NFR Cameras

Non-fishing related
jaredoconnor

jaredoconnor

Peabrain Chub
Thinking about finally pulling the trigger on a decent camera, with a baby on the way. I definitely want it to be mirrorless. Beyond that, I don't know much. Below are the requirements.
  • 60fps 1080p video
  • Clean HDMI output
  • General purpose lens
  • Prime lens (general portrait use)
  • No second hand gear
I will probably add a macro lens at some point, for fly tying, but it's not an immediate requirement.

Budget is $1,000. Is this doable? Any suggestions? It seems like some camera bodies are very cheap, but the lens system can explode the total cost very fast.
 
jaredoconnor said:
Thinking about finally pulling the trigger on a decent camera, with a baby on the way. I definitely want it to be mirrorless. Beyond that, I don't know much. Below are the requirements.
  • 60fps 1080p video
  • Clean HDMI output
  • General purpose lens
  • Prime lens (general portrait use)
  • No second hand gear
I will probably add a macro lens at some point, for fly tying, but it's not an immediate requirement.

Budget is $1,000. Is this doable? Any suggestions? It seems like some camera bodies are very cheap, but the lens system can explode the total cost very fast.
Click to expand...

I believe this may have been discussed in a previous thread, but decide on lenses you want first, then the camera that can accommodate - your pictures are only as good as your glass.

Having said that, for mirrorless, I would steer towards Sony; they lead the way in mirrorless cameras, with some reasonably priced bodies. Nikon now uses the Sony sensor, so might as well go with Sony if trying to decide between Nikon and Sony.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers
 
way underbudget for your requirements imo.

even used, 500 for a decent body and 500 for a decent lens (24-70).

Are you wanting mostly video or mostly stills? Mirroless cameras have good uses but outside of video or studio photography, i cant stand them. having a real DSLR is a much better experience through the eyepiece. I prefer canons feel and operation, using a canon 6d with a 40mm pancake lens is an awesome adventure setup.

that said, you could probably fine a used some a(over9000) series and some sort of budget lens and have a working setup for a grand.
 
I know nothing about mirrorless. But curious why is that a requirement?
 
sal_the_salmon said:
way underbudget for your requirements imo.

even used, 500 for a decent body and 500 for a decent lens (24-70).

Are you wanting mostly video or mostly stills? Mirroless cameras have good uses but outside of video or studio photography, i cant stand them. having a real DSLR is a much better experience through the eyepiece. I prefer canons feel and operation, using a canon 6d with a 40mm pancake lens is an awesome adventure setup.

that said, you could probably fine a used some a(over9000) series and some sort of budget lens and have a working setup for a grand.
Click to expand...

We will probably use it as much as 50/50 videos/photos, which is why I want to go mirrorless.

What's wrong with the setups below? Keep in mind we are upgrading from cell phones. Neither of us ever plan to be pro photographers. We just want decent family photos.

Sony
Canon
Olympus

swimmy said:
I know nothing about mirrorless. But curious why is that a requirement?
Click to expand...

See above, regarding video.
 
jaredoconnor said:
We will probably use it as much as 50/50 videos/photos, which is why I want to go mirrorless.

What's wrong with the setups below? Keep in mind we are upgrading from cell phones. Neither of us ever plan to be pro photographers. We just want decent family photos.

Sony
Canon
Olympus



See above, regarding video.
Click to expand...
nothing is wrong with them, there will be drawbacks though.

mainly small image sensors and budget glass.

if you just want to get going, all that is fine. if you plan to stick with it long term, you will end up wanting to upgrade this stuff eventually.
also, no reason to get a 30mm prime with a 15-45 zoom. its just overlap at these price points, same with the sony setup.
 
sal_the_salmon said:
also, no reason to get a 30mm prime with a 15-45 zoom. its just overlap at these price points, same with the sony setup.
Click to expand...

Isn't the difference in aperture important? ~1.2-1.4 vs. ~3.5-5.6. I barely know what any of this means, but I thought that was key for portraits.
 
Last edited:
jaredoconnor said:
Isn't the difference in aperture important? ~1.2-1.4 vs. ~3.5-5.6. I barely know what any of this means, but I thought that was key for portraits.
Click to expand...
Yes and No. Yes, the aperture will provide shallower depth of field which can give a nice effect on your portraits. However, I would prefer to use a small telephoto lens, that is 35mm equivalent to a 85 to 105 mm lens for portrait use, that would provide even a shallower depth of field (blurring out the background) The smaller the focal length, 30mm or less, the wider the field of view, and deeper the depth of field, and reciprocal is true, the longer the focal length, the narrow the field of view, and shallower depth of field.

However, I should add that when you close the aperture on any lens, you will increase the depth of field, so that more of the foreground and background is in focus. (open up the aperture, the opposite occurs)

I think in that camera you are looking at would be a 50mm to 85mm lens with a f1.2 aperture.

I think you will be fine with those camera sets you list. The most important camera equipment will be your lens, so might want to check around on different lenses if you're not going to match the body with their brand lens.

Baby pictures are fun. I enjoyed it with my kids, and enjoy it with my nephews now... (although they're not babies anymore)
 
Last edited:
Sam Roffe said:
Yes and No. Yes, the aperture will provide shallower depth of field which can give a nice effect on your portraits. However, I would prefer to use a small telephoto lens, that is 35mm equivalent to a 85 to 105 mm lens for portrait use, that would provide even a shallower depth of field (blurring out the background) The smaller the focal length, 30mm or less, the wider the field of view, and deeper the depth of field, and reciprocal is true, the longer the focal length, the narrow the field of view, and shallower depth of field.
Click to expand...


accurate, but one thing to keep in mind is that none of these less expensive and fast aperture lenses will have good sharpness (esp at the edges) when shot wide open
 
Edit: Back to the drawing board; Sony cameras seem to be having supply chain issues at the moment.
 
Last edited:
swimmy said:
I know nothing about mirrorless. But curious why is that a requirement?
Click to expand...
Mirrorless is the future. Cameras are smaller, lighter, faster. Sony in particular handles higher ISO very well and they have a lot of mirrorless/e-mount lenses available in addition to the lenses offered by Sigma/Tamron/etc. I am very pleased with the Sony system I put together after doing months of research. My photo keeper rate is almost perfect; I just have to sort thru them to find the ones I want to keep. Any non-keepers are typically my fault, not that of the camera/lenses.
 
Last edited:
jaredoconnor said:
Isn't the difference in aperture important? ~1.2-1.4 vs. ~3.5-5.6. I barely know what any of this means, but I thought that was key for portraits.
Click to expand...

In addition to depth of field (blurry background for cinematic look) a lower aperture allows you to shoot photos in low light (indoors, evenings) without extreme manipulation of ISO (your camera's sensitivity to light) which eventually impacts photo quality.
 
Last edited:
jaredoconnor said:
Edit: Back to the drawing board; Sony cameras seem to be having supply chain issues at the moment.
Click to expand...

If that leaves you deciding between Canon and Olympus, it is worth considering that Olympus just sold it's camera division, so longevity and customer support may be in question.
 
If it is the Sony that you'd prefer then B&H Photo show they have the camera body with 15-45mm & 55-210mm lenses in stock for $998 with free shipping. It's more then you were hoping to spend but still within your price range. You only specified a 15-45mm lens but you may eventually enjoy having the 55-210mm along as an option to give you a better coverage for range..

If B&H have the camera body in stock, they may offer to sell the body by itself giving you the option of adding another off brand lenses to cover your needs. Of your 3 choices, I think the Sony brand would be the best bet along with the best support..

www.bhphotovideo.com

Sony a6000 Mirrorless Camera with 16-50mm and 55-210mm Lenses

Buy Sony a6000 Mirrorless Camera with 16-50mm and 55-210mm Lenses featuring 24.3MP APS-C Exmor APS HD CMOS Sensor, BIONZ X Image Processor, Tru-Finder 0.39" 1,440k-Dot OLED EVF, 3.0" 921k-Dot Xtra Fine Tilting LCD, Full HD 1080p XAVC S Video at 24/60 fps, Built-In Wi-Fi Connectivity with NFC...
www.bhphotovideo.com www.bhphotovideo.com
 
Last edited:
Some of these comments confuse me some.

For your needs you are totally on the right track IMO.

Lack of sharpness in a Sigma 30mm? Maybe to an upper end professional, but I guarantee you will never have that complaint taking family pics.
No need to go to a full frame for quality pictures. Full frame has advantages sure, but many of those advantages simply won't be noticeable in your hands.

Personally I would recommend skipping the kit lense. If you bought an A6000 with that kit lense and the Sigma 30mm I'd bet you'd find yourself disappointed with the kit lense and not using it much. Instead I'd recommend a combo of a body (I really like the a6300 for the price) and a combo of say that Sigma 30 and the Sigma 16 or maybe the 50 if it fit your needs better, could be had in your budget and cover an awful lot of your needs.

Bokeh isn't the be all end all of portraits, but its a lot of fun to play with, especially for portraits (and fish pics ;) ) so the faster lense is nice. Ya you won't need to shoot wide open every time, but its nice to have it when you want to. I shoot the Sigma 30 and 16 wide open all the time and sharpness is simply not an issue. (Again, I'm not selling pictures but I have ZERO complaints about sharpness even when wide open). The shallow depth of field is a lot of fun to play with and can really make your portraits pop.

I'm no professional photographer but I have a lot of experience with Sony mirrorless and feel you would not come away disappointed going that route. Also keep in mind the crop factor of the APSC lenses. That 30mm on that body produces a 45mm focal range. 1.5 crop factor and all that. So a combo of the 16mm and the 30mm Sigma lenses gives you 24mm and 45mm focal range. There's a lot you can do with that combo. Later, if you decided, you could add a Sony 18-105 or the Sony16-55 for more versatility. There's several full frame options in the 24-70mm range that are great options as well. Again, with crop factor a 24-70 is more like 36-105mm so always keep that in mind.

Those Sigma lenses are flat out performers that really out perform their price class.

Sony has an enormous lense selection for their mirrorless bodies, and remember that you can use their full frame lenses on an APSC body no problem, which makes the lense options even larger. Many great third party lenses too.

There's just no reason that a mirrorless system wouldn't make you extremely happy given your experience level and the needs you listed.

Edited to add that a quick search shows the A6000 or A6300 as being harder to find than the last time I searched so you may have to consider used for the body if you decided to go that route. Both bodies have been discontinued but performance wise are just fine even today for your needs.
 
Last edited:
All of the cameras will do a decent job. in the 80's i used canon, and slid over to nikon. the main reason was ergonomics and overall feeling, I Shot Nikon for 20 plus years. Now i have moved to Fuji. But alll the changes were becuase of feel and what feels right in my hands, Sony's are great but i dont care the way it feels or how to interact with menus or controls.

Go to a store and touch and feel.

I have found glass is more important then the bodies.
 
Nick Clayton said:
Bokeh isn't the be all end all of portraits, but its a lot of fun to play with, especially for portraits (and fish pics ;) ) so the faster lense is nice. Ya you won't need to shoot wide open every time, but its nice to have it when you want to. I shoot the Sigma 30 and 16 wide open all the time and sharpness is simply not an issue. (Again, I'm not selling pictures but I have ZERO complaints about sharpness even when wide open). The shallow depth of field is a lot of fun to play with and can really make your portraits pop.

I'm no professional photographer but I have a lot of experience with Sony mirrorless and feel you would not come away disappointed going that route. Also keep in mind the crop factor of the APSC lenses. That 30mm on that body produces a 45mm focal range. 1.5 crop factor and all that. So a combo of the 16mm and the 30mm Sigma lenses gives you 24mm and 45mm focal range. There's a lot you can do with that combo. Later, if you decided, you could add a Sony 18-105 or the Sony16-55 for more versatility. There's several full frame options in the 24-70mm range that are great options as well. Again, with crop factor a 24-70 is more like 36-105mm so always keep that in mind.
Click to expand...
Nick,

Although I am not shopping for lenses right now, I appreciate you observations on the Sigma Lenses. I do believe, there is better quality in building lenses in the manufacturing process these days, so you can get a good lens at a reasonable price, and a great lens at,.. well, you will spend more :-)

I'm still in the DSLR world, stick with the Nikor lenses, but, hardly pro quality. I agree with the APC sensor, you don't need full size these days for excellent pictures. Both the smaller sensor, and processing power on these cameras will still give you excellent results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top