• 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

Yeah, sensor size is just the physical size of the "film" that it uses to take the image. It's important because ultimately, taking a photo is just a function of collecting light, and a larger sensor is a bigger bucket, if you will, with which to grab more of that light.

Phones generally have a very small sensor, not even the size of a thumbnail. For dedicated cameras, your main sensors are Micro Four Thirds (abbreviated either M4/3rds or MFT), larger than that is APSC (Which is considered the "sweet spot" size), going larger you'll find Full Frame (which matches what an old film camera would have), and beyond that you'll have Medium Format and Large Format (Which are probably bigger than some phones lol).

300px-Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg.png


EDIT: oh, top of the page, uhm, I guess I can go over the more important camera terminology.

Body vs Lens -- With a dedicated camera, most of the time, the "Body" (the part you hold in your hands) is an altogether separate piece from the lens (the, you know, glass part). Changing lenses is what gives a camera its ability to take a wide variety of photos, better than say a phone. If you go on Ebay, or Amazon, or wherever, and see "Camera XYZ Body", then it's not going to come with a lens, so you'd have half of a camera. If you see "Camera XYZ Kit" or "Kit lens", then it'll come with the basic lens that'll get you started. Unless you really know what you're looking for, most would recommend getting this "Kit".

Lens characterstics -- There's a few important numbers on a lens, that tell you what it can do, but keep in mind that this is information you don't need right now. I'm telling you about this not because it's important for your first camera buying experience, but because it's important for your second purchase, which will invariably be a lens.
Focal length: Easiest way to explain this, is that this is a number that tells you how "zoomed" a lens is. In the case of a lens that zooms, this may be a range, such as a kit lens that goes from 16mm to 50mm (written as 16-50mm), meaning it'll go as wide out as 16mm, or as zoomed in as 50mm. If you see only ONE number (eg; 50mm), you're looking at a lens that does NOT zoom in or out at all, and is instead set to a single "zoom" level. These are called "Prime" lenses, and are valued for being optically very good lenses, that are sharp, lightweight, let in lots of light, and are generally cheaper. But, of course, you can't zoom -- it is what it is.

Aperture: This is the size of the "opening" of the lens, and determines how much light can get through to the sensor for your photo. It's sort of weird, because Aperture isn't specified by a size, but rather a mathematical relationship, so I'll just explain that smaller numbers let in more light. An f1.4 lens lets in a lot of light, compared to an f4 lens. You can see this written on a lens in several different ways -- usually written like "F1.4", but you may also see "f1.4", "f = 1.4", or even "1:1.4". These all mean the exact same thing. One thing to note, a lens can always close it's aperture and let less light in; for example, an f1.4 lens can close down to f4, though the opposite is not true. Why would you do this? Well, as you open up your aperture, more background becomes blurry (look at my avatar for example), but if you want the background to be clearly visible, you'd need to close down tighter to let it get in focus too. Many, many people like the blurry background look, referred to as "bokeh". Personally, I like so much bokeh, that I don't even like the entire subject to even be in focus, just the eyes or focal point. :D

Lens mount -- When you get a camera, it's going to have a specific "mount". This is the format that the lens uses to attach to the body, and *generally* these can pretty much be lined up by company. Short of using adapters, your lens must match the mount on your body. Sony cameras use E Mount lenses (And FE Mount, for their full frame, though the mount itself is technically the same), Canon uses EF or EF-S, Nikon is, I believe, DX or FX, and Fuji is... X? X mount? Not sure. There's also MFT or Micro Four Thirds mount, which is used by several companies. (The reason some companies have more than one mount, is usually APSC sized lenses, vs Full Frame sized lenses, but typically a full frame lens will work on their APSC mount, if a bit more cumbersome)

This all should help you start recognizing what a webpage is telling you about a camera, or at least help you recognize what the terminology means.
There's some other bullshit written on lenses, like "SSC" or "ASPH", things like that, but for most cases, these dictate coatings or other characteristics that are less immediately important to know -- they won't affect how you use the lens or what types of photos they'll give you, they'll just affect the quality.
 

Chumley

Banned
Might be working with a Canon C300 mk 2 next week. Any tips for someone coming from a 5d Mk. 3? Relatively simple learning curve for someone with a lot of Canon DSLR experience I hope.
 
Thanks for the input on my question guys. I was reading and watching a lot of reviews, but it's difficult to make a decision, so I hoped a trusted ranking would make it a bit easier to judge. But I understand that the difference in quality at the top is quite slim.
 

Kilrogg

paid requisite penance
Thanks everyone for your advice.

info dump

Holy, thanks man. I'll bookmark this for future reference.

Asking the question again: would a Google Pixel lens be good enough for my intended use? I hear it's one of the best smartphone cameras out there.
 
Thanks everyone for your advice.



Holy, thanks man. I'll bookmark this for future reference.

Asking the question again: would a Google Pixel lens be good enough for my intended use? I hear it's one of the best smartphone cameras out there.

Smartphone cameras are all within the same tier, that is, below the Premium Compact.

Let's put it this way - - a good few years back, I bought a Windows Phone because of the, in smartphone terms, God tier camera. That phone STILL has an amazing camera per smartphone standards. In fact the Pixel is still handedly beat by a Windows Phone, but that's not important.
What is important, is that when I had this still best in class smartphone camera a few years back, I still bought a dedicated camera, and rarely used the WP for shits outside of emergency shots.

Long story short? A good camera on a phone hardly amounts to anything but a nice bullet point on the box, if you're wanting to see this as a hobby.
 
man, after trading up all my Canon gear I was afraid of the transition but having this as my kit has been a revelatory experience. Most of my gear now fits in one bag and it's just nice.
Excellent. I'm still using my nikon kit for events and stuff that requires reach. But for all around fun walk around street stuff will be handled by the Fuji.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Smartphone cameras are all within the same tier, that is, below the Premium Compact.

Let's put it this way - - a good few years back, I bought a Windows Phone because of the, in smartphone terms, God tier camera. That phone STILL has an amazing camera per smartphone standards. In fact the Pixel is still handedly beat by a Windows Phone, but that's not important.
What is important, is that when I had this still best in class smartphone camera a few years back, I still bought a dedicated camera, and rarely used the WP for shits outside of emergency shots.

Long story short? A good camera on a phone hardly amounts to anything but a nice bullet point on the box, if you're wanting to see this as a hobby.

All of what you said is right, but his intended use is shooting decent HD quality vlog-style videos in a controlled setting. A modern smartphone camera, like the one in the Pixel, will more than do the job. As long as he has a tripod and control of his lighting, the video quality will be excellent.
 
All of what you said is right, but his intended use is shooting decent HD quality vlog-style videos in a controlled setting. A modern smartphone camera, like the one in the Pixel, will more than do the job. As long as he has a tripod and control of his lighting, the video quality will be excellent.
I personally always follow the train of thought of always get the best camera you can afford, even if you have to save up for an extra two weeks, it's honestly cheaper that way. God forbids he actually gets into photography proper and then that guy has to spend more money getting a good camera, which is what he probably should do to begin with, but that's just me. I went down the route of "just get something cheap" and I out grew the thing and got a real camera about two months later.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I personally always follow the train of thought of always get the best camera you can afford, even if you have to save up for an extra two weeks, it's honestly cheaper that way. God forbids he actually gets into photography proper and then that guy has to spend more money getting a good camera, which is what he probably should do to begin with, but that's just me. I went down the route of "just get something cheap" and I out grew the thing and got a real camera about two months later.

The thing is that with his budget, especially at the lower end, he really can't get anything that would serve him well if he ever does need a good/real camera to do some photography. For his stated goals with video recording, I feel like a decent smartphone would suit him better, especially if he already planned to upgrade soon anyway.

If he does have any interest in photography, or really getting into video beyond simple vlogging in a room, then I would absolutely recommend he go with your advice and save up a bit more to get something proper.
 
The thing is that with his budget, especially at the lower end, he really can't get anything that would serve him well if he ever does need a good/real camera to do some photography. For his stated goals with video recording, I feel like a decent smartphone would suit him better, especially if he already planned to upgrade soon anyway.

If he does have any interest in photography, or really getting into video beyond simple vlogging in a room, then I would absolutely recommend he go with your advice and save up a bit more to get something proper.
That's why I say you never know. I originally got my first camera to take pictures of random shit during my dates with my ex. Look where that got me? I cover events and do a ton of stuff just for fun. Once you start getting the itch it sort of takes a life of its own, it's a hard itch to scratch too. Even a lot of vloggers use real camera. Dude can even get a used D5200 and still do what needs to do. I honestly feel like he's limiting himself without doing the proper research.
 
Traded in my unused stuff and bought an XT2 for 100 bucks.

#Jelly

I've salivating at an XT2 since last year. Let us know how you like it.

I'm going to start saving for the Sony a7III which is rumored to be out later this year. If it has dual cards that will seal the deal for me to being locked into the Sony system for a while.
 
#Jelly

I've salivating at an XT2 since last year. Let us know how you like it.

I'm going to start saving for the Sony a7III which is rumored to be out later this year. If it has dual cards that will seal the deal for me to being locked into the Sony system for a while.
I should like it. For the most part I haven't been disappointed with what I've bought minus Sigma stuff. Like it works, but damn that AF is fucking unreliable, couldn't even fine tune that shit, so I got rid of all of it and my D7100. I'll probably get a few primes and the 50-140 for it at some point. Though I do wonder which are the must have lenses for it.
I figured if I was going to be on crop sensor might as well get the size advantage from it since my D7100 never exactly felt lighter compared to the full frames.
 
If his *only* interest is making studio style videos of any random quality, for $200, I would honestly look into just getting a Razer Stargazer (or, if there's another equally good Webcam). I don't know necessarily how it would work, but I'm sure there's info out there to check into.
 
I'm planning on getting a used rebel t2i as a present for a friend who has an interest in event photography but no funds to explore the space on their own; are there any other options I should consider for the same purpose in the sub-$200 range (that price is for both body and lens)? What's the Nikon equivalent of the rebels and how much do they go for with a lens?
 
I'm planning on getting a used rebel t2i as a present for a friend who has an interest in event photography but no funds to explore the space on their own; are there any other options I should consider for the same purpose in the sub-$200 range (that price is for both body and lens)? What's the Nikon equivalent of the rebels and how much do they go for with a lens?

At the sub-$200 price point I don't think you are looking at much of a difference between manufacturers. Also you might want to lower expectations as to what your friend can do with "events." Events require a telephoto lens and those are not cheap. I'm seeing Tamron ones in the 70-200mm range go for about $350-$500 used. Canon equivalents are more expensive.

Your friend doesn't need to buy a 70-200mm lens to begin shooting events, but is something that will be necessary for that line of work. Also another question is what kind of lens comes with the t2i? I'm guessing the kits lens is okay for that camera, but I would get a prime lens either a 24mm or a 35mm. And above all for events you will probably need a flash.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
A guy with a T2i shouldn't be investing in prime lenses, in my opinion. It might be a fun beginner camera, but it's super outdated at this point.

I would recommend the 18-135mm IS lens if it's not expensive. That's what I used on my T4i, which was purchased as my first DSLR, and it is super versatile. Maybe get the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens, too, because it's only $100 and amazing. Really illustrates the value of a shallow depth of field to new users.
 
A guy with a T2i shouldn't be investing in prime lenses, in my opinion. It might be a fun beginner camera, but it's super outdated at this point.

I would recommend the 18-135mm IS lens if it's not expensive. That's what I used on my T4i, which was purchased as my first DSLR, and it is super versatile.

I mean, it's not like it uses special T2i lenses or some shit. EFS is EFS
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I mean, it's not like it uses special T2i lenses or some shit. EFS is EFS

For sure, but I would argue that the T2i is such a weak model at this point, that the person would be better off investing in a better body first if they get interested in photography. I realize not everyone will agree.
 
I'm planning on getting a used rebel t2i as a present for a friend who has an interest in event photography but no funds to explore the space on their own; are there any other options I should consider for the same purpose in the sub-$200 range (that price is for both body and lens)? What's the Nikon equivalent of the rebels and how much do they go for with a lens?
This is a horrible camera for events let alone anything rebel badged that is probably pre T6. If your friend is hit with low light and not shooting on the light inundated surface of Venus you're giving him more of a hindrance than an actual tool.
 
A guy with a T2i shouldn't be investing in prime lenses, in my opinion. It might be a fun beginner camera, but it's super outdated at this point.

I would recommend the 18-135mm IS lens if it's not expensive. That's what I used on my T4i, which was purchased as my first DSLR, and it is super versatile. Maybe get the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens, too, because it's only $100 and amazing. Really illustrates the value of a shallow depth of field to new users.

Lenses can always be used if the friend ever upgrades bodies, if sticking with Canon that is. I personally prefer the sharpness advantage of primes versus zooms. Although I do understand the flexibility you get with a zoom.

My first camera was the a6000, and I got the Sony 50mm lens because everyone kept talking about the "nifty-fifty." But what everyone forgot to mention is that in a crop sensor 50mm lenses are "head and shoulder" portrait lenses. And a major pain to shoot in tight spaces. Hence why I recommended the 35mm as a better option.

Having said all that, the point of my response was that the choice of camera body was going to be limiting. Even if money is an issue I would get a t3 at a minimum.

This is a horrible camera for events let alone anything rebel badged that is probably pre T6. If your friend is hit with low light and not shooting on the light inundated surface of Venus you're giving him more of a hindrance than an actual tool.

Everyone says that the camera is not what makes the photo, and that if you are good, any camera should do. I believe that to a point, and at that point you need a certain level of equipment or you are going to lose shots. I don't get paid for my photography but if I was making a living out of it, then I need the equipment to get the shots.
 
Everyone says that the camera is not what makes the photo, and that if you are good, any camera should do. I believe that to a point, and at that point you need a certain level of equipment or you are going to lose shots. I don't get paid for my photography but it I was making a living out of it, then I need the equipment to get the shots.
As true as this is I wouldn't shoot any sort of event with a camera that really can't handle 3200 iso and a 18-55 kit lens.
Ok...so either I'm too used to my D810 or full frame or pro level glass in general, not used to the X-T2 yet or the 18-55 kit lens is soft as shit? Or Lightroom just isn't the best at dealing with RAF files. Or I should not be looking at these damn things 1:1.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Lenses can always be used if the friend ever upgrades bodies, if sticking with Canon that is. I personally prefer the sharpness advantage of primes versus zooms. Although I do understand the flexibility you get with a zoom.

My first camera was the a6000, and I got the Sony 50mm lens because everyone kept talking about the "nifty-fifty." But what everyone forgot to mention is that in a crop sensor 50mm lenses are "head and shoulder" portrait lenses. And a major pain to shoot in tight spaces. Hence why I recommended the 35mm as a better option.

In my experience the sharpness difference between primes and zooms, at least when it comes to modern lenses (manufactured after 2010 or so), is really not *that* big. I imagine most people would be very hard pressed to identify differences when viewing the image as a JPEG on a 1080p display, for example. Maybe it's just me, or I'm not using the right glass, but if I have to pixel peep the RAW file on a 4K or higher resolution monitor to really see the difference, then maybe that difference is not very important after all.

Obviously, there are far more advantages to primes than just the sharpness advantage, such as size, weight, and aperture, as well as auto focus speed (and possibly even lack of sound while "hunting"). There's also an element of fun to learning a fixed focal length and how to zoom with your feet and really get creative with composition.

For a beginner though, I feel like a kit lens zoom with the widest range possible paired with a cheap 35mm or 50mm with a decently wide aperture is the way to go. Pair those with an Understanding Exposure book and get the person on Manual as soon as possible.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
As true as this is I wouldn't shoot any sort of event with a camera that really can't handle 3200 iso and a 18-55 kit lens.
Ok...so either I'm too used to my D810 or full frame or pro level glass in general, not used to the X-T2 yet or the 18-55 kit lens is soft as shit? Or Lightroom just isn't the best at dealing with RAF files. Or I should not be looking at these damn things 1:1.

Fuji RAW files have always been a bit weird. On my little X10 lightroom couldn't do any better (and often did worse) than the built in JPG engine so I just shoot it in JPG. That lens should be sharp though!

/kenrockwell

I did finally shoot some stills with the GH5! RAW files seem pretty decent. Its pretty offensive to go back to contrast detect AF... its a pretty good contrast detect AF system as they go but I was shooting a kids tball game and it was definitely not on par with the newer sonys or Nikon D500... but little else is. I actually did enjoy using the EVF for reviewing pics on a sunny day *gasp*, still prefer an optical finder for actually shooting (esp. in the case of fast action).
 
As true as this is I wouldn't shoot any sort of event with a camera that really can't handle 3200 iso and a 18-55 kit lens.
Ok...so either I'm too used to my D810 or full frame or pro level glass in general, not used to the X-T2 yet or the 18-55 kit lens is soft as shit? Or Lightroom just isn't the best at dealing with RAF files. Or I should not be looking at these damn things 1:1.

Uh, kinda all three actually haha, from what I know.

But, let's be fair -- it's a kit lens.
 
Uh, kinda all three actually haha, from what I know.

But, let's be fair -- it's a kit lens.
I need to get some of the cheaper Fuji primes then cause...damn. And yeah I guess being on full frame for several months straight using good glass kind of gives one...tunnel vision or something. I just go so used to my stuff looking a certain way that I was thrown off hard by it not looking like that anymore.
Fuji RAW files have always been a bit weird. On my little X10 lightroom couldn't do any better (and often did worse) than the built in JPG engine so I just shoot it in JPG. That lens should be sharp though!

/kenrockwell

I did finally shoot some stills with the GH5! RAW files seem pretty decent. Its pretty offensive to go back to contrast detect AF... its a pretty good contrast detect AF system as they go but I was shooting a kids tball game and it was definitely not on par with the newer sonys or Nikon D500... but little else is. I actually did enjoy using the EVF for reviewing pics on a sunny day *gasp*, still prefer an optical finder for actually shooting (esp. in the case of fast action).
Seems like I should just use Jpeg, though I do like tweaking stuff myself a bit. I like both, though I will admit that EVF's drain the fuck out of your camera battery. Even with an EVF I'm still double checking my light meter. I also turned face detection off. It's a nice idea, but it really becomes an issue when there is more than one face in a scene. Probably great for portraits, but it's no good for street photography.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I dunno, man. Those pictures you posted in the Photography thread that are on your Flickr account look pretty damn good to me.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Capture One interprets Fuji's trans-x sensor data better than lightroom I hear, but I've never tried it out for myself.

For sure, but I would argue that the T2i is such a weak model at this point, that the person would be better off investing in a better body first if they get interested in photography. I realize not everyone will agree.
Lens trumps body most of the time, IMO. Most modern DSLR bodies work well enough.
 

sneaky77

Member
I need to get some of the cheaper Fuji primes then cause...damn. And yeah I guess being on full frame for several months straight using good glass kind of gives one...tunnel vision or something. I just go so used to my stuff looking a certain way that I was thrown off hard by it not looking like that anymore.

Seems like I should just use Jpeg, though I do like tweaking stuff myself a bit. I like both, though I will admit that EVF's drain the fuck out of your camera battery. Even with an EVF I'm still double checking my light meter. I also turned face detection off. It's a nice idea, but it really becomes an issue when there is more than one face in a scene. Probably great for portraits, but it's no good for street photography.

I don't think you need to do jpg, may take some adjusting but the fuji raw files are pretty good. Plus plenty of info out there on getting better results out of lightroom if you need

Capture One interprets Fuji's trans-x sensor data better than lightroom I hear, but I've never tried it out for myself.

I heard lightroom is much improved these days in terms of that, plus they do have the official film simukations you can add to the raw file, but I did get into Capture One a long while ago so I use that for my processing
 
I use Iridient X Transformer and then LR
I'm tempted to use Iridient, but I don't want to pay for another program.
I don't think you need to do jpg, may take some adjusting but the fuji raw files are pretty good. Plus plenty of info out there on getting better results out of lightroom if you need



I heard lightroom is much improved these days in terms of that, plus they do have the official film simukations you can add to the raw file, but I did get into Capture One a long while ago so I use that for my processing
When the hell was this enabled? My version of lightroom didn't even have a lens profile for the lens and I'm on CC.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Lens trumps body most of the time, IMO. Most modern DSLR bodies work well enough.

In the hands of an experienced shooter going full manual (including focus) and taking only single shots of non-moving subjects? Absolutely.

When it comes to something like the t2i for a beginner who probably does not know what shutter speed, aperture, ISO, auto-focus points, etc. even mean, though? I disagree.

The tech available in more modern bodies, especially in mirrorless cameras, goes a very long way to helping beginners get good shots.

Give a beginner a t2i set to automatic and the best lens in the world and he or she will probably get maybe 5% usable shots. The rest will be a bunch of blown out, out-of-focus, blurry garbage.
 

sneaky77

Member
I'm tempted to use Iridient, but I don't want to pay for another program.

When the hell was this enabled? My version of lightroom didn't even have a lens profile for the lens and I'm on CC.

This may help, I don't use lightroom

https://fujilove.com/applying-fuji-film-simulations-to-raw-files/

Also make sure you firmware update any lens and the camera of course, as an aside, on my particular camera, I usually need to underexpose by 1 to keep it from totally blowing out the highlights, so you may need to just get used to the different quirks
 
This may help, I don't use lightroom

https://fujilove.com/applying-fuji-film-simulations-to-raw-files/

Also make sure you firmware update any lens and the camera of course, as an aside, on my particular camera, I usually need to underexpose by 1 to keep it from totally blowing out the highlights, so you may need to just get used to the different quirks
I just found this about ten minutes ago. I might need to just get more used to this thing. It's always odd finding out that not every camera shoots the same...should take a few weeks I guess. How do I update lens firmware? I just updated my camera firmware this morning. Never mind I just googled it. Going to do that when I get home.
 
I'm playing around with the A9 in a camera store. Rapid fire feels good man.

Are you able to check if focus peaking samples based on sensor and not based on the display yet?

In other words, will focus peak trigger if something is slightly out of focus, but is "sharp" on the EVF/monitor, but then is not triggered in that same area if focus magnified?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Are you able to check if focus peaking samples based on sensor and not based on the display yet?

In other words, will focus peak trigger if something is slightly out of focus, but is "sharp" on the EVF/monitor, but then is not triggered in that same area if focus magnified?
Ah, interesting scenario. I'll check if I can go back later. I dunno, when I use focus peaking on fujis, I always zoom in and do it. I hardly ever do it using only the fully zoomed out mode.
 
Ah, interesting scenario. I'll check if I can go back later. I dunno, when I use focus peaking on fujis, I always zoom in and do it. I hardly ever do it using only the fully zoomed out mode.

Yes, I do as well, but that is almost purely because focus peaking when not zoomed in isn't accurate enough at f1.4. Focus peaking will pop even if, upon focus magnification, it won't. It's a result of it Contrast Detecting at the EVF's resolution, rather than the sensor's.

Even if all they did was let you "focus" the focus peaking to the magnification's area while zoomed out, that'd be great.
 

Ty4on

Member
There should be adjustable focus peaking. If it's too aggressive a lot of softer lenses will have nothing in focus. I think that's the case with some f0.95 lenses.
 

BashNasty

Member
Quick question about a problem I'm having with a new photo printer that I've, unsurprisingly, been completely unable to find anything about online.

I recently purchased the Canon Pixma Pro-100 printer, and it's awesome (and huge)! To begin the setup I connected my MacBook Pro via USB, the printer downloaded its drivers and profiles and all was good. In the basic OS X printing menu all the Canon paper ICC profiles were there. Cool.

Problems arose though when I managed to get the printer connected to the wifi. While the wifi connection works fine and everything prints, I've lost all the Canon ICC profiles in the printing menu. Try as I might I cannot find these actual profiles online. What's weirder is that when I reconnect the printer to my laptop via USB it shows up as a separate printer in the drop down printing menu, and all the ICC profiles are back. The moment I switch back over to the wifi version of the printer though, they're gone again.

So my question is, how the fuck do I get the Canon profiles to show up when I want to print over wireless (yes, I'm quite frustrated by this problem at this point).
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Holy shit. Why is the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III lens so cheap? I was able to get it on Amazon for $65 and no sales tax.

Full frame super zoom for that price? I'm sure it's not great in terms of sharpness, but that's dirt cheap, especially for a lens with autofocus capabilities.

I've been looking for super zoom options, but the native Sony lenses are too expensive. I went ahead and ordered the Canon along with a Metabones adapter.
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom