• Gear discussion thread v. "I own more nifty fifties than cameras they fit"
    2,522 replies, posted
The nex 5 is tight I love mine. I don't have the 18-55 though, I have the 16mm lens which is alright
I need a good lens for some work that I have coming up. I'm going to be doing "interview" like shots, would the Canon 40mm f/2.8 or the 50mm f/1.8 II be better for this task. [editline]January 27th 2013[/editline] For video on a 600D
both of those would be very tight for video, especially if you are planning on doing indoors scenes. the crop for video is even more than the typical 1.6x, so that's why i stress this. sigma 30mm f1.4 or the canon 28mm f1.8 would be better, while still providing a decent bit of subject isolation.
What's you guys' opinion on the NEX-5R? Looks like a nice step up from the NEX-5.
It's nice, though I believe they ditched the front part being metal so it feels weak in the hand compared to the 5. The UI is a bit newer and different (can shift more than 2 EV's in either direction which is nice), the main button is rounded which I dislike, and the control wheel just takes place of the other one, they don't work as a true dual system so it's kind of pointless. The screen is nice and touch to zoom is awesome for legacy glass stuff with a tripod, and the apps seem pretty cool overall with some decent ones having been released. If I were to buy a new nex I would go for the 7 or the 6 though. The 7 because of try navi and the 6 for apps, mode dial, and the sensor is marginally better at high ISO's.
The front feels metal to me, but i may be wrong. In my opinion the resistive touch screen is kind of horrible, but the control dials actually work quite nicely. The problem that I have with it is that all my pictures seem to come out very grainy despite having plenty of light and a fairly low ISO. Might be my inexperience but I didn't have the problem with the canon 450D.
What's your reduction and sharpening set at? I don't have that problem with my 5, and it should be really a lot better than a 450D
[QUOTE=Trogdon;39390721]What's your reduction and sharpening set at? I don't have that problem with my 5, and it should be really a lot better than a 450D[/QUOTE] Where can I find those settings? Sorry to ask such trivial questions but I just looked through all the options and couldn't find reduction or sharpening. [editline]28th January 2013[/editline] I've been a canon user for the past 3 years so sony is completely alien to me at the moment
The sharpening would be in the styles options like vibrant, standard, sunset, and such. Contrast and saturation are there as well. Noise reduction is in the top right menu I believe, just general camera settings. But really there shouldn't be a lot of noise, I use my original 5 at 1600 quite often and it looks fine, and the new sensor should have better noise performance
Trogman, what do u think about that rx1? Curious about a compact fullframe. I wanted a second hand m9 (found one for $4k) but decided even at that point it still would have been too many eggs in one basket. The rx1 looks like a decent compromise but I'm not sure about the 35 f/2 thats stuck on there. [editline]28th January 2013[/editline] Eh, it's a lot of money just to scale things down, I can already walk around with a DSLR with 35 1.4, or I can pay $3k to walk around with a 35 2.0 P&S Still curious about your thoughts.
It just got a review on one magazine saying it was the highest rated lens+camera they've ever tested, it's getting much good feedback in terms of image quality and video quality. The lens is really something special, a lot of work went into it to make such a dreamy little package. It would beat a Leica m9 (probably the new Leica M as well but that's not out and its crayayayzy cash) if the Leica had any 35mm lens on it, it's supposed to be that good. Plus it's got a nice macro mode which gives very close focusing, something rangefinders can't do. On the otherside it doesn't have a tilty screen (huge negative in my book), the EVF is pretty pricey, and it has a wicked short battery life (like 200 shots, which means a lot of charging and I don't believe it comes with a wall charger). People are iffy about the investment of a fixed lens camera, everyone thinks the price is going to drop significantly once the hype dies down. I've heard people recommend getting a nex 7 with the Zeiss 24mm for a similar experience, but bigger but cheaper and you can change lenses. I'm a bit mixed on it myself. It's truly in a league of its own and there isn't anything quite like it. The image quality is astounding compared to full frame cameras, and compared to compact cameras its something else. I can see it being a being everywhere camera that can make god like photos. If I had the cash to throw (and I mean like really to throw) I would get one, but for me changing lenses is too important and being limited isn't for me. And if I already had a full frame I wouldn't get one, just seems redundant. I would recommend the rx-100 as a compact go anywhere solution because of the very solid image quality (beating APS-C kits with their 18-55 lenses, pretty sweet really) and the nice zoom range. They are literally pocket sized so it is probably the best go anywhere camera around. If you want a little bigger but more flexibility than the rx1, then yeah I'd say the nex combo with the 24mm Zeiss as it should do 90% of the same stuff picture wise. On another note Sony is releasing a new pancake lens for the nex series, a 20mm 2.8, which should be pretty good optically. If you got one of those and a nex c3 on eBay (literally selling for under $200) you could get a cool pocket combo. I bring my nex most everywhere, it's trivial not to with the size it is. PS I'm sorry if this is hard to follow I'm eating dark chocolate right now
My NEX-5 arrived today. Didn't know what to expect of it but damn, I am loving it. Hope the weather will be a bit better tomorrow so I can test it out properly.
So I have a 18-55, and a 35 (which I love and use all the time), what next lens should I get to expand my collection?
none of them, you have enough lenses but not enough [I]fotos[/I] [editline]29th January 2013[/editline] i guess a telephoto but nobody actually uses them
dude i got too many pix already i cant organize. i uploaded 5 pages worth of content onto flickr in the past 3 days!
Wait until you actually find yourself needing a lens, or know what you want specifically from a lens - rather than buying them for the sake of buying them. If you have to ask, you don't need one. Would be better to ask what lens will help you achieve something specific.
I can understand that. I guess I'm really looking for a wide fast lens. It doesn't need to be zoom, prime is fine. I am having a hard time finding something like that. I mostly need it for band photography.
Aps-c is very lacking in the wide fast department. Why more companies don't have a 24mm f2 is quite beyond me, and 16mm f2's should exist as well. If you want wide you'll be looking at 24mm or less, and sigma is the only company the produces primes faster than 2.8 in this range. And they aren't that good. The tokina 11-16mm is realistically the fastest wide angle solution and the zoom is just a bonus. My recommendation for anything gig wise would be a 17-50mm 2.8 zoom (or the sigma 17-70 2.8-4) because it accommodates for more scenarios. Pretty fast at 2.8, decent wide angle (28mm equiv), decent image quality, decent zoom range, good mFD, and no switching lenses so no missed moments. Realistically they cover a lot of shooting situations so it would be my biggest recommendation for paid gigs. If you aren't getting paid then do what you want and use lenses you like and get creative, zooms are more for professional applications than artistic ones (in my opinion anyways, feel free to disagree)
[QUOTE=notlabbet;39404665]dude i got too many pix already i cant organize. i uploaded 5 pages worth of content onto flickr in the past 3 days![/QUOTE] And most of them are pretty average, put some quality control on those suckers, nobody wants to look at your 'OK' images.
[QUOTE=The Salmon;39407815]And most of them are pretty average, put some quality control on those suckers, nobody wants to look at your 'OK' images.[/QUOTE] I upload my whole rolls for archival purposes, but I do try to sort my digital photos. Honestly, the digital ones I put up are what I think my best are. :( I shoot 300 and put up 20 on average. Then I delete the rest, ones not interesting to even meet my cut.
Well I would say focus on taking less images. 300 for an outing is probably a bit much, try and think a lot about each shot carefully. Go for about 20 on average for an outing, and post 3-4. It's a good habit to try even if its not something you want to stic with, it can help with getting more keeper shots
so keep the film mentality alive is what your saying? I never really thought of it that way. With digital, I usually take 5 pictures of the same thing, trying to get it just right. On the other hand, I am very conservative with my film, my last roll had some pictures from 2011. [editline]29th January 2013[/editline] I will try this out, see if it motivates me more to try harder for my shots.
[QUOTE=notlabbet;39408185]so keep the film mentality alive is what your saying? I never really thought of it that way. With digital, I usually take 5 pictures of the same thing, trying to get it just right. On the other hand, I am very conservative with my film, my last roll had some pictures from 2011. [editline]29th January 2013[/editline] I will try this out, see if it motivates me more to try harder for my shots.[/QUOTE] William Eggleston has this thing where he just takes a shot and that's it - forgets about it. I think it can be a good exercise to just run with it sometimes. It's okay to take a shot a few times to get it right, but maybe practice conservation in certain situations. Don't make it an absolute, just something to practice here and then and work it into your practice.
Yep that's exactly what I'm saying. Even if you end up not liking the style, it can still be a good learning experience. You always learn from going a bit out of your element.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;39386284]both of those would be very tight for video, especially if you are planning on doing indoors scenes. the crop for video is even more than the typical 1.6x, so that's why i stress this. sigma 30mm f1.4 or the canon 28mm f1.8 would be better, while still providing a decent bit of subject isolation.[/QUOTE] Sadly those two lenses are just not in the budget. Are there any alternatives?
[QUOTE=Nsybouts;39410136]Sadly those two lenses are just not in the budget. Are there any alternatives?[/QUOTE] the next alternative is a 24mm f/1.4L and that will run you >£1000 so no
I hope this isn't a tired subject (since I've not seen anyone talk about it for a while as far as I can recall), but I'd like to experiment with doing some brenizers. Will I be able to get a decent effect with a 550D and a nifty fifty? Or should I go for an 85 1.8, which most of them seem to be shot with?
You can do it with anything really, wider lenses just make it harder as the distortion even on a 35mm will build up.
50mm is a good length and typically these lenses have very little distortion
i guess i should say though that the distortion that steve is referring to is not actual barrel, pincushion, or mustache distortion, but wide angle distortion. for brenzier type stuff, the wider angle you use, the more stitching will be required to get a shallow look. But consequentially the more images you stitch, the wider the field of view gets, so the more wide distortion you will incur. so realistically the longer lenses are better for this as it will theoretically take less frames to achieve the same DoF. if you were to take an equal number of frames to stitch with each lens (say 20), the longer lens would give you a less wide image, so it's less distorted.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.