Camera recommendations around 500$??

[SupaKomputa]

50 minutes ago, Tarun10 said:

I think I could stretch my budget if I saved up a bit more till December. Any other mirrorless cameras from other brands you'd recommend?  I think I'll go look at cameras in a store and decide between RX-100, G7 or A6300. And I should get Sony branded lenses right?

Thanks a lot for the help, again.

 

So that was shot in really low light? And 1/250 is shutter speed?

Aside from RX-100 the other camera should be sold as a kit, meaning you'll have a free (cheapo) lens.

But i don't think the stores still have one on display, since both g7 and a6300 are 3-4 years old.

And the RX 100 should be the 7th gen (which will cost $1000).

So you might endup trying the latest one, but on hand it should feel pretty similar to the older model.

For Sony lenses there are other brands like Tamron, Sigma etc, cost slightly lower than Sony's.

As long it's the same mount (Sony E mount) it should be compatible with the A6300.

go to this site for Photography news : https://www.dpreview.com

 

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

I had a way bigger post before, but the foeums ate it.. 

 

The shot below was taken at 8.8mm, 1/250, 3200 ISO and f1.8. Further, it was cropped in a lot. .

You took that from G7? Nice.

[Zodiark1593]

38 minutes ago, SupaKomputa said:

 

 

You took that from G7? Nice.

My Canon G7X mkII shouldn't be mistaken from the Lumix G7.

 

Higher ISO shots tend to get noisy st ISO 1600 and higher, though the results are still usable, and the grain doesn't look objectionable with monochrome. 6400 ISO is the absolute limit I'd use though. While the 12800 ISO option is there, the severe image degredation at this setting renders images unusable, even for the web.

 

Image quality is probably about on par with a low end APS DSLR (think the older Rebel series you find in Wal-Mart). The G7X has a much faster lens (1.8-2.8)than the 18-55 kit lens (3.5-5.6). Though with a good prime, the low end dslr should come out ahead.

 

[SupaKomputa]

9 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

The G7X has a much faster lens (1.8-2.8)than the 18-55 kit lens (3.5-5.6). Though with a good prime, the low end dslr should come out ahead.

 

Yeah, i forgot to mention this to him, f stop is crucial. kit lens are suck, i wish i can buy just the new body. the reason i go rx first than dslr.

[Tarun10]

On 10/18/2019 at 10:22 AM, SupaKomputa said:

Yeah, i forgot to mention this to him, f stop is crucial. kit lens are suck, i wish i can buy just the new body. the reason i go rx first than dslr.

Oh what are f-stops? And how bad are kit lens can I run with them for a year or two or is a better idea to get a body separately if possible and good lenses?

Also any websites or YouTube channels you recommend for camera reviews and also explaining all the jargon.

[ThePointblank]

1 hour ago, Tarun10 said:

Oh what are f-stops? And how bad are kit lens can I run with them for a year or two or is a better idea to get a body separately if possible and good lenses?

Also any websites or YouTube channels you recommend for camera reviews and also explaining all the jargon.

 

Kit lenses are cheap, and built to a price point. While they will suffice for now, they aren't sharp compared to higher end lenses, and they aren't all that bright.

[Tarun10]

4 hours ago, ThePointblank said:

 

Kit lenses are cheap, and built to a price point. While they will suffice for now, they aren't sharp compared to higher end lenses, and they aren't all that bright.

Thanks by not bright I presume you mean the brightness of the image taken will go down and clarity of the lens isn't as good. This is probably cause making perfect glass lenses is pretty tough, right? Any other review sites you recommend or cameras(used or new) in this price point?

[harryk]

8 hours ago, Tarun10 said:

Oh what are f-stops? And how bad are kit lens can I run with them for a year or two or is a better idea to get a body separately if possible and good lenses?

Also any websites or YouTube channels you recommend for camera reviews and also explaining all the jargon.

Kit lenses don't make bad images. They are typically just as sharp and sometimes more-so compared to their more expensive brethren. The difference is they are not as capable in all situations. The biggest difference will be aperture size, or in photographer terms low f-stop. A low f-stop does two things, lets more light hit the sensor and reduces the depth of field (soft background). For a majority of shooting situations this doesn't matter. During daytime shooting you will often be shooting with a higher f-stop anyway. Get a kit lens and be happy with it. As you learn more and grow as a photographer you can purchase additional lenses to do what you want.

 

Other advantages of a kit lens: they're small and lightweight, they're super cheap so replacing it if it breaks is less painful.

[Zodiark1593]

2 hours ago, harryk said:

Kit lenses don't make bad images. They are typically just as sharp and sometimes more-so compared to their more expensive brethren. The difference is they are not as capable in all situations. The biggest difference will be aperture size, or in photographer terms low f-stop. A low f-stop does two things, lets more light hit the sensor and reduces the depth of field (soft background). For a majority of shooting situations this doesn't matter. During daytime shooting you will often be shooting with a higher f-stop anyway. Get a kit lens and be happy with it. As you learn more and grow as a photographer you can purchase additional lenses to do what you want.

 

Other advantages of a kit lens: they're small and lightweight, they're super cheap so replacing it if it breaks is less painful.

A good way to address the downside of the kit lens. Learn to use strobes. In general, it's usually better to get more light on your subject than to have a faster lens unless you need something specific (background blur). Many kit lenses also offer stabilization, allowing you to hand hold slower shutter speeds and make up for the slower lens somewhat.

 

On my own camera, I seldom go faster than F4 if I can avoid it. On this lens, faster apertures yield a substantial sharpness penalty, something I can already ill afford on the smaller sensor. There are situations that warrant the faster apertures, though it's still a downside I need to weigh with the other exposure settings. 

 

In general, prime lenses tend to hold sharpness better than zoom lenses at faster apertures, and can be had (relatively) inexpensively. Though there are some very expensive zoom lenses are tack sharp no matter what setting you have them at as well.

[SupaKomputa]

13 hours ago, Tarun10 said:

Oh what are f-stops? And how bad are kit lens can I run with them for a year or two or is a better idea to get a body separately if possible and good lenses?

Also any websites or YouTube channels you recommend for camera reviews and also explaining all the jargon.

F-stop / Aperture : how big a lens (diaphragm) can open, wide open = more lights in. Wide aperture lenses are called fast lens because, in relative to the shutter speed, you can achieve a good capture with a faster shutter speed. As a bonus, with a short focal length, wide aperture can achieve what is known as Shallow depth of fields, or the blurred background portrait effect. This also achievable with longer focal lenses, but that's another discussion.

 

Shutter speed : how long the shutter opens for a shot. longer = more lights in. You need fast(er) shutter speed to avoid blurred image, or capturing fast moving objects. In dim lights, you need slower shutter to let enough light in, but make sure the object is not moving to avoid blur.

 

ISO : the light sensitivity of the sensor. higher = more lights captured. But the drawbacks are noise developed in higher iso. You will want the ISO as low as possible to get a crisp picture.

 

Balance all three, and you'll get a good picture.

Now for the RX100, you'll get a fast (zeiss) lens (from f1.8) and a telephoto (up to 3x) all in one package, that's why i recommend it for beginners to learn the basics.

Kit lenses are mostly f3.5, which is good enough in bright environment.

[Tarun10]

@SupaKomputa @harryk @Zodiark1593

Thanks a lot for you help.

Final question, is there any specific order in which things should be adjusted? Aperture, shutter speed, ISO, then focus??

[harryk]

57 minutes ago, Tarun10 said:

Final question, is there any specific order in which things should be adjusted? Aperture, shutter speed, ISO, then focus??

It depends on what you're shooting and your own preferences. Many camera's have a few built in modes which I'll summarize below.

 

Full Auto: Pretty self explanatory, the camera tries to interpret the scene and pick the best settings for everything. 

Shutter Priority: The photographer sets the shutter speed and the camera sets the aperture to balance the exposure.

Aperture Priority: The photographer sets the aperture (f-stop) and the camera sets the shutter speed accordingly

Manual: The photographer sets the shutter speed and the aperture and must pay attention to the exposure.

 

ISO is typically set by the photographer but many camera's have options for auto-ISO. In my camera I have a custom mode which automatically sets the ISO such that the shutter speed is always 250 or faster, which is great for indoor action where I want a fast shutter speed to freeze motion but there may not be much light and/or the light is changing.

 

As far as focus goes, most people leave it in auto because it's just easier. If the auto-focus is not doing what I want I'll switch to manual. Auto-focus itself has a number of operating modes which can be set depending on what you're shooting. Once you have a camera in hand you should look through the manual and start experimenting with the various modes and settings. Try to get a good feel and understanding for each and think about when you might want to use it. Then when you're actually out shooting, stop and think about how you could set the camera to do what you want it to. 

[Tarun10]

10 minutes ago, harryk said:

As far as focus goes, most people leave it in auto because it's just easier. If the auto-focus is not doing what I want I'll switch to manual. Auto-focus itself has a number of operating modes which can be set depending on what you're shooting. 

Okay, that reminds me, some people recommend getting a prime lens and learning to move around and getting photos at first. This would obviously improve my skill in framing shots but I could do this with any lens after fixing the focal length right? And what about metering? I don't understand a bit what they do and they don't seem to make a significant difference. And white balance depends on the environment and the color you want but it could be adjusted in post if you take RAW right?

[Zodiark1593]

52 minutes ago, Tarun10 said:

Okay, that reminds me, some people recommend getting a prime lens and learning to move around and getting photos at first. This would obviously improve my skill in framing shots but I could do this with any lens after fixing the focal length right? And what about metering? I don't understand a bit what they do and they don't seem to make a significant difference. And white balance depends on the environment and the color you want but it could be adjusted in post if you take RAW right?

Consistency in photography is a thing I suppose. 

 

Though in practical terms, Prime lenses are the least expensive means of achieving very sharp, high quality images, even at fast aperture settings, and do tend to carry faster apertures than their similarly priced zoom bretheren. Downside being you'll need to carry additional lenses to cover a variety of focal lengths, which can become cumbersome quickly.

 

Most people tend to recommend a 50mm (or equivalent) prime, as the focal length presents a lot of versatility, and very good lenses can be had for inexpensive.

[Fetzie]

4 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Consistency in photography is a thing I suppose. 

 

Though in practical terms, Prime lenses are the least expensive means of achieving very sharp, high quality images, even at fast aperture settings, and do tend to carry faster apertures than their similarly priced zoom bretheren. Downside being you'll need to carry additional lenses to cover a variety of focal lengths, which can become cumbersome quickly.

 

Most people tend to recommend a 50mm (or equivalent) prime, as the focal length presents a lot of versatility, and very good lenses can be had for inexpensive.

I think a 35 or 50mm f/1.8 prime should be the first "non-kit" lens somebody buys. In terms of image quality and sharpness per currency unit they're pretty much unbeatable (none of them are more than 200 dollars new, you can get them for under 100 dollars used) and you can learn a lot about image composition from them.

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours ago, Fetzie said:

I think a 35 or 50mm f/1.8 prime should be the first "non-kit" lens somebody buys. In terms of image quality and sharpness per currency unit they're pretty much unbeatable (none of them are more than 200 dollars new, you can get them for under 100 dollars used) and you can learn a lot about image composition from them.

Not sure which lens, but for some reason, I was thinking there was a 50mm 1.4 lens or two for around the $150 mark, or there was a video of one such a lens I saw a while ago. (For those uninitiated, less than $400 is considered quite inexpensive in the world of lenses). One one of those Sony mirrorless cameras, you're giving those nocturnal critters a run for their money.

 

[Fetzie]

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Not sure which lens, but for some reason, I was thinking there was a 50mm 1.4 lens or two for around the $150 mark, or there was a video of one such a lens I saw a while ago. (For those uninitiated, less than $400 is considered quite inexpensive in the world of lenses). One one of those Sony mirrorless cameras, you're giving those nocturnal critters a run for their money.

The 1.4 primes for DSLR (at "normal" focal lengths at least) tend to be 350-450 Euro while the 1.8s are usually 150-180 new. I haven't looked much at Sony lenses because I run with Nikon so there may be something cheaper there, but I can't imagine they can fit enough glass for f/1.4 in a 200 euro new package.