Gear discussion thread v. "I got some new gear and I got to post it here" - General

[QUOTE=HiddenMyst;42119204]I have one and highly recommend it. When I got it, I was just looking for a 35mm camera with meter, but after a few days of owning it I was in love.[/QUOTE] sweet. do you have any pictures taken with it?

[QUOTE=Trogdon;42123140]The image quality is generally better on DSLRs as far as price goes, so it's cheaper to get a better overall look so they've been a pretty popular choice since the 5dmk2. Like a $700 DSLR will make better looking video than a $700 camcorder. But DSLR's are becoming popular enough to where companies are making large sensored video cameras, like the Canon C, Black Magic cams, and the Sony FS series (though all of these are more expensive). Sony in particular is trying to address the mic problem and has an XLR module that fits in their new hotshoe, but it's a bit pricey at $800[/QUOTE] Sounds more like a workaround for people who don't want to pay $8000+ for just the camera.

x-700 decked OUT [img]http://i.imgur.com/B2M5JzOl.jpg[/img] picked up a motor drive for $10, a fourth of the price of one on ebay

[QUOTE=Trogdon;42125801] Knowing your gear and owning nice equipment doesn't make you incapable of taking good photos. Gear knowledge is a great thing to have[/QUOTE] some people just get too sucked into gear and think they need the highest ISO most megapixel fastest camera to take good pictures [editline]8th September 2013[/editline] it doesnt help that camera manufacturers put stupid features in a camera like 204,800 ISO or 36 megapixels

I'd be more impressed with a conceptually and aesthetically brilliant photograph taken on a point and shoot than a generic and boring shot taken on a Canon 1D super X Deluxe Edition with a 8-5000mm f/0.5 UCSMG-[I]HD[/I] lens.

[QUOTE=pentium;42122912]Wait, people actually use a DSLR for video? What ever happened to suing a real camera? You know, one that generates timecode and has XLR inputs? I could care less about the video quality on a T3i.[/QUOTE] course they do. timecode is workable if you slate and xlr inputs can be done an external recorded. sure, it's less practical for run and gun but it works for situations where you have time and process.

[QUOTE=dwt110;42127110]some people just get too sucked into gear and think they need the highest ISO most megapixel fastest camera to take good pictures [editline]8th September 2013[/editline] it doesnt help that camera manufacturers put stupid features in a camera like 204,800 ISO or 36 megapixels[/QUOTE] I don't think the people who do research on their gear are the ones you frivolously spend money on things they don't use, but rather people who are uninformed. High ISO numbers and high megapixels aren't useless, just because you don't see them as useful doesn't mean they are useless in general.

tbh id rather have a good looking camera than a bunch of extra isos that are probably almost unusable anyway

seriously this Nikon 70-300 vs Tamron 70-300 thing is really starting to piss me off because I have no idea which one to get. dpReview is basically split 50/50 between them so thats what made me all paranoid because I read some horror stories about the Tamron being so bad people have had to immediately return it and then they buy the Nikon and love it. I want a telephoto in that price range that can do sports if need be but also do all the other stuff like wildlife and whatnot. I just want the best overall telephoto zoom "kit lens" I guess

On-brand lenses almost always offers much superior image quality and overall performances.

[QUOTE=dwt110;42135502]seriously this Nikon 70-300 vs Tamron 70-300 thing is really starting to piss me off because I have no idea which one to get. dpReview is basically split 50/50 between them so thats what made me all paranoid because I read some horror stories about the Tamron being so bad people have had to immediately return it and then they buy the Nikon and love it. I want a telephoto in that price range that can do sports if need be but also do all the other stuff like wildlife and whatnot. I just want the best overall telephoto zoom "kit lens" I guess[/QUOTE] The tamron 70-300 USD is the better lens optically. It competes with Sony's 70-300 G lens (around $800) and Canon's 70-300 L lens. It's no slouch in image quality Here's a good review of it [url]http://kurtmunger.com/tamron_70_300mm_f_4_5_6id290.html[/url]

ill probably just leap on a refurbed Tamron pending my iPod sells on ebay soon and I have enough money for it. [editline]9th September 2013[/editline] I feel like most of the bad talk about the Tamron is from hardcore Nikon fanboys who refuse to use anything off brand and only use Nikon stuff so they have no idea what they are saying [editline]9th September 2013[/editline] Some guy from B&H mentioned the Sigma 70-300, is that at all good? Its about the same price as what I would pay for a refurbed tamron (except the sigma is new)

Some people don't like third party lenses, but there have been some great ones. If you look at the website [url]www.dyxum.com[/url] they have a lot of third party lens reviews although it is a Sony and minolta website. And are you buying the tamron USD lens? They have a cheaper one but it has a different optical formula, and the USD is much better. The sigma is probably on par with the non USD tamron.

tamron USD SP VC whatever the one is that retails for $450 new before rebate

Yes get that one, the sigma APO is of lower quality optically and build wise (plastic internal gears)

Alright, looking at cameras again. There is a Nikon D3200 on sale (dropped down from 500+) brand new online that is $409, plus shipping I imagine it'll be around $30 or something. Would it be worth it?

[QUOTE=dwt110;42127110] it doesnt help that camera manufacturers put stupid features in a camera like 204,800 ISO or 36 megapixels[/QUOTE] Even though its not a camera, why the fuck does this phone need 41 megapixels [IMG]http://b-i.forbesimg.com/parmyolson/files/2013/07/700-nokia_lumia_1020_color_range.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=lech;42145800]Even though its not a camera, why the fuck does this phone need 41 megapixels [IMG]http://b-i.forbesimg.com/parmyolson/files/2013/07/700-nokia_lumia_1020_color_range.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] because as far as probably 90% of smartphone users are concerned, bigger (number)=better (ex. 500mhz vs 1000mhz processor, 1gb vs 2gb ram, etc.), so when they see a phone with a 12MP camera vs a 41 megapixel camera, the images from the latter must be better because there are more megapixels. I guarantee if you go somewhere like NYC and ask 1000 smartphone users what sounds better to them, a 12MP f/4.0 camera or an 8MP f/2.2 camera, probably 50 or less people will know what that f/x.x means. [editline]10th September 2013[/editline] the megapixel master race is probably one of the dumbest things to happen to the electronics industry so far, and obviously there are a few camera companies cashing in on this stupidity also (im looking at you, D800) [editline]10th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SatansSin;42145622]Alright, looking at cameras again. There is a Nikon D3200 on sale (dropped down from 500+) brand new online that is $409, plus shipping I imagine it'll be around $30 or something. Would it be worth it?[/QUOTE] d3200 is gud, do it

[QUOTE=lech;42145800]Even though its not a camera, why the fuck does this phone need 41 megapixels [IMG]http://b-i.forbesimg.com/parmyolson/files/2013/07/700-nokia_lumia_1020_color_range.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Oversampling. [video=youtube;2vR4LeL0yzE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vR4LeL0yzE&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

it's gonna be sharp as fuck though going from 41 to 8 mp

[QUOTE=dwt110;42146150] the megapixel master race is probably one of the dumbest things to happen to the electronics industry so far, and obviously there are a few camera companies cashing in on this stupidity also (im looking at you, D800) [/QUOTE] I wouldn't call it too pointless. The D800 actually has a full frame small format sensor so those 36MP actually are 36MP. I think one can never have enough resolution. I would shoot everything with a 8x10 LF camera if I had the money.

-snip uninformed blabber-

[QUOTE=Raygen;42147000]41 megapixels is a waste of time for anybody using that camera for the purposes most people would use a phone camera for.[/QUOTE] It's not saving them as 41mp, just taking them in that resolution and down sampling to 8mp. It's better for noise performance and sharpness

Talking about Nokia phones, I'm really set on one of them Lumia's, but the 1020 looks so stupid with it's sensor plate on the backside.

just recorded a ~3 minute video on my D5200 and it was all choppy and shit so im guessing I need a faster card

Are you sure it's not your computer? Also what card?

sandisk ultra class 10 30mbps 8gb so its a bit small regardless

[QUOTE=dwt110;42149445]just recorded a ~3 minute video on my D5200 and it was all choppy and shit so im guessing I need a faster card[/QUOTE] I'm guessing it's your computer or whatever you're viewing the video is at fault here. Is the video still as choppy and shit when you play it back on the camera?

didnt bother checking before I deleted the video, but ill take another one soon and try

If you're using a card reader, try copying it onto the computer an then playing it. Sometimes shitty card readers cause problems.