Support NeoGAF

[Divvy]

Camera-gaf.

What are your opinions on system cameras?

I was considering purchasing a DSLR, but the overall weight and bulk prevents me from carrying it around as often as I would probably like. How do the system cameras like the Sony NEX ones compare? Can I still take really good macro shots? Or landscape shots? Are they worth the tradeoff in quality? Which ones are good ones?

Thanks everyone.

 

[Skel1ingt0n]

Hey all! I'm trying to sell my old 40D and a couple cheap lenses/accessories. I have it listed in the B/S/T thread here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=39299355&postcount=5835

If anyone is annoyed by my link, let me know, and I'll remove it. Just figured there might be a little interest here.

I managed to snag a D90 for a good price. Since I always rented lens, and hadn't invested much in the Canon ecoysystem, it seemed fine to switch and get the newer body. That said, I think I'm gonna end up selling this new D90 here pretty soon when I have some extra $$ and the Olympus OM-D is easier to snag. For all the travel I'm doing, I think I'd really like the smaller, weather-sealed body.

I'd love to find a sale on the thing; but most reputable dealers are still backed up for weeks/months. I don't see myself finding an OM-D for ~$900 (body only) until closer to Christmas, which sucks.

 

[Lupin the Third]

Fuji X10

Looks classy and has a bigger sensor than the Canon so quality should improve greatly for low light shots.

Thanks! It looks really good, though CNet didn't seem to care for some aspects of it. We really like that it excels at "auto" functions and aren't as worried about tweaking every shot.

My wife isn't enamored with the immobile display and the pass-through, non-digital viewfinder. Is there an also-ran you guys might suggest that meets our good-with-movement-in-low-light/<$700/good-auto-snapshots/smaller-than-SX20IS requirements so we can compare positives and negatives with the X10?

 

[Flo_Evans]

Thanks! It looks really good, though CNet didn't seem to care for some aspects of it. We really like that it excels at "auto" functions and aren't as worried about tweaking every shot.

My wife isn't enamored with the immobile display and the pass-through, non-digital viewfinder. Is there an also-ran you guys might suggest that meets our good-with-movement-in-low-light/<$700/good-auto-snapshots/smaller-than-SX20IS requirements so we can compare positives and negatives with the X10?

Canon g1x?

It also doesn't have a true through the lens viewfinder, but if size is your primary concern you are not going to find that in a smaller body. All the good compact cameras with electronic viewfinders (that I know of) are slightly above your price range.

 

[Art Teitlebaum]

Olympus XZ-1 plus electronic viewfinder VF-2 could be under the 700 limit, but I'm not sure about it. And it doesn't have a tilt screen. Apart from that a lovely little cam imo.

And the Nikon P7100 has a moveable screen, but the lens is a bit slower than the X10. But it is cheaper, at least here in Germany.

Edit: Just reading something about that new Sony DSC-RX100. Doesn't look too bad either in terms of image quality. Elegant and pocketable, surely the ladies will love it. ;-)

 

[luoapp]

Olympus XZ-1 plus electronic viewfinder VF-2 could be under the 700 limit, but I'm not sure about it. And it doesn't have a tilt screen. Apart from that a lovely little cam imo.

And the Nikon P7100 has a moveable screen, but the lens is a bit slower than the X10. But it is cheaper, at least here in Germany.

Why are you guys dancing around the obvious candidates -- mirrorless cameras? Between m4/3 and sony nex systems, there are plenty models below $700, with articulated LCD screen and most of all, great low lighting performance. Yes, these are little bigger than the usual compact cameras (x10, XZ-1, etc.) but still very small. Oh, you get that "professional" shallow depth-of-field look much easier.

The only caveat: you won't have 20x zoom with any of these cameras.

 

[Art Teitlebaum]

Why are you guys dancing around the obvious candidates -- mirrorless cameras? Among m4/3 and sony nex systems, there are plenty models below $700, with articulated LCD screen and most of all, great low lighting performance. Yes, these are little bigger than the usual compact cameras (x10, XZ-1, etc.) but still very small. Oh, you get that "professional" shallow depth-of-field look much easier.

The only caveat: you won't have 20x zoom with any of these cameras.

Haha, you are quite right on this. I was really considering to recommend a CSC, but he said

We currently have a Canon PowerShot SX20 IS and though she likes how "pro" and "fancy" it looks, she also doesn't like how bulky it is

So I thought it was the size that was important for him.

 

[Lupin the Third]

Why are you guys dancing around the obvious candidates -- mirrorless cameras? Among m4/3 and sony nex systems, there are plenty models below $700, with articulated LCD screen and most of all, great low lighting performance. Yes, these are little bigger than the usual compact cameras (x10, XZ-1, etc.) but still very small. Oh, you get that "professional" shallow depth-of-field look much easier.

The only caveat: you won't have 20x zoom with any of these cameras.

Yeah, priority 1 is: good low-light performance with moving subjects. Basically good for capturing "indoor moments with the kids" quickly (hence the desire for solid automatic settings or custom presets). The price is priority 2, as she (and I) just aren't willing to spend exorbitant amounts on a camera (knowing our usage). Less than $700 is a pretty hard line, IMHO; ~$500 or less would be preferred. Size and viewfinder stuff is less important, but if we can find a good "has all the features we like most" with very few caveats that affect us, hooray!

Looking more into the GX 1 and already have a bit into the Alpha NEX line. I think our sister-in-law has a Sony C3, but she had trouble with zooming at a kids' event due to fixed lenses or something, which would be a bummer having to carry lenses around.

Anyone have thoughts on the Powershot S100 in low light with movement? We have a Powershot already (SX20IS), but it's garbage for indoor situations with kids. I'm guessing they vary drastically from generation to generation, though.

Anyway, thanks for any further help, if you have any to offer! Appreciate everyone's suggestions thus far.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I kind of feel like anything in that range is going to be disappointing for low light + fast motion. Have you considered getting an external flash for the current camera? With a tillable head you can bounce the flash indoors, stop motion and produce pleasing light. Don't Judge flash photography by the weak built in flash on compact consumer cameras!

 

[Lupin the Third]

I kind of feel like anything in that range is going to be disappointing for low light + fast motion. Have you considered getting an external flash for the current camera? With a tillable head you can bounce the flash indoors, stop motion and produce pleasing light. Don't Judge flash photography by the weak built in flash on compact consumer cameras!

Hm! Another thought. The SX20IS seems to have a hot shoe for a flash, but a cursory glance shows $100-250 for being stuck with the current camera with potential for improvement. That said, will look further into it. Thanks again.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Hm! Another thought. The SX20IS seems to have a hot shoe for a flash, but a cursory glance shows $100-250 for being stuck with the current camera with potential for improvement. That said, will look further into it. Thanks again.

It will definitly improve your flash pictures. There is abit of a learning curve to it, getting flash to look natural is tough.

The easiest thing to do is just point the flash straight up at the ceiling and let the camera do the work. Will look 100% better than the built in. Not always possible though.

Then pretty soon you will be buying dedicated strobes and soft boxes lol.

 

[mrkgoo]

It will definitly improve your flash pictures. There is abit of a learning curve to it, getting flash to look natural is tough.

The easiest thing to do is just point the flash straight up at the ceiling and let the camera do the work. Will look 100% better than the built in. Not always possible though.

Then pretty soon you will be buying dedicated strobes and soft boxes lol.

Flash photography is an entirely new beast bt I think one worth mastering. A whole new world of possibilities and tricks, and they can look totally natural.

I don't think I will ever get it right, but I've learnt so much about lighting, wgochbus the fundamental thing to know about photography in the first place. So on that basis alone, it's with getting into.

In unrelated news, I picked up a canon EF 40mm f/2.8! I don't know why. Kind of on a whim. It's cheap so I figured worth checking out. Thing is I already have two 50mm lenses and a 17-40 and a 17-55 ... :/

 

[fart]

yah, i did that for a while. at one point i had a 40/2.8 pancake, a 50/1.4, a 50/1.8, a 35/1.8 a 35-70/2.8 and a 17-35/1.8, all because i was looking for the perfect near-normal.

i decided that my favorite was the 40mm and sold the rest, then i decided that what i really wanted was ..

ok well long story short i sold everything, even the 40mm, and bought the 35/1.4 nikkor (although this was as usual preceded by lots of hand wringing on whether a zeiss 25/2 or 28/1.8 nikk would be better), and i couldn't be happier.

basically, because of all the practice moving around the normal lengths, i've discovered that i understand 35mm just about right. i can get the perspective distortion i wanted from wides by getting in close and the normal perspective i got from my 50s by getting to about the middle distance. i can also get the same DOF slicing i was getting around 50-60mm by getting just one step closer.

however, if i'd started off with a 35/1.4 (at the time that would have meant the 35/1.4 AIS), i would have been pretty clueless. as it is, the 35 is literally my only lens and it's rare for me to miss out on a shot with the kind of shooting i do (although i do still keep a fast 85 around, now the 85/1.8g but previously the samyang 85/1.4).

anyway, the point is that in order to end up with a true "2 lens kit (35 + 85)" i had to go through literally 10 lenses (there are a number i didn't even mention lol). if i had just guessed that i wanted 35 + 85 right off the bat i would never have figured out that it was the right way to go and would have still circled around 10 different setups before making it back to 35 + 85 in my kit.

 

[mrkgoo]

yah, i did that for a while. at one point i had a 40/2.8 pancake, a 50/1.4, a 50/1.8, a 35/1.8 a 35-70/2.8 and a 17-35/1.8, all because i was looking for the perfect near-normal.

i decided that my favorite was the 40mm and sold the rest, then i decided that what i really wanted was ..

ok well long story short i sold everything, even the 40mm, and bought the 35/1.4 nikkor (although this was as usual preceded by lots of hand wringing on whether a zeiss 25/2 or 28/1.8 nikk would be better), and i couldn't be happier.

basically, because of all the practice moving around the normal lengths, i've discovered that i understand 35mm just about right. i can get the perspective distortion i wanted from wides by getting in close and the normal perspective i got from my 50s by getting to about the middle distance. i can also get the same DOF slicing i was getting around 50-60mm by getting just one step closer.

however, if i'd started off with a 35/1.4 (at the time that would have meant the 35/1.4 AIS), i would have been pretty clueless. as it is, the 35 is literally my only lens and it's rare for me to miss out on a shot with the kind of shooting i do (although i do still keep a fast 85 around, now the 85/1.8g but previously the samyang 85/1.4).

anyway, the point is that in order to end up with a true "2 lens kit (35 + 85)" i had to go through literally 10 lenses (there are a number i didn't even mention lol). if i had just guessed that i wanted 35 + 85 right off the bat i would never have figured out that it was the right way to go and would have still circled around 10 different setups before making it back to 35 + 85 in my kit.

Awesome story and so true. I loved my 85mm. Got stolen though. I think I'll likely settle on 50mm as my general prime (on a crop).

I might like a 35, butvwithout having one, I wouldn't know, you know? And sure, you can say I could just use my zooms at the fixed focal like a prime to see if I like it, but it's not really the same- you don't get the same lightweight carry around, for example.

 

[Truth101]

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/ has all the lenses in the database (link on the top)

Thanks guess I'll be researching some lenses!

 

[tino]

Yeah, priority 1 is: good low-light performance with moving subjects. Basically good for capturing "indoor moments with the kids" quickly (hence the desire for solid automatic settings or custom presets). The price is priority 2, as she (and I) just aren't willing to spend exorbitant amounts on a camera (knowing our usage). Less than $700 is a pretty hard line, IMHO; ~$500 or less would be preferred. Size and viewfinder stuff is less important, but if we can find a good "has all the features we like most" with very few caveats that affect us, hooray!

Looking more into the GX 1 and already have a bit into the Alpha NEX line. I think our sister-in-law has a Sony C3, but she had trouble with zooming at a kids' event due to fixed lenses or something, which would be a bummer having to carry lenses around.

Anyone have thoughts on the Powershot S100 in low light with movement? We have a Powershot already (SX20IS), but it's garbage for indoor situations with kids. I'm guessing they vary drastically from generation to generation, though.

Anyway, thanks for any further help, if you have any to offer! Appreciate everyone's suggestions thus far.

From your descripsion you really should get the Nikon 1 system. The camera is a tag expensive for its hardware but its build with fast focus for casual users in mind. None of the other mirrorless or P&S option will focus as fast as J1 and V1 becuase Nikon put the auto focus elements inside the sensor. Its perfect for people who are too lazy to learn photography.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Awesome story and so true. I loved my 85mm. Got stolen though. I think I'll likely settle on 50mm as my general prime (on a crop).

I might like a 35, butvwithout having one, I wouldn't know, you know? And sure, you can say I could just use my zooms at the fixed focal like a prime to see if I like it, but it's not really the same- you don't get the same lightweight carry around, for example.

I still want to get an 85mm... I have the 105mm DC, which is bad ass but it is almost useless indoors unless you want eyeball only pics Can't wait to try it on the D800...

Really for crop sensor portraits I love my 60mm macro lens. VERY sharp, the only downside is the slow focus (I have the old AF-D ver.) f2.8@60mm is about the perfect DOF to get the eyes and ears. I have a 50mm 1.4 for razor thin DOF but wide open its a bit soft. Down at 2.8 it is almost as sharp as the 60mm but not quite.

Gonna try the new 28mm 1.8 with a crop camera too. I think I will like it a little better than the 35 1.8 DX, but who knows. I wish they would make a new 20mm 2.8... and make it 1.8 or faster

 

[123rl]

I just got a Tokina 11-16 f2.8. It seems good but it looked a bit weird at first. I took a test photo at 2.8 and it was weird to see bokeh on an 11mm image. It seems very sharp at f4 and above though and the colour reproduction is very nice

 

[Menelaus]

I found an OM-D E-M5 12-50mm kit here in town for $1299 new. The urge to pick it up is killing me.

I guess if I hate it compared to my full frame, reselling should be easy with it in such short supply, right?

 

[Divvy]

So, is the Nex-5n a good choice for a mirrorless? I'm going to be shooting everything except maybe action shots. Is it a decent substitute for a dslr if I really don't want to carry around a dslr?

 

[radios shipping overview]

So, is the Nex-5n a good choice for a mirrorless? I'm going to be shooting everything except maybe action shots. Is it a decent substitute for a dslr if I really don't want to carry around a dslr?

I was skeptical about this idea before, but after using a NEX-3 for a month, I'm gonna say yes. It's had as much speed as I've needed for the kinds of shooting I do (portrait and fashion-ish work, non-pro), and the controls are nicely customizable. The 5N's sensor is still hotness. You might want to wait until the 5N's successor comes out in a couple of months if you want the absolute newest tech. Otherwise, take advantage of the low price of used NEX bodies.

Go to a store and try one out, make sure the form factor is something you're comfortable with. My only real reservations with the camera are the lack of some controls I'd rather have dedicated instead of software and the lack of an integrated eye-level finder.

 

[Divvy]

I was skeptical about this idea before, but after using a NEX-3 for a month, I'm gonna say yes. It's had as much speed as I've needed for the kinds of shooting I do (portrait and fashion-ish work, non-pro), and the controls are nicely customizable. The 5N's sensor is still hotness. You might want to wait until the 5N's successor comes out in a couple of months if you want the absolute newest tech. Otherwise, take advantage of the low price of used NEX bodies.

Go to a store and try one out, make sure the form factor is something you're comfortable with. My only real reservations with the camera are the lack of some controls I'd rather have dedicated instead of software and the lack of an integrated eye-level finder.

Well I have a Vegas trip coming up in September and I really would like to have a camera by then. I don't suppose the successor would come before then? What features are missing that might show up in the successor? Are there any glaring omissions?

Thanks!

 

[tino]

Well I have a Vegas trip coming up in September and I really would like to have a camera by then. I don't suppose the successor would come before then? What features are missing that might show up in the successor? Are there any glaring omissions?

Thanks!

The only omission is the lens selection. There is nothing wrong with 5n. Well maybe the video clicking noise thing but you can test it when you buy it.

 

[Divvy]

The only omission is the lens selection. There is nothing wrong with 5n. Well maybe the video clicking noise thing but you can test it when you buy it.

My dad tells me sony lenses aren't good, at least in the dslr range. I know the lens selection isn't great on the nex series, but I don't really care about that, I'm not likely to carry around several lenses anyways, but are the quality of the lenses good?

 

[tino]

My dad tells me sony lenses aren't good, at least in the dslr range. I know the lens selection isn't great on the nex series, but I don't really care about that, I'm not likely to carry around several lenses anyways, but are the quality of the lenses good?

Don't even worry about it. They all made by the same OEM ODM, glass all from Hoya. If you pay 200 for a lens, you get a lens that worth $200. If you pay 1000 for a lens, you get a lens that's worth $1000. If you pay $60 for a kit lens, it's worth 60 no matter which comnpany's logo is printed on it. There is very little difference between Japanese camera companies.

 

[Divvy]

Don't even worry about it. They all made by the same OEM ODM, glass all from Hoya. If you pay 200 for a lens, you get a lens that worth $200. If you pay 1000 for a lens, you get a lens that's worth $1000. If you pay $60 for a kit lens, it's worth 60 no matter which comnpany's logo is printed on it. There is very little difference between Japanese camera companies.

Ah awesome, thanks.

 

[Excko]

I am looking in a new camera to replace my aging Canon Powershot 530. I am looking at the Canon S100. I really would like to get a DSLR, but I think that the size factor, plus the different lens, would get to me in the end, and I would not take as many pictures to justify the cost of the DSLR.

Would the Canon S100 be a good compromise?

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

Lightroom will treat your jpegs and raws as one image. I haven't gotten into editing raws yet, but I shoot everything in dual mode and have been using Lightroom to organize it.

Really? There's a setting in LR to have it hide JPEGs if you shoot RAW+JPEG?

 

[Zoe]

Really? There's a setting in LR to have it hide JPEGs if you shoot RAW+JPEG?

It should do it automatically. I don't remember having to change any settings, but I can verify later.

 

[captive]

i would recommend telling lightroom to handle the JPGs and RAWs as separate files. That way they are both organized by date(or however you have lightroom set to organize) and they are separate files so if you want to just epxort the JPG for a quick post on the web you can and if you want to get more intensive edits on the RAW files you can as well.

 

[mrkgoo]

I am looking in a new camera to replace my aging Canon Powershot 530. I am looking at the Canon S100. I really would like to get a DSLR, but I think that the size factor, plus the different lens, would get to me in the end, and I would not take as many pictures to justify the cost of the DSLR.

Would the Canon S100 be a good compromise?

I'm going to say yes. As a keen dSLR enthusiast, the S100 is one of th ePoint and shoots I'd like in my arsenal.

IF you really want something a bit closer, then also consider the G series, or the new G1X. Keep in mind, I barely look at IQ too much any more, as I feel cameras are all pretty good.

Also, look at competitors in the same space. Fuji and SOny are doing some awesome stuff.

 

[Thraktor]

I am looking in a new camera to replace my aging Canon Powershot 530. I am looking at the Canon S100. I really would like to get a DSLR, but I think that the size factor, plus the different lens, would get to me in the end, and I would not take as many pictures to justify the cost of the DSLR.

Would the Canon S100 be a good compromise?

The Canon S100 is by all accounts a great compact camera, but if you have the money it may be worth considering the Sony RX100. It's not cheap ($650 RRP), but it's almost as small as the S100 and manages to squeeze a much bigger sensor in there, and the photos I've seen from it look great for a compact.

DPReview have a preview of it here, with some sample photos on the last page.

Or, if you're willing to move up a bit in size, then something like a Canon G1X (as mrkgoo mentioned) or a Micro Four-Thirds camera will give you image quality almost indistinguishable from a DSLR in a smaller form-factor. MFT also has the benefit of being able to switch lenses, with a decent number of small "pancake" lenses available for the system.

 

[Jayayess1190]

Really? There's a setting in LR to have it hide JPEGs if you shoot RAW+JPEG?

It does by default. You need to change a setting if you want jpeg's and raw treated as separate entries.

 

[RapidCancel]

Really? There's a setting in LR to have it hide JPEGs if you shoot RAW+JPEG?

On by default, but if you want to change it then go to Preferences > General > Import Options > Treat JPEG files next to raw files as separate photos

 

[Menelaus]

Welp...if any of you guys are looking to go full frame or get a decent lens, I'm having a firesale:

5D body
Tamron 28-75mm
Canon 17-40 f/4L
Canon 135 f/2L

Gonna jump into m4/3 headfirst! Just shoot me a PM if interested in anything.

 

[centracore]

I bought myself a Panasonic Lumix GX1 m4/3 camera this weekend, it came with the 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 lens but I also went ahead and bought the 20mm f1.7 'pancake' lens. This is my first real camera, and I have to admit I'm a little bit intimidated by all the functionality over your basic point-and-shoot camera but I'm making the time to try and learn.

When exploring the settings menus today I noticed that it can save in RAW, JPEG or both RAW and JPEG. I am using Aperture 3 for post processing so was planning on saving in RAW, but is there a reason you'd want to do both RAW and JPEG?

Bonus question, what's the general consensus on Aperture 3 vs. Lightroom 4? Am I fine sticking with Aperture or should I be looking at Lightroom?

 

[Instigator]

When exploring the settings menus today I noticed that it can save in RAW, JPEG or both RAW and JPEG. I am using Aperture 3 for post processing so was planning on saving in RAW, but is there a reason you'd want to do both RAW and JPEG?

I can see two potential reasons to shoot RAW+JPEG.

1. If you get bored processing RAW files, you can fall back on the JPEGs.

2. While working with RAW files, the JPEGs can serve as models/benchmarks for you to surpass.

I personally used to process RAW files, but it's too time consuming. I usually try to get exposure right from the get-go and stick with the JPEGs. Unless it is a special occasion or I know I am shooting in challenging conditions then RAW comes in handy again.

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

I am using Aperture 3 for post processing so was planning on saving in RAW, but is there a reason you'd want to do both RAW and JPEG?

I don't really see a point. My workflow is: throw out all the bad shots; throw out the redundant ones; do broad adjustments on groups of photos; then do specific adjustments on my favourites. If I were to do specific adjustments in every photo than it would be too much time, but I don't.

what's the general consensus on Aperture 3 vs. Lightroom 4? Am I fine sticking with Aperture or should I be looking at Lightroom?

I prefer Apeture. Why not try the trial of LR?

 

[Flo_Evans]

I can see two potential reasons to shoot RAW+JPEG.

1. If you get bored processing RAW files, you can fall back on the JPEGs.

2. While working with RAW files, the JPEGs can serve as models/benchmarks for you to surpass.

I personally used to process RAW files, but it's too time consuming. I usually try to get exposure right from the get-go and stick with the JPEGs. Unless it is a special occasion or I know I am shooting in challenging conditions then RAW comes in handy again.

To me it's not about getting the exposure right. It's preserving as much info as possible. RAW converters are constantly improving. By keeping the RAW file you can take advantage of software advancements in the future. If you always shoot in jpeg mode you are stuck with the RAW converter that shipped with your camera.

I usually set my camera to RAW+medium jpg. Dump the jpegs on the iPad, do some quick cropping/adjustments then throw those on Flickr/Facebook. Then I dump all the raw files to my hard drive.

 

[reggieandTFE]

Welp...if any of you guys are looking to go full frame or get a decent lens, I'm having a firesale:

5D body
Tamron 28-75mm
Canon 17-40 f/4L
Canon 135 f/2L

Gonna jump into m4/3 headfirst! Just shoot me a PM if interested in anything.

I have an OM-D and love it, but i would rent it or spend some time with it before unloading all your full frame stuff. The prices you can get for used micro 4/3 equipment have generally been quite poor because of the constant introduction of new models; however, you're right in that the short supply of the OM-D will have resale value high for a while. On the other hand, micro 4/3 lenses tend to hold on I their value well. In the past year I've sold the panasonic 20mm and 25mm on eBay for more than I paid a year before.

Depending on your preferred focal lengths I'd recommend a low light, discrete, tiny prime set of the Panasonic 14mm(de-kitted on eBay for $160), 20mm($350)and Olympus 45mm($400).

The PanaLeica 25mm is great, but larger than the other primes (although still minuscule compared to your FF stuff) and there are rumors of a cheap Zuiko 25mm to be announced later this year.

 

[Antiwhippy]

Speaking of m43, the new 75mm 1.8 olympus is getting incredibly good reviews. Seems like a great portrait/studio lens.

 

[Menelaus]

I have an OM-D and love it, but i would rent it or spend some time with it before unloading all your full frame stuff. The prices you can get for used micro 4/3 equipment have generally been quite poor because of the constant introduction of new models; however, you're right in that the short supply of the OM-D will have resale value high for a while. On the other hand, micro 4/3 lenses tend to hold on I their value well. In the past year I've sold the panasonic 20mm and 25mm on eBay for more than I paid a year before.

Depending on your preferred focal lengths I'd recommend a low light, discrete, tiny prime set of the Panasonic 14mm(de-kitted on eBay for $160), 20mm($350)and Olympus 45mm($400).

The PanaLeica 25mm is great, but larger than the other primes (although still minuscule compared to your FF stuff) and there are rumors of a cheap Zuiko 25mm to be announced later this year.

Appreciate the advice.

Honestly, at this point, my FF stuff just sits in my closet; the reason I'm looking at an OM-D is the portability factor.

Also, didn't realize my stuff was behind a login gate, here's a link to my post in the B/S/T thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=39468424&postcount=6056

 

[Instigator]

To me it's not about getting the exposure right. It's preserving as much info as possible. RAW converters are constantly improving. By keeping the RAW file you can take advantage of software advancements in the future. If you always shoot in jpeg mode you are stuck with the RAW converter that shipped with your camera.

I usually set my camera to RAW+medium jpg. Dump the jpegs on the iPad, do some quick cropping/adjustments then throw those on Flickr/Facebook. Then I dump all the raw files to my hard drive.

Point taken. But keeping all RAW files lying around fills up storage space and back-ups pretty quickly.

 

[Menelaus]

Point taken. But keeping all RAW files lying around fills up storage space and back-ups pretty quickly.

I've got all my RAWs from stuff I've shot over the years...barely dents my 2TB backup drive.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Point taken. But keeping all RAW files lying around fills up storage space and back-ups pretty quickly.

They are about 15mb each for my D7000 (16mp) aperture library is at 400GB... some video in there though

I let you know if I change my mind with the D800 raw files... if the fucking fedex guy ever drops it off!

 

[Instigator]

I've got all my RAWs from stuff I've shot over the years...barely dents my 2TB backup drive.

I'd have your hard drive filled up at at least 50% had I kept everything, all that for files I probably would never go back to. Just on the off chance I'd want to rework on pic #23224 to make the skies pop a bit more or retrieve marginally more details in the dark corners of pic #55341. Sounds like too much of a hassle.

 

[Flo_Evans]

OMG it is glorious.

These RAW files are choking my computer... maybe jpg is where its at

 

[giga]

I don't know why the canon 40mm is tempting me but it is. $200 and oh so light but I already have a sigma 30 argh.

 

[RuGalz]

I don't know why the canon 40mm is tempting me but it is. $200 and oh so light but I already have a sigma 30 argh.

LBA LBA LBA

 

[giga]

LBA LBA LBA

I ended up returning that Rokinon I bought a few weeks back. Manual focus and exposure without confirmation light just wasn't gonna cut it. This canon 40mm though is getting some really rave reviews.