• 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.

The Official Camera Equipment Megathread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Damaged

Member
How does your D3100 not satisfy you? It's a far better camera than the D40 was as an entry level. For low light is f/1.8 not fast enough?

I'm getting allot of grain on anything over 400 (maybe not allot but I'm starting to get fussy lol) and the low light focusing is very poor, also at f/1.8 the dof is really shallow so it limits what I can shoot handheld.

Just would nice to be able to use a higher iso for certain shots rather than have either to open up the lens or carry a tripod / monopod. Don't get me wrong I'm only looking at maybe going up to f/2.8 to make it a little bit more manageable and I know I can focus manually but I'm trying allot more candid portraits (Partys , family gatherings,.. im not hanging about in bushes before anybody asks lol), and I seem to be missing allot of moments in lower light conditions.

Hope that makes sense
 

Radec

Member
Impressions of the Sony RX100 video capabilities...

http://www.eoshd.com/content/8499/s...:+EOSHD+(EOSHD.com)&utm_content=Google+Reader

Wow. Sony seems to have knocked it out of the park with this thing. Its a bit of an odd duck considering its price but it looks to be delivering on all fronts for a pocketable camera.

Ridiculous performance for a camera this small.

rx100-pocket_1_610x458.jpg
 

Zyzyxxz

Member
I'm getting allot of grain on anything over 400 (maybe not allot but I'm starting to get fussy lol) and the low light focusing is very poor, also at f/1.8 the dof is really shallow so it limits what I can shoot handheld.

Just would nice to be able to use a higher iso for certain shots rather than have either to open up the lens or carry a tripod / monopod. Don't get me wrong I'm only looking at maybe going up to f/2.8 to make it a little bit more manageable and I know I can focus manually but I'm trying allot more candid portraits (Partys , family gatherings,.. im not hanging about in bushes before anybody asks lol), and I seem to be missing allot of moments in lower light conditions.

Hope that makes sense

Grain isn't a bad thing but I'm surprised at the noise issue, it should be usable up to 800 and have you tried using noise reduction in programs such as lightroom?
 

Gabyskra

Banned
Ridiculous performance for a camera this small.

rx100-pocket_1_610x458.jpg

The EOSHD review is ridiculous. It says one of the camera's strong points is "shallow DOF portraiture (for close-ups)". With a sensor like that, I'm sorry, but no. Not possible at all. I can't believe someone who takes such a long time on a subject such as photography (having a website and all) can make such a newbie mistake.
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
The EOSHD review is ridiculous. It says one of the camera's strong points is "shallow DOF portraiture (for close-ups)". With a sensor like that, I'm sorry, but no. Not possible at all. I can't believe someone who takes such a long time on a subject such as photography (having a website and all) can make such a newbie mistake.

It has a 1" sensor which is much bigger than what used to grace point and shoots. I think the claim was made in that context. Of course you're not going to get the thin depth of field with equivalent framing as m43, APS-C and FF cameras.
 
can you guys recommend a book as to how to frame a picture? I know all the tricks in the camera, the thing I am still learning is how to frame something to get a good picture, especially portraits, random people and just the general stuff
 

mrkgoo

Member
can you guys recommend a book as to how to frame a picture? I know all the tricks in the camera, the thing I am still learning is how to frame something to get a good picture, especially portraits, random people and just the general stuff

Best advice I can give is to look at lots of photos as well. Critique them in your head - decide what you like and don't like about them. Do this to your own photos every time. This is not a 'do this and in time you will get better' kind of tip. Do this all the time and forever.
 
I love the ability to use C mount lenses on my OM-D. I already have a RainbowImaging 25MM F1.4 TV Movie Lens that can take some really interesting photos.

I just ordered Holga lens based on this review:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/07/11/holga-25-f8-lens-for-micro-43-review-by-illya-reddy/

I haven't used a Holga since I was in college, but I'm excited to see what sort of weird results I can get with it. The great thing is these lenses are so cheap, it's not a big deal to try them out and start collecting them.
For $16 I should take the plunge too...!

Edit: on eBay does it matter if I get the Panasonic HL(W)-PLG or Olympus HL(W)-OP version for m43 mount...?
 

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
The EOSHD review is ridiculous. It says one of the camera's strong points is "shallow DOF portraiture (for close-ups)". With a sensor like that, I'm sorry, but no. Not possible at all. I can't believe someone who takes such a long time on a subject such as photography (having a website and all) can make such a newbie mistake.
Did you read the review (or look at the photos)? The example they used for shallow DOF is pretty damn shallow... it's definitely not a ridiculous claim considering the lens can go down to f/1.8. Obviously it won't compare to an APS-C or Full Frame sensor, but for a pocket point-and-shoot it's pretty good.
 
Has anyone had any experience with the Sigma 120-400mm DG? I may be able to get one for around $450. I don;t have a telephoto so I thought this might be a good option. I know there are reviews, but I wanted to see if anyone on here had any input.
 

Radec

Member
The EOSHD review is ridiculous. It says one of the camera's strong points is "shallow DOF portraiture (for close-ups)". With a sensor like that, I'm sorry, but no. Not possible at all. I can't believe someone who takes such a long time on a subject such as photography (having a website and all) can make such a newbie mistake.

lol, even my old dusty LX3 gives a shallow DoF on macro. Everything does.

So no, it is not impossible at all. Read the review properly next time.
 

Barmaley

Neo Member
I'm really considering selling my 550D and getting the Sony RX100 instead. As the reviewer put it - the best camera is the one you have on you - and as it happens I rarely have my 550d on me, mainly because of its size. I'm just too casual for a dslr when it comes to photography.
 
I'm almost certainly going to get an RX100. I just need to get my hands on one and just see how I feel about the handling. Apparently they've been available here for a few weeks so hopefully I can find one without too much trouble.
 

Krev

Unconfirmed Member
Ordered the RX100. Very excited. Seems like the ideal go-anywhere second camera. Plus, the video footage on EOSHD is ridiculous for a camera that small (though it helps that Andrew Reid is a great cinematographer).
 
Ordered the RX100. Very excited. Seems like the ideal go-anywhere second camera. Plus, the video footage on EOSHD is ridiculous for a camera that small (though it helps that Andrew Reid is a great cinematographer).

Drive soundtrack + high fps is sort of cheating, to be fair.
 

Krev

Unconfirmed Member
Haha, yes. Still, it seems to be a better video performer than the low end Canon DSLRs (though it is locked to 50p/60p).
 

Skel1ingt0n

I can't *believe* these lazy developers keep making file sizes so damn large. Btw, how does technology work?
"I'm like a dog... I wouldn't know what to do if I actually caught one!"

7580496776_95a1ce7cd5_o.jpg


That's the first thing I thought of as I left the camera shop without the Olympus OM-D they had sitting, sealed in a box.

I've hit most all the camera stores around here, and not a single one has the darn thing in stock. Nobody online seems to have it - unless you want to pay for used or price gouged models. And so while on a trip this weekend - about 100 miles from home - I entered a small camera shop and asked if they had one; knowing full well the answer would be "no."

When he had me follow him across the store, I figured he didn't know what he was talking about. But wouldn't ya know it! ... They had a silver model on display, and a black kit model w/ the w/s zoom for MSRP at $1299.

I was freaking THRILLED to get my hands on it. First off; I'm a big fellow, and no doubt, this is a tiny little camera. I knew it'd be small, but it's really shocking in person. It's itty-bitty. It was also a bit lighter than I expected; it felt solid, but not quite as "hefty solid" as I hoped. I mean, sure, the light weight is probably better all things considered; but I think I kind of could have appreciated some extra heft.

Those two things aside, though, the camera was fantastic. It auto-focuses *FAST*. I mean, almost instantly. It certainly blows my new D90 with kit lens out of the water; and it was comparable to my 40D back when I'd use nice lenses like the 70-200 2.8IS. That was the first "practical use" benefit I recognized once getting my hands on it.

The electronic viewfinder is a bit weird. It certainly works, and it's way better than nothing at all. But it was more grainy/washed out than I'd hope. It'd be 100% fine for composition; but it definitely would leave something to be desired in regard to accurate color/shadows/lighting/etc.

Dials were solid, and buttons were well laid out. My hands wrapped comfortably around it.

I didn't get a whole lot of time to test it's limits; I was in the store with limited objects and goofy lighting... and no SD card to review my shots. But, I definitely loved what I saw.

Is it comparable to a top-end DSLR? No, not at all. But a entry-to-mid level DSLR? Yeah, I'd wager so. with similar primes/focal lengths, I can't possibly see this OM-D struggle to take just as good - if not better - pictures than a Canon 60D or Nikon D7000.

... But that's not even the point. It's awesome that the hardware is right up there with great DSLRs from Canon/Nikon, etc; but it's the benefit of it's size and noise that really make me happy. It's instantly apparent that this is the perfect camera for my uses:

Travel? Hell yeah. Throw my Crumpler or a new Domke' canvas bag in my overhead bag with my clothes with an extra lens or two; and keep the actual body and a fast prime in my "personal item". When I'm in a new city for work, hitting the town at night, it's light enough to wear over my neck/shoulder and it not wear me down or me need to worry about it clunking against me. Even better, it doesn't make me look like a tourist or a professional. ... It's quite nice to just look like someone who might want to grab a picture of something. A *hobbyist*, which is exactly what I am.

My pictures? Yes! People immediately react when they see a camera - for better or for worse. But take out a large SLR and a big lens, and regardless of your subject, it's much harder to get natural - or hell, the coveted candid - shots. And when you're sneaking a shot or two, the loud shutter gives me away instantly. This was much quieter, and much more compact. I really do feel like I'll be more likely to snag the shots I like more often.

And those are my two biggest concerns.

***

So, why didn't I buy it? After all this hunting, I couldn't believe I turned it down. But, really, it was just a matter of money right now.

After tax, that basic kit would cost me $1400+. And I knew I'd probably drop three or four hundred on a lens the second I got home and hopped online. And, I'm a sucker for buying a new bag and memory card when I get new equipment... I just can't help it ;p At the end of the day, I sat there thinking I'd be dropping nearly $2K for the absolute BARE minimum I want in my early kit. Really, I could probably hit over $2.5K fairly easy once I throw in a battery grip and another fast prime. And even still, I wouldn't have everything.

So, yeah, I just couldn't do it. I wanted to... bad. But that's an expensive wall right now.

I figured I'd go home and start saving. And in a couple/few months, I'll re-evaluate my finances and see if I have built up a small savings. If so, I'll sell my D90 and combine that $$ with my savings, and I'll go buy my kit without putting two grand on a credit card.

/book
 

tino

Banned
I dont know when will the LX7 come out. But if Panasonic respond with a similar sensor sized compact, then RX100 price can still drop a little bit.

Usually Sony is the only one who make 1/1.7" sensor and supply it to rest of the brands (including the Canon G series), so its interesting to see how long will Sony keep the 1 inch sensor exclusivity. IMO at least the next GRD should get it. Fuji is rolling its own 2/3" sensor, Canon and Nikon have their own larger compact now. So that leaves the rest of them needing the 1 inch sensor.
 

shantyman

WHO DEY!?
Eh, I don't know, fixed lens cameras are all the same to me. :p

Just kidding of course. Though I gotta say the RX100 can come pretty close to the X100 quality.

Better than the X10 in any case.

X100 has a fixed focal length, RX100 does not. Bigger sensor in the X100. The X100 has the hybrid viewfinder, the RX100 completely lacks one.

You could argue the lens is better in the X10, but obviously the sensor in the RX100 bests it.
 

Antiwhippy

the holder of the trombone
X100 has a fixed focal length, RX100 does not. Bigger sensor in the X100. The X100 has the hybrid viewfinder, the RX100 completely lacks one.

You could argue the lens is better in the X10, but obviously the sensor in the RX100 bests it.

I said I was mostly joking. Though if there is advantage, the autofocus might be better on the sony. I'm just saying that if we were to compare to the X100 in terms of the the best bang of buck for image quality, you can get really close from what I've seen. The viewfinder on the x100 is killer though.

Heck, even the noise, which I thought would be a disadvantage of the smaller sensor, actually looks pretty good even at ISO 1600 if DPreview is to be believed. It seems to handle it way better than my E-PM1. :p

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.c...446785&Signature=uOhv6EEzaHHrdW2Y79wYGFK7fFg=

Seems really well controlled at 2500 too.

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.c...447213&Signature=W+oB+Hz4dbrRC40sGJpYEDI3Fng=

As for the x10 lens, it is alot faster on the long end, but the sony is faster at the short end. Also it still looks nice, sharp with great colours so I'm not sure about the lens being better on the x10.
 
OK, I'm in need of some advice.

I'm planning a trip to NYC at the end of August, and I need a good camera to go with me. Problem is, I don't know much about cameras. I've been looking around at some entry-level DSLR's, and have decided that I probably don't need all that as I'm not huge into photography.

So I decided to look at good compact cameras and I have read a lot about the Sony RX100, and while it does look like a sleek and sexy camera (and the sample photos I've seen in reviews are stunning), I'm not sure if I want to drop $700 on it.

The entire problem really is, I don't know enough about cameras to make a good judgement myself. So, GAF, what should I really look for in a camera? Would a basic DSLR kit be worth it (Talking like one lense + body type deal here - like the Canon T3i), or because I'm not intending on using it heavily outside of trips, holidays, etc should I just go for a good compact?
 
OK, I'm in need of some advice.

I'm planning a trip to NYC at the end of August, and I need a good camera to go with me. Problem is, I don't know much about cameras. I've been looking around at some entry-level DSLR's, and have decided that I probably don't need all that as I'm not huge into photography.

So I decided to look at good compact cameras and I have read a lot about the Sony RX100, and while it does look like a sleek and sexy camera (and the sample photos I've seen in reviews are stunning), I'm not sure if I want to drop $700 on it.

The entire problem really is, I don't know enough about cameras to make a good judgement myself. So, GAF, what should I really look for in a camera? Would a basic DSLR kit be worth it (Talking like one lense + body type deal here - like the Canon T3i), or because I'm not intending on using it heavily outside of trips, holidays, etc should I just go for a good compact?

I'd go for a lower-end compact. You basically just want to take pics for the memories it seems, so something in the $300 should suit your needs. You'll get some experience composing shots and have minor control over the pictures so if you think you want more, then you can step up.
 
I'd go for a lower-end compact. You basically just want to take pics for the memories it seems, so something in the $300 should suit your needs. You'll get some experience composing shots and have minor control over the pictures so if you think you want more, then you can step up.

Any suggestions for a decent camera in that price range?
 

joshschw

Member
Anybody with a Canon 40mm want to share some thoughts and/or pictures?

Comparison on a crop sensor camera
icxOdgTHgKcWG.jpg

I don't have any samples to just post up quickly, but the new 40mm is considerably better than the 50mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4. There's no real comparison. I'm using it on a full-frame camera, but I don't see why that would make a difference in performance.

It handily outperforms even the 1.4 at f/2.8, which is wide open on the 40mm obviously.
Sharper, much faster/quieter AF, and better contrast over the 50mm alternatives. It's also cheaper than the 1.4 by quite a bit. Better build as well.
 

mrkgoo

Member
I don't have any samples to just post up quickly, but the new 40mm is considerably better than the 50mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4. There's no real comparison. I'm using it on a full-frame camera, but I don't see why that would make a difference in performance.

It handily outperforms even the 1.4 at f/2.8, which is wide open on the 40mm obviously.
Sharper, much faster/quieter AF, and better contrast over the 50mm alternatives. It's also cheaper than the 1.4 by quite a bit. Better build as well.

I haven't been able to go out and shoot like I used to, so all my images aren't good for comparison.

Anecdotally, though, I concur. Build quality is excellent. Sharp throughout range, across frame (crop).

I,m finding I'm loving the 40mm focal length too. For comparison, I have both the 50mm f1.8 and 1.4. Best thing is the closer mfd, which just feels nice with the 40mm.

Regarding size, I'm finding it's a bit too small. I normally cradle my camera by gripping the lens. well, there's nothing to grip! I feel like I will slip and drop my camera. Also, I find I'm losing handhold ability and stability because of the size and the imbalance of the body. It,s like trying to take a picture without a lens on! Or balancing on a tight rope without a pole.

For whatever reason, I'm also finding 2.8 to not really be all that wide. Really wish it were 2.0.

That said, I think it's a nice package. Would probably prefer it as a standard thing to get over the 50mm f1.8. I dunno.
 
I don't have any samples to just post up quickly, but the new 40mm is considerably better than the 50mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4. There's no real comparison. I'm using it on a full-frame camera, but I don't see why that would make a difference in performance.

It handily outperforms even the 1.4 at f/2.8, which is wide open on the 40mm obviously.
Sharper, much faster/quieter AF, and better contrast over the 50mm alternatives. It's also cheaper than the 1.4 by quite a bit. Better build as well.

that's what I was hoping for. I think I'll settle on this one for my next lens.
 

kr2t0s

Member
I've shot JPG my whole life. I'm not really comfortable in post processing scenarios - I strive to take the shot as good as I can and not rely on other factors.

That being said - I picked up a GX1 not too long ago and the JPG's just aren't that great. I'm thinking of either selling it or trying to enter the world of RAW...and I'm scared of RAW.

If I sold it I would pick up an OMD - but even with that, I might be better off learning how to deal with RAW. But like I said - I'm scared.

Right now all of my photos are in iPhoto 11 - should I get aperture? Lightroom? Is it going to be a hassle moving my library from one to the other?

And once I'm all setup - how do I go about processing in RAW? I'm scared - hold my hand gently and tell me I'm special
 

sneaky77

Member
I've shot JPG my whole life. I'm not really comfortable in post processing scenarios - I strive to take the shot as good as I can and not rely on other factors.

That being said - I picked up a GX1 not too long ago and the JPG's just aren't that great. I'm thinking of either selling it or trying to enter the world of RAW...and I'm scared of RAW.

If I sold it I would pick up an OMD - but even with that, I might be better off learning how to deal with RAW. But like I said - I'm scared.

Right now all of my photos are in iPhoto 11 - should I get aperture? Lightroom? Is it going to be a hassle moving my library from one to the other?

And once I'm all setup - how do I go about processing in RAW? I'm scared - hold my hand gently and tell me I'm special

Don't be scared of RAW, after the first initial thing of making the jump is really not too bad. I was at that same scenario a couple yrs ago.
It will be worth it, specially if there is a photo you try to recover.

The jpg you get is just the auto conversion in the camera itself from raw to jpg so you may need to change the default settings if you want to stick to that
 
Right now all of my photos are in iPhoto 11 - should I get aperture? Lightroom? Is it going to be a hassle moving my library from one to the other?

If you just switch the camera to shooting RAW, and do nothing else, you'll get iPhoto's RAW processing instead of your camera's. This may improve things (or make them worse) without any other work (though you can obviously dive much further).

After you play around with what iPhoto offers, get the trials of Aperture and Lightroom and see what you think.

Aperture and iPhoto now share the same library, so that transition is fairly painless.
 

mrkgoo

Member
I've shot JPG my whole life. I'm not really comfortable in post processing scenarios - I strive to take the shot as good as I can and not rely on other factors.

That being said - I picked up a GX1 not too long ago and the JPG's just aren't that great. I'm thinking of either selling it or trying to enter the world of RAW...and I'm scared of RAW.

If I sold it I would pick up an OMD - but even with that, I might be better off learning how to deal with RAW. But like I said - I'm scared.

Right now all of my photos are in iPhoto 11 - should I get aperture? Lightroom? Is it going to be a hassle moving my library from one to the other?

And once I'm all setup - how do I go about processing in RAW? I'm scared - hold my hand gently and tell me I'm special

I was in the same boat - didn,t move off jpeg for years. It wasn't out of fear,though. I wanted to get it right in camera, and all that training did pay off. That said, I do wish someof the great pics I took back then were in raw....haha.

Anyway, d not fear it. It is the modern way, and the best way to get the most our of your images. The flexibility is amazing. Shots can be saved from the brink of destruction. Colours and curves can be way better than you ever imagined. White balance is a thing of the past.

Seriously, RAW is amazing. It actually makes post-processing easier. Lots of presets and one-clicks these days. But really, it,s like moving from auto mode on your camera to manual. Camera Joel is just letting the camera decide how to process your data. Raw is giving you the option to do it yourself.

And like you, I moved from iPhoto. In fact I got aperture and switched to raw at the same time. Note that iPhoto does RAW as well, but it handles the export of the, a little differently. If you enjoy iPhoto you will like Aperture. I find the engine for processing not quite as good as even
Canon's default, but the storage and management options are awesome. Lightroom probably has better tools, but I imagine the organisational tools and integration aren't as compelling.

But both are fine, I suspect.

Do it. If you feel you're ready, then you are. the best thing about photography is that the learning curve extends forever. Every now and again there's a big leap of learning and moving to RAw is one of them.
 
I was in the same boat - didn,t move off jpeg for years. It wasn't out of fear,though. I wanted to get it right in camera, and all that training did pay off. That said, I do wish someof the great pics I took back then were in raw....haha.

Anyway, d not fear it. It is the modern way, and the best way to get the most our of your images. The flexibility is amazing. Shots can be saved from the brink of destruction. Colours and curves can be way better than you ever imagined. White balance is a thing of the past.

Seriously, RAW is amazing. It actually makes post-processing easier. Lots of presets and one-clicks these days. But really, it,s like moving from auto mode on your camera to manual. Camera Joel is just letting the camera decide how to process your data. Raw is giving you the option to do it yourself.

And like you, I moved from iPhoto. In fact I got aperture and switched to raw at the same time. Note that iPhoto does RAW as well, but it handles the export of the, a little differently. If you enjoy iPhoto you will like Aperture. I find the engine for processing not quite as good as even
Canon's default, but the storage and management options are awesome. Lightroom probably has better tools, but I imagine the organisational tools and integration aren't as compelling.

But both are fine, I suspect.

Do it. If you feel you're ready, then you are. the best thing about photography is that the learning curve extends forever. Every now and again there's a big leap of learning and moving to RAw is one of them.

It's amazing how true this statement is. Makes the hobby a blast.
 

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
I was in the same boat - didn,t move off jpeg for years. It wasn't out of fear,though. I wanted to get it right in camera, and all that training did pay off. That said, I do wish someof the great pics I took back then were in raw....haha.

Anyway, d not fear it. It is the modern way, and the best way to get the most our of your images. The flexibility is amazing. Shots can be saved from the brink of destruction. Colours and curves can be way better than you ever imagined. White balance is a thing of the past.

Seriously, RAW is amazing. It actually makes post-processing easier. Lots of presets and one-clicks these days. But really, it,s like moving from auto mode on your camera to manual. Camera Joel is just letting the camera decide how to process your data. Raw is giving you the option to do it yourself.

And like you, I moved from iPhoto. In fact I got aperture and switched to raw at the same time. Note that iPhoto does RAW as well, but it handles the export of the, a little differently. If you enjoy iPhoto you will like Aperture. I find the engine for processing not quite as good as even
Canon's default, but the storage and management options are awesome. Lightroom probably has better tools, but I imagine the organisational tools and integration aren't as compelling.

But both are fine, I suspect.

Do it. If you feel you're ready, then you are. the best thing about photography is that the learning curve extends forever. Every now and again there's a big leap of learning and moving to RAw is one of them.
yea it does. I just blew my coworkers mind with diffraction. We were talking about his recent vacation (he rented canons 70-200f4 and loved it) and I was showing him a poster i had printed thats hanging on my cube wall, and he asked me the specs of the shot. Basically infinity at f22 and we started talking about what aperture to use on his 60D, saying it would be diffraction limited probably around f11 or so and he was like diffraction? And down the rabbit hole he went.


Shoot raw, don't be afraid of it and learn to process them. I would also recommend Luminous landscapes camera to print and screen, it's really fantastic. They go over how to do things in photoshop and lightroom. They also have one on just lightroom, but I haven't bought that one yet.
 

Represent.

Represent(ative) of bad opinions
Im going to college in the fall and the camera they are using is the nikon D7000, would love to hear some thoughts from those who use that camera? Im coming from shooting mostly jpeg with a canon t3i. firgured its basically going from a t3i to a canon 7D?
 

Flo_Evans

Member
Im going to college in the fall and the camera they are using is the nikon D7000, would love to hear some thoughts from those who use that camera? Im coming from shooting mostly jpeg with a canon t3i. firgured its basically going from a t3i to a canon 7D?

Not quite?

7D is considered equal to the D300 on the nikon side.

D7000 has a newer sensor/AF system but the AF system is not as "good" as the D300. D300 is a bigger body, more external controls, bugger frame buffer.

D7000 is more like a canon 60D imho.
 

mrkgoo

Member
It's amazing how true this statement is. Makes the hobby a blast.

yea it does. I just blew my coworkers mind with diffraction. We were talking about his recent vacation (he rented canons 70-200f4 and loved it) and I was showing him a poster i had printed thats hanging on my cube wall, and he asked me the specs of the shot. Basically infinity at f22 and we started talking about what aperture to use on his 60D, saying it would be diffraction limited probably around f11 or so and he was like diffraction? And down the rabbit hole he went.


Shoot raw, don't be afraid of it and learn to process them. I would also recommend Luminous landscapes camera to print and screen, it's really fantastic. They go over how to do things in photoshop and lightroom. They also have one on just lightroom, but I haven't bought that one yet.
Thts the awesome thing with the state of modern photography. It's so ubiquitous everyone has a camera and even the seasoned can learn from someone else.

I consider another of the leaps in learnin to e flash photography.
 
I've shot JPG my whole life. I'm not really comfortable in post processing scenarios - I strive to take the shot as good as I can and not rely on other factors.

That being said - I picked up a GX1 not too long ago and the JPG's just aren't that great. I'm thinking of either selling it or trying to enter the world of RAW...and I'm scared of RAW.

If I sold it I would pick up an OMD - but even with that, I might be better off learning how to deal with RAW. But like I said - I'm scared.

Right now all of my photos are in iPhoto 11 - should I get aperture? Lightroom? Is it going to be a hassle moving my library from one to the other?

And once I'm all setup - how do I go about processing in RAW? I'm scared - hold my hand gently and tell me I'm special

Lightroom 4 is $80 and once you put together a preset you like, you can have the camera automatically apply to all your RAWs. Easy peasy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom