The A7ii is a little out of my price range. I'd generally be using it to record small skits, reviews, and the occasional vacation. I would like to one day move into wedding photography but that is years away. The 4k aspect is really to future proof the camera and to give me extra ability to crop scenes as needed.
-
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.
NeoGAF Camera Equipment Thread | MK II
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
JadedWriter
Member
Just get the Nikon version man. Even if there is technically a crop value to it it's a great lens.
DarkJediKnight
Member
If you're not the primary shooter, you're fine. You have a solid range covered. Both the 24-70 and the 50 1.8 are close focusing lenses which are great for tight indoor work.
If you were the primary shooter, I'd say get a long macro lens like the 105Vr and a 35mm lens. That way in case something breaks, you have a backup prime that can substitute for your zooms.
Krauser Kat
Member
As someone who just bought a GH4... i would go with a G7 with a decent lens or A6300 and more so the A6300 since it handles low light better and has a better crop.
The 2x crop is bitch to get around. i have the 18-35 sigma with a adapter and its takes great photos with the gh4 but the 2x crop without a speed booster is awful.
i wouldn't look at a gh4 unless you want to drop 600 additional on a metabones speed booster.
JadedWriter
Member
Wait so give me a sec...the 18-35 is a 36-70 on a GH4? That's...not what that lens was even intended for...wow. Wouldn't having all of that stuff in between the lens also effect image quality? Might be a noob question but I've never used an adapter and speed booster on a lens before.
jongkookie
Member
I have an old Canon 40D body and I bought the 50mm Yongnuo for it so that my son could use it to take pictures in his high school without worrying about any of my good lenses.
It's noisy but takes nice pictures. I haven't done any sort of formal comparison of it. It was definitely worth the money for me at least.
I know for sure the Canon version is alright as even Kai from DigitalRev hesitantly gave it approval lol.
Tbh, it's not really a necessity for me hence why I'm struggling justifying getting one. I really just want one for convenience, that's it. And from what I've seen, there really isn't much of a difference in IQ between my Series E 50mm and the current Nikon 50mm so I'd basically be paying $200 for the AF motor.
If that's the case then I'd also second the a6300. I used the older a6000 for a day with a Nikon F to E mount adapter to use my Nikon lenses and I liked it a lot. In fact, I'm actually thinking of picking one up to carry around with me everywhere.
DarkJediKnight
Member
I would recommend the A6300 here as well. With the adapters you can use canon and Nikon lenses.
I'm kind of shocked that Canon didn't have 4k for the 80D because that's the camera I would recommend for video.
Amazing focus pulls. I know a guy who does wedding videos that sold his 5D mark 3 to get a couple 80d.
I'm kind of shocked that Canon didn't have 4k for the 80D because that's the camera I would recommend for video.
Amazing focus pulls. I know a guy who does wedding videos that sold his 5D mark 3 to get a couple 80d.
Yeah, it feels like they could dominate the market if they dared put 4k in a cheaper body. As a video oriented camera from 2016 it's weird that it's 1080p only. Everything else is 4k nowadays.
In 4k there's also a small crop on top of the crop
I think it does OK with the crop considering how sharp it is.
Speedbooster can add some chromatic aberration, but they're pretty high quality. They're pretty expensive at around 500$ IIRC.
Edit: Crap, I'm used to double posting TT
Krauser Kat
Member
I dont have a speed booster I just have an adapter so its just air in between and keeps the 2x crop. With a speedbooster the crop is 1.44. In 4k mode there is also another small crop 2.2-3x.
Generally the metabones is really nice glass with a single element but its 600 on top of camera and lens. The bonus is it drops the 1.8 to a 1.4.
JadedWriter
Member
Wow...still don't see myself getting a speed booster at that price, would just rather get a different lens personally.
Wow that is some overwhelming support for the a6300 over the GH4. I wasn't expecting that, but based on the low light difference I shouldn't be surprised. Is there any lens recommendations for the a6300 I should focus on purchasing for the body?
Just out of curiosity how noticeable difference in quality compared to the A7ii. If it's significant I'd be tempted to save for longer to purchase that.
Just out of curiosity how noticeable difference in quality compared to the A7ii. If it's significant I'd be tempted to save for longer to purchase that.
Krauser Kat
Member
the A7II is a full frame. Better low light because of the full frame and in body stabilization but probably worse everything else, it also only does 1080p.
You might be thinking about the A7RII which is 3200 for the body (double your budget)
Yea, $3200 is definitely out of my price range. I'm pretty new to photography so I think the benefits of that body would be wasted on me. Are there some essential lens anyone would suggest to get for the 6300?
LyleLanley
Banned
I'm getting the upgrade bug, I'm thinking about upgrading from my D7100, I was looking at the D500 but for the price I'm thinking maybe I should start looking into FX cameras. Any recommendations?
Edit:
I guess I could also consider switching to Canon.
Edit:
I guess I could also consider switching to Canon.
JadedWriter
Member
Would you really want to rebuy every lens you have? I heard the D500 is fantastic. What you do might determine what you get though. I'm not chucking my 7100 for anything but I'm starting to feel like I need a second body for my shoots though. Mostly because lens switching multiple times is just a hassle. I'm personally looking at a 750 myself if I can ever get that kind of money together.
LyleLanley
Banned
Re-buying all my lenses would be a bit of a pain but I'm probably moving to another country for a year for work so if I'm gonna do it now seems like the right time. Also, apparently you can get a Canon EOS 5DS for "only" $2,668 on eBay.
The only concern I'd have with Sony APSC is that Sony themselves already said their focus is on FF. So going forward, you are not going to find many new APSC lenses and the existing ones aren't that great imo. That means eventually you probably will end up having to buy FF lenses for the APSC body which are more expensive and larger/heavier. Just another food for thought.
Krauser Kat
Member
True.
But any E-Mount lens will work for the A6300 even if they are big and heavy(their will be new lenses just not nescarilty small an compact APSC ones). I would go with the kit lens or go with the body and an the new 30mm 1.4 $340 or 30mm 2.8 $170 from sigma.
JadedWriter
Member
I've never really been a fan of Canon camera layouts. I mean I can use them cause I have to for work, but there are just a couple of things ergonomics wise that I prefer with Nikon. I personally would just get an 810 if you need more MP, but that's honestly just me. The prices are similar and you don't have to replace all of your lenses...unless all of your current lenses are apsc only lenses. If that's the case then it really doesn't matter what you do.
LyleLanley
Banned
I'm leaning towards sticking with Nikon, now it just really depends on if I want to go to the 810 and buy a bunch of new lenses or settle with the 500 and upgrade my current lens collection. I guess I just really need to decide if going FX is worth it.
JadedWriter
Member
What even is your current glass layout? If it's a bunch of cheap variable aperture kit lenses then yeah upgrade them. Why do you feel the need to upgrade and what exactly do you do with your photography?
LyleLanley
Banned
I'm away from my lenses/camera now and I can't recall them all off the top of my head but it's a decent collection of lenses, not stuff I'd necessarily want to move on from just for the hell of it. My reason for upgrading is that I'm moving away for a while and I want to get a new camera before then. Most of my photography is nature/wildlife but I expect I'll be doing more urban photography in the future. As it is now I'm almost certain I'll end up giving up on the FX dream and just go with the 500.
Astral/H3X
Member
I get the feeling that they are interested in the A6300 primarily for video (haven't looked too far into the back posts), in which case they are going to want manual lenses, of which vintage primes will be adequate. That, and Samyang lenses. All of Sony's lenses are focus by wire, which won't work with follow focus equipment. That, and mirrorless cameras are godlike for manual focus.
If you've already got a system built up, I wouldn't switch unless there's an adapter, or if the switch comes with a great benefit.
For example, if ALL of your lenses are APSC only, then you'd need to get full frame lenses regardless of which company you choose, so there isn't much ecosystem barrier to that.
Keep in mind lens compatibility and what you can get out of it, might help save some cash -- ie Nikons can use ANY lenses made all the way back to their film cameras, so you can pick up cheaper vintage lenses to save some dough, whereas Canon EOS system cameras can't use FD lenses. Likewise, Sony E mount systems can use *literally any* D/SLR lens pretty much ever, as well as I think most if not all rangefinder lenses, given proper adapters. I mean shit, I literally don't have a single Sony lens for my A7II ("But there's no lenses! Bullshit ahahaha)
EDIT: Just remembered, Pentax K mount is the same way. I hate to forget a company, even if they aren't as big as they used to be (but seem to be making a push back into the market).
JadedWriter
Member
If all you're going to be doing is urban street photography then you'll probably only really need one lens for that and I wouldn't really recommend an 810 for that to be honest. You can probably just get a D610 or 750, strap on an F4 24-120 and call it done to be honest. I'm going to assume your usual set up for your wildlife/nature stuff are long reach and/or UWA lenses? A couple of macros or something as well?
Astral/H3X
Member
Are there any actual reviews for the FE 70-300 yet? I plan on getting it for some amateur birding/telephoto with the military but there's hardly anything other than first looks.
LyleLanley
Banned
Yeah you've pretty much nailed it on the lenses. Since I plan on continuing to do nature photography as well I think I'm gonna stick with DX for now, upgrade some of my older/cheaper lenses and maybe revisit this idea once I move out there and get my raise. The 500 seems like a decent upgrade without having to go crazy replacing all my lenses right away.
JadedWriter
Member
If you don't already have one you could probably get a lot of bang for the buck out of Nikon's 70-300 VR lens. I'm trying to now figure out what you're even using at least focal length wise that would be good, yet old for wildlife on a DX set up. Even I do my best to not have DX only lenses. Do you use the Tokina 2.8 11-16 by any chance? That's a really good UWA for DX only. Only thing is you really can't buy FF only UWA lenses and put them on a DX camera, they just don't work that way. I mean you could...but it ceases to be an UWA lens.
LyleLanley
Banned
That Tokina is probably my favorite lens and by old I mean more that I bought shittier lenses back when I had a tighter budget.
JadedWriter
Member
I know that feeling. I occasionally used Nikon's 18-105 and 18-55 kit lenses until I got a better handle on what I would like and what I'd be even taking pictures of. I have an OKish set up, but there's a pretty big gap between my 17-50 and my 70-200. I would like to get a 2.8 24-70, but those things are not cheap at all. Next lens might be an 85, but on DX that focal length gets a bit weird depending on simple spacing matters. So I'm assuming you have mostly kit lenses for reach then? I actually might at some point get that Tokina lens too. Really depends on what I'd be doing with it. I think I'm just mainly focusing on stuff I'd be using for event photography since that's becoming the bulk of what I'm doing these days.
I'm just not a believer of using FF lenses on APSC when it comes to zoom lenses especially. The main point of using APSC is for smaller form factor (size + weight), higher magnification for telephoto, and cost. If you end up having to buy FF lenses for a APSC system most of the time, you are throwing away most of the advantages of using a APSC body.
jongkookie
Member
I dunno.
I'm using legacy FF lenses on my APS-C body and I really don't feel like there's a huge difference in terms of usability. I think the only issue I've really encountered is for car photography since I can't get that delicious bokeh on 28mm FF(42mm on APS-C) when I'm trying to get the entire car in the shot and blur in the background, but on the other hand, I can just switch to a longer zoom and walk the distance to get that bokeh I want.
I feel like even with FF glass on APS-C you have the ability to sidestep any issues you're getting as long as you know what you're doing.
That said, I don't disagree with you though. I carry 28, 50, and 85mm primes for videography simply cause it's light.
Sure you can side step the FOV issues but a FF 24-70 2.8 lens will never be as useful to me as a APSC 16-50 2.8 lens and it's larger, heavier and more costly. I'm mostly saying it from new purchases point of view.
With legacy lenses, you are throwing the cost out of the equation so you just make do with what you can get. Even then you are still carrying more weight than needed if there was an equivalent APSC version, especially for larger aperture and/or telephoto lenses. It's not the end of the world; it just depends on where your priorities are.
LyleLanley
Banned
Most of the fun I have with the Tokina lens is just messing around, I usually don't have an idea of what I'm going to do with it when I put it on. Along these lines, I kind of want to buy a fisheye lens, they're kind of expensive for something that I'll use purely for stupidity though.
JadedWriter
Member
Fisheyes I'd probably never even get. Too much exposed glass for my paranoid, clumsy ass and I just have no idea what I'd shoot with it. I'd only probably get an UWA if I was a real estate photographer, which I almost started doing, but they wanted me to buy the lens before they even gave me a chance to do anything for them. I got money problems, that just was not happening.
Only reason why I'd get a 2.8 24-70 on my APSC camera is just to fill the gaps. I have a 17-50, 18-35, a FX 50 and a 70-200 as my work set up. I'm missing a lot of coverage in between the 17-50 and 70-200.
You could always opt for the Sigma 50-100 f1.8 I guess! That's one of the problems when manufactures focus more on FF -- the annoying focal length gaps. I'd never let go of my 16-50 and 50-135 f2.8 pair as long as I still have an APSC body.
JadedWriter
Member
I know of its existence, but I'm really trying to do my best to not buy APSC lenses only at this point. If I'm paying a grand for a lens it better be able to work properly on a full frame. Because at some point I want to go full frame for my second body.
Astral/H3X
Member
Welp. Just found out about the FD 80-200L, which is just as good as modern zooms in sharpness, and the FD 300 F4L, which is also sharp as hell and pretty affordable.
Which I guess means I don't need to get the 70-300 from Sony, which while I'll miss OSS on the zoom, shouldn't be TOO bad. I can handhold the 70-200 F4, and that's such a shite lens it barely triggers focus peaking.
Which I guess means I don't need to get the 70-300 from Sony, which while I'll miss OSS on the zoom, shouldn't be TOO bad. I can handhold the 70-200 F4, and that's such a shite lens it barely triggers focus peaking.
I have too many systems, but I want a Canon FD body. So many cheap lenses and some of the cheapest F1.4 lenses. The F1.2 50-58mm are cheaper than many 50mm F1.4.
I use a 16-35 2.8L when I do real estate. Really not necessary to go wider than that.
Astral/H3X
Member
At the same time, they are really good. I imagine their low price comes from the fact that EOS systems can't use them very well, whereas Nikon lenses are still straight compatible. *excellent* bargain, if you're willing to drop AF. I use the 50 1.4 as my primary lens.
JadedWriter
Member
For full frame yes, but I have a crop sensor and the real estate photography firm I was talking to demanded something wider at around at least 12mm I think.
I really think it depends on what a person is doing. I do a lot of event work, I'm not relying on manual focus only lenses for any reason.
I have a Minolta MD (also known as MC or SR) mount camera and they too switched mounts in the 80s leaving us with some cheap, but good glass.
The old Minolta 50 f1.4 lenses are also ~100$. The wide angles are actually kinda expensive, but were reportedly sharper than the competition.
You could always fake it by doing a 2-frame panoramic.
JadedWriter
Member
They wanted nothing of that shit sadly.
LyleLanley
Banned
Ultra wide angle is the best. The wider the better.
JadedWriter
Member
Yeah if I had the money I would've have gotten that Tokina lens, sadly no money. I think I'll just figure out my next event photography lens.
panthapanda
Member
So I decided to pick up photography/videography as a hobby and a quick search of best bang for buck dslr was the Canon 70D. I didn't realize it was a Crop Sensor but it doesn't necessarily bother me. I more or less got it for the video capturing with the flip screen feature.
My question is, is it worth it to get a full frame camera for uses around the realm of touristic photos and decent HQ YouTube videos/skits? Also, if I do decide to upgrade, are there any sites where I could trade the camera in as I already bought it a while ago and it's outside return date.
My question is, is it worth it to get a full frame camera for uses around the realm of touristic photos and decent HQ YouTube videos/skits? Also, if I do decide to upgrade, are there any sites where I could trade the camera in as I already bought it a while ago and it's outside return date.
JadedWriter
Member
I wouldn't bother with full frame unless you're starting to do stuff for actual work purposes and are starting to get paid for it. Unless you need the improved dynamic range and much improved iso performance then you might not need a full frame camera. With crop sensors especially Canon's just pay close attention to the lens series cause if you do upgrade some won't be compatible with a full frame camera. And yeah pay attention to crop values as well for focal length purposes. Other than that start shooting, experiment and just find out what tickles your fancy.