Awwwww c'mon, farms are worth a lot more than this meeny minor amount. And just think - you can shoot snakes moving around in the dark, and get up close as they open their fangs. Filming is a lot better than stills any day of the week anyways. And to have it in 4k is a rush. Oh, by the way, you need to buy a 4K TV - they are coming down in price - I think the latest is around $5k.

Now if you are really on a budget, you can get the Sony F5 (really fantastic camera) and monitor for the special of only $16k, forgo the recorder and record 4k>2k on the cards (they only cost $500 each) and get outstanding quality in movies so real you think you are there.

You can buy eBay lenses too for a song, but really the Zeiss cine lenses are tops - you can get a set of primes for only $20-25k so look into that. But they are manual focus as all cine lenses are.

But you can make a blockbuster movie and if it is good, recover your investment and make a few million on the side. But the movie will only cost you about $10-20M to make it. Hey don't laugh, 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding" is the most profitable of all time and cost only $6M to make but made 60X it's investment.

And it all starts with a nikkor lens that you wanted to throw away. See how helpful I am.

After you pick yourself up from the ground and the snake bite, Smile!

Better yet - go and buy a cinema camera complete with mics, recording unit and the software to edit. the sony F5 only costs about $16,000, the recorder about $4,000 and the software about $1,000. Add the mics - $1,000.

Big advantage - you can use the nikkor lens - great lens. You can even buy autofocus lenses too but they are expensive - about $20,000.

Great hobby

Why Sell it? The camera is a good unit. You will never get $500 worth of satisfaction. It will be gone in a heartbeat when you can keep the camera. After all, it still takes damn fine pictures.

Actually, there is a movement afoot that has the Panasonic m43 as the new standard. Some are dumping their entire line of Canon and Nikons in favor of that new standard. Being a full frame Canon 5DM2 user, and thinking this was the go to camera, I am now shaken up by the brilliance of that Panasonic camera. The video is astonishing - almost as good as $20,000 Sony rigs - that good. The lenses are universal - pick anyone you want or go with the Leica line. Astonishing. After years of Canon, I am really thinking this over. Compact, superb quality, low cost, the best video in the business hands down and rivaling big ticket items. They might have something even over full frame - with the same shallow dof field too.

Although the comments and the thread were in jest and good fun, this is a bit more of a serious tone but well intended.

The mega-pixle wars is sometimes misunderstood. The more megapixels, generally, the lower the sensitivity or it just gets nasty grainy - not the best for night shots. In low light, it gets grainy.
But take the new Sony A7S. It has 12 Mpx and has an ISO in around 400,000 or crazy number. It will take pictures when your eyes can't even see the subject. The cleanliness at 25,000 is as good as high end cameras at 160-800. That has got to be worth something

It is: In video, it is dynamite.

Don't let megapixel wars steer you in the wrong direction. Super sharp has compromises. If you like night shooting, and film noir, or lots of dark drama, this is the ticket to heaven.

The Sony line-up does exactly what you want and for the quality, it is probably the finest anywhere especially with the Zeiss lenses. You can use superb legacy Minolta lenses as well and they are simply fantastic. Sony has been building the world class TV cameras for decades and they use the technology in their cameras. The new Sony A7S is a high sensitive camera that goes obscene, something like 400,000 with a low megapixel sensor (12Mpg) designed for low light but brilliant video - blows me away. Don't limit yourself to Canon or Nikon my friend. There are better options out there.

I think the bottom line concern is still the sarin gas that killed 1400 people. US says the evidence is Syria used it. The Americans have acted as the world's policeman and thank God for that in most cases. Sometimes too quick to go to war. but 1400 people dead by a terrible chemical weapon does not cut it, and I for one would end that ever happening again - if war, so be it.

What Putin did, was considered that maybe the US intelligence was wrong, the rebels planted it to draw up support and making Syrian the fall guy. It is possible. If that possibility exists, then lets get rid of the chemical weapons - that is IF they can get all of them (I doubt it). Hell, if I were the dictator, I would hide half of them right away and state that you guys got them all - looks good on paper anyway.

The issue is that war is ugly, millions are suffering, and it simply has to end. Are we going to watch as we did with Hitler until it was almost too late?

Tricky questions. It is not about Obama good or bad. It is about accountability and to take a stand against this terrible war and end it for good. It will cost, but should be worth it. No easy answers. Putin might be the world's peacemaker and I hope he can pull it off. Quite frankly, I like the guy.

I haven't a clue what these cameras are in size of sensors - as I suspect many of us don't know either - please clarify so we know what you are talking about.

Take 5

Well, that depends on the lens quality. Really good glass shows next to no noticeable loss of quality. So-so glass - in most cases improve. But at what cost. a standard lens now becomes a medium telephoto - who wants that? The prized shallow depth of field is less on WA lenses and the only way to get a 'standard' lens is using a 30mm which has by default deep DoF - so you can't win. Unless you buy a lens specifically made for a crop sensor and then it is no good for ff sensors. Like everything, there are tradeoffs.

If you want that gorgeous shallow dof, FF with big glass at f 1.4 and 50mm and up will give it. Crop sensors have their issues. Besides FF sensors usually have wonderful night vision capabilities more so. And the cameras are bigger and more expensive. All depends what you want to shoot and how important those advantages are. You gets whats you pays for.

Cheers,
Take 5

I couldn't agree more - so just to add a wee bit:

Don't scrimp on cheap shit. Sorry for the blatant colorful metaphors, but with so much available out there, you can easily get sidetracked. Seeking good advice is a wise move as you are doing. so from Experience, I suggest

#1 Choose a system and stick with it: Sony, Canon, Pentax, Nikon, Panasonic - all great name brands that are awesome. I suggest full frame if you are serious - you simply get better pictures - and have the access to all the lenses ever made for 35mm film - will for the most part - read on...

Sony is the new kid on the block and has terrific units and are out to compete and surpass the others. They use old Minolta glass which is world class and Zeiss -even better plus their own Sony lenses. Those who use it swear by these camera systems. Some lenses can be adapted such as Contax and others. Their big advantage is that the image stabilization is in the camera sensor, has hi tech state of the art units and huge huge R&D from their video technology expertise.

Canon been around forever, has a ton of great optics both good and bad, solid units, leaders in many fields. Their 5DMk2 is arguable the camera that changed the world. You can get them very reasonable now. They can adapt just about any lens in the world except Sony / Minolta - so have a vast reservoir to choose from. Their in camera video is probably about the best - except Sony. Lots to choose from

Nikon - another stalwart that has legacy and performance. Nikon glass is world renowned - and of course has some lemons. The disadvantage is that all of their lenses operate backwards to the rest of the world - can be a pain in the ass for some. Video is not very good - if you want video - look elsewhere - Sony, Canon or Panasonic (the best)

Pentax - once a great player - is now a small player but their lenses truly are spectacular - don't know much about them.

Panasonic is the baby camera - small lenses, size and big performer. So if travelling light is your game - here is the way to go. Their video is the best in the DSLR line. GH2 is just about unbeatable.

There are 3rd party lenses out there - Tokina, Tamron, Samyang, Vivatar etcv. They have great lenses and crappy lenses - this a tricky field - act cautiously. Most can be adapted to any camera.

Set aside about $2,000 - spend the money on great glass - it will stay with you for life. Changing over systems is expensive - so choose wisely and stick with it - never look back.

For my money, I have the Canon 5DMk2 and it is a proven performer, uses any kind of glass I want, the video is pretty decent, audio sucks so you need and external recorder, is big, heavy but the results are very nice. I may go to Sony (because I can use my Zeiss glass) and the Sony fits in with my plans in video - but that is another story.

Cheers,
Take 5

I'll buy 2 - just think - i can put the program on 2 computers now! and save $40.

Ya gotta learn to ride a tricycle before you ride the motorcycle. Start used. Learn the basics. Go manual as much as you can. But not wanting to lose great opportunities, you need a good starting point that you will always be happy with the results.

May I suggest a used Canon 5D Mk2? It is full frame, can adopt lots of lenses from Canon or Zeiss, Nikon, or whatever (except Minolta or Sony and rangefinders) - lots of vintage optics too. And it is not that expensive - eBay has them for about $1,000 now - well worth it. You will not benefit that much from a Mk3 if at all - and that will be another $1,500 extra - ain't worth it - not for you anyway. With some good optics, you could have pro gear for about 2 grand and on your way.

This will train you properly. Stay away from the auto everything modes, including auto focus. Do everything by hand and manual. This will entrench into your psyche, the fundamentals - and that is what will be the beginning of a great friendship.

Cheers,
Take 5

When I mentioned $50 - that is $50 for a 77 B+W or Tiffen from e-bay. Normal price for these gems is about $100. UV and Haze are different. Haze cuts through it by reducing the effects on the blue - thus making it standout better.

Cheers,
Take 5

Sure - I'll tell ya from using both. I do movies now, but I have done thousands of stills and lived with polarizers. In movie making, we live in a world of filters - and my camera, a Sony FS100 is ultra sensitive. In sunlight, at the normal 1/60 sec shutter speed, I am forced to stop down to f16-22 (even at ISO100). Kinda lousy for shallow DoF, eh? At night, it can shoot a picture that I cannot even see! I can take a video with 2 candles nearby for lighting at 1/60 !! So we live in the world of ND's. Many movie cameras have built in ND's 2, 4 and 8 stops - mine does not and I seriously miss them.

I tried the Variable ND as a problem solver. It is above all, convenient and compact. I think I detect a slight degradation of image quality - just doesn't look right - can't place my finger on it - but then again it is an 'inexpensive' filter - not a $300 unit.

It does not have a polarizing effect which I highly value. I love to be able to control the reflections to what I want, not what these variable filters dictate to me. Variable ND's do not allow for that, in fact I think it does act as a polarizer and kills all reflections - so the picture ends up a bit dull, no sparkle and lousy highlights. High quality polarizers are prime requirements. That gives you 2+ stops right there and controls what you want to control.

ND's (many kinds - darkness, graduated, spot, colors, color compensating etc) are bulkier, heavier, but give a super clean image, hands down. It is even across the picture, no patterns, moire - nothing different except darker and a bit richer it seems, plus you get the sparkle and highlights too. A graduated ND has huge advantages in that you can make the sky or bright sections darker and thus even out the frame in dynamic range. That blown out sky is now a wonderful rich and glorious blue - which a polarizer can do as well, but also control reflections to your specs.

In my world, I am forced to use quality ND's - up to 16 stops less. I use an ND and a polarizer if needed. I no longer use the variable ND's. The picture just does not have that crispness, that edge, that 'je ne se quois' that makes it stand out.

The best approach, personally, in still photography, I would use a Tiffen, B+W, Schneider or Hoya polarizer any day of the week and put on an ND or graduated ND if needed to fine tune the picture or get that shallow DoF at f1.4 or 2.

Cheers,
Take 5

ya - you get what yhou pay for. Why is it that we are always trying to find a 'deal' of stupid proportions almost knowing full well that in the end, we are going to be PO'ed at the final buy. I rarely find a killer deal that has left me blown away. But I find always regrets for stupid buys and bang my head on a wall "what was I thinking".

Bought a 'cheap' Zeiss 80-200 and the slider zoom was sticky - sent it back - cost about $80 (2 ways postage, etc.) not to mention the 3 weeks time and frustration of a slightly damaged barrel. Really PO'd.

However, I bought a used Zeiss makro 60 for top dollar (550) and I swear it is by far the best optic I have ever owned. Unbelievable quality, contrast, sharpness, boketh etc. No regrets.

Stick with known entities, proven performers (not necessarily brands either as for example Canon and Nikon have lemons out there), do the research, find your gem that suits your needs and better and ONLY THEN hunt for one in exactly the condition you want. Saves grief. Bargains are rare in the long run.


Just my thoughts,
Cheers,
Take 5