• 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

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.

Thanks!

My sister, who does some photography professionally, basically said I wasted my money with a crop sensor camera lol but I figured that it was perfect for my uses. I'll keep messing with it to see if I'm satisfied with how the video stuff works out.
 
Thanks!

My sister, who does some photography professionally, basically said I wasted my money with a crop sensor camera lol but I figured that it was perfect for my uses. I'll keep messing with it to see if I'm satisfied with how the video stuff works out.
Don't get me wrong, it has it's advantages, but I really think it really depends on what you're doing. I'm more or less a corporate events shooter where the light is just decent to shit and I personally do my best to not hit anything above 1250 iso. I'd never shoot 3200 cause the image just goes to hell in my opinion. But full frames handle that just fine. It's also great if you intend to print out your pics and as I said have paying clients. If you're just doing it for your own enjoyment, then you really don't need full frame unless you can afford it. FF is also great for high end portrait work. As I said just depends on what you're doing. Corporate events or wedding stuff then yes full frame. If not it really doesn't matter. Shit Koriandrr does everything with a mirrorless micro four thirds and she's just fine and quite busy and talented. Most important thing is the person taking the actual picture. What does your sister do?
 
Don't get me wrong, it has it's advantages, but I really think it really depends on what you're doing. I'm more or less a corporate events shooter where the light is just decent to shit and I personally do my best to not hit anything above 1250 iso. I'd never shoot 3200 cause the image just goes to hell in my opinion. But full frames handle that just fine. It's also great if you intend to print out your pics and as I said have paying clients. If you're just doing it for your own enjoyment, then you really don't need full frame unless you can afford it. FF is also great for high end portrait work. As I said just depends on what you're doing. Corporate events or wedding stuff then yes full frame. If not it really doesn't matter. Shit Koriandrr does everything with a mirrorless micro four thirds and she's just fine and quite busy and talented. Most important thing is the person taking the actual picture. What does your sister do?

She does portraits and wedding events, stuff like that.
 

Cromwell

Banned
You can build a solid portfolio on consumer grade DSLR's. I used a T2i for years, got accepted to film school with it and eventually got paid gigs with it. Was able to save up enough to get a 5d Mk. III after around 6 months of working. For freelancing, a full frame Canon camera will get you any job as long as your work is good. DSLR video gigs are more and more often going to 4k, I'm crossing my fingers for the 5d Mk. 4 to hit this year and finally give us Canon people affordable 4k.
 
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.

Samyang makes a 14mm for about $300, and it's (IIRC) as wide as you can get on FF without going fisheye. And it's wide angle, you can't misfocus it.
 
Also could someone clear this up for me. I understand what crop sensors do and how it compares to a full frame camera. So I know that my 70D has a multiplier of 1.6. I.E. a 50mm lens on a crop sensor would give the same FOV as an 80mm lens on a full frame.

Are they saying that a picture from the 50mm APS-C is exactly the same as the 80mm on the Full Frame? I know that using the same lenses on the two cameras will yield different results. I guess I'm getting the impression that a picture from the 50mm on a APS-C is the same as the 80mm but still "cropped". If that makes any sense. But if they're essentially the same picture then I probably won't need to do the full frame upgrade.
 
Also could someone clear this up for me. I understand what crop sensors do and how it compares to a full frame camera. So I know that my 70D has a multiplier of 1.6. I.E. a 50mm lens on a crop sensor would give the same FOV as an 80mm lens on a full frame.

Are they saying that a picture from the 50mm APS-C is exactly the same as the 80mm on the Full Frame? I know that using the same lenses on the two cameras will yield different results. I guess I'm getting the impression that a picture from the 50mm on a APS-C is the same as the 80mm but still "cropped". If that makes any sense. But if they're essentially the same picture then I probably won't need to do the full frame upgrade.
It's a 50mm on full frame and an 80mm on crop sensor. You don't have to apply an additional crop to that unless you use a video recording mode that adds an additional crop. Pretty much you just have a tighter crop with the same lens on a crop sensor. It's something you just get used to. And yeah if your sister does weddings and portraits I can see why she would be using a full frame. Crop sensors usually tend to be more for wildlife shooters cause of the added crop factor.
 
Also could someone clear this up for me. I understand what crop sensors do and how it compares to a full frame camera. So I know that my 70D has a multiplier of 1.6. I.E. a 50mm lens on a crop sensor would give the same FOV as an 80mm lens on a full frame.

Are they saying that a picture from the 50mm APS-C is exactly the same as the 80mm on the Full Frame? I know that using the same lenses on the two cameras will yield different results. I guess I'm getting the impression that a picture from the 50mm on a APS-C is the same as the 80mm but still "cropped". If that makes any sense. But if they're essentially the same picture then I probably won't need to do the full frame upgrade.

You don't need a full frame. Full frame makes sense when image quality is your number 1 priority, but you can get fantastic image quality on crop sensors. FF cameras are relatively new for amateurs and people have been producing amazing results from crop sensors for years. If you're new to this hobby, your FF shots won't be any better or worse than your crop framed shots anyway.

dsc_0157_2.jpg


Seeings images like this helped me understand crop factor. Imagine same lens and standing in the same spot, I think you already understand this, but just in case you still need help.

An 80mm full frame vs. a 50 mm APS-C image would roughly be equivalent. Here is a good explanation, because as this article notes, there are other qualities that go into a lens outside of their focal length.

http://neilvn.com/tangents/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-cameras-comparison-depth-of-field/
 
You don't need a full frame. Full frame makes sense when image quality is your number 1 priority, but you can get fantastic image quality on crop sensors. FF cameras are relatively new for amateurs and people have been producing amazing results from crop sensors for years. If you're new to this hobby, your FF shots won't be any better or worse than your crop framed shots anyway.

Thanks. I was getting the impression that a photo on a full frame w/80mm lens was getting more of the scene than the equivalent of 80mm (so 50mm) on a Crop Sensor. Now I understand that isn't the case. I would just have to stand further back lol.

So the lens I have so far are pretty much the kit lens (55-250 and 18-135) and a 24mm pancake lens. I feel like I've been using the 18-135 more than anything but I do like the compactness of the pancake lens. its kinda awkward lugging around lens, so basically is there a better everyday shooter than the basic lens that I have? I'm kinda interested in like an ultra wide lens or something.
 
I think telling someone who's just starting to get into photography as a hobby to get a full frame camera is terrible advice if for no other reason than the cost associated with it.
 
Thanks. I was getting the impression that a photo on a full frame w/80mm lens was getting more of the scene than the equivalent of 80mm (so 50mm) on a Crop Sensor. Now I understand that isn't the case. I would just have to stand further back lol.

So the lens I have so far are pretty much the kit lens (55-250 and 18-135) and a 24mm pancake lens. I feel like I've been using the 18-135 more than anything but I do like the compactness of the pancake lens. its kinda awkward lugging around lens, so basically is there a better everyday shooter than the basic lens that I have? I'm kinda interested in like an ultra wide lens or something.

50mm on a Crop vs 75 on a FF are going to be SOOOO close to each other that you'd have to set them side by side to tell the difference. The differences you ARE going to see are going to be the background, but they'll be really minor. In other words, consider it as no difference. :D

18-135? Holy cow, that's a huge range for a lens.
As for "every day lens", you'll honestly have to give us a bit more info, really. My first thought is to look for something like a 16-50 (or similar), as that should give you the most frequent focal lengths, while being more lightweight than what you have (And possibly brighter). But that's just first guess.
 
I think telling someone who's just getting into photography as a hobby to get a full frame camera is terrible advice if for no other reason than the cost associated with it.

Haha yeah, I'm almost positive that my sister was only suggesting that I get a Full Frame so that I could buy lens that she wanted and use them.

50mm on a Crop vs 75 on a FF are going to be SOOOO close to each other that you'd have to set them side by side to tell the difference. The differences you ARE going to see are going to be the background, but they'll be really minor. In other words, consider it as no difference. :D

18-135? Holy cow, that's a huge range for a lens.
As for "every day lens", you'll honestly have to give us a bit more info, really. My first thought is to look for something like a 16-50 (or similar), as that should give you the most frequent focal lengths, while being more lightweight than what you have (And possibly brighter). But that's just first guess.

Like my use would be for scenery and such. Touristic things. Like I really don't need/want to zoom on anything and capture an interesting building or statue and to be able to get the entire subject without having to be too close or too far. 16-50 sounds like it's something I would like as when I use the 50-250, I rarely feel the need to zoom but almost always feel like 50 doesn't get the entire subject like how I want it to. And then switching lens gets annoying.
 

Ty4on

Member
I think telling someone who's just starting to get into photography as a hobby to get a full frame camera is terrible advice if for no other reason than the cost associated with it.

It depends. If you're into retro glass you get a lot of bang for your buck with a Sony A7 camera and some cheap adapters.
 
Thanks. I was getting the impression that a photo on a full frame w/80mm lens was getting more of the scene than the equivalent of 80mm (so 50mm) on a Crop Sensor. Now I understand that isn't the case. I would just have to stand further back lol.

So the lens I have so far are pretty much the kit lens (55-250 and 18-135) and a 24mm pancake lens. I feel like I've been using the 18-135 more than anything but I do like the compactness of the pancake lens. its kinda awkward lugging around lens, so basically is there a better everyday shooter than the basic lens that I have? I'm kinda interested in like an ultra wide lens or something.
I really wouldn't recommend using an UWA unless you're taking some landscape stuff. You're using the 18-135 for because the beginning focal lengths are more usable for most photography uses. You could probably do well by getting the 2.8 17-55 Canon makes or you can find the 2.8 Sigma 17-50 which is nice because it has image stabilization. You think you got lens lugging problems? My current shoot set up bag is my 2.8 70-200, 2.8-17-50, 1.8 18-35 and my 1.8 50mm. Luckily that 50 is small, plus I have my flash, a strap, cleaning stuff, radio flash transmitter and random other shit in there...bag is heavy. When I travel light for street photography purposes I ditch the 70-200, use my smaller bag and just take my cleaning stuff. My camera has the battery grip on it too.
 
Someone who is both new to the hobby and into retro glass seems like a very unique individual.

Hi.

Though I guess I wouldn't say I'm new at this point, but it took a whiiiiiile before I bought a modern lens, and I don't even use those.
Like my use would be for scenery and such. Touristic things. Like I really don't need/want to zoom on anything and capture an interesting building or statue and to be able to get the entire subject without having to be too close or too far. 16-50 sounds like it's something I would like as when I use the 50-250, I rarely feel the need to zoom but almost always feel like 50 doesn't get the entire subject like how I want it to. And then switching lens gets annoying.

16-50 and a 50-250 should be able to do that with minimal amount of gear. The 16 end will be wide "ish" enough that you won't feel the need to back up too much, and the 50 just telephoto enough to get some distance. Most kit lens users will use primarily the 16-50, and then keep the 50-XXX as their "Oh wait I need more reach" lens.
 

Ragnarok

Member
Someone who is both new to the hobby and into retro glass seems like a very unique individual.

Why's that exactly? If I had to recommend a camera/lens combo to a newbie, it'd be a used 5d mk II with some nikon ai-s primes. Maybe a 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, and 85mm or 105mm 2.8

Under $1000 for the package, you get great image quality, have to learn how to manually focus (which is still an important skill, especially if you plan on doing anything video related), don't have to worry about crop factor, get good low light capability, and even have the option for RAW video down the line when you're more experienced.

I think retro glass should be the way newbies go to start out. They give great image quality at an affordable price and they are built to last, unlike cheap plastic lenses of today. Drop a cheap canon ef 50 on the ground and it could be toast. All metal vintage lenses are tanks!
 

Ty4on

Member
It sucks with Canon that you don't get focus confirm without the chip. On Nikon you get focus confirm with any lens, even if you just hold it in front of the camera without an adapter :p
 
I wish there were some programmable, $40 FD-E Mount adapters that I could punch in what lens they are attached to, and have it stored on EXIF. Such a pain to try and get LensTagger working.
 
Strap recommendations for a 5D3+bigger lenses (not telephoto stuff but like 24-70 etc)?

I don't want one of the tripod mount ones and the included strap doesn't reach my hip that well.
 
Strap recommendations for a 5D3+bigger lenses (not telephoto stuff but like 24-70 etc)?

I don't want one of the tripod mount ones and the included strap doesn't reach my hip that well.

Any time I hear "strap recommendation" I immediately think of the Peak Design straps.
So I'd start there.
 
That moment where you turn up at a venue to take pictures of a singer for a singer and it's too dark to even get any kind of focus.
I mean I have "stuff" but she's a silhouette in most of them.
 
Strap recommendations for a 5D3+bigger lenses (not telephoto stuff but like 24-70 etc)?

I don't want one of the tripod mount ones and the included strap doesn't reach my hip that well.

Peak Design Slide using the little on body mounts. I agree, the tripod mount stuff isn't for me either.
 
What lens? Images are sharp. Why not post em over in the photography thread, people often give feedback over there.

Fuji 23mm f.14

I can't get a decent res/image size to fit in the forum on my monitor. Everything I've attempted seems to blow up the image to full size or look like shit.
 

Ty4on

Member
Fuji 23mm f.14

I can't get a decent res/image size to fit in the forum on my monitor. Everything I've attempted seems to blow up the image to full size or look like shit.

If you upload to flickr they'll provide lower res versions.

Quoting images also helps, but the full image is still loaded and strains computers and internet bandwidth so don't put dozens of high res images in a post.

Example using both (original is 3372 x 5040)

Sorry it's so dirty. I was too lazy to clean my negatives >_>
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
Just bought one of my dream lenses off Amazon for a song. $600 for a Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2, ZF (Nikon) mount. The first run of modern lenses from Zeiss that actually has an aperture ring. The current ones have electronic apertures. Gonna pair it with my Sony A7.
 
Just bought one of my dream lenses off Amazon for a song. $600 for a Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2, ZF (Nikon) mount. The first run of modern lenses from Zeiss that actually has an aperture ring. The current ones have electronic apertures. Gonna pair it with my Sony A7.
I'm always curious what people are doing that makes purchasing a Zeiss lens realistic. I'm not even trying to hate on the brand they're just fucking expensive. Ya know what...that's not even priced that badly. I've seen way way worse for a Zeiss lens. Manual only...nope, never mind.
 
I'm always curious what people are doing that makes purchasing a Zeiss lens realistic. I'm not even trying to hate on the brand they're just fucking expensive. Ya know what...that's not even priced that badly. I've seen way way worse for a Zeiss lens. Manual only...nope, never mind.

Yo he's got a Sony

Just keep that in mind lmao
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
I'm always curious what people are doing that makes purchasing a Zeiss lens realistic. I'm not even trying to hate on the brand they're just fucking expensive. Ya know what...that's not even priced that badly. I've seen way way worse for a Zeiss lens. Manual only...nope, never mind.

Lmao, its my only hobby. I don't even game all that much anymore. So dropping this amount isn't too bad once a year (and lenses like this one last forever due to the lack of electronic parts).

As far as Zeiss lenses go, you can find them used for good prices, just have to shop around the used sites (Keh, BHPhoto, Amazon, Ebay etc). Like cars buying them new off the lot isn't the best idea.

I tend to shoot still life, moody, natural light photos so manual focus isn't bad at all. Throw me around a bunch of running kids and things can go sideways.

I went Sony *because* I'm broke. I just can't buy Sony lenses. :X

My A7 cost me $800. That blows my mind. That's how much I bought my new shitty Canon 350D, years ago from Best Buy.
 
Lmao, its my only hobby. I don't even game all that much anymore. So dropping this amount isn't too bad once a year (and lenses like this one last forever due to the lack of electronic parts).

As far as Zeiss lenses go, you can find them used for good prices, just have to shop around the used sites (Keh, BHPhoto, Amazon, Ebay etc). Like cars buying them new off the lot isn't the best idea.

I tend to shoot still life, moody, natural light photos so manual focus isn't bad at all. Throw me around a bunch of running kids and things can go sideways.
I don't game that much either. I either spend most of my time taking pictures or editing pictures these days. The fact that I shoot a good amount of corporate events and active stuff just keeps me from wanting a manual only lens, it's just not happening. Granted I do at some point need to get better at manual focus though, but I just can't tell looking through the viewfinder at times.
 
I find some of my pictures that I take outside are sort of washed out. I probably need to invest in a lens hood. Does it matter the branding? Why should I be buying a canon lens hood over an off brand one?
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
I don't game that much either. I either spend most of my time taking pictures or editing pictures these days. The fact that I shoot a good amount of corporate events and active stuff just keeps me from wanting a manual only lens, it's just not happening. Granted I do at some point need to get better at manual focus though, but I just can't tell looking through the viewfinder at times.

Dip your toes with vintage lenses. Buy a nice Pentax 50mm for, like, $50. You end up approaching a scene differently when purely manual focusing.

As far as the viewfinder, DSLRs can be tough for manual focusing. One of the reasons I'm using an A7, the electronic viewfinder (being able to magnify the view, and brightens the view when you stop down the aperture)

I find some of my pictures that I take outside are sort of washed out. I probably need to invest in a lens hood. Does it matter the branding? Why should I be buying a canon lens hood over an off brand one?

Branding doesn't matter, just make sure its the correct shape and depth for your lens. Otherwise you'll end up with a form of hood vignetting
 
Yeah, between the bodies being SO DAMN CHEAP, the Focus Peaking of the EVF, and vintage glass being so cheap (Oh hey 300mm for $300), the Sony cameras are amazing for vintage lens shooters.

I certainly wouldn't do it on a DSLR, though I hear they have some weird beep thing that lets you know when something's in focus?
 
Battery life is a concern, but at least batteries are the cheapest of all camera equipment.
I will admit to missing an EVF, but I've gotten so used to not really having one these days. A mirrorless would probably just be my spare camera, because I do not want to lug my dslr all over the damn place unless I need to these days.
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
Yeah, between the bodies being SO DAMN CHEAP, the Focus Peaking of the EVF, and vintage glass being so cheap (Oh hey 300mm for $300), the Sony cameras are amazing for vintage lens shooters.

I certainly wouldn't do it on a DSLR, though I hear they have some weird beep thing that lets you know when something's in focus?

If the manual lens has an electronic mount, it may have focus confirm. The ZF ZE zeiss lenses have this. Its handy but visual confirmation feels way more intuitive.
 
I will admit to missing an EVF, but I've gotten so used to not really having one these days. A mirrorless would probably just be my spare camera, because I do not want to lug my dslr all over the damn place unless I need to these days.
I know Fuji does this hybrid OV/EVF, but that's a bunch of money for a secondary camera. :x
I guess that's right. I just ordered a second battery for my camera... $177!
Uh, well.

Mine was like $40.
 

th3dude

Member
General question for you all.

My wife and I are looking to get a nicer camera (i.e. something that isn't a smartphone) for some upcoming things. Definitely beginners.

Amazon sent me a coupon for 20% off for either of these (base model + lens only, no bundles). Do any seem like a good enough deal to jump?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IB1BTWI/?tag=neogaf0e-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01CO2JPYS/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Remember, both will be less 20% with my coupon.

Thanks!

If by "Some upcoming things" you mean like a vacation or something like that, a lot of people end up finding DSLR's to be too big and chunky to carry on them after like, a day.
You might be better served by a higher end point and shoot, or a lower end mirrorless such as the a5100/a5000. There are other recommendations to be sure, but I'd start around there. They'll take the same quality of photos as a DSLR while actually fitting in larger pockets.

Now, if you're looking to get into it as a hobby or something like that, then sure, DSLR away (I don't know Canon so I don't know if those two are good beginner cameras), but it depends on what "upcoming things" is.
 

th3dude

Member
If by "Some upcoming things" you mean like a vacation or something like that, a lot of people end up finding DSLR's to be too big and chunky to carry on them after like, a day.
You might be better served by a higher end point and shoot, or a lower end mirrorless such as the a5100/a5000. There are other recommendations to be sure, but I'd start around there. They'll take the same quality of photos as a DSLR while actually fitting in larger pockets.

Now, if you're looking to get into it as a hobby or something like that, then sure, DSLR away (I don't know Canon so I don't know if those two are good beginner cameras), but it depends on what "upcoming things" is.

To answer your question: some trips, family events, and somewhat of a hobbyist interest.
 
Top Bottom