Talk to me about cameras

2

Replies

  • seppalaseppala Senior Member Posts: 1,916 Senior Member
    Hextall wrote: »
    I can't lie to you.... I set in motion 2 weeks ago my plan to purchase a gopro carrying drone. It might not happen soon, but it will happen in 2015.

    Serious question: why?
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    seppala wrote: »
    Serious question: why?

    I checked my inventory of go pro carrying drones, and I realize that I have none in my fleet. Not even one!

    ALso, I'm going to be a big time movie producer and this will be my ticket out of this dead end job where expectations are low and I'm a bright shining star. Can you believe that!?!
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,146 Senior Member
    seppala wrote: »
    What's a ballpark price on 95 acres down by you? Around here you're talking 500 grand. It is ri-****-dicilous.
    He's asking 200. I'm offering half and walking.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    He's asking 200. I'm offering half and walking.

    The only way he's really going to know you mean business is if you walk away while twerking.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,146 Senior Member
    George please rescue this thread.
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    Hextall wrote: »
    The only way he's really going to know you mean business is if you walk away while twerking.

    With a good camera we should a nice video of this..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Before I make my usual observant comment... is that you with the green shirt standing behind the little girl?
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,146 Senior Member
    Hextall wrote: »
    Before I make my usual observant comment... is that you with the green shirt standing behind the little girl?
    No. Sister.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    No. Sister.

    phew... discretion wins the day!
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,146 Senior Member
    Hextall wrote: »
    phew... discretion wins the day!

    Go ahead and say what you was gonna say, jerkface.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Look, there's only about 9 more hours in 2014 for us (i.e. the people that matter on the east coast). Let's just agree to disagree.
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 7,884 Senior Member
    If you want interchangeable lenses for that price I'd look at used cameras from KEH.com. They have good prices. I've bought 3 camera bodies from them. All bargain grade and all work good and look good. One I've had for 4 or 5 years. Good lenses too. Check out the newer mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras too.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,109 Senior Member
    My neighbor has a camera store (used ones only I think) that I am pretty sure is going under...I'll ask him (assuming I see him, kind of a hermit) if he has any good deals.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,146 Senior Member
    FishTX wrote: »
    If you want interchangeablec lenses for that price I'd look at used cameras from KEH.com. They have good prices. I've bought 3 camera bodies from them. All bargain grade and all work good and look good. One I've had for 4 or 5 years. Good lenses too. Check out the newer mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras toom
    What do you think about the Nikon D3100? What about the Panasonic George linked?
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 7,884 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    My sister bought an older model Canon EOS Rebel T3 for less than $300. She says pay less for the body, and more for the lens later.

    She is right. One of my cameras is a T3. Nice for an entry level camera. If you want a camera with interchangeable lenses, you have a choice between digital single lens reflex (DSLR) and the newer mirrorless cameras. The mirroless cameras are smaller. Some only have the LCD on back. Some have an electronic viewfinder you can add to the body. The latest models have an electronic viewfinder built into the body, but you can also use the LCD on them.

    Price. Not going to happen with new equipment unless you bought new, old stock (new in box, but an old model). I buy my stuff used from KEH. They have 30 day guarantee. I've bought two DSLRs and one mirrorless from them. All were bargain grade (works, but may have cosmetic problems). Never had a problem with them and you can get a body and lens for $300 if you don't get the latest model.

    I'd start with one lens to stay under budget. Maybe a zoom that starts at slightly wide angle and goes to slightly telephoto. That would be a good all around lens that would cover most of your needs. Something along the lines of 28mm-135mm range.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 7,884 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    I switched to M43 for the size and weight advantage...
    Yes. The mirrorless I bought (about $90 used) is M43. They are small and the kit lenses (low end lenses) are good. If go with the M43 the image stabilization is in the lens on Panasonic models and in the body on Olympus bodies. That means you get stabilization for either lens on Olympus bodies and stabilization on the Panasonic only with the Panasonic lenses. Other than that, both brand lenses will work on both brand bodies. And to emphasize what George said about size, my Panasonic body isn't much larger than a pack of cigarettes and the lenses are small.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 7,884 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    What do you think about the Nikon D3100? What about the Panasonic George linked?

    I've read that the D3100 is good and you can check out sample photos at dpreview.com. With Nikon and Canon you can't go wrong with any of their cameras. I haven't paid much attention to a fixed (not interchangable) lens camera like the Panasonic, but is likely to be very good for that kind of camera. My uncle has an older Panasonic like that one and it is good.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • seppalaseppala Senior Member Posts: 1,916 Senior Member
    Hey FishTX - is a Nikon D40X a decent DSLR? I'm thinking less than 400, and used is fine.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,146 Senior Member
    Mirrorless or DSLR? What's the difference?

    Never mind. Just saw your post above
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 7,884 Senior Member
    A dslr is larger and has a mirror and prism that deflects light up to the viewfinder. The mirror swings out of the way before the shutter opens and comes back down after the shutter closes. That gives them the classic sound you hear when the camera takes a picture. The mirrorless does away with the mirror. That means it relies on the LCD on back or an electronic viewfinder. The advantage is that the mirrorless can be smaller and the lenses are often smaller too.

    The Olympus and Panasonic Micro4/3 cameras are mirroless and have a smaller sensor than dslr cameras. Sony makes the NEX line of mirrorless cameras with a larger sensor. The same size sensor as entry level and mid-grade dslrs.

    All these I mentioned have interchangeable lenses. The NEX series also has focus peeking, which means if you want to buy relatively inexpensive, old manual focus lenses, it makes it easier to focus them. You'll probably want to stay with the auto focus lenses designed for these cameras.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • seppalaseppala Senior Member Posts: 1,916 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    He's asking 200. I'm offering half and walking.

    Offer him 300, then 100, then twerk-walk away.
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 7,884 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Thanks. I need to understand sensor sizes a little better.
    As long as you get an interchangeable lens camera, you have three choices. Actually there are more now, but we are trying to stay in budget. The largest is full frame (often abbreviated as FF on websites. This is nice if you want the shallowest depth of field your lens will allow. Depth of field (DoF) means the amount of area in front of and behind the point where you focus that is in relatively good focus. Shallow DoF can be artistic. By throwing objects relatively close (in front and behind) to your subject out of focus, you "isolate" the subject and draw the viewer's attention to it. Good for portraits. Especially candid shots in crowed situations and small spaces where other people and objects behind the subject clutter things up. When they are sufficiently out of focus, they are less distracting.

    Another good thing about FF sensors is they tend to have better high ISO characteristics. ISO refers to the light sensitivity setting of the sensor. You'll use a high setting in low light to get a fast enough shutter speed to get hand held shots with out blurring due to tiny camera movements. FF gives you a cleaner (less noise which is similar to film grain) image for any ISO setting. However you'll have to hunt for an old FF camera if you hope to stay in budget.

    That brings us to the crop sensor cameras. That means the sensors are smaller. If you take a 100mm lens that fits an FF camera the image it projects into the camera body will be the same size for a crop body/sensor camera. However, the smaller sensor will capture less of the image than an FF body. So for the 100mm lens that fits an FF Canon body, the same lens on a crop sensor body will give you an image that looks roughly like you took the photo on an FF body with a 160mm lens. This is the crop factor (sometimes falsely called a magnification factor). On Canon these are APS-C sensors/bodies and on Nikon they are called DX sensors/bodies. I think it is APS for the Sony NEX mirrorless cameras. All are really close to the same crop factor (about 1.5X to 1.6X).

    Then you have the Four thirds (4/3) and Micro Four Thirds (m4/3) of Olympus and Panasonic crop sensors. They don't make the 4/3 dslrs now, but on many of the Oympus bodies they had an image stabilizer in the body instead of the lens which means you could use non stabilized lenses and still get stabilization. Same goes for the Olympus m4/3 mirrorless cameras. The 4/3 and m4/3 cameras have a 2x crop factor so an image shot with a 50mm lens looks roughly like a 100mm lens was used on a FF body.

    With crop sensor's the depth of field (DoF) is greater than on a FF body. Technically that isn't true (can't defy laws of physics for the lens), but if I want to frame the image the same way with a FF body and a crop sensor body using the same focal length lens (say 50mm), due to the crop factor you are going have to stand farther away from the subject than you would with FF. If your lens setting for DoF remains the same, then standing farther back will give you greater DoF (more area in front and behind the subject in fairly good focus).

    Smaller sensors tend to have poorer high ISO characteristics, so noisier images for the same ISO setting. However the sensors made in the last few years have improved so that may not be a problem for the average user.

    Keep asking questions and we'll get you where you need to be.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 7,884 Senior Member
    Yes. I know people who have owned them and seen some really nice images. KEH.com has a few. One is rated as excellent plus for $218.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,553 Senior Member
    To add to FishTx's good explanation, Panasonic has begun to put in-body stabilization in some of it's bodies, my GX7 among them, but they are out of the price range you want. Also you do not use stabilization in both lens and body at the same time. Usually one or the other is turned off automatically when the body recognizes the lens. M43 wide angle lenses rarely have built-in stabilization because it isn't needed most of the time, but having it in body allows getting decent shots in lower light. The one thing you want to avoid is taking telephoto shots when both body and lens lack stabilization.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • seppalaseppala Senior Member Posts: 1,916 Senior Member
    What's a good lens (entry-level) if you were just going to start with one? You mentioned one that starts at wide angle and goes slightly relephoto - what would the mm range be on that?

    EDIT: it sounds like you've got a Canon or two. Do you prefer them over Nikons?
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 7,884 Senior Member
    In 35mm and FF, then wide angle is often considered to start around 35mm. That would be wider than the "normal" focal lengths, but doesn't have much of the image distortion of wider lenses. A popular wide angle focal length is 28mm. So you'd want a lens that starts at about 18mm for the 40DX to give you the equivalent field of view of 28mm on a FF body. This is a pretty good view for wide landscapes. At 55mm you'd have the equivalent of about 83mm which is about the beginning of the focal lengths that are good for portraits and you into the low range of telephoto lengths. Nikon has some lenses that go from 18mm to 55, 105, 135 and 300mm. An 18 to 105/1335mm zoom lens for the 40DX would be a good all around lens. You'll need something longer for that whitetail on the other side of sorghum field.

    I have two Canons in DSLR and advanced compact (point and shoot). I have an Olympus DSLR (4/3) and a Panasonic mirrorless (micro 4/3). All are nice. I haven't use Nikon in digital, but you can't go wrong with them. I went with Canon because they are good and a cousin gave me a cheap Canon film camera and I can use the same lenses as their digital bodies. FF digital is out of my price range, so the 35mm film camera gives me the same look as FF digital. Made sense to go Canon and have a body for when I need the FF/35mm look and need only one set of lenses for both bodies.

    Except for the Olympus DSLR, and a 30+ year old Olympus 35mm SLR, all my digital or film cameras were bought used or given to me by pdawg (Dave).

    And speaking of film equipment, I found a way to stretch my equipment for digital cheaply. Fast lenses (wide apertures) give the shallowest DoF for a given focal length and they let in more light so you get a higher shutter speed in low light. That's good if you don't want to push the ISO to a noisy level to get the shot. However they cost an arm and both legs. What I do is use an adapter to mount old fast film lenses to my Canon digital bodies. The adapters have a chip so that I can manually focus and get the beep and/or the focus point in the viewfinder lights up when I achieve focus. The adapters from Hong Kong cost about $15 including overseas shipping. So instead of spending $500 to $1000 dollars for a Canon auto focus 100mm f2.8 lens (that's pretty fast) I spent the $15 for the adapter and less than $100 for an Olympus 100mm f2.8 film lens. I got the speed and good image quality for as much as a tenth of the cost.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • seppalaseppala Senior Member Posts: 1,916 Senior Member
    Thanks, FishTX. You rock.

    Probably gonna have to be a birthday thing if I'm looking at 400 or 500 (for both body and lens). I'm sure I'll bug you then.
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 7,884 Senior Member
    Sure. Glad I could help.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,553 Senior Member
    Sep- Canon and Nikon both are good choices, as are Panasonic and Olympus, despite what fanboys may tell you. It really comes down to how it feels in your hand, the menu system and the lenses you may want to acquire. Other brands make excellent interchangeable lens cameras, but with fewer lenses available.

    Personally I cannot overemphasize menu systems. Make sure it works for you. I speak from experience. I bought and later sold an Olympus OMD-5 because it offered everything I wanted. But I could not get used to the menus, which I found counter-intuitive and hard to use. For me Panasonic menus are intuitive and easy to work with. If you look at the M43 forum on DPR (http://www.dpreview.com/) many other users have the same complaint.

    If you wind up with a Canon APS-C body I highly recommend the Canon 15-85 mm lens. It's expensive, but worth it. The build and optical quality is superb and the range (24-135 FF equivalent) is terrific for a do-it-all lens.

    If you buy a kit of any sort I do not think any current kit lenses are really bad. A few actually are quite good, such as the Panasonic 14-45 and 14-42 Mk II. I always was happy with Canon 18-55 kit lenses when I used APS-C. I have no experience with Nikon.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    Ah heck, I just leave mine on automatic and let the camera decide. 90% of the time it's right..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
2

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.