Support NeoGAF

[yayaba]

The lens matter more than the bodies imo. Think about how you want to shoot. Street photography? Landscape shots? Low light? Nice bokeh?

If you are planning on doing street, nighttime, low light, want bokeh, you'll want a good fast prime.

If you are doing daytime landscape shots the lens being fast won't matter as much but see if the lens system has good wide angle lenses.

Or if you plan on taking a lot of animal shots or need to zoom look at how well the telephoto lenses are, if the aperture ranges are acceptable and how varied the focal lengths are.

I've made my opinions pretty clear about the Fuji system and their fast primes and great selection of wide angle lenses

 

[HOMEBOY OVER HERE]

what's the best camera out there these days for video and under $1800?

I'm into nikon, but is that new fuji pro system good for video?

 

[HOMEBOY OVER HERE]

The lens matter more than the bodies imo. Think about how you want to shoot. Street photography? Landscape shots? Low light? Nice bokeh?

If you are planning on doing street, nighttime, low light, want bokeh, you'll want a good fast prime.

If you are doing daytime landscape shots the lens being fast won't matter as much but see if the lens system has good wide angle lenses.

Or if you plan on taking a lot of animal shots or need to zoom look at how well the telephoto lenses are, if the aperture ranges are acceptable and how varied the focal lengths are.

I've made my opinions pretty clear about the Fuji system and their fast primes and great selection of wide angle lenses

I think both are in a sense. Like if you want something for street work or kinda candid then the body is equally as important.. Wouldn't carry around like a nikon d3 for that. I feel like these days with digital the body is equally as important as the lens if not more. Like all I need is two primes, a 50mm and a 35mm/28mm, min aperture doesn't matter but prefer nothing higher than a 2.8 and then comes the body

 

[NoRéN]

Really leaning toward fujifilm.

A couple of things hopefully you all can help me understand better:

- x-trans vs cmos: which is actually better? Or what are the differences that I shouldbe focusing on, if any?

- MP: how much should I be focusing on this? How much real world significance is there between, say, the x-m1's 16mp vs the Sony a6000's 20mp?

 

[HOMEBOY OVER HERE]

Really leaning toward fujifilm.

A couple of things hopefully you all can help me understand better:

- x-trans vs cmos: which is actually better? Or what are the differences that I shouldbe focusing on, if any?

- MP: how much should I be focusing on this? How much real world significance is there between, say, the x-m1's 16mp vs the Sony a6000's 20mp?

well the full frame sensor will usually mean more expensive and heavier but the picture quality will have more detail when blown up.

I don't really see any point in getting a full frame digital camera unless you plan to have prints larger than 8x12 made or are doing like high quality video work.

if your photos are only going to be viewed on a screen then make the choice for your system based on the experience the camera offers (size, weight, controls, etc.)

the spec of the sensor is irrelevant.

fuji digital are great and imo the all around best digital cameras being made these days. I have an x100s and it's the only digital camera I have. fuji digitals are best for if you want a camera that takes amazing photos and is just easy to use with offering every possible advance control you need in a simple package.

 

[DBT85]

Gray market.

No US warranty. Nikon USA probably won't touch it for repairs, even if you offer to pay.

FWIW Nikon UK at least are repairing any D750 with the flare issue regardless of where you got it.

 

[reggieandTFE]

what's the best camera out there these days for video and under $1800?

I'm into nikon, but is that new fuji pro system good for video?

Panasonic GH4 is your current best bang for the buck on video. Fuji kind of sucks. Hell, the new Samsung is better at video than the Xtrans offerings.

 

[RuGalz]

Really leaning toward fujifilm.

A couple of things hopefully you all can help me understand better:

- x-trans vs cmos: which is actually better? Or what are the differences that I shouldbe focusing on, if any?

- MP: how much should I be focusing on this? How much real world significance is there between, say, the x-m1's 16mp vs the Sony a6000's 20mp?

Between your choices, the sensor performance aren't that big of difference (the differences would be in the jpeg engine). However, if you tend to shoot more moving objects, I would pick a6000 or wait for xm2 or go higher end Fuji.

 

[sechsterangriff]

Really leaning toward fujifilm.

A couple of things hopefully you all can help me understand better:

- x-trans vs cmos: which is actually better? Or what are the differences that I shouldbe focusing on, if any?

- MP: how much should I be focusing on this? How much real world significance is there between, say, the x-m1's 16mp vs the Sony a6000's 20mp?

On APS-C sensor performance isn't that much different between both. However if you don't mind shooting JPEG ( as opposed to raw ) Fuji has the better engine.

Sony a6000 is actually 24mp. The difference is that more resolution allows for more detail (provided you have the lenses to take advantage of it).

 

[Radec]

I don't really see any point in getting a full frame digital camera unless you plan to have prints larger than 8x12 made or are doing like high quality video work.

Full Frame isn't just about larger prints or video.

m4/3 and apc can even beat full frame in video. (See Panny GH4).

High end apcs cameras nowadays are almost nearing the picture quality of FF cameras. But FF still trumps it on ISO sensitivity, DR, resolution, and focal length effectiveness.

 

[Sec0nd]

Full Frame isn't just about larger prints or video.

m4/3 and apc can even beat full frame in video. (See Panny GH4).

High end apcs cameras nowadays are almost nearing the picture quality of FF cameras. But FF still trumps it on ISO sensitivity, DR, resolution, and focal length effectiveness.

Not to mention the glorious and easy bokeh.

 

[DBT85]

Full Frame isn't just about larger prints or video.

m4/3 and apc can even beat full frame in video. (See Panny GH4).

High end apcs cameras nowadays are almost nearing the picture quality of FF cameras. But FF still trumps it on ISO sensitivity, DR, resolution, and focal length effectiveness.

But ISO, DR, Rresolution and focal length effectiveness are picture quality.

 

[Radec]

But ISO, DR, Rresolution and focal length effectiveness are picture quality.

yes, I worded that one awfully.

 

[DBT85]

 

[FStop7]

FWIW Nikon UK at least are repairing any D750 with the flare issue regardless of where you got it.

I think the consumer protection laws in Europe help w/ this... in the USA, they simply will not work on gray market cameras or lenses.

 

[NoRéN]

On APS-C sensor performance isn't that much different between both. However if you don't mind shooting JPEG ( as opposed to raw ) Fuji has the better engine.

Sony a6000 is actually 24mp. The difference is that more resolution allows for more detail (provided you have the lenses to take advantage of it).

you are correct. I was thinking of the other camera I'm considering, the Samsung NX300.

Man, this is really not getting any easier. I don't plan on having these pictures printed at large sizes so I suppose the 16mp sensor on the fujifilm will not be much of a deal.

Just noticed the amazon pages for the Fujifilm and Sony have infor. from a DPReview: good source I assume?

 

[RuGalz]

Dpreview isn't bad for basic info but Amazon owns them now. As much as they like to deny it, they tend to be less critical with popular products.

 

[DBT85]

I think the consumer protection laws in Europe help w/ this... in the USA, they simply will not work on gray market cameras or lenses.

No I don't think the consumer protection stuff has anything to do with it, just Nikon not wanting the bad press.

Not after the D600 mess.

 

[hitsugi]

Dpreview isn't bad for basic info but Amazon owns them now. As much as they like to deny it, they tend to be less critical with popular products.

I've been using dpreview forever but didn't notice they were owned by Amazon. What's a good alternative?

 

[RuGalz]

I've been using dpreview forever but didn't notice they were owned by Amazon. What's a good alternative?

I generally like Imaging Resource especially when they have "Shooter's Report". For new cameras they are reviewing, they'd update the reviews as they shoot which may take a while before the conclusion page is posted. It's great if you are already interested in particular cameras. (I'm not a fan of the creepy doll test scene however.)

 

[NoRéN]

I generally like Imaging Resource especially when they have "Shooter's Report". For new cameras they are reviewing, they'd update the reviews as they shoot which may take a while before the conclusion page is posted. It's great if you are already interested in particular cameras. (I'm not a fan of the creepy doll test scene however.)

Thank you for the link.

Wow, this site is helpful!

 

[leng jai]

Apparently the E-M1 is getting a new firmware tomorrow which adds 9FPS C-AF. Seems like a pretty big deal.

 

[tr4656]

you are correct. I was thinking of the other camera I'm considering, the Samsung NX300.

Man, this is really not getting any easier. I don't plan on having these pictures printed at large sizes so I suppose the 16mp sensor on the fujifilm will not be much of a deal.

Just noticed the amazon pages for the Fujifilm and Sony have infor. from a DPReview: good source I assume?

Yeah, it's a pretty good source. Does the Samsung have good lenses?

 

[HOMEBOY OVER HERE]

Full Frame isn't just about larger prints or video.

m4/3 and apc can even beat full frame in video. (See Panny GH4).

High end apcs cameras nowadays are almost nearing the picture quality of FF cameras. But FF still trumps it on ISO sensitivity, DR, resolution, and focal length effectiveness.

yeah but once all is said and done does slightly more ISO even matter? I can think of few to none photos even worth taking in light that requires like an iso beyond 3200. especially with post production and a lens with 1.8 aperture and if said owner will be exhibiting 95% of their photos on like faebook and flickr I see no reason why someone would ever need a FF digital camera if they weren't making prints of their work. which ff is amazing for cause you can make HUGE and super detailed prints from that d800 sensor.

 

[NoRéN]

Yeah, it's a pretty good source. Does the Samsung have good lenses?

Yeah but nothing that the sony or fujifilm wouldn't be able to provide I think.

I've actually eliminated it from my choices and have decided on Sony A6000 or Fujifilm X-M1. Although, I'm also very tempted by the X-A2. It comes with an updated 16-50mm lense and it would be nice to have something new to the market. It's an updated version of the X-A1 and that seems to have great reviews as well.

But, as always, if anyone wants to convinve me to skip the X-A2 for the X-M1 I'm all ears.

 

[yayaba]

Yeah but nothing that the sony or fujifilm wouldn't be able to provide I think.

I've actually eliminated it from my choices and have decided on Sony A6000 or Fujifilm X-M1. Although, I'm also very tempted by the X-A2. It comes with an updated 16-50mm lense and it would be nice to have something new to the market. It's an updated version of the X-A1 and that seems to have great reviews as well.

But, as always, if anyone wants to convinve me to skip the X-A2 for the X-M1 I'm all ears.

FYI the lenses that come with the X-A1/2 and X-M1 are the XC series 16-50 f3.5-f5.6 as opposed to the XF 18-55 f2.8-f4. That's 2/3rd stop slower at the low end and 1 stop slower at the high end. XC is the lower quality option out of their lenses though to be fair for Fuji I don't think "lower quality" means that much.

To be fair I haven't used an XC class lens yet. I bought my X-M1 just the body without the XC lens since I knew I wanted to go for some XF lenses since the aperture ranges were more for my liking.

Having extra aperture stops never hurts. Allows you to do more bokeh or shoot in lower light without having to slow down your shutter speed or crank up the ISO.

 

[yayaba]

Also reading back I'm definitely biased towards Fuji and I've never owned a Sony system so get some opinions on that and the E-mount series of lenses also before you make your choice

Before I went Fuji I went with this E-mount guide as my holy book for whenever I decided to buy a Sony: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/first-sony-e-mount-lenses-to-buy/

This is also a good general article: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-affordable-mirrorless-camera/

They recommend the NEX-5T for price reasons. They do mention Fuji but say the lenses are pretty pricey which is true to a certain extent. But I find that the Sony lenses while cheaper don't have the same quality for focal length that I desire.

 

[tr4656]

Yeah but nothing that the sony or fujifilm wouldn't be able to provide I think.

I've actually eliminated it from my choices and have decided on Sony A6000 or Fujifilm X-M1. Although, I'm also very tempted by the X-A2. It comes with an updated 16-50mm lense and it would be nice to have something new to the market. It's an updated version of the X-A1 and that seems to have great reviews as well.

But, as always, if anyone wants to convinve me to skip the X-A2 for the X-M1 I'm all ears.

A2 should be fine if you don't shoot in JPG. The lens are XC instead XF as said above but they are still decent quality.

FYI the lenses that come with the X-A1/2 and X-M1 are the XC series 16-50 f3.5-f5.6 as opposed to the XF 18-55 f2.8-f4. That's 2/3rd stop slower at the low end and 1 stop slower at the high end. XC is the lower quality option out of their lenses though to be fair for Fuji I don't think "lower quality" means that much.

To be fair I haven't used an XC class lens yet. I bought my X-M1 just the body without the XC lens since I knew I wanted to go for some XF lenses since the aperture ranges were more for my liking.

Having extra aperture stops never hurts. Allows you to do more bokeh or shoot in lower light without having to slow down your shutter speed or crank up the ISO.

XC is lower quality in that it is more plastic.

Also reading back I'm definitely biased towards Fuji and I've never owned a Sony system so get some opinions on that and the E-mount series of lenses also before you make your choice

Before I went Fuji I went with this E-mount guide as my holy book for whenever I decided to buy a Sony: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/first-sony-e-mount-lenses-to-buy/

This is also a good general article: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-affordable-mirrorless-camera/

They recommend the NEX-5T for price reasons. They do mention Fuji but say the lenses are pretty pricey which is true to a certain extent. But I find that the Sony lenses while cheaper don't have the same quality for focal length that I desire.

I'm biased towards Fuji too but honestly, the Sony lenses other than a couple aren't great so you would only be left with expensive Zeiss lenses.

 

[NoRéN]

Plastic? Ok, the x-a fujifilm cameras are out.

Thank you for mentioning lenses. How do I determine what lenses are compatible with the camera I choose? Something in the name?

 

[yayaba]

Fuji is X mount: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm_X-mount

Sony is E mount. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_E-mount

I don't believe there is an adapter between the two.

 

[yayaba]

Plastic? Ok, the x-a fujifilm cameras are out.

Thank you for mentioning lenses. How do I determine what lenses are compatible with the camera I choose? Something in the name?

The XC lens is plastic but you can mount any X mount lens onto the A-2. It doesn't mean that the A-2 can only mount plastic or XC lenses. If you want a higher quality lens and the A-2 you could just buy the body plus kit lens and sell the XC lens on eBay.

I mentioned it originally because I wanted to point out which lens would come with the body. Fuji's higher-quality mirror less cameras come with the XF lens as part of the bundle when you purchase (like the XE2 or XT1).

The XF 18-135 zoom lens I have is mostly plastic and I don't mind. Keeps the weight down. The feel isn't as nice as the metal prime lens but it doesn't bother me especially considering the size of the zoom lens.

 

[RuGalz]

Plastic? Ok, the x-a fujifilm cameras are out.

Majority of modern lenses are mostly plastic. Mirrorless camera, with such small body, you don't really want too much weight in the front anyway it's awkward to carry imo.

 

[DBT85]

Plastic? Ok, the x-a fujifilm cameras are out.

Thank you for mentioning lenses. How do I determine what lenses are compatible with the camera I choose? Something in the name?

3 of my 5 lenses are plastic bodies and those are for full frame and fast aperture. The only two that aren't are over £1300 each. Nothing wrong with plastic.

 

[Aurongel]

Numerous lens/camera durability tests have concluded that quality plastic is often superior to cheap metals in both durability and ergonomics. I like my metal prime lenses as much as the next guy but the value of the materials used in their construction is often overstated.

 

[hitsugi]

Also reading back I'm definitely biased towards Fuji and I've never owned a Sony system so get some opinions on that and the E-mount series of lenses also before you make your choice

Before I went Fuji I went with this E-mount guide as my holy book for whenever I decided to buy a Sony: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/first-sony-e-mount-lenses-to-buy/

This is also a good general article: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-affordable-mirrorless-camera/

They recommend the NEX-5T for price reasons. They do mention Fuji but say the lenses are pretty pricey which is true to a certain extent. But I find that the Sony lenses while cheaper don't have the same quality for focal length that I desire.

Really with all of the discussion on E-Mount lenses you would think Sony would step it up a LITTLE BIT. Looking at it, though.. tr4656 hit it on the head:

Sony has the 35mm 1.8 for $400-ish and the 50mm 1.8 for $200-ish... that isn't really all that bad.. It's not 1.4... but still. Now if you want to get a 24mm (or anything under 1.8) you're completely screwed and paying around $1k unless you go for Voigtlander lenses which are all manual and require an adapter.................

 

[DBT85]

Insane to me that they can get way with such high prices for 35mm and 50mm 1.8s.

 

[alterno69]

Insane to me that they can get way with such high prices for 35mm and 50mm 1.8s.

Main reason i'm not getting a mirrorless soon, i don't want to deal with adapters or manual lenses.

I just want a good and not too expensive small mirrorless camera with a 35mm 1.4 equivalent for less than 1k.

 

[yayaba]

Main reason i'm not getting a mirrorless soon, i don't want to deal with adapters or manual lenses.

I just want a good and not too expensive small mirrorless camera with a 35mm 1.4 equivalent for less than 1k.

One of the entry level Fuji bodies + the 23mm 1.4 would be around $1k.

 

[Astral/H3X]

Speaking of Sony lenses, I'm looking for an old 30 or 35mm prime that I can adapt to E mount. I'm not paying $200 for AF, so if anyone has any specific suggestions that I can get for not too much, that'd be great.

 

[RuGalz]

I'm waiting for Sony to put IBIS in lower end model, then a wide 2.8 will be all I need instead of paying an arm and a leg for a wide 1.8 or 1.4.
My XM-1 with 27mm 2.8 would be a perfectly, inexpensive, casual camera if only it had IBIS.

 

[Groof]

Honestly, manual lenses aren't that bad. Sure you lose out on convenience, but you can get quality for so much cheaper.

I know I sound like a broken record here, but the FD 50/1.4 works so well with the Sony NEX APS-C sensor. It's sharp, it's clean and it gives amazing bokeh when needed. Only issue is that 50mm on that sensor is what, 85mm? So it's quite a narrow shot, but it can make for great composition.
And this one I got for free because it was my dad's old lens. The adapter I bought wasn't even that expensive either at around £25, and it's sturdy and made out of metal.

Really, if I could find a decent ~35mm FD lens I'd jump on that and then just upgrade the body. Manual lenses are great.

 

[NoRéN]

Majority of modern lenses are mostly plastic. Mirrorless camera, with such small body, you don't really want too much weight in the front anyway it's awkward to carry imo.

Good point.

3 of my 5 lenses are plastic bodies and those are for full frame and fast aperture. The only two that aren't are over £1300 each. Nothing wrong with plastic.

Just noticed that the X-M1 also comes with a XC lense so doesn't really matter in the end.

Thank you for pointing out the whole lense thing and which ones i would be needing.

Thanks for the wiki links, yayaba. Really helped to point out what lenses would provide what.

 

[yayaba]

One thing I forgot to mention is the entry level Fuji models do not have a viewfinder of any sort. The a6000 does though. That's probably my biggest wish that I had.

 

[NoRéN]

One thing I forgot to mention is the entry level Fuji models do not have a viewfinder of any sort. The a6000 does though. That's probably my biggest wish that I had.

That I did notice that. So I would just see the preview on the screen then, right? That's why i keep going back and forth with these man. Each has it's drawbacks and positives.

 

[Astral/H3X]

Honestly, manual lenses aren't that bad. Sure you lose out on convenience, but you can get quality for so much cheaper.

I know I sound like a broken record here, but the FD 50/1.4 works so well with the Sony NEX APS-C sensor. It's sharp, it's clean and it gives amazing bokeh when needed. Only issue is that 50mm on that sensor is what, 85mm? So it's quite a narrow shot, but it can make for great composition.
And this one I got for free because it was my dad's old lens. The adapter I bought wasn't even that expensive either at around £25, and it's sturdy and made out of metal.

Really, if I could find a decent ~35mm FD lens I'd jump on that and then just upgrade the body. Manual lenses are great.

Yeah, if I could find a good 1.8 35mm I'd LOVE it for my a6000. I've already got the fd adapter and everything!

 

[tr4656]

Honestly, manual lenses aren't that bad. Sure you lose out on convenience, but you can get quality for so much cheaper.

I know I sound like a broken record here, but the FD 50/1.4 works so well with the Sony NEX APS-C sensor. It's sharp, it's clean and it gives amazing bokeh when needed. Only issue is that 50mm on that sensor is what, 85mm? So it's quite a narrow shot, but it can make for great composition.
And this one I got for free because it was my dad's old lens. The adapter I bought wasn't even that expensive either at around £25, and it's sturdy and made out of metal.

Really, if I could find a decent ~35mm FD lens I'd jump on that and then just upgrade the body. Manual lenses are great.

Totally agree. If I was on Panasonic/Olympus, I would buy the Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95 in a heartbeat. It's so much cheaper than the Leica alternative with autofocusing with still a very high quality lens.

That I did notice that. So I would just see the preview on the screen then, right? That's why i keep going back and forth with these man. Each has it's drawbacks and positives.

Yes. Screen rather than through an viewfinder.

 

[Astral/H3X]

So, I'm a little torn.

On one hand, I could save up for the official Sony 35mm (which it seems has a really nice aperture and macro), but I'm wondering this: Can cropping more or less replace having a variance in men's focal lengths?

What I mean is, if I took a photo with a 50mm, and then took a photo with a 35mm, and cropped the 35mm, could I end up with two nearly identical photos? I know that the 50mm would end up having better detail resolution when zoomed up close, but if I'm mainly taking 1920x1080 masters, then is there any particular advantage to having both? Or can cropping + a 35mm take care of 90% of my needs, short of telephoto?

 

[lastflowers]

Hi all, my Panasonic gm1k was stolen recently. I'm looking to replace it with a similar sized camera. I'm not skilled, and will only buy a device of similar size...because honestly I'm never going to use a camera that is big. I only use my camera on vacations (2-3x a year), and will put it in a jacket pocket when not in use.

Does anyone have any suggestions?

 

[NoRéN]

Thanks for all the help, everyone. I'm going out again today to get my hands on my final choices: Fujifilm X-A1(would get the X-A2), X-M1, and Sony A6000. I've decided that I would be happy with these choices and want to see which feels the best for me(size, weight, etc).

 

[RuGalz]

What I mean is, if I took a photo with a 50mm, and then took a photo with a 35mm, and cropped the 35mm, could I end up with two nearly identical photos? I know that the 50mm would end up having better detail resolution when zoomed up close, but if I'm mainly taking 1920x1080 masters, then is there any particular advantage to having both? Or can cropping + a 35mm take care of 90% of my needs, short of telephoto?

With 24MP and only needing 1920x1080 result that's totally fine assuming the 35mm is a decent lens.