[Dr David Thork]

So I just bought a new camera.

A Cannon M200. Cost me around £500. No, I'm not going to be come a titty streamer! 




Going to sound weird, but I got it as my new ... phone.

In a world where we seem to do increasingly more zoom calls and team meetings and skype calls etc ... I may as well look good doing them. I've got a job interview coming up next week so it'll get its first proper work out then, but I'll use it for calls to my nephews, calling my mother, my brother, some of my more tech savvy mates etc.

I've never owned a proper camera. I realise this is entry level, but it's a world away from the potato cam built into my laptop. Anyway, its on order. I'll report back when Amazon delivers it.

[Dr David Thork]

Oh, I should add ... I needed accessories.

I bought an Elgato cam link 4k capture card £120, a dummy battery £20, an hdmi cable, and a tripod £40. So closer to £700 spent. 

[JSS]

Congrats, now prepare to spend 10, 20 or 100 times as much as you paid for the camera on lenses.

But some cheap but fun lenses are always nice.

I just ordered an Opteka 420-800mm for $99 from Amazon just because it looks interesting.  Should take some great moon shots.

[stack]

Congrats, now prepare to spend 10, 20 or 100 times as much as you paid for the camera on lenses.

But some cheap but fun lenses are always nice.

I just ordered an Opteka 420-800mm for $99 from Amazon just because it looks interesting.  Should take some great moon shots.

Yeah, that's the reason I still shoot with my Canon 5D Mark II: Glass.

I've got so much invested in lenses, moving on over to like the Canon R or R6, which I think would be the equivalent upgrade to the Mark II, I'd really want to invest in native glass.  However, there is an EF adapter for it which I don't think negatively impacts the frame size, etc.

I'll check out the Opteka 420-800mm. I'm curious how it fairs when it's all the way out to 800 and stopped down to 16. Probably awesome for a bright moon.

[JSS]

Congrats, now prepare to spend 10, 20 or 100 times as much as you paid for the camera on lenses.

But some cheap but fun lenses are always nice.

I just ordered an Opteka 420-800mm for $99 from Amazon just because it looks interesting.  Should take some great moon shots.

Yeah, that's the reason I still shoot with my Canon 5D Mark II: Glass.

I've got so much invested in lenses, moving on over to like the Canon R or R6, which I think would be the equivalent upgrade to the Mark II, I'd really want to invest in native glass.  However, there is an EF adapter for it which I don't think negatively impacts the frame size, etc.

I'll check out the Opteka 420-800mm. I'm curious how it fairs when it's all the way out to 800 and stopped down to 16. Probably awesome for a bright moon.

It's not going to be Hubble quality but for a hundred bucks it will still have plenty of use and value.  It should take some decent shots as long as you're aware of it's limitations.

[Fortuna]

That's a solid entry level camera. If you don't mind spending a little more, I'd go with the M50. A Mark II version was just released, but doesn't have many improvements. Both of these cameras use the EF-M mount for lenses. If you want a wide angle lens, Sigma's 16mm f/1.4 is great and will let you take pictures in dim lighting conditions. Canon's 32mm f/1.4 is also incredible as an (almost) 50mm equivalent walk around lens. If you want to get into the big time, you can get an EF adapter that will let you use Canon's more pro level lenses.

I just ordered an Opteka 420-800mm for $99 from Amazon just because it looks interesting.  Should take some great moon shots.

They're not that good. They're smooshy every focal length and have absolutely abysmal contrast. The moon will occupy a bigger portion of your frame due to the ridiculously long focal length, but will resolve less detail nonetheless.

For example:


An Opteka lens capture shot on a Nikon D3500 at 800mm (1200mm full frame equivalent)


Captured on a Sony a6100 with an adapted Sigma 100-400mm lens at 400mm (600mm full frame equivalent)
*This lens is ridiculously good by the way, especially adapted to an R mount body.


Captured on an EOS R6 with a Sigma 150-600mm lens at 600mm

I've got so much invested in lenses, moving on over to like the Canon R or R6, which I think would be the equivalent upgrade to the Mark II, I'd really want to invest in native glass.

That's not really necessary. RF lenses are all incredible optically, but your EF lenses will work just as well on an RF body (and often times even better due to the R system's superior AF system) as they do on your EF body.

[stack]

I've got so much invested in lenses, moving on over to like the Canon R or R6, which I think would be the equivalent upgrade to the Mark II, I'd really want to invest in native glass.

That's not really necessary. RF lenses are all incredible optically, but your EF lenses will work just as well on an RF body (and often times even better due to the R system's superior AF system) as they do on your EF body.

Hmmm, now you have me at B&H looking at all of the R/R6 specs.
I've got:
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens

And for $199 I can get the EF adapter with Configurable Control Ring, $99 without.

I think maybe I'll rent the R6 and give it a go - I just checked out borrowlenses, they rent the adapter as well.

[Dr David Thork]

This is literally a fancy webcam for me right now. And I'm not spending another penny on it for a while. I have to eat this month too.

Maybe I'll get some nice lenses in the future. It arrives tomorrow.

[Fortuna]

I've got so much invested in lenses, moving on over to like the Canon R or R6, which I think would be the equivalent upgrade to the Mark II, I'd really want to invest in native glass.

That's not really necessary. RF lenses are all incredible optically, but your EF lenses will work just as well on an RF body (and often times even better due to the R system's superior AF system) as they do on your EF body.

Hmmm, now you have me at B&H looking at all of the R/R6 specs.
I've got:
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens

And for $199 I can get the EF adapter with Configurable Control Ring, $99 without.

I think maybe I'll rent the R6 and give it a go - I just checked out borrowlenses, they rent the adapter as well.

Yeah, those will all work just as well on the R6 with added benefits like eye AF and a much larger section of the sensor where focus points can be selected. I never use the control ring though. You can probably skip the $200 adapter unless you think you’d use it.

[JSS]

I just ordered an Opteka 420-800mm for $99 from Amazon just because it looks interesting.  Should take some great moon shots.

They're not that good. They're smooshy every focal length and have absolutely abysmal contrast. The moon will occupy a bigger portion of your frame due to the ridiculously long focal length, but will resolve less detail nonetheless.

For example:

An Opteka lens capture shot on a Nikon D3500 at 800mm (1200mm full frame equivalent)

Captured on a Sony a6100 with an adapted Sigma 100-400mm lens at 400mm (600mm full frame equivalent)
*This lens is ridiculously good by the way, especially adapted to an R mount body.

Captured on an EOS R6 with a Sigma 150-600mm lens at 600mm

I'd be pretty upset if a $900 lens didn't outperform a $99 one. 

I'll throw up some test images when mine arrives, and I get any kind of good weather.

[Dr David Thork]

I just ordered an Opteka 420-800mm for $99 from Amazon just because it looks interesting.  Should take some great moon shots.

They're not that good. They're smooshy every focal length and have absolutely abysmal contrast. The moon will occupy a bigger portion of your frame due to the ridiculously long focal length, but will resolve less detail nonetheless.

For example:

An Opteka lens capture shot on a Nikon D3500 at 800mm (1200mm full frame equivalent)

Captured on a Sony a6100 with an adapted Sigma 100-400mm lens at 400mm (600mm full frame equivalent)
*This lens is ridiculously good by the way, especially adapted to an R mount body.

Captured on an EOS R6 with a Sigma 150-600mm lens at 600mm

I'd be pretty upset if a $900 lens didn't outperform a $99 one. 

I'll throw up some test images when mine arrives, and I get any kind of good weather.

You literally spent that money to torment Tom Bishop, didn't you? 

[JSS]

I just ordered an Opteka 420-800mm for $99 from Amazon just because it looks interesting.  Should take some great moon shots.

They're not that good. They're smooshy every focal length and have absolutely abysmal contrast. The moon will occupy a bigger portion of your frame due to the ridiculously long focal length, but will resolve less detail nonetheless.

For example:

An Opteka lens capture shot on a Nikon D3500 at 800mm (1200mm full frame equivalent)

Captured on a Sony a6100 with an adapted Sigma 100-400mm lens at 400mm (600mm full frame equivalent)
*This lens is ridiculously good by the way, especially adapted to an R mount body.

Captured on an EOS R6 with a Sigma 150-600mm lens at 600mm

I'd be pretty upset if a $900 lens didn't outperform a $99 one. 

I'll throw up some test images when mine arrives, and I get any kind of good weather.

You literally spent that money to torment Tom Bishop, didn't you? 

No, I just wanted to play with a super cheap semi-decent quality zoom lens.

But I'd totally spend $100 to do the other thing too.

[Fortuna]

I'd be pretty upset if a $900 lens didn't outperform a $99 one. 

I'll throw up some test images when mine arrives, and I get any kind of good weather.

It’s probably the worst lens you can put on a camera.

[stack]

I've got so much invested in lenses, moving on over to like the Canon R or R6, which I think would be the equivalent upgrade to the Mark II, I'd really want to invest in native glass.

That's not really necessary. RF lenses are all incredible optically, but your EF lenses will work just as well on an RF body (and often times even better due to the R system's superior AF system) as they do on your EF body.

Hmmm, now you have me at B&H looking at all of the R/R6 specs.
I've got:
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens

And for $199 I can get the EF adapter with Configurable Control Ring, $99 without.

I think maybe I'll rent the R6 and give it a go - I just checked out borrowlenses, they rent the adapter as well.

Yeah, those will all work just as well on the R6 with added benefits like eye AF and a much larger section of the sensor where focus points can be selected. I never use the control ring though. You can probably skip the $200 adapter unless you think you’d use it.

I'm almost always in manual focus mode, mostly because I came from the video world into photography and don't shoot a lot of action. But I'm super interested in how far AF has advanced. I may become a convert.

And the control ring is a nice to have. I would probably assign it to aperture because I mostly shoot in manual mode as opposed to maybe aperture priority or shutter priority. But I've gotten by just fine with the dial thus far, so probably not worth the extra $100.

My 5D is 8+ years old, I think it's time for an upgrade. I love the 5D, it's such a workhorse, tried and true, never failed me in any shooting situation. But 8 years is a lifetime. And might as well skip over the Mark IV and head to the R's.

[Dr David Thork]

So, did interview. No idea if I got the job or not.

But the camera did a good job. Took a great deal of thrking about with the settings but eventually I got clean hdmi out and the quality was great. Even in my not very well lit room. One annoying thing I noticed with the automatic lighting is that whenever I put my glasses on, the footage gets noticeably darker. Take off the glasses and the quality returns. Likely need to set to manual and work out the optimum, but I didn't have time before the interview.

Anyway, good buy, would recommend.

[Fortuna]

So, did interview. No idea if I got the job or not.

But the camera did a good job. Took a great deal of thrking about with the settings but eventually I got clean hdmi out and the quality was great. Even in my not very well lit room. One annoying thing I noticed with the automatic lighting is that whenever I put my glasses on, the footage gets noticeably darker. Take off the glasses and the quality returns. Likely need to set to manual and work out the optimum, but I didn't have time before the interview.

Anyway, good buy, would recommend.

If light is glinting off your glasses it could be tricking the metering system into thinking the scene is brighter than it is. You can use the exposure bias setting in manual mode to overexpose the scene slightly.

[Dr David Thork]

You can use the exposure bias setting in manual mode to overexpose the scene slightly.

I know.

Likely need to set to manual and work out the optimum, but I didn't have time before the interview.

[Fortuna]

Rock on.

[Fortuna]

I rented one of these and holy shit, it has to be my favorite camera of all time. It has a little turd nugget of a sensor that isn't a great deal better than a cell phone camera, but it's tiny, lightweight, and has the best weather sealing and image stabilization on the market. The micro 4/3 sensor also has a 2x crop factor relative to a 35mm camera, so you'll be getting way more "reach" if you're into telephoto shots. The lenses are also very compact and light.

It's pretty expensive for having a turdlet sensor at $1000 for only the body, but you're getting features that are comparable to, or even better than a camera that's twice as much, all in a super compact frame. Beyond 400 ISO you start getting some pretty grainy shots. My R6 can handle up to 6400 ISO with minimal grain, but I still prefer using this little camera somehow. I'd also like to buy it since the Olympus camera division was just sold to a private equity firm that will probably discontinue selling cameras within the next couple of years.

[JSS]

I rented one of these and holy shit, it has to be my favorite camera of all time. It has a little turd nugget of a sensor that isn't a great deal better than a cell phone camera, but it's tiny, lightweight, and has the best weather sealing and image stabilization on the market. The micro 4/3 sensor also has a 2x crop factor relative to a 35mm camera, so you'll be getting way more "reach" if you're into telephoto shots. The lenses are also very compact and light.

It's pretty expensive for having a turdlet sensor at $1000 for only the body, but you're getting features that are comparable to, or even better than a camera that's twice as much, all in a super compact frame. Beyond 400 ISO you start getting some pretty grainy shots. My R6 can handle up to 6400 ISO with minimal grain, but I still prefer using this little camera somehow.

The sensor isn't THAT small, it's only half the size of an APC-C sensor, still far bigger than anything you would find in a phone.

But it's a great format and camera.

As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you. These things are small enough to stuff in a pocket if you slip a pancake prime on them. A lot more convenient than a full size DSLR with a huge lens.