Gear Thread

File: inkdfs.jpg (30KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 450x450px

Nikon Df purchaser from the other thread.

So, where is my best bet to get this camera? Considerably I'm trying to keep my budget as low as possible; although GadgetCircuit is fucking sketchy as shit.

Thinking about Adorama, just ordering body and buying a separate lens.

What lens should I get? (400~600 Range)

>>2731793
Why on earth would you buy one? There is literally nothing in favor for it. Just buy a poster of it and hang it on your wall if you just want to look at it.

>>2731794
D4 Sensor in a smaller, lighter, cheaper body.
Also because I want to.

>>2731795
>buying camera for the sensor
Why not just buy a D610 or a D750 and spend the rest of the money on more lens? You even get a better AF module.
Everything is literally worse in the DF, including the sensor. You are buying a camera for looks, not for using it.
Please don't be THAT guy.

>>2731804
>Please don't be THAT guy.
Why the fuck do you care so much? It's his money to spend

>>2731805
Because I want to help him. It's a last chance to reconsider his buying habits, also he said he has limited budget for the camera.
If he doesn't care about his money, it's fine, but with limitations it is much better to spend it wisely. Also he can buy a better body, more lens for less money. Why on earth would someone spend all his money for much less?

>>2731804
>You even get a better AF module.
o rl-

>CAM4800
wow they couldn't even bother to put the 3500 in the Df, could Nikon be any shittier?

flashes!

whats the difference of younguno and the like vs brand flashes, other than that the stated guide number is a bit higher than it is in practical use?
i intend to use it as a off camera flash, triggered by the kit flash of my em-5

File: champagne.jpg (82KB, 640x448px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 640x448px

My Canon 1000D is getting old and outdated, so I've decided to upgrade to either the 70D or the 760D, mostly for the improved ISO and extra megapickles. They have mostly the same specs, although the 70D does seem overall better, however it's a bit older. The price difference is negligible.

Am I making a mistake here?

Also I'm sticking to Canon since I already have a few lenses.

>>2731805
He came here asking for advice, and your response is "Let him fuck up if he wants to why do you care". If he wasn't willing to hear why he might be wrong, why would he even ask?

>>2731826
The 70D will be an improvement in ergonomics, and a VERY SLIGHT improvement in image quality over what you have now, but other than that, you won't see much. Do not upgrade to the 760D. Moving from rebel to rebel is a waste of money.

File: Canon_60D_50mm_Prime.jpg (744KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

744KB, 1600x1067px

>>2731826
http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/canon/60d/vs/canon/70d/

Better going with a 60d, will beat the 70d in price everytime. 70d only has more AF points and a little bit more ISO boost. Being along time owner of a 60d, i've never really needed more iso

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Photographer	unknown
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2011:07:30 19:05:32
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/22.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Partial
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2731833
I meant the ISO upgrade from the 1000D to the 70D.

I've looked at the 60D, but I feel like I would regret it if I went with it.

>>2731830
That was my exact thought, rebel to rebel seems dumb, even though it does look like a legit good camera, even compared to the 70D. Ergonomics definitely play a part too.
As I mentioned in the first post, I'm mostly upgrading for the ISO. My 1000D only goes to 1200 ISO, and at that point everything turns into a grainy mess. It's more or less completely useless in low light, without bringing along a flash, which really just makes the photos worse most of the time.

>>2731835
Err, I meant 1600 ISO, obviously.

File: shittystich.jpg (3MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5184x3456px

>>2731836
the 6400 on the 60d has just werked for me.

Remember that max iso is always no

Unless you are on a more pro FF body You will never really need or be able to effectively use that high of ISO

6400 on the 60d gets bad, but shouldn't be shooting that high anyways. Unless you don't have fast lenses i could see the go up. It's just that the 50d-60d-70d Upgrades are were pretty minimal.

Most of the upgrades are little things like touchscreen/wifi.

The only real upgrades are a better buffer and more AF points low light performance isn't increased that much. so if money isn't an issue go ahead. but if you want to save a few hundred, you won't miss out on much.

Pic related for it as iso 6400 like most cameras not pretty in the high ranges. I know apples to titty bar comparison here.

It is usable up in the 3200 range

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 60D
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:27 20:59:32
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2731839
Thanks a lot for the input, I've decided to go along with the 70D, simply for the extra features and hopefully slightly better ISO. I really enjoy shooting in low light.

If I had gone for the 60D, it would only have been for saving money which I could then put towards a new lens, but my budget is in the range that I can even do that with 70D, so I don't mind.

File: 2015-12-29 10_13_06-New notification.jpg (446KB, 2064x1323px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 2064x1323px

>>2731839
>>2731841
Here is a 100% crop of an X-E1 at ISO 6400 with no noise reduction

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Greenshot
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2731829
>So, where is my best bet to get this camera?
>D4 Sensor in a smaller, lighter, cheaper body. Also because I want to.

>He came here asking for advice. If he wasn't willing to hear why he might be wrong, why would he even ask?
Learn to read you fucking moron. The only advice he asked for was where to buy it as cheap as possible, it's clear he already made up his mind.

>>2731844
well i really didn't give the the camera a chance in that picture desu. Apples to Beef thing i just took, if used right the higer end ISO is usable

>>2731844
Cool. Noise reduction can definitely do a lot here, without really damaging the photo.

>>2731848
I prefer pictures of people, and if that's what 6400 ISO looks like on a modern camera, then I'm very happy about the 70D purchase.

>>2731848
Then why did you bother?

File: LARGE-FILE.jpg (1MB, 1888x933px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1888x933px

>>2731851
ISO 6400 is really an odd one with Fuji, for shots that are overwhelming in shadows it can look awful. Introduce some highlights, hit focus and it's surprisingly okay. Here's a real world shot from a completely different anon.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2015-12-29T15:40:41
Flash	No Flash, Red-Eye Reduce
Image Width	1888
Image Height	933

>>2731853
i don't know, just illustrating what the 60d can look like with too much iso. Considering he wanted to go with a 70d, which only has a slight improvement at noise reduction

File: 1k-October 23_ 2015.jpg (303KB, 1000x426px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1000x426px

>>2731856
And the same shot resized to 1000px and still cropped in.

The X-E1 is pretty usable at 6400 ISO. I prefer it to the Canon's I've owned in the past.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	53 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:29 15:39:34
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Brightness	-4.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2731856
>>2731859
>converting to DNG
>Using Adobe to judge Fuji files
You don't know what the Fuji is capable of, at all, if you're using Adobe, because it doesn't know how to strip out the in-camera noise reduction that ruins colors and fine detail. Capture One, Photoninja, or Iridient will give you a much better approximation of what's in the file.

>>2731861
>You don't know what the Fuji is capable of, at all, if you're using Adobe, because it doesn't know how to strip out the in-camera noise reduction that ruins colors and fine detail. Capture One, Photoninja, or Iridient will give you a much better approximation of what's in the file.
Hi AngryPhotographer.
I'm completely aware of that, I just loaded up lightroom quickly to reply. I'm sorry that I triggered you so much that you needed to reply.
Season's Greeting desu

>>2731863
So why did you bother posting the results if you already knew that what you were posting was negatively influenced by your chosen program?
I'm not angry at all, merely pointing out a fact that you neglected to mention in your comments. There was nothing insulting, aggressive, or emotionally charged in my comment.

>>2731867
>I'm not angry at all, merely pointing out a fact that you neglected to mention in your comment
>There was nothing insulting, aggressive, or emotionally charged in my comment.
You were triggered enough to post twice over this. It has already been pointed out by you twice now.
Season's Greetings DESU

>>2731863
>>2731871
Mental health fail.

What does /p/ think of the Sony a3000?

I'm wanting to use some vintage lenses on a mirrorless, are adapters typically problematic?

>>2731876
Adapters are usually just a hunk of metal that balances out the flange distance. As long as you're aware of crop factor it should be pretty good. No idea about the A3000 though.

I have a GH3 with the Lumix 14mm prime and Lumix 14-45mm zoom lenses. I'm thinking about selling those and getting the Lumix 12-35mm.

Would this be a good idea?

I primarily shoot stills, but I'm looking to get into video. I'll probably pick up the Olympus 40-150mm zoom in the future as well.

>>2731863
>I just loaded up lightroom quickly to reply
If the files are DNG, then you imported them and converted them with adobe, which means they're not ruined permanently.

Saying you just opened up lightroom quick doesn't change anything. You are judging (and condemning) the capabilities of the camera, while failing to mention that you are crippling the results.

>>2731844
seems like fuji sensors look just fine when they're handled correctly.

File: 1413327540576.png (138KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 375x375px

>friendly reminder that the answer to every gear question is a used D7000, Tokina 12-24 or 11-16, and a 50/1.8G

if you need anything else it's because you're specialising, in which case you have no need for advice from the general public

>>2731900
>they're not ruined permanently.
Means they ARE ruined permanently. Whoops.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3456x4608px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3456x4608px

I'm looking at getting a flash for my A7ii and have no idea what I'm looking for. Just starting to get into portraits, mostly like senior photos and engagement stuff for a little side cash. So ideally I think it should be remote so I have the option of softbox if I need it? How powerful is worthwhile vs overkill? Are ring flashes just total meme? Halp. Pic related, a flash-less picture I took.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Created	2015:10:24 21:15:46
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Shade
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3456
Image Height	4608
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

>>2731908
Get a Yongnuo manual speedlight, learn the basics and work your way up from there based on your needs.

>>2731908
Strobist.com
How much power you need depends entirely on your environment. Indoors, for headshots and half body stuff, a few hotshoe flashes triggerd with Cactus triggers will do just fine.

In the photo you posted, you'll need massive powerful lights to overpower the sun and reflections.

Ring flashes are not a meme, but they are very specialized and are only good for a specific type of look. The real ones you'd use for portraits are about $500 and up (and the LED macro ring flashes you see are not for portraiture, as they don't put off NEARLY enough light)

Does on camera processing, noise reduction, chromatic aberration, etc only apply to JPEG or the RAW file also? If both, should I disable and manipulate it in post for better results?

File: COLOUR NOISE.jpg (201KB, 1568x789px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1568x789px

>>2731906
>>2731900
RUINED FOREVER. Not really though. The DNG's still open and are intact for use with any other program. There's also the original RAF file in the folder and a local file for adjustments. I mainly use lightroom for fast cataloging. I fucked up by showing the crop direct from LR and I hold my hands up to that (I also fucked up since the copy I loaded into LR reduced colour noise). To be extra nice, I even got my other HDD off the shelve and booted up my virtual machine, loaded up the original RAF and got this just for you and the other anon.

It's probably best not to jump to conclusions. A lot of people still don't understand how DNG works. Maybe I'm just slightly more autistic than your average ID/C1 poster.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Paul Martin
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2731928
>apply to JPEG or the RAW file
Both

>should I disable and manipulate it in post
Yes

>>2731908
I'd suggest wireless flashlights that can be adjusted and triggered reliably.

Get either YN560 III / IV / TX (manual, inexpensive, really great for shots where you have some time to prepare) or Nissin Di700 Air (has TTL).

File: DSCF9297 - 1.jpg (159KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1000x666px

So I have a gear question.

My Xpro1 does this every once in a while.

Haven't found any particular settings it occurs at.

Anything I can do about it other than retire it?

Crop incoming.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro1
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-Pro1 Ver3.50
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	53 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:29 18:55:11
Exposure Time	1/210 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Brightness	1.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4896
Image Height	3264
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Off
Macro Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Manual
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

File: DSCF9297 - 2.jpg (216KB, 1030x639px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1030x639px

>>2731935

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro1
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-Pro1 Ver3.50
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	53 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:29 18:55:11
Exposure Time	1/210 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Brightness	1.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4896
Image Height	3264
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Off
Macro Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Manual
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

>>2731929
A conversion to DNG using adobe bakes the noise reduction into the file, and it can't be removed. If you kept the RAF and can open it in something besides lightroom (Capture One is what I use) and drag the noise reduction all the way down for both luminance and color, then you'll see what's actually available to be worked with.

Many times, people assume that their camreas aren't performing well with colors and contrast at high ISOs when what's actually happening is that the camera is perfectly capturing shit color and shit light in the scene. Low light situations are usually pretty ugly, with color casts from low spectrum bulbs, and ugly contrast from dim lighting.

>>2731928
Only JPEG in many cases, but it depends on the camera.

> If both, should I disable and manipulate it in post for better results?
Yes. Most cameras have god awful JPEG processing anyways. (Sony and IIIRC Nikon and Samsung did okay, but Canon and others just fuck them up with extra reds and what not, plus somewhat silly compression settings).

>>2731935
I guess you could still test the storage card?

But it definitely looks more like something is going wrong on the camera...

>>2731935
>>2731936
Have you formatted the card with your computer, or tried a different card? if it happens no matter the card, then you'll have to either send it in for service, or retire it.

>>2731935
have you tried on more than one card? this could either be a storage or a sensor issue

>>2731939
>>2731940

Tried with different cards.

Guess I'll have to check how much service would cost.

D3200 or D5100?

I can grab a D5100 for $275 (around $200USD)

>>2731953
If you can't afford a D7000 or D7100, then get the D3200.

>>2731949
Fuji service is excellent, so hopefully it's a painless experience.

Canon just tried to charge me $150 to wipe off the outside of my 5D, "verify" my shutter count, and test my CF card slot. I mailed the camera to them on the 16th, and I should receive it back by Jan 7th.

Fuji has, in the past, completely replaced my battery grip, and done a complete deep clean on my X-T1 for free, because I happened to bend a pin on my grip by storing it improperly. I mailed the kit to them on a Monday, and had it back in my hands Wednesday.

>>2731949
how old's the camera? Could just be worn out if you put a shit ton of Shutter actuations in. My 60d is at 25k now. 16k shutters 8k mirror changes

>>2731953
d 5100 has
Has in-camera HDR
Screen flips out
Slightly lower noise at high ISO
Longer battery life
More dynamic range, but only slightly
over the 3200

>>2731956
Why would you need to change the mirror at 8k? Is this a Canon thing only?

>>2731956
So would you grab the d5100? It's only $275 canadian ($200 usd). The next cheapest d3200 ive been able to find has been $375 +13% tax

>>2731959
Woops i mean by 8k Live View actuations.

16367 shutter acts 8780 live view sitches

Are any of the Topaz extensions worth getting at full price?

>in b4 torrent

>>2731963
If the d-5100 is cheaper yeah i'd pick it up. Most everything is comparable across the board
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon-D5100

>>2731819
They're cheaper to replace. And for brands that aren't as vetted as Yongnuo, you might need to replace them more often.

File: F3t.jpg (71KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 612x612px

>>2731793

You trying to be like me bruh? Do it right and get the real deal O_O

Sony a6000, Panasonic g7 or canon 700d w/ ml As a first proper camera? Will be doing mainly landscape photography to begin with and some videography

UK /p/ros, where do you get your photo books printed? I want to do something like this:
pg 1 [stupid poem/inspirational quote]
pg 2 [portrait picture]
pg 3 [landscape picture]
pg 4 [another stupid poem/inspirational]
pg 5 [2 landscape photos]
pg 6 etc...

>>2731995
a6000

>>2731911

I guess I should have specified that I'm not trying to overpower the sun with my flash. I don't think that picture I posted needs it, do you?

I like the idea of a wireless flash so I don't get stuck with light coming from directly behind the camera in every pic.

>>2731955
Any chance they sent you a new/refurbished camera? Three days is way too short for that.

>>2731998
Well with a well placed flash in that photo, she would be lit from above, rather than from below, which would remove a bit of that "joker" look, but overall, it's pretty nice.

All flashes can be fired remotely with inexpensive triggers.

I personally use Yongnuo 560 on the 622C triggers and love them for small scope stuff.

>>2732001
It's entirely possible. The guy on the phone specifically told me that he was sending me a new grip because it would be faster "Do you need this in the next few days? To fix it will take probably four days... you know what I'll just send you a new one. Is that okay?"

I didn't have any distinctive marks or anything on the body to be able to tell whether it was brand new or not.

>>2731804
>Low light shots is what I want. Less noise. Yes. It is aesthetically pleasing but it's what I've decided to buy already.

I came here asking for lenses. Not other camera bodies.

>>2731977
I already own an FG20 and my teacher from high school is giving me his Fm3A for free.

>>2732017
>I came here asking for lenses
You said "What lens should I get"
which is a retarded question that you deserve no answer to. Each lens out there has a strength, and weakness, and should be paired with a specific use.

Asking "What lens should I get" is like saying "Where should I go"

You're buying a DF, so I assume you have no clue what you want to shoot in the first place, and are just looking for the "best kit" to be able to talk about your kit, or shoot your daily shitty routine, so the best 35mm lens you can afford, presumably.

>>2732017
>>2732020
Also,
>Spending almost $3000 on a full frame camera body
>Saving less than $600 for a lens

Sounds like you're exactly the sort of person the DF was made for.

What can I use instead of a can of compressed air to clean hard to reach optics?

I just bought myself an Olympus XA and I need to clean the range finder mirror, but compressed air cans are ridiculously expensive.

>>2732017
I'm not the guy you're talking with but I'm jealous. Unless it's in pristine condition, I'd sell the FM3a for an F3 or an FM2n. No one really needs that model

>>2731789

Alright, so I shoot a Sony a7 and I need some help on purchasing a second lens.

I currently use my 35mm/2.8, and I thoroughly enjoy using it. However, I want a second lens and am having some issues picking one.

Originally I had three options:
1) Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2
2) Zeiss Batis 85mm f/1.8
3) Sony G 90mm Macro f/2.8

I figured that, ***for my second lens***, the 25mm would be a little silly since it's relatively close to what I shoot with now.

So now I'm left with choosing between the 85mm/1.8 and the 90mm/2.8 Macro.

The 90mm is 2 inches longer than the 85mm and is heavier. The 90mm also lets in considerably less light. The 90mm does allow for macro photography, however.

Now, I don't ever shoot macro -- but I'm unsure if that is because I don't want to, or because I don't have the means to...

Other info:
>I'm a journalist
>I like to go on hikes in the mountains
>Sometimes I take wildlife photos
>I like to do street photography

1. Where can I get a Canon 5DM2 battery door?

2. Is there a way to connect that camera to iPad? (Without Eye-Fi)

>>2732044
1 - Ebay or your local Canon licensed repair point

2 - I highly doubt it.

File: 81fsZjxs7BL._SL1500_.jpg (221KB, 1500x1107px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1500x1107px

What is a good alternative to Canon EF 17-40 mm f/4.0 L USM Lens, Something around £200-250 mark for a APS-C.

>>2732051
the kit lens.

>>2732038
I'd get the 90mm macro first (for sharp portraits, product shots and macro) and the other two next year or something like that. They're all good.

>>2732051
Save up some more money, buy a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8.

>>2732044
http://dslrcontroller.com/iOS/

Now that I finally have money: Fuji X-T10 (or used X-T1 if I can find a good deal) or Ricoh GR? I like both and can't decide.

With Ricoh I could carry on shooting like I do now with a Mju II, with the added benefits of digital quickness. I like the 28mm focal length, I like the stealthiness, and I like the size.

With Fuji I could adapt all my film lenses, dick with the film simulations and get a bit more variety with different lenses. I'm also more familiar with Fuji, having shot an X100S.

I shoot mostly street, bands and snaps of my girlfriend's cat for fun.

Would the d5100 or d3200 be best suited for wildlife photography. Assume theyre paired with the exact same lens.

>>2732085
someone in the thread already pointed out how similar these cameras are, they have the same burst rate, which is one of the things to look for in wildlife shooting.

You can get away with abit more cropping on he 24mp of the 3200. as aposed to the 5100's 16.2

>>2732084
There is no information we can give that you don't already have.

I'd go with the Fuji, because I have a fuji, and I love it, and the GR is too small for me to take it seriously, but you aren't looking for a camera to take seriously, so... which do you want?

>>2732045
>>2732078
thanks!

>>2732085
D5200 for the more sophisticated AF system, at the least.

>>2732003

Oh shit, I didn't realize that all flashes had the remote option with a trigger. That really makes it appealing then.

>>2732024
I'll bite.

Give me a reason why to buy lenses <600?

What lenses exactly as well.

File: dead006.jpg (4MB, 3264x4928px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3264x4928px

>>2732090
>and the GR is too small for me to take it seriously
Yeah man, just can't take that thing seriously, hey.
You fucking retard.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:30 08:58:37
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.9
Brightness	0.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	4928
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2732085
D3200

>>2732148
Did you just hand-hold a compact camera at 1/4 sec?

Teach me the ways of the stable hands senpai.

>>2732148
>filename

damn why am I laughing

File: 131208011821.jpg (665KB, 662x1000px) Image search: [Google]

665KB, 662x1000px

>>2732173
no, soz brus, it's tripoded.
gr is still srs camera tho.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: P6280071.jpg (4MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4608x3456px

>>2732173

I did that once. Olympus IBIS is fucking amazing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Color Filter Array Pattern	800
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	30 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:09:15 18:02:30
Exposure Time	1/3 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce
Focal Length	15.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft

x-t1 vs original a7 ?

does the full frame sensor in the a7 perform that much better than fuji apsc or it's pretty much the same in low light ?

Visiting my parents for the holidays, discovered my dad's old camera

Minolta XD-7
MD Rokkor 50mm f/1.4
Tamron Adaptall-2 28mm f/2.5

Are they decent?

>>2732216
The lenses are not really good in terms of optical quality, but then again some people on /p/ shoot with something fairly comparrable - they're not really worse than some kit lenses either.

Well, I've had some fun operating a 50mm Rokkor on my A6000. Not that it was necessarily the same variant of this lens - there were a bunch of 50mm Rokkors.

Clearly, I'll prefer to actually shoot with a more modern Sigma, Sony or Zeiss.

>>2732216
The camera is pretty good. Use it.

The 50mm is decent.

>>2732218
>>2732223
Thanks p

Thinking of getting a good film camera

for 35mm I'm joking at the Olympus OM-2 spot program or the Pentax LX. For MF I'm thinking of getting the Bronica ETRS or the Kiev 60

What should I be looking for in a good tripod? I get sturdiness but is there anything else to look for that I would probably not be thinking about as an amateur?

>>2732306
weight. Max height, min height, how much weight it can hold (more for the head than the legs)

>>2732306
also ball head vs pan/tilt or 3-way head

depends on personal preference - go to a camera shop and ask to try out one of each type so you can compare adjusting each one

File: 6112794328_05402f4bed_z.jpg (198KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 640x480px

>>2732306
Tripod cary weight, how may axis' it rotates or pivots on, the max weight load of said pivots/axis.

In other words it's better to just spend a good 80+$ us on a good tripod and be done with it.

I got a Dolica ZX600B103 for a birthday one year and it works great.

It may seem silly to spend on a tripod, but remember you are trusting that thing to keep your 2k$ 1k$ 800$ or whatever camera/lens from eating pavement. You don't need ultra deluxe strapon editions just something with good build quality and high load tolerance.

>>2732242

Get an OM-4Ti instead

File: star-20.jpg (5MB, 4640x3456px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4640x3456px

Will it pay off if I upgrade to a Samsung nx30 from a Canon 5d? Pic I took

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:29 20:17:25
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: star-9.jpg (3MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4608x3456px

My other option was just buying a few more lenses for the 5d but idk the nx30 looks very promising

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:29 13:03:02
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2732242
Like >>2732320 said, if you have the money go for OM-4Ti instead. I've heard the SP eats batteries for breakfast and IIRC it had some other stuff too. Do you need all the extra stuff though? I love my "basic" OM-1.

Can't say about medium format, other than that the Kievs don't really have a reputation of being reliable.

>>2732330
>soon to be 2016
>buying a dead system

is it possible to use an anamorphic projection lens on your camera body without need for a taking lens?

>>2732336
The question was if it's worth it to upgrade from a Canon 5D not if it's a suitable camera for the new year artard

>>2732344
Any Nikon, Pentax or Sony APS-C is better than that old piece of shit. I'd say any m4/3 is better than the 5D.
Just face it, it's a shitbox.

>>2732090
I want both ideally, but I can't decide which to get first, even after spending about an hour comparing them at a camera store. Instead of getting the 28mm equivalent for Fuji, I'll get the Ricoh used - they cost about the same. I just want to make a choice I'll be happy with for a while, because it might be a while until I can afford any camera stuff again.

I'm kind of looking for subjective opinions like you just gave.

Honestly though I would most love the XPro 2 but I won't be able to afford that in a long time. I only shoot with a smartphone and film now (poorfag) and it's like 50/50 point & shoot (mju II) or rangefinder (XA). Really the only thing putting me off the X-T1(0) is that I'm not very comfortable shooting an SLR for street, even though I'm left eye dominant and it makes rangefinders unergonomic.

Man I guess I need to go to the store and try comparing them again.

File: 3d.jpg (55KB, 800x630px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x630px

using old film glass on new digital bodies.

Pretentious or just thrifty?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 7D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 7.0 Windows
Photographer	Michael Sowsun
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:10:14 09:45:12
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/9.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	630
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2732348
amazing for pentax

28 and 50mm takumars are amazing

>>2732345
You make it sound like it's your camera lmao get that stick out of your ass.I thinks it's a solid camera and Photography is my purely a hobby I don't want to spend like $2k on a camera when I can just spend around $800 for a decent one. Plus I want to upgrade from dslr to mirrorless. Douche

>>2732051
>>2732064
this

>>2732191
bloody beautiful man. cant wait to get my IS lens.

>>2731789

>saltypentaxtears.jpeg

File: DSC_0081 2.jpg (629KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 2048x1365px

Suggestions for a good telephoto length lens for a D3100 on the cheap? I'm not after super duper sharp or anything like that it's only a D3100, I just want to have a 200mm ish focal length (and IS if possible)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	854
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:30 17:39:39
Exposure Time	10 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2732333
I'd rather not get a ti version, I want to spend 500 dollars for the camera, lenses, and accessories, not the camera body alone, and the om-4ti body alone up in Canada is at least 300, and I don't plan on getting just one lens

>>2732367
Nah mate, those tears are from Canon 5DS owners

I can get a Pentax K10D for around 90USD. Should I?

>>2732407
Why not? Test it out first and verify shutter count, but $90 for a DSLR is mighty cheap.
If not a scam and works properly (read: not a heap of fried junk) then it will be a good camera.

>>2732379
55-200 obviously

>>2732407
With a lens, why not? Could do it for fun.

Without a lens, well, you'll pay for that anyways, so you probably better pick a camera that you'll actually use a lot.

>>2732348
Thrifty. It works, but it's really not like using new high-end glass.

I think pretentious is more like using a retro camera or bag to appear retro.

File: DiC-MiC-Golden-E302C.jpg (252KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1000x1000px

>>2732306
I'll add to the other responses:
Inversible & height-adjustable center column.

The right weight (lightweight with hook to attach extra weight is better if it is for travel, heavy is better if it's for studio use).

Legs with a lock that allows arresting them in 3+ angles.

Apart from ball heads, gimbal heads are also good, especially for heavy setups with big lenses. IMO, don't bother with pan-tilt heads for photography.

If you often shoot on or near salt water (usually the ocean and beaches), corrosion resistance.

A bunch of insulated grips for winter.

... well, overall, if you don't know what to get, get pic related from Aliexpress.

>>2732461 (cont'd)
Oh yes, and studio tripods possibly should have the option to use the center column horizontally (also, long and pretty thick legs for that configuration).

And travel tripods can have spiked feet (either as screw-on part or built-in retractable ones) & small packed size.
They also can have more or less dust and dirt resistance on their locks and none or few parts that you could possibly drop and loose. They also may or may not be entirely tool-free (some use hex keys or such to do some less common adjustments).

Hey guys,

Got a 28mm f/2 and a 70-200 f/4. Looking at adding one more prime to round out the collection but having a hard time deciding. Something like a 50mm f/1.8 makes the most sense because That's a focal length I'm completely missing, but I feel like it won't be as useful as something like an 85mm. For landscapes and nature the 28mm kills it, and for telephoto reach the 70-200 is great, but doesn't have the DOF for portraits.

Would a 50mm be super weird for portraiture? Would an 85 be useless for basically anything OTHER than portraiture? I'm having a real hard time deciding. Wish I could just afford both because 28,50,85 would be the sexiest collection of primes.

>>2732484
>but doesn't have the DOF for portraits.

It has more than suficient DoF.

>Would a 50mm be super weird for portraiture?

I do not see any notice of the sensor size in your post.

>>2732242
>Olympus

I never get why people buy Olympus 35mm cameras. OM-mount lenses are probably the hardest to find out of all popular discontinued mounts.

>>2732486

Fair. Full Frame.

And I guess I didn't mean DOF as much as feature compression etc.

>>2732484
Well, if you don't know exactly what you want except that you want something in that focal range, just get a 24-70.

>>2732490

If they made a 24-70 f/1.8 I would already have one, but I want this for portraiture and f/2.8 just doesn't give me the DOF I want for that. Plus the IQ of primes gives me an erection.

>>2732489

There is not too much difference between 50mm and 85mm. 50mm will favour to include more of the scene because otherwise you end up with "decompressed features" (lol@that wording). If you plan doing portraits on which people occupy big portion of frame and do not exclude shoulder portraits you'd better use 85mm for that.

Any FoV can be used from time to time for any purpose - macro, landscape, city, portraiture, etc. What do you use the short end of your 70-200? You may use 85mm for same things.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 4096x3014px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4096x3014px

>>2732502

Yeah I think my struggle here is that I'm not entirely sure exactly what I want the lens for so its hard to pick a specific task. I shoot a shit ton of nature stuff (pic related) and so 50mm would be great for that, but I would love to shoot portraits, even going as far as headshots. I've seen some headshots done with even a 35mm that I think look great, so I'm wondering if maybe I just don't see this distortion people are always bitching about.

>>2732507
Goddamnit, stop the gearfag debating! You can use the 50mm for most things hence why it's called "Standard focal length"
Buy it, use it, you might need to crop more. If you feel the need for an 85mm, get an 85 lens.
Can't get more simple than this.

>>2732510

Focal length is about a lot more than just cropping. The fact that you think cropping a 50mm image would even come close to replicating an 85mm image shows that you're unqualified for this discussion.

This is the gear thread. This is EXACTLY the place for gearfag debates. If you don't want to read it, then feel free to fuck off, but if I'm going to spend $1k+ on a pro lens then I'm going to make damn sure it's the lens I want.

>>2732511
Focal length is about view angle across the image circle or sensor or film, whatever. Nothing else!
I find it rather humorous that an artschooler wants to lecture an engineer (that is me btw) on optical physics.
How about you get proper education before you post again?

>>2732511
>Focal length is about a lot more than just cropping.

If you use the focal length which replicates the final image you:
1) do not loose resolution because of cropping
2) do not increase noise because of cropping
3) may have shallower DoF at the same speed as objective with smaller focal length gives
4) can frame the photograph better.

And that is it. The magical "feature compression" is not a property of an objective, it is a property of point of view - as you move further from the subject "the features compress".

>The fact that you think cropping a 50mm image would even come close to replicating an 85mm image shows that you're unqualified for this discussion.

Lol@u.

>>2732514

I'm an art schooler? I'm surprised you know so much about me.

Oh wait, you fucking don't.

>>2732516
>the focal length which replicates

It is bad wording but well, I hope it is clear what I mean.

>>2732516

Ok so you exactly mimicked my statement, but wordier. 50mm + cropping =/ 85mm.

I bet your mom is so proud of you.

>>2732522
Cropping won't magically make your lens longer. But we are not really interested in the lens themselves, we are interested in the image produced.
A cropped image has less view angle across the image so a 1.6 crop factor will make the image projected by a 50mm lens into something an 85mm lens would project. This is why we have "Equivalent focal lengths" relating to the most used system (35mm film) so we don't have invent a new numbering system to identify lenses. So yes, you can do portraits with a 50mm lens on lower resolution, due to cropping.

Hence I conclude you utterly suck at basic elementary school math and shouldn't be worthy of living and consuming worthier people's oxygen and food.

>>2732522
>Ok so you exactly mimicked my statement, but wordier. 50mm + cropping =/ 85mm.

>>The fact that you think cropping a 50mm image would even come close to replicating an 85mm image shows that you're unqualified for this discussion.

No, I did not mimick your statement which is utter bullshit.

File: image.jpg (230KB, 434x326px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 434x326px

>>2732527

Look at the background in this picture and PLEASE tell me that cropping is the ONLY difference. Also, your fedora is showing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	434
Image Height	326
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2732539
Those two shots were not made from the same distance you fool.
What is worse is you are still spewing bullshit and you fail to realize it. You are an utter failure of mankind, tell your mother to do a post-birth abortion.

File: image.png (28KB, 144x74px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 144x74px

>>2732539
>Also, your fedora is showing.
I'm not as good in blocking my subjects headwear as you :^)

>>2732539

please please please please b troll

Is there a general, decent all around, preferably cheap camera anyone could recommend for someone who knows fuck all about photography but really wants to get into it?

>>2732545
Depends if you later want to use different lenses or not. If yes, then Sony A5100, Olympus Pen E-PL7, Panasonic GF7, Fuji X-A2
If you don't care about lens then any zoom point and shoot will do for you, like Sony RX-100, Canon G3, Panasonic TZ70 and the likes.
I say go for the GF7 or E-PL7.

>>2732542

Not my picture, just googled an example.

>>2732541


And yes duh. What I'm getting at is that keeping the subject the same size at different focal lengths creates a much different image.

For the record, your ad hominem attacks really do nothing to bolster your argument. Instead it just makes you look like one of the whiny 14 year olds from /b/. I don't believe for a second you're an engineer, because no actual adult would behave like you.

>>2732545

Canon S95, S100, S105, S110, Sony RX100, Fujifilm X10

Basically any of these:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2015-roundup-advanced-zoom-compacts
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/enthusiast-compact-camera-roundup
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/enthusiast-compact-camera-roundup-2014
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/high-end-pocketable-compacts-2014-roundup

>>2732550
>What I'm getting at is that keeping the subject the same size at different focal lengths creates a much different image.

So, you have crop-o-phobia? You should say tat in the first place so that we do not bother with you. Surely, using 50mm instead of 85mm is going to be a disaster if you are not able to crop.

>>2732550
Thank you for proving that you are dumb.

>>2732552
>>2732553


You're such a child it's amazing. Go take some actual pictures instead of insulting strangers on the Internet with your fake engineering degree.

>>2732484
> Would a 50mm be super weird for portraiture?
No.

> Would an 85 be useless for basically anything OTHER than portraiture?
No. But obviously it's a lens more for a tendency to shoot something smaller or further away, due to FoV.

File: 1365953134807s.jpg (10KB, 250x249px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x249px

>>2732551
>>2732548
Photography's for rich people isn't it?

>>2732555
>You're such a child

Protip: the number of people you talk to is more than two.

>>2732507
No problem. Most people can deal with the 50mm distortion, it's not really all that heavy.

Just get a *nice* 50mm and I think you'll be quite happy.

>>2732555
Guess what? I did and now I'm just chilling inside with a glass of beer and a bottle of Chivas, laughing at your childish insistence on your bullshit.

>>2732557

Many of mentioned models can be bought for less than $200 used.

You can as well buy a cheap film camera with 35-70mm, that will cost you much less than $100.

>>2732557
Being able to afford a few hundred USD doesn't make you rich, not by western standards anyways. Even poorfags can do that.

YMMV if you're from Congo.

>>2732557
Used Sony NEX 5N
ebay.com

My mate has one, payed with coins for it 2 years ago. It is even cheaper now and has great results.

>>2732539
The image you posted has nothing to do with cropping. The camera has moved, which negates the crop with perspective, rather than negating the crop with a different lens, which is what should have been done.

>>2732536
A 50mm lens on a 1.5x crop is only 75mm, so in that case, yes, it does not replicate an 85mm lens, but as far as field of view (and therefore feature compression) it is exactly the same as a 75mm lens would be on full frame.

>>2732215
original a7 is the shittiest of full frames

x-t1 isn't bad but they overstate their ISO

>>2732584

The original question does not discuss exactly the 1.5x crop. Plase reread discussion. The word "crop" in recent discussion does not designate the "crop factor 1,5x".

>>2732585
>x-t1 isn't bad but they overstate their ISO

You say it like it matters.

>>2732589
>trying to troll the gear thread
>get a polite correction in stead
I am sorry friend.

>>2732585
>x-t1 isn't bad but they overstate their ISO
Knowing that ISO 200 on an X-T1 is perfectly clean, please name one reason why that's even worth stating?

>>2732591
I often see people comparing sensors by looking at noise characteristics at the same ISO. If fuji sensors perform look better but you need half a stop longer shutter speed to get the same exposure, it does matter.

>>2732584
>and therefore feature compression
Nope, not how it works.

It's like a 50mm on a FF camera but cropped to the center.

You don't stand in the same distance or have the same distortion when you fill a frame with a 75mm (on FF), you just have the same subject area as though you did that.

>>2732601
Do it and post an example.

>>2732606
Irrelevant, here is the maths of how it works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29#Optics

If you want sample photos, do them on your own.

>>2732600
>people comparing sensors
it doesn't matter for photography.

>>2732613
>>2732606
>>2732601
i think what's confusing people is they are confusing it with zoom lenses.

like and 18-say 85 is going to have adifferent distortion to it than a prime at 85.

Zooming into to get the same shot as adveresed to getting the same shot adds different ways DOF and distortion work

>>2732613
Perspective distortion comes from distance to the subject, and is completely detached from the concept of optics. If you don't move your feet, your perspective distortion will be 100% exactly the same.

A 50mm lens on a 1.5x crop sensor and a 75mm lens on a full frame sensor will provide exactly the same photo.

>>2732594

I am a die hard in this sphere.


>>2732600
>If fuji sensors perform look better but you need half a stop longer shutter speed to get the same exposure, it does matter.

Yes, this exactly is right.

The thing is that just misstating the ISO does not mean setting longer exposure in automatic mode. The ISO in digital terms is the saturation point, you do not dramatically loose shadow quality if you misstate the saturation point (and if your camera is not Canon DSLR).

The ISO in most common terms is some technical number which will give you same brightness of resulting image across all cameras if the exposure time divided by F^2 is constant (I am dismissing the effective Tstop here).

There are know examples of that some cameras select longer shutter speed - for example, D700 has 0,7EV advantage over D800 in automatic exposure mode. I learned it because guys at Imaging Resource run tests in Av mode, all samples from D700 had 0,7EV longer exposure.


>>2732601
>Nope, not how it works.

He already admitted that he is a troll. Read recent comments.

>>2732348
Absolutely fine as long as the flange distance is okay and you can manual focus.
Not all old glass is amazing, but you will save a few bucks.

>>2732617
No it won't. The 75mm will provide more field compression over the 50mm, regardless of the sensor size. The angle of view maybe the same but that's all.

>>2732617
I never knew this was thw case, but it kinda makes sense: how else would we have 2mm lenses on smartphones that don't break the proportions completely?

I known it might be outdated (I don't care much), but is a Samsung NX30 a solid purchase for a mirrorless camera? I have a Canon T5 right now and I have always loved my digital work. If not, what is a good mirrorless camera for under $1K?

Possibly stupid question incoming:

How important is a camera body for excellent shots?

I just got a Canon T5 on a boxing day sale and its my first DSLR camera, and after reading the reviews, I know that its a fairly "old" camera and the sensor is several generations behind. How important is this long time for me as a hobbyist? would I see a massive improvement using the same lenses I have now on a up to date sensor even if they both have the same megapixel count?

I know obviously there is alot more too it, but I dont know alot, so I dont know exactly what the makes the differences.

>>2732637

get out

>>2732640
Samsung is likely backing out of mirrorless, also they just sold their sensor fabs and maybe some sensor tech to Nikon. I would do Sony A6000 or alternatively a Fuji XT-10 if you anticipate spending a fuckload on APS-C lenses

>>2732640

NX30 is fine - if you like the selection of objectives. There is not too much sense in buying it when you have T5 (unless you want somewhat better dynamic range but then NX30 is not the best option). There is magnificent 16-50 F2-2,8 for NX mount (pricey!).

Other options are: EOS M3 (stabilized ultrawide zoom, 22mm F2, everything else is not interesting, takes Canon lenses natively with cheap adapetr), A6000 (very good dynamic range, more lens selection), wide variety of Olympus and Panasonic cameras (somewhat smaller sensor but bigger lens selection), Fujifilm X-E2 (excellent but pricey optics).

>>2732645
Yep, the T5 lags behind almost all competitors at similar price points. Not a huge deal but as long as you have the chance, return it, do some research, buy again. I did the same with a T3 but didn't realize my mistake until much later.

>>2732645
>How important is a camera body for excellent shots?

Short answer: it isn't.

Long answer: it isn't, unless:
1) you do not want to get into RAW and rely on JPEG camera engine;
2) you want small DoF;
3) you want to shoot in very dim light.


>would I see a massive improvement using the same lenses I have now on a up to date sensor even if they both have the same megapixel count?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: if you do not feel that you are restricted in certain cases and you cannot get around it, NO.

>>2732651

well, my hands are kinda tied, since Im so strapped for cash, besides, if photos turn out shit, it lets me blame the camera.

Not to mention I got an extra lens and a camera bag with it, which was cool, since as I said, Im strapped for cash. It was on sale for $400cdn which would be about $288us right now.

I wasnt really asking about wether the T5 was a good camera, as I said, I know its older and lags behind, I was just curious how much the other cameras were ahead of it, and what makes them so much better/will photos turn out that much better from a 7d mark II with the same lens vs my T5 for instance, especially for the price

>>2732645
Don't wanna go all kent stonewell here but, for a hobbyist no. Most of the differences in higher end bodies would be negligible.

I mean sure they are better but not for what you'd use it for, if you can shoot raw and have half decent glass, it should take perfectly fine pictures. Don't get shilled into a new camera when you don't need one.
Lens upgrading>>>>>>>Body Upgrading. had my 60d for 3 years now, works fine and can take great pictures. i mean sure it doesn't stack up well to modern priced equivalents on paper. but most of that
>FF
>wider angle lenses
>dual card slots
>higher burst rates
>bigger buffer rates

Are all things you don't really need if its just for fun. You can learn to make due,

>>2732653
>>2732655

Thanks anons, you guys are bros.

I do plan on upgrading the lenses, particularly to a 50mm canon and a sigma I seen somewhere, cant remember now, it was around 18-24mm somewhere in there.

File: APS-C_35mm.jpg (611KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 1500x1000px

>>2732637
APS-C 35mm lens
On a tripod

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: FF_52mm.jpg (616KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 1500x1000px

>>2732637
>>2732682
Full frame, lens at about 52mm
Equivalent aperture
On the same tripod

Feel free to jump back and forth to tell us about the differences you see in perspective, and "field compression"

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>2732654
youll learn a lot more by working with a camera with limitations.

i started with borrowing my dads 5d mark ii. and snapped away and had a good time, until one day i was borrowing my friends fuji x-10, and i realized how lazy ive been. instead of going for nice image quality i started asking my self, what is a good picture.

start with learning how to get good images, and think about image quality later

>>2732683
>>2732682
these look so similar that the lack of exif info on the sensor and lens makes me suspicious

can you re-export for a tinfoil hat?

>>2732712
They look so similar because they are the same scene, with the same effective focal length, and aperture, taken from the exact same position. I assure you, one is from a 5dmk2, and the other is from a 7d.

They look so similar because the concept of allen being responsible for field compression, or different perspectives from different lenses based on lens design is completely bullshit. They also look so similar because as has been stated many times in many threads in the past few days, in almost all situations, results from full frame and APS C are identical.

>>2732719
exif tho

>>2732719
Allen = a lens
Damn you voice to text.

>>2732719
>I'm not the anon you were debating with earlier

I will agree that the images look near identical in regards to composition -- but the scientist in me wants another trial.

The subject and background in this photo (and even the foreground to a large degree) are relatively close to one another. How about we get more subject/background separation? Take a photo where the background is much farther away from the subject and then we will look at the field compression in both photos.

That would give more conclusive results.

>>2732729
*with exif tho

File: Charts.jpg (162KB, 730x1208px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 730x1208px

So, there's been some misinformation in this thread.

Field Compression? If (and that's a big if) it exists, you'd need scientific equipment to determine the change. It's virtually non-existent.

However.

>>2732682
Memorability: Medium (score: 0.585 )

>>2732683
Memorability: Medium (score: 0.57 )

APS-C sensors take more memorable photographs due to the tighter grouping of pixels. We can also observe a cooling of the photon's electromagnetic frequency (that is, light temperature) due to the smaller glass (higher frequencies are dampened).

So the only reason you would ever want to use full frame instead of APS-C is because you need a warmer white balance and have no interest in taking memorable photographs.

>>2732729
>The subject and background in this photo (and even the foreground to a large degree) are relatively close to one another.

The ratio of distances is very big. They are not close to each other.

> Take a photo where the background is much farther away from the subject and then we will look at the field compression in both photos.
>but the scientist in me wants another trial.

Lmao. If you have both cameraphone and a camera with many times bigger sensor do it yourself - at least you would do this yourself if you were a scientist and not a... nvm.


>>2732733

pure gold.

>>2732733
I mean, if you completely ignore that the vast majority of the world's memorable photos were either taken with a full frame or 35mm film camera...

File: Eeeh.jpg (1MB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1000px

>>2732729
>How about we get more subject/background separation? Take a photo where the background is much farther away from the subject and then we will look at the field compression in both photos.
Done

>*with exif tho
But that would ruin THIS game!

>Hey FF is better fags, which is full frame, and which is APS-C?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: Hmm.jpg (1MB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1000px

>>2732769
Same cameras as before, same lenses as before. Both set to more or less 52mm (full frame equivalent) with equivalent apertures.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>2732769
ff
>>2732770
apsc

File: 1450972133844.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>2732733
Crop baby damage control is in maximum overdrive, dayum

>>2732774
Feel free to prove it wrong by correctly picking the 5Dmk2 over the 7D in the most recent set.

>>2732771
Any reasoning behind that?

>>2732778
dynamic range

>>2732782
Both the 7D and the 5Dmk2 have just about the same 12 stops of dynamic range. What you're seeing could be merely lens transmission. The difference between the two wouldn't show up in jpegs on the internet, certainly.

>>2732769
FF

>>2732770
APS-C

I think this because I pixel peeped with 4x magnification and extreme localized histogram equalization so I could spy on how sharp the diagonal lines on the concrete were and I presume that APS-C will be sharper due to tighter clusters of pixels.

However, absolutely nothing about subject / background separation tipped me off, it was literally the quality of the image.

Could have it backwards due to optics though, there are a lot of variables.

Best sites for camera deals? Looking for an entry level dslr specifically

>>2732764
>spewing shit I can't verify with actual evidence

In the days of film, 35mm was tiny. It was baby-size. Medium format was the FX of the day. So no. They didn't shoot 35mm.

In the days of digital, however?

...not sure how you'd go about proving BS like yours, but there are plenty of people shooting crop. Especially at a distance. Hell there are even television shows shot on a crop. Dexter was shot on a Nikon DX camera (nog sure which model).

>>2732733
that's some perfect bait

>>2732770 Full frame
>>2732769 APS-C
Reasoning: You're probably using full frame glass on the APS-C camera so the corners must be sharper on the APS-C.

>>2732789

How about you look at the most famous photos in history that were not taken with a film camera, and then find out what camera was used.

Hell, even DigitalRev has that "pro photog cheap camera" series. At the beginning they always make note of what cameras these guys are carrying around, and not one had a crop camera.

Obviously, what I detailed immediately above is a very rudimentary way and "proves" nothing. Instead, I propose you do what I mentioned at the top of my post: look at history's most famous photos, see what camera they were taken on.

Not the photos that "you" remember or like -- rather, the photos that society remembers.

>>2732793
adams used large format

>>2732793
The strobist had an ex-one-hunnit.

>>2732798

I said to look at digital... But why do you think telling me that Adams used large format, in any way shape or form, helps your argument?

You're admitting that they used a larger format film/sensor to capture light...

Unless, of course, you're trying to agree with me. In which case I apologize.

File: 2015-12-30_22-47-03.png (157KB, 590x1043px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 590x1043px

If you put this list in a descending order, what would it be?

>>2732802
dat pentacks

>>2732802
Pentax K3II
Nikon D7200
Sony A77 II
Lumix GX8
Olympus EM5 II
Canon 7D
Nikon D5500
Canon 760D
Nikon 1 V3

Worst is on the bottom.

>>2732805
switch the pentax and the v3 and you got a good list

>>2732802
What site is this?

File: 1451320704060.png (199KB, 640x530px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 640x530px

>>2732831
>being a pentax hater

here have most smug face I have

>>2732804
>>2732805
>>2732831
>>2732834
Are any of these cameras full frame, and is it worth investing $1000 into a camera that isn't?

>>2732839
>you have to either get full frame or nothing

you can get the k-3II, d7200, d5500, 760d for well under $1000

>>2732839
The question you should ask is
>is it worth investing under $3500 on a camera that is full frame?
And the answer is no.

APS-C has many small advantages over full frame, and full frame has very few small advantages over APS-C.

>>2732839
> is it worth investing $1000 into a camera that isn't?
Sure, I liked both the Nikon D7200 and my current A6000 like that (>$1k happens 'cause of lenses).

>>2732843
But the k-3 ii is APS-C?Are you just listing cameras that are better/just as good as full frame cameras at the price range (sorry I'm a noob and your post confused me)

>>2732845
>>2732846
Thanks guys! In regards to lenses, are the bundled lenses ever worth buying? (18-55 etc) or should I just buy a body and start with a 35mm lens?

>>2732845
I'd argue the main advantage of FF over aps-c is a pretty large advantage but not worth being 2500 dollars more expensive until you're a pretty serious shooter

If you're going to be shooting a lot of 50mm on a full frame it's just as easy to slap a 35mm on an aps-c

>>2732847
>But the k-3 ii is APS-C?Are you just listing cameras that are better/just as good as full frame cameras at the price range (sorry I'm a noob and your post confused me)

Well originally the guy just wanted them ranked. There was never any comparison about them being FF or not until >>2732839

>>2732848
>the main advantage of FF over aps-c is a pretty large advantage

>>2732769
>>2732770

>>2732682
>>2732683

No difference, just use smaller lenses.

>>2732850
I'm totally agreeing with you it's just that usually the nicest lenses I've seen as far as iq, ca, bokeh, being fast everything usually sit at 50mm primes

I have a 35mm that I use on my aps-c because of the fov and I also have a 50 that is quite a bit faster but at times I need the extra fov and have to account for it being a bit of a slower lens

It would definitely be nicer to have the same fov while being able to use a faster lens but obviously that's at quite the cost

>>2732848
What is the "pretty large" advantage?

be sure to reference it in the comparison photos above.

Hello !

I'm rather poor and can't afford a camera that costs more than £200.
I'm also a beginner.
I'd also like to make youtube videos.

Recommendations, please?

>>2732847
>In regards to lenses, are the bundled lenses ever worth buying?
they certainly are. They're usually pretty high quality (for what you pay, and for what you're doing with it). It'll give you a broad range of focal lengths to play with and be a pretty great jack of all trades. Usually, the first purchase after a kit lens is a fast prime like a 24mm or 35mm, since the one place people notice the kit lens dragging a bit is its max aperture. But even then, many people keep using the kit lens in bright light, because of the versatility. To truly replace it, you'd need probably 3 prime lenses, rather than just one 35mm.

>>2732851
Compare the Fuji 35mm f/2, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 art, etc. to any Canon 50mm.


You can get a completely spectacular lens at any focal length. You're talking about the difference in tenths of a percentage point of sharpness and quality, that you would never notice in the real world.

You wouldn't be able to tell an otus from a 50mm 1.8 stm at 1000 pixels across.

>>2732847
>Thanks guys! In regards to lenses, are the bundled lenses ever worth buying? (18-55 etc) or should I just buy a body and start with a 35mm lens?
Well, they weren't for me. I figured I mainly want my high-end primes for the most part.

But it's not like they're useless in general. I can see quite many people being okay with them.

>>2732854
Second hand Sony Nex 5r or 5t - good combo of video + stills capability

Hi folks, I need some advice.

I have around 700 euros ( sorry for being a eurofag ) to spend on whatever I feel like it. I'm new to photography and want to start my journey in video making starting in february ( I'm in a video / photography course at uni ) and I stumbled upon a NEW Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM for 470 euros.
I currently have a Canon 60D + 16-35mm 2.8L II

Should I buy the lens to make me more all aroundish when it comes to focal length or should I keep the money?

Bought myself a Lumix G7 today, essentially my first camera. One thing that is niggling at the back of my mind: when I put the camera in the camera bag with the zoom lens attached, it's never gonna be perfectly retracted as far as it can go, the zooming element of the lens that is. Is this a concern? I have started moving it to the mm that is seems to fully recede at, but I wish there was a lock or something?

>>2732903
Do you need to be more allroundish on a single lens?

A decent 50mm f/1.4 or something like that might do more for you.

>>2732918
50mm how good is it for video?
Compared to having more focal length and IS this is.

>>2732850
I think he means the ability to push your ISO up and still get clean pictures with good color.

>>2732930
Not really a major benefit, as most good looking photos, with good color, happen in good light, and also, you only gain about 1 more stop over APS-C with full frame. That stop exists, certainly, but it's a pretty minor benefit for most photographers

>>2732930
>>2732931
for instance, a $275 APS-C camera from almost four years ago, at ISO 6400

>>2731844

>>2732924
> 50mm how good is it for video?
How good is 500mm? It depends on the subject in question.

Same as having two stops more light at the expense of shallower DoF. But that one gives you a bunch of options. Besides, it's nice to have a sharp prime.

> Compared to having more focal length and IS this is.
Why no IS?

>>2732931
>>2732934
To be fair, Fuji is the best when it comes to high ISO in aps-c, but when you get to cameras like the D750, A7s, the high iso advantage is greater than 1 stop.
>as most good looking photos, with good color, happen in good light
This is true to an extent, but if you're doing urbex, astro, hiking, concert, sport, or any other photography that regularly requires that you push ISO, having that ability to push higher with cleaner results is no longer a minor benefit.

Im really intrigued with the leica d lux as my first camera...bad idea or good idea?

I have about 600 dollars saved up for a camera and am looking to buy a camera anda lens if money allows for it. At this price I do not know what camera and/or lens to buy, and advice would be greatly appreciated

>>2731789
hi

>>2733084
A6000, D3200 or D5200, Pentax K-50 or K-3 in their kit variants or with a cheap prime each.

Or perhaps a RX100 III.

>>2733083
If you want an expensive camera in a compact format, get a RX1R II.

>>2732805
What would this list look like if you put it in terms of bang for buck? Considering the k3 doesn't even have a flash and good externals start upwards of 500 it can't really be counted as a competitor for the sub 1k bracket.

>>2731795
He wants to buy it because he thinks it looks cool. That's the real answer when you wade through this bullshit.

Which honestly is fine. He won't be the first nor the last to buy it for that exact reason

>>2733102
1) Most people don't use flach
2) You can buy a great flash for less than $100
3) You can buy a great TTL flash for less than $200
4) Most people don't use flash.

>>2733102
it wouldn't change much. k3 still on the top, the gx8 and em5 lower down, the d5500 pushed up.

I'm dreaming of getting a tele zoom with a focal range of about 50 to 200 mm. It needs to have an internal autofocus motor because my DX camera house does not have its own. It needs to have as large an aperture as possible. The largest I've seen is f/2.8. I have a lens like it already, but at f/4.

Sure, from 4 to 2.8 is a big difference. Definitely. But can it really be that you can't get an even lower number/large aperture with these purchasing requirements?

Brand doesn't matter, right now. Just looking at options.

>>2731977
>titanium meme camera

>shit zoom lens

>real deal

>O_O

okay