Support NeoGAF

[Vuze]

Anyone been using the Canon EF-S 55-250mm 1:4-5.6 IS STM?

I'm currently watching an ebay auction of a reputable seller that has it going for a good price and relatively new (feb 2016). Reviews seem really good for it being a budget lens but it's like 3 years old at this point so maybe there is a better choice in the price range?
I think it might be a good compliment to my 50mm prime and 18-55mm kit.

 

[QualityPixel]

Anyone been using the Canon EF-S 55-250mm 1:4-5.6 IS STM?

I'm currently watching an ebay auction of a reputable seller that has it going for a good price and relatively new (feb 2016). Reviews seem really good for it being a budget lens but it's like 3 years old at this point so maybe there is a better choice in the price range?
I think it might be a good compliment to my 50mm prime and 18-55mm kit.

Should be a decent lens. Anything better is just going to cost more, and my experience with these entry level telephoto lenses is good (I used to work at a camera shop). I love my little 55-200mm VR Nikon, and I'm sure the similar Canon versions are just as good.

 

[JadedWriter]

Went from not shooting an event to shooting one. Used my coworkers D4S. Thank god I learn Nikon bodies quickly.

 

[Mysterious]

So I'm currently shooting with a Nikon D3100, but I want to upgrade to a new camera now. Any suggestions on what I should look at, and what features to look out for? My friend told me to consider a full-frame camera, given the kinds of photos I take.

Here's a sample of my photos, spanning from 2015 to 2016.

 

[QualityPixel]

So I'm currently shooting with a Nikon D3100, but I want to upgrade to a new camera now. Any suggestions on what I should look at, and what features to look out for? My friend told me to consider a full-frame camera, given the kinds of photos I take.

Here's a sample of my photos, spanning from 2015 to 2016.

What lenses do you have and what lenses do you want? What's your budget? The latest DX Nikon cameras are quite awesome (D7100 / D7200, D500).

I would pretty much only consider FX cameras if I was going to be getting paid to shoot and really needed the pro-level durability (which the D500 has) or needed beastly low light capability (which the D500 also has).

Full frame does have better wide angle lens options for landscapes, but the FX lenses are quite bulky and expensive. And you can use FX lenses on a DX camera anyway. A D500 with a Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 would be an awesome setup.

Edit: Do you shoot raw? You'd be amazed how much fine detail you can get out of a 14mp raw image over a JPG (especially with a good lens). I like to shoot raw with my old trusty D300, convert to DNG RAW files using adobe's DNG converter then I open the DNG files in Photoshop's Camera RAW to make fine adjustments (just like using Lightroom... mostly).

 

[Rentahamster]

So I'm currently shooting with a Nikon D3100, but I want to upgrade to a new camera now. Any suggestions on what I should look at, and what features to look out for? My friend told me to consider a full-frame camera, given the kinds of photos I take.

Here's a sample of my photos, spanning from 2015 to 2016.

Looks like you're doing just fine as it is. What exactly about your current body are you unsatisfied with?

 

[Hispanicguy]

Hey guys! Ever since I upgraded my phone to the S7 Edge earlier this year, I've been taking more pictures and love the way they've been coming out. Because of this, I've become interested in an actual camera, as well as a book I can read to become familiar with terms and whatnot.

1. What is your budget?
At the moment, $500. If someone suggests something that needs a little more (say, around $100 more) I would consider that as well.

2. Main purpose of the camera?
Casual photos around NYC as well as vacation shots.

3. What form factor is most appealing to you?
No preference with this.

4. Will you be investing in the camera? (buying more stuff for it later)
I may be interested but that wouldn't happen until months down the line, if at all.

5. Any cameras you've used before or liked?
The only camera I've ever used are the ones on smartphones.

Thanks in advance! When I have time, I'm going to go through some more pages of this thread.

 

[theepicoftyler]

Hey guys! Ever since I upgraded my phone to the S7 Edge earlier this year, I've been taking more pictures and love the way they've been coming out. Because of this, I've become interested in an actual camera, as well as a book I can read to become familiar with terms and whatnot.

1. What is your budget?
At the moment, $500. If someone suggests something that needs a little more (say, around $100 more) I would consider that as well.

2. Main purpose of the camera?
Casual photos around NYC as well as vacation shots.

3. What form factor is most appealing to you?
No preference with this.

4. Will you be investing in the camera? (buying more stuff for it later)
I may be interested but that wouldn't happen until months down the line, if at all.

5. Any cameras you've used before or liked?
The only camera I've ever used are the ones on smartphones.

Thanks in advance! When I have time, I'm going to go through some more pages of this thread.

I always like to recommend Sony's Mirrorless cameras (a5000-a6000 series). They're small and have all of the control of their larger DSLR cousins. You'll get a lot of suggestions from people here though. I've only ever used Sony, and that's what I learned on coming, like you, from a smartphone.

The first thing I'd do is suggest that you start operating your smartphone camera in manual mode. I believe the new Samsung phones allow you to do everything in manual. If not, consider downloading a manual camera app so you can get used to adjusting settings to make sure you're taking the picture you want.

The more money you spend on a camera, the more you're going to want to be able to manually control it.

 

[Flo_Evans]

That'd be pretty cool

I don't think it's that impossible. You can get a crude 3d map with dual cameras (could be cheap cellphone cameras) and the phase detect sensors already give the AF system a rough depth estimate. I haven't tried it, but I think Fuji has attempted something similar with their simulated split prism focusing.

I think something more realistic would maybe be multiple face recognition and/or better peaking.
Maybe a square around each detected face with a color or bar representing how in focus they are. Probably needs more processing power than what most cameras have today.

Peaking wise I hope we see more options in how aggressive it should be so we don't end up with out of focus objects that still lit up the peaking. Maybe put it on a dial so you can narrow it in while asking people to move and find focus as quickly as possible.

I hope we get more stuff like this in future mirrorless cameras. I feel like this is where they can do really well and it's not just for group shots. For landscapes this could make tilt shift lenses more manageble and maybe help find the threshold where stopping down is detrimental.

My external video recorder has a cool focus mode that is basically "find edges" in photoshop.

It would be fairly easy to implement on a camera. Most built in peaking is rather shitty once you have used decent video focused gear. It also has WAY better histograms, color charts, ect.

 

[JadedWriter]

So I'm currently shooting with a Nikon D3100, but I want to upgrade to a new camera now. Any suggestions on what I should look at, and what features to look out for? My friend told me to consider a full-frame camera, given the kinds of photos I take.

Here's a sample of my photos, spanning from 2015 to 2016.

I used a D3100 once for an event and it was the cheapest thing I've ever dealt with shy of a low end Rebel series. Maybe it's because it was beat o crap, but I really don't enjoy the consumer grade cameras. Depending on what you do with it will determine the next camera you should get. I've seen some decent deals on D7200's. Only go full frame if you find yourself shooting at iso 2000 and up on the regular. I shoot low light corporate events on top of night photography so I went full frame and don't even regret it. Full frame is also great for portraits cause of the depth of field.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I used a D3100 once for an event and it was the cheapest thing I've ever dealt with shy of a low end Rebel series. Maybe it's because it was beat o crap, but I really don't enjoy the consumer grade cameras. Depending on what you do with it will determine the next camera you should get. I've seen some decent deals on D7200's. Only go full frame if you find yourself shooting at iso 2000 and up on the regular. I shoot low light corporate events on top of night photography so I went full frame and don't even regret it. Full frame is also great for portraits cause of the depth of field.

Thing is if your backpacking a lot you need to consider weight and size.

D7200 will open up some cool time-lapse options and not be much heavier. Also better weather sealing. D500 will be a bit heavier, more rugged and better sealed and faster if you start to fancy birds.

Full frame and lenses are heavy. If you are doing landscapes you usually want max DoF not shallow.

 

[JadedWriter]

Thing is if your backpacking a lot you need to consider weight and size.

D7200 will open up some cool time-lapse options and not be much heavier. Also better weather sealing. D500 will be a bit heavier, more rugged and better sealed and faster if you start to fancy birds.

Full frame and lenses are heavy. If you are doing landscapes you usually want max DoF not shallow.

I think if a person is doing landscape stuff then they're probably carrying around enough stuff cause they need to use a tripod...usually. D500 seems to be great for birding though since most of the people on Flickr that post to that group are birders. I'd personally look for a D750 deal, but that's just me.

 

[Hispanicguy]

I always like to recommend Sony's Mirrorless cameras (a5000-a6000 series). They're small and have all of the control of their larger DSLR cousins. You'll get a lot of suggestions from people here though. I've only ever used Sony, and that's what I learned on coming, like you, from a smartphone.

The first thing I'd do is suggest that you start operating your smartphone camera in manual mode. I believe the new Samsung phones allow you to do everything in manual. If not, consider downloading a manual camera app so you can get used to adjusting settings to make sure you're taking the picture you want.

The more money you spend on a camera, the more you're going to want to be able to manually control it.

Yea, there's a "Pro mode" on the newer phones but I haven't really played around with it. I should take the time to do so.

Looking at the camera you recommended, it's definitely in my price range. Am I able to invest in other lens (or any other equipment) for it, if needed?

I'll see what other people suggest as well. I appreciate the help!

 

[JadedWriter]

Yea, there's a "Pro mode" on the newer phones but I haven't really played around with it. I should take the time to do so.

Looking at the camera you recommended, it's definitely in my price range. Am I able to invest in other lens (or any other equipment) for it, if needed?

I'll see what other people suggest as well. I appreciate the help!

You could probably also find a Nikon D5300 at around that price range.

 

[Ty4on]

My external video recorder has a cool focus mode that is basically "find edges" in photoshop.

It would be fairly easy to implement on a camera. Most built in peaking is rather shitty once you have used decent video focused gear. It also has WAY better histograms, color charts, ect.

Mhmm. Relatedly I'd love to see much bigger and better screens so you can see the fine detail. It does mean a rework of the design though kinda like the Leica T.

That would still be great with the screen/evf and maybe also combined with punch in to focus. I think one big thing holding them back is processing power to render the peaking onto a high res video without burning the battery, but hopefully we'll see some real improvement there.

Edit: Question, does it give you a good indication of how in focus it is so you can see if foreground and background stuff are "equally" sharp?

 

[theepicoftyler]

Yea, there's a "Pro mode" on the newer phones but I haven't really played around with it. I should take the time to do so.

Looking at the camera you recommended, it's definitely in my price range. Am I able to invest in other lens (or any other equipment) for it, if needed?

I'll see what other people suggest as well. I appreciate the help!

I just recommend it because you can start learning the basics now before needing to make a move on a camera.

Regarding equipment: Yes! The alpha series from Sony is all interchangeable lens cameras, and the luxury of their mirrorless line is that you can adapt almost any type of lens to them.

I'd recommend going somewhere where you can try out and hold different cameras though. Try things out and feel what feels comfortable for you. I'm always hesitant on recommending a camera because I've only ever used one brand/type and as such I don't have a lot of perspective on it.

At the end of the day, the camera you buy will be the least important part of learning how to take good photos. If you get into the hobby, you're likely going to learn quickly what you want and how to work with what you've got.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I always like to recommend Sony's Mirrorless cameras (a5000-a6000 series). They're small and have all of the control of their larger DSLR cousins. You'll get a lot of suggestions from people here though. I've only ever used Sony, and that's what I learned on coming, like you, from a smartphone.

The first thing I'd do is suggest that you start operating your smartphone camera in manual mode. I believe the new Samsung phones allow you to do everything in manual. If not, consider downloading a manual camera app so you can get used to adjusting settings to make sure you're taking the picture you want.

The more money you spend on a camera, the more you're going to want to be able to manually control it.

I'm a complete amateur and really just started learning to shoot manual very recently, but I absolutely love what Sony is doing in the Mirrorless field. I imagine the other Mirrorless manufacturers are doing cool stuff, too.

I know for a fact that I never want to go back to an optical viewfinder or a laggy live-view LCD screen like I had on my cheap DSLR. I don't know if the higher end DSLRs offer good performance in live-view mode, but being able to see how your photo will look before you take it is just massive for me.

Another thing I love about my Sony is the ability to shoot silently. Turn on silent shooting and there is absolutely no shutter sound. This has proved immensely valuable in a few situations just since I got the camera last month.

Honestly, the only downside I can think of is the battery life. I don't mind carrying around a few extra batteries--they are small, but there is definitely some battery anxiety!

After doing a ton of research before buying my A7R II, I just couldn't see a good reason to go with a DSLR.

 

[JadedWriter]

I just recommend it because you can start learning the basics now before needing to make a move on a camera.

Regarding equipment: Yes! The alpha series from Sony is all interchangeable lens cameras, and the luxury of their mirrorless line is that you can adapt almost any type of lens to them.

I'd recommend going somewhere where you can try out and hold different cameras though. Try things out and feel what feels comfortable for you. I'm always hesitant on recommending a camera because I've only ever used one brand/type and as such I don't have a lot of perspective on it.

At the end of the day, the camera you buy will be the least important part of learning how to take good photos. If you get into the hobby, you're likely going to learn quickly what you want and how to work with what you've got.

I think you can only really adapt Canon and Canon mount Sigma's. G series Nikon's and anything with AF isn't happening yet though. I've already been scared off of adapters when I started hearing how some of the Fotodiox ones have been killing cameras depending on what lens you use. Adapting works best if you already have lenses or aren't too invested in a particular brand.

I'm a complete amateur and really just started learning to shoot manual very recently, but I absolutely love what Sony is doing in the Mirrorless field. I imagine the other Mirrorless manufacturers are doing cool stuff, too.

I know for a fact that I never want to go back to an optical viewfinder or a laggy live-view LCD screen like I had on my cheap DSLR. I don't know if the higher end DSLRs offer good performance in live-view mode, but being able to see how your photo will look before you take it is just massive for me.

Another thing I love about my Sony is the ability to shoot silently. Turn on silent shooting and there is absolutely no shutter sound. This has proved immensely valuable in a few situations just since I got the camera last month.

Honestly, the only downside I can think of is the battery life. I don't mind carrying around a few extra batteries--they are small, but there is definitely some battery anxiety!

After doing a ton of research before buying my A7R II, I just couldn't see a good reason to go with a DSLR.

I've gotten pretty good at reading the light meter in the viewfinder and have a good idea on how much I can over/under expose an image before it becomes useless, unless I'm not paying attention of course. It's just something that takes practice. The EVF's kill batteries as well. I can get about 1250 shots out of one battery. Depending on what you do it's something that matters. I don't think I'd cover one of my job parades on mirrorless with one or two batteries since I can easily take over a thousand pics.

 

[Astral/H3X]

I think you can only really adapt Canon and Canon mount Sigma's. G series Nikon's and anything with AF isn't happening yet though. I've already been scared off of adapters when I started hearing how some of the Fotodiox ones have been killing cameras depending on what lens you use. Adapting works best if you already have lenses or aren't too invested in a particular brand.

Canon FD, Canon EF, Pentax K, Leica, Nikon F, C Mount, Sigma, M42, and of course Sony A mount.

Voigtlanders are also popular for Sony shooters, but not sure if that's covered under Leica mount.

Literally. Any. Vintage. Lens.
You're right, AF coverage is more or less Canon and A mount, but it's far from accurate to say that's all you can adapt.

 

[JadedWriter]

Canon FD, Canon EF, Pentax K, Leica, Nikon F, C Mount, Sigma, M42, and of course Sony A mount.

Voigtlanders are also popular for Sony shooters, but not sure if that's covered under Leica mount.

Literally. Any. Vintage. Lens.
You're right, AF coverage is more or less Canon and A mount, but it's far from accurate to say that's all you can adapt.

There's a lot of stuff that I don't pay attention to lens wise sorry and as I said, I cover events and take random street portraits so I care a lot about AF.

 

[jongkookie]

I think you can only really adapt Canon and Canon mount Sigma's. G series Nikon's and anything with AF isn't happening yet though. I've already been scared off of adapters when I started hearing how some of the Fotodiox ones have been killing cameras depending on what lens you use. Adapting works best if you already have lenses or aren't too invested in a particular brand.

Actually, Nikon G's are becoming more and more adaptable for the E-mount. Granted it's fnck all expensive since Nikon apparently has too many variations of the G and it's pretty hard to implement on a adapter.

And AFAIK, Fotodiox is garbage anyway. Even their most basic non-electronic adapters seem to be failure prone according to the research I did back when I was looking for an F to E mount. I personally use the cheapest Vello F to E mount for my A7 and since it's literally a piece of metal that extends the barrel, I haven't had any issues whatsoever and I don't really see a point in upgrading to a better F to E mount at all.

My next lens purchase is probably gonna be the 2.8 24-70 II Canon L with a proper adapter since it seems to be much more cheaper than getting the 2.8 G Master from Sony... though to be fair to Sony, prices are starting to go down on the G Master so I may swing that way instead.

 

[JadedWriter]

Actually, Nikon G's are becoming more and more adaptable for the E-mount. Granted it's fnck all expensive since Nikon apparently has too many variations of the G and it's pretty hard to implement on a adapter.

And AFAIK, Fotodiox is garbage anyway. Even their most basic non-electronic adapters seem to be failure prone according to the research I did back when I was looking for an F to E mount. I personally use the cheapest Vello F to E mount for my A7 and since it's literally a piece of metal that extends the barrel, I haven't had any issues whatsoever and I don't really see a point in upgrading to a better F to E mount at all.

My next lens purchase is probably gonna be the 2.8 24-70 II Canon L with a proper adapter since it seems to be much more cheaper than getting the 2.8 G Master from Sony... though to be fair to Sony, prices are starting to go down on the G Master so I may swing that way instead.

Yeah the expense is the thing that bothers me. I haven't seen a single adapter that supports Nikon AF or aperture control for G series, though it's been a bit since I looked Maybe something was announced over the last two months.

 

[Mysterious]

Thing is if your backpacking a lot you need to consider weight and size.

D7200 will open up some cool time-lapse options and not be much heavier. Also better weather sealing. D500 will be a bit heavier, more rugged and better sealed and faster if you start to fancy birds.

Full frame and lenses are heavy. If you are doing landscapes you usually want max DoF not shallow.

Sorry I am really new at camera equipment. Is D500 full-frame or crop sensor? It seems like the next leap for me from a D3100 right? From what I read, D5X00 and D7X00 aren't that much of a difference. If I already have a bunch of lenses for my D3100, would they still work in the D500? What about in a full-frame camera?

Current lenses are:
Nikon DX VR AF-S NIKKOR 55-200mm 1:4-5.6GII ED (Telephoto)
Nikon DX VR AF-S NIKKOR 18-55MM 1:3.5-5.6G (Kit)
Nikon DX AF-S NIKKOR 35MM 1:1.8G (Prime)

 

[JadedWriter]

Sorry I am really new at camera equipment. Is D500 full-frame or crop sensor? It seems like the next leap for me from a D3100 right? From what I read, D5X00 and D7X00 aren't that much of a difference. If I already have a bunch of lenses for my D3100, would they still work in the D500? What about in a full-frame camera?

Current lenses are:
Nikon DX VR AF-S NIKKOR 55-200mm 1:4-5.6GII ED (Telephoto)
Nikon DX VR AF-S NIKKOR 18-55MM 1:3.5-5.6G (Kit)
Nikon DX AF-S NIKKOR 35MM 1:1.8G (Prime)

D500 is a DX/crop camera so whatever you have from the 3100 will transfer over to the D500. The D500 is pretty much a top tier sports and wildlife camera and leaves the other stuff in it's dust expect for MP's. Would I get it? Yes I would, but low light high ISO means a lot to me and it doesn't exactly beat FX cameras that much like that, but it's got the best AF system currently. If it's in your budget then yeah get it. Though none of the lenses you listed are that great minus the 35G.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I've gotten pretty good at reading the light meter in the viewfinder and have a good idea on how much I can over/under expose an image before it becomes useless, unless I'm not paying attention of course. It's just something that takes practice. The EVF's kill batteries as well. I can get about 1250 shots out of one battery. Depending on what you do it's something that matters. I don't think I'd cover one of my job parades on mirrorless with one or two batteries since I can easily take over a thousand pics.

Yeah, I can see why a pro who does photography for a living would need all-day battery life, dual memory cards, etc. I also really like the interface and button placement on Canons. I really wanted to go with the 5D Mark IV for my upgrade, but I just couldn't justify it over the older Sony A7R II. The only real advantage it had in terms of tech was the dual pixel autofocus, which would have been great for video, but the 4K recording features were really subpar for a 2016 camera.

I don't know. For my uses as an amateur and hobbyist photographer, the A7R II (and even the A7 II) just had a perfect set of features photos and even a bit of video.

In terms of the EVF, I often don't even use it. It's really nice, but I find myself using the back LCD as the viewfinder more often than not because it actually performs just as well and gives me more freedom to composite the scene without needing to have my eye up against the body.

 

[JadedWriter]

Yeah, I can see why a pro who does photography for a living would need all-day battery life, dual memory cards, etc. I also really like the interface and button placement on Canons. I really wanted to go with the 5D Mark IV for my upgrade, but I just couldn't justify it over the older Sony A7R II. The only real advantage it had in terms of tech was the dual pixel autofocus, which would have been great for video, but the 4K recording features were really subpar for a 2016 camera.

I don't know. For my uses as an amateur and hobbyist photographer, the A7R II (and even the A7 II) just had a perfect set of features photos and even a bit of video.

In terms of the EVF, I often don't even use it. It's really nice, but I find myself using the back LCD as the viewfinder more often than not because it actually performs just as well and gives me more freedom to composite the scene without needing to have my eye up against the body.

Yeah it really just depends on your usage for the camera. I'd like to get a A7R2, but lenses and it's pretty much the same as a D810. I pretty much save money just staying in my system because the deals are on body only, once you start having to factor in lenses and adapters everything just goes up in price for me.

 

[Mysterious]

D500 is a DX/crop camera so whatever you have from the 3100 will transfer over to the D500. The D500 is pretty much a top tier sports and wildlife camera and leaves the other stuff in it's dust expect for MP's. Would I get it? Yes I would, but low light high ISO means a lot to me and it doesn't exactly beat FX cameras that much like that, but it's got the best AF system currently. If it's in your budget then yeah get it. Though none of the lenses you listed are that great minus the 35G.

How about the D750? That's the one I was previously looking at.

 

[JadedWriter]

How about the D750? That's the one I was previously looking at.

That's also good, but none of your lenses really work with it unless you want to use it in crop sensor mode, which pretty much defeats the purpose of going full frame. You'd pretty much have to either buy a separate FX lens for it or buy the 24-120 F4 kit for a fully compatible lens.

 

[Mysterious]

That's also good, but none of your lenses really work with it unless you want to use it in crop sensor mode, which pretty much defeats the purpose of going full frame. You'd pretty much have to either buy a separate FX lens for it or buy the 24-120 F4 kit for a fully compatible lens.

Really newbie question: on "crop sensor mode" would the viewing size be the same as it would on my DX camera? Or would it more more cropped?

 

[JadedWriter]

Really newbie question: on "crop sensor mode" would the viewing size be the same as it would on my DX camera? Or would it more more cropped?

It pretty much turns your FX into a DX camera, but cuts your resolution by a little less than half. When used with FX lenses it turns into an added zoom feature, when used with DX lenses it just allows the camera to use the entire focal length of the lens without the massive vignetting you'd get otherwise.

 

[RuGalz]

Another thing I love about my Sony is the ability to shoot silently. Turn on silent shooting and there is absolutely no shutter sound. This has proved immensely valuable in a few situations just since I got the camera last month.

Honestly, the only downside I can think of is the battery life. I don't mind carrying around a few extra batteries--they are small, but there is definitely some battery anxiety!

After doing a ton of research before buying my A7R II, I just couldn't see a good reason to go with a DSLR.

In case you run into it in the future, silent shutter can cause banding under artificial light. I wouldn't use it in those situations. Being silent is nice but its got problems; basically you are dealing with rolling shutter. EVF can also look weird under artificial light too depending on the refresh rate. For me, OVF is still much better than EVF other than EVF being able to show you focus peak right there.

(not my image)

Also, it increases noise in the final image. http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11142

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Yeah it really just depends on your usage for the camera. I'd like to get a A7R2, but lenses and it's pretty much the same as a D810. I pretty much save money just staying in my system because the deals are on body only, once you start having to factor in lenses and adapters everything just goes up in price for me.

Yeah, luckily I hadn't invested in a ton of lenses with my old Canon. Just the kit lens and the "nifty fifty." Going from Canon to Sony seems to be pretty painless using the Metabones adapter, but I can see why investing in a system and buying a lot of lenses can really screw with the value proposition of another brand's camera.

When all is said and done, none of us really need the latest tech and massive megapixel sensors to take amazing photos anyway.

In case you run into it in the future, silent shutter can cause banding under artificial light. I wouldn't use it in those situations. Being silent is nice but its got problems; basically you are dealing with rolling shutter.

(not my image)


Also, it increases noise in the final image. http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11142

Interesting! I didn't know that at all. I haven't noticed banding or increased noise in any of my photos, but that makes sense.

 

[JadedWriter]

"Why doesn't Nikon implement silent shutter?" "Cause it fucks up your pictures." I'd never shoot an event with that if that's the case. I'm there to photograph your event, so deal with the shutter slapping since this is what you are paying me to do.

 

[Hispanicguy]

Canon FD, Canon EF, Pentax K, Leica, Nikon F, C Mount, Sigma, M42, and of course Sony A mount.

Voigtlanders are also popular for Sony shooters, but not sure if that's covered under Leica mount.

Literally. Any. Vintage. Lens.
You're right, AF coverage is more or less Canon and A mount, but it's far from accurate to say that's all you can adapt.

Good to know about all the options I have if I were to go with Sony. Thanks!

I have a B&H Photo near me so that will be my first stop.

So the Sony A series and the Nikon D5300...are there big differences between the 2? Or more of a personal preference that you decide after you get a hands on with it? Sorry, when I say I know nothing about cameras, I mean it lol.

 

[JadedWriter]

Yeah, luckily I hadn't invested in a ton of lenses with my old Canon. Just the kit lens and the "nifty fifty." Going from Canon to Sony seems to be pretty painless using the Metabones adapter, but I can see why investing in a system and buying a lot of lenses can really screw with the value proposition of another brand's camera.

When all is said and done, none of us really need the latest tech and massive megapixel sensors to take amazing photos anyway.

I cover events with a shunned discontinued and recalled camera, but I love the pics I get out of it since I feel that it helped me take a step up in image quality and helps with indoor events. Doesn't hurt that I've gotten way better over the last year. I do want something less "molested" though since my D600 seems have been through a lot from the previous owner. It looks almost new barring some missing paint though. Use whatever gives you the images you like, that's pretty much photography in a nutshell. All we can do on here is help try to assist people.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Sorry I am really new at camera equipment. Is D500 full-frame or crop sensor? It seems like the next leap for me from a D3100 right? From what I read, D5X00 and D7X00 aren't that much of a difference. If I already have a bunch of lenses for my D3100, would they still work in the D500? What about in a full-frame camera?

Current lenses are:
Nikon DX VR AF-S NIKKOR 55-200mm 1:4-5.6GII ED (Telephoto)
Nikon DX VR AF-S NIKKOR 18-55MM 1:3.5-5.6G (Kit)
Nikon DX AF-S NIKKOR 35MM 1:1.8G (Prime)

The difference is mostly in build quality, button layout, and some added features. AF is also huge. But yeah the sensors are all the same... caveat being the D500 is slightly newer and will have slightly better sensor performance. I do believe the consumer level cameras are limited to 12bit RAW files while the better ones do 14bit... this is a very minor difference, but it can make a difference in recovering shadow and highlight detail.

 

[jongkookie]

When all is said and done, none of us really need the latest tech and massive megapixel sensors to take amazing photos anyway.

I thinks needs to be said more and more to amateur photogs.

I was at a graduation ceremony last week and there were a number of people there looking all high tech and bullshit with a camera hook on his backpack strap(so you just place the bottom of the camera on the hook and it magically stays on), a guy with a battery grip on an A7(though to be fair this is somewhat understandable), and some guy with a ridiculous lens hood or some shit on a huge Canon body... it honestly felt like a photog convention where everyone was showing off their gear.

Meanwhile I'm over there holding my strapless A7 freezing my ass off, set to auto, and taking my sweet ass time doing MF on my 50mm lol.

On the other hand though, I was one of those guys last year with all the gear and gizmos, thinking that it would make my photography better, when in reality all I needed were a good set of eyes and a proper understanding of how a camera works.

Like seriously, after a month of using my A7, I realized that I could take the same great shots with my D3200 and all I was getting by switching over to the A7 was the ease of use, the light weight, and the fact that I don't have to walk a long distance to account for APS-C cropping the image. Don't get me wrong, I love my A7 and don't regret the purchase one bit, but it was somewhat of an eye opener when I realized that my new camera just made it easier for me to shoot stuff instead of magically giving me better photos.

 

[VisceralBowl]

When I had an A7 and later a Fuji I never had battery life issues. I could easily get to 1k shots on a single battery if I tried. I always optimized my settings and also turned the camera off if I wasn't lining up a shot/shooting.

I must say though now that I've finally found a system I truly like all around (a Canon DSLR oddly enough) it's very nice being able to leave the camera on for the entire day and having it last.

When all is said and done, none of us really need the latest tech and massive megapixel sensors to take amazing photos anyway.

Truth!

 

[Mysterious]

So why are 35mm DX (crop) and 50mm FX (full-frame) considered equivalent? I still don't understand these zoom differences between full-frame and crop, and trying to Google it makes me more confused.

 

[StopMakingSense]

So why are 35mm DX (crop) and 50mm FX (full-frame) considered equivalent? I still don't understand these zoom differences between full-frame and crop, and trying to Google it makes me more confused.

Equivalent angle of view.

 

[Rentahamster]

So why are 35mm DX (crop) and 50mm FX (full-frame) considered equivalent? I still don't understand these zoom differences between full-frame and crop, and trying to Google it makes me more confused.

The field of views are equivalent. That's what they mean when they say the the focal length is "effectively" changed. In other words, a 35mm lens on a full frame body has a wider field of view than a 35mm lens on a crop sensor body. A 50mm lens on a full frame body has about the same field of view as a 35mm lens on a crop sensor body.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4_YokbwVNw

Here's a quick n dirty explanation.

 

[captive]

So why are 35mm DX (crop) and 50mm FX (full-frame) considered equivalent? I still don't understand these zoom differences between full-frame and crop, and trying to Google it makes me more confused.

if i owned a 50mm lens i could show you, but essentially you multiple the crop factor of the sensor by the focal length to the the equivalent angle of view on a full frame camera.

 

[John Blade]

Don't know if anyone here post this yet but look like they is another Mirrorless Camera coming into the market and this time it's from China (the country which make another third party accessories for camera, lens, and flash. Name Yi M1 Mirrorless Camera.

Some impression about this camera from the link below.

New kid on the block: YI M1 review
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/yi-m1

Yi M1 Mirrorless Camera (Video Review)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cLgyoh0Gyc&t=1s

Look like it's very early stage of new camera with flaws in the camera but if this company fix it with newer version, I think we might have another competitor in the market to try to bring the cost down on Mirrorless Camera (even though it's still a while from now).

 

[JadedWriter]

So why are 35mm DX (crop) and 50mm FX (full-frame) considered equivalent? I still don't understand these zoom differences between full-frame and crop, and trying to Google it makes me more confused.

A 50mm on FX turns into a 75mm on DX is the best example I can give you. A FX lens on DX isn't using the full part of the lens, it's pretty much using the center part of the lens so it's cropped in. DX is best for stuff like birding and wildlife. I got out of DX mainly because the DX lenses are useless if you ever plan on going full frame. That and high iso capability. Last thing I did I was at 2000 iso as a starting point.

 

[Astral/H3X]

So why are 35mm DX (crop) and 50mm FX (full-frame) considered equivalent? I still don't understand these zoom differences between full-frame and crop, and trying to Google it makes me more confused.

https://expertphotography.com/understand-focal-length-4-easy-steps/

Specifically, look at section 4. This is always easier with images than trying to explain it in words.

Essentially, using an APSC or "crop sensor", is like automatically taking every photo and cutting out, or "cropping" a square out of the middle and using only that. And when you do that, it happens to look like an image that was taken with a longer lens.

 

[8byte]

Need some advice here!

So I shot a wedding for a friend, not as a professional (they hired someone), just for some candid photos.

Well, bad things happened. There were these table toppers filled with honey for guests, and one of them, unwittingly, found its way into my camera bag and out of my memory.

Cut to the chase, my body has some honey in a few parts, though still functioning, and one of my lenses has significant...honey damage...

So, if I send it in to get serviced, is it worth it, or are they likely just ruined for life?

 

[JadedWriter]

Need some advice here!

So I shot a wedding for a friend, not as a professional (they hired someone), just for some candid photos.

Well, bad things happened. There were these table toppers filled with honey for guests, and one of them, unwittingly, found its way into my camera bag and out of my memory.

Cut to the chase, my body has some honey in a few parts, though still functioning, and one of my lenses has significant...honey damage...

So, if I send it in to get serviced, is it worth it, or are they likely just ruined for life?

Camera could most likely be salvaged, but not that lens. I think once they have to break open the lens you might as well just get a new one. Hope it's not anything too expensive. I mean you could always send it in for a diagnosis, but honey is a sticky substance.

 

[8byte]

Camera could most likely be salvaged, but not that lens. I think once they have to break open the lens you might as well just get a new one. Hope it's not anything too expensive. I mean you could always send it in for a diagnosis, but honey is a sticky substance.

That's what I figured for the lense...it's got extensive honey coverage.

The body is actually mostly fine, there's just some honey beneath the selector switch for camera modes (canon 7D).

I'll probably just send in the body and figure out what I can do with the lense. Most likely just trash.

 

[JadedWriter]

That's what I figured for the lense...it's got extensive honey coverage.

The body is actually mostly fine, there's just some honey beneath the selector switch for camera modes (canon 7D).

I'll probably just send in the body and figure out what I can do with the lense. Most likely just trash.

Is there any honey in the lens?

 

[8byte]

Is there any honey in the lens?

There is, I think. The zoom/focus rings stick at a few spots. It doesn't appear to actually be in the glass, just the rings.