UER Mobile Forum UER Mobile - Not logged in
Home  Search   User Search   Login  Register  
Messages   New Posts   Favourites   Recent Posts   Recent Views   My LDB   My Buddies  

< (1-20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)[27](28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)>
UER Mobile > UE Photography > The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread (Viewed 387869 times)

post by crazy-with-a-camera   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 520 on 4/18/2013 11:24 PM >

Any camera is a pipe dream for now, unless I want to put it on plastic. Being that auto focus only is the main reason I don't like my current camera I don't know how much an auto focus motor in the body matters to me. Looking at the feature list the 5100 has more features than I figure I will use buy I will look into the 7000. What are the other big differences between the two? A professional photographer friend says they would both be great, he uses a 7000 though.


Reply with Quote


post by Byberrian Fanman   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 521 on 4/19/2013 12:11 AM >

The D7000 also has better build quality and is weather sealed.


Reply with Quote


post by budda   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 522 on 4/19/2013 2:31 PM >

Posted by Byberrian Fanman

I can only assume you've been using the shit kit lenses?




the shit lens, and a Nikon 10-24 at my previous job. Both took about 1-2 full seconds to focus in broad daylight hooked up to the super shitty D5000.

[last edit 4/19/2013 2:32 PM by budda - edited 1 times]

Reply with Quote


post by Byberrian Fanman   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 523 on 4/19/2013 4:05 PM >

Posted by budda

the shit lens, and a Nikon 10-24 at my previous job. Both took about 1-2 full seconds to focus in broad daylight hooked up to the super shitty D5000.

I'm not at all surprised by the shit lens. I'm only slightly surprised by the 10-24.. in my opinion, it's rather mediocre.



[last edit 4/19/2013 4:05 PM by Byberrian Fanman - edited 1 times]

Reply with Quote


post by jovialhavoc   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 524 on 4/22/2013 2:19 AM >

Posted by budda


the shit lens, and a Nikon 10-24 at my previous job. Both took about 1-2 full seconds to focus in broad daylight hooked up to the super shitty D5000.


Even with the 10-24? I find the SWM to be waaaay better than the kits, havent had any problems focusing. That being said I think the AF-S in the low end 55-200 is painfully slow, especially in low light.


Reply with Quote


post by budda   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 525 on 4/22/2013 5:36 AM >

I honestly don't have that much experience with nikon besides the 3 lenses just discussed. I ended up with a used D40x a few years ago and hated it until picking up a Pentax K-r.


Reply with Quote


post by randomesquephoto   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 526 on 4/22/2013 5:55 AM >

Posted by budda
I honestly don't have that much experience with nikon besides the 3 lenses just discussed. I ended up with a used D40x a few years ago and hated it until picking up a Pentax K-r.


pentax! not enough people use pentax. If you want a wonderful camera experience and great image quality. Plus. Amazing backwards kens compatibility. Buy. Pentax.


Reply with Quote


post by budda   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 527 on 4/22/2013 6:01 AM >

I agree! Although the A/F system is more problematic in low light than I expected, and I had a defective E-dial that had to be fixed (btw, they're customer service is legendary good. Had my camera back to me in 14 days) I love my camera so much. I regularly shoot bands with it at 3600+ iso and get great results.

Also it was the old lenses that got me into pentax. I had amassed some K mount film gear and wanted to keep using my Sigma 35-70 F2.8, so I got the K-r. I've never regretted it. Pentax cameras are also one of the few digitals that can survive the high trigger voltages of old flashes. I read you can very easily and almost instantly fry a canon with any ebay flash, but my K-r takes whatever obnoxiously outdated gear I can find, and survives somewhat professional use with it.

[last edit 4/22/2013 6:02 AM by budda - edited 2 times]

Reply with Quote


post by anatonic   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 528 on 4/22/2013 8:16 AM >

Posted by budda
I agree! Although the A/F system is more problematic in low light than I expected, and I had a defective E-dial that had to be fixed (btw, they're customer service is legendary good. Had my camera back to me in 14 days) I love my camera so much. I regularly shoot bands with it at 3600+ iso and get great results.


Why are you shooting at 3600? My camera performs amazingly at high isos as well but id only isos anything above 1600 to meter a shot. I understand if youre only displaying online but what if a band wanted a print? Do you have any faster lenses?


Reply with Quote


post by budda   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 529 on 4/22/2013 10:43 AM >

yeah I use a 1.4, but my autofocus system just flat out doesn't work in low light. All it does is search, and miss, and I find myself shooting manual more often than not. So shooting faster than F2.8-4 isn't gonna happen. I usually go as low as I can Iso-wise, but the K-r's powerful enough that I can crank the iso a bit and still get high quality images. I'll take some grain over 500 hopelessly out of focus images.


Reply with Quote


post by budda   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 530 on 4/22/2013 10:43 AM >

yeah I use a 1.4, but my autofocus system just flat out doesn't work in low light. All it does is search, and miss, and I find myself shooting manual more often than not. So shooting faster than F2.8-4 isn't gonna happen. I usually go as low as I can Iso-wise, but the K-r's powerful enough that I can crank the iso a bit and still get high quality images. I'll take some grain over 500 hopelessly out of focus images.


Reply with Quote


post by anatonic   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 531 on 4/22/2013 10:58 AM >

Posted by budda
yeah I use a 1.4, but my autofocus system just flat out doesn't work in low light. All it does is search, and miss, and I find myself shooting manual more often than not. So shooting faster than F2.8-4 isn't gonna happen. I usually go as low as I can Iso-wise, but the K-r's powerful enough that I can crank the iso a bit and still get high quality images. I'll take some grain over 500 hopelessly out of focus images.


Are you sure its a focus issue and not camera shake? Changing the aperture shouldn't affect your AF systems ability to lock your subject.But I guess your right id rather grain over blur as well ;)


Reply with Quote


post by budda   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 532 on 4/22/2013 11:12 AM >

No it's not motion blur. It just straight up does not like to focus in low light situations. Anything really besides direct sunlight sends it hunting. There's parts of the photos that come in focus. Just never a face, or a guitar or anything I actually wanted in focus. Usually just the microphone stand, background lights, and other random bodyparts. At 3000 iso, I'm shooting around 1/60 at F3.5. A comfortable range for both dof and shutter speed. The grain just isn't a problem. Especially not shooting bands who 99% of the time just throw the images on Reverbnation or facebook and call it done. Until I can make money for the next level up Pentax with an updated AF system, it's just gonna be a bit of a balancing act.

Also I think my system's working out fairly well.


_IGP5868 by itsbudda, on Flickr




Reply with Quote


post by budda   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 533 on 4/22/2013 11:14 AM >

No it's not motion blur. It just straight up does not like to focus in low light situations. Anything really besides direct sunlight sends it hunting. The photos usually have at least something sharp, but never what I want. Never a face, or a guitar or anything like that. Usually just the microphone stand, background lights, and other random bodyparts. At 3000 iso, I'm shooting around 1/60 at F3.5. A comfortable range for both dof and shutter speed. The grain just isn't a problem. Especially not shooting bands who 99% of the time just throw the images on Reverbnation or facebook and call it done. Until I can make money for the next level up Pentax with an updated AF system, it's just gonna be a bit of a balancing act.

Also I think my system's working out fairly well. If I tried to manual focus this at F1.4 instead of 4.5, I'd have probably missed.


_IGP5868 by itsbudda, on Flickr



[last edit 4/22/2013 11:19 AM by budda - edited 1 times]

Reply with Quote


post by budda   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 534 on 4/22/2013 11:45 AM >

doublederppost

[last edit 4/22/2013 11:46 AM by budda - edited 1 times]

Reply with Quote


post by jovialhavoc   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 535 on 4/22/2013 3:20 PM >

Posted by budda
No it's not motion blur. It just straight up does not like to focus in low light situations. Anything really besides direct sunlight sends it hunting. The photos usually have at least something sharp, but never what I want. Never a face, or a guitar or anything like that. Usually just the microphone stand, background lights, and other random bodyparts. At 3000 iso, I'm shooting around 1/60 at F3.5. A comfortable range for both dof and shutter speed. The grain just isn't a problem. Especially not shooting bands who 99% of the time just throw the images on Reverbnation or facebook and call it done. Until I can make money for the next level up Pentax with an updated AF system, it's just gonna be a bit of a balancing act.

Also I think my system's working out fairly well. If I tried to manual focus this at F1.4 instead of 4.5, I'd have probably missed.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8123/8630061649_aea83a50ae_c.jpg
_IGP5868 by itsbudda, on Flickr




Damn dude! Thats at 3600? Amazing quality at that high of an ISO... I am really impressed with that performance. Do you take that camera with you into abandonments, I feel like it would shine well there?


Reply with Quote


post by Keys   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 536 on 4/23/2013 5:23 AM >

Posted by jovialhavoc


Damn dude! Thats at 3600? Amazing quality at that high of an ISO... I am really impressed with that performance. Do you take that camera with you into abandonments, I feel like it would shine well there?


may want to consider the new canon 6d as well if concert and abandonments are your thing.....low light is insanely good for being an "entry" into full frame. I do both abandonmants and concert as well and shot this one at 6400 ISO





Reply with Quote


post by budda   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 537 on 4/23/2013 6:35 AM >

I totally would consider canon because they're the best at video, but I've already invested far too much in Pentax lenses to switch now. I'm waiting for Pentax to release their next camera. I'm hoping for full frame, but I trust it'll be a vast improvement either way.

[last edit 4/23/2013 6:37 AM by budda - edited 1 times]

Reply with Quote


post by budda   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 538 on 4/23/2013 4:21 PM >

Posted by jovialhavoc


Damn dude! Thats at 3600? Amazing quality at that high of an ISO... I am really impressed with that performance. Do you take that camera with you into abandonments, I feel like it would shine well there?


I swear I responded to this and even hit post reply, but it didn't post lol. Anyway, yeah it's my primary exploring camera. Despite being entry level and one of the cheapest DSLRs on the market in 2010, it's a monster. The usability of high iso comes in handy the rare time I don't have a tripod. Otherwise it's almost always set at 100iso. I have gotten some neat shots that otherwise would have been impossible, and it really shines for journalism type stuff where you can give a little grain for a clear shot. As far as entry level-prosumer cameras go, you're gonna have a hard time beating Pentax. The new K30 ($6-700) is every bit as badass as the K-r and then some, and also with a super tough magnesium alloy body and weather sealing, which for UE is AWESOME. Even my plastic K-r has proven pretty indestructible so far. I'm sure If pentax goes full frame, it could probably compete with the D4 as a serious professional camera for thousands less.


This was at 8000iso.


And this one I took at 4000 accidentally at the top (forgot to reset iso. That tunnel was a grueling climb in 100° weather.) Not amazingly detailed, but at the same time, not terrible. It's only really grainy in dark spots.

Here's what it can REALLY do. Iso 250. You can clearly read even the fairly small signs. It's nuts. I love this camera.

Signals by itsbudda, on Flickr

[last edit 4/23/2013 4:38 PM by budda - edited 8 times]

Reply with Quote


post by jovialhavoc   |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 539 on 4/24/2013 2:35 AM >

Posted by budda


I swear I responded to this and even hit post reply, but it didn't post lol. Anyway, yeah it's my primary exploring camera. Despite being entry level and one of the cheapest DSLRs on the market in 2010, it's a monster. The usability of high iso comes in handy the rare time I don't have a tripod. Otherwise it's almost always set at 100iso. I have gotten some neat shots that otherwise would have been impossible, and it really shines for journalism type stuff where you can give a little grain for a clear shot. As far as entry level-prosumer cameras go, you're gonna have a hard time beating Pentax. The new K30 ($6-700) is every bit as badass as the K-r and then some, and also with a super tough magnesium alloy body and weather sealing, which for UE is AWESOME. Even my plastic K-r has proven pretty indestructible so far. I'm sure If pentax goes full frame, it could probably compete with the D4 as a serious professional camera for thousands less.


This was at 8000iso.
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i41/itsbudda/urban%20exploration/Place%202011/_IGP8677_1.jpg

And this one I took at 4000 accidentally at the top (forgot to reset iso. That tunnel was a grueling climb in 100° weather.) Not amazingly detailed, but at the same time, not terrible. It's only really grainy in dark spots. http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i41/itsbudda/urban%20exploration/Place%202011/_IGP8665_1_1.jpg

Here's what it can REALLY do. Iso 250. You can clearly read even the fairly small signs. It's nuts. I love this camera.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8326/8111554241_89df804a7a_c.jpg
Signals by itsbudda, on Flickr


Really impressive shots! I have never really heard a lot about Pentax but from what ive seen from you it is certainly something to consider! I have been thinking about making the jump to FX specifically because of the low light bonuses but the price point has always been a stickler for me. Right now I am at a toss up between the D5100 and the D7000.



Reply with Quote



Reply
< (1-20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)[27](28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)>


This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private.



187 ms gen time