What to buy for my new camera?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 54 of 54
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626

    What to buy for my new camera?

    My rx100 bit the dust. 3 1/2 years aint that bad for a camera that rides on a bicycle. I wonder if I overloaded the circuits by charging from a extenal battery? I might get an external battery charger next time.

    Well, what about mirrorless? Sony has a full frame mirrorless with 42 pixels. Can I afford it, No. Maybe I could eat oatmeal for 3 months and make payments.

    I mostly entertain myself with night shots or sunset shots, at least when I am away from city lights. I intend to continue cycling dirt roads and trails, and hiking in the soggy Northwest.

    As bike riders you know that cameras get shaken a bit on the trail. The people who post on the night photo thread know you need a bigger sensor for good night time photos.

    what do you think¡?


    (Saddly I have a $50 kodak with a cracked battery door in my pocket, as I write this in colorful Oaxaca MX, it seems to think the last time it had a battery in it was august 2013)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_UedgKyL1o

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    921
    there are cheaper mirrorless, full frame is aimed at the highend market. Aps-c and then micro 4/3 are alternatives. There are a number that are now dust and water resistant too. Impact rated no. I have what i think is the only ruggedized mirrorless ILC camera made, the Nikon AW1 and can attest to its ruggedness. However its 1” sensor is not suited to your leaning to night and lowlight shots.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by root View Post
    there are cheaper mirrorless, full frame is aimed at the highend market. Aps-c and then micro 4/3 are alternatives. There are a number that are now dust and water resistant too. Impact rated no. I have what i think is the only ruggedized mirrorless ILC camera made, the Nikon AW1 and can attest to its ruggedness. However its 1” sensor is not suited to your leaning to night and lowlight shots.

    Zillion choices-
    The guy at the camera store, says I need full frame, a 35 mm sensor, before I can be happy with my night shots. The sales guy I mean, not the guy from the photo club, who makes no profit when I buy a camera.

    Lenses or a collection of lenses may well cost more than the camera. It could be important to think about lenses for a while before buying anything. When the body wears out, will I want to buy the same brand of camera again? Lenses could last 10 or 15 years, the latest and greatest body will n ot. I bought a Sony because of the level on the screen

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,101
    I have an RX100 IV that's looking pretty beaten up after a year. I'd love the A6500, but it's pricey...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    824
    Man, cameras can be a really deep rabbit hole to go down. I've been shooting for a quite a few years and I've used almost every sensor size except digital medium format and here is my quick rundown.

    Generally speaking, the bigger the sensor, the better the low light photos will look. Modern cameras are getting really good at shooting in very low light conditions, it almost feels like cheating sometimes.

    Smaller sensor cameras means they can design smaller lenses. The Micro 4/3 cameras for example have some really good, really small lenses and that's really nice to have when traveling around. The newest m4/3 sensors are better than the original RX100 in low light, so if you were happy before it's a system worth looking at.

    Unless you have a specific use for 42mp, don't buy the A7RIII. The new A7III with 24mp is actually slightly better in low light and costs $2,000 (but good luck getting your hands on one at the moment). The former moldel A7II can probably be had for under $1,000 used and will run circles around your old RX100 in low light.

    No matter what system you go with, lenses will be the death of your bank account.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626

    not to scale



    Quote Originally Posted by formula4speed View Post
    Man, cameras can be a really deep rabbit hole to go down. I've been shooting for a quite a few years and I've used almost every sensor size except digital medium format and here is my quick rundown.

    Generally speaking, the bigger the sensor, the better the low light photos will look. Modern cameras are getting really good at shooting in very low light conditions, it almost feels like cheating sometimes.

    Smaller sensor cameras means they can design smaller lenses. The Micro 4/3 cameras for example have some really good, really small lenses and that's really nice to have when traveling around. The newest m4/3 sensors are better than the original RX100 in low light, so if you were happy before it's a system worth looking at.

    Unless you have a specific use for 42mp, don't buy the A7RIII. The new A7III with 24mp is actually slightly better in low light and costs $2,000 (but good luck getting your hands on one at the moment). The former moldel A7II can probably be had for under $1,000 used and will run circles around your old RX100 in low light.

    No matter what system you go with, lenses will be the death of your bank account.

  7. #7
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,784
    Get a cheap used Nex 5, 6, or 7 or a5000-6000. Start collecting FE lenses. Get a used A7xx for $500 in a year or so.
    I ride with the best dogs.




  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    I should have asked about lenses in the beginning. Used lenses are everywhere. Perhaps not the Sony e mount lenses. Does the nex use the same e mount lense as the a7? Well, I am just starting my homeowrk, research. Could be July before I buy a camera.

    My guess is that a used lense might work, but a used digital camera is to much of a chance to take. 3 an a half years is a long time for a camera to last. For me they seem to average about 2 years.

    So, What camera line offers the best chance to find used lenses. I will be buying few new, I mean no shiny new $2,000 lenses.

    In San Diego, there is a growing population, (perhaps 30% of the population,) of obese fat ladys following their cell phones around. When I get away from city lights, I follow my camera around with the same obsesion mind set. I frequently leave my phone home alone.


    Quote Originally Posted by bsieb View Post
    Get a cheap used Nex 5, 6, or 7 or a5000-6000. Start collecting FE lenses. Get a used A7xx for $500 in a year or so.
    I once bought a Nikon 600mm lense at value village for $30. It had a small crack in the glass at the edge. I went to a camera shop to ask about it. The old guy said it was for sure a prize, called me a thief, and called poilce. That I had the reciept, and the clerk remembered selling it to me an hour ago ment nothing, Seattle police confisgated it.

    Over a year later, I saw the policeman in Antigua Guatemala, taking photos with my lense. The drunken fool seemed upset when I slammed, (homerun,) tripod big fat camera and my lense into the bricks.

    What is the problem? You did not pay for it.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smmokan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,872
    Canon, Nikon, and Sony all have plenty of used lens options on sites like Fred Miranda, KEH, or Photography on the Net.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    136
    I recently started learning about night photography and picked up a refurbished Nikon D5300 (aps-c sensor) off Ebay for $339, and have now began collecting lenses.

    Cropped sensor Nikons can use either DX lenses (which only work on cropped sensor bodies) or full frame lenses.

    I can see eventually I'll be upgrading to full frame which will leave me with unusable DX lenses.

    When you buy your first camera body, you are sort of investing yourself into that brand once you begin collecting lenses.

    I am of the "buy cheap, buy twice" mentality. I will eventually be upgrading to a full frame and therefore it would have probably been cheaper to buy full frame to begin with.

    If I had to do it over again, I'd look for a used, low shutter count full frame D700 or D3S, and upgrade the body later. If you like Canon, you can get a 6D (not the Mark II), or 5D Mark I or II for less.

    The bodies go obsolete within a short time while the lenses are good for years. Therefore it makes sense as a beginner to not spend too much on the body and invest in lenses. The longer you can hold out before upgrading the body, the more options you'll have.

    Lonelyspeck.com is a cool resource for night photography.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by MidnightFattie View Post
    I recently started learning about night photography and picked up a refurbished Nikon D5300 (aps-c sensor) off Ebay for $339, and have now began collecting lenses.

    Cropped sensor Nikons can use either DX lenses (which only work on cropped sensor bodies) or full frame lenses.

    I can see eventually I'll be upgrading to full frame which will leave me with unusable DX lenses.

    When you buy your first camera body, you are sort of investing yourself into that brand once you begin collecting lenses.

    I am of the "buy cheap, buy twice" mentality. I will eventually be upgrading to a full frame and therefore it would have probably been cheaper to buy full frame to begin with.

    If I had to do it over again, I'd look for a used, low shutter count full frame D700 or D3S, and upgrade the body later. If you like Canon, you can get a 6D (not the Mark II), or 5D Mark I or II for less.

    The bodies go obsolete within a short time while the lenses are good for years. Therefore it makes sense as a beginner to not spend too much on the body and invest in lenses. The longer you can hold out before upgrading the body, the more options you'll have.

    Lonelyspeck.com is a cool resource for night photography.
    I already did the hold out for as long as long as you can part. Good advice, thanks.

    Last years digital camera is good enough these days. The newest model is not on sale.


    Back in 2009, I wanted the best bicycle I could pay for, even if I had to eat ramen noodles for a month or 2. I paid $657 for a frame and $600 for couplers. The same frame was on sale for $350 9 or 10 months later. I paid $315 for an xt tripple, first guy at the lbs with a 9 speed. I wanted the latest and greatest. $3,000 or so for an s&s coupled bike with tubeless wheels. In 2015 I ordered a 6 year old breakaway frame for $495, less than half the cost of the other frame. I clicked a searched, $225 for a 985 crank. Not the latest model, but it works. And so on like that. This bike cost less than half what the first one cost. I even found a used 26 x 26 x 10 hard case for $250.

    I suppose cameras work a lot the same as buying cycles. The latest and greatest is going to cost you, if it has been on the shelf for some time, the guy will sell it for less profit.

    except

    I can take every piece of my cycle apart and put it back together. I know how to check the frame alignment, and if the hubs have any life left in them. I can not say that about cameras. The camera guy could lie to me, where as I could catch the bike seller guy in a lie.

  12. #12
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,784
    I have had great success with used digital cameras, most are hardly used, look new. One week in my Jeep and it will look way used. I have a $140 a5000 e-mount apsc that is still going strong after 4 years of HArd use and abuse. Don't put too much stock in the latest greatest or what you read, you want something that will be intuitive and work no matter what. Those high end lenses may not do much better in real printed photos on gallery walls, PS and printing skills are worth just as much in many cases.

    Edit: Most useful lens for me has been the little Sony 16/2.8 with the camera lens correction turned on.
    I ride with the best dogs.




  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by bsieb View Post
    printing skills are worth just as much in many cases.

    .
    I read your entire post with interest. One sentence rang the bell. There is no good print shop in my neighborhood. I may not make enough prints for myself to buy my own printer. The one really good print shop is about 5,000 km from home, so I print my favorite photos about twice a year. There is a big differance from good and Walmart prints.

  14. #14
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,784
    chrisx- Get a refurb epson 1430 for $200, a 100 pack of paper from Red River, matte, gloss, or whatever finish you prefer, print from PS, calibrate your monitor. A laptop is fine, most have plenty of resources for PS, maybe an external HD to plug in. Now you can do photography as well as anyone. You can get latest full PS for $10 a month. Less than $350 invested if you have a computer.

    https://epson.com/Clearance-Center/I...p/C11CB53201-N

    Datacolor Spyder5 Family

    Premium Photo Paper Inkjet Papers by Red River Paper
    I ride with the best dogs.




  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html
    Adobe Photo Shop
    Photography
    US$999/mo

    Includes:
    Lightroom CC
    Lightroom Classic CC
    Photoshop CC
    20GB of cloud storage

    Reasonable price.
    It has been about 15 years since I used photoshop. I suspect they have made improvements since version 7.0 I took a couple of classes back in the 90s at Portland Comunity College.

    Once you get the printer, prints get very affordable. 25 or 57 cents each. Not sure of the ink cost.

    Back in 2006 I attempted to sell prints at the local craft market. Sadly I am not such a good sales guy. I may have broke even after buying a lot of supplies. I also may have learned a few things about cutting costs. The good sales guy made his own prints, cut his own frames, knew how to talk, and made a profit. Back then it was lightning photos. I had 1 from the first night I had my new camera, that I sold dozens of.

    These days the camera is just to enterain myself. Today I got a photo of a Mayan grandmother in traditional dress. See if you can get permission to do that. Sadly with a kodak that I put in a junk box instead of the trash 5 years ago.

    Thanks gents for helping me plan my next camera. It is a lot to think about.

    One good thing about a $5 kodak. It takes more than just a day or 2 to get permission to take photos of indeginious girls, unless you hand your camera to their little sister, and she snap snap snaps away.

    Quote Originally Posted by bsieb View Post
    chrisx- Get a refurb epson 1430 for $200, a 100 pack of paper from Red River, matte, gloss, or whatever finish you prefer, print from PS, calibrate your monitor. A laptop is fine, most have plenty of resources for PS, maybe an external HD to plug in. Now you can do photography as well as anyone. You can get latest full PS for $10 a month. Less than $350 invested if you have a computer.

    https://epson.com/Clearance-Center/I...p/C11CB53201-N

    Datacolor Spyder5 Family

    Premium Photo Paper Inkjet Papers by Red River Paper

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleSpeedSteven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    552
    While the brand is very hot and cold with the photography community right now, I have been extremely satisfied with my Pentax K-70. For a DSLR, they don't make them much more hardy. It's well sealed and waterproof, which is a huge benefit if you're toting it around in a Camelbak and into the backcountry. Shooting action shots you lose AF points vs most other cameras, which sucks.

    I did a lot of research before buying and went back and forth for a couple weeks. Ultimately I am glad I made the decision I did. You lose a little bit here and there but the camera is extremely user friendly and has some great functions that you don't find in other mid range cameras.

  17. #17
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,784
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html
    Adobe Photo Shop
    Photography
    US$999/mo

    Includes:
    Lightroom CC
    Lightroom Classic CC
    Photoshop CC
    20GB of cloud storage

    Reasonable price.
    It has been about 15 years since I used photoshop. I suspect they have made improvements since version 7.0 I took a couple of classes back in the 90s at Portland Comunity College.

    Once you get the printer, prints get very affordable. 25 or 57 cents each. Not sure of the ink cost.

    Back in 2006 I attempted to sell prints at the local craft market. Sadly I am not such a good sales guy. I may have broke even after buying a lot of supplies. I also may have learned a few things about cutting costs. The good sales guy made his own prints, cut his own frames, knew how to talk, and made a profit. Back then it was lightning photos. I had 1 from the first night I had my new camera, that I sold dozens of.

    These days the camera is just to enterain myself. Today I got a photo of a Mayan grandmother in traditional dress. See if you can get permission to do that. Sadly with a kodak that I put in a junk box instead of the trash 5 years ago.

    Thanks gents for helping me plan my next camera. It is a lot to think about.

    One good thing about a $5 kodak. It takes more than just a day or 2 to get permission to take photos of indeginious girls, unless you hand your camera to their little sister, and she snap snap snaps away.
    I print lots of photo cards as well as fine art prints. Use clear refillable carts and generic dye ink for everything except fine art prints. Been doing this since '98, before that darkroom wet prints.
    I ride with the best dogs.




  18. #18
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,881
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    The guy at the camera store, says I need full frame, a 35 mm sensor, before I can be happy with my night shots. The sales guy I mean, not the guy from the photo club, who makes no profit when I buy a camera.

    I totally agree with the sales guy. Crop bodies can't touch full frame when it comes to night sky shots. I'd be on APS-C in a heartbeat if they could.

  19. #19
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,784
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I totally agree with the sales guy. Crop bodies can't touch full frame when it comes to night sky shots. I'd be on APS-C in a heartbeat if they could.
    Is it because of sensor real estate or the 1:1 lens factor? Or both, I suspect. I see FE as my next move, but I seldom shoot night skies.
    I ride with the best dogs.




  20. #20
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,881
    Quote Originally Posted by bsieb View Post
    Is it because of sensor real estate or the 1:1 lens factor? Or both, I suspect. I see FE as my next move, but I seldom shoot night skies.

    I don't pretend to understand the technical reasons for why. I went from APS-C to full frame a few years ago, and noted (using the same lenses) a dramatic improvement in low light performance, and particularly in rendering night skies. When I tried to go back to APS-C the inability of that platform to render night skies anywhere close to as well as full frame ended that experiment abruptly.

    I don't have any good examples handy, but this link from a week last summer has a few milky way grabs. All single shots -- not composites. You simply can't get that level of detail from APS-C, regardless of lens.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    209
    Check the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX 85 (have it)

    I had sony RX-100 mk III, panasonic is much better in all respects - except the size, panasonic is a little bit bigger and heavier

    I have also a nikon D750 with many top quality lences, trust me this Panasonic is amazing. Choose kit witg 12-35 lense, and leave for the future the 35-100 :-)

    Re Sony A7III, which is fantastic (& I am planning to buy soon ) if you do not intend to spend A LOT for sony native lenses, don't bother ;-)

  22. #22
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,784
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I don't pretend to understand the technical reasons for why. I went from APS-C to full frame a few years ago, and noted (using the same lenses) a dramatic improvement in low light performance, and particularly in rendering night skies. When I tried to go back to APS-C the inability of that platform to render night skies anywhere close to as well as full frame ended that experiment abruptly.

    I don't have any good examples handy, but this link from a week last summer has a few milky way grabs. All single shots -- not composites. You simply can't get that level of detail from APS-C, regardless of lens.
    What lens are you using for the night images?
    I ride with the best dogs.




  23. #23
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,881
    Quote Originally Posted by bsieb View Post
    What lens are you using for the night images?

    Sigma 14 1.8.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    759
    It depends...

    What level of photog are you?
    What kind of photos are you looking to shoot? (Action, wide angle, landscape, a little bit of each?)
    What's your budget?
    How big of a pack are you looking to carry?

    Top Tier:
    If you're an advanced photog looking to shoot a variety of different shots and have a lot of money, and want to keep your pack small I suggest the Sony Alpha A7 and a bunch of lenses. Alternatively you can look at the Canon M3.

    Mid Tier:
    If you're budget is a little less but you still want great quality I suggest Olympus or panasonic M4/3

    Entry Tier:
    If swapping lenses isn't your thing or you want the smallest pack I suggest the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 or Canon G7
    3 Bikes to rule them all
    2013 Scott Genius SL
    2017 Yeti ASRC
    2017 Octane One Zircus

  25. #25
    BOOM goes the dynamite!
    Reputation: noapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    CC Reasonable price.
    It has been about 15 years since I used photoshop. I suspect they have made improvements since version 7.0 I took a couple of classes back in the 90s at Portland Comunity College.
    Have they improved PS since 7.0? Yeah, but you can do plenty with what you have. You can even pick up CS2 for free if you google it. I had to re-install all my old stuff after I quit using their rent-a-software. I'm sticking with CS6 since that's the last perpetual license version.
    :nono: :thumbsup:

  26. #26
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,784
    Quote Originally Posted by noapathy View Post
    Have they improved PS since 7.0? Yeah, but you can do plenty with what you have. You can even pick up CS2 for free if you google it. I had to re-install all my old stuff after I quit using their rent-a-software. I'm sticking with CS6 since that's the last perpetual license version.
    My wife uses PS 7.0, because she prefers it. I use the CC $10 monthly pay plan, mostly to stay current, which is very reasonably priced compared to purchasing periodic updates. I prefer the current version for many reasons but not so much photo related as printing related.
    I ride with the best dogs.




  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by Ntinos P View Post
    if you do not intend to spend A LOT for sony native lenses, don't bother ;-)
    That is the thing. The lenses cost more than the camera body. As far as mirror-less goes, Sony sounds the best.

    What about lenses?
    Ultimate Fullframe E-mount FE Lens Guide for Sony a7 & a9 Cameras
    No bargins on this list.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,557
    I guess if you are a super avid photographer and don't mind carrying around a large camera and a assortment of lenses and have money to burn then go for it.

    I found out for me that I never wanted to carry around a DSLR and a couple of lenses so I gave it to my niece for her photography class.

    So I bought a Sony 6000 with it's kit lens with photo quality far superior to my smart phone.

    I entered a local MTB photo contest and I won one category with a photo from my Sony BUT came close to winning the best overall photo with a smart phone photo. Picture quality is important but lighting and composition trump that by a long shot. If you want to pixel peep then you need to go big bucks but that still won't do anything for your photography skills.

    As far as night sky photography goes here is an interesting link: https://www.lonelyspeck.com/how-to-m...ky-way-galaxy/
    The guy that writes it states that you don't need to spend a bunch on equipment to get nice shots.
    My brain went from "you probably shouldn't say that" to WTF!

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    Maybe I should ask the same question in a different way.

    I you wanted to spend 1 month each year photographing Yellowstone park, which camera would you want?

    Bicycles are expensive. How many people can afford a $3,000 bicycle. If you ride your bicycle each and every day, you might go without some other things to pay for a bike you can not afford.

    If you can entertain yourself by taking photos far from city lights it could be worth spending more than you can afford to spend, maybe.

    The rx 100 is the best pocket camera you can get, not the best camera for stars and long night exposures.

    the nearest electricity is a couple of dozen miles from here.


    Or maybe all you care about is pictures of your friends


    Can you some how milk a decent photo out of a $50 Kodak, I guess so.

    But lets face it,
    you can not buy talent
    but
    you can buy a better camera.

    For the price of a full frame mirror-less camera, you could fly to Egypt for a month, or

    fly to Colombia and spend a month with Camelia. Maybe she will teach us how to explain backgrounds in Spanish.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    Maybe I should ask the same question in a different way.

    I you wanted to spend 1 month each year photographing Yellowstone park, which camera would you want?

    ....
    Sony A7 III
    +
    sony FE 13-35 f2.8 GM
    +
    Adobe Lightroom classes (available on line)
    +
    Dell UltraSharp U2715H

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    somehow I believe this guy

    Quote Originally Posted by Ntinos P View Post
    Sony A7 III
    +
    sony FE 13-35 f2.8 GM
    +
    Adobe Lightroom classes (available on line)
    +
    Dell UltraSharp U2715H

    choke sound/
    $2,199.99
    https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-al...?skuId=6213100
    more choking sounds,
    looks like 42 mega pexels is another $1,000, $2,000 is for 24 pixels.
    Last edited by chrisx; 05-24-2018 at 05:56 PM.

  32. #32
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,784
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    somehow I believe this guy




    choke sound/
    $2,199.99
    https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-al...?skuId=6213100
    more choking sounds,
    looks like 42 mega pexels is another $1,000, $2,000 is for 24 pixels.
    With stitching you can get whatever resolution you want with almost any sensor size, so don't get too discouraged. A sturdy tripod might be all you really need. And an eye.
    I ride with the best dogs.




  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smmokan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,872
    Quote Originally Posted by bsieb View Post
    With stitching you can get whatever resolution you want with almost any sensor size, so don't get too discouraged. A sturdy tripod might be all you really need. And an eye.
    And chances are, you’ll never need 42mp.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    275
    I’ve been super happy with my Sony A6000 mirrorless for MTB duty. Fits easily in my riding pack, light, good photo quality, can wifi to the phone to transfer pics. It is outstanding for daytime landscape photos and other typical MTB outing photos.

    I was a pro photog for 6 years before the military. I love my DSLR but for a sub-$1k camera (not the end of the world if something bad happens to it) compact, light camera, it is hard to beat the A6000.

    Sample shots below:




  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by bsieb View Post
    With stitching you can get whatever resolution you want with almost any sensor size, so don't get too discouraged. A sturdy tripod might be all you really need. And an eye.
    Stitching?

    I have a 5 pound tripod.
    I seldom or never take it on my bicycle though.

    Here is a little trick,
    use a bag of rice for a tripod. No really. Old timers talk about bean bags and fence posts. I found that bean bags are not stable enough the camera might shift a little, which is all it takes. Well, a bag of rice works well. I learned this taking lightning photos in Florida. Think wind and long exposures. The camera stays put if you smash it into the rice well enough. And, you can eat it before you ride your bicycle back to civilization.

    A bear can also works as a tripod.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by smmokan View Post
    And chances are, you’ll never need 42mp.
    They said that about 9 speed cassettes and 12 mega pixel cameras as well.

  37. #37
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,784
    ^So what is your point? You asked for advice, not us. Drop the $3k then, eh?
    I ride with the best dogs.




  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by bsieb View Post
    ^So what is your point? You asked for advice, not us. Drop the $3k then, eh?
    My point was that every time they come out with a new something about half the people say the old one is better, including 8 speeds.

    3k. I expect it will be July before I get a fancy new camera. This month as last month, I am not stopping at the store and buying the usual bag of of .... ... Yea, I need advice to be sure. 3k is a lot to spend. Looks like 2k does not get a good one anymore.

    Sony looks good, but what about a Nikon full frame? Is it true that Nikon cameras can use any lens Nikon ever made?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smmokan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,872
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    My point was that every time they come out with a new something about half the people say the old one is better, including 8 speeds.
    I never said it was better... I just said that most people don't "need" 40+ MP. Search over on the Fred Miranda boards- even the pros that have the Canon and Sony options admit they don't need the mega-pickels. It's not really similar to comparing an 8-spd cassette to a new 12-speed Eagle; it's more akin to comparing a 12-speed XO1 setup to an XX1 setup. Sure, you can spend the money on the higher level components, but you're not going to notice an ounce of difference a majority of the time. But at least you can tell your friends about it.

  40. #40
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,784
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    My point was that every time they come out with a new something about half the people say the old one is better, including 8 speeds.

    3k. I expect it will be July before I get a fancy new camera. This month as last month, I am not stopping at the store and buying the usual bag of of .... ... Yea, I need advice to be sure. 3k is a lot to spend. Looks like 2k does not get a good one anymore.

    Sony looks good, but what about a Nikon full frame? Is it true that Nikon cameras can use any lens Nikon ever made?
    *So we are back to what you want to do with your images. If you display them on FB, 12mp is overkill. If you print 20' panoramas you may want more, although you may still choose to stitch 5 smaller images together. Use the most compact tool that will do the job for mtb use. My EDC is a a5000 with a 16mm f2.8 prime. Gives me apsc size images in a p&s size package. Again, go as small/light as practical* for normal mtb use.

    New is usually SLightly different, but get a durable camera that will last a long time so you get to know it well and can use it without thinking about the camera. Because it's about capturing an image. You won't like adapting old lenses to new bodies for mtb use. It's the quality of the pixels, not the quantity. Blah... blah...
    I ride with the best dogs.




  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    I stopped in and talked to the sales guy again. He had 2 lenses on sale, one for $899 and one for $1,899. Sales guy said the cheaper lens was not good in low light, I need the more expensive lens with the larger aperture for night shots. I had a chat with a photographer from the Times, he figures I need a wide lens. I had a chat with a guy in the crowd about his Nikon 850. He said it only has 45 pixels in raw, jpeg is 22 I think is what he said. Next I noticed a Nikon 750 on sale for $1,499, $1,995 with lens, $1,100 off.

    The only thing I can figure out, is I have no education on full frame cameras.

    Last years model on sale for a third off sounds good. They have been at 20 or so pixels for what, 5 years now. so 40 mega pixels will be normal in a year or 2. In the mean time, I need to chose a brand. Once you buy a lens, for $1,000 or $2,000, you are locked into that brand. The body of the camera may last 3 or 4 years, but the lenses could last much longer.

    So, in the mean time I found an rx100m5 for 20% off. Wow it does a lot compared to the rx100 1 it replaces. and works well on a mtb, fits in my pocket. I went back to the store for an external battery charger, because I might have ruined the old camera by plugging it into a external battery pack. The sales guy laughed at my little pocket camera, he called it a blogging camera.

    I wont be happy until I get a full frame camera.
    What did he say, plunk down the 3k? I say, think about it, and see how much camera can be had for 3k, which is what it seems to take, without accessories.

    In the mean time, rx100 5 has a menu setting for 960 fps video. They are not saying nine hundred and sixty frames per second are they?

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,101
    My RX100 IV has those frame rates. It's a good camera for chucking in the Camelbak.
    But full frame cameras are different story, and one I know nothing about. I can't see how you'd ever take a full frame DSLR riding!

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smmokan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,872
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    I stopped in and talked to the sales guy again. He had 2 lenses on sale, one for $899 and one for $1,899. Sales guy said the cheaper lens was not good in low light, I need the more expensive lens with the larger aperture for night shots. I had a chat with a photographer from the Times, he figures I need a wide lens. I had a chat with a guy in the crowd about his Nikon 850. He said it only has 45 pixels in raw, jpeg is 22 I think is what he said. Next I noticed a Nikon 750 on sale for $1,499, $1,995 with lens, $1,100 off.

    The only thing I can figure out, is I have no education on full frame cameras.

    Last years model on sale for a third off sounds good. They have been at 20 or so pixels for what, 5 years now. so 40 mega pixels will be normal in a year or 2. In the mean time, I need to chose a brand. Once you buy a lens, for $1,000 or $2,000, you are locked into that brand. The body of the camera may last 3 or 4 years, but the lenses could last much longer.

    So, in the mean time I found an rx100m5 for 20% off. Wow it does a lot compared to the rx100 1 it replaces. and works well on a mtb, fits in my pocket. I went back to the store for an external battery charger, because I might have ruined the old camera by plugging it into a external battery pack. The sales guy laughed at my little pocket camera, he called it a blogging camera.

    I wont be happy until I get a full frame camera.
    What did he say, plunk down the 3k? I say, think about it, and see how much camera can be had for 3k, which is what it seems to take, without accessories.

    In the mean time, rx100 5 has a menu setting for 960 fps video. They are not saying nine hundred and sixty frames per second are they?
    This is why camera stores suck and they’re going out of business.

    I never buy new lenses- that way it’s easier to sell them and not lose money if you decide to go another direction.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    Last edited by chrisx; 07-16-2018 at 06:32 PM.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626

    Nikon Z sure looks good

    Weather protection.
    I think someone may have mentioned that above.
    Could be important.
    The seventh wave may have splashed a couple of drops of water on my rx100 5. about a week later it dried out and started to work again. About 3 months later the auto focus assist light stopped staying on all the time.

    Are there any pocket cameras with weather protection and a big sensor?

    About a month after I bought it, I returned to the store to buy an extra battery. Naturally, version 6 was on the shelf, with what is it, 7x optical zoom, instead of the 3x I got?

    I would have to say that the new modern auto focus is much better than the version 1 auto focus was.

    I came within an inch of buying the Sony mirror-less full frame. But got the rx100 mainly because I did not understand the lenses. Later a review said how good the mirror-less is. Unless, you like to take pictures of waterfalls

    I got here by walking up the creek not the trail. or hike in the rain. The magazine liked everything about the $3,000 camera except the no weather protection.
    Remember this is a mt bike page.

    Today I am dreaming of owning the Nikon Mirror-less. I heard it was on the market about a day after I bought the rx100 5.

    Z series Mirrorless Cameras.
    ¨Have camera, will travel.
    Z 50’s strong, durable magnesium alloy construction makes it tough enough to take just about anywhere without fear. No need to baby this baby.¨

    ¨Mind-bending Time-Lapse
    Z series cameras create amazing time-lapse videos right in the camera with exposure smoothing and extended low-light metering range—great for star trails and lightpainting.¨

    Nikon mirror less looks good to me. Looks like they have a small $859 model to take on the trail, and the expensive model for a less bumpy day. Everything out there has something wrong with the first model year. I will wait for the version 2 of the 45 mega pixel $3,000 camera. But what about the affordable one? Sounds like a good camera for a mt bike trip.

    Someone correct me if I am wrong;
    All 3 models share lenses and accessories. At least that it what I see at first glance.
    Edit:
    As usual, I was half wrong.
    ¨yes, those two DX lenses will fit on the Z7 - they have the same mount. They will not utilize the larger sensor of the Z7 though since they don't project an image circle large enough to cover it; they will only use 44.44% of the FX sensor. You need FX lenses to use the Z7 fully, not DX ones. So no, buying those DX lenses for later use on the Z7 does not make sense.¨


    Be warned, they have an $8,000 lense for sale.

    The rx 100 has a 13.2 x 8.8 mm sensor. Printed photos of 6 x 8 inches look good. 8 x 10 inch is ok. Honestly, a 20 inch photo does not look that good with a 13 mm sensor.

    Somehow it makes me feel kind of proud when I see my photo on a wall somewhere. I would like to print bigger Photos now and then.
    Camila, the girl in the faded nophotosbucket photo above has an 7 foot by 5 foot frame full of the photos I have printed for her over the years.
    Fernanda, her child is in most of them.
    Flickr
    Sometimes I am not sure I even know how to take a good photo. Is photography like playing a musical instrurment. You need lots of practice to be good at it? Lot of buttons in that little camera.

    3x, 25mm optical zoom is not enough.

    Seems the center tracking focus button does something.
    Look how far I had to crop this picture in flickr.


    I think it is a good photo because I had to get up before the sun to take it

    That does not mean anyone else will like it.

    Maybe some day I will figure out how to take a better picture.


    Cameras make people happy
    Cameras make people happy

    Does the Nikon Z line of cameras sound like a good choice?







    https://www.lonelyspeck.com/
    Last edited by chrisx; 4 Weeks Ago at 11:12 PM.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    921
    Pocket camera witga big sensor? Theres physics involved, until they can bend those laws you have to deal with tge limitations. And generally the more megapixels, the worse low light performance. Again it comes down to limitations. The bigger a single pixel is, the more light sensitive it is. But more megapixels means smaller pixels to cram into the same size sensor. There have been advancments that have improved things, but theres still limits. 40 megapixels is overkill. Heck just processing images on your PC will be a pain with images that large.
    M 4/3 is a pretty good compromise between size and image quality, and Olympus many of them are now weather resistant. Apsc would be the next step.
    Of course if image quality is of primary concern, then go full frame. Actually medium format. But then you have to ge willing to deal with weight, size and cost.
    You need to decide what you want to compromise.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    <Medium Format. $32,000.00 Without a lens. Thousands more for a lens.
    Deam land.

    I might figure out a way to get a $3,000 Z7, maybe.
    Sounds like a good choice? Better idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by root View Post
    more megapixels, the worse low light performance. Again it comes down to limitations. The bigger a single pixel is, the more light sensitive it is. But more megapixels means smaller pixels to cram into the same size sensor. There have been advancments that have improved things, but theres still limits.
    The sales guy at the camera store said something like that. This version is eaiser to understand than the sales guy was.

    The sales guy at the Nikon factory
    says:
    ¨Our vision has always been to create cameras and lenses that capture more light. More light means more detail. More speed. More possibilities. The Z 7 brings that vision to life (and then some). Combining the advantages of a lightweight mirrorless design, a revolutionary new full-frame lens mount and matched lenses, a Nikon designed 45.7MP image sensor and seamless integration with Nikon’s DSLR system—including the NIKKOR lenses you love—the Z 7 is a camera unlike any before it. And yet, it’s unmistakably a Nikon. This is mirrorless reinvented.¨
    https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...meras/z-7.html

    I am trying to decide if I belive the sales guy.
    He more or less says what I want to hear.

    When I finally buy a full frame camera, the lens collection will end up costing more than the camera body.

    Choose carefully.

    Nikon z no objections¿
    Last edited by chrisx; 4 Weeks Ago at 11:05 AM.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    <Medium Format. $32,000.00 Without a lens. Thousands more for a lens.
    Deam land.

    I might figure out a way to get a $3,000 Z7, maybe.
    Sounds like a good choice? Better idea?

    The sales guy at the camera store said something like that. This version is eaiser to understand than the sales guy was.

    The sales guy at the Nikon factory
    says:
    ¨Our vision has always been to create cameras and lenses that capture more light. More light means more detail. More speed. More possibilities. The Z 7 brings that vision to life (and then some). Combining the advantages of a lightweight mirrorless design, a revolutionary new full-frame lens mount and matched lenses, a Nikon designed 45.7MP image sensor and seamless integration with Nikon’s DSLR system—including the NIKKOR lenses you love—the Z 7 is a camera unlike any before it. And yet, it’s unmistakably a Nikon. This is mirrorless reinvented.¨
    https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...meras/z-7.html

    I am trying to decide if I belive the sales guy.
    He more or less says what I want to hear.

    When I finally buy a full frame camera, the lens collection will end up costing more than the camera body.

    Choose carefully.

    Nikon z no objections¿
    No objections, the Z7 is a great camera. If you don't plan on printing 40x60" prints, then it is overkill. 24 MP gets it done printing under 40x60". 10 foot prints??? Gallery shots=medium format and the cost of a house. Really consider how you will shoot. For all around the Sony A6400 and 1 lens on your back biking, anything more is going to suck when you crash, or even tag a tree lightly. I use a Sony A7iii full frame, comes on the bike *only* when i am after very specific shots that i can't get without riding miles into an area, never bouncing around hard with it. The A7iii is about the best low light camera out, i shoot lots of night stuff and this camera is awesome for it. I've had cameras in the last 10 years from Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Olympus, and now Sony. Here are 2 basic shots, one at 8000 ISO and the other at 6400 ISO, 20 second exposures.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails What to buy for my new camera?-a7iii.jpg  

    What to buy for my new camera?-a7306169...jpg  


  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeGeeCee View Post
    anything more is going to suck when you crash, or even tag a tree lightly.
    Something to think about. Cameras do not take a licking and keep on ticking.

    What about cropping. 42 pixels could help.

    40 x 60 centimeters = 15 x 23 inches for a high quality print.

    Good photo of the stars.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    15

    cropping

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    Something to think about. Cameras do not take a licking and keep on ticking.

    What about cropping. 42 pixels could help.

    40 x 60 centimeters = 15 x 23 inches for a high quality print.

    Good photo of the stars.
    More pixels is good for cropping yes, but you eventually run out of resolution, so if you are serious about shooting and quality images, get more lens and keep cropping to a minimum.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    15

    Mirrorless

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeGeeCee View Post
    More pixels is good for cropping yes, but you eventually run out of resolution, so if you are serious about shooting and quality images, get more lens and keep cropping to a minimum.
    Also, I have a 16x24 print on my wall, shot with a 10 MP Canon 40D 12 year old camera, crop sensor. Almost impossible to tell it came from a 12 year old crop sensor low MP cam. It is quite clear to view. A current day 24 MP full frame camera can effortlessly print an excellent quality image at 20x30".
    Lots depends on you and how serious you are about the shots you want... and if you will print, how big, and of course, the $$$ your willing to spend to get what you want. $3K for the Z7 is just the start, you need top glass to take advantage of the resolution, and a bit of computer power to process 45MP RAW images especially in decently sized batches... 4k video??? Need computer power to handle that too so be aware.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeGeeCee View Post

    Also, be aware.
    $7,999.95
    https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...95-s-noct.html
    What to buy for my new camera?-20086-nikkor-z-58mm-f0.95-s-noct-top.png
    https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr.../overview.page

    $799.95
    https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...252f1.8-s.html
    What to buy for my new camera?-20090-nikkor-z-85mm-f1.8-s_top.png

    If you want something bad enough, you will go without other things until you can pay for it. How many people on this page ridea $3,000 bicycle? Most of us went without some other things for a month or two so we could pay for our expensive bicycle.

    Real choice to make.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    115
    What to buy for my new camera?-7cca0371-2adf-40c4-87c2-e24c18c044db.jpeg

    This is very hard to beat in value, function, and compact portability on a bike. Large sensor. Moderate price. Might have been updated. Fits in a shirt pocket or a small model pelican case which is a perfect, light, compact fit.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    626
    This machine really prints 10 foot photos. They do exist

    The black box slides back and forth on the rail and adds a little to the photo with each pass. The photo on the tray is close to 3 feet wide. (Not my photo.)

    Yesterday it was printing two seperate large photos on a single sheet of 8 foot paper.

    Today I had printed 80, 15 x 20 cm photos. From those I found only 6 that I wanted to print at 20 x 30 cm. 20 x 30 cm is pushing your pixel luck with a pocket camera, even a rx100.

    A few years ago.
    There was a thread about a guy from Argentina cycling in the mountains of South America with a portable printer, passing out free photos to people that other wise might not have a photo.

    Be carefull what you read. I got the idea to give the gift of a photo to people that would have a very hard time getting one on their own.







    recuerda Chajul


    There are many places in the world without a photomat to shop at.

    They have to wait the better part of one year to get their photos.
    Do they look like they should have a photo or a very good photo?

    At the Museo Ixil you can touch everything. 800 or 1,800 years old?

Similar Threads

  1. Should I buy a new camera for Black Friday?
    By BCTJ in forum Off Camber (off topic)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 11-23-2017, 04:21 AM
  2. Buy new free hub or buy new wheels
    By eddygrinder in forum 26er Bikes
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-01-2016, 09:12 PM
  3. Which camera should I buy
    By Biocoug1 in forum Photography for mountain bikers
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-14-2015, 03:12 PM
  4. OT: If you had $1000, what camera would you buy?
    By squashyo in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 09-29-2012, 08:57 PM

Members who have read this thread: 41

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.