/p/ - Photography » Thread #2653353

[72 / 7 / ?]

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 10:16:03 No.2653353 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2653364 >>2653378 >>2653495 >>2654208 >>2656264 >>2656841

I need some genuine advice /p/

I'm getting more into photography and I'd like to upgrade from my Canon EOS M to something better. Problem is I don't have the experience or knowledge to make a well informed decision. Thats why I'm asking you.

I'm torn between getting a Nikon D5200/D5300 or a Sony a6000. I understand one is a DLSR and one is a CSC. So I have a few questions.

1) Which has a better image quality?
2) Which is easier to use?
3) Does carrying a DLSR around really become a pain in the ass?
4) As a beginner(ish) should I really be considering these cameras, or are they too advanced?

Thankyou

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 10:20:26 No.2653355 Report

Quoted By: >>2653358

The A6000 makes much more sense for a beginner. As it has an electronic viewfinder, what you see is what you get, so nailing exposure becomes very simple indeed. Also the much smaller size will mean you're more likely to take it with you places and hopefully that will be enough to keep you interested in the hobby.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 10:24:04 No.2653358 Report

Quoted By: >>2653361

>>2653355
what about the image quality? Does the a6000 sacrifice image quality for its compact size?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 10:51:17 No.2653361 Report

Quoted By: >>2653362 >>2653429

>>2653358
No.
Both mirrorless and dslr's use the exact same sensors. Canon are about a decade behind everyone, fuji use x-trans sensors that aren't compatible with the Adobe suite, sigma use their own finickety sensors, consumer nikon (everything up to d750) use sony sensors, pentax use sony sensors, sony use sony sensors.

Sony sensors are currently the best, due to their large dynamic range and great low light performance. Mirrorless have the potential for better image quality as there are less moving parts and the short sensor to lens distance give optics designers a lot more options, especially for designing wide angle lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 10:55:31 No.2653362 Report

Quoted By: >>2653374 >>2653375 >>2653390 >>2653427

>>2653361
Thanks for the advice. Perhaps you could answer this...

If compact system cameras such as the sony a6000 have a similar image quality to DLSR's of a similar price, they why does anyone even bother buying a DLSR? Surely everyone would just buy the more compact camera that rivals an equal performance?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 10:58:55 No.2653364 Report

Quoted By: >>2653365

>>2653353
wait for a7000.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 11:00:51 No.2653365 Report

Quoted By: >>2653396

>>2653364
The a6000 is practically the peak of my budget, so I doubt I could afford an a7000

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 11:43:16 No.2653374 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653362
Better battery life, some prefer the ergonomics, faster AF (although this gap is closing every 6 months), Some people like OVF's.

In a lot of ways they make much more sense for a wedding 'tog firing off 2000 shots in a day after 15 years of practice. Or if you do top level sports, the better AF is useful.

But for learners, hobbyists and fine art mirrorless is miles ahead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 11:44:07 No.2653375 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653362
>they why does anyone even bother buying a DLSR?

In case you haven't noticed mirrorless is currently disrupting the camera market bigtime, and DSLR vs. mirrorless religion war is fast becoming a favorite pastime in photography communities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 12:11:03 No.2653378 Report

Quoted By: >>2653383

>>2653353
If you already have the EOS-M why not the M3 or wait for the newer model rumored for the next year?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 12:21:55 No.2653383 Report

Quoted By: >>2653395

>>2653378
The a6000 appears to be better in almost everyway than the EOS M3, and the're very similar prices.

And regarding waiting for the new model.. I cant wait that long :(

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 12:41:45 No.2653387 Report

Quoted By:

A6000 is your best option.
Get the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 as your first prime.
The 16-50 kit lens is handy, but not as good.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 12:48:02 No.2653390 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653362

Primarily AF. DSLR's still focus faster.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 13:05:50 No.2653395 Report

Quoted By: >>2656261

>>2653383
>The a6000 appears to be better in almost everyway than the EOS M3
Accurate.
Get the a6000, between your two/three choices OP.

1) The a6000
2) Depends on what you're doing with it, but my quick answer is "neither"
3) Yes, if you want a daily carry.
4) They are not too advanced. they come with manuals and you're very capable of using both. They also both have auto modes if the manual stuff is too complex.

I'm a fuji guy so I gotta shill that too. Have you looked at the X-T10 or the X-E2?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 13:14:07 No.2653396 Report

Quoted By: >>2653399 >>2653553

>>2653365
you won't be getting a huge upgrade over the m.
af will be faster.
you can now track better.
dynamic range will be better.
evf.
that's probably it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 13:18:17 No.2653399 Report

Quoted By: >>2653412

>>2653396
>you won't be getting a huge upgrade over the m.
incorrect.
Image quality is noticeably better, especially if he does any editing at all.

Ergonomics will also be better, build quality, literally every aspect except price.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 13:33:42 No.2653412 Report

Quoted By: >>2653415

>>2653399

a6000 is better than the M3. The M3 is like an old NEX-f3. Build quality is inferior to the original M, all that AF improvement hype from Canon was a bunch of bs and no built in EVF. Also the Tamron 18-200 in native EF-M mount isn't even compatible with it kek.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 13:35:26 No.2653415 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653412
>Tamron 18-200 in native EF-M mount isn't even compatible
haha
wat

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 13:37:14 No.2653419 Report

Quoted By: >>2653425

OG A7?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 13:46:34 No.2653425 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653419
Nah. They made all the sacrifices they could in order to give a full frame sensor in mirrorless. They're replacing the A7 bodies so quickly because they need to to make them really usable.

It's not a dog shit camera, but unless you really need full frame (and don't need other stuff, like usable AF) it's not the way to go against an a6000

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 13:50:38 No.2653427 Report

Quoted By: >>2654292

>>2653362
Mirrorless are still new on the market compared to Canikon, so when a new photographer ask around tips for a new gear for learning mostly they end up hearing about DSLR and Canikon, and never get no know other brands.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 13:55:36 No.2653429 Report

Quoted By: >>2653441

>>2653361
careful, there. mirrorless cameras have the potential for higher image resolution, but also have the potential for increased noise, because the smaller the body, the more inhibited heat dissipation becomes.

neither have been noticeable quite yet- the highest resolving 35mm lenses are both DSLR and mirrorless designs, and Sony's firmware make a bigger difference than their body design in contributing to noise issues. Sony sensors are currently the best, especially in Nikon and Pentax cameras.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 14:12:19 No.2653441 Report

Quoted By: >>2653445

>>2653429
>but also have the potential for increased noise, because the smaller the body, the more inhibited heat dissipation becomes.
If you just miniaturize every component in and on the camera, such a smaller body will lead to *more* heat dissipation.

If of course you just reduced surface area without reducing any of the heat generated, then you might have problems, but I don't currently see this happening.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 14:15:28 No.2653445 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653441
unfortunately, this problem has been cited by many camera manufacturers. including both Sony and Panasonic. Sony is claiming to be the first to have simultaneous ibis and 4k recording sure to advancements in passive cooling.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 51804851_p0.jpg, 473KiB, 662x934

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 14:25:49 No.2653452 Report

Quoted By:

If you want to stick to Canon, the used market is full of pretty much new 5d Mark II's and 7d's at totally-a-steal price. And you get to use the Canon lens line up + superior third party support.

I just got a 5d II for 850€, it had 4000 shutter actuations (NOTHING!) and I see 7d's on the market every day ranging from 450 to 500€.

The 7d has a dated sensor but it's really not THAT bad and it makes up for it with a wonderful easy to use body and pro features. Features-wise and usability is pretty much a 5d III, but with a... 650d? sensor.

Though if size and weight is a concern to you, and the type of shooting you do doesn't really require large lenses, tough body and stuff like extensive flash system support, go for a mirrorless camera. The already suggested A6000 is wonderful.

But remember that if you're going to stick a large lens on it, might as well get a DSLR. At least you get twice or more the battery life and a good optical viewfinder (Good if it's not an entry camera, mind you.)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 16:02:14 No.2653495 Report

Quoted By: >>2653498

>>2653353
I was in your exact same position about 6 months ago. I decided to go with a refurbished Nikon D5200 + 18-140mm lens. D5200 came with the kit 18-55, which I sold. At that point in time, this option was $200 to $300 cheaper than a similar D5300/a6000 setup. Things have indeed changes some since then, the camera landscape changes very quickly, but I may still be able to offer some usable advice:

1) Technically speaking, the image quality between the three cameras you listed will be very similar. Your lens choice will make a bigger difference. DSLRs generally have better focusing, better viewfinders, and better build. Ive also heard that light hitting a DSLR sensor somes in from a more perpendicular angle (a good characteristic) to the sensor compared to a small mirrorless, but Im not sure what affect this has upon image quality.

2) Usability between a mid-level crop sensor DSLR and a mid-level mirrorless will probably be comparable.

3) Yes. Big camera usually requires either a backpack or specialized bag. Additional lenses are even worse to carry around. For normal day-to-day classes and such, I dont bother bringing my DSLR.

4) The main draw of these types of cameras is the lens selection. If you just want good image quality across a broad spectrum (for example if you are just going to stick with a kit/superzoom lens and run nothing else on your camera), then look into a high quality fixed-lens camera. In this respect, Nikon/Canon DSLRs have a massive advantage in 1st and 3rd party lens selection. If you expect to use multiple lenses, I strongly recommend that you look into the lens selection/price of these systems before choosing a body.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 16:07:03 No.2653498 Report

Quoted By: >>2653531 >>2653532

>>2653495
>18-140mm lens
Why people do this. Get a compact camera.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 16:56:03 No.2653531 Report

Quoted By: >>2653539

>>2653498
Cry some more. Big zooms are good walk-around and travel lenses. Next time youre walking through the French alps, let me know how youre enjoying carrying your bucket of primes. Ive also got a 35mm 1.8 and Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro; though of course these are less general and more specialized lenses. DSLRs are all about the options.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 16:58:44 No.2653532 Report

Quoted By: >>2653539

>>2653498
>Why people do this.
Because a compact camera makes even worse image quality than a long aps-c zoom. Especially when your long zoom is water sealed, and having that range prevents the need to change lenses, exposing your camera to whatever ungodly disaster you're photographing. See: Pentax 18-135mm, and Pentax 16-85mm which has shocking image quality for the lens class.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 17:16:10 No.2653539 Report

Quoted By: >>2653575

>>2653531
You would have taken better pictures with a compact camera, sorry.

>>2653532
>Because a compact camera makes even worse image quality than a long aps-c zoom
No.
An RX100 III would have had more wide angle and enough tele to reach 90% of subjects

That 10% of subjects that's so far away you can't crop your way in, won't be captured better by a darker 200mm equivalent. Really. We're talking about wildlife, and for wildlife a 200mm lens is good only in situations where you're waiting for your shots and the lens is BRIGHT, not f/5.6. So, it's fucking useless. This is what people don't realize, really, that all that tele lenght is useless - if you want a good picture of far away wildlife, you need a dedicated tele and the mindset of getting out just for that shot. Any other way means you're out to snapshit and a compact camera would serve you better - both in quality and usability.

The RX100 would have also been able to take great macro shots, while the piece of shit superzoom, can't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 17:48:01 No.2653553 Report

Quoted By: >>2653563 >>2653568 >>2653570

>>2653396
The reason I'm upgrading from the EOS M to the a6000 or d3300/d5200 is for better image quality. Surely an extra 6 megapixels, better dynamic range etc should produce a much better image quality?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 18:15:39 No.2653563 Report

Quoted By: >>2653567

>>2653553
Kinda, it's more about the lens really.
If the body is fine to you, you're better off buying some high quality glass that suits your shooting, like I'd always suggest an 18-35 1.8 to all crop shooters because it's probably the best lens that came out in... dunno, since the inception of 24-70 2.8 lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 18:29:39 No.2653567 Report

Quoted By: >>2653573

>>2653563
Hmm, I would still prefer to upgrade my camera to one with an actual viewfinder, and one that has a better sensor. So either way I'll be buying a better body. But theres so much conflicting advice, I just wanna take nice photos :(

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 18:30:25 No.2653568 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653553
There you go, side by side studio comparison. Tend to ignore the lens artifacts such as chromabs that show up from time to time, mainly look for noise.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos100d&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkii&attr13_2=sony_a6000&attr13_3=nikon_d5300&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0

100d = same as EOS M

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 18:35:42 No.2653570 Report

Quoted By: >>2653572

>>2653553
no they don't.
i have the m and sony nex f3.
megapickle won't make you image better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 18:37:04 No.2653572 Report

Quoted By: >>2653573

>>2653570
What will then?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 18:42:59 No.2653573 Report

Quoted By: >>2653576

>>2653572
Glass and the right body.
The right body goes a long way tho, as you said >>2653567 if you don't feel comfortable with the EOS M, get rid of it.

A6000 will be fine, really, but if you feel comfortable buying used, you can find plenty of deals on cheap semipro reflex cameras. Like D7100s for example.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_3474.jpg, 3MiB, 4000x2667

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 18:43:44 No.2653575 Report

Quoted By: >>2653577

>>2653539
Sure. Not an opinion in sight. Solid advice right there. Sorry you cant afford a DSLR bro.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 18:45:04 No.2653576 Report

Quoted By: >>2653579

>>2653573
Hmm I'll have to have a think about it, I'd get a DSLR but I'm just thinking because of its size, would I really take it everywhere? Probably not

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Smug1.png, 68KiB, 271x288

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 18:51:03 No.2653577 Report

Quoted By: >>2653587

>>2653575
>ad hominems
>shitty blurry pictures

I got a 5d II, a 7d and a le meme smegma merrill gazillion megapixel compact camera, anyways.

Superzooms are perfectly acceptable for tourists, but I still like to believe the standards of this board are higher. You'll realize it yourself when all your good photos are taken at certain focal lenghts and you'll realize that versatility isn't in how much you can zoom, but in how bright is your zoom.

When you go out focused, knowing the shot you want to take, you'll get results home.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 18:54:26 No.2653579 Report

Quoted By: >>2653584

>>2653576
You really need to try the body then. I personally almost stopped bring my dslr around but it's mostly because I live in a big city and it draws too much attention if I'm alone.

At the same time, a mirrorless camera won't be much smaller than a DSLR if you stick a big lens on it, so think it throughly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 19:09:55 No.2653584 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653579
I won't be sticking a big lens on it, so that won't be a problem. And I agree, I don't want attention being drawn to me, that's why a mirrorless will be ideal. The problem I had in the first place was that I didn't want to buy a mirrorless for £450 knowing that a DSLR would produce better results for a cheaper price.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 19:14:07 No.2653587 Report

Quoted By: >>2653602

>>2653577
Im certainly not saying that superzooms are the best lenses available. They do have their limitations; limitations that - over the course of owning mine - I have come to discover and work around. But theye certainly better than anything a compact camera can offer. Also, after your VERY helpful critique of my photo, Id be very interested indeed to see one of your shots.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 8303387268_2e45859c19_o.jpg, 238KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 19:40:48 No.2653602 Report

Quoted By: >>2653606 >>2653676

>>2653587
Wait was that a serious shot?
I can't crit that, there is literally nothing going on.
I mean if you want I could but... there is really nothing to say that goes past "it's blurry, the subject is beyond uninteresting, the surface is dirty to the point of being disgusting, there is absolutely no composition finesse going on and the post processing looks lazy"

Like you snapped at a reflective surface with your lens way too open, or too zoomed, and all we got is some dirt in focus and the reflections of random buildings. 1/3 of the picture is taken up by disturbing objects in the background.

Is this good enough crit?
And no, I don't think my snapshots are good enough to be posted as a "comparison" of any kind, so I won't post my pics. I'll just you a picture taken with a compact camera that makes better use of reflections.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 19:46:22 No.2653606 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653602
>talking about zooms
>posts a photo from a fixed length compact

what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 20:20:09 No.2653622 Report

Quoted By: >>2653668 >>2653678 >>2653763

now is the time to get on the mirrorless bandwagon. dslr's a done, theres no reason for the bulk. I own the a6000 and it outperforms my mates 6d with an L lens. a £500 camera that can shoot 30fps sequence shots is fucking incredible. Im sure its like triple the amount of auto focus points on the sensor as well. super light, super durable as well. Only the other week I slammed the a6000 + samyang 8mm fisheye into ground rolled over the top of it and there isnt a scratch on the lens or the body!! any dslr would have been toast! I could jizz over this camera any more than I am now, its epic. and there is a full frame a7r which is still only about £1000 which is similar spec. theres just no reason to get a dslr unless you want a big ass bulky camera.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 22:44:20 No.2653668 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653622
OP here, you have greatly influenced my decision on buying the a6000

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 23:04:18 No.2653676 Report

Quoted By: >>2653765

>>2653602
At the end of the day, I guess thats the thing about photography: its subjective. I find the background elements of my photo to be the most charming aspects. Im going to ignore the fact that you criticize my photo for being dirty, and you turn around and post some random puddle you saw on the sidewalk. I do think that your photo has pretty good composition, but beyond that the point escapes me. I cant tell whats supposed to be in focus, and what I should be looking at. Its noisy; and underexposed to the point where large chunks of the photo are pointless. I feel like a lot of this could be corrected in post, and it does look like you edit with Photoshop; so I can only assume that this is just the way you wanted the photo to look. Old film look perhaps? Thats fine I guess, but it just doesnt do it for me in this photo. Thank you, come again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 22 Aug 2015 23:11:51 No.2653678 Report

Quoted By: >>2653774

>>2653622
>samyang 8mm fisheye
How is it? Been considering getting it, but Sony's 16mm f/2.8 with ultra wide converter seems like a good deal...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 23 Aug 2015 03:37:57 No.2653763 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653622
>and it outperforms my mates 6d with an L lens
It doesn't, full frame is full frame.
But other than that you're right-ish

>any dslr would have been toast!
Mirrorless cameras are universally more fragile than pro body DSLRs (except maybe the higher end Olympus bodies). No mirrorless can go through the abuse a 7d can. Let's not even talk about the 1d's...

>theres just no reason to get a dslr unless you want a big ass bulky camera.
There are many reasons, but if you just wanna take good photos mirrorless are fine.
If you're into, like, wildlife, sports, actual work shit, etc... mirrorless are useless.

But for ART (yeah I said it) mirrorless are great. As DSLRs are, but DSLRs are hueg.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 23 Aug 2015 03:44:13 No.2653765 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653676
>its subjective.
No shit mate, but to a point. Your pic has no subject, no interesting composition, nothing. It's a snapshit, the epitome of a snapshit to be exact.

In a year or two you'll look back at that pic and trash it.

The random puddle has composition value, it's not a great picture, it's a "meh" snap, but it has thought behind the picture. It looks good on the thunbnail, that's the first step to knowing if the photo is well composed. The subject is slightly less boring but still boring.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 23 Aug 2015 04:12:08 No.2653774 Report

Quoted By: >>2653822

>>2653678
the sony 16 is shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 23 Aug 2015 07:41:35 No.2653822 Report

Quoted By: >>2653844

>>2653774
Care to elaborate?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 23 Aug 2015 09:17:33 No.2653844 Report

Quoted By: >>2653855 >>2653873

>>2653822
soft everywhere.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 23 Aug 2015 09:51:30 No.2653855 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653844
Aight, thanks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 23 Aug 2015 13:16:01 No.2653873 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653844
Well it's sharp in the middle
buuut just there

http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/728-sony16f28nex7?start=1

And the amout of chromabs kill even that sharpness, anyways. What a piece of shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 23 Aug 2015 22:14:15 No.2654208 Report

Quoted By: >>2656264

>>2653353

Good god, this thread is fucking cancer.

>I'm getting more into photography and I'd like to upgrade from my Canon EOS M to something better.

99% of people who claim this, don't need a new camera.

>Problem is I don't have the experience or knowledge to make a well informed decision.

Another red flag that you do not need one.

>I'm torn between getting a Nikon D5200/D5300 or a Sony a6000.

Yeah, if that's your options, you're only throwing money out the window. The IQ increase from your current camera is very probably completely insignificant (it's not that big in any case) compared to what your actually need to upgrade: your skills. A bigger and better camera with better IQ will not take better pictures for you. A camera is a tool. Getting a bigger hammer will not let you build a better garden shed, if you don't know what you're doing and why exactly you need that other hammer. Get gud and stop blaming your camera for shitty pictures.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 24 Aug 2015 00:14:56 No.2654292 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653427
I went from Minolta to Sony, feels good man!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 24 Aug 2015 00:27:09 No.2654303 Report

Quoted By:

Not op but I have a question of my own, I'm trying to decide between the canon t5i and the Sony a6000 as a good starter digital camera, I'm still a beginner whose used to shooting film and looking to transition into digital photography. I'm looking for something that allows me to take amazing pictures as well as video since my friends and I dabble in a bit of YouTube.

The things that stand out to me about the rebel is that it has a vast variety of lenses, an articulating touch screen as well as a built in microphone jack. The only problems with it are, I enjoy traveling and carrying this shit around will get a bit annoying and that when I glanced at the sample photos taken with it, it looks a bit bland compared to the Sony.

I was hoping maybe somone could help me out a bit. While I have basically a $700 price limit I'm still open to more recommendations from you guys

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 17:37:21 No.2656261 Report

Quoted By: >>2656267 >>2657583

>>2653395
Do u have personal experience with the X-E2?
How is the RAW processing using the adobe portfolio, because some anon pointed out it wouldnt be compatible in the first place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 17:41:06 No.2656264 Report

Quoted By: >>2657965

>>2653353

Ignore this person.
>>2654208

He doesn't know anything about you, your needs, or your current gear. He just wants to express to you that you're an idiot, and that he knows better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 17:42:16 No.2656267 Report

Quoted By:

>>2656261
Not him, but I have experience.
If you have the most up to date Adobe products, raw processing is just fine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Aug 2015 19:09:16 No.2656841 Report

Quoted By:

>>2653353
Well, now I think you can go for the M3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Aug 2015 03:47:59 No.2657583 Report

Quoted By:

>>2656261
Fine, as long as you yourself can take good photos, but I highly recommend Iridient Developer for Fuji.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO dat moon tho.jpg, 124KiB, 2048x1536

Anonymous Sat 29 Aug 2015 05:37:15 No.2657624 Report

Quoted By: >>2657627

Not a photographer, just interested in taking pictures of the moon. Figure one of those bridge cameras with 50x zoom and 1000mm focal lenght are what I'd be best off with.
Which one though? I did some research but I have no clue what features mean what.
According to the wiki, I should just go with latest powershot (sx60) but I've had some Fuji's recommended over Canon.

Also, fiance's birthday is coming up at the end of October and looking to get her a new camera as a gift.
She used to be into photography before she met me but let it slide by the wayside, about 6 years ago.
I'm hoping that once I get whatever bridge camera she'll get jealous of my dope moon pictures and want to get back into it.
I figured I'd get a canon rebel or w/e but apparently these mirrorless boxes are hot shit, so what kind of entry/amateur camera should I get for her?
DSLR or Mirrorless?

Figure I'd go with entry level so if she ends up not really getting back into it, it won't be a big deal.

tl;dr What Bridge camera and what dslr/mirrorless for getting back into photography?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Aug 2015 05:48:13 No.2657627 Report

Quoted By: >>2657628

>>2657624

Also, this how I fell in love with the moon...

I'm a musician, and I make noise and call it art. I walk my dog at night and see a glorious full moon.

>Moon, you are so beautiful I must capture you with picture so I can have you forever and always.

Take a picture of that porcelain goddess with my Phone.

>Curse the heavens! Moon, you are but a meek smudge in this pic.

At home, ask google "how to take picture of moon" and read I must have 200mm lens for small but clear picture. I also read I must purchase a $180,000 lens for sexy moon close up.

>Alas my radiant celestial, you are so close, yet 238,855 miles away.

Fast forward many moons, see picture of a moon on my facebook. My friend says she took it with some canon sx50.

>Oh happy nights! Dr. Ian Malcom once said "I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way."

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Aug 2015 05:49:16 No.2657628 Report

Quoted By:

>>2657627
Why the fuck is 1200mm in the spam filter?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Sony-DSC-HX300B-20-MP-Digital-Ca (...).jpg, 175KiB, 1500x1043

Anonymous Sat 29 Aug 2015 14:54:26 No.2657884 Report

Quoted By: >>2657888 >>2657949

Oh look, an advice thread!
Let me ask too. I'm thinking about getting into photography, but, just like with everything else, I'm pretty shit, don't know squat and generally am afraid I won't make much progress, but I feel like wasting money on yet another thing and the view from my window is something I've been thinking about picturing from some time, so whatever.
I'm having my eye peeled on this bad boy right here, however, it's not all that good (or so I heard) and would cost me like 2/3 of my month pay. It has that one thing I've been tying my purchase to - the mega zoom.
However, wouldn't in be an overkill for a crap noob like myself? Are super zoom compact cameras even worth it? Think I could catch some ladies changing in the windows next bloc?
Any advice appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Also, my first time posting here, but maybe, if I ever get into that, I'll become a regular.
Cheers!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Aug 2015 15:06:06 No.2657888 Report

Quoted By: >>2657935

>>2657884
Super zoom compact cameras are never worth it. Those are for people who want zoom and compactness over functionality(and usually image quality). Mega zoom just isn't worth it, hell, super zoom lenses on DSLR/MILC isn't even worth it 90% of the time.

You are much better off just getting a camera bundle that throws you 2 lenses, one normal kit and one telephoto.

Photography has a very interesting learning curve. You'll learn a lot and progress a lot before you feel the "great stagnation".

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Aug 2015 15:30:20 No.2657935 Report

Quoted By:

>>2657888
Weeell, was thinking compact since "non-compact"/"reflex"/"SLR"/whatever the big ones are called, cameras tend to be a little bit pricier.
Like, twice as much as that one I posted. A killer for me.
And, as I mentioned, the zoom is a gimmick for me to catch some fancy pieces of my beautiful vista, as I am imagining it right now.

On the other hand, one should not argue with trips.
Have a nice day.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Aug 2015 16:01:07 No.2657949 Report

Quoted By:

>>2657884
no.
get olympus epl6 for $269.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Aug 2015 16:22:21 No.2657965 Report

Quoted By:

>>2656264
except he's right. If you want a new camera for the sake of a new camera, you don't need a new camera.

If you feel yourself consistently being limited by your gear and not your skill, then it's time to consider an upgrade. Not when you just feel like you've been doing it long enough so you need an upgrade.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches