Photocameras

So that both landscapes and necessarily macro and not expensive and in the pocket to fit.

In my opinion, it's like in a joke, you know: choose any two points.
If you look purely at the image quality, I did best on the DSLR. But you can't put it in your pocket, and it's expensive...

Thank you. I myself used the Canon PowerShot A640 for a long time. The device was very tenacious - sand, rain, rocks. And it was powered by AA batteries. The macro is bad, but you could have tried. When there was a lack of lighting, I shot very noisily.
With a large matrix, as far as I understand, there are much more worries and it is more difficult to get a good picture than with a small matrix, although the result can be much better.
ENO, you guessed it, I'm thinking about either Canon or Nex. With Sonya, it is not clear how she endures the hardships of camping life. If you choose this option, would a 30 mm f/3.5 Macro lens (SEL-30M35) be a good universal solution?

None of the "budget" lenses on mount E will be not only universal, but generally some good solution. You'll spit when you think of Canon. But Nex is good because it allows you to put almost any lenses of all times and peoples through adapters (not necessarily even photographic ones), as long as they only wing the APS-C, and with them it already gives out a picture of the hoo-hoo. At flea markets, you can find a lot of good Soviet ones for ridiculous money. DSLRs can not do this because of the long working period, they only put lenses from DSLRs, especially Nikon distinguished itself - it is fashionable to put only native lenses or sovotsky lenses with an H mount (they are rare and relatively expensive). So it's better to take the carcass, or with the cheapest whale, which will be. But I would think about hardships and hardships. The soap dish is good because in any conditions bullets on the matrix are not clogged (although Pan Hierophis said. that Olympuz managed to create such a soapbox lens, which is still clogged, but that is rather an exception). So decide first of all what you need: compactness-versatility-survivability, or high aesthetics of images. In general, what is the ultimate goal of photography in your case?

In general, what is the ultimate goal of photography in your case?

Technical survey, road notes.

Take any of the Sony NEX models.
On Avito, you can find it for cheap... : -)
- - -
I had NEX-3, NEX-5, NEX-C3, NEX-3n, NEX-5n.
The picture didn't differ much.
---
Now in the field I take A6000 and Canon 650D.

On the contrary, it is easier to get a good picture.

In any case, it is more difficult-stupidly because a larger sensor is more difficult to properly illuminate than a smaller one.
In particular, this is why 135 once became the main format, other small ones did not take root, and SF and CF were marginalized (although there are some areas of application where, apart from CF, there are no options at all...).

Take any of the Sony NEX models.

Sonya's crafts have at least one good joint specifically for the field - fierce voracity.
Where a simple-minded elephant/boot-with-a-flapping-mirror has enough battery power for a couple of days, Sonya will eat four grand in one.
Even panolympuses are more modest, with all their stubs.

Moreover, according to Murphy's law, the device will dry out exactly at the moment when you are shooting something interesting.

And so-Sonya, or some kind of Olympus, not very new. On the m43 optics stupidly more, they have native macro glass already as much as 3, plus non-native through adapters.

This post was edited by xoshAmadam - 05.03.2018 16: 29

Technical survey, road notes.

Previously, there were very convenient Panasonic Lumix DMC TZ series for this (I used TZ10, TZ30, and TZ22 are still alive). They are very compact, quite fast and with a good macro zoom, so you can shoot not just a close macro, but from 20-50 centimeters, so that both in the field and do not obscure the object, so that the built-in flash does not flood, you can shine from the side, including at night with a frontal. At the same time, the size of the object in the frame is approximately like that of a Canon D450 - 550 with a 100mm macro lens, but unlike it, they fit in a pocket and also write GPS in EXIF, which is extremely convenient when traveling with many points (there is a delay in determining GPS, you need to check). I stopped, took pictures, and there are coordinates of the fishing point directly on the photo of each animal or biotope. Just do not take modern models of the line with a very large zoom (more than 20x), their macro is worse. And so for technical shooting it is quite decent, and for determining you can shoot if the object is not quite small.

But for a smaller multi-spindle sensor, you need a much sharper lens.

Now this, in general, is not a problem - from the word "at all". Now the problem is with single-task patterned glasses, they do not make them, but faceless, but flat-at least eat with a spoon...

DSLRs can not do this because of the long working period, they only put lenses from DSLRs, especially Nikon distinguished itself - it is fashionable to put only native lenses or sovotsky lenses with an H mount (they are rare and relatively expensive).

Macro doesn't need "infinity". This is true, by the way.

And me here is a magpie on zvost brought that for prisimke landscapes without it as something quite sad. Do not forget the" technical task " of the Troglodyte. By the way, this also applies to Hosh-Madame: I remind you that one of the points is "not expensive". And for the price of a steam locomotive, of course, you can buy super-super sharp glass, and even with f/<2, moreover, on any system. I understand that you personally are not deprived of money, but this does not mean that you should definitely throw show-offs on every corner. Imagine there are still people in Russia for whom the price-quality ratio plays a primary role. If we cut down the Europeans (and not only) who go to Costa Rica, there will probably be fewer of them, there is a solid anti-culture of consumerism. And where did the former famous German economy go?

Colleagues, thank you all for your valuable information. At photo forums, people are concerned about a few other aspects, and on the websites of manufacturers-marketing husks, so you helped me a lot. I will be glad to see examples of macro insects from the mentioned models. Shooting in low light is important, of course. So far, I'm leaning towards nexes.

If the A640 is still alive, take Nex in a pair with it (but only a model with ISO 100!), and also try to make macro-tasks like those that I wrote about at the beginning of the topic (there are pictures there). Let them click routine shots (the shutter is there with a conditionally infinite resource), and Next - artistic ones. This option seems optimal to me.

Here, for example, I took a picture today on a much worse and slightly older A540, but with a nozzle, the body length is about 3 mm:



For publications with non-morphological topics, this quality is more than enough, and you even have to lower them by resizing.

[quote=ИНО,07.03.2018 00:24]

I was recently offered a NEX-3 with a 55-210 lens and a shot allegedly only a little over 2 thousand for $ 200, but I, after thinking about it, refused.

Well, in vain.
First of all, the Sony 55-210 is a good TV box for large birds.
Here is one of my pictures of him in a dark morning forest:
http://nature.baikal.ru/phs/ph.shtml?id=92444
Secondly, this lens could be stupidly sold
for the same $ 200 after "testing", or exchanged for a younger and more advanced carcass.
---
The difference in the minimum ISO 100 for NEX-5n or ISO 200 for NEX-3
will not be noticeable on field technical images.
---
I will not write down the weakness of NEX batteries as a disadvantage either,
it is easily treated by buying 2-3 pcs of additional, non-original accumulators
and another charger that works from the car's cigarette lighter.
---
IMHO,
the main disadvantage of NEX carcasses is the lack of a viewfinder.
Sometimes, on the" settled slopes", it is very necessary.

This post was edited by Bomka - 07.03.2018 13: 22

I will not enter into a polemic with ENO here, I feel sorry for the time, but it is for technical shooting in the field, when the work is primary, and not the photo, that I have not found a compact better than Lumix TMZ over the past 10 years, especially when shooting with hands, without preparation, a moving small object in low light conditions - both in terms of the quality and size of the object in the frame. And this is at the cost of a new camera from 200 to 400 USD. Here are some examples of what is at hand (the sources were all 4320x3240, I only cropped most of them and gave auto-correction in Faststone in some places). Night and camera shooting - flash + lobnik or only lobnik.

[attachmentid(left)
=298940]

Pictures:

14.jpg — (1.58 mb)

Barnaba, they don't argue about tastes, but personally, in my opinion, I'm sorry for the frankness, your above photos, to put it mildly, are far from ideal, even soapbox. From the image formed by the light rays, there are only horns and horns on the matrix, instead, basically, only the" creative vision " of the processor. In general, this is true for any intra-chamber zhpeg, but the severity of the condition varies greatly. In your case, it is extremely high, worse than that of the iPhone criticized above. Of course, after shrinking to the size of a scientific journal, it will do, but no more. I repeat, however, that this is purely for my taste, perhaps he is too picky.

In the same place, where they shone only with a flashlight (Khrushchev), I think, a makrushnik who has at least minimal experience will be horrified. But we should not expect anything else from such a matrix. I strongly recommend not to raise the ISO on such devices above 200 (and even better-above 100). Here, by the way, it is not very good that the maximum relative lens opening of these TZ is only /3.5, and not at least /2.8, like most cheap ones. For the same $ 200, you could find a much better option for macro photography (and if used, then for 10). If you do not want to use the flash, extend the shutter speed, and rest the camera against something or get a mini-tripod. But this is only suitable for stationary objects, for shooting mobile ones in the dark, nothing has been thought up better than a flash yet.

Here in approximately the same conditions (at night in the forest) shot on an ancient Kenon A540 from I-90U:



Such a set will cost up to $ 10, plus a little handmade work. And for 200-300 you can take several orders of magnitude better.

Bomka, no offense to say, but I didn't see anything remarkable in your pictures of the owl (as well as in a large number of other photos from this lens on the Internet). Of course, it's better than with a compact megazum, but compared to really high-quality TV sets (and even the Soviet Tair-3), it's a bit soapy and "without a soul". Does it focus on the first nexes? I read that meedlno (i.e. the advantage in the form of autofocus, mostly nominal). Are they lying?

Well ... XS, as in Donetsk, and in the Baikal region,
with local distances between interesting biotopes, without a car is tight.
And while you're driving , you can recharge a couple of batteries. :-)

I took a picture of the wasp again... on the windowsill :-)
Sony SEL-55210 OSS 210 mm lens.

The distance to the wasp is ~ 2.5 meters:
1. Sony A6000, P mode, AWB, ISO 100, f/6.3, 1/125 s.
On the A6000, the 55-210 lens focuses almost instantly.

2. Sony NEX-3N, P mode, AWB, ISO 200, f/6.3, 1/200 s.

On the forum something to insert pictures does not work, crashes.
So see the originals here -
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/7rv8/GzdyCv1iQ

This post was edited by Bomka - 08.03.2018 08: 03

And another macro:
Sony SEL30M35 Macro 30mm lens.

Distance to the wasp ~ 10 cm:
1. Sony A6000, P mode, AWB, ISO 100, f/4.5, 1 / 125s.

2. Sony NEX-3N, P mode, AWB, ISO 200, f/7.1, 1/100 s.

The originals are here -
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/DxwS/VLdJ2FdPD

===
Here is a picture of a beetle in nature:
http://www.nature.baikal.ru/phs/ph.shtml?id=92041

By the way, on the Sony SEL30M35 Macro 30 mm
, you can not only take photos of insects.

Here is the architecture:
http://www.nature.baikal.ru/phs/ph.shtml?id=87808

Here's a bear:
http://www.nature.baikal.ru/phs/ph.shtml?id=92033

Here's a bat:
http://nature.baikal.ru/phs/ph.shtml?id=93633

Here's a toad:
http://www.nature.baikal.ru/phs/ph.shtml?id=93140

This post was edited by Bomka - 08.03.2018 08: 38

Oh yo

Barnaba, I liked the shot of two crunches, and I can't even say for sure that it was shot at night, because the lighting is good - the shadows and background are highlighted. And at what focal length is the picture taken? And are there any problems with white balance when using both the flash and the flashlight?

In principle, it is impossible to drive far from the outlet.

And we have like this -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01jZBb5_uG0

Sorry again, I'm not impressed, the sharpness is very mediocre

What is there to forgive? Just as it is.
In the "average hospital" from this lens, such shots are obtained,
it will definitely not get any worse.

And what about the minimum ISO - opinion has changed?

But the A6000 isn't going to work for me, that's for sure.

In Rostov, you can get an A3000 kit for 7500 rubles.
https://www.avito.ru/rostov-na-donu/fototeh..._kit_1111258469

This post was edited by Bomka-09.03.2018 04: 21

New 5-x macro lens released:
http://photar.ru/laowa-25mm-f2-8-2-5-5x-ultra-macro/
http://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-25m...-ultra-macro-2/

This post was edited by Bomka-09.03.2018 05: 24

Then the A5000 kit is almost new for 15 thousand rubles.
https://www.avito.ru/rostov-na-donu/fototeh...a5000_839625788
IMHO, the price is adequate.
Perhaps the girl will give without a lens (this is minus 5-7 thousand rubles),
you need to call, negotiate.

Or here is the FujiFilm X-E1 body for 12 thousand rubles.
https://www.avito.ru/rostov-na-donu/fototeh...x-e1_1585641047

Barnaba, I liked the shot of two crunches, and I can't even say for sure that it was shot at night, because the lighting is good - the shadows and background are highlighted. And at what focal length is the picture taken? And are there any problems with white balance when using both the flash and the flashlight?

It was shot at night in early May on a dune 14 km from Dosang (I call it Nedotuvayak, since the former Tuvayak dune, where a lot of things were collected, was 3 km further away, but overgrown). Shot in the light of a fairly powerful LED lamp on a CREE T6 10W diode, I use these constantly and with great pleasure. Plus a built-in flash. Sand reflects and diffuses light well, which removes shadows on a flat surface. Not far away, the screen worked, but it practically did not finish off to the place of shooting. The beetles moved quite quickly, but they managed to catch them. I attach the source code, as well as its screen in the Faststone program with EXIF data, there is an answer to your question (24mm given). Please note that GPS is written in EXIF (and where enough satellites are picked up - with high accuracy; in such places, the deviation is usually less than 5 m, you can easily find disguised traps and glasses from the photos taken). Macrozum (as opposed to just the "Macro" mode, which is also present) allows you to give the same optical magnification without moving the lens close to the subject or obscuring it. I specifically compared, the magnification is not less than that of Canon DSLR macro lenses with the F100, but the compact costs and weighs several times less. Of course, it draws worse, but for the field, a DSLR with macro is not an option if you do not specifically engage in shooting. The white balance is easily corrected by a correction in the program, but usually this is not even necessary, and in most cases "auto"is enough. Modern, more sophisticated compacts of this series generally write in RAV and have post-focus, but after the DMC TZ60, unfortunately, they do not have a GPS module; but starting with the same model, they are controlled from a computer and are more convenient for camera shooting from a tripod. Plus, they all write very decent videos.
Unfortunately, no photos are attached.

Bomka, the prices are certainly adequate, but alas, beyond my budget. And you will also have to add it to go to Rostov. So it doesn't fit. By the way, we don't have much to call here right now, MTS has been cut off, and you need to stand in queues for fig Phoenix. Unless you need to look for it.

ENO, you know everything, everything, everything, but you don't know such a simple thing. Even strange. Open the attached image, save it, and view the EXIF. Crop in any normal program does not change it. You will see that the ISO is 100. I don't know if it's above your roof or level. Just in case, hold it tight.

A good roof flies itself both to the very bottom and to the very top

Barnaba, but how do I know that that photo on the exif hosting does exist at all, many people cut it by default (as, by the way, Molbiol has recently). And I'm too lazy to download-watch-delete every time to check it out. I heard that there is a plugin for the browser that immediately shows exifs, probably you need to install it.
But, if the mating hrushey ISO 100, then I can't even find words about the quality of this Panasonic. Checkmate is forbidden. The only thing: maybe there the quality of the camera zhpeg is not set to the maximum, but quite the opposite?

A good roof flies by itself both to the very bottom and to the very top

Apparently, panova left a long time ago, sank to the very bottom and arrives there to this day. It would be better if instead of aping pan about his supposedly miracle GPS that svyaznoe wrote in the corresponding topic.

This post was edited by ENO-09.03.2018 21: 46

So the question is: is Nex F3 much better than 5 without letters? There was an option to buy, though not cheap, with a complete 18-55 in a state close to new. I almost made up my mind, but at the last moment I noticed that he didn't have the desired ISO100 either (they were artificially stabbed). So, is there anything else that is worth paying a lot for? Five is also almost new offer for half the price, however, only the carcass (however, I do not like sonina whales at all and especially do not plan to shoot them). In terms of DxO, the difference between them is like between heaven and earth (in favor of F3), but will I notice it with my eyes? So far, I've only noticed that the in-camera F3 tag isn't as frankly crappy as in 3 and 5, but I haven't noticed an unambiguous superiority in the material that the craftsmen pull out of the RAVs. But there is a big dependence on the skill of the handler, not on the matrix. That's where raw Rav's come in for a look from both cameras...

It is also alarming that the F3 has a lower rate of fire and turn-on time. I didn't find any information about whether it has the first electronic curtain. But I found out that it is possible to connect an external EVI, but I doubt it. that I'll ever get one.

In general, please enlighten.

I would take the Sony NEX-F3 with a lens, because:
1. The screen reclines more. You can take selfies.
2.The flash is bouncing, not "attached".
3. The lens can be sold and most of the money spent can be returned.
Because autofocus lenses from NEX are now more expensive than carcasses.
4. The model is 2 years younger.

Well, a selfie is the last thing I need. By the way, this super-rotating screen does not break out from regular use? Somehow the hinge looks a bit frail. Selling the lens is for you. We have such devices hanging on flea markets for years. And if, theoretically, a buyer could still appear at 55-210 in the foreseeable future, then it is unlikely for a regular employee.

Can you tell us something about the image quality?

There is another option-Samsung NX1100, at a price approximately in the middle between the Nex-5 carcass and the F3 kit, and the lens there is not as shitty as Sony's, and the matrix is slightly better than their first one (and the resolution is so much better), but the screen is nailed down. Damn, wherever you throw it, there is a wedge everywhere, i.e. one or two critically useful details are missing: ISO 100, a rotary screen, EVI, a high-quality native lens. All together, only Fuji X-10 has it, but it costs 25 thousand rubles.

I was thinking of such a "selfie"- https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8134/29817949...N=1474906127575
.
Most people who buy Nexs only use one whale lens.
And with crooked hands, the lens is often broken, and the camera is without a lens... that's right - requires a new lens. :- )
Over the past 2 years, I have sold 5 Nexovsky lenses on Avito:
3 pcs 18-55 and 2 pancakes 16mm.
But carcasses without a lens are sold poorly..

In terms of quality, IMHO, images from NEX 5 vs F3 will not differ much..

I shot on the Samsung NX100 and NX1000-although these cameras have "highlights",
but also sold, because something did not like...

In defense of the SEL-1855 whale-
it is much more convenient for shooting video than the more modern PZ16-50 whale (as on the NEX-3n).
When you change the focal length with your hands
, no unnecessary noise is recorded on the video.
IMHO, for video shooting everyday life (different holidays), it will be useful to you.
Only very experienced users can shoot good video with a manual lens.