Support NeoGAF

[JadedWriter]

Depends on your use case. Since you are dealing with events and portraits, FF is def the way to go. Otherwise, at base/low ISO, the sensors performances are very close -- other than FOV difference it's hard to tell them apart. In terms of lenses, since Socannikon want you to buy FF they don't focus much on crop lenses. Otherwise, Pentax & Fuji have great APSC lenses.

I kept telling my dad that there's a use for FF, but nope dude didn't want to listen, but thanks for confirming this. My camera sees a lot of different lighting conditions. I'm shocked I can still turn in a decent shot at times. I think when I finally get myself a 2.8 24-70 (Tamron) I'm going to start figuring out how to get an FF into my life and just start using my 7100 as my spare body. I mean it still gets the job done don't me wrong, but I do have the itch for an upgrade now.

 

[RuGalz]

I kept telling my dad that there's a use for FF, but nope dude didn't want to listen, but thanks for confirming this. My camera sees a lot of different lighting conditions. I'm shocked I can still turn in a decent shot at times. I think when I finally get myself a 2.8 24-70 (Tamron) I'm going to start figuring out how to get an FF into my life and just start using my 7100 as my spare body. I mean it still gets the job done don't me wrong, but I do have the itch for an upgrade now.

I see plenty of people posting great event photos at high iso with crop sensors. It's all about understanding the limits of the camera and pushing the limits. FF will also give you thinner DOF so if you *need* that DOF, closing down on aperture will cause your ISO to go up. So the net gain might actually not be as much as you think in cases like that. Or think of it another way, plenty of people still uses like 5DM2 for events/wedding and your camera doesn't really perform worse than it. One area that APSC still loses a bit is probably in tonality department.

If thin DOF is big part of your photography, it's harder for APSC to match FF because to get the same DOF you need larger aperture. So all the sudden, in order to match a 70-200 f2.8 you need something like 50-130 f1.8.

Everything is compromise, just pick what works for you imo.

 

[JadedWriter]

I see plenty of people posting great event photos at high iso with crop sensors. It's all about understanding the limits of the camera and pushing the limits. FF will also give you thinner DOF so if you *need* that DOF, closing down on aperture will cause your ISO to go up. So the net gain might actually not be as much as you think in cases like that. Or think of it another way, plenty of people still uses like 5DM2 for events/wedding and your camera doesn't really perform worse than it. One area that APSC still loses a bit is probably in tonality department.

If thin DOF is big part of your photography, it's harder for APSC to match FF because to get the same DOF you need larger aperture. So all the sudden, in order to match a 70-200 f2.8 you need something like 50-130 f1.8.

Everything is compromise, just pick what works for you imo.

I think I still intend to use both honestly. Just for a best of both worlds. You know like
I know 2.8 70-200 are expensive but why am I the only one photographing this event with one? Everyone showed up with kit lenses.

 

[jongkookie]

That explains why these two lenses almost have the same output on my D3200.



Image from the FF Promaster 19-35mm lens:


Image from the Nikon DX 18-55mm lens:


Both were shot at 35mm but for some reason the Promaster EXIF data spits it out as 20-34mm.

So in conclusion and CMIIW, you really are better off buying full frame lenses(especially if you have any interest in upgrading to FF in the future) instead of buying DX lenses, even if you're using it on an APS-C body.

The reason why I asked the question was actually because a friend was selling his DX 35mm f/1.8G for a bargain price(less than a $100 due to bro discount lol) and I was very interested in picking it up since I don't have a 35mm prime. But at the same time, I'm most likely gonna pick up a FF body come Christmas so I was a bit hesitant, especially since I kinda have no use for it right now(I'm also trying to restrain from GAS lol).

 

[JadedWriter]

That explains why these two lenses almost have the same output on my D3200.



Image from the FF Promaster 19-35mm lens:


Image from the Nikon DX 18-55mm lens:


Both were shot at 35mm but for some reason the Promaster EXIF data spits it out as 20-34mm.

So in conclusion and CMIIW, you really are better off buying full frame lenses(especially if you have any interest in upgrading to FF in the future) instead of buying DX lenses, even if you're using it on an APS-C body.

The reason why I asked the question was actually because a friend was selling his DX 35mm f/1.8G for a bargain price(less than a $100 due to bro discount lol) and I was very interested in picking it up since I don't have a 35mm prime. But at the same time, I'm most likely gonna pick up a FF body come Christmas so I was a bit hesitant, especially since I kinda have no use for it right now(I'm also trying to restrain from GAS lol).

You have no idea what true GAS is until you're trying to find an impossible deal on a 2.8 24-70. And looking at getting a FX camera from 2008.

 

[QualityPixel]

The reason why I asked the question was actually because a friend was selling his DX 35mm f/1.8G for a bargain price(less than a $100 due to bro discount lol) and I was very interested in picking it up since I don't have a 35mm prime. But at the same time, I'm most likely gonna pick up a FF body come Christmas so I was a bit hesitant, especially since I kinda have no use for it right now(I'm also trying to restrain from GAS lol).

If you're upgrading to FX in a few months then get the 50mm F/1.8 (new or old version). Both are freaking amazing and cheap.

 

[Astral/H3X]

That explains why these two lenses almost have the same output on my D3200.



Image from the FF Promaster 19-35mm lens:


Image from the Nikon DX 18-55mm lens:


Both were shot at 35mm but for some reason the Promaster EXIF data spits it out as 20-34mm.

So in conclusion and CMIIW, you really are better off buying full frame lenses(especially if you have any interest in upgrading to FF in the future) instead of buying DX lenses, even if you're using it on an APS-C body.

The reason why I asked the question was actually because a friend was selling his DX 35mm f/1.8G for a bargain price(less than a $100 due to bro discount lol) and I was very interested in picking it up since I don't have a 35mm prime. But at the same time, I'm most likely gonna pick up a FF body come Christmas so I was a bit hesitant, especially since I kinda have no use for it right now(I'm also trying to restrain from GAS lol).

A lenses focal length *never* changes, regardless of what sensor you put on it. A lens being FF or DX or 4/3rds or anything has absolutely no effect on focal length -- only how large of a sensor it can cover. Likewise, the DOF and amount of light let through the lens also does not ever change on that lens -- the only thing that changes, is how much of the light or field of view that the sensor can capture.

So, 35 is 35, no matter what. You can go through 100 different 35mm lenses and they'll all have the same field of view (assuming all are large enough to cover the sensor) and the same amount of bokeh given the same aperture. It's when you change sensors that you see a change in field of view, because a larger sensor will capture the wider field of view, whereas a crop sensor will only capture the middle portion -- this is what gives the impression of the fields of view changing on a given focal length.

Similarly, a lot of people say that FF lenses have more bokeh. This isn't *really* true. The reason this is, is because for FF you have to use longer focal lengths for the same fields of view, and the fact of using that longer focal length is what's giving you the increased bokeh. 85mm 1.4 will give you the same amount of bokeh between APSC and FF. It's just that on APSC you see less of the overall image, so you'd end up choosing a 55mm instead for the same shoot, which has less bokeh.

 

[Art Teitlebaum]

Just for clarification purposes (a picture paints a thousand words etc):

Similarly, a lot of people say that FF lenses have more bokeh. This isn't *really* true. The reason this is, is because for FF you have to use longer focal lengths for the same fields of view, and the fact of using that longer focal length is what's giving you the increased bokeh. 85mm 1.4 will give you the same amount of bokeh between APSC and FF. It's just that on APSC you see less of the overall image, so you'd end up choosing a 55mm instead for the same shoot, which has less bokeh.

(KB is FF)

 

[Astral/H3X]

Just for clarification purposes (a picture paints a thousand words etc):

(KB is FF)

Right, but if you were to take that 80mm lens, and put it on the APSC camera, there'd be the same amount of bokeh, you'd just have a much smaller amount of the photo. The lack of bokeh comes from using a shorter focal length lens.

 

[JadedWriter]

So has anybody ever seen an event photographer show up to an event with only one lens and that lens being a 50mm prime? He shot with a T5i Rebel.

 

[DarkJediKnight]

So has anybody ever seen an event photographer show up to an event with only one lens and that lens being a 50mm prime? He shot with a T5i Rebel.

Lol. That's rather dumb. I have seen a guy shoot a wedding with just the 40mm pancake on a 5D2.

 

[RuGalz]

So has anybody ever seen an event photographer show up to an event with only one lens and that lens being a 50mm prime? He shot with a T5i Rebel.

I've seen someone shot a wedding with kit lens and 50mm in D3200...

 

[JadedWriter]

Lol. That's rather dumb. I have seen a guy shoot a wedding with just the 40mm pancake on a 5D2.

At least he had a 5D2. Didn't have the spare change for a 24-70 though.

I've seen someone shot a wedding with kit lens and 50mm in D3200...

How were the pictures?

 

[jongkookie]

^LOL.

To be fair though, the Nikon kit lens is actually really good in the hands of someone capable.

I personally carry 4 lenses in my work bag: my Vivitar Series 1 28-90 and 70-210mm as they're both f/2.8. and a 28mm f/3.5 and a 50mm f/1.8 primes as backups or for when I need a lighter weight to carry for video work.

You have no idea what true GAS is until you're trying to find an impossible deal on a 2.8 24-70. And looking at getting a FX camera from 2008.

Heh, I too have contemplated on getting a D700 before. That 12MP and EXPEED1 sensor was a huuuge turn off though.

If you're upgrading to FX in a few months then get the 50mm F/1.8 (new or old version). Both are freaking amazing and cheap.

I've actually got a Series E 50mm and it's been my workhorse for portraits. Unfortunately, it's not a pancake so my GAS sometimes pops up everytime I see a decently priced pancake Series E on eBay lol.

A lenses focal length *never* changes, regardless of what sensor you put on it. A lens being FF or DX or 4/3rds or anything has absolutely no effect on focal length -- only how large of a sensor it can cover. Likewise, the DOF and amount of light let through the lens also does not ever change on that lens -- the only thing that changes, is how much of the light or field of view that the sensor can capture.

So, 35 is 35, no matter what. You can go through 100 different 35mm lenses and they'll all have the same field of view (assuming all are large enough to cover the sensor) and the same amount of bokeh given the same aperture. It's when you change sensors that you see a change in field of view, because a larger sensor will capture the wider field of view, whereas a crop sensor will only capture the middle portion -- this is what gives the impression of the fields of view changing on a given focal length.

So a 35mm lens has a 35mm focal length but 52.5mm field of view on a APS-C?

Whereas a 35mm lens will have both 35mm focal length and 35mm field of view on a full frame?

Is that right?

 

[RuGalz]

How were the pictures?

Not great but the bride and groom seemed fine with it. People don't necessarily know the difference if the price is right anyway.

 

[JadedWriter]

Not great but the bride and groom seemed fine with it. People don't necessarily know the difference if the price is right anyway.

I'm trying to get into wedding photography, but it's not exactly easy. Never having shot a wedding isn't helping and I swear that has to be a lot of standing. I need some new sneakers for that nonsense.

^LOL.

To be fair though, the Nikon kit lens is actually really good in the hands of someone capable.

I personally carry 4 lenses in my work bag: my Vivitar Series 1 28-90 and 70-210mm as they're both f/2.8. and a 28mm f/3.5 and a 50mm f/1.8 primes as backups or for when I need a lighter weight to carry for video work.



Heh, I too have contemplated on getting a D700 before. That 12MP and EXPEED1 sensor was a huuuge turn off though.

I have an 18-35 Art, 2.8 17-50, 50mm G lens and a 2.8 70-200. I want a 2.8 24-70 though. I mean the Nikon 18-55 technically works, I just never really like using it honestly. Another problem with getting a used D700 is that people beat the shit out of them and getting a damn near new one brings you really close to just getting a D610.

 

[Astral/H3X]

So a 35mm lens has a 35mm focal length but 52.5mm field of view on a APS-C?

Whereas a 35mm lens will have both 35mm focal length and 35mm field of view on a full frame?

Is that right?

Yeah, you could say it like that.
It can be a bit confusing because everything is discussed in terms of "full frame equivalent", rather than fov in degrees. So companies will say "oh this 35mm is a 50mm in full frame!" No, a 35mm is a 35mm full stop -- it's just that an APSC sensor will capture an image that has a similar field of view, as a full frame would capture if it was using a 50mm. It's not the lens that's changing, it's the sensor. The image posted earlier with the jet ski illustrates it perfectly-- the entire circle is what the lens is putting out, and then the full frame has its square of what it can see, and the apsc has its own, smaller square of what it can see. The circle didn't change, the squares did.

 

[Gila]

So has anybody ever seen an event photographer show up to an event with only one lens and that lens being a 50mm prime? He shot with a T5i Rebel.

Multiple times at weddings. But I've learned not to judge

Lol. That's rather dumb. I have seen a guy shoot a wedding with just the 40mm pancake on a 5D2.

What's wrong with a 5D2? One of the most requested wedding photographers in the demographic I work in uses the 5D2. It's not about the equipment but how you use it. Lighting is primary anyways

 

[Futureman]

So has anybody ever seen an event photographer show up to an event with only one lens and that lens being a 50mm prime? He shot with a T5i Rebel.

I have only have a 17-40 and a 50 prime. I've done events where I primarily used the 50. Client loved the photos. If you can get photos they like what's the issue?

 

[JadedWriter]

I have only have a 17-40 and a 50 prime. I've done events where I primarily used the 50. Client loved the photos. If you can get photos they like what's the issue?

Eh I just find it weird. I do a good amount of corporate and collegiate events. I'm just used to seeing freelancers kitted out a certain way. I think I just base my expectations on that. Like for example whenever I do a volunteer event I'm pretty much the only person there with a 2.8 70-200. Collegiate event, everyone has one. I have no problem with prime use, I'm just not used to a 50mm prime being the one lens a person brings to an event shoot. What if you need to get closer and you're not allowed to be all up in the presenters face. I did that once and only once and that was before I had more experience and altered my shooting around my 70-200. There's a lens for every situation, I just do my best to be prepared at this point. Yeah I started doing portrait work with a 50mm prime but that's fine cause 50mm is perfectly fine and the norm for portrait work.

 

[Futureman]

Everything you say is true. I may have been lucky that the events I've worked haven't had any issues getting close to the people I need to take photos of. I preordered a 5D4 but I'm still considering cancelling the preorder and getting a couple lenses instead.

 

[captive]

You have no idea what true GAS is until you're trying to find an impossible deal on a 2.8 24-70. And looking at getting a FX camera from 2008.

please.... Nikon d500 and 500mm f4 E.

both will be mine, soon.

 

[JadedWriter]

please.... Nikon d500 and 500mm f4 E.

both will be mine, soon.

My current dream events combo is a D500 and a D750. At least you could afford what you want.

 

[QualityPixel]

If you don't mine used-refurb-greymarket then Nikon FX cameras like the D600/D610/D700/D750/D800(e) are getting pretty cheap now. You can get a D750 for $1400 refurb now which is mighty tempting. D800e used $1800, D600 used $900.

 

[JadedWriter]

If you don't mine used-refurb-greymarket then Nikon FX cameras like the D600/D610/D700/D750/D800(e) are getting pretty cheap now. You can get a D750 for $1400 refurb now which is mighty tempting. D800e used $1800, D600 used $900.

Yeah a 1400 750 would be really tempting if I can scrape together the money of finance one. I'll want a 24-70 before I get one though.

 

[captive]

My current dream events combo is a D500 and a D750. At least you could afford what you want.

i am very fortunate to be in a position that i can.

If you don't mine used-refurb-greymarket then Nikon FX cameras like the D600/D610/D700/D750/D800(e) are getting pretty cheap now. You can get a D750 for $1400 refurb now which is mighty tempting. D800e used $1800, D600 used $900.

but also this. I almost never buy any camera equipment new. Even a few years ago i bought my d800e refurbished for 300-400 off of retail.

 

[JadedWriter]

i am very fortunate to be in a position that i can.

but also this. I almost never buy any camera equipment new. Even a few years ago i bought my d800e refurbished for 300-400 off of retail.

I hear you on the refurbished though. All of my lenses are second hand and my camera is refurbished. I payed essentially 1400 dollars for three lenses, I probably saved a grand or close to it just bargain hunting.

 

[jongkookie]

I have an 18-35 Art, 2.8 17-50, 50mm G lens and a 2.8 70-200. I want a 2.8 24-70 though. I mean the Nikon 18-55 technically works, I just never really like using it honestly. Another problem with getting a used D700 is that people beat the shit out of them and getting a damn near new one brings you really close to just getting a D610.

That's a good set of lenses, I'd love to get the 18-35 Art but an FF body is more of a priority to me than a lens(especially since I rarely need it to be that wide) so I'm just gonna hold out on it.

Dunno if I've posted these before but here's a few pics from a concert I shot in 2014, back when I was just a broke college student with barely any knowledge, experience, or interest in photography:

All were shot in auto with the 18-55 Nikon kit lens lol.

They certainly are not up to my standards now, but that entire experience was one of the factors that really got me to pursue photography. My thinking was, if a noob can shoot these pictures, imagine if said noob actually learned how to properly take photographs... they could be really good at it lol.

Anyway, to me, a used D700 really wasn't worth the price considering the big picture. Besides, I'm still debating on going with a 4K Sony + converter or just get a cheap D610/D750. I really want the A7Sii for 4K and S-Log but idk if I'll ever really need it especially since the most I do is corporate video and events.

Yeah, you could say it like that.
It can be a bit confusing because everything is discussed in terms of "full frame equivalent", rather than fov in degrees. So companies will say "oh this 35mm is a 50mm in full frame!" No, a 35mm is a 35mm full stop -- it's just that an APSC sensor will capture an image that has a similar field of view, as a full frame would capture if it was using a 50mm. It's not the lens that's changing, it's the sensor. The image posted earlier with the jet ski illustrates it perfectly-- the entire circle is what the lens is putting out, and then the full frame has its square of what it can see, and the apsc has its own, smaller square of what it can see. The circle didn't change, the squares did.

Ah I see.

I kinda wish Canikon would just stop labeling their DX lenses by focal length and go by field of view instead, but I imagine that'd be more confusing as fnck than how it is now.

 

[JadedWriter]

For the most part I like what's in my photography bag. Recently AF fine tuned my 70-200 and 17-50 and they seem way more accurate now. Almost got to the point where I was going to throw something with how inconsistent those two lenses were. I would like an 85mm at some ppint though. Just need funds. At the very least I don't have much trouble in my shoots.

 

[Astral/H3X]

Anyway, to me, a used D700 really wasn't worth the price considering the big picture. Besides, I'm still debating on going with a 4K Sony + converter or just get a cheap D610/D750. I really want the A7Sii for 4K and S-Log but idk if I'll ever really need it especially since the most I do is corporate video and events.



Ah I see.

I kinda wish Canikon would just stop labeling their DX lenses by focal length and go by field of view instead, but I imagine that'd be more confusing as fnck than how it is now.

See, while I agree that we should be discussing FOV more than focal lengths, there's actually a lot of cases where that would be MORE confusing. If you see a lens, and don't offhand know if it's FF or APSC, how would you know to which body "45 degrees" applied to? A full frame lens works perfectly fine on an APSC body, so labelling the lens by something that is heavily affected by what you're putting it on isn't the best idea. Best to just keep the thing that's constant, the focal length, and let the photographer know what FOV that means for his particular camera.
And then you got shit like APSC-H or whatever Canon's is, where the sensor is even a tiny bit smaller than APSC. Like, fuck if I know that shit.

Now, for discussions on what lenses work best in what scenarios, it WOULD be useful to talk in terms of FOV. Far too many times people will be asking "Hey I've got a such and such coming up, what's a good focal length for that?" and people will say "Oh yeah 50mm/200mm/whatever", but then you realize no one established whether they were talking APSC or FF (or perhaps one person doesn't recognize a camera and what format it is offhand, so they just say "oh 50mm is a good normal" without realizing they are talking about on an APSC camera). Shit like that? Yeah we need to know what our FOVs are on these lenses a bit better, I'd say.

 

[JadedWriter]

See, while I agree that we should be discussing FOV more than focal lengths, there's actually a lot of cases where that would be MORE confusing. If you see a lens, and don't offhand know if it's FF or APSC, how would you know to which body "45 degrees" applied to? A full frame lens works perfectly fine on an APSC body, so labelling the lens by something that is heavily affected by what you're putting it on isn't the best idea. Best to just keep the thing that's constant, the focal length, and let the photographer know what FOV that means for his particular camera.
And then you got shit like APSC-H or whatever Canon's is, where the sensor is even a tiny bit smaller than APSC. Like, fuck if I know that shit.

Now, for discussions on what lenses work best in what scenarios, it WOULD be useful to talk in terms of FOV. Far too many times people will be asking "Hey I've got a such and such coming up, what's a good focal length for that?" and people will say "Oh yeah 50mm/200mm/whatever", but then you realize no one established whether they were talking APSC or FF (or perhaps one person doesn't recognize a camera and what format it is offhand, so they just say "oh 50mm is a good normal" without realizing they are talking about on an APSC camera). Shit like that? Yeah we need to know what our FOVs are on these lenses a bit better, I'd say.

Granted at the end of the day you bring what you got. Unless you have several bags for different events, then you just better bring the right bag.

 

[TerryLee81]

Yeah I agree, I almost never buy stuff used, except camera equipment. There's so many people selling almost new stuff.

I just bought three olympus lenses:

- 75mm 1.8 $600 used
- 40-150mm 2.8 $900 used
- 7-14mm 2.8 $1200 new

Saved around $700! Couldn't find a used 7-14mm, had to buy that one new.

 

[captive]

Yeah I agree, I almost never buy stuff used, except camera equipment. There's so many people selling almost new stuff.

I just bought three olympus lenses:

- 75mm 1.8 $600 used
- 40-150mm 2.8 $900 used
- 7-14mm 2.8 $1200 new

Saved around $700! Couldn't find a used 7-14mm, had to buy that one new.

enjoy that lens! i sold mine earlier this year. Best lens olympus makes for m4/3rds, just simply amazing.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Is there anything equivelent to the Canon 80D that will have similar performance with the same strong AF capabilities? I'm in love with the 80D and have no camera at all. Money is tight, but thought 80D would be what I would aim for.

 

[QualityPixel]

Look at the Rebels (t6, t5i) or the Nikon D5500.

Maybe T6s. I don't know canon stuff very well.

 

[JadedWriter]

Look at the Rebels (t6, t5i) or the Nikon D5500.

Maybe T6s. I don't know canon stuff very well.

The Rebel series is such a step backwards regarding AF points and most likely performance as well though. I here the 5500 is good though.

 

[snaffles]

Is there anything equivelent to the Canon 80D that will have similar performance with the same strong AF capabilities? I'm in love with the 80D and have no camera at all. Money is tight, but thought 80D would be what I would aim for.

The predecessor to the 80D, the 70D, is still a good camera and can probably be picked up pretty cheap now that the new model is out, especially used.

 

[JadedWriter]

For events shooting in low light is it better to get a Nikon D500 or 750?

 

[Dr. Malik]

I guess that means you will carry it around while hiking/walking/climbing and such activities? Then a mirrorless camera with interchangeable lenses are the best option, I guess. Smaller and lighter than DSLRs. I was tired of lugging around my huge ass camera, too.

Three systems are relevant:
- Micro Four Thirds with cameras from Olympus and Panasonic.
Oly M10 II or Lumix GX80 are in your budget. Lots of really fantastic and small lenses available for all tastes and prices.

- Sony E-Mount
Sony A6000 is still relevant though the more expensive A6300 is out already. A6000 has nice image quality. Lens market is a little smaller and the lenses often are somehow bulkier, but the packet still is smaller than most DSLRs .

So I am leaning towards the Sony A6000
should I do the camera by itself or is this a good bundle?http://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-al...lack/4750000.p?id=1219813940451&skuId=4750000

 

[Astral/H3X]

So I am leaning towards the Sony A6000
should I do the camera by itself or is this a good bundle?http://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-al...lack/4750000.p?id=1219813940451&skuId=4750000

You don't want body by itself, you want at least the kit, or a separate lens.

That Best Buy link comes with the two main kit lenses, and is good for starting out -- covers most of your focal lengths, even if they are a smidge slow, they'll be nice and convenient.

 

[JadedWriter]

So I am leaning towards the Sony A6000
should I do the camera by itself or is this a good bundle?http://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-al...lack/4750000.p?id=1219813940451&skuId=4750000

I'm actually looking at either an XT1 from Fuji or an olympus em1. There's just something about the lens ecosystem with Sony that makes me go fuck this. The prices!!!

 

[sechsterangriff]

I'm actually looking at either an XT1 from Fuji or an olympus em1. There's just something about the lens ecosystem with Sony that makes me go fuck this. The prices!!!

Well, Fuji lenses aren't much cheaper either, but word is they're very high quality. Never tried for myself though...

 

[JadedWriter]

Well, Fuji lenses aren't much cheaper either, but word is they're very high quality. Never tried for myself though...

Oh I know, I've checked. You can find some pretty decent deals for them and at least the lens the 2.8-4 18-55 that comes with the XT1 has to be better than what comes with the A6000.

 

[SilverVenom]

After a lot of deliberation

I'm back here again as i haven't made a purchase yet as i'm still not sure if should make the purchase.

1. What is your budget budget? $700-1000
2. Main purpose of the camera? Pictures at Tradeshows (E3, TGS, Gamescom) & Scenery locations like castles in Japan or famous landmarks & food.
3. What form factor is most appealing to you? Not sure what this means but i'm looking for a DLSR that is great quality but also something that wouldn't be too much of a hassle to bring around.
4. Will you be investing in the camera? Honestly probably not , i just want to be able to do the three things decently (better then what i can get from a point to shoot camera or camera phone.
5. Any cameras you've used before or liked? I've used and still have a Canon Power Shot S120 and needed a camera with more capabiliites

PS: I plan on buying a spare battery, (best card for fast picture processing and decent amount of space and a bag. IF you guys have recommendations for these as well it would be included in my budget

 

[JadedWriter]

After a lot of deliberation

I'm back here again as i haven't made a purchase yet as i'm still not sure if should make the purchase.

1. What is your budget budget? $700-1000
2. Main purpose of the camera? Pictures at Tradeshows (E3, TGS, Gamescom) & Scenery locations like castles in Japan or famous landmarks & food.
3. What form factor is most appealing to you? Not sure what this means but i'm looking for a DLSR that is great quality but also something that wouldn't be too much of a hassle to bring around.
4. Will you be investing in the camera? Honestly probably not , i just want to be able to do the three things decently (better then what i can get from a point to shoot camera or camera phone.
5. Any cameras you've used before or liked? I've used and still have a Canon Power Shot S120 and needed a camera with more capabiliites

PS: I plan on buying a spare battery, (best card for fast picture processing and decent amount of space and a bag. IF you guys have recommendations for these as well it would be included in my budget

You could most likely just get an Olympus OMD EM10. Probably way more camera than you need, but they don't take up a lot of room and aren't hyper expensive. Maybe even a Panasonic G7.

 

[SilverVenom]

You could most likely just get an Olympus OMD EM10. Probably way more camera than you need, but they don't take up a lot of room and aren't hyper expensive. Maybe even a Panasonic G7.

I'm not very familiar with Mirrorless is there something special about it?
I was looking into the Canon T6i what is the difference from that to those two models you mentioned?

 

[JadedWriter]

I'm not very familiar with Mirrorless is there something special about it?
I was looking into the Canon T6i what is the difference from that to those two models you mentioned?

I mainly focused on something small. I don't trumpet the Rebel series as something you must get. The 70D is just in your price range, though the M4/3 camera's are pretty good too.
Here. Even better. Canon refurb with a kit lens.
http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-70d-18-135mm-is-stm-kit-refurbished
I usually try not to recommend things to people I'd honestly never shoot with myself. I mean yeah you can use the T6i, but I always try to go for something usually a step above the lowest level. I originally tried getting a used D5200, I wouldn't be an events photographer with a D5200. The difference in handling and ergonomics and AF points would actually annoy me at this point, but that's just me.

 

[Astral/H3X]

I'm not very familiar with Mirrorless is there something special about it?
I was looking into the Canon T6i what is the difference from that to those two models you mentioned?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYWwQOJee0g
Very good video that quickly goes over the main differences.

Few things I would add:
In the video section he mentions that a DSLR will flip the mirror up and behave like a mirrorless camera. While this is true, the "live view" is not nearly as polished as what a dedicated mirrorless would have, and also you can't see it through the viewfinder.

Mirrorless cameras are the best for anything manual focus, hands down. They can zoom in on that critical focus point so you can ensure that they have perfect focus right where you need it, and have "focus peaking" that highlights the areas that are in focus right in the viewfinder. This is *huge* if you have any interest in vintage lenses.
Also, they can be used with *any* major vintage lens. From stupid expensive Leica rangefinder lenses to cheap, $80 Canon primes, Mirrorless cameras are the best for adapting old lenses. But manual focus capabilities and vintage lenses aren't a big concern for many shooters.

 

[JadedWriter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYWwQOJee0g
Very good video that quickly goes over the main differences.

Few things I would add:
In the video section he mentions that a DSLR will flip the mirror up and behave like a mirrorless camera. While this is true, the "live view" is not nearly as polished as what a dedicated mirrorless would have, and also you can't see it through the viewfinder.

Mirrorless cameras are the best for anything manual focus, hands down. They can zoom in on that critical focus point so you can ensure that they have perfect focus right where you need it, and have "focus peaking" that highlights the areas that are in focus right in the viewfinder. This is *huge* if you have any interest in vintage lenses.
Also, they can be used with *any* major vintage lens. From stupid expensive Leica rangefinder lenses to cheap, $80 Canon primes, Mirrorless cameras are the best for adapting old lenses. But manual focus capabilities and vintage lenses aren't a big concern for many shooters.

Only thing is I hate Sony's expensive as fuck lens selection which is why I try not to recommend them. If you're either rolling in dough or you're fine with vintage lenses fine, if not then look somewhere else. Even some of the Panasonic glass seems...decent price wise, I'd have to double check though. Body design wise the XT1 seems to be my favorite though and I heard the EVF on that thing is great.

 

[QualityPixel]

For events shooting in low light is it better to get a Nikon D500 or 750?

Damn, that's a tough one. D500 has awesome autofocus points coverage and Nikon's latest autofocus (not to say the D750 has lackluster autofocus). As for low light image quality I'd say they are too close to call.

I'm personally drooling over the D750 (or it's future replacement) because I'm ready for full frame and want that articulating display.