-
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
Astral/H3X
Member
Kimono clad women outside an award winning gay bar. What a time to be alive.
In other news, as a budget photographer, I got a Gorillapod Focus (supposed to actually hold a decent weight, according to reviews), the accompanying Ballhead X, and some stuff to get a correct panoramic panning on it with an L bracket to mount my a6000 on Arca Swiss stuff.
I gotta say, it seems like a lot of stuff to worry about, but the arcs Swiss compatibility with everything makes it easier and quicker than just screwing in the QR plate for the old tripod head. I'm pleased so far, but tests await later.
In other news, as a budget photographer, I got a Gorillapod Focus (supposed to actually hold a decent weight, according to reviews), the accompanying Ballhead X, and some stuff to get a correct panoramic panning on it with an L bracket to mount my a6000 on Arca Swiss stuff.
I gotta say, it seems like a lot of stuff to worry about, but the arcs Swiss compatibility with everything makes it easier and quicker than just screwing in the QR plate for the old tripod head. I'm pleased so far, but tests await later.
35mm is a great focal length on FF. 35mm and 135mm are the too most used focal lengths for me on my D800.
Meus Renaissance
Member
That previous image was shot at 1.4 and uploaded using Imgur which compressed the shit out of it. I uploaded it elsewhere to show how sharp the lens is this wide open.
http://i.cubeupload.com/Z1sMEQ.jpg
Straight out the camera, no post-processing.
http://i.cubeupload.com/Z1sMEQ.jpg
Straight out the camera, no post-processing.
Forsete
Member
Sony is on a roll with these latest FE lenses.
The new 90mm 2.8 Macro G OSS lens is the forth highest rated lens in DXOMarks lens database. It has a resolution of 32MP (sharpness), higher than any other lens.
The new 90mm 2.8 Macro G OSS lens is the forth highest rated lens in DXOMarks lens database. It has a resolution of 32MP (sharpness), higher than any other lens.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony...S-lens-review-Outstanding-optical-performance
I have that camera and I LOOOOVE it ^_^first pictures with it
oh damn, just saw you bought the X-T1...maybe I should have read everything else before posting lol.
I have a question I love my new X-T10 but...coming from a Nikon family, I have some lenses Like the Nikkor SC Auto 50mm 1.4 or the AF Nikkor 50mm 1.8...also a AF 70-210mm Nikkor 1:4 and my precious my Nikon Pancake Series E 50mm 1.8...all the good ol' Made in Japan.
I've been thinking about moving to fullframe for nature, night sky photography..all that nice stuff.
What do you think, with those "old" lenses..buy the D750 body only or buy it with a kit lens? my gut tells me to buy only the body, use the old lenses..but you can't always trust your gut >>..
Astral/H3X
Member
It's up to you. I'm guessing your old lenses are of the manual focus variety? I'm going to guess that your lenses will probably be better than what the kit lens will provide you, and personally I use almost exclusively old lenses (Except for my 30mm, which is harder to find in vintage glass).
One 50mm 1.8 is a nikkor that can be used with the AF inside the D750 body ^.^ the 70-210mm is also AF with the AF motor inside the body of the D750
Everything else is MF
Astral/H3X
Member
One 50mm 1.8 is a nikkor that can be used with the AF inside the D750 body ^.^ the 70-210mm is also AF with the AF motor inside the body of the D750
Everything else is MF
Ah, then yeah don't even bother with the kit lens. You've already got it covered since the 750 seems to be a full frame, so there's really no reason to get any of the kit stuff.
my credit card is going to cry tomorrow >>
appaws
Banned
Anyone have any experience with lenses for the Sony E-mount cameras?
I have an a5100 and I am thinking of expanding past the kit lens for the first time.
Not sure what to look for in a lens. I have mostly been taking landscapes and photos of old barns, since I live in rural Kentucky. I have been thinking of going out and taking some photos of churches....
I have an a5100 and I am thinking of expanding past the kit lens for the first time.
Not sure what to look for in a lens. I have mostly been taking landscapes and photos of old barns, since I live in rural Kentucky. I have been thinking of going out and taking some photos of churches....
Forsete
Member
What is your budget? And what focal length do you like the most?
If you still want a zoom, perhaps upgrading to the Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70 mm F4 ZA OSS.
They also have a good superzoom if you prefer a all-in-one lens.
Sony E PZ 18-105/4 G OSS (PZ for powerzoom), IIRC it got some good reviews for being a super zoom.
I have this, and I think its a good all around prime lens.
Sony Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24/1,8 ZA
hitsugi
Member
Probably the best lens under $1k for the e-mount system imo. However, it's $800+...
appaws
Banned
Thanks for the responses. I find that with the kit lens I am going most of the time at the longest (50mm). I think at the shorter focal lengths it has a very strong "fisheye" effect. Faces look terribly distorted....It has an auto-correct setting for that lens in Lightroom that fixes it up somewhat, but I would not use it for portraits at all.
Usually I stay at 50 and use my feet to make the shot if I can.
I was looking at that Sigma lens. Lots of good reviews and only $200. That's pretty exciting. Maybe I'll pick out a couple and rent them to see how they do before making any purchases...
Usually I stay at 50 and use my feet to make the shot if I can.
I was looking at that Sigma lens. Lots of good reviews and only $200. That's pretty exciting. Maybe I'll pick out a couple and rent them to see how they do before making any purchases...
Remember that the kit 16-50 is one of the worst lenses in the E-mount line up. Pretty much any prime you pick up will be a vast improvement at all focal lengths. If you enjoy the 50mm focal length the non-Zeiss 50/1.8 gets a lot of good reviews and is fairly cheap. I don't know your budget so I don't know what segment to recommend.
Astral/H3X
Member
The 16-50 is a blight on camera kind, and I'm fairly certain that ANYTHING you pick up will immediately be better than it (Unless of course you manage to pick up a different kit lens. :x). Any Prime lens will blow it out of the water, to boot.
Meyer Optik to bring back soap-bubble-bokeh Trioplan lens via Kickstarter
I discovered this lens on an old off-brand 9x12 camera that I used to own. It was an excellent portrait lens. It's pretty amazing how the Kickstarter took off the way it did, considering how obscure the lens was 10, 15 years ago...
I discovered this lens on an old off-brand 9x12 camera that I used to own. It was an excellent portrait lens. It's pretty amazing how the Kickstarter took off the way it did, considering how obscure the lens was 10, 15 years ago...
Your link leads nowhere.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/29...ap-bubble-bokeh-trioplan-lens-via-kickstarter
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sgv/pho/5106576079.html
oh fuck... i don't know how long i can resist
oh fuck... i don't know how long i can resist
Jelly... I really want one. I like panorama pictures, manual focus rangefinders and how it's almost a medium format camera, but still uses 35mm film.
for 2k you can get a Fuji G or GX medium format pano camera. I kind of wish I still had mine, though scanning the film was such a pain. Either crap labs did a crap job, for a moderate price, or good labs did an ok job for a really expensive price. Or buying a proper scanner, and because of medium formats density the hassleblad/imacons were the only scanners that could do a good job on them. And then the dust, my god the dust. It would take me days to completely dust an image in photoshop.
That's the nice thing about it being 35mm, much cheaper scanners.
Scanners are a pain though. It is really annoying how the scanner market peaked with the Nikon Coolscans and that those scanners are now rare and $1000+ on eBay. Plusteks are good value, but much softer, several times slower and lack autofocus.
appaws
Banned
Thanks. I don't have a set budget in mind, I would not mind spending 3-400 hundred at all. So what would be better for landscapes and old barns and churches for $400 max.
I don't want to invest a lot in lenses because I can already see that the investment I made in a camera for Youtube videos is mutating into something different. I had no plans of shooting stills at all when I bought the a5100 because of the good video features it has. Now I am frustrated by the lack of a view-finder and the obtuse nature of the controls. I find myself watching and reading reviews of Nikons and thinking I am going to buy another camera sooner rather than later.
So I don't necessarily want to invest too much in the Sony ecosystem if I am going to buy maybe a D5300 or something like that.
Astral/H3X
Member
The a5000 and a5100 are quite, um, sparse on dials. I use an a6000 with manual lenses, so I have shutter speed on the top dial, aperture on the lens (duh), and ISO on the face dial, which gives me all the controls I need. I rarely find myself using a menu for anything, aside from the Fn menu for adjusting various other things (Drive mode and Style mode, primarily for switching to B&W). White balance is handled by a button on the wheel, and for the times that I'm using an AF lens I have the AEL set to focus it. I am however looking at an a7II, primarily for full frame, but the addition of MORE DIALS almost makes me more excited haha. (That and image stabilization, which would be god send for all the old lenses I use).
I tried using my mom's Canon DSLR, and while I understand it to be a bit of an older one, I found it to be more confusing than my a6000. Partially because the thing has one dial. ONE. DIAL. WHY. So really it's whatever you get used to, though as a former a5000 I found it far more annoying to control than the a6000.
EDIT: As far as which lenses I'd go for, Sony's own 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 are great, for native lenses. Those two actually cover about 90% of what I do, though I do have an old 70-210mm Canon that I keep for my zoom needs. The Sony 50mm actually has a tiny smidge better IQ than my Canon 50mm, though I still use the Canon because it has built in dials and I'm not sure if you noticed but I love dials.
Meus Renaissance
Member
Post a photo of your gear. I love looking at camera gear!
Astral/H3X
Member
I realized I actually didn't have one of these, so I had to make it especially for you! Used my phone to actually take the photo, of course.
20150723-WP_20150723_15_30_09_Raw__highres.jpg by Hunter Mauro, on Flickr
appaws
Banned
I watched a video about the D5500 today on youtube. I love the way they have the Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO all on big "virtual" dials on the touch screen, and you can just tap them and then adjust them. Then there are all the main settings underneath and you can just tap them to change them. I think that looks pretty amazing and all the reviews seem to be really positive.
I like my a5100 for my youtube stuff. It does the Sony 50mbps codec which is really great, and the flip up screen is good for putting yourself on as a "talking head."
I think I am going to invest in a prime for it, and use it for youtube stuff and as my pocket camera for Kentucky football games starting in a few weeks. Then I am going to research a little more and pick a full time stills camera in one of the big lens ecosystems (Nikon or Canon) to grow as a photographer.
Astral/H3X
Member
VIRTUAL dials? Ugh. I have those on my Nokia, and while it's way better than no control, it's definitely not for me. Way too easy to slide your finger around or tap the wrong thing, and capacitive screens aren't accurate enough for me to put my controls on them. Not to mention pulling away from the viewfinder to use them. I like keeping my hands in one spot and adjusting everything from the shooting position.
Yeah, the flip up screen is pretty nifty on the a5000. I do vaguely miss it, was cool for those weird shots.
Might I ask what you mean by "grow as a photographer?" I ask this because a lot of people think that you need a DSLR to "grow", when really there's very, very little difference between a mirrorless and a DSLR when it comes to capability (Which ultimately is just in how you use the viewfinder.) On my a6000 I can shoot in bracketing, in K white balance, have full control over every setting I've ever heard of, shoots in RAW files, and have access to way more lenses than I could ever hope to own, not only just in native lenses but also older, manual lenses. Not only that, but my camera is very light, which encourages me to take the camera *everywhere*, instead of just specific trips for it. There's a lot of things that the a6000 can do that the a5000 cannot, so I think you might be discrediting the ecosystem you already have available to you, simply because most pros are a bit more comfortable with the ecosystem THEY grew up on.
I'm not saying DON'T choose a Canon or Nikon, but rather, really explore what differences there actually are, without making assumptions, before you choose to have two seperate lens systems.
EDIT: I'd recommend taking a look at Gary Fong's a6000 videos. He's an OLD pro, and has absolutely fallen in love with Sony's ecosystem, and definitely makes a case for it why it's his preferred professional setup.
appaws
Banned
VIRTUAL dials? Ugh. I have those on my Nokia, and while it's way better than no control, it's definitely not for me. Way too easy to slide your finger around or tap the wrong thing, and capacitive screens aren't accurate enough for me to put my controls on them. Not to mention pulling away from the viewfinder to use them. I like keeping my hands in one spot and adjusting everything from the shooting position.
Yeah, the flip up screen is pretty nifty on the a5000. I do vaguely miss it, was cool for those weird shots.
Might I ask what you mean by "grow as a photographer?" I ask this because a lot of people think that you need a DSLR to "grow", when really there's very, very little difference between a mirrorless and a DSLR when it comes to capability (Which ultimately is just in how you use the viewfinder.) On my a6000 I can shoot in bracketing, in K white balance, have full control over every setting I've ever heard of, shoots in RAW files, and have access to way more lenses than I could ever hope to own, not only just in native lenses but also older, manual lenses. Not only that, but my camera is very light, which encourages me to take the camera *everywhere*, instead of just specific trips for it. There's a lot of things that the a6000 can do that the a5000 cannot, so I think you might be discrediting the ecosystem you already have available to you, simply because most pros are a bit more comfortable with the ecosystem THEY grew up on.
I'm not saying DON'T choose a Canon or Nikon, but rather, really explore what differences there actually are, without making assumptions, before you choose to have two seperate lens systems.
EDIT: I'd recommend taking a look at Gary Fong's a6000 videos. He's an OLD pro, and has absolutely fallen in love with Sony's ecosystem, and definitely makes a case for it why it's his preferred professional setup.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the Sony ecosystem....I just think the a5100 is pretty limited....and obviously I don't know enough to make a total judgement about anything really in the photography world. I hate how hard it is to see in bright sunlight on the screen, and I want a viewfinder and more physical dials and buttons. I will check out Gary Fong.
The D5500 has caught my eye because it seems to offer a lot of smart design in the controls. More physical dials and programmable buttons, plus well designed touch screen controls.
By "grow" I guess I just mean getting experience and getting better at manual settings, etc. I understand that just spending money does not make you better...it's like golf...if you suck, expensive clubs won't make you better. I'm not expecting any magic difference!
I know that the Sony I have has a good sensor and takes good quality images. I'm not going to buy another camera right away...I'm gonna keep getting out there shooting, keep practicing shooting manual, and keep learning lightroom.
By the way, thanks, I really appreciate your feedback.
Astral/H3X
Member
The a5100 IS very limited. I found it very difficult to convince myself to actually use M on it because I would have to use an Fn menu or some other function to adjust aperture vs shutter vs iso. All it has is the one wheel, and it's TERRIBLE. Even having the one dial on the a6000 in addition to the wheel is a massive improvement, since now you have one for aperture, and one for shutter speed, and those are the only things I ever really touch from shot to shot. The a6000 also has a proper flash mount, and a very good EVF to boot (which I honestly far prefer to an optical viewfinder... This is mostly preference, but I even find it easier to focus with the EVF too, which is supposed to be the Optical viewfinder's one and only advantage.) And yes, the LCD screen is very hard to read in sunlight, and trust me, I never use it outside of awkward angles. Viewfinder all day err day.
You won't be able to get a touch screen in Sony's ecosystem, but I explained earlier why I personally don't care. I don't think Sony makes a single E Mount camera with touchscreen, but that's up to you if you care.
One thing you should consider heavily is EVF vs OVF. More and more people are moving to EVF because it simply offers a lot of advantages that a traditional viewfinder doesn't, and it's honestly *the* thing that seperates a DSLR from a mirrorless. An optical viewfinder is just mirrors, so there's no pixels to worry about, so is theoretically better for manual focusing. However, in *MY* experience, I find myself missing the Peaking too much on an OVF to really appreciate it -- it's also dark, small, and IMO just not worth it. I've tried using my mother's canon DSLR, and every time I find myself frustrated with the OVF not having all the stuff I'm used to with the EVF.
With an EVF, I can have the camera detect what's in focus and have a small shimmering outline on it, I can use black and white and see how it'll look in black and white, see a very good approximation of what my exposure settings will end up with (or not, if I so choose), see what's clipping in light or darkness, all things that I can't get with an OVF.
Also, since a mirrorless is built from the ground up for the lens to always be shining on the sensor, they've done a lot of really smart processing shit to make focusing easier. I *personally* don't use Autofocus, but Gary Fong was giving a demonstration where he could lock AF to a single person's face, and it would track that person throughout the frame, continuously focusing on them, something he said he could not do on his Nikon or Canon cameras. He also mentioned that he could register specific people's faces, and prioritize those faces in order with the AF, something he loved when taking wedding photos. Again, I don't use any of that, but it's there for you... on a mirrorless. And no, having a more expensive camera won't make you a better photographer, but it can make your job as a good photographer a bit easier.
And that isn't to say that Nikons and Canons don't have their advantages. They have a larger and more robust lens assortment. They are tried and true, and any techniques are well documented. They have good grips, and OVFs are better in dark ish light since EVFs need to jack the ISO up for your viewfinder (though it uses whatever settings you applied when it actually takes the photo). They all have their pros and cons, but don't feel that you need to push towards a specific camera because "that's what the pros use". Because that's starting to change.
EDIT: BTW don't feel like this is me saying "But Sony is better than anyone!" I like Sony, so I know what I like about them. I've kind of got a lust for Fuji's wonderful dials everywhere, but ultimately Sony is the one that speaks to me the loudest. I'd imagine some Nikon or Canon guys would be happy to tell you what they love about their cameras, and why they chose them. All I can tell you is what I love about mine.
tomorrow ^_^/
Ready for today's wedding.
My gear by Nobel Gomez, en Flickr
D810
D750
Sigma 35mm 1.4
Nikkor 85mm 1.8
Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII
Nikkor 50mm 1.4
Nikkor 24mm 2.8
Plus a couple of flashes, a led lamp, radios and that's it. My wedding kit in full.
My gear by Nobel Gomez, en FlickrD810
D750
Sigma 35mm 1.4
Nikkor 85mm 1.8
Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII
Nikkor 50mm 1.4
Nikkor 24mm 2.8
Plus a couple of flashes, a led lamp, radios and that's it. My wedding kit in full.
theepicoftyler
Member
So, I have a Sony NEX-5 with a couple of lenses that I love, but lately, I've been wanting a viewfinder, and maybe a slightly bigger body (large hands). The Fry's near my house has a returned/opened NEX-7 with the SEL 18-55 lens for ~$400. Would that be a worthwhile deal? I figure I'll sell my NEX-5 and one of the kit lenses (I have an SEL 16-50).
It seems like it could be a pretty cheap upgrade on paper.
It seems like it could be a pretty cheap upgrade on paper.
TerryLee81
Member
Did anyone switch from APS-C (or FF) to M43?
Still thinking about buying an Oly, the lenses are so small, light weight an apparently of very high quality.
Still thinking about buying an Oly, the lenses are so small, light weight an apparently of very high quality.
sechsterangriff
Member
Once you have a viewfinder you can never go back. Like you said, right now on paper it could be a pretty cheap upgrade.
One alternative would be to wait for a price drop on the A6000. The body only can already be found for relatively cheap, and it will drop even further if the A6100/A7000 rumors for later this year turn out to be true.
The NEX-7 has a better build quality, a gyro level bar and mic, but firmware and sensor-wise the a6000 is the superior camera.
I went from NEX 5N > 5R > 6 and was someone who said "i don't need a viewfinder" before i got the NEX-6.
Now i only use the viewfinder on the NEX. Especially when it's sunny. Would rather go for a used A6000 or NEX-6 body than a NEX-7.
Yeah if you can shell out a few more dollars then get the A6000.
Way better than the NEX7.
they are fantastic quality. but it switched from m4/3 to FF.
Got some m4/3 stuff for sale if you decide you want to jump in.
Thought about it before but after trying out my buddy's Oly I feel the benefits per cost is too high. I went with smaller sensor instead for casual outings. Still have my eyes on the Ricoh GR though...
Having used all kinds of cameras, primarily for video, I'm not that big on M43. It's pretty small I give you that, but so are pretty much all mirrorless cameras. We've got the Olympus E-M5 II and it's certainly a good camera with nice features. It's gorgeous to look at, pretty small and takes nice photos. But we've also got a Nikon D800E, which is FF, laying around and even though the Nikon is from a higher price class it blows the Olympus out of the water picture wise. There would be no scenario I'd chose the Olympus above the Nikon except for the size.
The Sony A7 line has pretty much the same size as the Olympus and is FF. Having used the A7s on occasion I prefer it over the Olympus, although I'm not a big fan of the e-mount lenses and adapted lenses obviously lack auto focus. But to clarify I'm way more of a video guy so that plays a big role in my decision.
TerryLee81
Member
Thanks for the input guys. The E-M5 II looks like a really nice camera. And like I said before, what I really like are the small lenses.
It is quite expensive tough for such a small sensor. The lenses on the other hand are priced reasonably (most of them at least).
I'm not sure about image quality. The camera I use right now is a Fuji X-E1 (comming from a D600), and I really like its image quality, especially ooc jpegs. Maybe I should invest in more Fuji lenses.
theepicoftyler
Member
Thanks guys, I didn't realize that the NEX-6 was better than the NEX-7. I'm actually pretty attached to the WiFi transfer with my NEX-5, so that's something I would miss a lot with the 7. I've had my eye on the A6000 for a long time now, but it's still out of my price-range unfortunately.
I think I might make a move on an NEX-6 if the right one shows up on eBay though.
I have a Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 lens that I love using with my NEX 5, but it's so heavy it makes the camera hard to hold with such a small body. NEX 6/7/A6000 would definitely be easier to hold with that lens on it.
TerryLee81
Member
With an APS-C sensor, there's the Ricoh GR. It is more compact but doesn't have a viewfinder. It has a very sharp 28mm equivalent lens.
you could also buy the X-T10 with the 27mm pancake.
pretty small combination and if you want to upgrade you can buy new lenses..
closte to the same price or a little cheaper than the x100t.
ahhhh I realize I forgot the gear picture. but hey thats good, I bought ne gear yesterday..so I can make a picture as soon as I get it.
Also I'm thinking about sending back my X-T10 and buying the X-T1..hard to tell why. the X-T10 is close to the same...but I really want that bigger viewfinder and the iso wheel....hard decision. also I actually know that it would be not logical just an emotional thing..
Haha, I literally just recommended this camera in the other thread. You can find them for around $450, too. Great value for the money.
- Status