So I want to get Lisa a new camera for Christmukkah. She's a photo nerd and has some pretty high end stuff such as a Leica rangefinder (it's for sale if anyone wants it PM me) and a handful of others but they're too bulky to take on trips, throw in a purse, etc. So I'm looking for pro type adjustability, with an auto mode for derpy/lazy snaps, and hopefully decent low light performance.
She borrowed a friend's Ricoh GRII and although she seems to like it, she thinks it feels like a piece of crap (lightweight plastic case, not type problem), low light performance is lacking, and she just prefers adjusting things with knobs instead of tapping through e-menus. She also thought the Olympus PEN felt like a kid's toy because it was too light. Real camera snob here guise. Anyway...
I'd like to keep it under $1k if possibru.
Larger sensor, like an APS-C or Micro Four Thirds
No interchangeable lenses, trying to keep this more compact than her Leica.
Knobs preferred to digital menus to adjust things.
Metal case preferred to plastic one but this is lowest criteria really. I'd rather black metal than silver just from a you-gon'-get-mugged perspective.
I've had really bad luck with Canons, so I'd prefer no Canon cameras.
The Fujifilm X100F looks nice. But it's more than double the cost of the Ricoh. Is it worth it?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... _with.html
Camera recs?
- fledonfoot
- First Sirloin
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:33 pm
- Drives: Taco Truk | Power Wheels Heep
I would honestly look at buying into a lens system before doing anything.
The glass lasts forever.
The body is interchangeable and technology is just flying on by anymore... within 3-5 years the body can be upgraded and the great glass comes along with it. If a $1200 fixed lens rangefinder type camera fails... you’re stuck with a paperweight.
The glass lasts forever.
The body is interchangeable and technology is just flying on by anymore... within 3-5 years the body can be upgraded and the great glass comes along with it. If a $1200 fixed lens rangefinder type camera fails... you’re stuck with a paperweight.
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40600
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
Her Leica lenses are worth more than the camera by far because the lenses work on the new Red cameras.fledonfoot wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:04 pm I would honestly look at buying into a lens system before doing anything.
The glass lasts forever.
The body is interchangeable and technology is just flying on by anymore... within 3-5 years the body can be upgraded and the great glass comes along with it. If a $1200 fixed lens rangefinder type camera fails... you’re stuck with a paperweight.
Honestly though she wants something smaller, can throw in her small purse, and take with her but still be able to adjust shutter speed, aperture, etc like a DSLR can.
But yeah what you're talking about is what happened to my Canons. They were advanced point and shoots (looked like a normal dopey camera) but the lens motors failed and some shit happened to the sensor so they take crap pictures now. Turned into a $500 throwaway. I wouldn't get her a rangefinder, it would be more like a regular point and shoot camera with autofocus, etc.
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40600
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
Panasonic DMC-LX100 is cheaper by far and still looks nice...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... amera.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... amera.html
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40600
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
I'll look into them. When they came out with the A6k line I was mind blown by them. So many features, easy to just rip off an assload of pics, rather easy-ish to use. I know people like to shit on Sony electronics, but as long as you get their higher end stuff they tend to be very well made, high quality, and last.[user not found] wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 7:23 pm Sony Mirrorless. A6500. Done. I'm legit by some of the shots my buddy takes with it.
I'd also look into the Fujifilm and Olympus mirrorless setups. Those are the two on my short list to replace my Canon eventually.
These are interchangeable lens cameras though? Not sure how large they are nowadays. With the telephoto lens they were as large as a DSLR. =/
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40600
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
Looks like a Sony A6300 with lens is under the magic $1k number. Add in a UV filter and maybe a polarizng filter and should be a nice little starter kit. From what I could tell, the A6500 gains image stabilization and a better "buffer" so it can rapid fire action shots better, but she doesn't shoot those and doesn't currently shoot video.
This camera apparently has excellent low light, auto focus, and image quality. Interface sucks-ish? And low battery life and overheating if you shoot 4k video, which shouldn't be an issue. I'll probably order one of these tomorrow for her. Can take an impressive array of lenses with lots of adapters available, and still tiny form factor.
This camera apparently has excellent low light, auto focus, and image quality. Interface sucks-ish? And low battery life and overheating if you shoot 4k video, which shouldn't be an issue. I'll probably order one of these tomorrow for her. Can take an impressive array of lenses with lots of adapters available, and still tiny form factor.
- SAWCE
- Command Chief Master Sirloin
- Posts: 22055
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:26 pm
- Drives: Ebombtra
- Location: The mountains
Nice man. I’ve considered dumping my Nikon system and getting into Sony, but I haven’t been shooting much anyways. Gonna try to get back into hobbies like that more next year and see what Nikon does with their new mirrorless system over the next few years before I pull any triggers. My camera shoots just fine for what I do go do, so buying anything else in the near future would be completely
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40600
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
Now I'm second guessing myself. She likes physical dials. The Fujifilm X-T20 looks like a killer camera with a traditional dial system on the body, whereas the Sony gets dinged in every single review for having a complicated menu and lack of adjustment dials.
But. The Sony apparently takes much better photos and has a much more advanced autofocus.
But. The Fuji has better lenses? But isn't weather sealed against dust and moisture? That seems like a big issue to me....
I don't know. I'm finding a lot of strong opinions on these. People that have one of them tend to love it and defend it strongly. Forums are pointless pissing matches. Unfortunately, it seems preference to one or the other, outside of video use because she won't be shooting vids with it, comes down to which feels better to use. And some like the tech advanced slimmer Sony where others like the manual style dial throwback to film cameras Fuji.
Fujifilm X-T20
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... amera.html
Sony A6300
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... gital.html
Since this is for street type quick shots... maybe get the Sony? The number of reviews of each is telling... 400+ on the Sony, 14 on the Fuji...
Either way I'm buying it from B&H, that way if she doesn't like it, we road trip up to NYC to swap it out. Extended return policy is nice.
But. The Sony apparently takes much better photos and has a much more advanced autofocus.
But. The Fuji has better lenses? But isn't weather sealed against dust and moisture? That seems like a big issue to me....
I don't know. I'm finding a lot of strong opinions on these. People that have one of them tend to love it and defend it strongly. Forums are pointless pissing matches. Unfortunately, it seems preference to one or the other, outside of video use because she won't be shooting vids with it, comes down to which feels better to use. And some like the tech advanced slimmer Sony where others like the manual style dial throwback to film cameras Fuji.
Fujifilm X-T20
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... amera.html
Sony A6300
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... gital.html
Since this is for street type quick shots... maybe get the Sony? The number of reviews of each is telling... 400+ on the Sony, 14 on the Fuji...
Either way I'm buying it from B&H, that way if she doesn't like it, we road trip up to NYC to swap it out. Extended return policy is nice.
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40600
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
DSLRs aren’t full retard expensive. But then you need the extra memory card, batteries, case, whale penis shamwow, 3 different lenses, filters on each lens, etc etc etc. Then you usually have to edit them meaning some cost of computer programs.
- CorvetteWaxer
- Senior Master Sirloin
- Posts: 8381
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:35 pm
- Drives: 1986 Hyundai Excel, 351C swap
- Location: Where it happens every year
Filters on each lens? Wha??
The smart buyer gets one filter for the largest lens and used a step-up ring for the others.
There's no way I was going to buy 4x my set of 8 ND filters or circular polarizer for each lens' front element.
If you're talking about UV filters as "protection", don't even buy them, they generally only decrease image quality. The only time I would use a UV filter would be at a desert shoot where you expect to get sand blasted.
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40600
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
OkCorvetteWaxer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:17 amFilters on each lens? Wha??
The smart buyer gets one filter for the largest lens and used a step-up ring for the others.
There's no way I was going to buy 4x my set of 8 ND filters or circular polarizer for each lens' front element.
If you're talking about UV filters as "protection", don't even buy them, they generally only decrease image quality. The only time I would use a UV filter would be at a desert shoot where you expect to get sand blasted.
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40600
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:57 am I keep UV filters on all my lenses regardless. My lenses I've had longer than my camera body.
Anyway. Bought her a UV filter and a polarized filter too. They were cheap.
- fledonfoot
- First Sirloin
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:33 pm
- Drives: Taco Truk | Power Wheels Heep
I have an older Olympus E-420 DSLR with a couple of lenses you can have for a nice bottle of gin. It's not worth much anymore in trade value for anything. It's a 4/3 camera - NOT micro 4/3 - but there's a short and long zoom lens that should do the job. It's been sitting in my office for a few years.
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40600
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
$25 ish for the polarized one and $8 for the UV? They had good reviews. IDK. Can always take them back. She'll probably want to exchange the camera anyway so
- CorvetteWaxer
- Senior Master Sirloin
- Posts: 8381
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:35 pm
- Drives: 1986 Hyundai Excel, 351C swap
- Location: Where it happens every year
Sure, I used to do that too... but after a bunch of pros at a dinner I went to with my friend's Uncle (pro wildlife and car photographer) they were talking to me about it I did some more research. Placing the filter on the threads is another element that is actually more susceptible to flaring and distortion and of lower quality that the expensive lenses.[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:57 am I keep UV filters on all my lenses regardless. My lenses I've had longer than my camera body.
Most of those guys just run the lens hood and not even a cap in their bags. I won't go that far, but for the last 18 months or so I have removed all my UV filters and sold them on ebay (Nikkor branded get $$). No issues, even with salt water in Alaska and Hawaii.
- Apex
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 29815
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:36 pm
- Drives: Abominable
- Location: NJ
fledonfoot wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:04 pmI have an older Olympus E-420 DSLR with a couple of lenses you can have for a nice bottle of gin. It's not worth much anymore in trade value for anything. It's a 4/3 camera - NOT micro 4/3 - but there's a short and long zoom lens that should do the job. It's been sitting in my office for a few years.