yeah, you can't go wrong with the X-T1.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NeoGAF Camera Equipment Thread | MK II
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
yeah, you can't go wrong with the X-T1.
JadedWriter
Member
Makes sense. Sounds like it's still not that far below the XT-2 minus MP's and I have enough High MP cameras so that doesn't bother me. finding used lenses is a different story. I think part of the problem with that is with the exception of the kit lenses there aren't that much of them out there and they still go for top dollar.
finding good deals is definitely a waiting game. they can be had though.
JadedWriter
Member
well, you could go legacy with it and use manual focus lenses. I have a wide variety of old lenses I use on my Fuji gear as well as their expensive lenses. The X-T1 is really great for using old manual focus lenses.
JadedWriter
Member
Yeah that's always been the hang up with me. I'm not sure if I want to use manual lenses for random street portraits and stuff like that. Building's sure, people, no. There's probably some really good AIS lenses I could use on it. I could always just get the body the right adapter and deal with first party stuff later, but that'll have to happen when I get the money.
m_shortpants
Member
This isn't really the subject of this thread, but I thought it was super interesting regardless
Experimental Nighttime Photos with Cell phones:
https://research.googleblog.com/2017/04/experimental-nighttime-photography-with.html
Experimental Nighttime Photos with Cell phones:
https://research.googleblog.com/2017/04/experimental-nighttime-photography-with.html
I_D
Member
I'm not sure if this is the proper thread, but it seems like a good spot.
My buddy has a GoPro for his motorcycle helmet and I threw out the idea of using another identical GoPro to make 3D films, and now he can't get the idea out of his head. I was just spitballing ideas, but now he's hooked on the concept.
Does anybody know if it's even possible? Is there any software out there that can combine footage to create 3D videos?
We've already come up with the idea of using a single remote to activate "record" on both cameras at the same time, but we have no idea how to combine the footage.
My buddy has a GoPro for his motorcycle helmet and I threw out the idea of using another identical GoPro to make 3D films, and now he can't get the idea out of his head. I was just spitballing ideas, but now he's hooked on the concept.
Does anybody know if it's even possible? Is there any software out there that can combine footage to create 3D videos?
We've already come up with the idea of using a single remote to activate "record" on both cameras at the same time, but we have no idea how to combine the footage.
milkham
Member
http://shop.gopro.com/accessories-2/dual-hero-system/AHD3D-301.html
looks like gopro's own software can do it. there's a link in the description to download it.
I_D
Member
I saw that before and thought it was one camera system with two lenses, but it turns out it supports two separate cameras, so we're good to go.
Many thanks!
Thug Waffle
Member
i am getting seriously frustrated with the poor low-light performance of my Nikon D5200. It's hard for me to part with it because it's my first-ever camera, and I don't know if there's anything in the sub-$1000 price range that still suits my needs.
It's looking like my only option is to get a cheaper mirrorless (G7, for example), but I'm worried about poor autofocus. Despite what the ad material says about mirrorless AF, everyone I've spoken to about mirrorless AF says it's not sufficient. Peeps are having troubles shooting toddlers without poor/delayed/inaccurate autofocus. I like to shoot street... don't want to go out and shoot 400 photos where only 5-10 are properly focused and usable.
But I also want great video capabilities (4k isn't exactly necessary but it's nice to have). Low-light video capabilities are important, too.
tl;dr
Basically, I need something that will shoot a great-looking short film in low-light, but will also provide high-quality stills in all the big arenas (street, landscape, action, portraits, low-light). And it's gotta cost less than $1,000. I feel lost.
It's looking like my only option is to get a cheaper mirrorless (G7, for example), but I'm worried about poor autofocus. Despite what the ad material says about mirrorless AF, everyone I've spoken to about mirrorless AF says it's not sufficient. Peeps are having troubles shooting toddlers without poor/delayed/inaccurate autofocus. I like to shoot street... don't want to go out and shoot 400 photos where only 5-10 are properly focused and usable.
But I also want great video capabilities (4k isn't exactly necessary but it's nice to have). Low-light video capabilities are important, too.
tl;dr
Basically, I need something that will shoot a great-looking short film in low-light, but will also provide high-quality stills in all the big arenas (street, landscape, action, portraits, low-light). And it's gotta cost less than $1,000. I feel lost.
Sony A6300.
Sony is currently the lowlight and AF king. I would go for the 6500 personally but you should be able to get a 6300 for under $1000.
edit: I should say for the price segment... I rented a D500 and ran it vs. a A6500 last weekend, D500 was slightly quicker and more accurate but its more money.
Thug Waffle
Member
I've been leaning that way (A6300 or Panasonic G7), but for whatever reason, the websites I was reading said that the A6300 had middling-to-poor low light capabilities. It's been confusing to say the least.
JadedWriter
Member
At least look into a G85 for the IBIS.
Astral/H3X
Member
I know right? 13 Year old scanner and it still stands at the top with some of the best.
Crazy thing is, I started looking at scanners about a month ago and stumbled across this one as it obviously has a great reputation but the price was a bit much. Walked into a thrift store and saw it on a counter. Couldn't believe it.
Thug Waffle
Member
on the a7s and a7r's. at least, those are the ones that are most heavily publicized in my research.
would love some kind of explanations for these responses btw.
Astral/H3X
Member
The a6300/a6500 both have the backside illuminated sensor, which improves light gathering capability.
A full frame will give you better high ISO. You can't really defeat pyshics. To call the current Sony crop cameras "poor" in low light is hyberbole at best.
Most people I see complaining about ISO noise on sonys are basing it on the slog camera profiles and not really understanding what they do.
JadedWriter
Member
I would never do photography in flat profile. I was using one of my cameras for something else and shot a couple of pictures in flat and after the amount of rescuing I attempted to do on them they're not too hot looking.
Just shoot raw. Doesn't really matter what profile you use there.
Gh5 is very close to the same performance in low light a7rii
JadedWriter
Member
I do shoot raw, but flat kills so much color detail that trying to retrieve it seems to degrade the image. I think by the time I was done the image looked like a water color painting.
Astral/H3X
Member
Wha? If you're shooting in RAW there are no profiles. (outside of what's used for the OOC thumbnail/embedded jpeg)
Profiles are for video anyway.
JadedWriter
Member
Whatever happened happened so whatever. It also effects in camera time lapse stuff.
RebornYeti
Member
I may be in over my head here as I have never owned any sort of camera besides phone cameras, but I just purchased a Minolta X-700 with a 55mm lens and few rolls of black and white film and color film for about $100. The seller marked it as good condition and that it was film-tested, so I think that's what sold me lol.
Now, this may have been a total impulse buy, but I've looked at what they can do and it seems right up my alley.
Just thought I'd ask if any of you guys have had experience with this camera and if you think I got a good deal? I'm gonna try to teach myself how to use this thing (I have also found a .pdf of the user manual), but I'd imagine it's not as easy as just pointing and shooting lol
Now, this may have been a total impulse buy, but I've looked at what they can do and it seems right up my alley.
Just thought I'd ask if any of you guys have had experience with this camera and if you think I got a good deal? I'm gonna try to teach myself how to use this thing (I have also found a .pdf of the user manual), but I'd imagine it's not as easy as just pointing and shooting lol
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Raw photos? Those shouldn't be affected by any profiles... Maybe I don't understand what you're talking about.
JadedWriter
Member
I shoot a lot of pictures and I've never had to crank up the contrast, saturation, vibrance sliders in lightroom to get actual color out of my pictures. I was shooting a time lapse for something work related so it could be graded later, took a break shot some pictures while keeping it in flat picture mode and I attempted to fix them in post and just never really got anything that great out of them. For reference it was on my D810. Maybe profiles work differently on Nikon and Sony cameras. I think Raw overrides the monochrome setting...granted I haven't shot on that in like two years, but flat definitely seems to drain color out even in the raws. Unless what I was shooting just had borderline no color in the first place.
These two here:
DSC_2898 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
DSC_6606 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrPeople from the picture thread should know that this isn't my usual editing style.
Astral/H3X
Member
That would be your subject matter then -- profiles refer to either color profiles in video (Slog, Vlog, etc) or photo profiles (Vivid, black and white, sepia, etc), but one doesn't affect the other at all.I shoot a lot of pictures and I've never had to crank up the contrast, saturation, vibrance sliders in lightroom to get actual color out of my pictures. I was shooting a time lapse for something work related so it could be graded later, took a break shot some pictures while keeping it in flat picture mode and I attempted to fix them in post and just never really got anything that great out of them. For reference it was on my D810. Maybe profiles work differently on Nikon and Sony cameras. I think Raw overrides the monochrome setting...granted I haven't shot on that in like two years, but flat definitely seems to drain color out even in the raws. Unless what I was shooting just had borderline no color in the first place.
These two here:
People from the picture thread should know that this isn't my usual editing style.
Do you normally not shoot RAW?
JadedWriter
Member
I'm usually in Raw with my photo mode set to neutral on my camera. Then I just touch everything up in lightroom, which is why I have had at least 5 different color styles since I've been on here.That would be your subject matter then -- profiles refer to either color profiles in video (Slog, Vlog, etc) or photo profiles (Vivid, black and white, sepia, etc), but one doesn't affect the other at all.
Do you normally not shoot RAW?
Picture mode only effects the jpg preview in raw mode. In Lightroom you can change the adobe raw processing back to the camera presets if you wish. You might have had it set to use camera settings on import or something.
Usually when importing raws into Lightroom you can see the embeddd jpg load 1st with the camera settings then it will switch to Lightroom raw rendering in a few seconds.
Usually when importing raws into Lightroom you can see the embeddd jpg load 1st with the camera settings then it will switch to Lightroom raw rendering in a few seconds.
JadedWriter
Member
Probably. I don't change my settings too often.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
The only time your in camera pictures settings matter is if you're shooting in JPG, or shooting in RAW and then developing with Nikon's RAW software.
Adobe doesn't have access to Nikon's proprietary metadata, so if you're using Lightroom, it always defaults to Adobe Standard camera profile, and the neutral settings in all the panels.
Picture settings are irrelevant.
Adobe doesn't have access to Nikon's proprietary metadata, so if you're using Lightroom, it always defaults to Adobe Standard camera profile, and the neutral settings in all the panels.
Picture settings are irrelevant.
Thug Waffle
Member
i don't really understand slog camera profiles. have only used nikon and i hardly understand that. is it possible to remove the noise at some point in the process? or can you limit the noise by how your camera's configured?
seriously considering an a6300 as many of you have suggested
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
How are you shooting? What is your work flow? At what ISO do you find the noise unacceptable? What aperture are you shooting at in low light?
Slog is a low contrast gamma curve aimed at preserving maximum dynamic range in a scene. For example a concert stage, but also being able to capture the crowd. It does this by boosting the shadows and rolling off the highlights. By boosting the shadows you are effectively raising the ISO of the dark areas and adding noise. Later when grading the video you normally pull the shadows back down to where you want them and most of the noise gets pushed down with it. You can also of course run additional noise reduction on the footage if you like.
It basically just gives you more latitude in post when working with compressed video formats.
StopMakingSense
Member
Extremely flat profiles for maximizing dynamic range in a video file, to be color corrected/graded later.
edit: what Flo said.
TerryLee81
Member
I wouldn't use a filter just for protection, use the lens hood.
Hey guys, I'm thinking about joining photography with my first DSLR....
I'm really noob but I've been searching and these are the options that I really liked.
Canon 750D
Canon 760D
Canon 70D
However my budget is 500 euros, so unless I can find it used I'm having a hard time.
I'm not in a rush to buy anyway
What are the Nikkon alternatives?
Also where do you guys recommend buying online (Europe and new)
I'm really noob but I've been searching and these are the options that I really liked.
Canon 750D
Canon 760D
Canon 70D
However my budget is 500 euros, so unless I can find it used I'm having a hard time.
I'm not in a rush to buy anyway
What are the Nikkon alternatives?
Also where do you guys recommend buying online (Europe and new)
I find that normal, styles evolve, my editing has changed a lot since I first started, and sometimes you're in a different mood anyway. Raw files should be flat when you import them, is the whole point of the RAW imo, but keep all the photo data so you can adjust as you want to give it the look you want. At first it can be weird to see the jpg on the back of the camera and then looks all flat in the pc, I am sure you know that anyway, so I changed my camera settings to show me a preview pic that is closer to the raw file in terms of being flat, also gives me a better idea of my exposure, which now I've learned on my camera i need to usually underexpose to preserve highlights better
I snagged an 80D, the only reason to go Canon is the lens options as far as I can tell, but I'm a total noob too, so take that with a grain of salt. The smartest thing I did was get the kit lens and go snag a 50mm f/1.8 for whatever body you get (the Canon or Nikon one, not a cheap Chinese knock off). That has let me try out everything: portraiture, landscape, macro, etc...
I'm thinking about getting the 10-18mm to compliment my kit lenses (18-55mm 55-250mm) this afternoon. A wide angle lens would make for new opportunities.
JadedWriter
Member
I should probably at some point adjust my import settings. I know the camera profiles only stuck at the time I was using the Nikon raw editor, but not anymore. I honestly find that my style changes with the more I learn how to adjust stuff. My style has gotten a lot more palatable at least to me ever since I started desaturating them a little bit. I keep them contrasty, but I pull down the vibrance and saturation a bit, instead of increasing the vibrance and contrast which I swear was starting to make the skin tones olive green a bit. I think I found a much better balance these days.
Outside of specialty lenses both companies pretty much seem to have the same lens selection. They don't handle the same but outside of 85mm 1.2 glass on Canon's side there's not that much difference and 100-400's.
Lasthope106
Member
Of the ones you listed I personally would go for a used 70D.
The Nikon alternatives are the D3300 and D3400 that competes with the 750D & 760D, and the D5600 competes with the 70D. I have to admit that at this price point I prefer the features on the Nikon cameras better. Nikon usually has more auto-focus points than the competing Canon camera, and often the case a better sensor.
Now it might be worthwhile to explore the previous models on a particular camera. For example the Nikon D3300 is just as good as the D3400 and has a mic input which the D3400 lacks. And you can use the money saved to buy a better lens.
Now, I'm hesitant to just say go Nikon. I find their ergonomics to be weird. My advice is go to a store and see which brand feels better in your hand.
And lastly, is there a reason why you aren't considering the Sony a6000? That's what I have and it's a fantastic camera for the price.
edit - I was wrong the D5x000 series competes with the Canon 750D and &760D. And the D3x00 series is the entry level cameras from Nikon. The Canon 70D was at the same class where the Nikon D7500 is.
Thug Waffle
Member
okay, this helps a ton. now does the a6300 treat stills the same way as video?
because if it's honestly as simple as making a shadow adjustment, well, i already do that with every image i edit. and i'd do the same thing with video if i were editing more of that. sounds more like the reviewers in these cases didn't spend enough time with the camera & its captures to really figure out the proper workflow for the camera profile.
Most of the consumer cameras all are basically shooting video in 8bit .jpg mode. You already have that latitude built into the raw file for stills.
Having said that I just downloaded some 10bit 4:2:2 GH5 footage to play with and JESUS I need this cam! Its still not quite blackmagic or REDRAW but it looks fucking dope.
Thug Waffle
Member
how are black magic cameras holding up? love the images they put out but i've heard so many complaints regarding functionality and ease-of-use in the field. was so close to buying a BPMCC a few years back.
Blackmagic are really strange. Its like wow this image quality is amazing... but the battery lasts 15 minutes, the ISO caps out at 800, sometimes your lens might work.
I haven't really tried any of the newer ones but the original was just to much problems for me to deal with personally.
I would really like to test out an URSA as it seems these fixed a lot of the problems... but they are expensive. And huge.
I haven't really tried any of the newer ones but the original was just to much problems for me to deal with personally.
I would really like to test out an URSA as it seems these fixed a lot of the problems... but they are expensive. And huge.