TR Forums

The a7R was made, at least partly to kick Leica in the balls, along with the rest. I have one friend, a very knowledgeable guy with a huge lens collection who just put his Leica MM up for sale as he says the Sony a7R kicks it's ass.

Apart from the wide lens problem, which Leica adds in camera processing to mitigate, almost all Leica lenses 35mm and up work very well on the a7R which may become a problem for Leica.

Of course, unless you get some kind of smart adapter, the camera will not be auto focusing with adapted lenses. Not a problem for me, I focus manually most of the time even with auto focus available and I am amused at the idea that you need either auto focus or lens stabilization. As I am nearly always on a tripod, my 'universal lens stabilizer' I would have to remember to turn that stuff off.

There is a huge resource in the old Leica and Ziess lenses widely available for quite reasonable prices. My Leica Elmar 135 4, from the early sixties, cost me $325 and may be the best lens I have, although the Fuji XF lenses are very good. I have sold my 14mm for the Zeiss 35mm so that is why. The 14mm was the best lens I had, till it was gone, sob.

Didn't the OP ask about a DSLR? The Sony A7r/Nex and Fuji X aren't really SLRs... (Though they are examples of very cool new consumer camera tech)

Perhaps a budget would be helpful? If I had $2000 to spend on a camera body, I'd be looking seriously at the A7r. For a more DSLR, lower cost body, what do people think about the Sony "DSLR" with the translucent mirror? The a65, including the OLED EVF, starting from around $500, might be interesting. Seems to be a very solid DSLR equivalent in that price range.

If your budget is 2-3x that, the Pentax K-3 is an interesting looking, serious prosumer DSLR, with it's novel user-selectable Anti-Aliasing filter and new (for Pentax) 24 MP sensor.

Not everyone requires endless lens selection offered by Canon and Nikon. And if you really want to use a specific lens, chances are, someone has made an adapter.

The Pentax K-3 looks like an incredible camera- I'm jealous- but their lenses border on mediocre, as does their lens selection, in comparison to Canon or Nikon. If you told me you needed a camera to survive shooting combat in pouring rain, that's great, but with any kind of budget or any aspiration for higher-quality lenses or moving to full-frame quashes the argument for Pentax pretty quickly.

The SLTs, already mentioned in this thread, represent a great option particularly with the availability of older Minolta glass. They are, however, no better than Nikon at their best. And they still lack the lens options, from both cost and availability perspectives.

Adapted lenses can be amazing, and they can be a headache, depending on what you're really trying to capture. Losing auto-focus can be a big deal for action, and it's not something I'd recommend too easily; and fully-manual glass requires further understanding.

I love the Samyang 14/2.8- talk about a value- but it's no 'point and shoot' lens, what with the manual aperture, manual focus, and zero communication with the camera for focus confirmation or recording settings for each shot.

Airmantharp wrote:

The Pentax K-3 looks like an incredible camera- I'm jealous- but their lenses border on mediocre, as does their lens selection, in comparison to Canon or Nikon. If you told me you needed a camera to survive shooting combat in pouring rain, that's great, but with any kind of budget or any aspiration for higher-quality lenses or moving to full-frame quashes the argument for Pentax pretty quickly.

I love the Samyang 14/2.8- talk about a value- but it's no 'point and shoot' lens, what with the manual aperture, manual focus, and zero communication with the camera for focus confirmation or recording settings for each shot.

Yes, when considering full-frame, I agree. But then, you need to jump up to a minimum of around $2000 just for the body. (The least expensive full frame Nikon is the 610, no?). I think, due to the popularity of Pentax, the k-3 body, after it's been out for a few months, will settle at a bit under $1000, which will make it pretty compelling for a high-end APS-C DSLR. But yes, of course not for lens selection.

For tripod work (especially for shots of the night sky, is mentioned by the OP) I tend to favor manual focus anyway (though some of the focus metering/peaking tech that's available now is a pretty great companion even for that).

cynan wrote:

Airmantharp wrote:

The Pentax K-3 looks like an incredible camera- I'm jealous- but their lenses border on mediocre, as does their lens selection, in comparison to Canon or Nikon. If you told me you needed a camera to survive shooting combat in pouring rain, that's great, but with any kind of budget or any aspiration for higher-quality lenses or moving to full-frame quashes the argument for Pentax pretty quickly.

I love the Samyang 14/2.8- talk about a value- but it's no 'point and shoot' lens, what with the manual aperture, manual focus, and zero communication with the camera for focus confirmation or recording settings for each shot.

Yes, when considering full-frame, I agree. But then, you need to jump up to a minimum of around $2000 just for the body. (The least expensive full frame Nikon is the 610, no?). I think, due to the popularity of Pentax, the k-3 body, after it's been out for a few months, will settle at a bit under $1000, which will make it pretty compelling for a high-end APS-C DSLR. But yes, of course not for lens selection.

For tripod work (especially for shots of the night sky, is mentioned by the OP) I tend to favor manual focus anyway (though some of the focus metering/peaking tech that's available now is a pretty great companion even for that).

Peaking won't help you much on the night sky but the ability to magnify is very useful. I use my Fuji's 10x and 3x magnifiers a lot, but I do focus manually at least half the time.

The ability to magnify is indispensable; I use 10x constantly on my 6D for checking critical focus.

I'd suggest that you, as a noob, don't worry all that much about which specific model. (And fretting over the N vs. C question is insane!)

Buy something generic and 'good enough' for now, and plan get something nicer in a year or two, when you know - from personal experience - what features YOU find useful and necessary. Asking "What should I buy" on the interwebs invariably gets you little more than everyone's My Precious! favorite list.

Go to the local Big Box stores and play with what they've got. See how you like the menus, how the camera sits in your hand, compare viewfinder usability, etc. Ignore the $%^@$ Megapickles and other BS, and concentrate on practical usability. When you've got a short list, start shopping (and head back here and to other forums for camera-specific advice.) and see what you can find.

Consider a used body off KEH, or maybe a factory refurb. Either option will save you a ton of %, and offer a multi-month warranty.
http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catal ... Price_list
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Store/ ... c_s:DIGSLR
Adorama is a good bet for reburbs, selling factory-approved gear.

cynan wrote:

Didn't the OP ask about a DSLR? The Sony A7r/Nex and Fuji X aren't really SLRs... (Though they are examples of very cool new consumer camera tech)

True. However, "what DSLR options are good?" is frequently code for "I want something better than a standard point and shoot", rather than "I want a DSLR" specifically. A lot of people who aren't deep into the hobby think it's a game of compacts, DSLRs, and nothing else. So pointing out something that is a little off the beaten track, but close to what they may really want, is not exactly off topic.

Perhaps a budget would be helpful?

A budget would definitely help narrow down the reasonable options.

Not everyone requires endless lens selection offered by Canon and Nikon. And if you really want to use a specific lens, chances are, someone has made an adapter.

True.

However.

The first question as to whether a given lens can be successfully mounted on a third party body is, what's the flange distance for the mounting camera body? Second question is, what's the flange distance for the system the lens was made for? (Flange distance is the distance from the film plane - or sensor plane - to the point where the camera mounts.)

If the lens flange distance is greater than the camera's flange distance, an adaptor is easy - just space the lens away from the body so it's the right distance from the sensor. If it's less than the camera's flange distance, though, you need to have optical correction so the lens can focus correctly, and that gets very expensive, very quickly.

For example, the Nikon F mount has a flange distance of 46.5mm. Canon EF has a flange distance of 44mm. Mounting Nikon lenses on a Canon DSLR? Space it out 2.5mm, done (you lose AF, but that's it.) Going the other way? Optical elements to refocus the image 2.5mm (or more!) further away than the lens was designed to do; tricky at best.

TL;DR: adapters add complexity to the decision making process; you're better off, at least in the short term, keeping everything within a single system.

As for which camera to buy, my response is, "whatever feels the most comfortable, and fits within your budget." Virtually any entry level DSLR or similar camera will whomp all over any realistic system from ten years ago; the camera is not likely to be the problem in taking good shots. Lens choice, and technical ability, are more important, especially at first (and of those two, I'd rate technical ability as being more significant than lens choice, although lens choice does help to an extent.)

cynan wrote:

Not everyone requires endless lens selection offered by Canon and Nikon.

Is it like Pokémon for rich grown-ups?
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/pre ... lineup.jpg

JustAnEngineer wrote:

cynan wrote:

Not everyone requires endless lens selection offered by Canon and Nikon.

Is it like Pokémon for rich grown-ups?
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/pre ... lineup.jpg

I can pick out five of mine on the front row, and two behind- but they left out my Canadian-sourced EF-M 11-22!

cynan wrote:

Didn't the OP ask about a DSLR? The Sony A7r/Nex and Fuji X aren't really SLRs... *snip*(Though they are examples of very cool new consumer camera tech)

Yup, I did, mainly because I've got a basic understanding of the workings of older 35mm SLRs, like the Pentax I used to own.

Perhaps a budget would be helpful? *snip*...

I was hoping to keep the body down to $1000, if possible, then another $1500 on lenses, tripod, and flash. If that's unrealistic, I can try to get the budget up to $4K total, but for something that's just going to be a hobby, that's going to be the top of the mark.

That's a generous enough budget to consider a full-frame camera.

Here's my little list:

A Fuji X-E2 and XF 18-55 $1400 :
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... amera.html

An XF 55-200 $700:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/9 ... _xf_r.html

Those are both very fine lenses and both have stabilization.

I like RRS stuff but it's not cheap and hardly necessary. It is a joy to use though;) :

An L Plate for an X-E2 $120 :
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/BXE2-L- ... -X-E2.html

A BH-30 LR Ballhead and clamp, fits the L Plate $275:
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/s.nl/it.A/id.9062/.f

A tripod from these guys is very expensive and carbon fiber. I have an old and very solid Manfrotto but it's overkill for the X cameras. I'd look around for a solid used one myself but there lots out there.

DxOMark just did a quick overview of lenses for the new Nikon D5300. Best crop sensor from Nikon so far, with an articulating screen and WiFi+GPS built-in (also a first for Nikon). Their new kit 18-140 lens is looking pretty good, too; couple that with a couple of light primes, maybe throw in a telezoom, and you're set. That's if PenGun doesn't sell you on the Fuji first, though!

JustAnEngineer wrote:

That's a generous enough budget to consider a full-frame camera.

I'm thinking that too- the Canon 6D + 24-105L is one of the best full-frame kit bargains available, while Nikon D610's are pretty cheap on their own; just skip the 24-85G kit lens. Really depends on which lenses you'd get, since Nikon's lower-end and mid-range primes are a bit newer and nicer, but they're also more expensive.

Still, I find that my 6D and Canon 50/1.4 make a very versatile kit. Great low-light performance while being one of the sharpest (in absolute terms) auto-focus 50mm lenses on the market with the aperture closed down. Trade the 50mm for the 40/2.8 and the kit becomes almost invisible, as people aren't used to seeing a semi-pro DSLR with a nondescript pancake lens attached.

Also pay heed to PenGun's comments on good support. >90% of my shots look great on Flikr, Facebook, or in small prints, but they're robbed of sharpness by subtle camera motion. With 20MP and sharp lenses at my disposal every vibration counts, and that's doubly so for crop cameras and the Nikon/Sony 36MP jobs that have much tighter pixel pitch!

PenGun wrote:

Here's my little list:

A Fuji X-E2 and XF 18-55 $1400 :
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... amera.html

An XF 55-200 $700:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/9 ... _xf_r.html

Those are both very fine lenses and both have stabilization.

I like RRS stuff but it's not cheap and hardly necessary. It is a joy to use though;) :

An L Plate for an X-E2 $120 :
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/BXE2-L- ... -X-E2.html

A BH-30 LR Ballhead and clamp, fits the L Plate $275:
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/s.nl/it.A/id.9062/.f

A tripod from these guys is very expensive and carbon fiber. I have an old and very solid Manfrotto but it's overkill for the X cameras. I'd look around for a solid used one myself but there lots out there.

Wow! Quite nice! Thanks!

Airmantharp wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

That's a generous enough budget to consider a full-frame camera.

I'm thinking that too- the Canon 6D + 24-105L is one of the best full-frame kit bargains available, while Nikon D610's are pretty cheap on their own; just skip the 24-85G kit lens. Really depends on which lenses you'd get, since Nikon's lower-end and mid-range primes are a bit newer and nicer, but they're also more expensive.

Still, I find that my 6D and Canon 50/1.4 make a very versatile kit. Great low-light performance while being one of the sharpest (in absolute terms) auto-focus 50mm lenses on the market with the aperture closed down. Trade the 50mm for the 40/2.8 and the kit becomes almost invisible, as people aren't used to seeing a semi-pro DSLR with a nondescript pancake lens attached.

So, something like this, along with this, then? I'm not afraid of buying a used body(my old Pentax was), so I'll shop around a bit.


Now this next bit may seem silly to you all, but it just dawned on me that I only did black and white photography in college, not color. Last night while I was walking my dogs, I looked up at the moon and it was obscured by a thinnish layer of cloud. Enough to take the harsh glare down a few pegs, so you wouldn't need a moon filter on a telescope, for instance. The rest of the clouds were actually quite nicely illuminated by the moonlight. In that kind of scenario, what would you meter off of? I couldn't really find a middle grey in all that, and I don't know what you meter off of when shooting in color.

Hz so good wrote:

So, something like this, along with this, then? I'm not afraid of buying a used body(my old Pentax was), so I'll shop around a bit.

Used is good, so is refurbished- check Canon's site for those, along with Adorama, B&H, and Amazon for Canon and other make refurbished stuff. Canon refurbished might as well be brand new, and Canon actually runs decent sales from their own refurbished store!

Hz so good wrote:

Now this next bit may seem silly to you all, but it just dawned on me that I only did black and white photography in college, not color. Last night while I was walking my dogs, I looked up at the moon and it was obscured by a thinnish layer of cloud. Enough to take the harsh glare down a few pegs, so you wouldn't need a moon filter on a telescope, for instance. The rest of the clouds were actually quite nicely illuminated by the moonlight. In that kind of scenario, what would you meter off of? I couldn't really find a middle grey in all that, and I don't know what you meter off of when shooting in color.

A neutral grey will help you set white balance, while you can pick your metering mode as needed, such as point or average. And with digital, you get instant feedback along with a histogram to help you balance everything out; and shots only cost flash space .

Airmantharp wrote:

Hz so good wrote:

So, something like this, along with this, then? I'm not afraid of buying a used body(my old Pentax was), so I'll shop around a bit.

Used is good, so is refurbished- check Canon's site for those, along with Adorama, B&H, and Amazon for Canon and other make refurbished stuff. Canon refurbished might as well be brand new, and Canon actually runs decent sales from their own refurbished store!

I'll definitely be checking those out.

A neutral grey will help you set white balance, while you can pick your metering mode as needed, such as point or average. And with digital, you get instant feedback along with a histogram to help you balance everything out; and shots only cost flash space .

That's one thing I don't miss about film. Having to wait to see if the changes you made did any good, compounded with under/over developing the negatives just made it a big hassle, to me at least. One thing I love about messing around with routers, switches, DSLAMs, etc, is the immediate feedback you get. You know instantly if you just screwed up, or if you fixed the problem. I like that it's now possible to bring that type of feedback to photography. If this had been around 20 years ago, I may have ended up pursuing this line of work, instead of ISP jobs.

For the OP, and for the purposes of anyone wanting to get into interchangeable lenses, don't just buy a system. Figure out what is going to work for you. This really needs to start with one very subjective piece of equipment: The Viewfinder.

For all that is good and holy, go to a store and try out an optical viewfinder (Canon, Nikon, Pentax) and also good Electronic Viewfinders (Olympus, Sony). The choice to use a viewfinder is really highly subjective. As someone who only recently came into photography, I could never take a step (that to me is) backwards into an optical viewfinder. There is simply too much information for me to use in the viewfinder. I can see exactly how the exposed the image is, I can see the white balance, I can view a live histogram (which takes some practice, but is invaluable) while I am composing a shot. Many of the negatives that were associated with EVF's simply do not exist any more (lag, issues with brightness) and for a beginner, it can be the difference between taking numerous poor shots until you get it "right" or a few good shots that are right from the beginning.

Figure out what features you want and need, then look at brands. Don't pick a brand and a price point.

TheEmrys wrote:

For the OP, and for the purposes of anyone wanting to get into interchangeable lenses, don't just buy a system. Figure out what is going to work for you. This really needs to start with one very subjective piece of equipment: The Viewfinder.

For all that is good and holy, go to a store and try out an optical viewfinder (Canon, Nikon, Pentax) and also good Electronic Viewfinders (Olympus, Sony). The choice to use a viewfinder is really highly subjective. As someone who only recently came into photography, I could never take a step (that to me is) backwards into an optical viewfinder. There is simply too much information for me to use in the viewfinder. I can see exactly how the exposed the image is, I can see the white balance, I can view a live histogram (which takes some practice, but is invaluable) while I am composing a shot. Many of the negatives that were associated with EVF's simply do not exist any more (lag, issues with brightness) and for a beginner, it can be the difference between taking numerous poor shots until you get it "right" or a few good shots that are right from the beginning.

Figure out what features you want and need, then look at brands. Don't pick a brand and a price point.

Good point! Thanks! I haven't really used an Electronic Viewfinder (unless my phone counts), but I did use the old analog one that came with my camera all the time, and found it invaluable.

As long as it has an actual viewfinder (penta-prism, penta-mirror or electronic), operating the camera is probably going to be okay. The mirrorless systems that completely eliminate the viewfinder and use only the screen on the back are far less ergonomic for still photography.


Just so that the OP knows where my biases may be, I'll list my current gear as: Canon EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. I have previously used the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II, EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lenses and the EOS 40D and EOS Rebel SL1 cameras as well as the Nikon D80, AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED, AF-S DX 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED and AF 50mm f/1.4D.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

As long as it has an actual viewfinder (penta-prism, penta-mirror or electronic), operating the camera is probably going to be okay. The mirrorless systems that completely eliminate the viewfinder and use only the screen on the back are far less ergonomic for still photography.


Just so that the OP knows where my biases may be, I'll list my current gear as: Canon EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. I have previously used the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II, EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lenses and the EOS 40D and EOS Rebel SL1 cameras as well as the Nikon D80, AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED, AF-S DX 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED and AF 50mm f/1.4D.

It's funny but I use nothing but the LCD now. It's not that the EVF is bad, it's very good but I am always on a tripod and it's just easier to use the screen for composing and, a big part of why I use the LCD a lot, zooming in to focus.

I am going to use my monster phone to control the a7R I will soon acquire and it has a 6.4' scree I will use when wirelessly tethered. I guess looking at the ground glass on my 4x5 was also an inducement to use the screen, I dunno.

LCDs are nice when using a tripod, but viewfinders are much more convenient when you're not.
The focus screen on my T1i had been borked for a few months as I didn't have time to fix it myself and don't know of any good repair shops in my area. Since most of my lenses are MF, this was awful, as I had to use the LCD all the time. It just wasn't comfortable for me at all, mainly because it's a lot easier to hold the camera steady next to your body, not at an arms length. Even when I used an AF lens, I couldn't tell if it picked the wrong place to focus, leading to a lot of missed shots.

That is rough. I don't know what I would do without my focus peaking and direct manual focus.

TheEmrys wrote:

That is rough. I don't know what I would do without my focus peaking and direct manual focus.

I have three manual-focus lenses, my SY14/2.8 for my 6D and two inherited Minolta MD lenses that I put on my EOS-M. I find magnified live view to be essential, which is pretty well done in Canon's latest bodies, though I'm still waiting for a solid build of Magic Lantern for each for that specific feature, which rocked on my 60D.

lonelyppl, have you tried ML on your T1i yet? That build is pretty mature, and should open up a lot of alternative features that you may find useful!

I actually just downloaded it the other day. I've already found some features pretty useful (HDR/bracketing, intervalometer). The manual focus aids are going to take some experimentation for me though.
Focus peaking only works for chipped lenses, right? My adapters aren't chipped so that may be an issue, but hey! I'll find out more as I use it more.

lonleyppl wrote:

I actually just downloaded it the other day. I've already found some features pretty useful (HDR/bracketing, intervalometer). The manual focus aids are going to take some experimentation for me though.
Focus peaking only works for chipped lenses, right? My adapters aren't chipped so that may be an issue, but hey! I'll find out more as I use it more.

Really? The Fuji X stuff, and the Sony a7R do focus peaking with any thing. I leave it on but turn it down, magnification is far more useful for me.

Unfortunately, it's not something I can really confirm yet- I sold my 60D before I got my hands on any non-coupled manual focus glass. Magic Lantern's focus peaking worked great with EF lenses, but I'm not quite sure about their current builds. For now, it looks like the build for my EOS-M is the most mature, and it could definitely use the help!

PenGun wrote:

lonleyppl wrote:

I actually just downloaded it the other day. I've already found some features pretty useful (HDR/bracketing, intervalometer). The manual focus aids are going to take some experimentation for me though.
Focus peaking only works for chipped lenses, right? My adapters aren't chipped so that may be an issue, but hey! I'll find out more as I use it more.

Really? The Fuji X stuff, and the Sony a7R do focus peaking with any thing. I leave it on but turn it down, magnification is far more useful for me.

This is still me getting used to ML. Focus peaking will work in Live View (through the LCD, when the mirror is flipped up all the time) with any lens, as will trap focus. Trap focus will also work with chipped lenses through the viewfinder, which is neat, except I only have one chipped lens, though this could be handy as it's AF dies.

For JAE:




Nice to hear that it's working with non-chipped lenses. That'll be useful when they get a stable build for the 6D out!