The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.

[Salt Peanuts]

Big whopping meh.

[nikongod]

 

Sony announces A7S, 12.2 MP full-frame, low-light monster.

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/04/06/full-frame-sony-a7s-bucks-trend-fewer-larger-pixels-great-low-light-4k

 

Having purchased and returned the Sony A7R 36 MP high-MP monster, I was hoping for a Sony camera with same sensor but better/faster AF similar to Sony A6000, but this A7S with 12.2 MP threw me for a loop from the left field.  With such huge pixel size, it *should* have unheard-of dynamic range at high ISO, something even D800/A7R cannot manage at high ISO.  With -4.0 EV AF, it should have fabulous AF in low light, and if color fidelity and IQ benefit from large pixels, this camera could be THE walk-around, low-light monster we have never seen before.  Although this camera should appeal to videographers, it could seduce photographers who shoot low-light events.  

 

Hate to say it, but Sony does seem to be towering over Canikon when it comes to imagination, innovation, and appetizing cameras    

 

 

Unless Sony really screwed up, the low-light performance from this camera should be amazeballs. 

 

The AF seems kind of sloooooow though  

 

I read $1699. Which isn't as bad as I thought it would be.

 

I hope that is correct. 

The part of me that wants to take everything apart wonders if it uses the 24 or 36mp sensor? 

If its 36mp, I will be crazy-mega-uber-impressed. 

[HeadphoneAddict]

My older daughter has wished for a low cost digital DLSR camera for her birthday in a few months, giving us time to save up. I asked her to do all the research, and she sent me some links below. she's not interested in something like my point and shoot Leica D-LUX5, but wants the DSLR and interchangeable lenses, along with the bigger sensors they have. Part of her email below included links to discontinued used cameras on amazon that are similar to what she' spooking for, but I'd like to buy her a new budget-price camera with a warranty, if it's one worth owning:

I think I have it narrowed down to four cameras (not in order of preference):

· Canon EOS 30D - http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B000DZDTKU/181-2645308-3527942?SubscriptionId=02ZH6J1W0649DTNS6002

· Canon Digital Rebel XTi - http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B000I1ZWRW/181-2645308-3527942?SubscriptionId=02ZH6J1W0649DTNS6002

· Sony Alpha A100 - http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000JE7YW4/ref=twister_B000G221X6

· Canon EOS-10D - http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B00008OT2G/181-2645308-3527942?SubscriptionId=02ZH6J1W0649DTNS6002

I'm open to other ideas, but there are a few features that I'd really to have in a camera. First, I want a DSLR and not a point-and-shoot camera. Self cleaning, anti-dust, and anti-shake features are huge pluses for me. I'd also like to limit size and weight. I haven't started any research on lenses yet so keep that in mind when it comes to price.

So, would something like a Canon EOS Rebel T3 (no lens) fit her requirements? To me the most important factor is an affordable price and reliability, because she can't be taking time away from school to futz with a buggy or defective camera. The reviews look good, and $299 without a lens doesn't seem impossible. I don't know about the version that comes with the 18-55 lens for $449, but that lens doesn't look like it would be great in low light.

Our budget for Camera, Lens, and a Flash is about $500-600. With what we're spending on college I could buy 10 cameras a month, hence the low remaining budget. I know you guys like to buy the best, but on such a tight budget I'd love some recommendations if possible.

I have loads of memory cards for her to use, so that's not an issue. I wanted to give her my D-LUX5 but I kinda like it for myself, and she wants to be able to put on telephoto lenses and take nature photos with her outdoor club, and then at other times use a decent low light non-zoom lens.

Edited April 7, 2014 by HeadphoneAddict

[cetoole]

Larry, I think you would have trouble beating something like this for a starter setup. Maybe add something like a 35 f/1.8 later on.  I'd skip the flash for now.

 

Nikon D3200 DSLR Camera w/ 18-55mm and 55-200mm VR Lenses (Refurbished) + Adobe Lightroom 5 $450 + Free Shipping

http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/117820/buydig---nikon-d3200-dslr-camera-w-18-55mm-and-55-200mm-vr-lenses-refurbished-adobe-lightroom-5

Edited April 8, 2014 by cetoole

[HeadphoneAddict]

Larry, I think you would have trouble beating something like this for a starter setup. Maybe add something like a 35 f/1.8 later on.  I'd skip the flash for now.

 

Nikon D3200 DSLR Camera w/ 18-55mm and 55-200mm VR Lenses (Refurbished) + Adobe Lightroom 5 $450 + Free Shipping

http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/117820/buydig---nikon-d3200-dslr-camera-w-18-55mm-and-55-200mm-vr-lenses-refurbished-adobe-lightroom-5

 

That does look like a good deal, but it's too early since I won't need it for another 4 months, and the refurb only has a 90-day warranty.

 

Is it safe to assume that I can buy their Mack 5-yr extended warranty at the same time as the camera so that it will be protected?  http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=MKDIGCAMGR1000&tab=descript

 

If So, I could jump on it tonight.

 

[EDIT - I read the fine print, and if the warranty is bought at the same time it covers refurbished cameras that come with a 90-day]

Edited April 8, 2014 by HeadphoneAddict

[HeadphoneAddict]

So, I read the reviews linked from the coupon web page, and then I bought one of the last 5 of these D3200 deals in stock with the 5 year warranty. The $20 discount code worked fine. Thanks.  If she doesn't want it I do, and I still have 45 days to return it if I don't.  

 

I almost decided to do a square trade warranty instead, for the damage protection, but it's more than twice as much money ($44 vs $105) and for only 3 years.  I had a 3 year warranty on my Leica that expired last month and I never used it, so i figure the cheaper the better.  In this case I felt compelled to buy the warranty because the included 90-day refurb warranty would run out before she ever received the Camera.

 

I also don't think she will use the included Adobe light room 5. But she definitely wants me to upgrade her old photoshop elements 10 to the latest version.  I'll wait till closer to her birthday in case they come out with a new version. LR 4.0 came out right after I got LR 3. I can use the LR 5 to upgrade my LR 3.6 instead.

[crappyjones123]

I have never seen a kit lens that didn't suck. Take a look at cameta camera Larry. Authorized dealers. They will have refurb bodies with a year warranty instead of the usual 90 days. You can add on more if you like. Then grab some used glass separately. The money will be better spent I think. The little sigma 30mm I think was fantastic on the wideish end and inexpensive as well. Throw in a 105 ais and you got the long end covered with great glass.

[nikongod]

I have never seen a kit lens that didn't suck. 

 

Based on your return habits, at least 90% of the "upgrade" lenses you have bought suck too. 

 

Its a kit lens, it is what it is. It will take non-gear-centric* photos just about as well** as any other lens. They are GREAT for starting out, and offer a great feel for upgrades the user may want to make in the future. 

 

*As much as its the tool holding the tool, there are some things a tool cant do unless he has the right tools. Nobody likes to say it, but there are some photos you just cant take unless you have a *magic* lens. 95% of these photos are just not worth taking, but how would anyone know you had a Noctilux if you shot it at F2.8? 

 

I hesitate to call non-gear-centric photos average or common, because they can be insanely far from it. Indeed! When you look at the overwhelming trend towards "I shoot it at F0.95 because I bought an F0.95 lens" in photography the terms average and common take on a totally different definition. A photo with 3 or more elements working together, that is far from average, and as easy to take with something as simple as a Pinhole camera as something costing OMFGWTFBBQ(USD). I'm happy when I get 2 things to work. 

 

**Ignoring distortion, enough light to shoot at F8.

[crappyjones123]

You don't purchase a f/0.95 lens to always use at f/8. You purchase it to have the ability to do squirly things wide open that you would never with an f/2.8 lens. Different people have different tastes. You have previously expressed distaste for images shot at f/0.95 or super wide apertures but that doesn't necessarily make them bad - others may enjoy them even though you don't. Could you use the noctilux at f/8? Absolutely. But I doubt the difference will be insanely obvious as if the shot were taken with a $70 50mm f/1.8d lens. You pay a premium to have the ability to use it at wide apertures. How frequently do you have enough light to shoot at f/8 without using a tripod? Unless it's bright out, I can't shoot at f/8 without bumping up the ISO to the point where I get a noisy image or perhaps the only time I have to take pictures is when it isn't as bright out. I may not be a good photographer but I've used a camera for a bit of time now. Do you really expect a complete beginner to not get frustrated with getting blurry or noisy images? I can see the argument against upgraded lenses when they cost significantly more but when they cost relatively the same, offer better image quality and work in a wider range of lighting conditions, then it seems foolish and a waste of money to buy the kit lens, force the user to be frustrated in low light, and then end up buying the upgrade lens for the same price down the road.

I mentioned a sigma lens that sells for $175. You compared the suggestion to a noctilux which costs $9000(?). Hardly seems like a fair or even sane comparison or extension of argument. I still maintain that the sigma 30mm would be a better lens than the kit zoom as it would allow her the opportunity to take pictures in low light equally well compared to when it is bright outside without being forced to bump up the ISO to keep the shutter speed fast enough to avoid blurry images.

We all value money differently. If I paid a lot of money for a lens that has f/1.4 as it's widest aperture I would like to have the ability to use it at f/1.4 and get usable images. Doesn't mean I only shoot at f/1.4 but I want things to be in focus when I do. You mentioned my return habits and again drew a wildly absurd inference. I couldn't get sharp images with the 85mm lens even on a tripod with fine adjustment. I didn't pay $500 to say, well shit, I guess it sucks at getting anything sharp till f/4 so I am just going to use it at f/8 to get a deep enough depth of field that I get lucky and everything is in focus. There are more than enough samples of the lens being sharp at f/1.8. I played with two lenses locally that were indeed tack sharp wide open and ordered another one from amazon recently in hopes of getting a good sample. If it doesn't perform similarly to the two I used locally, it too will go back and provide more material for you to draw incorrect inferences on.

Edited April 8, 2014 by crappyjones123

[HeadphoneAddict]

Thanks for all the advice.

 

I'm going for the buydig deal with both lenses and the 5-year warranty.  It's going to be better than anything she's had before, and she doesn't mind working on images in post processing.  So she can fix some things up on the RAW images in Light Room without a lot of trouble.  Later I think later she'll want to try to find the WiFi module to grab a few jpgs to upload to social media, or grab a GPS module as well, but that's not most important.  

 

I think the next step is that we'll look for one really good lens to go with it, to cover the bases that the two "kit lenses" don't cover - with clarity being number one and low light being important but after clarity.  That could be her Christmas present if you guys could recommend one lens that can do a lot with a little less light and a bit more detail, but without being the uber crazy lens you'd buy yourself with an unlimited budget.  It doesn't have to zoom, because if it's clarity is enough to take advantage of the 24mp then she can just crop the photo and still have good detail (effectively like a 4x digital zoom to get a 6mp image).

 

I've been a subscriber to the dpreview newsletter for over 3 years, and I just read their article on the D3200 (all 22 pages) and I'd love to have this camera myself.  Yeah, there are some things I'd like to be a little better, but I paid $600 for my Leica D-LUX5 with LR 3 and 3-yr warranty, and this is $100 less for what seems to be more camera.  Yes, HDR or panoramic would be nice like some competitors, but at least it's got some HD video capability that several others don't have.  It's always nice to be able to take a video in a pinch, without having to switch cameras.

[Jon L]

A friend just bought the Nikon D4s

Edited April 12, 2014 by Jon L

[Torpedo]

A fly killing machine gun?

[Jon L]

A fly killing machine gun?

Flies lived on, but we had a giggle since the owner is mostly a landscape shooter and does not shoot sports.

[shellylh]

Got up to see the Lunar Eclipse last night.   Here is my attempt at photographing the event.  I am pretty happy with it but I am wondering if anyone has advice on how I could have made the picture better (besides staying up later).  I tried to shoot at a lower iso but even on a tripod, I was getting movement from pressing the button (didn't have my remote with me).  There is no post processing.  

 

Edited April 16, 2014 by shellylh

[HeadphoneAddict]

Using the remote is about the only thing I'd suggest.  Nice photo!

[Wmcmanus]

Actually, videography, but too stunning not to share here:

 

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/xHkq1edcbk4?rel=0

Edited April 16, 2014 by Wmcmanus

[Looser101]

A simple trick is to use the camera's built in timer function. That way you are not touching the camera when the picture is taken.

Still a cool picture.

[shellylh]

^Damn, why didn't I think of that?  Thanks. 

[falkon]

Also use mirror lockup.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

[agile_one]

Yup, mirror lock up and self timer.  Shelly, assume that's your longest lens?  What focal length?

 

Nice picture - how much can you crop before losing detail?

[HeadphoneAddict]

Here is the best I could do handheld with the 10mp Leica D-LUX5 and a broomstick as a support. I cropped the photos.

 

Shelly wins.

[shellylh]

Didn't know about mirror lock up, thanks for the pointer.  

 

Yup, mirror lock up and self timer.  Shelly, assume that's your longest lens?  What focal length?

 

Nice picture - how much can you crop before losing detail?

 

That is my longest lens (Tamron 70-300 VC) but the picture I posted above was only at 210mm on D7100.  I took some at 300mm but I didn't really like them as much.  Here is one of them.   I haven't tried cropping them yet.  

 

 

Larry:  I would guess that a broomstick would be a pretty horrible tripod. 

Edited April 17, 2014 by shellylh

[HeadphoneAddict]

Yeah, poor choice for mono-pod and wrong camera, etc.  I found my wife's tripod today, so I can try that in October when the next eclipse comes around.  Still the wrong camera though.

[crappyjones123]

When shooting the moon I've had reasonable decent luck with shooting at f/16 or higher in manual mode with 1/800th sec or faster shutter speed without even a tripod. The shutter speed doesn't allow for camera shake to be a factor. However, I've only ever tried this with a 135mm lens at the longest as it is the longest I ever had. But it consistently worked well with 35mm and 50mm lenses. I don't know if it will extend to 300mm as well.

Edited April 17, 2014 by crappyjones123

[crappyjones123]

Nap time.