-
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
Well guys CES camera announcements were crazy I saw all of the new models while I was there. too bad no nikon lol. I was interviewed at the Sony camera section by WIRED mag. I talked about the low light capabilities of their newer cams even though I haven't used a sony cam in ages and also during the whole recording I had my nikon d700 beck strap clearly shown around my neck :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
anyway... before I went I took my new nikon 14-24 out to play... this was just a quickie... at 14mm...
anyway... before I went I took my new nikon 14-24 out to play... this was just a quickie... at 14mm...
grap3fruitman
Banned
Hey Gaf, I'm thinking about getting the Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM lens for my Rebel XTi. Anyone familiar with it?
All the reviews on Amazon mention that it's a low-light lens. I wasn't aware that the lens had anything to do with low-light situations, I always thought it was the camera's job. Am I wrong?
Hmmm, suddenly this isn't available from Amazon. Is it being discontinued or something?
Anyway, any thoughts from people familiar at all with this lens would be really helpful.
All the reviews on Amazon mention that it's a low-light lens. I wasn't aware that the lens had anything to do with low-light situations, I always thought it was the camera's job. Am I wrong?
Hmmm, suddenly this isn't available from Amazon. Is it being discontinued or something?
Anyway, any thoughts from people familiar at all with this lens would be really helpful.
BronzeWolf
Banned
grap3fruitman said:
The 1.4 aperture certainly suits itself for low light conditions.
Aperture and ISO are the biggest factors in terms of low light conditions. Your camera goes up to 1600 ISO, but I think only 800 is usable. F1.4 effectively improves about 8 steps over the kit's 2.8 aperture which is a very good thing.
Not to mention 1.4 and 1.8 brings a very lovely Depth of Field effect for portraits.
Digitally, 50 mm equals to about 75 mm, a very nice portrait focal length
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Kinda hard to answer that without knowing what you plan to do with it.MrPliskin said:
To clarify, the f/1.4 refers to the aperture diameter. Specifically, a reciprocal ratio (smaller value means wider aperture). Because the aperture is very wide, it means it can let in more light. If you have a kit lens, then the aperture is likely to be around f/5.6 at 50mm. This is at least SIXTEEN times less light than the 50mm set to f/1.4. In terms of exposure, it means you can have a shutterspeed 16x faster than what the kit lens set to 5.6 requires for the same exposure.grap3fruitman said:
Wide apertures also give very narrow DOF effects.
The 50mm f1/.4 is a killer lens. It performs a little better than the cheap f/1.8 at equivalent, but is built much better. The focusing motor is not true ring USM (ultrasonic motor), however (most other USM lenses utilise a true ring USM). This doesn't necessarily matter, but it means the focus is not as fast or quiet. YOu still get FTM focus, though (full-time manual focus - means you can still turn the focus ring when it's set on AF), which is unique for a non-true USM lens.
I've heard the AF motor on this lens can have a propensity to breakdown.
In a similar vein, I've been eyeing up the EF 50mm f/1.2L. It's cheaper than the f/1.2L 84mm, but close performance. I'm just worried about the non-floating lens design, which supposedly manifests as a focus shift that occurs at MFD (minimufocus distance) at certain apertures. Is it a big problem?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
There are three things you can adjust on your camera settings to gather more light.grap3fruitman said:
1. Slower shutter speed. This allows a longer time for light to hit the sensor, thus gathering more light.
2. Wider (lower number) aperture. This makes the opening of your lens wider so that more light can be let in to hit the sensor, thus gathering more light.
3. Higher ISO. This increases the sensitivity of the sensor, amplifying the light that hits the sensor. Not necessarily gathering more light, but increasing the effect of any light that is gathered.
If you are using the kit lens, it has a maximum aperture of 3.5 or something probably. All other things being equal, shooting at f1.4 will increase the brightness of your photo almost 8 times.
Rentahamster said:
Good point :lol
A lot of my photography is just done as a hobby, however, for friends and family I occasionally do portraits and I've done a few weddings as well (I also shadow for someone quite regularly at Weddings).
I do have ambitions to do this on a larger scale in the future, however, video isn't really one of my big concerns (a feature on the 7D) however, the resolution bump sounds really attractive.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
mrkgoo said:
From what Diglloyd wrote though, it seems like correcting for a specific aperture will have adverse effects on all other apertures (where f/2 will be spot on, all other apertures will either backfocus or front focus).
The 50/1.2 is supposed to exhibit the worse case of Focus Shift though (and is usually mostly felt at close distances where the DoF is the shallowest).
MrPliskin said:
Some random impressions of the 7D in the other thread:
mrkoo said:Here are my overall impressions of the 7D. Keep in mind, I started out with a <2 MP Casio P&S, then a 5 MP Sony P&S.
My dSLR history followed by starting with a Canon 350D (8MP), and then a Canon 40D (10MP). The biggest upgrade that I felt was actually the introduction of the back dial. I shoot nearly exclusively in manual exposure, so having a dial to separately control aperture and shutter is huge to me. Viewfinder and LCD screen enhancements were the next biggest upgrades. The new AF and shutter mechanism were enjoyed as well. Of course, magnesium body and allthat too.
The 7D is a great camera. I think it's a milestone camera. Certainly the best APS-C DSLR camera that Canon has put out, and bridges the smaller sensor camera into the realm of professional.
I used to be worried about increase of noise with smaller pixels (a consequence of ever increasing MP counts), but what I found was that the noise (note I shoot JPEGS and often have NR set to standard) at the 100% pixel level was about one stop better than the 40D. This was remarkable in itself, but the biggest deal was that the increased MP meant that when I view images at a reasonable size, noise was even less of an issue. And when no DID show up, it felt much more 'film' like.
On the 350D, Iso 100-400 was the standard. Iso800 was emergencies, and 1600 was nearly a no go. On the 40D iso 100-400 was still the standard, but I'd be willing to go to 800 if need be. iso 1600 for emergencies, and 3200 was pretty bad.
On the 7D, I actually use 200-1600 as standard. 3200 if I have to, 6400 for emergencies, and I rarely shoot in 12,800. But that's remarkable. It really does change your photography.
The other thing I noticed about the 18MP is that it does resolve more detail. the jump from 10MP is moderately significant. I can get near macro-like detail out of my good lenses, and my macro has become nearly an entirely different beast altogether.
The AF system is robust, and thrills the tech gadget geek in me. I know Nikon have been enjoying the LCD overlay style for sometime, but I'm pleased Canon are following. I have had no problems, and I invite the vast arrange of features it supports. I don't do many tracking shots, but I've seen it working and it does so very well.
I love the gorgeous screen. As a JPEG shooter, I chimp a lot, so having a great hi-pixel screen is great. The user customisability of this camera is one of the best too.
Video is great, but as I found out, video shooting on an SLR is something you really have to dedicate effort to. I haven't figured it all out myself. You'll need more gear to make the most of it, the first being a microphone (the built-in mic doesn't cut it as it pickup things like the focus and IS). Stabilisation will also be another requirement. If you plan on using it for video, realise that it's not just click-and-go - it's like getting into flash photography - you'll need to learn and practice a lot.
Overall, I think the 7D is above average in all respects and makes it a superb jack-of-all trades camera, sacrificing very little. I haven't used a full-frame camera, but after playing with the 7D, I feel I don't need to. Well, until the 5D mkIII.
Personally, I'd go for the 7D (HA!, I already did, obviously), but there is nothing wrong with going the 50D and more glass. If you don't have a decent range of lenses, that would perhaps be the better option if you have a budget.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
mrkgoo said:
Its a hard trade off, either the 85/1.2 and its long Minimum Focus Distance, or the 50/1.2 and its Focus Shift. Its interesting to note that the 85/1.2 is supposed to exhibit focus shift but its MFD is so long that one never runs into trouble with it.
I've also read that the Focus Shift issue is overstated but this is by users who never shoot at MFD with the lens. I think that if you shoot a good distance away from MFD you won't run into this issue. And if you do shoot at MFD, you would have to avoid f/2 to f/2.8 (where Focus Shift is at its worst. Supposedly stopping down beyond that, focus shift is hidden by the increased Depth of Field).
Have you considered the 35/1.4? Its supposed to be a beauty of a lens (and with no big shortcomings like the above two) but obviously not as fast as the other two.
Never really considered the 35mm. It's plenty fast enough, but the focal length doesn't excite me. How much is it?BlueTsunami said:
The meson reason for me to go wide aperture is dof effects. That's why I love te short tele region for these lenses. Truth be told, I really don't need to go beyond the 85mmf/1.8, whch is a superb lens.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
mrkgoo said:
Its $1400 on Amazon
And I don't know where you're located, mrkgoo but I would try renting some of these lenses and try them out (its what I'll be doing when I make one of my bigger lens purchases). The standard rate amongst Online lens rental places seems to be around $60 (plus $25 shipping that covers sending and returning) for L lenses.
I'm going in a different direction though (wide and semi fast, like a 2/28 or 1.4/24). There's also the 135/2 to consider? But that may be getting a little too long... though it has fantastic magnification for the focal length (and considerably cheaper than the three other L lenses listed).
When I meant beyond 85mmf1.8, i meant the quality not the focal length. Yo can bet the 135mm l is on my radar. In most likelihood, that will be my next l lens.
Forgot about renting. I might look into it. Best places?
Mrklaw: yeah I'm aware of tHe focal lengths on APsc. Love the 85mm f1.8. Fantastic lens.
Forgot about renting. I might look into it. Best places?
Mrklaw: yeah I'm aware of tHe focal lengths on APsc
. Love the 85mm f1.8. Fantastic lens.Hcoregamer00
The 'H' stands for hentai.
I did some cosplay photography during Anime Los Angeles 2010, and what surprized me was just how great the Canon XSi was at 1600 ISO. The camera had way less noise than I expected.
It was in a hotel with fairly poor lighting, so I need to upgrade my lens to a better low lighting one. I am looking into the EF 85mm f1.8 because it has USM and doesn't have the AF motor problem that plagues the 50mm f1.4. I would jump on the 50mm f1.4 II with zero hesitation if Canon upgraded it to a modern USM. For the record, I used the superb 28-135mm f3.5-5.6, I love this lens.
I am also looking into the 24-70L since it has constant f2.8, but the lack of IS kills me. During ALA I had to hand hold my lens up to 1/15th of a second.
It was in a hotel with fairly poor lighting, so I need to upgrade my lens to a better low lighting one. I am looking into the EF 85mm f1.8 because it has USM and doesn't have the AF motor problem that plagues the 50mm f1.4. I would jump on the 50mm f1.4 II with zero hesitation if Canon upgraded it to a modern USM. For the record, I used the superb 28-135mm f3.5-5.6, I love this lens.
I am also looking into the 24-70L since it has constant f2.8, but the lack of IS kills me. During ALA I had to hand hold my lens up to 1/15th of a second.
mrkgoo said:
Awesome impressions man!
I'm leaning toward the 7D right now.
Currently, I have a fairly limited range of glass, none of which is remarkably fast, so the improved handling of higher ISO's on the 7D really entices me, as the money saved from a 50D wouldn't immediately go to glass (I'd have to save some more).
Right now I'm shooting with a 20D, and it's really really not cutting it. I mean, I love the camera, and it'll be a fantastic back up / alternate, but I really need to upgrade to something else quickly.
Thanks for the feedback man
I'm one step closer to making my choice!BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
mrkgoo said:When I meant beyond 85mmf1.8, i meant the quality not the focal length. Yo can bet the 135mm l is on my radar. In most likelihood, that will be my next l lens.
Forgot about renting. I might look into it. Best places?
Mrklaw: yeah I'm aware of tHe focal lengths on APsc
www.Lensrentals.com is supposed to be real good
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
If you're doing this as a hobby, then I usually don't recommend getting a camera above consumer grade level. I assume you already have a Rebel or something.MrPliskin said:
However, if you think you've outgrown it and need a new camera to challenge you and help grow your abilities, then getting a more advanced model isn't a bad idea.
In that case, I would probably stick to a 50D to save your money, since lenses are more critical than bodies. Bodies devalue and go obsolete quickly. Lenses don't.
MrPliskin said:
I would advise not to concern yourself with resolution at this point in your development. Appreciate factors like composition, lighting, subject positioning and framing. Megapixels concern will be more of a distraction. It's not that important. It will be a factor once you've leveled up in your other photographic techniques.
For a budget wedding, you could probably get away with something like:
100mm macro f2.8 for telephoto, portrait and macro ring/centerpiece/detail shots
wide prime or zoom f2.8 for wide shots
50mm f1.4 for low light
hot shoe flash, bounced if possible.
any camera body
That should cover most of your bases without spending a ton of money.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
OK, now that I've seen this post...
Make a profit of $500 using the 20D. Then you will have the justification you need to invest in a new body.
Buy lenses, not new camera bodies. Widen your aperture, don't increase the ISO.MrPliskin said:
Unless the camera is in bad shape and malfunctioning, it is supposed to be cutting it. It was a great camera when it came out and it can still take good pictures. Stick with the 20D for a little while longer. I'd say that you should set a goal for yourself:MrPliskin said:
Make a profit of $500 using the 20D. Then you will have the justification you need to invest in a new body.
Rentahamster said:
I entirely agree with this. I said I'd personally go for the 7D, but that's because I already have. If I didn't personally go with the 7D, I wouldn't be giving impressions. I would've bought a 50D had my history been different (it wasn't as big an upgrade as I would've liked format eh 40D).
If you are just 'learning', then glass is a much better investment. When you know the ins and outs of your requirements, then you can splash out. I never recommend anyone to try and 'futureproof' themselves regarding the body if they are starting out. It makes much more sense to get an entry-level, and by the time you're ready (normally a year or two later) for an upgrade, there are MUCH better things out, or the body you want will have dropped in price anyway.
mmm http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/olympus-90-250mm-f2.8/for-olympusBlueTsunami said:
must. have.
do you think they'd mind if i rented it and never returned it?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Oh yeah, they'd love that :lol :lolcaptive said:
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
I would get a nice fast quality lens, Pliskin. Sensor technology has progressed nicely since the 20D but getting your hands on a quality fast prime or fast mid zoom lens will definitely effect the quality of your images. Now, I think the 50D is a nice compromise camera, it comes with useful features (Live View, Micro Adjustments) but without the new premium price of the 7D.
Now this isn't me discounting the 7D, its ISO capabilities and Viewfinder are amazing for a crop camera (actually, lets expand that, for any digital camera) but since you're considering getting a piece of glass along with the 50D, I would say go for that instead.
Now this isn't me discounting the 7D, its ISO capabilities and Viewfinder are amazing for a crop camera (actually, lets expand that, for any digital camera) but since you're considering getting a piece of glass along with the 50D, I would say go for that instead.
I may actually consider getting 2 lens's instead. I'm already lined up to shadow / assist 5 weddings before October this year, so that should bring in a decent amount of money.
One of which may / may not be a Macro lens. I've always wanted one, but never dropped the money to invest in one. I've alway sbeen creative with how I do my shots so I can still get "close ups" using zoom and other tricks, but it's a rather big PITA.
On the fence currently on this: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0007WK8KS/?tag=neogaf0e-20
I'm pretty sure, however, that I want to get this one: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00009R6WT/?tag=neogaf0e-20
One of which may / may not be a Macro lens. I've always wanted one, but never dropped the money to invest in one. I've alway sbeen creative with how I do my shots so I can still get "close ups" using zoom and other tricks, but it's a rather big PITA.
On the fence currently on this: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0007WK8KS/?tag=neogaf0e-20
I'm pretty sure, however, that I want to get this one: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00009R6WT/?tag=neogaf0e-20
The efs 60 is an amazing lens. But there are rumours that they'll be adding is to it come februrary. People have been clamouring for a 24-70 l is as well. Granted canon rumours aren't like apple tablet kind of rumours, but they're out there. The rumours for the 24-70 hve been around for ages, but the 60mm one has only recently surfaced.MrPliskin said:
If there is a new one, and it's as good as the current plus is and maybe even slightly wider, I'd go for it myself.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Yeah, you need a constant 2.8 aperture lens in there, Pliskin.
The reason I recommended a 100mm f2.8 macro is that it is a great quality telephoto lens and you can also use it for stuff like ring shots.
The 24-70mm is great, but I think you can get by in that zoom range by just using the 50mm and zooming with your feet.
I think the 16-35mm might be a little more useful as it gives different perspectives.
You can get unique pictures by creatively using the extreme wide and extreme telephoto ends of your lenses.
The reason I recommended a 100mm f2.8 macro is that it is a great quality telephoto lens and you can also use it for stuff like ring shots.
The 24-70mm is great, but I think you can get by in that zoom range by just using the 50mm and zooming with your feet.
I think the 16-35mm might be a little more useful as it gives different perspectives.
You can get unique pictures by creatively using the extreme wide and extreme telephoto ends of your lenses.
Are there any decent point-and-shoot cameras between $100-$175?
How's this one?
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-SD1200IS-Stabilized-Dark-Gray/dp/B001SER492/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3GU8Z7GGULTHA&colid=190DPBOWBVX4J
How's this one?
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-SD1200IS-Stabilized-Dark-Gray/dp/B001SER492/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3GU8Z7GGULTHA&colid=190DPBOWBVX4J
Rentahamster said:
Thanks for all of the awesome input guy's. Hopefully I can start producing some good photo's in return! I'll keep posting here, cool folks!
Edit: Kind of off topic, but I want to get my camera cleaned and all my glass, since I haven't had it done in about 24 months. Are there anythings I should be looking for when I take it somewhere for a cleaning?
So guys.
I'm looking to get into photography this year and I kinda have my eyes set on the Nikon D90.
Except I don't have 800+ to blow on a camera right now.
A colleague of mine has lend me here old Canon 300D today, which she is looking to get rid of. I can probably get it at a decent price but I'm afraid that the hardware may be a bit too dated.
Would I be better off saving my money and wait till I can afford a Nikon D90 or should I take the extra hit and get this for the time being? Also, what would be a fair price for a second hand Canon 300D?
I'm looking to get into photography this year and I kinda have my eyes set on the Nikon D90.
Except I don't have 800+ to blow on a camera right now.
A colleague of mine has lend me here old Canon 300D today, which she is looking to get rid of. I can probably get it at a decent price but I'm afraid that the hardware may be a bit too dated.
Would I be better off saving my money and wait till I can afford a Nikon D90 or should I take the extra hit and get this for the time being? Also, what would be a fair price for a second hand Canon 300D?
MrPliskin said:
Unless it's impacting your image taking, I wouldn't bother cleaning the lenses. They're out of warranty anyway, so it will simply using money. When they break or need servicing just best to let them do it then if you're paying anyway.
As for Camera, I just clean the sensor if I ever get bored and check for dust - I do it myself.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Danielsan said:
If you are looking for the ability to use quality glass on a camera, then the 300D would fit the bill. Its missing a lot of the modern fixings various cameras have but when it comes down to it, it still gives you a viewfinder, quicker startup time and the ability to fit various glass on it.
As far as the price? I've seen second hand 350D's go for $300-$400 (which is a generation ahead of the 300D). It'll probably make your colleague cringe but I would take it off their hands for $200 - $250, no more. I mean, I think you could get a new XT (which is a 350D) for $400-$500, so if they fight you on that price point, spit a little reality in regards to the price points I just listed
MrPliskin said:
If you live in a big city is easy to rent pro lenses. For the wedding photos I have bad success with 24-70 on both a FF and a APS body.
Recently I rented a 12-24 f/4 (APS) for an indoor wedding shoot for my friend. This Nikon lens is very disappointing. Way too much distortion for group photo, even 3 people is too much for this lens. I have had good experience with the 17-35 2.8. I think I am going to buy the Tokina 11-16 or rent the 17-35 for indoor jobs from now on. Personally I think 100mm is too narrow even for an out door wedding job, to me.
Danielsan said:
Don't spend more than half of your budget on the body. Spend the money on lenses. If you can't afford new body, get a used one. If you pay more than 250 for the 300D, its too much. You can get one less than $250 on ebay. Also check out used D200. Used Nikon usually drop faster than used Canon, of the same class.
Thanks.BlueTsunami said:If you are looking for the ability to use quality glass on a camera, then the 300D would fit the bill. Its missing a lot of the modern fixings various cameras have but when it comes down to it, it still gives you a viewfinder, quicker startup time and the ability to fit various glass on it.
As far as the price? I've seen second hand 350D's go for $300-$400 (which is a generation ahead of the 300D). It'll probably make your colleague cringe but I would take it off their hands for $200 - $250, no more. I mean, I think you could get a new XT (which is a 350D) for $400-$500, so if they fight you on that price point, spit a little reality in regards to the price points I just listed
I just did some price checking and the 300D seems to doing around 150-200 on marktplaats (which is our equivalent of craigslist). Hopefully I can get some proper hands on time with camera this week and I'll ask her if she has a price in mind.
I'm definitely not willing to spend more than on 100-150 on it, also considering the LCD display has some scratches.
Other cameras that I'm considering beside the Nikon D90 are the Nikon D5000 + AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm GII ( 500) and the Canon EOS 500D + EF-S 18-55mm IS (600).
The Nikon D90 seems to get the best reviews though.
BigJonsson
Member
I can't wait to get a dSLR in a year or two and start learning all these lenses and stuff
Human_Shield
Member
1. Anyone familiar with ordering equipment from Amazon know how long it takes them to restock lenses? I finally scraped enough together to get the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX lens, but they've been out if it for a while now. I thought about the 50mm AF lens instead, but I'm using a D40, so I'd have to do straight manual focus due to no built-in motor on the body.
2. I'd like to start purchasing some equipment for trying my hand at some portrait photography. Anyone have recommendations as to essential equipment, brand, quality, etc?
2. I'd like to start purchasing some equipment for trying my hand at some portrait photography. Anyone have recommendations as to essential equipment, brand, quality, etc?
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Human_Shield said:
The only essential in my mind is a reflector. In adverse natural lighting, where you need the angled fill light, a reflector will coming in handing for minimizing shadows on the face.
Other than that, all you need is the suns light
(Unless you really want to get into strobes and all that jazz).Hmm, 7D or 50D? Answer - neither.
Get a used 40D. There should be plenty on the market from people upgrading to 50D/7D and its a great step up from the 20D. I had a 40D then a 50D and regretted the 50D as it isn't a big upgrade, the 40D was fine as it was.
I do think you'd notice improvments with a 40D, so I'd go with one of those (used) and then look at one decent 2.8 lens.
If you're backup at a wedding you probably can only have one lens. You don't have time to change around unless you have two bodies. Check with the main photographer what they use, and find out what they'd like you to complement with. eg if he's going short/wide, you could get something like a 70-200 2.8.
Get a used 40D. There should be plenty on the market from people upgrading to 50D/7D and its a great step up from the 20D. I had a 40D then a 50D and regretted the 50D as it isn't a big upgrade, the 40D was fine as it was.
I do think you'd notice improvments with a 40D, so I'd go with one of those (used) and then look at one decent 2.8 lens.
If you're backup at a wedding you probably can only have one lens. You don't have time to change around unless you have two bodies. Check with the main photographer what they use, and find out what they'd like you to complement with. eg if he's going short/wide, you could get something like a 70-200 2.8.
- Status