround.

but if you're currently using a superzoom, i dunno, maybe it's the kind of thing you can't live without once used to it. for that kind of shooter, though, i'd think something like a sony RX10 or the similar new panasonic would make more sense as a step-up than any interchangeable lens camera.

Yep, had a 55-250 and kind of never used it. The only fact that I even looked at the Tamron was the ridiculously low price.

I already have the 18-135 STM and I think it'll be far enough to reach most of the things. And if not, I still have a lot of crop possibilities to get what I want.

 

[RuGalz]

Idk, I used to not used my 55-300 that much because I always thought it's too long but when I start to get into capturing the detail and think more about 3D spacial compression, it gets used a heck lot more. And if your lens' minimum focus is short enough, you can get some nice shallow DOF without needing large aperture. It's very easy to pick a lens simply based on how wide it can cover but there are more ways to use it. Yea, wider lenses are still easier to use especially for casual stuff but most of the time I don't think I can leave the long end behind.

 

[Fox1304]

Idk, I used to not used my 55-300 that much because I always thought it's too long but when I start to get into capturing the detail and think more about 3D spacial compression, it gets used a heck lot more. And if your lens' minimum focus is short enough, you can get some nice shallow DOF without needing large aperture. It's very easy to pick a lens simply based on how wide it can cover but there are more ways to use it. Yea, wider lenses are still easier to use especially for casual stuff but most of the time I don't think I can leave the long end behind.

I think it really depends on how and what you shoot. All lenses have their own utility and strengths, that's for sure. I'll get one when I'll have more time to "learn" it, and more budget to get a better lens to avoid frustrations. ( that's if I don't have an impulse in the next hours )

 

[killertofu]

Anyone still shoot on a film camera?

I want to get into it but don't know where to start. AE-1?

 

[phisheep]

The 55-250 non STM is probably one of the best bang for the buck telephoto lenses you can get for a Canon dslr. I would strongly suggest you go with one of those, used ones typically go for $100-125 USD, hopefully not too much more where you live.

I have that lens. It's really useful for shooting street stuff from the top of a double-decker bus, and for air shows, landscapes, zoos and so on. A bit too short to get a decent shot of the moon though.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Anyone still shoot on a film camera?

I want to get into it but don't know where to start. AE-1?

I like the old nikon bodies since most of my lenses are compatible. It's pretty hard to go wrong, you can get an old film body for pennies these days. The hardest part is finding reliable processing.

 

[CrashPrime]

So I own a Panasonic G5 which is a generation old MFT. Got it for a killer deal awhile back on Amazon, and I thought it would be a fantastic way to get into shooting still work.

It came with a kit lens which is 14-42mm f3.5 - 5.6. Great "walk around" starter lens.

I have found myself being more and more interested in portrait work, but I don't make money on my photos so I can't justify $350 for a Olympus 45mm f1.8 which is like the only logical portrait lens intended for the MFT system. Not to mention it stings knowing I won't get IS with it.

Panasonic has jack all for this focal length. You're in for $900 for something from Panny. Sigma has a couple 30mm and 60mm f2.8's for about $200 but again no IS, and we're back to f2.8.

...But I wanted that nice creamy bokeh that is so popular with portrait work, so I went another route and picked up a Canon FD 50mm f1.4 ssc and a cheap Fotasy brand FD -> m43 adapter. Grand total was closer to $75.

I ended up collecting a FD 70-210 f4 and a 35-105 f3.5 randomly as well for next to nothing just to experiment with.

Soooo, I lose out on auto focus with these guys.

I am not very good at manual focus, but I am practicing. Is this a fools errand? At this point I am strongly considering just ditching the whole package due to the fact that a T3i with a similar kit lens + the 50mm f1.8 can be had for about the same cost as the G5 + Olympus 45mm ... but it gets me into a much more "sane" lens selection.

I guess every turn I take looking for lenses for the MFT system is just disheartening. Everything is so expensive, and the stuff that's really expensive isn't the same build quality as the Canon stuff at similar prices.

Also, the quality of these 20+ years old FD lenses is no joke. These are cheap cheap pieces of glass but they are built like tanks. They don't make 'em like they used to it seems.

Why aren't there good budget primes for MFT systems?????

</blog>

 

[RuGalz]

Depends on if you went for MFT originally was because of size/weight or not. If you did, then it makes no sense to go back to regular DSLR despite the cost. I'm sure the Oly 45mm is much better built than the cheap Canon 50mm too. If none of that matters then I guess you can get rid of the kit. But then again Canon hasn't update the sensor for several years already, so performance wise it might be a wash. And you are going to have to do manual focus adjustment with shallow DOF anyway so you aren't making any difference there. Cannikon's entry level OVF are pretty awful for MF so I don't think you gain anything there either. Lastly, even watching the pros, they often don't shoot their portrait wide open since you really want both eyes to be in focus. Do you really *need* f1.x lens at that point? Not really for DOF. It's more for the fact that f1.x lens stopped down will be sharper than f2.x lens wide open.

 

[diaspora]

Depends on if you went for MFT originally was because of size/weight or not. If you did, then it makes no sense to go back to regular DSLR despite the cost. I'm sure the Oly 45mm is much better built than the cheap Canon 50mm too. If none of that matters then I guess you can get rid of the kit. But then again Canon hasn't update the sensor for several years already, so performance wise it might be a wash. And you are going to have to do manual focus adjustment with shallow DOF anyway so you aren't making any difference there. Cannikon's entry level OVF are pretty awful for MF so I don't think you gain anything there either. Lastly, even watching the pros, they often don't shoot their portrait wide open since you really want both eyes to be in focus. Do you really *need* f1.x lens at that point? Not really for DOF. It's more for the fact that f1.x lens stopped down will be sharper than f2.x lens wide open.

If you're doing portraiture, you'd be using a 135 f2 or an 85 f1.2, which gives you the ability to stop down if you need to if you're not getting both eyes in focus but isn't really necessary since Canon DSLRs have focus peaking and zoom focus anyway for MF. Not to mention that sensor performance over the past few years is a pointless metric for someone looking for a better lens ecosystem.

I am not very good at manual focus, but I am practicing. Is this a fools errand? At this point I am strongly considering just ditching the whole package due to the fact that a T3i with a similar kit lens + the 50mm f1.8 can be had for about the same cost as the G5 + Olympus 45mm ... but it gets me into a much more "sane" lens selection.

I guess every turn I take looking for lenses for the MFT system is just disheartening. Everything is so expensive, and the stuff that's really expensive isn't the same build quality as the Canon stuff at similar prices.

Also, the quality of these 20+ years old FD lenses is no joke. These are cheap cheap pieces of glass but they are built like tanks. They don't make 'em like they used to it seems.

Why aren't there good budget primes for MFT systems?????

</blog>

magiclantern.fm

 

[RuGalz]

If you're doing portraiture, you'd be using a 135 f2 or an 85 f1.2, which gives you the ability to stop down if you need to if you're not getting both eyes in focus but isn't really necessary since Canon DSLRs have focus peaking and zoom focus anyway for MF. Not to mention that sensor performance over the past few years is a pointless metric for someone looking for a better lens ecosystem.

It's one or two lenses you need, not a whole ecosystem. Taking photos in live view also sucks on DSLR especially if we are talking about non-static portraiture; that OVF just sucks period. Pros and cons either way.

 

[diaspora]

It's one or two lenses you need, not a whole ecosystem. Taking photos in live view also sucks on DSLR especially if we are talking about non-static portraiture; that OVF just sucks period. Pros and cons either way.

What? Live view on the T3i is great, especially with peaking, magic zoom, and trap focus. OVF is an option option and regardless of whether or not you personally like it, at least the option is there.

 

[RuGalz]

Lag from using live view is crap for anything non static. It's not really an improvement to someone who already have a G5 and I'd easily put G5's EVF above T3i's OVF. Lack of focus peaking isn't really the end of the world. I have it on all of my cameras but it's even better to just get better at MFing first instead of relying solely on that feature.
And again, if size/weight was the reason to go MFT, it makes zero sense to go big and not gaining anything substantial when that system is perfectly capable.

 

[diaspora]

Lag from using live view is crap for anything non static. It's not really an improvement to someone who already have a G5 and I'd easily put G5's EVF above T3i's OVF. Lack of focus peaking isn't really the end of the world. I have it on all of my cameras but it's even better to just get better at MFing first instead of relying solely on that feature.
And again, if size/weight was the reason to go MFT, it makes zero sense to go big and not gaining anything substantial when that system is perfectly capable.

Lag from EVFs are pretty egregious on their own, especially in lower light. While my main EVF experience has been with the A7r, I'd honestly take the unremarkable T3i OVF over it. edit: Key contention in the first place seems to be AF lens selection, in which case the T3i would be the better choice IMO, adapters or not.

 

[RuGalz]

Lag from EVF hardly comparable with lag in Live View - you have even slower AF and additional shutter lag with live view. A good lens lasts indefinitely where as with cheap ass lenses you just end up wanting to upgrade later anyway. Besides, it's not like he gains stabilization going with T3i + cheap 85mm or 50mm. Either way i don't really care to argue whether T3i or G5 is a better camera at tech level, but the OP needs to evaluate if changing system makes sense. If the extra bulk is going to stop one from carrying a camera then don't change, it's pretty simple to me.

 

[TxdoHawk]

So I want to potentially buy a used Fujifilm X100s. The asking price is suspiciously low, so I suspect it might either be a stolen camera or a grey market camera.

After doing my research, I see that I want to make sure the camera:
1. Has the serial number sticker intact.
2. Is an A series serial number for the American market.

My questions are this:

1. I see there are services to try and track down a stolen camera with EXIF data collected from photos posted online. Is there an easy way to check an internal/external serial number and see if it has been reported stolen to these services?

2. If someone comes after me because I publish photos to Flickr and one of these sites determines the camera I bought is theirs, am I legally obligated to return the camera to them with no compensation? It's not that I want to be a thieving jerk, I just don't want to drop $$$ on a camera only to have to give it away (the camera is aggressively priced, but not so aggressively priced that I'd expect the theoretical original owner would pay me what I paid the seller.)