|
My pics... (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Joss Weatherby |
Ratcliff always comes off sort of a douche (well he is sort of a douche) but I have been recommending mirrorless bodies to people for a bit now that want a better camera than a point and shoot, but are put off by the bulk of a DSLR.
The price needs to come down significantly though, but when it does I think that the consumer line of DSLRs are going to be dead in the water because so many new photographers get put off by the physical size of the equipment.
They will never fully kill good full frame DSLRs though. I wouldn't trade even my Mk1 5D for a NEX. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
From all of those reviews, the downfalls of a mirrorless body are pretty negligible.
The only drawbacks are low light, and I don't take a lot of those pictures anyways. At 24MP, that's higher than most low or even mid level DSLRs.
Also Idk what you mean by the price when you can get a brand new nex 7 with a 15mm lense for $1,200. A comparable Nikon or Canon should be more than that. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
From all of those reviews, the downfalls of a mirrorless body are pretty negligible.
The only drawbacks are low light, and I don't take a lot of those pictures anyways. At 24MP, that's higher than most low or even mid level DSLRs.
Also Idk what you mean by the price when you can get a brand new nex 7 with a 15mm lense for $1,200. A comparable Nikon or Canon should be more than that. |
You can get a Rebel with kit lens for roughly half that. The lenses are also cheaper for traditional DSLRs by and away for the variety (as long as you aren't going fancy on the lens features like stabilization or quiet motors or special glass). |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| Rebels also range from 10-16 mp. Nikon and Canon lenses aren't cheaper either. They're only cheaper if you get some off-brand model. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Rebels also range from 10-16 mp. Nokia and Canon lenses aren't cheaper either. They're only cheaper if you get some off-brand model. |
Nokia? :p
And no, there are plenty of lower end Canon and Nikon lenses meant for the consumer market that come in under what a lot of lenses for the Sony are at, and more variety. A lot of the Sony lenses are in the 600-900$ range (which is cheaper than a really nice DSLR lens, you can easily spend 3x more than you did for a body on a lens) but there seems to not be a lot of variety below that. You can find a wide variety of Canon brand lens in the 100-500$ range. They aren't going to be the best quality lenses (not L glass, no USM, no IS, and usually f/4 at least) but you get a lot of nice things to try out in terms of focal length and experimenting as a beginner.
Also MP are important but are not the whole story, ever. My 12.8MP 5D will return consistently better quality images than a 24MP mirrorless purely based on the physical size of the sensor. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
Sorry, Nikon.
And if djopernikus is thinking about switching, I'd take his word over yours lol. His shots are absolutely beautiful. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| Charcoal Dream is really nice. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Sorry, Nikon.
And if djopernikus is thinking about switching, I'd take his word over yours lol. His shots are absolutely beautiful. |
You are such a ing retard that it literally hurts to read your posts.
I never said one was better than the other in any significant way, nor did I say that kopernikus had any less of an opinion. All I said is that right now for the price DSLR is still better for people starting out. Unless you are going to make photography a serious hobby or profession it doesn't make sense to start dropping 1200$ on a body and 800$ for lenses, especially if you have no idea if you are going to be good at it or have the time to do it seriously.
The only reason I actually have for suggesting a mirrorless to anyone starting out now is if they are too much of a prat to be seen with a big ass camera body (style over function/price fools). |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
The Nex 7 with 18-55mm lens is $1,200.
You also actually did say that your DSLR would return better quality images than the Sony which has twice the MP, so your whole "I never said one was better than the other in any significant way" thing is bull too.
That's right off of Sony's website. I'm sure you could even find it for cheaper elsewhere.
Also, I don't really understand what you're talking about with the whole size issue. I don't think it has anything to do with "not wanting to be seen with a big DSLR" it's just functionally a better design. It's more easily transportable, it's way lighter which would make it easier to hold steady when not using a tripod, and you wouldn't have to carry around a big bulky case to hold all the lenses/body/etc., you can practically carry the whole thing in a jacket pocket.
You just sound like a DSLR fanboy. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
The Nex 7 with 18-55mm lens is $1,200.
You also actually did say that your DSLR would return better quality images than the Sony which has twice the MP, so your whole "I never said one was better than the other in any significant way" thing is bull too.
That's right off of Sony's website. I'm sure you could even find it for cheaper elsewhere.
Also, I don't really understand what you're talking about with the whole size issue. I don't think it has anything to do with "not wanting to be seen with a big DSLR" it's just functionally a better design. It's more easily transportable, it's way lighter which would make it easier to hold steady when not using a tripod, and you wouldn't have to carry around a big bulky case to hold all the lenses/body/etc., you can practically carry the whole thing in a jacket pocket.
You just sound like a DSLR fanboy. |
:stongue:
Oh god, keep talking, please, its so much easier to get work done when you do all the arguing against yourself. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
You just said the body alone is $1,200 and the lenses are $800.
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-55-210mm...ds=nex+7+lenses
There's another lens for $350.
So so far you've said the body is $1,200 by itself, and lenses are $800. I've shown you that the body WITH a lens is $1,200, and a 55-210mm lens is $350. Anything else? |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
You just said the body alone is $1,200 and the lenses are $800.
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-55-210mm...ds=nex+7+lenses
There's another lens for $350.
So so far you've said the body is $1,200 by itself, and lenses are $800. I've shown you that the body WITH a lens is $1,200, and a 55-210mm lens is $350. Anything else? |
Yes, I might have mis-spoken in one place, but I also said a DSLR with a kit lens (same focal length as that one) is significantly less (Canon started putting on way better kit lenses on the Rebel the last few years). The T5i with a kit 18-55 with IS is 700-800$ and I am sure you could find it for a lot less if you dug around.
Also, showing me one lens is not "variety" lol.
I don't know why you are so adamant about this argument. I didn't criticize you, I didn't criticize anyone else, I just said that when the price in general for mirrorless cameras comes down it will beat out the consumer/entry level DSLR market easily. That hasn't happened yet, you can look at the sales, its not there, and one of the sticking points is price. I don't know why you are so keen to argue on this.
I am not even criticizing the camera, and guess what everyone, professional or otherwise will say that yes, you are going to get better quality off a larger, non-crop sensor in a DSLR, especially in low light. It is literally physics, you can't argue with it, more sensor surface = more light = better quality. Even saying this, its marginal. Mirrorless cameras take excellent photos, but they do have drawbacks compared to an SLR, same as an SLR has drawbacks to a mirrorless. They are slightly different tools, and a good photographer is going to know what tools work best for their work. |
|
|
|
|
