• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

JORMBO

Darkness no more
This year I really want to learn photography and maybe open up a small side business for fun, just photographing whatever I can in the area...mainly doing people/events/shows/etc. I have to get a camera first though! I was looking at this to start out:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0018AD4HM/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Should I go with something else? The naming conventions behind all these cameras is a bit confusing. Thanks for any help. My budget for now is probably in the $750-1000 range.
 

mrkgoo

Member
The_Inquisitor said:
Box says TIFFEN 52MM UV protector
I'm positive it's flare exacerbated by the filter. Cheap filters serve to soften your image, reduce contrast and increase flare. Either pay for the top quality ones that minimally impact in iq, or get rid of it entirely. Makes no sense to have good gear only to slap the nastiest piece of glass in front of it.

Try taking some images with and without the filter to test. Go back to those lights or just take some other images to yes sharpness.

Dust on the sensor wouldn't be green, and would likel be circular in shape. Also only seen at very narrow apertures such as f/11 and above.
 

mrkgoo

Member
Darkness said:
This year I really want to learn photography and maybe open up a small side business for fun, just photographing whatever I can in the area...mainly doing people/events/shows/etc. I have to get a camera first though! I was looking at this to start out:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0018AD4HM/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Should I go with something else? The naming conventions behind all these cameras is a bit confusing. Thanks for any help. My budget for now is probably in the $750-1000 range.
I'm going to side step the issue of photography as a business but for your information:

Canon EOS xxxxD (us =xs) is the entry entry level. Less features and slightly less robust build, but a more affordable body.

CanonEOS xxxD (us = xt, xti, xsi etc) is canons traditional entry level. Packed with features, it's really capable of a lot.

Canon EOS xxD is the higher end camera. Image quality isn't a huge deal greater than the lower models but you get a few more robust features such as better viewfinder, processing an mechanical functions (improved af, fps, etc) magnesium construction, better controls and so on.

Canon xD are split up into differernt series again, buy typically reserved for high enthusiasts to professional. Features such as full frame sensors, advanced af and tracking and so on.

They're all good cameras and you he what you pay for fr the most part.
 

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
mrkgoo said:
I'm positive it's flare exacerbated by the filter. Cheap filters serve to soften your image, reduce contrast and increase flare. Either pay for the top quality ones that minimally impact in iq, or get rid of it entirely. Makes no sense to have good gear only to slap the nastiest piece of glass in front of it.

Try taking some images with and without the filter to test. Go back to those lights or just take some other images to yes sharpness.

Dust on the sensor wouldn't be green, and would likel be circular in shape. Also only seen at very narrow apertures such as f/11 and above.
Honestly theres no real point to putting a UV filter on a digital camera lens. UV Filters were popular because Ultra Violet light affected Film differently. It's not an issue now. And if you're concerned about damaging the front element, be more careful with your lenses!
 

aidan

Hugo Award Winning Author and Editor
My parents got me a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG for my birthday! It's a bit of a beast compared to any of my other lenses, and should be a good upgrade from my Canon 55-200mm, giving me more reach when I'm out and about taking nature shots. I'm most excited about its Macro capabilities (despite not being a true macro lens), and am already trying to figure out how to use it for the current assignment. Nothing like a new lens to get you excited about photography.
 

mrkgoo

Member
captive said:
Honestly theres no real point to putting a UV filter on a digital camera lens. UV Filters were popular because Ultra Violet light affected Film differently. It's not an issue now. And if you're concerned about damaging the front element, be more careful with your lenses!

There are some points. If you're going to be out where stones and dust is blowing, it's probably a reasonable precaution. I have one on my 17-55IS, because without one, it sucks dust up through the front element, ending up inside the lens. I have one on my 17-40, because it needs one to complete the weather seal.

But yeah, generally, I find a hood a much more important accessory.

Aidan: Yup, true dat. New gear ftw!
 

Forsete

Member
I have UV-filters on all my lenses, not for blocking out UV but dirt/spots on the front lens element. I'd rather scratch the UV-filter than the lens itself, now I have never scratched a UV-filter, but better to be safe than you know. :p I am a belt and suspenders kind of guy.

Never noticed reflections/flares due to it.
 

Zyzyxxz

Member
mrkgoo said:
There are some points. If you're going to be out where stones and dust is blowing, it's probably a reasonable precaution. I have one on my 17-55IS, because without one, it sucks dust up through the front element, ending up inside the lens. I have one on my 17-40, because it needs one to complete the weather seal.

But yeah, generally, I find a hood a much more important accessory.

Aidan: Yup, true dat. New gear ftw!

Don't they have clear glass filters for that? I know Nikon has em.
 

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
aidan said:
My parents got me a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG for my birthday! It's a bit of a beast compared to any of my other lenses, and should be a good upgrade from my Canon 55-200mm, giving me more reach when I'm out and about taking nature shots. I'm most excited about its Macro capabilities (despite not being a true macro lens), and am already trying to figure out how to use it for the current assignment. Nothing like a new lens to get you excited about photography.
congrats!

On UV filters good point on the dust and stuff, didn't think of that as my lenses are dust/splash sealed.
 

mrkgoo

Member
Zyzyxxz said:
Don't they have clear glass filters for that? I know Nikon has em.

Clear glass filters or UV filters, it's all good for this purpose. Digital sensors don't record UV. The filters provided by Canon are terrible (I've heard they are stiffen rebrands). I've read a document from a Canon rep or tech that stated that even Canon recommend not using them for the most part and when you do you're better off going to the higher end. They provide them only because of public expectation.

But as Forsete mentioned, good quality ones impact very little, and if you whip the front a lot, I'd rather be wiping a filter than my lens. That said, I'm mostly in the 'don't use' camp.
 

mrkgoo

Member
Ok, I tracked it down.

Stolen from birdphotographers.net:
Erik Allin said:
Due to the vast differences in build and image quality amongst the different UV and protective filters on the market, you will not find any more of an “official Canon” response than what you have already received or read in a manual. The idea that “Either they do or do not recommend” and the search for a blanket, all encompassing Canon statement on the matter is unrealistically simplistic.

As such, I will NOT be giving you an official Canon position, but my own official PERSONAL position on the subject.

ANY and ALL UV/protection filters have some degree of negative impact on image quality. Some more than others. With some extremely high-quality multi-coated UV filters – typically very expensive – the IQ impact is so negligible as to be unnoticeable in the finished printed image to most people. Most UV filters exhibit some IQ degradation that can be seen to some degree in the image. Some UV filters can be quite bad.

If you should choose to use a UV filter, the need for one of a high quality is far more important with digital than it ever was in the film days.

Canon recommends the use of a filter, to enhance the weather-resistant characteristics on certain weather-resistant lenses– the EF 16-35, 2.8 L II as an example where the front of the lens moves while focusing or zooming in relation to the barrel of the lens. Canon has no such filter recommendation on lenses where the front element does not move and the barrel can be better sealed – the EF 70-200, 2.8L IS as an example. To one of your emails, and a comment on the forum you quote from, Canon has not “downgraded their recommendation”; the lenses are different in their mechanical design, and as such the recommendation is different.

In this case the recommendation of the use of a filter is based solely on the weather-resistance characteristics of that specific lens and not on enhancing the image or protecting the front element from impact or damage.

I personally do not use any UV filters.

In terms of protecting the lens – or “your investment” as the camera store sales person will phrase it – a matched lens hood is far more protection from damage and impact than any filter ever will be. And a lens hood has NO negative impact on IQ, and in most instances has a positive impact on IQ. Buying, AND USING, a lens hood is the best investment one can make on protecting “your investment” and improving the IQ of your images.

Buy the matched Canon lens hood, and use it.

Canon’s branded UV/protection filters are OK, but nothing special. They are provided in the catalog as a convenience so that some smaller camera dealers that carry Canon product, but may be too small or out of the way so that a sales representative from a filter company may not visit, can have filters to sell, should they chose to.

To the question posed in your emails “if they are not necessary, why sell them to the public?”: because some people want to buy them and some stores want to sell them.

Having said all that, Canon brand Circular Polarizers are exceptional and are probably some of the best filters on the market from any company – again, personal opinion.

Also from Chuck Westall (bigwig Canon tech guy appears on a lot around the web):
Canon does not officially recommend using UV filters on any lens, but they can certainly come in handy on telephoto lenses for impact, dust/dirt and moisture protection as well as varying amounts of haze reduction. I usually tell customers that if they're going to use a UV filter, make it a good one from a well-known manufacturer rather than a cheap no-name brand, keep it clean and be sure to use a lens hood whenever it's practical.

Best Regards,

Chuck Westfall
Technical Advisor/Professional Products Marketing Division
Consumer Imaging Group/Canon U.S.A., Inc.

I find his quote about not official recommending a UV filter on any lens to be a bit weird since some of the Ls require it to complete weather sealing.
 

zhenming

Member
im pretty crazy when i comes to glass, i will only use a uv filter to protect my lens if im in a hostile environment (heavy rain, sand/snow storms, waterfalls or when im doing car rolling shots) other than that I dont want anything affecting my image quality. although its pretty debatable, to be honest i dont see a difference.
 

Zyzyxxz

Member
I bought one of those B+W super multi coated filters and I don't see a difference in image quality and I paid a decent amount for it.

I did get a Sunpak cheapo filter as a filler item for Amazon back when I didn't get prime.

Holy crap flares everwhere. I just keep it on my kit lens which I don't use anymore.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
BlueTsunami said:
To UV Filter or not is an age old debate. I personally opt for a lens hood instead.
Yep. I only put on a (high quality) lens filter if I'm going hiking or to the beach, or if it's raining or something.
 

zombi

Member
Darkness said:
This year I really want to learn photography and maybe open up a small side business for fun, just photographing whatever I can in the area...mainly doing people/events/shows/etc. I have to get a camera first though! I was looking at this to start out:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0018AD4HM/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Should I go with something else? The naming conventions behind all these cameras is a bit confusing. Thanks for any help. My budget for now is probably in the $750-1000 range.

Id strongly advise against this mentality. Excitement is great, I dont want any of this to dissuade you from what is an amazing medium, but if you think photography is an easy business youre nuts. Also, the weekend warrior selling themself as a business can give the industry and its workers a bad name.

Not trying to be mean, Im really not, just want you to know what youre saying.

Advise, still applies if you want to start a business (if you do thats great!):

Part 1:

Buy used and get a 50mm, either canon or nikon. A canon 50d or nikon d90 would do you fine. Grab a 50 and learn what you want to do from there, ie if you want a wider lens or longer.

Optimize your comp to process. And PLEASE LEARN THE POST PROCESS. Photography is the processing, seriously go look at an original ansel adams unprocessed image (theyre terrible, the talent is in the processing).

Part 2 (if you really want to be on the road to a business):

invest into it.

Buy more lenses, a super wide to wide, wide to portrait, portrait to long.

Buy strobes, elinchrom and profoto make great stuff that runs the pricing range, alien bee is great for cheap too.

Part (you should be doing this constantly)

getting a great portfolio and marketing when you have something to sell.


Sorry that was probably WAY too long, but you seemed really interested so I wanted to take that opportunity to help.
 

Chairhome

Member
Are there any good tutorials (or tips from you guys) on using 18% grey cards? I have one and I tried to use it yesterday, but it didn't really work, haha. I'm using PSE 8. I did "Adjustment > Levels" then I clicked the grey dropper then my grey card on the pic. I don't think I held it correctly in the light (should it be facing straight ahead to the camera?) and I wasn't sure how to save that color balance to use on the other pics I took in that set. Any advice is appreciated, thanks!
 
I'm in the market to purchase a nice macro lens for my Rebel, but I have a question. Do any of them have Image stabilization? I cant seem to find one that does.
 

mrkgoo

Member
abstract alien said:
I'm in the market to purchase a nice macro lens for my Rebel, but I have a question. Do any of them have Image stabilization? I cant seem to find one that does.

The EF-100mm f/2.8L IS is the only official macro with IS. Not sure abut third party.

It's like $1000.
 

mrkgoo

Member
Chairhome said:
Are there any good tutorials (or tips from you guys) on using 18% grey cards? I have one and I tried to use it yesterday, but it didn't really work, haha. I'm using PSE 8. I did "Adjustment > Levels" then I clicked the grey dropper then my grey card on the pic. I don't think I held it correctly in the light (should it be facing straight ahead to the camera?) and I wasn't sure how to save that color balance to use on the other pics I took in that set. Any advice is appreciated, thanks!

If you're trying to do whitebalance on jpegs in post-processing, forget about it. Either use RAW, or do it before (in camera).
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
abstract alien said:

On the plus side, its a nice hybrid of Portrait lens (speed and good bokeh rendition of the 135L) and Macro lens (strengths of the original 100/2.8 Macro) with IS. But if you can do without the IS, the 100/2.8 is supposed to be a fantastic macro lens.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
abstract alien said:
I'm in the market to purchase a nice macro lens for my Rebel, but I have a question. Do any of them have Image stabilization? I cant seem to find one that does.
I wouldn't be too concerned about IS on a macro lens. When in macro mode, IS isn't that useful anyway.
 

mrkgoo

Member
Rentahamster said:
I wouldn't be too concerned about IS on a macro lens. When in macro mode, IS isn't that useful anyway.
Truth. The canon macro IS lens is canons newest and uses hybrid IS technology that compensates different types of motion. At macro ranges, the extra handholdabilitu is reduced from 4 stops to 2. I'm sure it helps, but I wouldn't be too concerned.

On another note, I read somewhere that canon has not released a non-L ef lens in like 9 or 10 years or something. It's clear that they seem to be going either L or efs. In the end a lens is a lens is a lens.
 
BlueTsunami said:
On the plus side, its a nice hybrid of Portrait lens (speed and good bokeh rendition of the 135L) and Macro lens (strengths of the original 100/2.8 Macro) with IS. But if you can do without the IS, the 100/2.8 is supposed to be a fantastic macro lens.

Rentahamster said:
I wouldn't be too concerned about IS on a macro lens. When in macro mode, IS isn't that useful anyway.
Would the lack of IS be ok in snapping shots without a tripod? I've tried shooting freehand without IS turned on and it was a bit of a mess. This was with a standard Rebel 18-55 lens.

mrkgoo said:
Truth. The canon macro IS lens is canons newest and uses hybrid IS technology that compensates different types of motion. At macro ranges, the extra handholdabilitu is reduced from 4 stops to 2. I'm sure it helps, but I wouldn't be too concerned.

On another note, I read somewhere that canon has not released a non-L ef lens in like 9 or 10 years or something. It's clear that they seem to be going either L or efs. In the end a lens is a lens is a lens.
Gotcha. Ill have to try one out, Im really interested now. Thanks for all the info fellow gaffers.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
abstract alien said:
Would the lack of IS be ok in snapping shots without a tripod? I've tried shooting freehand without IS turned on and it was a bit of a mess. This was with a standard Rebel 18-55 lens.
As for shooting macro shots with the macro lens, you want to be shooting during the daytime when there is lots of sunlight so you can use a high shutter speed to eliminate motion blur.

Or

You want to kill the ambient light as much as possible and light your subject using only flash. This will also eliminate motion blur.

These two techniques will allow you to shoot handheld and not introduce motion blur into your shots.
 

mrkgoo

Member
abstract alien said:
Would the lack of IS be ok in snapping shots without a tripod? I've tried shooting freehand without IS turned on and it was a bit of a mess. This was with a standard Rebel 18-55 lens.

To eliminate hand/camera shake, you simply need an appropriately fast shutterspeed. If it's fast enough, then small vibrations don't manifest as blur. What is fast enough? Well, I'm glad you asked. The longer the focal length of your lens, the prone it is to small movements (like looking through a telescope, small movements are also magnified). There's a general rule - your 1/'effective focal length' as 1/x seconds. So if you have a 100mm focal length, on a 1/6x camera, a good starting point is to aim for 1/160s shutter speed. This of course, differs depending on your personal ability to handhold a lens. Some people need faster, some people get away with slower.

Whether you'd be ok at any one instance with that shutterspeed is dependent on the amount of light.

Note, macro photography has other consequences concerning optics. A macro lens is simply a lens that is capable of focusing so close, that the subject are photographing appears at a 1:1 ratio - that is a 20mm object is appears on the image plane at 20mm. When you're operating at this distance, you're only using something like 1/4 of the projected image circle (i'm not sure exactly), thus are reducing the amount of light. You loses stops of light as you approach the minimal focus 1:1 distance, so you need more light or or slower shutter speed. Combined with a narrow depth of field, this gives you the explanation why many macro photographers use a tripod.

That's all I got.
 
Rentahamster said:
As for shooting macro shots with the macro lens, you want to be shooting during the daytime when there is lots of sunlight so you can use a high shutter speed to eliminate motion blur.

Or

You want to kill the ambient light as much as possible and light your subject using only flash. This will also eliminate motion blur.

These two techniques will allow you to shoot handheld and not introduce motion blur into your shots.


mrkgoo said:
To eliminate hand/camera shake, you simply need an appropriately fast shutterspeed. If it's fast enough, then small vibrations don't manifest as blur. What is fast enough? Well, I'm glad you asked. The longer the focal length of your lens, the prone it is to small movements (like looking through a telescope, small movements are also magnified). There's a general rule - your 1/'effective focal length' as 1/x seconds. So if you have a 100mm focal length, on a 1/6x camera, a good starting point is to aim for 1/160s shutter speed. This of course, differs depending on your personal ability to handhold a lens. Some people need faster, some people get away with slower.

Whether you'd be ok at any one instance with that shutterspeed is dependent on the amount of light.

Note, macro photography has other consequences concerning optics. A macro lens is simply a lens that is capable of focusing so close, that the subject are photographing appears at a 1:1 ratio - that is a 20mm object is appears on the image plane at 20mm. When you're operating at this distance, you're only using something like 1/4 of the projected image circle (i'm not sure exactly), thus are reducing the amount of light. You loses stops of light as you approach the minimal focus 1:1 distance, so you need more light or or slower shutter speed. Combined with a narrow depth of field, this gives you the explanation why many macro photographers use a tripod.

That's all I got.

So much insightful info. I really appreciate all the help, it will be put to great use. Im starting to become a bit more natural with changing shutter speeds and such, as sometimes I find myself doing it without actually thinking about it now. Macro photography has always grabbed me, so this is a big help.
 
Hey guys, I need some opinions on this Boxing Day deal:

dealquestionmark.jpg


I was heavily considering getting a Rebel XS but no one seems to have it on sale this Boxing Day. This is a bit more than what I was thinking of spending so i'm debating whether or not it's a good enough value to pounce on. They also have a Nikon D3000 w/18-55mm DX lens for $450 (not sure if it has image stabilization).
 

mrkgoo

Member
_leech_ said:
Hey guys, I need some opinions on this Boxing Day deal:

dealquestionmark.jpg


I was heavily considering getting a Rebel XS but no one seems to have it on sale this Boxing Day. This is a bit more than what I was thinking of spending so i'm debating whether or not it's a good enough value to pounce on. They also have a Nikon D3000 w/18-55mm DX lens for $450 (not sure if it has image stabilization).

Um, I just put this into Amazon - Black Canon Xsi with 18-55IS kit. US$556. I fail to see the bargain here.

Edit: looks like those extra are part of a beginners kit, worth $76 (amazon). That said, the only thing that is worth anything is the battery ($36). The uv filter will be entirely pointless, and you'll probably want a different bag anyway.

Do not purchase the 75-300mm unless you are desperate for a long lens. Chances, are though, you will want to move up from that.
 

mrkgoo

Member
_leech_ said:
Canada = More expensive everything. That kit usually goes for ~$700 up here.

Ah, ok. That's different then, didn't know you were speaking for Canada.

If it's normally $700, then it sounds like a better deal. I guess the main point in my post is that the bag and filter are worthless. Do not consider them as part of the bundle and decide then. And still avoid that lens.

As for the camera, should be good. It's the 500D, right? I started with the 350D and that was an awesome camera. This should be miles better, and probably for cheaper.
 
I recently found this old camera at my parents house:
1mlB

Also found a Tokina 80-200mm and a Sunpak auto130 flash.

Any tips on using it besides the standard stuff that's in the manual? :)
And does anyone have an idea how to use the flash (this one) when it's pointing upwards (for bouncing the light) ? I know how to use it in its normal position, but I have absolutely no idea how to compensate for the loss in light (I can't change the shutter speed).
 

slider

Member
With Christmas fast approaching I've, err... stumbled upon knowledge of an incoming present. It's a Sony a380.

I've done some quick searches and the reviews range from decent to average as far as I can tell.

Some relevant facts:
The person giving me the camera isn't "tech" savyy at all.
Said person would be most upset if they knew I'd exchanged or attempted to exchange the camera.
Aside from some point and click stuff I'm really a beginner (for "beginner" read "clueless").
I'm interested in getting more involved in photography.
I have no camera equipment already (tri-pods/lenses etc.) and I also have no preconceptions.

I guess my question is will a a380 suffice for a beginner/entry level? Or should I attempt to exchange it? Is the wrath of the present giver worth any extra I might receive from a Nikon/Canon?

Any advice appreciated! : )
 

tino

Banned
Unlimited4s said:
I recently found this old camera at my parents house:
1mlB

Also found a Tokina 80-200mm and a Sunpak auto130 flash.

Any tips on using it besides the standard stuff that's in the manual? :)
And does anyone have an idea how to use the flash (this one) when it's pointing upwards (for bouncing the light) ? I know how to use it in its normal position, but I have absolutely no idea how to compensate for the loss in light (I can't change the shutter speed).

Don't bother. If you are interested in film photography, get a Canon A1 or Nikon FM2 or N90s (best film camera for the money.) Film process cost money so there is no point to use a old entry level film SLR that most likely have inaccurate shutter.
 

mr_nothin

Banned
slider said:
With Christmas fast approaching I've, err... stumbled upon knowledge of an incoming present. It's a Sony a380.

I've done some quick searches and the reviews range from decent to average as far as I can tell.

Some relevant facts:
The person giving me the camera isn't "tech" savyy at all.
Said person would be most upset if they knew I'd exchanged or attempted to exchange the camera.
Aside from some point and click stuff I'm really a beginner (for "beginner" read "clueless").
I'm interested in getting more involved in photography.
I have no camera equipment already (tri-pods/lenses etc.) and I also have no preconceptions.

I guess my question is will a a380 suffice for a beginner/entry level? Or should I attempt to exchange it? Is the wrath of the present giver worth any extra I might receive from a Nikon/Canon?

Any advice appreciated! : )
I have the Sony a350 and I think it's great for entry-level stuff. I was JUST reading this thread and wondering why nobody gave Sony any love and then I get to the last post and BAM :lol How ironic!

Sony camera's are pretty good but they have more noise in higher isos when compared to cameras in the same class. You'd probably want to stick with iso100-400 and only use iso800/1600 when absolutely necessary. To me, the Sony has a different look when compared to Nikons/Canons. It's a little more vibrant and colorful but I've learned to love it. I can post some photos I've taken with my a350 if you want.

I also love the look/feel of Nikons though and plan to get a Nikon d90 (or if i have some extra money..i'll try to go for the canon 7d).

People often hated on me and my partner when we started taking photos with a "Sony" (SONY?!? *GASP). The only thing is...is that you'd be pretty limited in terms of lenses (when compared to Nikon/Canon). That is, if you dont have old minolta lenses (basically old film camera lenses). Also, another limitation is that a lot of photography places dont "support" Sony as of yet. They dont carry many Sony lenses and they dont give you customer service like they do with Nikons/Canons. So you'd probably have to deal with Sony directly for that and order most of your lenses online.

I'd say that the sony a380 is a great starting point. Not to say that I'm the greatest photographer in the world or that I'm better than any other person here. I'm just a person speaking on his experience with his Sony camera.

But it REALLY comes down to your own personal workflow and how you operate. Different cameras have different feels and its about what feels best to you and what you're most comfortable with. I say try the Sony out and return if you dont like it.
 

slider

Member
Thanks for your thoughts mr_nothin. A lot to think about!

As I said I'm a total noob and have no real experience with DSLRs. So I'll have no benchmark to compare the Sony to. Hmm.

From my limited experience I think I can frame a shot pretty well (hooray!) but my eye isn't that sensitive to other issues; I sometimes struggle to tell the difference between my 720p and 1080p sets!

I guess the Sony'll be a good introduction and if I do get fussy I can always upgrade. A quick look on Amazon shows a wide range to pick from <£1000. The issue with lenses does worry me though. Double hmm...

Finally, I'd love to see some shots you've taken with your a350 if you have time!

Cheers.
 

mr_nothin

Banned
slider said:
Thanks for your thoughts mr_nothin. A lot to think about!

As I said I'm a total noob and have no real experience with DSLRs. So I'll have no benchmark to compare the Sony to. Hmm.

From my limited experience I think I can frame a shot pretty well (hooray!) but my eye isn't that sensitive to other issues; I sometimes struggle to tell the difference between my 720p and 1080p sets!

I guess the Sony'll be a good introduction and if I do get fussy I can always upgrade. A quick look on Amazon shows a wide range to pick from <£1000. The issue with lenses does worry me though. Double hmm...

Finally, I'd love to see some shots you've taken with your a350 if you have time!

Cheers.
Will post some in a few hours!
A great website for reviews/previews/comparisons is www.dpreview.com so check out the sony reviews over there.
 

mrkgoo

Member
_leech_ said:
The XSi is the 450D, iirc.

Right you are. That's right, the 500d is like the x1t or something equally insane. Stupid american naming. Regardless, they're all good cameras, so you shouldn't have to worry there.

Slider: I'm sure the camera is great. Sony is doing a great job from their DSlRs from what I understand. For a beginner, it's all good. I don't know about a gift giver who would feel offended though, especially if you got another camera with it, and they aren't experts with them anyway.). Unless they work for Sony.
 

slider

Member
mrkgoo said:
Slider: I'm sure the camera is great. Sony is doing a great job from their DSlRs from what I understand. For a beginner, it's all good. I don't know about a gift giver who would feel offended though, especially if you got another camera with it, and they aren't experts with them anyway.). Unless they work for Sony.

Heh, trust me I did give it some thought! She's not camera-savvy but she'd know if I had a Nikon or Canon instead. And she would find out (unfortunately?).

me-nothin's made me think that for a beginner I've nothing really to worry about. Can't wait to start posting blurry pics on GAF!
 

guidop

Member
Just bought an olympus e-p2 today, really liking it so far. I will be giving the camera a good workout tomorrow so i'll let you guys know how it holds up
 

Zyzyxxz

Member
guidop said:
Just bought an olympus e-p2 today, really liking it so far. I will be giving the camera a good workout tomorrow so i'll let you guys know how it holds up

Damn, you are so money.

which lens did you get with it?
 

guidop

Member
the 14-42 kit. I got it for $1550 Australian, i'm really happy with the price it was the cheapest i had found both online and instore.

The twin dials work really well in manual it definitely speeds up the process (1 dial controls the aperture and 1 the shutter). The only compliant so far is that you don't have the choice of both the evf and lcd its either or. Changing the settings is pretty hard when looking in the evf, it would be nice if the lcd displayed the settings/ info
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
slider said:
Thanks for your thoughts mr_nothin. A lot to think about!

As I said I'm a total noob and have no real experience with DSLRs. So I'll have no benchmark to compare the Sony to. Hmm.

From my limited experience I think I can frame a shot pretty well (hooray!) but my eye isn't that sensitive to other issues; I sometimes struggle to tell the difference between my 720p and 1080p sets!

I guess the Sony'll be a good introduction and if I do get fussy I can always upgrade. A quick look on Amazon shows a wide range to pick from <£1000. The issue with lenses does worry me though. Double hmm...

Finally, I'd love to see some shots you've taken with your a350 if you have time!

Cheers.

Forsete uses the Sony system (an a900! which looks like an awesome camera). The Alpha cameras use Minolta glass which is pretty damn good (and has some standout lenses). There's also good Zeiss zoom lenses that autofocus and two phenomenal primes (85/1.4 and 135/1.8) if you want the ultimate in IQ (you'll have to pay for it in cash monies though :) ). From what I've read, Sony cameras tend to produce a nice color profile, or different at least which can tend to differentiate your photographs from the masses (of Nikon and Canon shooters).

Its a system I would buy into if it wasn't for some of Canon's prime offerings (and the Zeiss lenses that aren't on the Alpha system, like the 2/28 Distagon).
 

Forsete

Member
A380 ay? Hmm, not a huge fan of that small grip they went for there. :(
IQ-wise its pretty competitive, I know a few Minolta shooters who love the look of the images (high resolution, good dynamic range).

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2009/08/02/the-sony-alpha-380-review/

I think its a good camera if you are moving up from point and shoot. Sony developed a nice newbie friendly interface for the camera (dont worry, it can be turned off).
It has a few missing features (though, IIRC one was added with a firmware update, AE lock), like mirror lock up useful for some macro. The Live-View is also excellent, it reacts with the same speed as when using the optical viewfinder.
And it has built-in motordrive AF which is pretty unusual for a entry level camera, this means you will be able to use Minolta glass from 1980 and forward, all with image stabilization (since it sits in the camera body).

As for lens selection, you'll have access to more than you want. Check out Dyxum (great forum btw) for available lenses. http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

If you are looking to upgrade later there are the impressive A500/550 (high end entry-level) and next year the follow up to the A700 (midrange), also full frame A850 and A900.
 

zhenming

Member
well boys and girls the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is here :D :D :D fat bonus check came early this year :D :D :D

oh and amazon prime ftmfw just in time for xmas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom