[QUOTE=dwt110;43757544]uhm, just as a starting point, 20MP is more than enough for 90% of photos, so that shouldnt be an issue. If you want to switch from picture takey mode to video mode quickly you would either have to be shooting in live view already (preview from the rear LCD screen= more shutter lag and slower autofocus), or you just flip/hit the live view button and then start recording which isn't that lengthy of a process.
Optical zoom is lenses since the lenses do the zooming.
shutter speed is yes, exposure time. it is how long the sensor is taking in light to form the image. a faster shutter speed will lower exposure and freeze motion since the sensor is only exposed for thousandths of a second.
uh, "nice lens" wise most lenses will be fine for what you do, but a nice lens is a pretty general term and could be a 50 year old lens that costs $75 or a brand new 15 pound lens that costs $7500. I would imagine an 18-200mm would cover anything you wanted to do.[/QUOTE]
that was actually helpful thanks, i kind of know what to search for now
is a faster shutter speed considered better? are there cameras with adjustable shutter speeds?
and looking up lens sample images at 100% crop, there is a grainy-ness to the image quality. is that because of the camera or the lens? and if it's the lens, what do i look up to find a lens that has minimal grainy-ness?
all dslrs have adjustable shutter speeds
all cameras will have grainy-ness when seen at 100%
the grainy-ness is caused by noise on the sensor on the camera body
do not compare lenses or cameras by looking at 100% crops, you will never look at any image you take that zoomed in - this is caused pixel peeping
20MP is more than large enough, you would probably be better off with a 16MP sensor because it will have better noise performance and you will not notice the missing megapixels because you are not planning to blow up your photos to wall size
the vast majority of lenses will be good enough for you, the lens that comes with the camera body especially - called the kit lens
buy preowned
what is your budget
go to a camera shop and pick up cameras and see what feels best within your budget. decide if you prefer the control layout of canon or nikon or sony and then buy one online. they're all going to get the job done fine. the kit lens will be fine for most of your photos. buy a cheap 50 1.8 if you really need the speed.
video more is stronger on canon if you want to take your video more seriously. also dslr video is pretty much manual focus, in video af is next to useless. not a problem in for me tho tbh.
The problem with AF on DSLR video for me is the sound of the focus, external recording is pretty much a must.
I'm using Magic Lantern custom firmware and with that you can set up focus points and time them, it's awesome.
i think the real problem with video af is that it looks like total trash
i would just advise to get good at focus pulling because if you're serious about video you won't ever be using AF
[QUOTE=strider;43751408]a roll of ilford hp plus 400 that my dad had lying around and gave to me
where do you buy your film zeemlapje? seeing as we're in the same area[/QUOTE]
Hema also sells 3packs of color film in 200 and 400 speed for about 9euros I think (I can't recall how much it was)
IIRC Kruidvat AGFA is cheaper in the long run. However I like HEMA's development service better.
alright thanks guys i guess i'll check both stores to see what's cheaper, already planned on getting it developed at hema because there's one really close by but any particular reason why you like it more?
It's cheapest there 2,95 Euro plus they store your developed negatives behind the counter and not just for grabs in the store such as Kruidvat.
I think when you buy the Hema film theres a development deal, I don't have the box anymore but it seemed a nice deal if I was even in the same country as a Hema store.
2,95 is colour development BTW, BnW development is more expensive unless you develop yourself.
[QUOTE=dwt110;43741919]$15,000 camera/lens setup
[IMG]http://puu.sh/6FlM5.png[/IMG]
worse chromatic aberration than an entry level DSLR and kit lens[/QUOTE]
But it's got that ~_-Leica Glow-_~
ugh
If you buy hema film you get free development if you get your film printed.
That's the coupon thing on the hema boxes. Pretty cool if you want your pics printed anyway.
[QUOTE=dwt110;43741919]$15,000 camera/lens setup
[IMG]http://puu.sh/6FlM5.png[/IMG]
worse chromatic aberration than an entry level DSLR and kit lens[/QUOTE]
Well it was (most likely) shot at 0.95. Stopped down it would be razor sharp and have no abberations.
Leica's have a place in photography, they're good quality cameras and everything but I feel like most people who own them are the kinds of people who have cameras as accessories, not tools. Does that make sense? Like you see a guy with a Leica and they like to say they're a photographer but they mainly do instagram level stuff like take pictures of food, then claim to be in this super legit club of leica users. I hope I don't come off as elitest or anything, just what I tend to see.
that's a bit generalising don't you think
[editline]2nd February 2014[/editline]
eggleston was just a fuckin leica poser what a fag
[QUOTE=.Lain;43764005]that's a bit generalising don't you think
[editline]2nd February 2014[/editline]
eggleston was just a fuckin leica poser what a fag[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DarkSamus;43763985][b]Leica's have a place in photography, they're good quality cameras[/b] and everything but I feel like [b]most[/b] people who own them are the kinds of people who have cameras as accessories, not tools.[/QUOTE]
Not saying all, bruh
it's still a dumb thing to say tbh
most people who can afford to buy a leica camera are either a. rich because they're already successful photographers b. generally just really rich or c. saved up for a long long time
i think you just notice the people you talk about more.
[QUOTE=.Lain;43764088]it's still a dumb thing to say tbh
most people who can afford to buy a leica camera are either a. rich because they're already successful photographers b. generally just really rich or c. saved up for a long long time
i think you just notice the people you talk about more.[/QUOTE]
They certainly are a vocal minority then.
[editline]2nd February 2014[/editline]
To clarify, it's not like i see a leica and i go "lol snapshits" or whatever, I'm just apprehensive because most of the people I've known who had leicas were huge snobs and were not afraid to throw their money in your face.
i wouldn't mind if someone threw their money at my face
my friends still give me a hard time about droping 2k on my a7
they always say "you could have bought a miata"
when I had my d5200 someone at school asked me how much it cost while holding it and I go
"like $700" and he goes "wow holy shit thats an expensive camera"
[I]you dont even know the least of photography you insignificant sentient human being[/I]
[QUOTE=notlabbet;43764446]my friends still give me a hard time about droping 2k on my a7
they always say "you could have bought a miata"[/QUOTE]
Meanwhile when I see people buying a car for 10000€ I think: they could have bought a Noctilux 0.95 with that money.
[QUOTE=notlabbet;43764446]my friends still give me a hard time about droping 2k on my a7
they always say "you could have bought a miata"[/QUOTE]
a strong alec wiens vibe rings from this post.
you're not a real photographer until you wear a suit of armor made entirely of leicas
[editline]2nd February 2014[/editline]
if you use the leica m monochrom with a leica 35mm f/1.4 lens as the material, the price per kg works out as roughly $14 000, which is considerably cheaper than gold (at about $40 000 right now) so there is actually a good practical reason to do that
[editline]2nd February 2014[/editline]
you could maybe even create some sort of composite material and use the leicas as filler
[editline]2nd February 2014[/editline]
plus leicas probably have better mechanical properties than gold for any sort of structural use
Any of you been in the position where you've had to sell recently bought gear because its too costly to keep? I thought getting a camera would get me out of the flat shooting again but it did not come about enough, even so changes happen that I can't afford my x100s any more. Thinking I will step down to something cheaper and smaller. Film would be ideal as I love the use of film cameras but developing and scanning I don't have time for, and video I kinda need for my major project.
If you had maybe £400 to spend on a smaller than DSLR sized camera what would you guys consider?
is the NEX-6 in your price range?
I'd even recommend the Nex 5n, quite cheap and still very high quality. Has a touch screen which helps for manual focusing legacy lenses (touch to enlarge). The 5R and 5T aren't much different, they just have wifi and a few more features, but nothing drastic.
The sigma 30mm 2.8 is an amazing lens that you can get for cheap if the focal length interests you
I was reading an article about the equipment that Sports Illustrated photographers use for the Super Bowl. Here is the list
Canon 1Dx (x4)
Canon 400mm f/2.8L IS II
Canon 600mm f/4L IS II
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II
Total price you ask? $57,100 USD from B&H Photo Video.
They didn't specify monopods/card/straps/etc but I would assume thats another couple thousand possibly.
[editline]3rd February 2014[/editline]
On another note, for the same price you could buy 20 or so mediocre seats to the game.
[editline]3rd February 2014[/editline]
I remember at one point during the game watching a 300 pound linebacker barrel into a group of photographers in the end zone with their massive white L lenses lying down on the ground and just going "Ouch, this could be bad."
[t]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t31/1511710_10151857845455976_566095214_o.jpg[/t]
(frog on bench @ midnight)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
