Helping my partner pick his NEW camera.

[Turboguard]

So my partner owns this shitty Nikon from like 2003 and he keeps bragging how amazing it was for it's time and how expensive it was. (I took some pics with it when selling some equipment on craigslist and after seeing them on the computer I used my iPhone instead!)

 

So now I've been trying to figure out what camera he should get. To mind comes the new Panasonic LX100 and FZ1000. Mainly for price (lens and camera in one for that price is kind of unbeatable of the cameras I've looked at.)

 

Yesterday he came to me and told me he was going to buy the Sony A6000, and I was surprised, because it just came out of nowhere that he just decided on this camera.

 

I know this is a filmforum first of all but my partner is mainly a still photographer. He's not an expert on the technology but he does have a good eye for composition and light (saying this so you guys can help me figure out what camera would be a great option for him.)

 

Again, his previous camera was Nikon so him getting a Sony means getting E mount lenses and he needs at least ONE good lens (again LX100 and FZ1000 provides extremely good lenses from what I've read and they're both perfectly fine for his kind of subjects even though the FZ has an even longer focal length than he really needs!)

 

OKAY; this is getting long, OF COURSE I WANT TO USE HIS CAMERA FOR FILM STUFF TOO, as I'm a BMPCC user, getting some of the video features on HIS new camera would be awesome, so put that into the calculation :D

 

ANY TIPS, GREATLY APPRECIATED! 

 

[Nikkor]

What kind of photography are we talking about?

[leeys]

What kind of photography, and what quality level is needed?

[Turboguard]

So, he used to bring his camera with him every time we left the house (now I usually film family events and so on so he leaves it to me). But any kind of urban/nature, i'd say maybe portrait style from time to time. 

 

Quality wise (because I'll use it too and have worked with full frame still photography for a couple of years myself) I don't want to get like a rebel or something.

 

Hope that answers your questions...

[Nikkor]

Well the lx100 seems like the most handy option, but still quLity wise it wont be that far away from the typical rebel/entry level dslr.

The A7 is a nice camera and it looks like the price goes down a little bit more every week, downside os that the video sucks, but the stills will be great with the kit 24-70 4 and you can use all that classic glass plus focus peaking (you could use all that glass on your bmpcc with a speedbooster).

[Turboguard]

So no thoughts on the FZ1000? Andrew Reid seems to enjoy it (but that's maybe not for the stills part...)

 

 

I think he also likes the form factor on the A6000 therefor did I ad the LX100. 

[Tim Fraser]

Hello,

 

Steve Huff (more of a stills photographer) certainly raved about the Olympus EM1.  You can see his review here.

 

On this forum another user >posted a topic called "Still like my EM1"   It's this video of skin tones that really got me wondering...if my own next camera purchase was really off.   Most people seem to find it a joy to use the EM1 filming handheld with it's excellent built in stabilisation, also hugely useful for stills and being in New York that frame rate of 30p might well be liveable with?

 

For portraits your partner might like the forthcoming LX100 you mentioned.  It's 4K "photo mode" while recording video, means he could extract 8Mp stills from any frame of video(this link illustrates process and a try out with professional still photographers using video stream from a 1DC).  Everything I've read describes "photo mode" on the LX100 as a feature you perform in camera.... hoping there may be post processing option on that too!

 

You'ill want to hear about the still quality of the A6000 from the point of view you mentioned, ie coming from full frame, from someone who has both cameras.  

 

A portrait photographer could potentially stand further away from their subjects using the longer zoom range of the FZ1000, perhaps making them feel more comfortable but it does have a smaller sensor...and doesn't go near as wide in video as the LX100.  Check if the LX100 can go long enough for your partner.

 

If m4/3 is too small a sensor, I found this video tutorial most interesting;  this tichy wee camera reportedly has the same sensor as Canon 7D and with adapter can take all canon lenses as well as the excellent native EOS-M fit 22mm f2 which is reckoned pretty sharp. Even the native kit lens is better quality than Canon's Dslr kit lens as the distance from rear element to sensor is less.  The video was a great demo for me personally as to one way to rig for audio monitoring and capturing high quality audio.   Bear in mind the EOS-M (with focus magnify feature of ML loaded and working DURING record) camera can record decent audio but it's preamps are not up to professional grade, but by feeding a properly amplified signal in, there is no post syncing.  A pretty decent tutorial I thought and well worth a watch perhaps.

 

How about this for a new EOS-M body and f2 lens :-) 

[MattH]

You probably cant go that far wrong with an a6000.  Fairly small, APSC sensor, viewfinder, decent video if you need it. compact zoom kit lens available. Other lenes to expand to. many with OSS (although nex lenses are fairly expensive).  You can use adapters to use nikon lenses.  

 

EOS-M has very good quality stills and is cheaper and has great lenses which are also cheap, but it doens't have a viewfinder and video is meh. 

 

I think if you personally want a camera with a particular feature like 4k you should save up and buy one for yourself.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I saw an eos m in a local store for 250$, with a 22mm pancake. Might pick one up for a C camera or for children/wife shooting, It's a 200$ 650D, and I still use the 60D and produce paid work with it and it has the exact same image. Maxotics here has also developed the raw capability on the eos m and he mentioned it shooting reliable 720p 14bit raw video I believe. I mean come on that's pretty special for a price of an extra battery for most cameras.

[Tim Fraser]

Picked up an EOS-M with kit lens just the other day and fair comment MattH on the Video capability, it doesn't seem to be up to the sharpness of even my Olympus PM2, although also just found out that my model of Olympus doesn't do auto-iso in manual video mode like this can.  In case anyone is interested I noticed Argos in the UK have the EOS-M kit reduced to £199 with the 18-55 zoom and flash.

 

Here's some output after visiting my daughter today using the EOS-M which is .mov footage out of camera.

 

1920x1080/25p

1/50th

f4 then f6.3 in the living room

AWB

Auto-iso

Manual Focus

 

I'm discovering that ease of shooting is a main issue.   I was manual focusing using the focus magnify of Magic Lantern on this EOS-M. Even with focus magnify, I find I still need to zoom in and focus then zoom out.

 

Is manual focus the best approach?

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Look at those Canon colours at 199$. Many 5000$ cameras can't do that. I think the Eos m is the bargain of the video world.  

[IronFilm]

Surely if he got this "AMAZING" and very expensive Nikon camera, he must have lots and lots of very nice Nikon lenses? (well.... he should, but I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't?)

Thus logically a good camera to get is the Nikon D5200, it will be a huge leap up in quality (can match stills from full frame from only a few years ago, while matching 5DmkIII for video) while still being very cheap.

Or more likely, the D7100 as I bet his lenses don't have an AF motor built into many of them.

 

Another option is go mirrorless, and he can keep on using his lenses with that. Such as the Sony A7, which can be found for under US$1k on special.

 

If you want to go down the path of a fixed lens camera (rather than an intechangeable lens one, which I reckon is a way better idea), this article lays out good reasons to go for the RX10:
http://www.oldmaninmotion.com/four-great-still-shooting-feats-my-sub-1k-mirrorless-can-do-that-my-3k-dslr-cant/


I'm curious as to what camera he got back in 2003, I would guess a Nikon D100? (which isn't so terribly terrible is it? I started out on D50, which is much newer but only marginally better if that)

[Turboguard]

Ugh, wrote a LOOONG reply to you all and accidentally updated the page so it all disappeared.

 

First of all, Thank you all for your replies!

 

2nd. Eos M is ugly (the looks and feel of the camera is a main deal for him)

 

3rd. We went to BH this weekend so he could look at tons of cameras and after loving the looks of the Sony A-series and Pana GX serier we picked up the A6000 for now (will pick up the LX100 in November just to compare).

 

4th. He does have Nikon lenses, he has some really nice Nikkor glass actually so I told him about metabones, but that's for later. Oh and he has a D60 so I guess he bought it in 2008 and not 2003 (I compared the images taken with it (I used my sigma 18-35 F1.8 on it) to my 5DM2 and BMPCC RAW and it just looked OLD).

 

AGAIN; THANKS EVERYONE FOR YOUR REPLIES.