I just looked that up. Wow. Nice camera at a very reasonable price. What lens does your wife's camera have on it? Long shot but would my Minolta or Pentax lenses work?My wife's Olympus OM-D M10 II with the kit lens is tiny, amazingly competent and can be purchased used for relatively little money.
I checked those out on ebay. Not expensive. Is there a later model Nikon in that same general category that you would recommend?A Nikon D50/D70 is dirt cheap. There's less file size, but high quality, easily good enough for your purposes or for printing 13x19. A decent lens and camera should cost you less than $100, and unlike a cheapo digital camera, you can sell it later and reinvest the funds into something else. A low end digital camera might be something you'll be stuck with.
The lenses for full frame 35mm cameras can be used on the M 4/3 cameras using adapters, but you lose auto-focus, and the small sensor means that the field of view is cut in half - i.e. a 50mm lens on the OMD gives the same result as a 100mm lens on the 35mm camera.I just looked that up. Wow. Nice camera at a very reasonable price. What lens does your wife's camera have on it? Long shot but would my Minolta or Pentax lenses work?
Thank you for the information. The 14-42mm looks like it'd be the perfect lens for me. It IS a small camera! BTW....I really like my Olympus XA2. The OMD seems like it's probably just a bit a big bigger than that.The lenses for full frame 35mm cameras can be used on the M 4/3 cameras using adapters, but you lose auto-focus, and the small sensor means that the field of view is cut in half - i.e. a 50mm lens on the OMD gives the same result as a 100mm lens on the 35mm camera.
So wide angles aren't nearly as wide.
The kit lens on my wife's camera is the 14mm - 42mm zoom. Small, light and very well behaved. Similar to a 28-mm to 84mm zoom on 35mm.
The 4/3 aspect ratio suits my eye - same as 6x4.5 (or 110) in film. It does make focal length comparisons with 35mm slightly more complex.
It takes a bit of getting used to the electronic viewfinder, but the electronic viewfinder has some advantages too.
The menus are quite complex, but that comes with having all the options, and you can customize things.
I haven't used the video functions much.
Words of wisdom. The DOING is the most important part.Any camera you have is a good place to start. Minolta, Canon and Nikon cameras of many models will fill the need.
True. That OM-4 is tiny, too.A comparison that actually makes the OM-D look larger than it is:
View attachment 302854
I've been looking at the Nikon D200. Those can be had for relatively little money including a kit lens. Probably all I need until I can afford something newer/more advanced. Plus, it will help get the Nikon Acquisition Syndrome established as I shell out for lenses.
Good advice. Thank you. For someone nJust be careful that the old Nikon lenses are ai, ais or later. Or that they have been ai-Ed. Non-ai lenses don’t have the proper machining for indexing the meter and can damage the camera. Any lens after 1977 should be fine as is, and many older will be.
The G15 does look like a very good choice. Thank you for recommending it and putting it on my radar.A D200 would not be my choice for the requirements you've stated. Too big and heavy with no real advantage - for your need - over smaller and lighter alternatives.
Assuming you plan to display your photos digitally, almost any decent micro 4/3s, or APS-C mirrorless/compact camera with a mid-range zoom should be fine. If I was doing this, I'd use my Canon G15 rather than my Nikon DSLRs.
Don't obsess (in case you were) on megapixels. You're needs will be quite modest in that department.
What will be essential is a small flash, compatible with your camera, that has bounce capability. For example, I use the Canon 270EX II with my G15. But there are similar choices for almost all camera systems.
A D200 would not be my choice for the requirements you've stated. Too big and heavy with no real advantage - for your need - over smaller and lighter alternatives.
Assuming you plan to display your photos digitally, almost any decent micro 4/3s, or APS-C mirrorless/compact camera with a mid-range zoom should be fine. If I was doing this, I'd use my Canon G15 rather than my Nikon DSLRs.
Don't obsess (in case you were) on megapixels. You're needs will be quite modest in that department.
What will be essential is a small flash, compatible with your camera, that has bounce capability. For example, I use the Canon 270EX II with my G15. But there are similar choices for almost all camera systems.
And why wouldn't an iPhone not work for this? It has a huge advantage of being by far the less intimidating picture making device in the history of mankind. They are truly invisible.
@KerrKid I see, despite of some might say, appearances do matter. In fact, I think your project is a really cool stage to play with these variables. You may end up discovering that a smart phone and a professional-looking camera will each give you images that their counterpart won't. Say, your local mayor will more likely to pose smiling with a tongue sticking out on an iPhone, but it will be easier to get them to move to a spot with better light if you have the appearances. Do both!
[EDIT] Oh, you're from Kerrvile TX, where Mooneys are made! That should be a great photo tour if they let you.
Yep, I've been following them for a while. Right now GA is on th upswing with long waiting lists for even the basic new Cessnas. AFAIK Mooney is looking for investors again and hopefully 3rd time is the charm!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?