AggieMPH2005 said:

---

Thank you very much for the replies and the tip about the u43 forum. I am looking pretty hard at the Costco kit and will add a lens to it from keh.

---

The Olympus I saw at Costco was $529 for a OMD E-M 10 Mark 3.

That 3.5-5.6 lens isn't what you want.

Just get the body at Keh for $339 (no tax): https://www.keh.com/shop/olympus-om-d-e-m10-mark-iii-mirrorless-micro-four-thirds-digital-camera-body-black-16-1-m-p-1.html

Then pick out the lens you want. That kit lens at Costco isn't worth $200 and is something that is included just to get people in the door.

So I went to the camera store yesterday and checked out the Olympus but ended up really liking the Panasonic G7 except it has no IBIS. I am now looking pretty hard at the G85. Any thoughts on the G85 vs Olympus omd 10 m 3?

AggieMPH2005 said:

---

So I went to the camera store yesterday and checked out the Olympus but ended up really liking the Panasonic G7 except it has no IBIS. I am now looking pretty hard at the G85. Any thoughts on the G85 vs Olympus omd 10 m 3?

---

Olympus has been better at photo IMO. I have a g85 and a gh5 and I love both of them to death. However, I do far more video than I do photo. It's still a pretty good stills camera though. My opinion is to go for the gx85 instead if you are going for purely stills.

I have both Olympus and Panasonic bodies. Really... You can't go wrong with either. In fact, when I use Panasonic lens with Image Stablization on Olympus body, I turn off the IS. On Panasonic body, I keep the IS on. Splitting hair. Buy the body you like.

Took the kids to the park and got to play around with it.

https://instagr.am/p/B7haNvtlzRf

So what were your first impressions on the mirrorless setup?

Blue Duck said:

---

So what were your first impressions on the mirrorless setup?

---

Good and bad. Overall I really like it. I will mainly use it for video and personal work, but will use it for some work where I need to have the silent shutter.

Good:

• How customizable everything is. Customize the buttons, menus, etc.
• Ergonomics. This is a huge thing keeping me with Nikon over Canon and Sony.
• Video. I haven't used it yet, but will. It does 4k/30 in full frame and can output raw through the HDMI.
• XQD. Every camera should use XQD/CFExpress.
• Single shot focus.
• Eye focus.
• Quietness

Bad:

• Only one XQD card. If there wasn't room for a second card (even microSD) then they should have had 64G internal storage that I could write backups to.
• Focus tracking. For moving objects, just not up to par with DSLRs.
• This is specific to me, but in all my cameras, I change my ISO to only use full stops. So I can only use 100/200/400/800/1600/3200/6400. Nothing else. Well, this camera doesn't let you do that. It lets you change exposure by 1/2 stop or 1/3rd stop, but then it applies that to ISO/aperture/shutter speed. I want to change my aperture and shutter speed by 1/3 stop and ISO by full stop. Just a personal thing, but I can do it on all my other cameras.

Now I need to sell some stuff. Anyone want a D800 in great shape? Dream landscape camera.
Mamiya 645AFD with 80 2.8 and a 110/220 back?

My D500 is a battery hog. I have 3 batteries but I was getting nervous when shooting a soccer tournament this weekend if that would be enough. Any other D500 owners experiencing fast drain?

Also any 3rd party battery grips recommended? I know it won't extend the life but at least make me not have to change batteries as often. Make vertical shooting easier as well. Not worth the $350 for the Nikon version but if a 3rd party one is reliable I'd consider it.

Anyone have suggestions on good laptops (that aren't apple) for photo editing?

SkiMo said:

---

Anyone have suggestions on good laptops (that aren't apple) for photo editing?

---

I'm using a Dell XPS 13" laptop.

dubi said:

---

SkiMo said:

---

Anyone have suggestions on good laptops (that aren't apple) for photo editing?

---

I'm using a Dell XPS 13" laptop.

---

Thanks for the suggestion. Sorry if it's a dumb question. I just haven't bought a computer in a long time and looking for something that's good for basic home stuff and photo editing...and obviously portable.

SkiMo said:

---

dubi said:

---

SkiMo said:

---

Anyone have suggestions on good laptops (that aren't apple) for photo editing?

---

I'm using a Dell XPS 13" laptop.

---

Thanks for the suggestion. Sorry if it's a dumb question. I just haven't bought a computer in a long time and looking for something that's good for basic home stuff and photo editing...and obviously portable.

---

Good photo editing requires a stand alone video card plus at least 16mb of RAM. Also consider the size of your hard drive or you will run out of space.

Gaming computers are generally pretty good for photo editing. The main things I look for are:

1. Two hard drives. The operating system should be on an SSD, and the second a large regular drive for storage.
2. Lots of RAM. At least 32GB. I have monitored performance while editing/exporting, and this is minimum.
3. As much CPU performance as you can afford.
4. Dedicated video card.
5. Large high resolution screen. Helps when looking at fine details.

If you don't do a lot of photos at a time, you can probably get by with less. I sometimes do hundreds of photos at a time, so high performance is a necessity for me. YMMV.

labmansid said:

---

Gaming computers are generally pretty good for photo editing. The main things I look for are:

1. Two hard drives. The operating system should be on an SSD, and the second a large regular drive for storage.
2. Lots of RAM. At least 32GB. I have monitored performance while editing/exporting, and this is minimum.
3. As much CPU performance as you can afford.
4. Dedicated video card.
5. Large high resolution screen. Helps when looking at fine details.

If you don't do a lot of photos at a time, you can probably get by with less. I sometimes do hundreds of photos at a time, so high performance is a necessity for me. YMMV.

---

Thanks for the advice. This is more of a new hobby for me so I'm not a professional. The idea is to one day get to a higher level so starting out I may not need to best of the best...but somewhere in that middle ground understanding that at some point my skills and wants might outgrow the machine.

dubi said:

---

SkiMo said:

---

Anyone have suggestions on good laptops (that aren't apple) for photo editing?

---

I'm using a Dell XPS 13" laptop.

---

Meant to ask, do you like having the 13" or would you get the 15" next time?

SkiMo said:

---

dubi said:

---

SkiMo said:

---

Anyone have suggestions on good laptops (that aren't apple) for photo editing?

---

I'm using a Dell XPS 13" laptop.

---

Meant to ask, do you like having the 13" or would you get the 15" next time?

---

I bring it to work every single day, so 13" is appropriate.

If i was retired, 15" all the way.

dubi said:

---

SkiMo said:

---

dubi said:

---

SkiMo said:

---

Anyone have suggestions on good laptops (that aren't apple) for photo editing?

---

I'm using a Dell XPS 13" laptop.

---

Meant to ask, do you like having the 13" or would you get the 15" next time?

---

I bring it to work every single day, so 13" is appropriate.

If i was retired, 15" all the way.

---

Gotcha. This will mainly be a stay at home laptop that I will take with me on personal travel from time to time. Might opt for the 15".

Guitarsoup said:

---

Finally caved and bought the z6.

Andrew Hancock '02 worked at the Battalion with me and is a great friend.

---

Have one. I've shot plenty of sports with it and it's just fine. Not quite up to D5 and D500 standards, but the image quality is there, esp. in low light. I'm using the 70-200/vr1 with FTZ and still get great images at ISO1600/3200 under crappy HS stadium lights.

My only issue with sports shooting is I'll have a sequence of 8 images and the first 2 will be in focus, then suddenly it will focus on the background for the next 3, then the last 3 will be fine. It's really odd.

agracer said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Finally caved and bought the z6.

Andrew Hancock '02 worked at the Battalion with me and is a great friend.

---

Have one. I've shot plenty of sports with it and it's just fine. Not quite up to D5 and D500 standards, but the image quality is there, esp. in low light. I'm using the 70-200/vr1 with FTZ and still get great images at ISO1600/3200 under crappy HS stadium lights.

My only issue with sports shooting is I'll have a sequence of 8 images and the first 2 will be in focus, then suddenly it will focus on the background for the next 3, then the last 3 will be fine. It's really odd.

---

That was my problem with Canon's focus tracking as well. Canon is a little quicker to nail first focus, but it felt like the camera was second guessing itself.

I'm used to the D4/D5/D500/D850 focus, so this is definitely a big step back on focus tracking. That is something Nikon has historically done way better than Canon and Sony.

Also don't like how long it takes to start up when you flip it on. Again, used to the D4/D5, which is almost instantaneous. Just a completely different feel.

Sweet Kitten Feet said:

---

My D500 is a battery hog. I have 3 batteries but I was getting nervous when shooting a soccer tournament this weekend if that would be enough. Any other D500 owners experiencing fast drain?

Also any 3rd party battery grips recommended? I know it won't extend the life but at least make me not have to change batteries as often. Make vertical shooting easier as well. Not worth the $350 for the Nikon version but if a 3rd party one is reliable I'd consider it.

---

Don't know anything about grips. Some grips only use one of the batteries you use in the camera, so it wouldn't help much. I would do that so I could use the same battery as I use in my D4/D5.

My D500 uses batteries a little quicker than other DSLRs like that, but nothing terrible. Did you put the wifi on airport mode? That sucks juice.

Guitarsoup said:

---

agracer said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Finally caved and bought the z6.

Andrew Hancock '02 worked at the Battalion with me and is a great friend.

---

Have one. I've shot plenty of sports with it and it's just fine. Not quite up to D5 and D500 standards, but the image quality is there, esp. in low light. I'm using the 70-200/vr1 with FTZ and still get great images at ISO1600/3200 under crappy HS stadium lights.

My only issue with sports shooting is I'll have a sequence of 8 images and the first 2 will be in focus, then suddenly it will focus on the background for the next 3, then the last 3 will be fine. It's really odd.

---

That was my problem with Canon's focus tracking as well. Canon is a little quicker to nail first focus, but it felt like the camera was second guessing itself.

I'm used to the D4/D5/D500/D850 focus, so this is definitely a big step back on focus tracking. That is something Nikon has historically done way better than Canon and Sony.

Also don't like how long it takes to start up when you flip it on. Again, used to the D4/D5, which is almost instantaneous. Just a completely different feel.

---

Never used any of those (except for a 2-day rental of a D500...and I forgot to AF Fine Tune my 70-200 so it was a waste) so I cannot say if it's that much worse. It's every bit as good as my old D7000 though! I did shoot my niece playing volley ball last weekend and got a lot of keepers in the lousy gym lighting.

Flickr is raising its prices again. I looked for an alternative last time they did this, but couldn't find anything that was as good.

I really like to be able to show people to a site to see my photos and I like that random Internet strangers can search for terms and find them. All I really want is for people to see the photos. But I'm just not sure if that's now worth $60 a year. Doubling the price last year was pretty bad, and now they're adding more.

So... what alternatives are out there? Tagging, organizing in albums, and comments/conversations are the biggest criteria.

Facebook

ensign_beedrill said:

---

Flickr is raising its prices again. I looked for an alternative last time they did this, but couldn't find anything that was as good.

I really like to be able to show people to a site to see my photos and I like that random Internet strangers can search for terms and find them. All I really want is for people to see the photos. But I'm just not sure if that's now worth $60 a year. Doubling the price last year was pretty bad, and now they're adding more.

So... what alternatives are out there? Tagging, organizing in albums, and comments/conversations are the biggest criteria.

---

Not trying to be a jerk, but $60 a year doesn't sound like that much. $5 a month or $0.17 a day. Is that not worth the price to store all your photos in one place?

I have been using Smugmug for several years and have been happy with it. Their basic service is $48 a year and may do what you need. It comes with unlimited storage, and that includes video as well. If you have a domain name, you can link it to your Smugmug account so users are redirected to your Smugmug site.

It is a lot when they just doubled the price last year. $25 to $50. And now they're increasing it again all while saying flickr operates at a loss, making me believe it's on its last legs anyway. Maybe $60 isn't a lot to you, but it is to me.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Facebook

---

I used to use Facebook, but nobody there cares.

Quote:

---

I have been using Smugmug for several years and have been happy with it. Their basic service is $48 a year and may do what you need. It comes with unlimited storage, and that includes video as well. If you have a domain name, you can link it to your Smugmug account so users are redirected to your Smugmug site.

---

SmugMug owns Flickr. I didn't know they provide the same services. I'll check it out; thanks.

I meant no disrespect. I'm a teacher, so $60 isn't just something I can throw away either.

They must be trying to find the price that will get people using Flickr to switch to Smugmug.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Just got picked to cover the next Falcon 9 rocket launch out at NASA as part of a NASA Social Team event!

---

Awesome! If you need an apprentice........

Hey everyone....

Have recently gotten back into shooting and am looking to upgrade my setup and have a few options and would love to get some input from those of you with more knowledge....

My current setup is the following:

Canon Rebel XSi (450d)
* 50mm f/1.8 II
* 18-55mm kit lens
* Rokinon 85m f1.4 prime

As you can see, though I do have some lenses, none of them are particularly "good", so I'm not really tied to any particular system (honestly, I'd probably just keep everything together with the XSI so my kids can start learning as they get older).

As for price range, I can probably brush up against $2,000 (before tax), but probably wouldn't want to go much beyond that for the time being.
So after doing tons of research, I've narrowed it down to a few options and would likely be getting a kit lens with all of them. I'm not an expert, and all of these will blow away my XSI, so my pros/cons are going to be far less technical and more just thoughts from what I've read....

Fuji x-t3
Pros: Seems to be a "fun" camera with many folks commenting on how much more they shoot because they enjoy the experience. Also seems to have universally praised colors out of the camera and lenses seem to be attainable without breaking the bank.
Cons: I would really like to go full frame, though I fully admit I can't articulate a valid reason behind this desire. Mostly just because when I started this process, that was one thing I had in mind - to get a more high end camera and most of those seemed to be full frame.
NOTE:. the x-t4 will be announced in a week and I won't be making this purchase for a while, so depending on the differences, I might would go for that one vs the x-t3

Sony a7iii
Pros: The camera gets rave reviews everywhere I look and seems to be an absolute great value for the price. Full frame
Cons: I keep reading that their lens selection is the weakest regarding variety and expense, but they do have adapters (though they're expensive for somebody like me who will likely only ever own a few lenses). Menu system seems to be universally hated.

Nikon Z6
Pros: Seems to be highly praised in this price point. Full frame. Great ergonomics & menu system.
Cons: New mount seems to have limited lenses from what I can tell

I'm mostly just shooting family and when traveling, though I'm sure I'll explore new things when I get a new camera. As I mentioned, I'll probably try to accumulate a few lenses, but I'm not sure I ever see myself having several very high end lenses, so I'm mostly looking for which camera makes sense with a somewhat budget-minded perspective regarding the whole system.

Thanks all.

XT-3 is hard to turn down, the Fuji lenses are fantastic and relatively cheap compared to full-frame lenses.

a7iii owner here...

I love my camera and don't have much bad to say about it at all. The lenses aren't cheap but they aren't crazy either. Tamron has released several that get good reviews in the last year or 2 and the native lenses are all solid. I don't regret buying mine at all.