Camera Pros

[ten ocho recon scout]

Imagine if doug masters had a gopro in iron eagle, tank...

[Tank]

i'm pretty sure chappie would kicked his butt for that, ocho.

[nate]

Base model go pro is amazing.  When you compare the higher models the feature differences are pretty clear(like 4K).  If you want to spend the extra money for them then it can't hurt.  

 

Costco also carries them at a decent price.  Amazon is probably your best bet. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

So i dont need to get the silver or black version, the regular gopro is fine? I figure i wont even use it all that much anyway

 

[nate]

Yep, even the basic one is really great.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Is it worth it to get the one with the screen on the back or is it unnecessary?

[mrwicked]

i have a Nikon DSLR that is awesome, but they are bulky especially with all the lenses. i only take it on long trips like europe.

for smaller trips i have a Sony DSC-RX100 with zeiss lens. It's bad ass! Google them, they are super famous and amazing bang for the buck.

i'm not a pro by any means, but highly recommend those two.

no matter what, take a local photography class. we did one in an afternoon and learned a bunch. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

14 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Thanks for the replies.

Basically, the samsung camera i have is great for the normal vacation pics of me and whoever im with. My camera smartphone (galaxy 7) is really impressive. But i also do a lot of outdoors traveling. Red mentioned safaris, which is where i got totally let down with my samsung. The animals are ao far away, i ended up with like a wide shot of the background with a tiny spec of the animal somewhere in the shot. 

So im just looking for a camera that when i do another one of these outdlor trips that i can zoom in on something, like alaska (whenever i finally get there).

@doc,samsusamsung makes lenses for the line kf cameras mine is in, but i guess for my particular one it required a dumb adaptor. So figure 250 or so to get a zoom for my camera. If its a good enough zoom ill probably go that route, but if its meh, i can probably buy a real camera off ebay for the same price.

In this case I would probably get a legit dslr / mirrorless camera and then rent high quality glass when I needed it. For something like a safari you would like to be using a lens in the $2-4k range, You could get away with cheaper but how often are you going on these things? Why not use the best tool? You can pair the camera with a cheaper, all-purpose lens for all those other times as well.

 

[red321]

15 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/nx-cameras/EV-NXF1ZZB1IGB

 

http://www.newtechnology.co.in/samsung-nx-mini-price/

 

Thats the current camera i have. The second link shows the zoom lens. If that takes pictures like a superzoom/dslr camera, thats fine. I dont need anything top of the line by any stretch, just something i can zoom in with.

Unfortunately a lot of my vacations i didnt have anything other than my phone, and figure this goes back to like the first and third galaxies, iphone 4 etc...great pics on my phone, but not great when printed. 

And when i have tried to shoot animals, theyre pretty crappy

 

So, looking at the sensor size of that camera...it may be 21mp, but it's a small sensor, so it's going to have a lot of noise in low light conditions. That camera is designed to be a snapshot model and not much else.

Looking purely at MP is kind of false advertising. If you have a small sensor with high MP you end up with lots of digital noise. I'm a little confused looking at what you linked, it looks like it doesn't really have a zoom, unless you consider 27mm the zoom (with the size of that sensor it's the equivalent of 70mm or so). So really that's not a zoom. Adding an adapter and other lenses is always tricky, usually there is an additional drop off of light, so you lose a step or two (so, instead of shooting at 1/100 of a second, you would be shooting at 1/50th or 1/25 of a second...which means you are going to have issues at the high end of the zoom range with stabilization). As I mentioned earlier, to handhold a shot you really should be shooting at 1/X with X = the zoom range with a an additional step or two thrown in there if there is good image stabilization.

 

 

ALF makes a good suggestion, to get a quality zoom lens a) you need to have a quality camera and b ) it costs a lot of friggen money so unless you are using it on a regular basis...or have money to burn...buying quality glass doesn't make a lot of sense. You can always rent it for your dream trip to Alaska.

You get what you pay for, a consumer zoom lens is going to be soft and you aren't going to get your National Geographic wildlife photos. With the camera you flagged and the zoom associated with it....you won't be getting those wildlife photos you are imagining regardless. Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it...just make sure you are being realistic.

Personally, I'd rather spend the money on a quality body and 24-70 type of lens that you can then grow with if you want. An entry level dslr or mirrorless that if you decide you want to invest more money in you can buy better lenses. In the future when you buy a newer model of the camera, you get to still use the lenses. I've used my Canon lenses on 3 different versions of the camera. Hell, personally I'm thinking of returning the ultra-wide zoom and upgrading to a better normal range zoom lens because that is really what I use the most on my new Fuji gear.

Mirrorless means there is no mirror so you either have an electric viewfinder or a live view screen on the back...dslr has a mirror that projects the lens image to the viewfinder and then you press the shutter the mirror moves out of the way. The lack of a mirror allows the camera to be smaller.

 

 

[ten ocho recon scout]

Gotcha, nice breakdown. So for realistic purposes, having a camera just for the occasional vacation with outdkor, longer range than what i have now shooting, the run of the mill dslr from target (or used off ebay) is fine? Red, would you suggest dslr with only the stock zoom lens over the superzoom camera range?

[red321]

Yes, a standard dslr from target or ebay would be fine. Though I would give serious consideration to the mirrorless from Olympus, Fuji, or Sony. Smaller cameras (less of a hassle to take with you...meaning you take more photos), smaller/cheaper lenses, and less money....but the quality is right up there with dslr's (outside of the professional full frame models...and even then a lot of professionals are making the switch).

I can't really answer the stock zoom vs. superzoom...that really is up to you...but my view is that most people just don't have the need for a superzoom outside of saying...wow...that's cool. But photos they'll actually look at, share, use...will most likely come from normal the 24-70 range...maybe go up to 135. Most of the time my $1500 Canon f4/5.6 100-400L IS sits in it's bag at home, or if I lug it around with me I ask myself at the end of the day...why the fuck did I carry this heavy ass lens I didn't use. The last time I used it was to photograph folks surfing down in Carlsbad. Didn't even consider taking it with me to Europe (though I did bring an old Canon 70-200 which I used for a handful of shots because I didn't feel like trespassing).

A tip I was reading the other day when I was deciding what lens to add to my new kit...go look at the exif data from your photos and see what you normally shoot at, or what your favorite shots are. That will tell you what your preference is. If most of your shots are at the max zoom range of your current lens...than investing in a bigger zoom might not be a bad idea. If most of your shots are in the normal/middle range of your current lens...than consider a better lens in that range or save your money and go to craft and vision and buy a few $5 ebooks on learning how take better photos...if most of your shots are in the wide angle/lower range of your lens...than consider getting a wide angle (that would usually be in the 10-24mm range).

[ten ocho recon scout]

camerareview/nikon-coolpix-p600-review/

What do you think red? I read a few good reviews of this one, and found some ised ones on ebay for just under $200

[red321]

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/camerareview/nikon-coolpix-p600-review/

Is that the review you are referring to?

That appears to be a fixed lens consumer camera about 2+ years old. For a few hundred more you can probably get something in a similar vein that is based on newer technology. If price is a top concern than the nikon probably works...though don't be surprised if you start looking around for a new camera in a year or two.

http://www.cnet.com/topics/cameras/buying-guide/ has a good breakdown on camera types and solid cameras for each type.

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

On June 1, 2016 at 5:36 PM, red321 said:

Yes, a standard dslr from target or ebay would be fine. Though I would give serious consideration to the mirrorless from Olympus, Fuji, or Sony. Smaller cameras (less of a hassle to take with you...meaning you take more photos), smaller/cheaper lenses, and less money....but the quality is right up there with dslr's (outside of the professional full frame models...and even then a lot of professionals are making the switch).

I can't really answer the stock zoom vs. superzoom...that really is up to you...but my view is that most people just don't have the need for a superzoom outside of saying...wow...that's cool. But photos they'll actually look at, share, use...will most likely come from normal the 24-70 range...maybe go up to 135. Most of the time my $1500 Canon f4/5.6 100-400L IS sits in it's bag at home, or if I lug it around with me I ask myself at the end of the day...why the fuck did I carry this heavy ass lens I didn't use. The last time I used it was to photograph folks surfing down in Carlsbad. Didn't even consider taking it with me to Europe (though I did bring an old Canon 70-200 which I used for a handful of shots because I didn't feel like trespassing).

A tip I was reading the other day when I was deciding what lens to add to my new kit...go look at the exif data from your photos and see what you normally shoot at, or what your favorite shots are. That will tell you what your preference is. If most of your shots are at the max zoom range of your current lens...than investing in a bigger zoom might not be a bad idea. If most of your shots are in the normal/middle range of your current lens...than consider a better lens in that range or save your money and go to craft and vision and buy a few $5 ebooks on learning how take better photos...if most of your shots are in the wide angle/lower range of your lens...than consider getting a wide angle (that would usually be in the 10-24mm range).

How do you like the Fuji X system? I've thought about renting a mirrorless and carrying it around for a week to test it out. So far I can't quite come around on jumping ship from canon.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Looking at the sony doc mentioned as well, its about 100 more on ebay. But then i think id need to buy seperate lenses for it too, and they dont look cheap. Mainly looking just to buy one i can bring for the odd vacation i actually need a better zoom for outdoors. Other than that, my phone and current camera are fine.

[red321]

8 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

How do you like the Fuji X system? I've thought about renting a mirrorless and carrying it around for a week to test it out. So far I can't quite come around on jumping ship from canon.

Really liking it so far. I picked it up in June and my Canon gear has pretty much stayed home since. Even toyed with the consideration of selling some of it. Love the fact it is so much smaller and lighter...40 pounds of gear became 15 on my last trip with a bag 1/3 of the size. Yes, it's 16.3mp instead of 23, and a cropped sensor as compared to my full frame Canon, but that really isn't going to make a huge difference when you consider I'm more likely to have the camera with me. 

Pluses

Great lens selection (and much cheaper than my canon lenses), Fuji handles color brilliantly, lighter and more convenient (which also translates to using a lighter tripod), and with adapters I can use my canon lenses, including some older FD lenses, works well at the higher ISO range...Fuji is also committed to upgrading the firmware so I can expect more features in the future. If you are a JPG shooter the Fuji film simulation is fantastic. You can also use the film simulation profiles in lightroom.

Areas for improvement

Still struggling with the AF a little, lightroom struggles with Fuji raw files still, they are a little soft, Electronic viewfinder is a battery killer. I have been playing around with using Capture One for raw processing, I ran some test files and was happy with the results.

 

If you are going to look at mirrorless I would also look at Olympus and Sony. Olympus has a broad lens selection and my understanding is they have a great AF system. Sony a7 series looks incredible as well (but pricier).

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

15 hours ago, red321 said:

Really liking it so far. I picked it up in June and my Canon gear has pretty much stayed home since. Even toyed with the consideration of selling some of it. Love the fact it is so much smaller and lighter...40 pounds of gear became 15 on my last trip with a bag 1/3 of the size. Yes, it's 16.3mp instead of 23, and a cropped sensor as compared to my full frame Canon, but that really isn't going to make a huge difference when you consider I'm more likely to have the camera with me. 

Pluses

Great lens selection (and much cheaper than my canon lenses), Fuji handles color brilliantly, lighter and more convenient (which also translates to using a lighter tripod), and with adapters I can use my canon lenses, including some older FD lenses, works well at the higher ISO range...Fuji is also committed to upgrading the firmware so I can expect more features in the future. If you are a JPG shooter the Fuji film simulation is fantastic. You can also use the film simulation profiles in lightroom.

Areas for improvement

Still struggling with the AF a little, lightroom struggles with Fuji raw files still, they are a little soft, Electronic viewfinder is a battery killer. I have been playing around with using Capture One for raw processing, I ran some test files and was happy with the results.

 

If you are going to look at mirrorless I would also look at Olympus and Sony. Olympus has a broad lens selection and my understanding is they have a great AF system. Sony a7 series looks incredible as well (but pricier).

 

 I find myself constantly pairing my gear down when I go out shooting. I do feel sort of awkward being the guy with the big camera, or the heavy bag. With a mirrorless I'm sure I'd have the camera with me more often than I do now.

That said, there are certain limitations that I'm not completely ready to deal with. I do a lot of assorted freelance multimedia work for clients and there is a certain level of reliability and quality associated with full frame dslrs that you just can't get in mirrorless. The Sony A7 series is working to solve these issues, but shooting with an A7s last year I found that I wasn't saving any significant amount of weight. The thing is friggin expensive too, and I just can't justify rolling with two systems.

I think I'm probably just waiting for an a7s/r III to get a price cut when they release a 4th model. Considering that they just came out with the second models I'll probably be waiting awhile. I would love to have one of the Fuji models as a walk around camera. It'd be a no brainer if I felt I could reliably replace my canon gear.

[red321]

What do you consider the limitations?

Can't speak to your specific industry and type of work...but I know when I did an environmental shoot a few weeks ago I brought both my canon and fuji gear. When I pulled out the fuji gear for a set of shots their expression changed...I had to reassure them and take the same set of shots with the canon...and sent them the fuji and they loved them and couldn't tell the difference. I'm sure there is a lot of perception bias...just like there used to be for film and compared to digital. Over time I think you will see that start to change. For the type of stuff I do, there really isn't all that much of a difference. I'll still take out the canon full frame stuff when doing large landscape work, at least for now, but I certainly take the fuji with me a lot more than I do the canon...and it has me thinking about projects I wasn't considering before (especially as it relates to urban and street photography). I know my next backpacking trip, I'll be carrying the fuji.

I was looking at the fuji x100t this morning to go even lighter for walking around. The fixed 23mm (35mm equivalent) is supposed to be fantastic and as a lightweight carry around camera it's supposed to evoke memories of the old Leica's.

[AngelsLakersFan]

18 hours ago, red321 said:

What do you consider the limitations?

 

When I do events I worry about low light performance, autofocus ability and battery life, potentially FPS. For long gigs I also worry about the form factor.

I also do some portraiture style work with strobe lights. Have you used any mirrorless with off camera flash? I'm not sure if there is any issue here, but it's definitely a situation where I'm ok with the bigger form factor of full frame and big lenses. I haven't played around enough with APS-C sensors for photography (it's fairly standard in video) to determine how significant the quality difference is between that and full frame.

Obviously it's all tradeoffs between quality, size and price. I dabble in so many different specialties that no one camera is perfect for me, but Im excited by a lot of these mirrorless offerings and where they might be heading. I really just need to make more money :-) equipment is so expensive it's hard to justify a lot of it, lol.

[red321]

I haven't used the fuji with flash yet. It's not something I do much of, and I have the canon gear if the need arises. From what I've read that is the next big area for Fuji to focus on, building a flash system. I think you can piece together from various components, but it doesn't have a native a speedlight system ala canon or nikon. I've read about people using yongnuo with transceivers, so I don't think it's a non starter, just something that has to be researched.

I took a lot of shots within dark churches on my last trip, haven't really dug in to the photos all that closely, but at first glance the noise level wasn't too bad, some minimal noise reduction in LR. This was shot handheld at ISO 1600 f/5 1/18s, shot in RAW so I was able to get a decent dynamic range and pull back some of the shadows and highlights.

 

I understand the cost factor...I just returned the wide angle I bought and will replace it with a prime (or maybe something with a bit more reach). Fuji is having a big sale right now...maybe I'll just rebuy the lens I returned since it is $300 cheaper.

I'm also discovering these mirrorless are great for re-purposing vintage lenses with the use of a 15-20 adapter. I just picked up a Helios 44 and am scouring e-bay for old prime lenses.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Alright, thread update.

For starters, i grabbed a gopro 4black awhile back. i havent a used it a ton, but used it undereater recently and got exactly what i was looking for. if anyone is looking to grab one, im very satisfied.

Second, just got back from black friday shopping. red and doc (and alf or anyone else who knows more than the average bear), i got a great deal on the cannon rebel t6 (package with extra lenses). 

Then i went to best buy, and ended up buying the sony a6000 package with extra lenses. it was about 200 more, but i remember doc had mentioned the sony mirrorless being the way to go.

So is the sony the one i should keep? i know its smaller, but aside from that, will the performance/pic quality be about the same? i can always return one (or both)

 

[red321]

I'm not really familiar with either of those. They both grade out ok on dpreview.

I did some quick research, it looks like the a6 is an older model while the t6 is a bit newer. I don't put a lot of stock in kit lenses provided with entry level cameras. They are fine for snapshots, but tend to be slower and soft. Then again, my needs are different than others.

In general entry level cameras are just that. If you are using it for snapshots both entry level cameras will be just fine for that. Both will let you add new lenses and those lenses would move to a newer camera in a few years (you have to check on the Sony, I think those tie in to the rest of their mirrorless line). Side note...on the canon lenses you have to check, I think they have an EF-S line of lenses that only work on cropped sensor cameras so those won't necessarily jump to future Canon models if they don't accept the EF-S mount.

For a snapshot camera for me it comes down to, the best camera is the one you have in your hand...and the sony is probably smaller and easier to carry around, therefore you are more likely to take it with you.

 

Oh, and another note on bundled camera deals. You really need to take a close look at the bundle, especially if they are tossing in free batteries, tripods, bags, memory cards, etc. Usually those extra components are generic/3rd party items...cheaply made and overpriced. If you break down the cost item by item, you usually find out you are better off just getting the camera and lenses. A cheap tripod is a waste of money. 3rd party batteries tend to have limited working life. A bad memory card can destroy a vacation (seriously, spend the extra $10 and buy a SanDisk or Lexar).

[AngelsLakersFan]

Really good points red. I'm not really a fan of the rebel line as it does just about everything my 6D does, just in a way that isn't up to my standards. That said, if you play around with it and find you like the form factor, ergonomics and general shooting performance better than the a6000 you may want to focus on investing in the canon system - just avoid the EF-S lenses.

The a6000 is generally the same deal just coming from the mirrorless perspective. So ya, I'd play with them both and see which you like better shooting wise, more so than image quality.

[ten ocho recon scout]

So ive been using my a6000. Like it a lot. Still dont knoe how to use it how its intended, really need to take a class.

Id like to pick up a second camera now for underwater shooting. The underwater cases are insanely expensive. And im hesitant to risk my sony underwater. (I saw a woman flood her camera last year).

So my plan is to go with a "cheaper", maybe used older model dslr. I wouldnt (likely) use it a ton, just for the times i go in the water. That way if i screw up, i dont ruin my good camera.

The gopro is great for video, but for stills not so much. Anyone have suggestions for where to find more affordable water housings? I found some on amazon...but they seem cheap...and i dont want to flood the camera.

[red321]

Most of those housings are expensive for dslrs, might be better to look at a point and shoot type, housings for those tend to be cheaper. Though, maybe you could pick up a used one for an older dSLR cheaper. Really depends on what you are trying to capture. My brief experience with underwater photography was the camera needed to be fairly good at auto and low light...not easy to futz around with settings underwater and you don't have a lot of light to play with.