FWIW, I would get no small camera that doesn't have a shoe for a real flash. For many pictures a bounce flash is what you need.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Camera advice please.....
- Thread starter two fingers
- Start date
Great advice. I need to quit stressing out so much about it I guess. Just like bass gear, I'm sure I'll want something different from whatever I get in a year or so. I need to quit acting as though this is some life-changing semi-permanent decision I am making.Thanks.
The only part that is semi-permanent is that once you have a couple good lenses, it's costly to switch to a different system. That's the real reason everyone is suggesting getting one of the major brands/systems.
The flipside to that argument is, good lens' tend to hold their value (particularly if you bought second hand) so it's not hard to offload them for a decent price.
Bodies on the other hand, drop value like a stone the moment they're superseded.
Absolutely true unless the technology really changes, like when auto focus came out. Many manual lenses are worth nothing now unless they are collectable.
Just like basses, if you don't know what you really like and you lose a bit on each it adds up. If you switch systems you lose the value all at once so it hurts more.
That said, once the mirrorless designs are a bit more mature and my D90 stops meeting my needs, I'll be switching. At that point the market will probably have shifted enough that none of what I have is worth anything.
Just got to buy the ones with a red dot*
Have you checked out Sony's new mirrorless full frame options?
* for the OP, red dot = leica = worse money sink than almost every other photography brand, you get +10 style points though .../bait.
To be fair. Leica do make absolutely lovely glass, as overpriced as it may be, I work with their products on an almost daily basis (though they aren't the quickest when it comes to using their service contract).
On the camera front, they are also one of the few to be making a sub-f1 aperture lens. Ok, not something that's massively useful for day to day, but certainly something that'd be fun to play with!
On the camera front, they are also one of the few to be making a sub-f1 aperture lens. Ok, not something that's massively useful for day to day, but certainly something that'd be fun to play with!
This is actually another reason I was leaning mirrorless. They seem to be more standardized with regard to lenses. So, if the technology of sensors "catches up" to FF DSLR, then I can get another body and keep all the glass I have gotten used to. And even if i move from Olympus to Panasonic (for example) the lenses will still work.
Lots to think about.
For those of you who have gone mirrorless, have you managed to find a lens/aperture setting that allow you to get an object in focus with the background "artistically blurry"? That seems to be a major drawback for many. Some claim to have found ways around it but never show examples or name the lens/settings they are using to accomplish this.
/disclaimer, i'm several glasses of wine down tonight
it's all maths bro
depth of field determines the in focus and out of focus elements. Aperture controls how wide the hole is through which your lens lets light, and this determines your depth of field of focus. The lower the number, the wider the hole, and the shorter the depth of field.
An m43 sensor, at half the size of an FF sensor, requires a 2x multiplier to get equivalent focal length. Conveniently, this same multiplier determines the equivalent depth of field of focus. The out of focus elements at an aperture of f/2.8 on full frame, are equivalent to the out of focus elements on an m43 lens at f/1.4 (2* 1.4 = 2.8)
People love the shallow depth of field on Full Frame - however, as with all things photographic it has a tradeoff.
Consider the scenario - I'm trying to shoot a group in low light, I don't have a flash and so I need to open my aperture up as wide as possible to get as much light in as possible. I'm on a 50mm lens at f1.8 and unfortunately due to my huge sensor, I can't actually get a depth of field plane big enough to get the whole group in focus. Poo.
But with my smaller sensor, at f1.8, the same amount of light is hitting my sensor, but my depth of field of focus is doubled - group photo win!
Another area where the shallow depth of field of FF sensors sucks - macro photography.
So to overcome, we use flashes all the time (which isn't a big deal since our kit is already ridiculously bulky) .../bit more bait, I blame my condition
Some ref with too much detail:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
The native m43 lens' come with very wide apertures generally - there is a voigtlander 17.5mm 0.95 (35mm equivalent), a 75mm f/1.8 (150mm equivalent), and other similar things.
Don't worry, you'll be able to get your COC* on with an m43 sensor.
* COC = Circles Of Confusion - the blurry circles in the background of your photo
Just to add - the niceness/roundness of the background blur from light sources also depends on the lens construction, specifically, the number of blades used in aperture construction (more aperture blades = rounder).
@ OP, Check out the results of mirror lens'. Doughnuts of confusion (these are considered very ugly btw).
I would personally wait a year or two and reassess - mirrorless systems are just now coming into full bloom, and their capabilities are rapidly improving. I am a long-time Nikon film and digital shooter, but mirrorless is where the development money is going right now. My Sony NEX7 is amazing but the newest Micro 4/3 gear has great promise.
Some great deals right now on Canon factory refurbs -
Invalid Link Removed
I have no problem buying anything factory refurbished - it means it was probably a return that could not be sold again as new, went back and was 100% checked out.
Again - don't let the MP count affect your buying decision. You will never see the difference between say, 15 or 20 MP or 18 -24 MP, etc.
Invalid Link Removed
I have no problem buying anything factory refurbished - it means it was probably a return that could not be sold again as new, went back and was 100% checked out.
Again - don't let the MP count affect your buying decision. You will never see the difference between say, 15 or 20 MP or 18 -24 MP, etc.
Sensor looks great and Sony makes quality stuff, but it's too big to fit in a pocket and still too new for me to jump ship to a different system.
This is exactly the conclusion I came to. I fully expect to do something that destroys my D90 along with a lens in the next year or two and that's when I'll make the change.
But being that the lenses on m43 are somewhat standardized perhaps getting the Olympus OMD would be a good idea then because my glass would fit whatever amazing new body that comes out in a couple years. Whataya think?
Good glass is more important than a good camera. Don't buy a couple of cheap "starter" lenses with the idea of attaching them to an "amazing" body. It should be the other way around.
If the smaller sensor of m43 doesn't present any issues for you, then that is a good option. Lots of good lenses and bodies.
Makes sense to me if your budget can withstand a new body in a few years. I keep looking at the idea of Panaleica lenses on a GX7 and wonder how I'd like it compared to my current NEX7 as an adjunct to my Leica RF gear.
Did you compare the NEX7 to the Olympus OMD and GX7 when you bought? Just curious as to whether or not you are familiar with the specs and have any thoughts among those three.
No, simply because I've had the NEX7 since it came out two years ago before either the OMD or GX7 were announced. I've looked at the Oly and Panasonic models, but I'm not intimately familiar with either.
