Quantcast

The Camera thread, Bodies, Glass, Editing, Stills, Video, Software. All of it

What brands are monkeys using?

  • Sony

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Canon

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Nikon

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Panasonic/Lumix

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Fujifilm

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Olympus

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Leica

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hasselblad

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Gopro

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • Insta 360

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • Total voters
    11

gonefirefightin

free wieners
Whole reason I went to mirrorless is to get away from walking around with a 25lb bag of lenses everywhere I go. I found myself simply leaving my camera at home, then I bought an okay-ish point and shoot with manual exposure control and used the hell out of it, so I went to the M50 and it's a pretty nice middle ground. It also sets a nice artificial limit on how much I can spend and how deep down the rabbit hole I can go, with the EF shit I went from f4 zooms, to f2.8s, and then started buying primes, and ditched my 20d for a 1d, then a 1d mkii, etc, with the EF-M you can buy every single lens Canon makes and still not break the $2000 mark.

I still don't shoot as much as I'd like to, always struggle with either being a photographer or actually being "there" so I err on the side of paying attention rather than shooting pics, but I shoot a hell of a lot more now than I had been. Truth be told I should probably ditch the M50 and go to a G series, as the M still allows for a bit too much nerding out.
I used the M50 for a season due to its form factor and although it did its job for the purpose of light and nimble I opted for the a6600 to replace it and found the end product to be twice as what I expected, the dynamic range and color profiles were far superior and it is a monster for stills. Plus the APSC glass was significantly cheaper than the alternatives and actually had more usability for focal length and f stops.
 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
5,653
3,093
Whole reason I went to mirrorless is to get away from walking around with a 25lb bag of lenses everywhere I go. I found myself simply leaving my camera at home, then I bought an okay-ish point and shoot with manual exposure control and used the hell out of it, so I went to the M50 and it's a pretty nice middle ground. It also sets a nice artificial limit on how much I can spend and how deep down the rabbit hole I can go, with the EF shit I went from f4 zooms, to f2.8s, and then started buying primes, and ditched my 20d for a 1d, then a 1d mkii, etc, with the EF-M you can buy every single lens Canon makes and still not break the $2000 mark.

I still don't shoot as much as I'd like to, always struggle with either being a photographer or actually being "there" so I err on the side of paying attention rather than shooting pics, but I shoot a hell of a lot more now than I had been. Truth be told I should probably ditch the M50 and go to a G series, as the M still allows for a bit too much nerding out.
I see. Canon is about to kill off the M series rumors say. For me it is either cell phone or full frame. But I do a lot of wildlife photography, so there is a need for long lenses. Canon's new super zoom RF 24-240 looks like a nice one-lens travel setup.
 

maxyedor

<b>TOOL PRO</b>
Oct 20, 2005
5,496
3,141
In the bathroom, fighting a battle
I see. Canon is about to kill off the M series rumors say. For me it is either cell phone or full frame. But I do a lot of wildlife photography, so there is a need for long lenses. Canon's new super zoom RF 24-240 looks like a nice one-lens travel setup.
Would not doubt it, they sorta shot themselves in the foot by not allowing a mix of their consumer and pro level mirrorless systems like the EF and EF-S, if there were a way to grow into the system I'm sure it would have done better. It's a pretty kickass little camera, I love it with the 20mm pancake lens. It's also the "trail bike" of cameras, what most people really should be using, but somehow they're convinced they need pro-level gear to take a snap-shot of their kid at soccer practice. Buying into the M system means they can't easily transition into anything pro later on the way they could with the Rebel.
 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
5,653
3,093
Would not doubt it, they sorta shot themselves in the foot by not allowing a mix of their consumer and pro level mirrorless systems like the EF and EF-S, if there were a way to grow into the system I'm sure it would have done better. It's a pretty kickass little camera, I love it with the 20mm pancake lens. It's also the "trail bike" of cameras, what most people really should be using, but somehow they're convinced they need pro-level gear to take a snap-shot of their kid at soccer practice. Buying into the M system means they can't easily transition into anything pro later on the way they could with the Rebel.
I looked hard at the M series when I wanted to go mirrorless. But action and wildlife were not its strength. But for lifestyle, street and travel photography I think it is a great option. There is an adaptor for mounting EF lenses on the M body.
 

HardtailHack

used an iron once
Jan 20, 2009
6,745
5,638
I haven't been using my camera all that much of late, I am tossing up between going to a Pentax K3 Mk3 or getting the big Pentax 150-450mm lens later in the year when funds permit.
This was the first night of using my 15-30mm lens, it seems fine, had no real issues getting focus at night.
IMGP7513.jpg


f2.8 1/30th 640ISO
 

HardtailHack

used an iron once
Jan 20, 2009
6,745
5,638
Bought a used 300mm prime lens today.
The dude I got it from was doing what I should have done and changed teams to one that makes mirrorless cameras.
-4629513054382478948.jpg
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,312
7,738
Speaking of mirrorless cameras, the Canon RF mount bodies and lenses look sharp. Er, prime. I mean very nice albeit not much smaller than the non-mirrorless ones.

Anyway, in the medium term future I foresee myself with a lovely RF 85/1.2L, 135/1.8L IS (!), and a matching-quality body. Not the time to spend now, though.



edit: RF primes eventually to have in ye olde bag:

50/1.2L
85/1.2L
100/2.8 macro
135/1.8L
400/2.8L
one of the oddball fixed aperture 600 or 800/11 ones
 
Last edited:

HardtailHack

used an iron once
Jan 20, 2009
6,745
5,638
Speaking of mirrorless cameras, the Canon RF mount bodies and lenses look sharp. Er, prime. I mean very nice albeit not much smaller than the non-mirrorless ones.

Anyway, in the medium term future I foresee myself with a lovely RF 85/1.2L, 135/1.8L IS (!), and a matching-quality body. Not the time to spend now, though.
The guy I got my lens off went to a Canon Mirrorless something, people I know that have moved on from DSLRs seem to be going to Sony.
I've had a Fuji and Panasonic mirrorless and for me they were a much more sensible choice than a DSLR as my eyes are getting a bit shit, being able to have the centre of the viewfinder at 100% crop is awesome for manual focusing.
I'd imagine the newer EVFs would be much better than on the old cameras that I had.

Sensor cleaning time, hadn't done it for a few years.
-4249596385946483199.jpg
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,100
1,150
NC
Personally, I'm waiting around for Nikon's Z-mount consumer telephotos to arrive. Specifically I'd like a small 70-300mm, and the 300mm and 500mm PF primes. I have all three in F-mount but am looking forward to the day I can put the adapter in the back of my closet.

That's basically it for me. All the other lenses for the Z-mount that I want or would purchase in the near future already exist.

people I know that have moved on from DSLRs seem to be going to Sony
When I moved from Nikon F to Nikon Z, I looked at all of the other brands and almost switched to Sony. Their AF is better than anyone else's right now unless you pony up for one of the big pro bodies. At the end of the day, the thing that kept me in the Nikon camp was almost exclusively the small/light PF (phase fresnal) telephotos. For traveling and hiking, there's just nothing close to it in any of the other brands.

The new Canon 70-200 lenses are pretty nice in the way they collapse but that's not a focal length I use a lot.
 

HardtailHack

used an iron once
Jan 20, 2009
6,745
5,638
Personally, I'm waiting around for Nikon's Z-mount consumer telephotos to arrive. Specifically I'd like a small 70-300mm, and the 300mm and 500mm PF primes. I have all three in F-mount but am looking forward to the day I can put the adapter in the back of my closet.

That's basically it for me. All the other lenses for the Z-mount that I want or would purchase in the near future already exist.



When I moved from Nikon F to Nikon Z, I looked at all of the other brands and almost switched to Sony. Their AF is better than anyone else's right now unless you pony up for one of the big pro bodies. At the end of the day, the thing that kept me in the Nikon camp was almost exclusively the small/light PF (phase fresnal) telephotos. For traveling and hiking, there's just nothing close to it in any of the other brands.

The new Canon 70-200 lenses are pretty nice in the way they collapse but that's not a focal length I use a lot.
I'll have to look at the Nikons, I have only ever used one Nikon camera and I loved it, it was so intuitive to use.

I bought a 60-250mm lens(crop sensor) and it was a waste for me, pretty much just shoot super wide, 100mm macros at super tele but I can't afford the 150-450 Pentax lens so I got the 300 with a 1.5X convertor.
The big Pentax lens never gets sold used here, it sucks!
 

HardtailHack

used an iron once
Jan 20, 2009
6,745
5,638
Had a new 70mm prime turn up Monday, it had a pretty big spec of something in the front and an inner element was hazy.
The people that I got it from are either owned by or act as a broker and items come directly from the importer, this lens looked like it had been in storage for a while and had a medical stock sticker on the box.
Now I have to send it back, yay.

I think I am happy enough with the 300mm prime and a 1.4X so I don't need to get the 150-450 that I can't really afford.
My camera gets a bit noisy at 1600ISO, but for my wants this is acceptable.
1674647811285.png
 

stevew

resident influencer
Sep 21, 2001
40,591
9,599

HardtailHack

used an iron once
Jan 20, 2009
6,745
5,638
Ordered an Irix 150mm Macro lens, it seems like the only suitable lens for what I want to do, my 100mm macro always has the 1.4X on it.
1677406303791.png

Got a refund on the 70mm Pentax lens I bought because of the weird spots in it so the money is going in to this one.
Still not 100% happy with the new camera, I'm shooting with bracketing on all the time so it shoots one at 0 and one at -0.7 as it seem to over expose shots a bit. I'd like to be able to shoot a burst shooting with the two different exposures but it doesn't seem I can do that.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,100
1,150
NC
I'm shooting with bracketing on all the time so it shoots one at 0 and one at -0.7 as it seem to over expose shots a bit.
Different cameras meter slightly differently. I can't imagine shooting with bracketing on all the time, seems like an unnecessary increase in files you need to edit.

Do you shoot in raw?

I'd probably just start checking the histogram on your shots for a little while, if it's consistently 2/3 stop over what you like, then turn off bracketing and leave the exposure compensation on -0.7 (or some cameras actually have the option to adjust your zero exposure). I tend to leave mine on -0.3 for similar reasons.
 

HardtailHack

used an iron once
Jan 20, 2009
6,745
5,638
Different cameras meter slightly differently. I can't imagine shooting with bracketing on all the time, seems like an unnecessary increase in files you need to edit.

Do you shoot in raw?

I'd probably just start checking the histogram on your shots for a little while, if it's consistently 2/3 stop over what you like, then turn off bracketing and leave the exposure compensation on -0.7 (or some cameras actually have the option to adjust your zero exposure). I tend to leave mine on -0.3 for similar reasons.
Nah, I shoot in jpg and the only editing I do is cropping, editing is not for me.
I know there is lot more to found in a photo if you shoot in raw and pull up the shadows and and whatnot but I just don't care, I'm not going for perfection, just an okay natural looking shot.

This is at -0.7 and colours are set to flat but the saturation is a bit Instagrammy for me, previous camera was spot on.
IMGP2058 (2).jpg


EDIT- I still need to use the camera a lot more, it's a bit more complex than the last one and a bit less intuitive.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

HardtailHack

used an iron once
Jan 20, 2009
6,745
5,638
I have been bouncing around the net for hours looking for a camera bag and I have settled on a Tasmanian Tiger bag aimed at shooters.
It's a Tatonka bag and I like the sound of the company, open factory so anyone can go in to see how things happen and they supposedly do pretty much everything in house.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,100
1,150
NC
When I was shopping for an upgraded macro lens for Jenn, I found that the whole market of macro lenses has doubled in size (physical size, not market size) since the last one I bought (which was 15 years ago). The Nikon Z 105mm that we bought is an amazing piece of gear, but I couldn't believe how big the ~100mm range macro lenses have gotten.

Bag looks nice, I use a shoulder bag for storage but I just can't carry one out of the house - I find them awkward to walk around with. I almost always end up with a backpack for carrying gear. I have a very small sling bag that I got for free, which I occasionally use to carry an extra lens if that's all I need, but I don't really love it.
 
Last edited:

stevew

resident influencer
Sep 21, 2001
40,591
9,599
Screenshot_20230413_011613_Facebook.jpg


a fuji gfx 50r adapted to the back of a 3D printed goodman 4x5 camera with carbon fiber bellows....i think it is what he said...
 

konifere

Monkey
Dec 20, 2021
531
661
I'm still shooting a Canon Rebel T3i with 24mm and 40mm pancake primes. I'm looking to replace it for a mirrorless and my main priority is the best dynamic range for under 1000$usd. I'd like to stay with Canon because those lenses are sharp, small, light and cheap and that's all I need. Mirrorless would be great, but I don't mind getting another DSLR (like the RP?).

For those in the know, would it be worth waiting for new tech (I've been out of the reviews and previews since 10 years) or is what's on the market right now good enough for another 5-10 years?

I've checked some dyhamic range specs and in my price range, there does not seem to be that much difference from 10 years ago. Maybe a few points make a great difference and I don't know? Cheers!
 

HardtailHack

used an iron once
Jan 20, 2009
6,745
5,638
Had a win on Ebay, nabbed an old Markins M10 ballhead and shitty monopod for $65 delivered.
PXL_20231031_093131332.jpg

Shitty phone pic.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,100
1,150
NC
Nice! I've had an M10 for a while which I've liked. Only thing I've found is that swings in temperature can cause the head to lock up - both extreme cold which can simply cause the head to stop moving, and big temperature changes can cause that little sawtooth locking knob to bind up, which can basically make the head inoperable. Consequently, I recommend that you leave that sawtooth locking knob in a loose position when the head is not in use.
 

HardtailHack

used an iron once
Jan 20, 2009
6,745
5,638
Nice! I've had an M10 for a while which I've liked. Only thing I've found is that swings in temperature can cause the head to lock up - both extreme cold which can simply cause the head to stop moving, and big temperature changes can cause that little sawtooth locking knob to bind up, which can basically make the head inoperable. Consequently, I recommend that you leave that sawtooth locking knob in a loose position when the head is not in use.
Thanks for the info, may be why the later ones swapped to a larger knob with a rubber insert.
It seems a lot nicer than the cheap Sirui one I bought a few years back
 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
5,653
3,093
I'm still shooting a Canon Rebel T3i with 24mm and 40mm pancake primes. I'm looking to replace it for a mirrorless and my main priority is the best dynamic range for under 1000$usd. I'd like to stay with Canon because those lenses are sharp, small, light and cheap and that's all I need. Mirrorless would be great, but I don't mind getting another DSLR (like the RP?).

For those in the know, would it be worth waiting for new tech (I've been out of the reviews and previews since 10 years) or is what's on the market right now good enough for another 5-10 years?

I've checked some dyhamic range specs and in my price range, there does not seem to be that much difference from 10 years ago. Maybe a few points make a great difference and I don't know? Cheers!
Why are you so hung up on dynamic range? Mirrorless cameras are so much better on all accounts IMO. Better AF, higher ISO performance, higher FPS, silent shooting, no shutter shock, IBIS (some), etc....

BTW: the RP is a mirrorless body, not a DSLR.

Are the lenses you have good ones? Are they for full frame bodies or APS-C specific?

Usually you invest in lenses, they are good for a long time. Upgrading bodies is depending on your needs Often a new body can make an old lense great again. I had a hard time with my EF100-400 with the AF on the old cheap DSLR body, but the modern bodies brough new life into this optically beautiful lens. IS and AF are weaker than on modern lenses, put the pic quality is just fantastic.

R10 would be a good entry level, but has no IBIS and some AF issues, so R7 would be the better choice. If your lenses are not APS-C specific, you could also look into a full frame body like the R8 or, if money is an issue, RP. The RP is an older design and both do not have IBIS, something I would not want to miss. BTW: after the R6 II launched, the R6 Mk I can be had for "fairly" cheap used.
 

konifere

Monkey
Dec 20, 2021
531
661
Why are you so hung up on dynamic range? Mirrorless cameras are so much better on all accounts IMO. Better AF, higher ISO performance, higher FPS, silent shooting, no shutter shock, IBIS (some), etc....
I am hung up on dynamic range because it's the thing I need the most when I do photography work. Most of the time, I document stainless or aluminium sculptures with lots of reflections, oftentimes in the city in front of buildings with windows reflecting light, and I often can't control at which moment I go take the picture, so simetimes the sky is blue, sometimes it's white. Lots of dark areas and super bright areas together. Also, photogrammetry needs the best dynamic range to capture all details in holes and shiny surfaces, and that's another of my "main" side-gigs.

More resolution would always be better, but my main concern is dynamic range since I don't do any big prints. Most of the time the pictures are destined for web use, but it's always nice to be as future-proof as we can. I'm always shooting at the lowest iso setting and use a tripod when needed, but I never go past ISO100. Also, I'm only using a wide angle prime lens, currently a 24mm EF-S 2.8 and 40mm EF 2.8. So one for APS-C only and one compatible with both. Ideally, I'd get a new 24mm or 35mm for a full-frame body. I will keep my T3i for other

I've been shooting pictures since the late 90's and studied in visual arts, so I know how to operate pretty much all kinds of cameras, but I don't want to invest that much in the equipment because I spend too much on bikes :D In an ideal world, I would like a full frame with a few good primes, but it's not worth it for the amount of work I do now. I woulnd't be able to recoup the costs of that equipment with my contracts (it's a side gig) and I don't do any photography for fun anymore.

You brought some great points to consider, thanks @iRider !
 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
5,653
3,093
I am hung up on dynamic range because it's the thing I need the most when I do photography work. Most of the time, I document stainless or aluminium sculptures with lots of reflections, oftentimes in the city in front of buildings with windows reflecting light, and I often can't control at which moment I go take the picture, so simetimes the sky is blue, sometimes it's white. Lots of dark areas and super bright areas together. Also, photogrammetry needs the best dynamic range to capture all details in holes and shiny surfaces, and that's another of my "main" side-gigs.

More resolution would always be better, but my main concern is dynamic range since I don't do any big prints. Most of the time the pictures are destined for web use, but it's always nice to be as future-proof as we can. I'm always shooting at the lowest iso setting and use a tripod when needed, but I never go past ISO100. Also, I'm only using a wide angle prime lens, currently a 24mm EF-S 2.8 and 40mm EF 2.8. So one for APS-C only and one compatible with both. Ideally, I'd get a new 24mm or 35mm for a full-frame body. I will keep my T3i for other

I've been shooting pictures since the late 90's and studied in visual arts, so I know how to operate pretty much all kinds of cameras, but I don't want to invest that much in the equipment because I spend too much on bikes :D In an ideal world, I would like a full frame with a few good primes, but it's not worth it for the amount of work I do now. I woulnd't be able to recoup the costs of that equipment with my contracts (it's a side gig) and I don't do any photography for fun anymore.

You brought some great points to consider, thanks @iRider !
OK, that makes sense. Maybe exposure bracketing is something for you then?
Not sure older DSLRs can do this.

The cool things with the mirrorless bodies is that you can see the result on your screen while you are changing settings, so can dial in the shot w/o having to take it.

Your lenses on your APS-C body are 38 mm and 64 mm full-frame equivalents. So if you get a full frame body, your 40 mm would replace the 24 mm and you only need something to cover the longer end of things. EF lenses adapt well to mirrorless bodies and e.g. EF 16-35 f2.8 lenses go used for pretty cheap. In my experience all native Canon EF lenses have no issues whatsoever, third-party lenses sometimes have small issues with e.g. auto focus.
There are a bunch of chinese manual focus lenses available for cheap that are optically pretty good, but make e.g. bracketing impossible (e.g. Laowa, Venus optics, etc.). Just an alternative idea.

For bodies: as you do not need in body stabilization of the sensor, you can go cheaper and get e.g. an R8. The discountinued Eos R can be found in the used market cheap, 30 megapixel but 5 years old. For what you describe, I would go full frame body for sure and shoot RAW. The 20 MP pics I get off the R6 are better than the 32.5 MP pics off the R7 (APS-C body). Just so much clearer. I mainly got the R7 for the additional reach (1.6 APS-C factor) for birding and wildlife.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,100
1,150
NC
@konifere Dynamic range is measured in stops, like light, so 1 stop difference is huge. I did a double take when you said you weren't seeing a "big difference" from your T3i in measurements, so maybe that helps clarify.

You've got a crop body (already a knock against it from a DR standpoint), an older sensor, and lower bit depth for your RAW files. You will see a big difference in DR by upgrading to a modern full-frame body with 16 bit raw files (and, if it really matters, you can target a camera with a base ISO of 64 which helps with the DR a little bit more).

I don't know much about the existing Canon lineup. You certainly don't have to be hung up on "small" and "sharp" since basically all the brands have a decent collection of small, sharp lenses now. Your budget will be a limiting factor, though.

The Nikon entry into FF is the Z5 which my partner has and the image quality she gets out of it is very, very good.

 

konifere

Monkey
Dec 20, 2021
531
661
Oh I didn't know DR was calculated in stops, that's good to know, thanks!

Maybe I'll up my budget a bit then, seeing that I keep my cameras for 10 years, it seems like the newest tech would be worthwhile.
 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
5,653
3,093
Oh I didn't know DR was calculated in stops, that's good to know, thanks!

Maybe I'll up my budget a bit then, seeing that I keep my cameras for 10 years, it seems like the newest tech would be worthwhile.
Canon R8 is reduced to 1299 from 1499 ATM and I expect some Black Friday sales. Maybe an opportunity?
Canon often has deals like instant rebate on lenses when you buy a body. That is pretty regional, so check if that is the case for you. If you have a good camera store, they might throw an RF to EF adaptor ($100 value) into the deal.
 

gonefirefightin

free wieners
Screenshot 2024-04-01 at 9.16.23 PM.png





Sprung for a proper zoom video lens for the APSC sony bodies since I dont want to use actual cine cameras on the house build process and the footage will blend nicely with the 1" sensor footy from the smaller "action cam" footy. Also got a handful of variable ND filters for the primes in the bag I hardly ever use.

Prepare for "Construction Bokeh"
 

gonefirefightin

free wieners
Screenshot 2024-04-02 at 4.10.40 PM.png



Sold the FX9 and got a FX30 on the way, no need for the giant bulky cine cam any longer as it literally sat for over a year without seeing the light of day, If you are wondering why the APSC super 35? well I have a ton of APSC glass that will compliment this body pretty nicely and will travel much better than full frame glass.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,100
1,150
NC
Looks nice, GFF. I'm partial to the f/4 lenses myself; I really like the f/2.8 glass but travel too much for all of that bulk.

Speaking of bulk, I'm currently trying to convince myself that my Nikon 500mm f/5.6 is perfect adequate with the Z-mount adapter, and that I really don't need the newer 600mm f/6.3...
 

gonefirefightin

free wieners
Looks nice, GFF. I'm partial to the f/4 lenses myself; I really like the f/2.8 glass but travel too much for all of that bulk.

Speaking of bulk, I'm currently trying to convince myself that my Nikon 500mm f/5.6 is perfect adequate with the Z-mount adapter, and that I really don't need the newer 600mm f/6.3...
well it's a constant f4 through the zoom, much easier for video. I have a 200-6000 and I really cant live without the focal length. I would rather have too much than not enough. life is short, buy the lens, lol