Complex Shadow
Cudi Lame
Many apologies guys. I think I am being misinterpreted when I say 4 k. I am not taking a about video. I ment photos that are 4k in resolution. Not 4k video. I'm mostly interested in still photos.
-
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
hmmm, 4k and photography aren't really terms used together so you aren't really being misinterpreted as you are using a term wrong. what do you want to do with the photos you take? maybe that's a better way to figure out what you want.
also, buy this book. Understanding Exposure with your camera and read it until you understand the theories in it.
Everything above ~12MP will be 4k when cropped to 16:9 so you can safely buy a 10 year old DSLR.
Everything above ~12MP will be 4k when cropped to 16:9 so you can safely buy a 10 year old DSLR.
Yeah, it seems like the 5D Classic is a great start for him. Such a nice older camera and full frame too and leaves a ton of room for lenses in the budget. The lenses are the most important thing Complex. Get the 5D Classic and a few extra batteries. It's lacking the bells and whistles but is a great camera even for its age. What do you want to shoot? What are your interests?
Side note: shoot for a Mark II if you want to save for a bit more.
Astral/H3X
Member
I've heard that the Panasonic G4 or some such has some awesome 4k video, but I'm not sure of anything else about it (or even if that name is right).
I was semi joking, but if I were to get a DSLR it would without a doubt be the 5D classic. Sure it lacks live view, video, a decent screen, modern card support, good dynamic range, modern AF etc, but it's full frame for less than 300. It's a pro body so you get dual dials and a good build (sans weather proofing) and the image quality is surprisingly good. High ISO is noisy, but the files don't look very processed and have an even noise pattern. Compared to an APS-C/MFT I'd say the performance is similar below 3200 and while the higher ISOs are nice to have, you're never going to make a masterpiece at 12800.
This is not a recommendation though. Only if you think you can live without all the modern features and buying a fairly old used camera.
Google 5D raw if you want to check out the files for yourself. The first classic FF DSLR I looked at was the A900, but those files were too noisy for me even at 1600. Fuji Superia 1600 is probably cleaner
This is not a recommendation though. Only if you think you can live without all the modern features and buying a fairly old used camera.
Google 5D raw if you want to check out the files for yourself. The first classic FF DSLR I looked at was the A900, but those files were too noisy for me even at 1600. Fuji Superia 1600 is probably cleaner
IMO, spend 3-400 bucks to pick up an entry level kit and play around with it for a year to see if it's your cup of tea and learn the basics of photography. Then ditch it for something more proper, if you desire, once you are more knowledgeable to make better decisions for yourself. Cameras are tools, each with different compromise, and everyone has different needs.
Complex Shadow
Cudi Lame
Again. Sorry.
I kinda like this route except is it possible I spend a bit more and then buy a camera I could own for year's to come?
You definitely could especially if you are getting a DSLR as oppose to a mirrorless one. The tech in DSLR is pretty much plateaued. Any mid range ones can easily last 3-5 years or longer. Heck, even entry level ones are quite good these days. Mirrorless cameras are still more of a moving target, but they have matured a bit now compared to a couple years ago and are finally (imo) worth considering as starting point.
That said, it's very easy to over spend, spend on the wrong things, or simply making things more difficult than it needs to be when you are just starting out. (Like when I started out, people kept telling me I want to go with Canon, I want FF, etc. I'm glad that I didn't listen and went with Pentax.) You can make far better decisions in a year or two when you know what you like to shoot, your needs and understand the pros and cons of every little thing. I'd focus less on the gear and more on the photography itself and then expand from there...
For DSLR, Canon and Nikon are safe bets because their ecosystems are vast and mature. For mirrorless, you basically have Nikon for 1"; Panasonic or Olympus for micro 4/3; Fuji or Sony or Samsung or Canon for APS-C and Sony for full frame. (These are sensor sizes.) Go play with them in the store if possible and see whatever feels good.
edit: The only reason I don't typically recommend Pentax right off the bat is too many people easily feel insecure using an underdog brand. Otherwise, their cameras offer a lot of value.
That's 2 companies sharing the same mount.
TerryLee81
Member
I would get the Nikon. Close to what you are used to with 50mm, it's f/1.8 which gives you a bit more room for creativity and low light possibilities.
Also the entry level Nikon bodies seem to have better sensors than the entry level Canon bodies, with very good dynamic range.
Why have you narrowed it down to two completely different lenses like that?
I wouldn't recommend a 5D for someone wanting to start with photography as a hobby. So what if it's full frame? Let them work out what they want first and let them choose full frame later if it suits them. Maybe they will start shooting tons of wildlife or sports and want more reach? Maybe they want some of the newer features like decent low light performance, or a nice articulating screen for shooting at awkward angles?
Personally I'd suggest a canon 700d kit or similar Nikon (not familiar with their range), with the included kit lens and then buy a 50mm f1.8 to go with it. Or if you want more compact, something micro 4/3 like the Olympus OMD e10, or a Sony a6000
Personally I'd suggest a canon 700d kit or similar Nikon (not familiar with their range), with the included kit lens and then buy a 50mm f1.8 to go with it. Or if you want more compact, something micro 4/3 like the Olympus OMD e10, or a Sony a6000
Joel Was Right
Member
How do they compare with Fuji lenses? I doubt they're are as expensive.
How are they completely different? I want a <$200 lens that's good in low light.
Well I 'm not really used to anything since it will be my first camera. It will either be a Canon 30D or Nikon D50/D200.
They're completely different because they are two separate brands, two separate focal lengths and two vastly different f-stops. I asked because your price point is more important than those two entirely different lenses which is what I expected but better to confirm that with you.
You should figure out what system you want to use first based on current lenses and possible future lenses and ergonomics which is the biggest difference between the two brands.
Have you ever taken photos before?
and? Whats stopping sony from joining m4/3rds or starting their own coalition? The fact still remains m4/3rds has more lens options.
Astral/H3X
Member
The fact that M4/3rds is a smaller sensor means I certainly wouldn't want them to.
Biggest one is the lack of optical viewfinder so you're relying on the quality of the digital one. Obviously, better quality means heftier price. Though, I love my XT-1 for my travel kit and that viewfinder is superb and I haven't used any others to compare to the bad ones.
hitsugi
Member
They're fairly close, although I'm not sure if Fuji's lenses are optically superior or not..
Fuji 23mm 1.4 - $899
Sony 24mm 1.8 - $1098
Fuji 35mm 1.4 - $599
Sony 35mm 1.8 - $448
right now all I have is a nikon d32, my father has a d55, we share lenses ect ect
I just feel like there really is no 'step up' for me from the d32 unless I go for a full frame camera or if I go mirrorless?
Either way I'm screwed, I don't want to use dx lenses on a full frame body, and if I go mirrorless, I'm going to be spending hundreds on getting the same range of lenses I currently have for my d32
Any suggestions GAF?
I just feel like there really is no 'step up' for me from the d32 unless I go for a full frame camera or if I go mirrorless?
Either way I'm screwed, I don't want to use dx lenses on a full frame body, and if I go mirrorless, I'm going to be spending hundreds on getting the same range of lenses I currently have for my d32
Any suggestions GAF?
any specific reasons why you want to step up? what aren't you getting from your current equipment.?
CrudeDiatribe
Member
Why do you need to 'step up'? What does your current camera body prevent you from doing that you would like to do?
There are reasons a person might supplement or replace what you have with a mirrorless or a full-frame, or even to get the top-of-the-line DX body but what do they offer you that you're missing?
edit: beaten
35mm is probably easier to use especially it will have a bit more depth of field at same f2.8. That said, I don't know how well either works on those bodies you mentioned in low light for auto focus.
marimorimo
Member
I have a Canon EOS M3 (mirrorless), my first 'real' camera with interchangeable lenses.
Biggest con is the shorter battery life because the live view is always on. You definitely need multiple backup batteries if shooting a full day outdoors.
Lenses-availability depends on which maker and model you choose, but of course you will have more and cheaper options if going the traditional dslr route. There are mounts to fit traditional lenses but they're bulky and defeat the purpose of having a smaller and compact camera.
Some models like Sony have EVF built in to replace the optical viewfinder while Canon requires a separate EVF accessory which is expensive.
I love mirrorless due to its compact and light nature as I'm a casual photographer and can't be bothered to lug a bunch of heavy gear.
I shoot for myself but I also shoot for money (real estate/sweet 16's/weddings ect ect) and the d32 seems basic? I could be wrong
Just got a Sony a6000 because it would be nice to have something with out having to lug around all my equipment
sankt-Antonio
:^)--?-<
It'll take time, i remember when the A7 launched there was only one native lens available (2.8/35mm) and that was it. One single prime lens.
Two years later the mount has top3 FF 35mm, 55mm and 85mm glass, a range of zooms, teles and a macro lens.
What E-mount lacks are cheap options more then anything, and even faster lenses for bragging rights.
I've taken photos before with a friend's DSLR and it was fun to play with the settings. I'm not too serious about photography but I want something that's good in low light settings. Other factors aren't that important, I want to start cheap and I'll upgrade if I get serious about it.
sechsterangriff
Member
E-mount lenses are fully interchangeable regardless of body sensor size. So if you absolutely need AF I would advise you to buy FE lenses whenever possible (while taking crop factor into account) in case you want to upgrade to full frame down the road. For situations you don't need AF (ex: real estate) you can use old cheap manual legacy lenses using a basic adapter.
This is what I love about mirrorless. If you're willing to juggle crop factor and manual focus you can actually save a pretty penny and keep using the same lenses indefinitely regardless of your mirrorless body.
I'd go for the Nikon then. 50mm f/1.8 is a great entry level lens. As far as body, buy something cheap but reliable. Can't really help you as I shoot Canon and Fuji but I'm sure someone can direct you to something good.
Also as I always say get Understanding Exposure and read it. Best tool for a beginner.
That sounds good, because if I fall in love with mirrorless like I expect myself to, I don't want to re-buy lenses when I go full frame a few years from now
hitsugi
Member
Yeah, that's more or less it. It's difficult to afford the ecosystem. I have been tempted to just get the RX100 M3 and sell off my a6000 because buying the 24mm I want is going to cost $1k....
Ok and? The conversation was about the lens ecosystem, not the sensor size. Radec, you posted comparing to "Nikon and Canons decades of lens ecosystems" yet m4/3rds is pretty mature for not having "Decades."
The best m4/3rds sesnsors are already sony sensors, if they wanted to they could have made their own camera at that size and had instant lens ecosystem. as it is they are pretty late to the game and thus far behind.
Move the goal posts all you want. I don't really care, I have a d800, and I'm selling my m4/3rds gear.
focus speed and focus tracking accuracy still can't compete with a DSLR focus system. Its getting better though. So if that's something you need its going to be limiting.
Astral/H3X
Member
Sensor size and lens size are intertwined. You can use glass designed for a larger sensor (albeit usually with some concessions), but you really can't use glass designed for a smaller sensor on a larger sensor. The reason why people are annoyed is because the FULL FRAME e mount lenses don't have any cheap options.... and you want them to try using glass designed for sensors that are like half the size!? That's not going to work! Not unless you want many of your photos to look like they were taken through a pringles can.
Not even counting, that the mount diameter may not even be ABLE to cover a full sized sensor... The emount has a hard enough time of that and it's already larger than the M4/3rds.
We didn't move goalposts. You just ignored one huge factor involved with the goalpost.
Sensors and Lenses aren't always compatible with each other. Hence there's DX/FX for Nikon, non-FE/FE emounts for Sony. M4/3rd hmonly need to deal with their small sensor in making lenses. Others have more things to consider.
Cost and Design/Tech of Full Frame compatible lens also comes in place.
are you even reading my posts? No where did i say they should be using FF lenses on a m4/rds body. That would be asinine.
I said two things:
A) sony should have formed their own coalition like m4/3 to help with lens design, its a lot of work to design sensors, bodies and lenses. Fuji and or Nikon come to mind since neither dominate the market. Its not like they don't already work with the entire camera industry since almost every DSLR manufacturer uses their sensors in some models.
B) they could have easily joined m4/3rds and made cameras there with instant lens ecosystem.
Instead they did neither, they came up with yet another lens mount system, probably the last thing the camera industry needed.
And yea, y'all did move the goal posts, I literally quoted one post, Radec's that said "canon and Nikon have had decades to develop their lens eco system" as an excuse for the sony e-mount not having a mature lens ecosystem. And the two responses I get are about sensor size. I'd say that's the definition of moving the goal posts.
sechsterangriff
Member
There's absolutely no problem about the e-mount diameter not allowing a complete exposure of the full-frame sensor. There is however increased complexity in creating lenses at certain focal lengths due to the very small flange focal distance. And that is something every future full-frame mirrorless camera will have to deal with.
Astral/H3X
Member
You're right, I guess they could've made their own coalition, but ultimately they needed an APS-c Mirrorless lens system. Not a m4/3rds system. If they wanted to make a m4/3rds system they would've done that, but they didn't.
I'm saying that a M4/3rds wouldn't be able to cover it as well.
sechsterangriff
Member
Sorry, I misinterpreted you.
I think the issues with making FE lenses is kinda overblown. Had it been a big issue with the mount width we would have seen it with adapted glass. Some very wide M-mount glass suffer from bad corners, but that's because they were designed for film and digital versions are on their way. The smallest lenses suffer vignetting, but all lenses are affected by the cosine fourth law. I'd rather have some tiny wide angle lenses with vignetting than only big wide angle lenses.
A lens mount with no mirror is very liberating for lens designers. Lens design is evolutionary so it'll take some time as designers have to start from scratch, but there are a lot of new possibilities. The 35mm f2.8 is probably the best example, super sharp and super tiny despite the reasonably fast f2.8 aperture. The 28mm f2 is a tiny bit heavier than the Canon 28mm f2.8 and much lighter than the Canon 28mm f2.8 IS. It suffers from barrel distortion, but has great price to performance.
I don't have any lens design knowledge other than reading Roger Cicala. I tried reading a proper text on it, but the math quickly went over my head.
A lens mount with no mirror is very liberating for lens designers. Lens design is evolutionary so it'll take some time as designers have to start from scratch, but there are a lot of new possibilities. The 35mm f2.8 is probably the best example, super sharp and super tiny despite the reasonably fast f2.8 aperture. The 28mm f2 is a tiny bit heavier than the Canon 28mm f2.8 and much lighter than the Canon 28mm f2.8 IS. It suffers from barrel distortion, but has great price to performance.
I don't have any lens design knowledge other than reading Roger Cicala. I tried reading a proper text on it, but the math quickly went over my head.
Complex Shadow
Cudi Lame
What's good Cannon beginner class kit?
FE primes are sharp but still have near double amount of vignetting without software correction. We still haven't seen a f2.8 zoom for the mount. FE lenses also tend to be longer and heavier than you would expect partly just to correct problems which is kind of taking 2 steps forward and 1 step back from weight and size point of view. It's not only going to take time to figure out new designs you are also going to be paying for it (R&D cost etc).
The Txis haven't really changed that much from 3-5 and 6 finally got some decent upgrade. So depends on how much you want to spend there I guess.
I'd recommend the T5i and get a refurbished kit. Here's a good one with two lenses that can help you decide what you like to shoot with. It's in your budget and lets you save money for better lenses once you figure out what focal lengths you like.
http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/c...tm-ef-s-55-250mm-f-4-56-is-ii-kit-refurbished
TerryLee81
Member
Besides the cons that already have been mentioned here, battery life would also be one.
Not to be rude, but is there any reason why you refer to the Nikon D3200 and
D5500 as 32 and 55 but to the Sony a6000 not as a60? Not typing out the 00 unnecessarily makes it slightly harder to read and a bit more confusing.
Complex Shadow
Cudi Lame
Thanks alot guys. I am gonna look around a bit longer read that book herbs recommend. Do cameras ever go on sale like on black Friday? Or on Christmas?
- Status