-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Official Camera Equipment Megathread
- Thread starter demon
- Start date
- Status
Panny GH4?
Hmmm, doesn´t the 96fps mode set the shutter automatically to 1/200? Wouldn´t be optimal for what I want to do.
I have a choice between that and the 18-135, it seems.
Do you want to freeze the action with stills or take slow mo video with a longer shutter speed?
I was just messing with the gh4 96fps mode... Kind of shit really.
Sadly I don't think there is an affordable camera to do really good high speed stuff.
Edit: do you want stills or video? I think for video you are kinda SOL unless you are at a university that has a real high speed camera. For stills you just need to use a flash to freeze the action.
Sadly I don't think there is an affordable camera to do really good high speed stuff.
Edit: do you want stills or video? I think for video you are kinda SOL unless you are at a university that has a real high speed camera. For stills you just need to use a flash to freeze the action.
TerryLee81
Member
D800 body 11 months old for $850, good offer or not? I'm tempted...
Edit: Forget it. The seller said he moved to another country now but would pay for shipping. Yeaaah no, probably a scam.
Edit: Forget it. The seller said he moved to another country now but would pay for shipping. Yeaaah no, probably a scam.
Has anyone noticed a recent trend of extreme film snobbery, to the point of being overtly hostile toward digital shooters?
I will preface by saying that I like film. I think film is cool. I'm very glad that film's currently undergoing a bit of a renaissance. I want a film body as a backup for my digital and for specific purposes.
But the people who are taking it to the point of militancy are absolutely insufferable. Maybe it's just the people I'm following on Twitter and not a wider issue, but I've encountered it elsewhere, too.
The other day someone I follow on Twitter, a very good photographer who seemed to also be a very nice guy, posted this really snide and glib tweet "One more reason to #shootfilm - I'm not required to read 3 pages of legalese with my Leica MP or M7."
I replied back that I wasn't presented with any legalese when I purchased a digital Leica and asked for him to please clarify. He proceeded to go off on me, saying he didn't NEED to clarify anything, deleted his original tweet, and then blocked me.
Another example - I took a workshop recently and after the fact I heard one of the instructors say that all digital looks like shit - this was during an interview a few weeks after the workshop was over. Every single person in the workshop was shooting digital. How am I supposed to take this person seriously? First of all, he's objectively wrong. Second of all, how can someone that closed-minded teach anything of value, particularly when he would never openly state such a thing to paying students at a workshop. This isn't some guy, mind you. He's well-known among street photography.
Anyway, I just don't get the snobbery at all. They're cameras, not your children.
I will preface by saying that I like film. I think film is cool. I'm very glad that film's currently undergoing a bit of a renaissance. I want a film body as a backup for my digital and for specific purposes.
But the people who are taking it to the point of militancy are absolutely insufferable. Maybe it's just the people I'm following on Twitter and not a wider issue, but I've encountered it elsewhere, too.
The other day someone I follow on Twitter, a very good photographer who seemed to also be a very nice guy, posted this really snide and glib tweet "One more reason to #shootfilm - I'm not required to read 3 pages of legalese with my Leica MP or M7."
I replied back that I wasn't presented with any legalese when I purchased a digital Leica and asked for him to please clarify. He proceeded to go off on me, saying he didn't NEED to clarify anything, deleted his original tweet, and then blocked me.
Another example - I took a workshop recently and after the fact I heard one of the instructors say that all digital looks like shit - this was during an interview a few weeks after the workshop was over. Every single person in the workshop was shooting digital. How am I supposed to take this person seriously? First of all, he's objectively wrong. Second of all, how can someone that closed-minded teach anything of value, particularly when he would never openly state such a thing to paying students at a workshop. This isn't some guy, mind you. He's well-known among street photography.
Anyway, I just don't get the snobbery at all. They're cameras, not your children.
TerryLee81
Member
Exactly.
Does anyone have a D700? Is it still worth buying one these days? It "only" has 12MP, and the one I'm looking at has a 109k shutter count (it's rated 150k) and would cost $650. Any opinions?
?
For 96fps, the slowest shutter speed possible will be 1/96, and the optimal would be 1/192, or around 1/200, per the traditional 180° shutter angle rule. Slower will introduce more motion blur making the footage look a bit off and soft.
Anyways, the 96fps on the GH4 is pretty good, the footage ends up looking about on par with the regular 1080p on Canon cameras, which means it's a tad soft and has some moire but a decent tradeoff considering the feature. If you shoot at 60fps though it'll be sharper.
In any case it is essentially the cheapest camera that isn't an action cam to provide an FPS that high at 1080p while retaining useable quality.
How much do you shoot because most of my cameras have never reached past 50K shutter count and I'm a casual shooter with heavy usage for infrequent travel.
You can also find used D600's for $200 more if you can spare the extra cash for a newer body.
I've found mirrorless fanboys a touch more obnoxious.
well they have to justify their purchase and make up for their small penis err... sensor confidence issues.
Uninformed much? mirrorless goes up to APSC/FF sensors too...
DSLRs still have a place, optical VFs have a place, and to a point a lot of this is preference and since photography is an art, it's good that we can choose from diverse tools.
Personally I think DSLRs are less appealing if they're not weathersealed and rugged at least, that's why I really like Pentax for more entry level prices!
They're both good, the 18-135 is weather resistant, slower, but has longer reach.
The 18-55 is faster, maybe marginally better IQ? But not weathersealed, it is more compact though.
Which do you want?
I shoulda been specific I meant mostly the M4/3rds fanboys, not that I have anything against M4/3rds I use them but I see plenty of overly defensive comments on those rumor sites and plenty of users antagonizing them over sensor size.
Astral/H3X
Member
Uh, they have the exact same sensors dude. Half the cost for the same sensors in a smaller body is a no brainer for a lot of people. If I was a pro sure I'd get a DSLR, but since I'm not I like the incredible value they have.
EDIT:
Oh, gotcha. I mean, if they like the photos they take with them, I don't see any particular reason to laugh at em for it. As long as they aren't trying to shoot good photos with a little digital pocketcam from their grandma's drawer, I'm cool with that. And hell, maybe even then they are just getting an idea if they want to get a nicer camera. It's all about the photos you make, anyway. Who cares how you made them.
Oh kk that makes more sense xD Yeah M43 is an awesome system, don't know why their fanboys have an issue accepting the relative sensor size of their cameras.
It's physics! Your high ISO perf isn't up there with APSC+, it's still good and getting better though!
I'm even considering m43 as an eventual system to buy into, I love stuff like the EM series. Very rugged/weathersealed, good video on EM 5 MKii and newer, pretty small, and flippy screens etc, Basically the EM5 MKii is one of the most versatile cameras I can think of, it is pricey though, too pricey, and no USB charging!
Well, budget would be up to 10k.
And I want to get good slowmos of hummingbirds, so soft and blurry is not an option.
StopMakingSense
Member
Super scam.
Then whatever you can get from Phantom for $10k (I think Sony do a couple of pro cameras with good high fps performance too). There aren't any consumer level cameras that'll do what you're looking for.
One thing you'll have to keep in mind is that the higher the framerate the less light is being taken in in each frame, so make sure you've got a well lit subject and a bright lens to ensure good quality footage is going to come out the other end.
Well if that's your budget than you might look at something like a Sony FS7, will shoot 4K at 60fps and 1080p at 180fps.
Your earlier post was confusing since you made it sound like 1/200 was a problem, like it was too fast or something, but when you're talking about framerates that high then that is also going to increase your shutter speed and therefore the amount of light you need. For example, at 180fps your shutter speed is going to need to be in the ballpark of 1/360, because a slower shutter speed will introduce too much motion blur in each frame.
They're both good, the 18-135 is weather resistant, slower, but has longer reach.
The 18-55 is faster, maybe marginally better IQ? But not weathersealed, it is more compact though.
Which do you want?
As you may have deduced I'm wishy washying back and forth and talking about it to see if I can gain some gut feeling :b
TerryLee81
Member
Still thinking about that D700 I could get for $600 (shutter count 109k).
A used D600 would be $200-300 more. Hmmm...
A used D600 would be $200-300 more. Hmmm...
TerryLee81
Member
The price of the Sony bodies is very tempting, but I couldn't afford the lenses.
With Nikon (or Canon) you can at least get a cheap 50mm 1.4/1.8 of reasonable quality and a 85mm 1.8.
Forsete
Member
Well I couldn't wait any longer. I will probably kick myself in the ass for not waiting for the A7S II, but today I got the low light monster.
I have no FE-lenses, so I bought the A7 kit lens, 28-70 3.5-5.6 OSS which isnt that bad actually. But I have a bunch of A-glass to play around with as well, since I got the adapter way back with the NEX5.
I haven't really had any low light cameras before, as I always chose higher res because I like to take landscape and mostly macro shots. But interests shift, and right now and for a while to be honest I have been interested in video (not that I will actually edit anything, besides for my personal enjoyment. So you will never see me with a steadicam rig with 10 microphones and a 32" screen attached.)
I have only had a few hours to play around with it, low light video is utterly ridiculous. But everybody already knows that.
Stills in low light are the best I have ever seen based on my own camera usage. I set the max ISO to 51200 for AUTO. Feels nice not having to care anymore. (there will be noise of course, but the noise which is produced looks very very good and to me doesn't annoy).
I have no FE-lenses, so I bought the A7 kit lens, 28-70 3.5-5.6 OSS which isnt that bad actually. But I have a bunch of A-glass to play around with as well, since I got the adapter way back with the NEX5.
I haven't really had any low light cameras before, as I always chose higher res because I like to take landscape and mostly macro shots. But interests shift, and right now and for a while to be honest I have been interested in video (not that I will actually edit anything, besides for my personal enjoyment. So you will never see me with a steadicam rig with 10 microphones and a 32" screen attached.)
I have only had a few hours to play around with it, low light video is utterly ridiculous. But everybody already knows that.
Stills in low light are the best I have ever seen based on my own camera usage. I set the max ISO to 51200 for AUTO. Feels nice not having to care anymore.
(there will be noise of course, but the noise which is produced looks very very good and to me doesn't annoy).
reggieandTFE
Member
I got the LX100 a month ago and I'm loving it. You really can't go wrong with any of those cameras you listed, but in regards to what it has over those cameras:
1) Significantly better video, including 4k
2) True Multi-aspect sensor (16:9 aspect ratio is actually wider than 3:2)
3) 6.5 fps with fantastic continuous AF
TerryLee81
Member
Well I couldn't wait any longer. I will probably kick myself in the ass for not waiting for the A7S II, but today I got the low light monster.
I have no FE-lenses, so I bought the A7 kit lens, 28-70 3.5-5.6 OSS which isnt that bad actually. But I have a bunch of A-glass to play around with as well, since I got the adapter way back with the NEX5.
I haven't really had any low light cameras before, as I always chose higher res because I like to take landscape and mostly macro shots. But interests shift, and right now and for a while to be honest I have been interested in video (not that I will actually edit anything, besides for my personal enjoyment. So you will never see me with a steadicam rig with 10 microphones and a 32" screen attached.)
I have only had a few hours to play around with it, low light video is utterly ridiculous. But everybody already knows that.
Stills in low light are the best I have ever seen based on my own camera usage. I set the max ISO to 51200 for AUTO. Feels nice not having to care anymore.
Very nice camera. Auto ISO 51200 is crazy.
My indecisiveness towards the D700 just came to an end as someone posted an ad on our local online marketplace for a D7100 (basically new, 2 years warranty left) with 35mm 1.8 DX and 50mm 1.8D for $600. I think I got lucky.
Just curious, but why do you want the D7100 over the D700? Backup body for reach?
TerryLee81
Member
I use a X100T, but my gf hates that camera, she says she can't use it. So the plan was to get a cheap DSLR as a second camera.
First I thought I would get a D3200/3300 and tried it out in a store. I didn't like the ergonomics, but really liked the D7100 sitting next to it. And it felt good to have a DSLR in hand after using a X100S/T for so long. So I decided to get a better model than the D3200 and to check the used market. There I stumbled upon the D700 for basically the same price as a D7100. So I actually didn't plan to get a FF camera.
That's the story behind it.
Are there any light quality tripods like this sirui but cheaper or is this it? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BFDETS0/?tag=neogaf0e-20
There's a slight deal for it: http://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/deals/exclusive-cactus-flash-sirui-tripod-coupon.html
OK, did some researching... with what I have in mind, my 10k budget takes me to: three days of rental... :-/
TerryLee81
Member
Did you plan to use it professionally and earn money or just as a hobby?
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
I'm about to leave on a trip to Japan in the next couple of weeks, and realized I really want a better camera than my phone (for this trip, and traveling in general). A few facts that are going into my decision-making process:
1. I'm getting married late this year and we're planning on putting a really nice camera on our registry (more expensive than what I'm willing to spend right now, anyway). It will probably be a DSLR or Mirrorless so we can have the flexibility of interchangeable lenses (and learn more about them -- neither of us knows a ton about photography right now). I'd like the camera I buy for this trip to differentiate itself enough from the one we put on our registry so one doesn't get used 100% of the time while the other sits in a drawer
2. Because this is a camera I'd primarily use for travel, it has to fit in my pocket
3. I'd like it to be somewhat idiot-proof (meaning I can put it on auto until I learn more about and experiment with manual settings, and photos will generally come out looking pretty good)
4. I generally take more photos of scenery, buildings, etc vs people, but I don't want it to suck at photos of people either.
5. Trying to keep the cost at $500 or less
I've been doing some research and have come across a few models I think might be good options (but always interested in hearing alternative suggestions):
- Sony NEX-5T
- Sony RX100
- Sony RX100 M2
The M2 is a outside of my stated price range, but I'm wondering if the Wi-Fi/NFC support (will that work with an iPhone 5S?) and better sensor make it worth it? Also wondering if it has any other advantages over the M1? (ex: better support for an EVF add-on, better software, etc)
Any advice/help is appreciated, thanks.
1. I'm getting married late this year and we're planning on putting a really nice camera on our registry (more expensive than what I'm willing to spend right now, anyway). It will probably be a DSLR or Mirrorless so we can have the flexibility of interchangeable lenses (and learn more about them -- neither of us knows a ton about photography right now). I'd like the camera I buy for this trip to differentiate itself enough from the one we put on our registry so one doesn't get used 100% of the time while the other sits in a drawer
2. Because this is a camera I'd primarily use for travel, it has to fit in my pocket
3. I'd like it to be somewhat idiot-proof (meaning I can put it on auto until I learn more about and experiment with manual settings, and photos will generally come out looking pretty good)
4. I generally take more photos of scenery, buildings, etc vs people, but I don't want it to suck at photos of people either.
5. Trying to keep the cost at $500 or less
I've been doing some research and have come across a few models I think might be good options (but always interested in hearing alternative suggestions):
- Sony NEX-5T
- Sony RX100
- Sony RX100 M2
The M2 is a outside of my stated price range, but I'm wondering if the Wi-Fi/NFC support (will that work with an iPhone 5S?) and better sensor make it worth it? Also wondering if it has any other advantages over the M1? (ex: better support for an EVF add-on, better software, etc)
Any advice/help is appreciated, thanks.
As a hobby, that once in a while earns a buck or two...
I already wrote a book, and I'd love to accompany that with a docu.
RX100M3 is amazing for the size, definitely out of your budget but it is tiny and quite capable. Not sure how the M2 stacks up nowadays, it's probably also good.
Also look at the Panasonic LX7, should be like 350$ nowadays.
Shoot in JPEG + RAW, you will want those RAW files...
Art Teitlebaum
Member
The RX100 MII still is an amazing little device. It lacks the (tiny) viewfinder of the MIII and the upper zoom end only has a max aperture of 4.9, but it gives a little more telezoom as a small compensation. You don't do anything wrong with this as a pocket friendly travel camera imo.
Astral/H3X
Member
O_O Oh man, I'd have loved that.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Thanks for the feedback so far
Is it fairly comparable with the RX100 M1, just cheaper? If not, what are the sacrifices made for the lower price?
Would you say the MII is worth the extra $150 over the MI?
Is it fairly comparable with the RX100 M1, just cheaper? If not, what are the sacrifices made for the lower price?
Would you say the MII is worth the extra $150 over the MI?
Much smaller sensor. 1/1.7'' vs 1''
Usually that means much better low light, but the LX7 lets in more light at longer focal lengths which negates that. Shooting wide the RX100 should be best in low light and at longer focal lengths they should be about equal with an edge to the LX7.
If you want big pictures the LX7 is also just 10MP.
Art Teitlebaum
Member
That's a tough one. High ISO performance is a tad better with M2. Is it worth $150? Depends on your personal taste and how often you shoot in difficult light situations. If you don't need to show your pics at poster size, you probably won't notice the noise too much.
Have a look at Flickr groups with result of the two cameras and decide for yourself, if you want to spend the money.
Some sort of comparison:
Imaging Resource Comparison
- Status