Choosing camera (or rather lens) for this season's chase

[Dan Robinson]

The nice thing about the Canon 50mm 1.8 is that it's a very cheap way to add a high-quality semi-tight framing option to your gear. A no-brainer IMO. At last check they are running $125, up from $99 a year ago. Still a great buy - you won't find such a sharp, fast lens at that price point with anything else. In my case, it's on my camera at least half the time when chasing. Here are a couple of examples from it:

 

[Jeremy Perez]

Regarding the focus: if I look at the full photo the focus is not anywhere at all. Nothing is in focus. My sister said that it is possible nothing is in focus due to bad autofocusing or accidental manual focus - I didn't quite understand that...I mean, the focus has to be somewhere, right?

I think what she's saying is, for example, if your focus was accidentally set to 20 feet in front of you with a narrow depth of field, but everything framed in your image is 50 feet away or further, then nothing in the view would be in focus.

 

[ChristofferB]

Dan: It seems to be a great lens. I have thought of it as my "night lens" since it is so light sensitive. Still, I am not sure if I would dare use it unless I know the events are slow so I don't have to end up in a situation where the lack of zoom (to a wide angle) would force me to cut a photo short. Very interesting though!

If I look at old photos it seems like I use 55mm rather often for "tornado" shots so it could prove to be useful.

 

[Ethan Schisler]

I shoot most of my photographs with my Nikon D610 on either my 24-85mm kit lens or my wide angle 16-28mm F/2.8 Tokina lens. Both lenses shoot some pretty sharp images and I've never really had any problems with either. As mentioned above too, with the full frame cameras, you can crop down some of your images somewhat and still get decent "print-quality" material. I need to pick up a decent telephoto for my Nikon, I've got a 70-200 for my Canon that I really enjoy, too bad the Nikon and Canon lenses aren't interchangeable :/

Prior to 2013, I shot with a Canon Rebel XS and T4i with a 17-40mm F/4L wide angle lens and then the stock 18-135mm lens. The 17-40mm F/4 Canon lens is pretty great as well, I can definitely recommend that. The 18-135mm lens is okay for a kit lens, I didn't think the images were as sharp as they could be, perhaps I had a less than desirable copy, I'm not sure. I thought the regular 18-55mm kit lens was better in that regard on the Canon Rebel XS that I owned.

 

[ChristofferB]

Once again, thanks for all the help! I gained a lot of knowledge here and I am looking forward to test all the gear now. I wrote a blog post about my reasoning and thoughts about all I learned.

As mentioned, my next Project will be to practise using them and find the right settings that will work during stressy situations.

 

[chrisbray]

What about the idea of a Panasnoic G7, or GX8, that can film in 4k? Apparently Each frame of a 4K video can be extracted as an 8mp pic. Anyone have experience with this?

 

[Andrew Constans]

Short answer - Yes. You could in theory do that, and it would probably look good if focused correctly, properly exposed, and shot with a reasonable shutter speed to minimize motion blur. If you only shoot JPG and don't edit a lot after the fact, this is fine because most cameras encode JPG files at 8bit color depth with the equivalent of a 4:2:0 subsampling scheme which is the same way the G7 shoots 4K video. Now, the G7's H.264 compression is not the same as a JPG and you might see a drop in quality, but for fast stuff it works.

If you shoot RAW/TIFF images primarily and edit a bunch in post, this will not be a good fit for you. A higher quality still image is usually 12- or 14-bit (sometimes 16), whereas a JPG is 8-bit. A JPG will offer you 256 possible tones/colors per pixel, where 14-bit offers 16,000. Where this really matters is when you're editing. An image with 16,000 possible tones per pixel will hold up much better when you crank contrast/make adjustments than one with 256 possible tones per pixel. In a rough comparison, a 4wd vehicle with large tires will have an easier time on muddy Kansas clay roads and freeways alike than my little 2wd sedan.

 

[chrisbray]

Thanks for the input! I don't really do much editing, so it may not be a big deal for me. I am just so unsure how to go about selecting my new camera, there are so many options!

 

[Andrew Constans]

No kidding! If it makes any difference, I've been very impressed with Panasonic/Lumix's products lately, they're very capable both with video and photo. I'd wait until after NAB to buy something, prices should start to go down after everyone releases the newest/latest/greatest cameras.

 

[Shawn Gossman]

I wish I knew more about my camera. I have a Nikon D3100 that came with a few "basic" lenses. I see other lenses out there for it, some at a great price, some at a really expensive price but I don't really know which one to get. The wide angles look good. I should of taken a photography class at some point, haha.

 

[chrisbray]

Hey All..
I think I have it down to 3 or 4 options.
Sony a6000
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II
Canon Rebel T6i


Anyone have experience with any of them, or opinions?

 

[alfredo carrion]

I have the sony a6000 and its amazing for lower light situations. Very fast focusing too, and smaller format so its very portable. I got the sony 50mm 1.8 with OSS (their optical steady shot), its super sharp, small foot print and with the OSS and 1.8, you can basically shoot anything handheld with it. I also got a Rokin 12mm f2.0, but its manual focus, but its great for those pano's. Planning on getting the 35mm lens next.

 

[JamesCaruso]

As has been pointed out above, good lenses are very expensive. An option worth looking into is renting a lens. I had never even thought of this, until I attended a Philadelphia-area business event that featured a panel of local entrepreneurial companies, one of which was Bokeh Fire, a lens rental company. I had been wanting to get a wide-angle lens for my Nikon 5300 DLSR, but they are so expensive. Years ago when I had a Canon camera, I had a "cheap" wide-angle lens (about $250) and it only lasted two years (and I barely used it beyond my two-week chase vacations!) I avoided getting a new one because of the cost. But from Bokeh Fire, I just rented a Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G. It is a $900 lens and I am renting it for just $125 (joined as a member and that's the monthly membership; it is cancelable at any time, so I will cancel when I get back and return the lens). They will also recommend a lens for you; I have found the customer support to be excellent and very responsive. The only annoying thing is that they want you to email them copies of your credit card, drivers license and a utility bill to prove your identity. But I guess you can't blame them, given the value of the lenses. I just ordered mine last week and expect to receive it tomorrow. Let me know if any of you decide to try it out.

http://www.bokehfire.com/

 

[Steve Burre]

Does anyone have experience with renting lenses? I really want to try out a wide angle lens, but I won't have the funds to outright buy one this year so I'm thinking about renting one. If anyone has a company that they recommend or any tips I would appreciate it.

I've rented from https://www.lensprotogo.com/ before (in that case it was usage of a $9,000 Canon EF 500 f/4L IS lens for a special trip to Yellowstone where the expense was worth it). Great service from them. If you live in any major metro area, check to see if there is a local camera store that has rentals. Perhaps the cheapest way is just know what the values are worth on ebay, buy one on ebay, use it for 2 months for storm season (for example) and you should be able to sell pretty much at the same price on ebay less commission (Canon L lenses for example don't lose value unless a new model comes out or you damage the lens).

 

[ChristofferB]

I am back at this thread again and it was interesting to re-read all the comments in here. I am very glad I ended up upgrading my whole stash of lenses and camera house in 2016 - in time for Dodge City. As for now I am quite happy with my Canon 760 but I am considering upgrading again to a Canon 6D for a few reasons:

- I can actually afford it now
- I don't want my old 450 to be my spare camera as I realize I am using it quite frequently, while my main camera is filming (as was the case in Dodge City).
- I am spending so much time and money to go storm chasing and get those photos I might as well do the best I can to get the most out of it.

At this moment it seems I won't be able to use my 18-135mm (which I use the most) or my 10-18mm wide angle (which I am considering replacing). The 50mm I believe I can use as well as my telescope lens (80-300mm). I also understand that switching to a full-format means that the actual depths changes.

The main problems I have discovered in the last 3 years is:

- A complete inability to photograph stars (except for with the 50mm which is quite pointless) which I tend to do, and like doing.
- My tripod is awesome but far too bulky (and thus slow to use) during stressy tornado interceptions.
- Not knowing exactly what trade-offs I am doing while choosing camera during a chase. For example, would it still be better to use my fixed 50mm instead of a, perfectly framed zoom, at 100mm with a less quality lens.
- Not a major problem but 4 lenses tend to be the maximum what I feel is convenient.

What I am considering now is to buy a fixed wide angle (to go with the 6D) to get a more light sensitive lens than my 4.5-5.6 10-18mm. I typically tend to use the 10mm setting most of the time anyway.

Although I am not really considering it atm I guess a monopod would not be a bad idea. The main reason not to is that it is just too much stuff! This year I will have more room as well so the tripod should work.

The main problem with the new 6D will be that I won't have a great "work horse lens" i.e. my 18-135mm.

My questions now I guess are:

- Which fixed wide angle would you recommend (max budget $600 something)
- For you who go by full format (and Canon), which lens do you tend to keep on most of the time?