1. Create an account to join in the discussion. Once you register don't forget to enter our monthly drawings.

    Register to post on our forum.
  2. Home Theater Lounge will begin holding a live chat every Wednesday evening at 9pm Central. The goal is to get as many members online at the same time and just talk movies, music, and gear. You can join the chat by going to the Shoutbox app.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Dismiss Notice

Need to buy a new camera kit... help

Discussion in 'The Photography Lounge' started by Chris Slade, Mar 30, 2017.

  1. Chris Slade

    Chris Slade Active Member War Zone Member Top Poster

    I have had a couple of DSLR cameras (Canon) in the past and some of the best glass you can buy, I lost interest and sold it all. End background.

    Now I am going to buy a camera mostly for work. I am working on a website etc. with a design guy. Moving forward I need to be able to add pictures to a portfolio of our work. I do commercial/industrial ventilation, with just a bit of high end residential. So I mostly want to take pictures of ventilation during fabrication and then of it installed and some pics of finished spaces. So mostly indoor shots kind of like a real estate agent.

    As an aside to all of that if I can take action pictures of my son playing hockey with this set up I will.

    So I have no brand loyalty and have no interest and having what is considered a cool kit. I want to get the job done and do as little post as possible, I hate post. Very few if any pictures will ever be printed.

    So I need a body, a pretty fast wide lens, and then the option of additional glass moving forward.

    IS seems like a no brainer, don't know if I care if it is in the body or the glass.
    Looking to get educated and then go out and make a purchase.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2017
  2. Chris Slade

    Chris Slade Active Member War Zone Member Top Poster

    CJ do you think there are lenses out there to cover my needs with a 4/3 system like you have?
     
  3. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    I believe I just read an article that m4/3 just surpassed Canon in native lens options. So yeah there will be something.

    For wide and fast you would have a few options:

    Olympus 12mm f/2.0 - $685
    Olympus 17mm f/1.8 - $500
    Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 - $1100
    Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 - $725
    Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 - $610
    Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 - $250

    Now some would not consider 17mm wide enough because it is the film equivalent of 34mm. 12mm translates to 24mm which is getting there. Wider than that you either get expensive or not fast. Olympus makes a 9-18mm but its f/4-f/5.6 and still $600. This is one of the few real weaknesses of m4/3 is the crop factor makes ultra wide a challenge but its doable. the 12mm f/2.0 will be the sweet spot of pretty wide and pretty bright without going over $1000.

    For hockey, depending on how bright the arena is, you might not need a fast lens. You could start with a 14-150mm which is film equivalent of 28-300mm for $500 but its f/4-5.6. If you don't need the wide end there's a 40-15mm for only $99. Its not quite as good as the 14-150mm because its designed to be the second "kit" lens. The 14-150 is not a pro lens by any stretch but its better engineered and better performing.

    If you are willing to splurge, the gold standard for sports in the m4/3 world would be the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 but that's $1400. Its a pro grade lens though.

    This is theoretically where m4/3 really shines is long telephoto. Its a great budget wildlife/birding setup. You can be at the equivalent focal length of 80-300 at f/2.8 for $1300. Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 which would be the equivalent on an APS-C camera is $2000 and a full pound heaver.

    Finally if you really need reach, there's a 300mm f/4 for $2500 but this is more of a serious birder's lens. Still the Canon equivalent would be something like the 400mm f/4 for $7000.

    Like any camera system, it can get expensive if you want fast lenses, especially f/2.8 zooms. Where m4/3 has an advantage in my mind is the number of f/1.8 primes below $1000, sometimes WELL below. In general the lenses are still cheaper than their Canikon equivalents. The 12-35/12-40 Panasonic and Olympus lenses are a full $1000 LESS than their Canikon counterparts.

    Sorry for all the conversion jargon. Short version is everything is always compared back to 35mm full frame. But you're not going to buy a full frame camera regardless so I'm kind of comparing and APS-C vs m4/3 by using full frame calculations. E.g. 40-150 m4/3 and 70-200 APS-C are both about 80-300 full frame... ish.
     
  4. Chris Slade

    Chris Slade Active Member War Zone Member Top Poster

    I was just doing some research... small is good, cheaper is better, but I don't think there really is any cheap options. Used DSLR bodies are cheap, but then you still need to go out any find the more expensive glass.
     
  5. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    If you really want cheap, get a 1" or 1.5" bridge camera. You'll be all in for $600-$1000 and the good ones have fast lenses. If you want cheaper than that, you're compromising so much you might as well use your cell phone IMO.
     
  6. Andrew Pratt

    Andrew Pratt Active Member Top Poster

    If you want to talk to someone that does hockey photography I know a few that are semi serious about it. From what he's said you need a fast 2.8 lens and reasonable length but typical area lighting is crap.

    For birding 300mm is great for the backyard but won't be nearly long enough in the field.
     
  7. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Everything depends on what you want to spend and how serious you are (which goes hand in hand). TONS of people shoot with 300-400mm for birding. Not because its ideal but because longer lenses are typically literally over $10,000.

    As far as indoor sports, many people will actually shoot with long primes and crop. f/2.8 to f/1.8 is 1 and 1/3 stop more light. But you lose the ability to zoom. Good sports shooting frankly is way more about access. You need to be in the front row / on the sidelines for really great shots.
     
  8. Phil Rose

    Phil Rose Member

    Look at the Sony 6000/6300/6500. Yeah, I know it might not be "cool" but it's APAC sensor, small, fast and you can adapt just about any glass you want to it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  9. claud

    claud Well-Known Member Donor

    Nikon D3400. Small, light, less than $500 with 18-55 mm lens. Really all the camera you need. longer lenses are available of course.
     
  10. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    I definitely don't want to start an argument, but I'd only go Sony if I was fully aware that I'll be spending $1200-$1500 for any fast lens and if you are adapting glass your whole system gets more cumbersome and often requires manual focusing etc. If you already have a collection of legacy glass, Sony can be a great way to keep using it. If you're starting from zero, I really don't see the appeal of Sony whatsoever. I think they've released more bodies than lenses at this point.
     
  11. Phil Rose

    Phil Rose Member

    Of course Sony wouldn't be on your radar. But if one is being open, Sony has many different opinions that perform very well and deserve to be looked at. Honestly, just about any brand will produce results that will be more than acceptable. It's like buying a car. What do you want and what do you want to be seen driving?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  12. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Yes, Sony makes good cameras. But their lens selection is expensive and limited. I took time to post specific lens options and prices. What Sony kit would you put together that would meet Chris' requirements? Honestly curious.
     
  13. Phil Rose

    Phil Rose Member

    I would challenge the need for interchangeable lenses and get a good bridge camera like the RX10III. I'm sure Canon has something comparable.
    If going for an ILC, I'd look at the 6500 with a couple of zooms since it's very compact. Again I'd challenge the need for a fast lens with the newer sensors unless one is after bokeh. The 6500 has lots of great features including 5-axis in body stabilization, on sensor PDAF (with compatible lenses) and will also work with OSS.
    If video is important these cams are also very capable.
    Nothing against your system at all, in fact, it's very nice.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  14. Chris Slade

    Chris Slade Active Member War Zone Member Top Poster

    I am not willing to give up the versatility of interchangeable lenses.

    D3400 would probably be more than enough body for me.... but it does not have the mic input. I might never use that, but you never know.

    I am researching like crazy.
     
  15. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    If you want video, look at Panasonic.
     
  16. Chris Slade

    Chris Slade Active Member War Zone Member Top Poster

    Video is low priority.

    1)Work, call it indoor architectural shots I guess, for website only
    2)General family activity shooting
    3)Hockey, if and when I ever get a long fast lens.

    CJ I came to post to ask what you shoot your youtube videos with? Why not use the Olympus?
     
  17. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    I shoot quite a few with the Olympus. The last one had the camera in the video so a little tougher.
     
  18. Chris Slade

    Chris Slade Active Member War Zone Member Top Poster

    Researching this purchase makes me realize what I left the hobby (on top my my hate for post processing). The options are endless and confusing.

    Old school DSLR tried and tested, big and bulky.
    4/3 smaller, same price or more as DSLR, future of this format is unclear.
    Larger mirror-less cameras, I don't know much here, but may be the future and seems pricey.
    Bridge and point and shoot cameras are not going to get it done, I am pretty positive of this.
    Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Olympus.......
    In body or on lens IS

    Not really looking for a response here, just commenting on the difficulty of making a purchase. CJ glad you found a system that is working for you.
     
  19. Andrew Pratt

    Andrew Pratt Active Member Top Poster

    Shooting home video for short movies that'll end up on YouTube means you can use just about anything as you'll have good lighting which is key and you'll control the zoom etc...honestly your phone is likely good enough for most indoor family video.

    Take a long hard look at your needs and a realistic view on if you'd actually carry the camera to X events. We have a Canon DSLR that lives in the closet and rarely comes out unless either my wife or I want to take photo's of the kids sports or something that requires the long lens...otherwise our iPhone's are good enough.
     
  20. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    I think DSLRs will die. Everything will go mirrorless. With PDAF on sensor, the mirror is now a liability. They will die hard because photographers are like audiophiles in their ability to cling to old, objectively worse technology, but they will die sooner than later.

    Note, I'm not claiming that mirrorless surpasses flagship SLRs today, but they're getting close. And they are often MUCH better for video right now. Many SLRs shoot 4k on a tiny crop of the sensor and have terrible focusing for video.
     

Share This Page