New thread for a New Year.
If you have questions about a new camera, what lenses to buy and anything related to gear or wondering about getting into photography, post it in this thread.
Do not attempt to make a new thread for your new Rabal, broken glass and being new. You have been warned!
I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!
And don't forget, be polite!
Previous thread: >>2731789
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K-01 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows) Photographer WALLACE_KOOPMANS Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2013:11:09 08:34:42 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 3200 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias -0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Macro
Hey guys Ive been looking into the samsung nx1 but I hear samsung might be getting out of the camera market. Im not entirely sure what that would mean? Should that automatically mean I shouldnt get the NX1?
There are better alternatives (compensate features for price)
Buy fooji and make isi happy.
Any cheap 5DM2 shutter remotes and external lighting/ring flashes? Would like brand name or just link to eBay or something and price.
Also, a way to have a time lapse on 5DM2
New thread, I guess I'll just ask again even though I just did. Copy paste:
I have a Nikon D5300 I bought with a 14-140mm kit lens. I recently bought a 50mm 1.8 and I absolutely love it, best thing I ever bought.
Anyway, my question is: is the 1.4 "worth it"? All I ever see is "if you want a faster lens, get it" right, that doesn't help me much though. I need a "tangible" explanation of what kind of differneces it would make. I like taking evening/night photography so a more sensitive lens would obviously help.... But how much?
Copy paste again:
Me again. Another, unrelated question, hope that's alright.
Film, how do I get into it? My impression is that it's a lot more "difficult" than digital, not as much 'auto,' the camera doesn't help you as much. That you basically need to know exactly what you want, how you want it and what settings you need to achieve it.
Any tips? Where to start etc. just general points. I don't know if this is too broad a question, but oh well.
I don't know if I do, that's why I'm asking. I'm new to photography. I have no tangible idea of what difference that "third stop of light" would make (or what that actually means even means)
If you took two of the same pics with the third stop difference it's pretty underwhelming difference.
But the 1.4 is probably more sharper stopped down.
Honestly, there's probably hundreds of reviews, forum posts, and videos on Youtube about the differences. its probably a bigger help than here.
I checked a lot of reviews and either all the comparisons don't include lowlight shoots or they all just don't really answer the question. They just essentially say "If you want 1.4 get it, if not, get 1.8"
Looking to pick up a new system. Been on MF film for a while now, so I have no investment in anything. I'm looking at either the d810 or 5diii for full frame. Comedy 1dsiii option as well. All fall into budget, but the Canon options will get me more for glass.
can someone give me a link to where i can find this mount please?
nikon has more expensive lenses, canon more expensive bodies. Which of these systems is actually cheaper? Also, is there a reason everyone shoots with 5DIIIs when all evidence shows that even a D610 produces a cleaner image?
the 5d is a portrait monster and the L telephoto lenses are excellent. and many people move up to them from rebels.
the d610 is a better technical camera but the build quality has quite a bit of plastic which is worrying if you want to use it for more than a couple years.
>Which is actually cheaper
It depends on what you're looking to shoot.
>Why do people use 5Dmk3 when D610 etc.
Because in practice, that's really not true. Especially in controlled settings, and good/okay light. Mostly for lenses, though. Or because it's what they've always shot. Or because they saw some other pros use it when they were starting out. Or because they prefer the ergonomics of the bodies, or because they prefer the colors, etc. A camera is much much more than just a sensor.
As far as I know, the only thing that is cheaper from the Canon side is their cheap as balls EF 1.8 50mm. The rest is kinda around the same.
I think in the end, the system value is the same. Nikon has higher resale value though.
The 5DIII is hyped thanks to 5DII users who were eating dirt before it.
Ergonomics, handling, having a canon system already (the 5D has been very popular since it came out), controls, etc. it's what I've read, I haven't used a mkIII yet.
Some people like the "Canon tones" especially the "skintones" which is basically, from what I understand, a bit more saturation or a different kind of color balance unlike the more "real/plain" looking Nikon raw.
It's also popular for video, which adds a lot of market to it.
I was expecting this reply, thats why I included the word "overall".
Anyway it seems as though this concept has gone straight over your head as expected, so I'll rephrase.
The best prime for "all purpose" photography, so preferably within the 20-35mm focal range.
Almost definately a saloon of some sort. Probably an audi with a v8. It caters for practically everything. Enough to fit your family, very quick, looks good and is a comfortable drive.
So you see there is an answer to the prior question, and to this question. It's just that you like to be awkward, thinking you're all knowing. When in fact you're not.
Jesus Christ, did you even graduate high school, you ape?
He said best prime overall for the a6000 that costs under 750 bucks. That's pretty fucking specific. So specific it's actually not worth being asked, but that's a different story.
How this translates to 'best overall vehicle' shows that you have an exceedingly small grasp over at least two of the following areas of intelligence:
Then given that a veichle needs to "haul" things likely limits its other traits, such as speed, style etc.
So in effect, an audi is still the best overal vehicle when you considered its balance of traits
Oh but wait, that wasn't specified. You're referring to a specific category there by including "productivity".
What I said is overall. You see, when referring to a vehicle, "overall" means all the traits a vehicle can possibly possess. And in this case, an Audi has more beneficial traits the a semi truck does.
Plus, I don't know why you're bringing "useful" into this? i never mentioned anything about usefulness. Are you a child or just a retard?
The audi has a high initial cost, low fuel mileage, a poor lifespan, is unable to float, fly, or haul, you can't live in it, etc. What does the Audi offer that you can't get in say, a much less expensive Ford Fusion, or four door electric or hybrid car?
I went into the local camera shop looking for a Pentax DA 50mm f/1.8. They said that they stopped carrying Pentax because they "are on the verge of going out of business, and were bought out by Ricoh, which isn't a great brand." The store was stocked with Canikon and Sony gear. What the fuck is wrong with these people?
- EOS 6D
- EOS M3
- SP 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD
- EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
- EF 50mm f/1.8 MK II
- EF 50mm f/1.8 MK I
- EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
- EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
- Speedlite 430EX II
- Speedlite 90EX
- Hoya HD 82mm CPL
- Hoya 52mm CPL
Want to buy something new to celebrate the new year. What get? Think I would like a telephoto zoom, a 70-200mm f/2.8 perhaps?
poorfag film photog here
Someone is selling me an olympus pen ee-2 for $35. I have little knowledge regarding what olympus pen to buy. Is this a good deal?
I would like to ask as well if the reason I'm buying an olympus pen is to have more exposures, is reasonable enough to get a pen?
>Also, is there a reason everyone shoots with 5DIIIs when all evidence shows that even a D610 produces a cleaner image?
One of the things I noticed in switching from Canon FF to Pentax is that there are a lot fewer good, fast lenses in a wide range of affordability with Pentax than Canon. I can't speak to Nikon, but Canon has a $100 plastic 50mm, a $300 USM 50mm and then for $1400 there's the L 50mm, and they are all good lenses, with the increased price only delivering a more perfected lens.
This same pattern holds for the entire range of lens focal lengths in Canon's line-up, from wide zooms to fast primes to telephoto zooms. The Canon user has the option to choose from the more affordable f/4 70-200mm L lens or the faster f/2.8 for more money. In other words, you can choose where you want to put your money while still covering a wide range of focal lengths and not compromising on optics. Other brands just don't give users those kinds of options.
With Pentax, for example, there are hardly any modern fast primes in their line-up - almost all the DA primes are f/2.8 or slower, some f/3.2 or even f/4...for a prime! - and practically all their zoom lenses are variable aperture and slow. There's also a very big difference in price with nothing in between, with Pentax, when you want to go from entry level to pro level. I recently shelled out $780 for the FA (older design intended for film cameras) 31mm f/1.8 prime since it's the only good and fast Pentax prime at that focal length, and although the optical quality is good, for that price, it doesn't even have full time manual focus or weather-sealing, which all of their lower end lenses now have. No updates to the design in practically 15 years, and nothing new has come out that matches it in terms of speed at that focal length, really doesn't inspire trust in their equipment. If I look at Canon's line-up, they have 10 wide angle primes total, none are slower than f/2.8, and 5 are f/2 are faster.
> 3x 50mm
lmao why man?
Get yourself that 300mm or 500mm L lens and get it over and done with if you want to celebrate.
Out of curiosity why so many lenses? I'm going on a road trip, a cruise, a plane and a city with my 5DM2 and that 40 pancake.
I love my 50mm f/1.8s. Can't bare to sell any of them. The 24-70mm f/2.8 VC is my go to lens 90% of the time but I bring out the primes for street/snapshitting and for bokeh whoring.
I really want a tele though. Feels like it's the one thing missing from my kit.
Not that anon, but I am single and working full time yet I barely scrape along. Finishing a degree right now (expensive as fuck) so in a couple of years I can leave the country with much better chances.
What is the best DSLR you I get right now if $1500 is the upper limit to get set up with the body and a good range of (quality) basic lenses? I will be able to buy additional lenses as needed eventually, but probably not for a while, so I don't want to get a body and a crappy kit lens. At least two zooms (standard and tele) and maybe a fast (normal) prime is what I'm aiming for. Thoughts?
The 6D has the best low-light Canon sensor (apart from that $50,000 Cine monster) but even then, the D610 beats it. The AF struggles in low light though. D610 is a clear winner there.
I can't Nikon. It doesn't feel comfortable especially with bigger lenses like the 24-70mm f/2.8. Friend has a D610 with the same lens and my hands cramp up whilst the 6D just melts into my hands. But I guess I've been shooting Canon for years so it's just natural to me.
>2nd dial where your palm rests
>2nd dial wher your thumb rests
It's far more natural for the front dial to be forward facing, that's why both shutter buttons are slanted forwards.
Giugaro was here, Colani a shit
Personal preference aside, Nikons win in any situation needing button+dial action. Good luck hitting the shutter button while spinning the front wheel and holding one of the top plate buttons on your Canon.
basically you can use a higher shutter speed in low light conditions. and also fully open the depth of field would be a good bit skinnier witch might be good if you want to take portraits with a nice run off in the face and better isolation and more BOKEH. apart from that they would be almost identical.
i would just save your sheckles and get a wider lens or a zoom if you want to buy a new lens.
>buy 6 volt varta battery for 12 eurobucks
>leave camera on overnight cuz I have no idea how it works
Is a Canon a-1 even supposed to drain an entire battery in 12 hours if it's on but not being used for a couple of hours? Or is it safe to assume something's wrong with it?
I have a Sony A7R and I want an ultrawide. Im looking at the Canon 17-40 F4L but I hear the corners are really shit, and I feel like I cant justify dropping the money on something knowing the corners are shit shit, not soft but shit.
From what I've seen, the Laowa 15mm f/4 1:1 macro seems decent for landscapes, accepts filters (important) and doesn't have shit corners. Anyone got any Tokina 17-35 f/4 shots/opinions?
TL,DR: Need ultrawide with filter thread for A7R - Canon 17-40 F4L, Laowa 15mm f/4, Tokina 17-35 F/4 - need opinions and suggestions to any other lenses that I've missed.
No new desing in 15 years? How surprising!
Hoya used to bleed the company out forcing Pentax from leaders to fringe line. Their stuff is still great their coating technology was so advanced the competition only managed to catch up in the recent years.
I can only hope with Ricoh at the helm they will start to catch up to their former self and there are good signs.
I mainly shoot film, but I got a Sony a7 awhile back "just in case." I found that I mainly just used it to test exposure and shit, and it feels too fragile and precious to really carry around. Furthermore, it's still too bulky for my tastes. I'm probably gonna replace it with a compact—problem is, the Ricoh GR sounds is a bit too wide for portraits, and the x100t has fairly terrible controls and isn't exactly pocketable. What do I do, /p/?
I recently got a K-500 with both 18-55mm and 50-200mm kit lenses that come with it for a good price.
I'm looking to get some more lenses eventually. What budget ones do people recommend? All types and length.
I am certain that under Ricoh, Pentax will continue to rise all the way up again. Hoya wasn't able to release the FF K-1 back when they first released the Prototype so many years ago. They kept talking about how they are working on releasing a FF model but that was it. Now under Ricohs mleadership, they were able to engineer, produce and release a FF model within a timespan of barely two years. Yes, pentax sure is late to the FF party but a model like the upcoming one was more than necessary for staying relevant. I can't wait to see and test the new FF Pentax.
If it breaks that's a waste of a bunch of money, while I could just sell it now and get a GR. I live in an area with fairly terrible weather (upstate NY) and while no good compact is exactly resistant to that, I could just pocket it.
How is an a7 too fragile and precious? Just carry it.
> Furthermore, it's still too bulky for my tastes.
Well, get a Rx100 or something.
> for portraits
Okay, a RX1R II. Too precious too? Suck it up, you'll have to make compromises somewhere.
The K3III is a scam mate, some one with too much time made a stupid troll video, that is all. Get the K-3II if you are interested in the Astrotracer stuff, but get the K-3 instead if you want the on-board flash to remote trigger speedlights.
you'll barely notice the difference; nowhere near enough to justify dropping all that cash dolla on a focal length you already have. Unlike Canon's nifty fifty, the Nikon 50/1.8 is actually a good lens. Do you have a decent flash and tripod? Those will be far, far more useful to you
You could get a D750. It'd be cheaper than either of those, focuses well in the dark, and its sensor pukes all over the 5DmkIII's from above. You don't need more megapickles; remember a HDTV displays 2 megapixels, a 4K screen displays 8 and a $3,000 5K monitor displays 14
if your okay shooting manual an old 1.7 smc 50mm is literally the nicest lens i have used on pentax cameras. you get mad sharpness if you step down a few and mad bokeh and softness but still a lot of detail if you shoot it open.
plus you should be able to get one for 30/50 quid
I am a photographer of 4 years who shoots with a 60d, I shoot primarily people for newspaper shots, coverage of events as a freelancer, and real estate.
I am pushing my camera to the max and need to upgrade and im considering either a 6d or 7dmark 2.
I shoot in a lot of dark places so i need to get better light performance, Im leaning towards a 6d but one thing that concerns me is the focusing issues i hear about, are they true. Also i am not sure if my lenses will work on the 6d.... heres my gear below...
All are Canon official lenses, no 3rd party
17-40 f4 lseries
10-22mm lenses(use this for realty, but 6d will not work with it right and why?)
canon 430 exII with a rogue flashbender softbox kit i use attached on camera
Also have a gary fong i use sometimes
How to fly with a tripod?
Will they let me bring it as carry-on? I don't think it fits inside my suitcase.
Is there someone that does Film review online? Kinda like The Camera Store or Gordon Laing but with film types? I always end up looking for Google images or Flickr, but sometimes I would like to see a review and if possible compared to other films and the different types of film, consumer/professional/cine/special effects etc.
for what, idiot.
Also, google it. The specs, and the comparisons, are all over the place.
His photos will be better if he keeps what he has and buys lenses, but since /p/ is about fantasy photography, rather than actual photo creation, your answer is pretty understandable.
The CORRECT answer is, spend the money on a model, plane tickets, or a lighting workshop, since those are the only things that will actually produce better photos.
I live in Canada, the Bronica lenses are cheaper up here, and the Pentax only has the lenses going for it, other than that it lacks the modular aspect of the Bronica or even Mamiya bodies
I needed the money at the time (I was in grad school, and had nearly exhausted my savings), which is why I sold it all off. In all, I had several thousand dollars invested in the 5DII and all my L glass (which I pissed away on a somewhat useless grad degree and regret doing now). Since I was still interested in photography at the time, and didn't need to piss away all that money on tuition and living expenses immediately, I got a low cost DSLR kit to hold me over. I got a used K5 IIs and a total of two cheap weather-sealed zooms lenses. I went with Pentax because it has a lot of pro-level features that they offer at an entry-level price, like IBIS, weather-sealing, metal construction, and a sensor with excellent resolving power and above average dynamic range.
I have gradually upgraded to a K3 body and some nicer lenses, and I'm really coming to like Pentax a lot. However, there are still some things that annoy me, like the lack of lens options. In their autofocus lens line-up, particularly the modern lenses designed for digital, Pentax has plenty of cheap, entry-level lenses with varying optical quality (some passable, some not so great), and they have enough high-end lenses with stellar optical quality that cost $1000 or more, each. There's just not a whole lot of options for mid-level lenses, particularly fast mid-level lenses.
I have seen people bring guitars as carry-on, as well as fly rods in their metal tubes. Try it. Worst they can do is say you have to gate-check it, which only involves them carrying it by hand from the place where you board the plane down to the plane's cargo bay.
The Pentax APS-C sensor has more dynamic range, but I don't really think that I benefit from that in much of my photos at all. What I do miss is the Canon FF's low ISO capability, which blows the Pentax APS-C out of the water.
How many actuations does it have?
If it's close to 30,000 then don't buy used.
D5200 gets you swivelly screen right? you might like that.
Keep the camera and get new lenses if you don't have one you want.
If you already have them all and need a new body, I'd say a D7X00 is a good idea since it has in body motor for AF which gets you AF lenses with no motor.
I probably wouldn't update though, what do you feel is limiting you?
hey guys is there a quality clone or alternative to the gorillapod? I need a small little tripod but $70 sounds pretty steep.
I am using a 'ball pod', which is quite nice actually. Doesn't wrap around poles etc like a gorillapod but you can place it practically anywhere on any kind of surface whether it's rocks, a tree or the top of a pole. Got mine for about $20 and it's worth every cent.
Olympus Trip 35 might be relevant to your needs. Can pick them up for $50-75
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 460 Image Height 309 Scene Capture Type Standard
Considering buying a new camera, but dont have the budget for a dslr. Also dont know enough about photography in the first place to justify such a purchase.
I am looking at this particular camera http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-FZ70-Digital-Optical-Stabilized/dp/B00DY2Y28M
Will the fine community here let me know if this is a colossal waste of time and money please? I live in northwest Arkansas so lots of wilderness shots will be what I mainly take. I do a lot of rock climbing so having the zoom while rappelling and what not seems like a logical approach. Plus my world wont fall apart in case of a drop.
Oh god I'm going to kill myself, wanted to get into photography, had $1500 worth of stuff in my adorama basket, go out and come back and the sale has ended, basket price has gone from $1400 to $1900.
Cameras like these, "Bridge Cameras" as some call them, are generally very very bad, and oftentimes have worse image quality than the average cell phone of today. You're better off getting a compact point and shoot rather than one of those kinds of cameras. Most people here should agree.
Because people buy things without knowing what they're buying. People who don't know see the price point of a point and shoot, and the shape of one of those "professional type" cameras, and they buy it because if it looks like those pro cameras, it must be better.
It's the inconvenience of a DSLR, with the poor image quality of a point and shoot, and the benefits of neither.
I have an x-e1 with kit and 35mm 1.4. Would it be more advantageous to upgrade to a sony a7 body with comparable lenses, or only upgrade the body to a x-t10?
Why would you say that? I just wanted to know if its worth moving to FF with the a7, or if that camera is aging poorly compared to a x-t10. Im mostly making a move based on the AF of the X-e1, it was cute at first but i've grown tired of it.
i got the x-e1 for a week.
what a joke camera.
fell for the isi shill.
yea, get the a7 if you don't mind the slapping loud shutter.
if you need something quiet, the newer a7 or eos m3.
anyone know anything about the mju 1 film rewind motor? my mju 1 works fine except the rewind motor doesnt have enough strength to rewind the film, i need help i dont know if any stores in my area still repair the camera
ive searched on the web about any information at all for dozens of hours and have found nothing, i really need help
has anybody used the a7/a7s/a7r etc etc for concert photography?
concerts are my main game and I shoot with a 5DM2. it's decent but the biggest factor with shows is low light.
theoretically if I had an a7s/a7r life would be extraordinarily easier and I'm not in the financial position to buy a second camera
also there's no rental places nearby. maybe I'll get one shipped? I dunno.
5dm2 autofocus is pretty bad anyways. couldn't imagine it being much worse
I'm gonna be touring this summer and probably doing video work so I'm gonna invest in probably an a7s. would love to just have an a7r2 for everything though.
watched a video of a dude filming a music video with it and it looked flawless. literally used a stabilizing mount and that's it.
I love it but it's my first decent camera. The price was insane compared to some of the comparable cameras I was looking at
As soon as that 35mm da lens gets here I'm going to slap it on there and shoot like a motherfucker
I have a pretty old 5DMk2 (not even really mine, my mom lent it to me)
I'm not happy with the lowlight performance and the bulky-ness/weight.
I tried out my mom's A7Rii and I absolutely love the digital view finder. So now I'm sort of wanting to go mirrorless.
But, unfortunately, I don't have anywhere near enough money for an A7Rii.
Would it be totally stupid to buy a Sony A6000?
Is there another mirrorless I should consider?
I want to do mostly portrait stuff. And pictures of cats.
I find myself struggling to choose between two lenses for my a7.
Sony 90mm 2.8 Macro
Zeiss 85mm 1.8 Batis
Because they are so similar, I went to go and test them out at my local camera store. I tried both lenses out for a while, took photos of people and things and tested distortions and whatnot.
I found that the Sony lens was actually sharper than the Zeiss lens.
So, the choice should be easy then. The Sony is about $250 cheaper and has sharper images...
The problem is that I often have wanted a faster lens. Aside from the kit, all that I have is the 35mm f2.8 -- and although I love this little lens, many a time have I wished it was faster.
I can't help but think that getting the 2.8 90mm macro would continue to leave me wanting something faster...
Which is why I'm stuck -- is it worth it to skip on the sharper lens because it is slower?
That being said, it's not that the Zeiss lens is soft, it's just not as sharp as the Sony. They're both amazing for image quality, it's just that the Sony is better.
The DA L is the one without the quickshift focus, means the AF is coupled at all times to the focus ring. With quickshift you can manually adjust with AF on, without it you have to switch to MF first.
With your question I'd say the AL WR is the latest one with the latest coatings and the weather sealing. In optical design they should be the same.
With Pentax the AL designation in itself means it has aspherical elements, DA L is the bare bones kit lens. Easy to identify because these hav silver rings as opposed to the DA variants with green ring. There are exceptions though, this is just generalization. See the new collapsible 18-50mm, the DA L has the WR, quickshift and the green ring while the DA has the HD coating as well.
I shoot maybe one or two events a month. I've done some weddings and engagements. I usually rent a D750 for this, and keep an X-T1, pro zooms, and a fast prime for personal work.
I'm thinking of selling all the Fuji gear to pick up an A7II and a few lenses (not really sure which lenses are the performers for the FE mount yet). My question is, if I pick up this Sony, will I be able to shoot a wedding on firmware 2.0, and stop renting the D750?
The mirrorless form factor is nice for personal work, but the low light performance at true ISO values and AF speed of the fuji camera had previously turned me off of mirrorless for paid work. Again, Sony?
I'm so fuckin excited about it. I usually shoot at around 35mm on the kit lens but this is going to be almost a full stop and a half more at wide open and will probably be sharper at wider as well
I would have loved to have picked up that da 50mm 1.8 for even better during lower light and bokeh but that fov is just a bit too tight for all general purpose use
f/2.4 will give you much bokeh, f/2.8 and onwards will give you sharpness.
I usually use it at 2.8 and rarely go wide open. f/2.8 is still plenty of light and compared to the kit lens, sharper by miles.
Hey, /o/ here, thinking about getting a camera to go around taking pictures of cars and the landscape while I drive around South Australia.
I don't know the first thing about photography, but I know I want to capture moments when I'm cruising around.
So what's a good general purpose camera for that? I want to be able to capture the shine of car paint and the natural beauty of sunrise or sunset scenes, and I'm pretty sure my phone's camera won't cut it.
I'm thinking about $200-300 including whatever basic lenses I might need, used is fine, as long as it's digital.
At least double that budget, then you can start.
$200-300 is only enough fo shitty point and shoots only comparable to your phone and I doubt they would outperform it in any ways.
Look for older used DSLRs like Nikon D3200/D3300 or Pentax K-50 with kit lenses. Mirrorless has not been around long enough to get cheap, but a Sony Nex 5N is a good start, again with kit lens.
A Panasonic or Olympus micro 4/3 system camera is also good but those have not been around the cheap side.
I know this is not the answer you were expecting, but I don't want to suggest anything with a fixed bad lens and tiny noisy sensor.
>as long as it's digital.
A Zenit 11 costs 30EUR with a decent Helios Lens on it and 5EUR for a decent light meter. You'll pay around 5-10EUR for each roll of film and another 5EUR to get it developed (you can do BW development for cheap at home, but I guess you are interested in color).
If ignore the hipster feeling you'll get and can look past the steeper learning curve you can take pictures just as good as digital for a fraction of the money.
Starting with film is harder though, even for people that photographed digital before. These things don't take you hand when shooting, you'll have to do everything by yourself and learn what you are doing beforehand. You'll learn much more meh quicker though.
Also check out our car thread, no idea if that stuff is any good because I'm not into cars, but I guess it's relevant to your interests >>2715960
Thanks for the advice. Like I said, completely new to photography, so I wasn't sure what to expect for camera pricing aside from the ones I saw in an electronics store.
I'm not really into the idea of having to get pictures developed, and I don't have a scanner.
I'll admit, the idea of using a retro camera is nice.
Has anyone here bought cheap canon adapters for the sony a7 & Co?
Is it even worth bothering trying to find a budget one?
oh fuck you, i thought someone here give me better advice than ME SUPER if my priority is cheap. i thought that i hear about pentax p30 alternatives. so [spoiler]fuck you faggot[/spoiler]
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi
Sure, I have a manual focus E -> MD adapter. Works just fine.
> Is it even worth bothering trying to find a budget one?
It's not hard, is it? There are quite many of these. And people also made reviews.
If you want those with AF, I think you got the wrong camera.
As far as I know, the A7R II and (I think more recently) the A7 II work well with smart AF & IS - enabled adapters?
A7R II / A7 II with new firmware:
The other cameras:
goint to switch to sony from canon
cant decide between a7 with sel2870
or a6000 with SEL-P1650 und SEL-55210
what are advantages /disadvantages, what lenses and adapters should i take in
shooting pictures and movies for a students racing team
is the autofocus really that much better on the a6000?
how good is the AF working on the kit lenses?
> what lenses and adapters should i take in
I get the feeling the 70-200 f/4 and the bunch of high-end primes I'd buy are all too expensive...
But you could think about the 28mm f/2 or the Sigma 60mm f/2.8.
If you want to heavily work with adapters & Canon lenses, get an A7 II instead.
> is the autofocus really that much better on the a6000?
Yes, it is quite a bit better. Tons of extra AF points and so on.
> how good is the AF working on the kit lenses?
Really quite good. It's probably not like you can get every last racing shot in focus, but you should get a lot of good shots anyways.
A7 is legendary for its slow inaccurate AF. If you go for manual focus then it's okay otherwise go for the A6000. Don't worry about the crop sensor, the difference is very small for every day use.
I have an a7, I find the camera fantastic. I've never run into this "legendarily slow and inaccurate" autofocus. If I miss a photo, only a small countable number of times has it been from my subject being out of focus -- and when that happens, it's usually my fault (me moving the camera while I have the shutter half-depressed).
Also, I don't use the kit lens at all. It's not a bad lens by any means (I feel kit lenses get a bad wrap that is usually unwarranted), I just prefer my 35/f2.8 prime.
If you want the a7 with that lens, or the lens for your a6000, I can sell it to you at a reduced price. Essentially "like new" condition -- I've taken about 10 photos with it.
I will, however, agree with these two anons in stating that the a6000 has better autofocus. That camera has better AF than the vast majority of cameras on the market.
Yes, there is a little light. Fiddle with the plug for a moment until the yellow light comes on.
What do you mean by "push exposure"? Are you referring to how I should learn to get the most out of a given aperture?
True, that will obviously determine my purchase. I guess I'm just having difficulty determining what my priority is.
Macro is cool, but definitely not necessity. It's certainly a nice luxury, however.
Sharpness is most certainly a priority -- as it is for every photographer. I just wonder if letting in over double the light is a bigger benefit.
>as it is for every photographer
Sharpness is not a priority for most photographers. Increased fine detail in your image does nothing beneficial for the image itself. The difference between an uncoated 4 element lens from 1903 and something from last year may matter a small bit, but the difference between two fantastic new lenses? Absolutely not.
Also, I assume you compared them both at f/2.8, rather than both wide open, right?
So my mom's Canon Powershot SX200 is starting to crap out after she dropped it often enough and I'm researching what to get her next.
She needs a compact camera that takes SD cards and has good zoom. ~150 - 250€.
I figured a decent enough image quality good low light performance and a decent image stabilizer would be nice to have.
I looked around a bit, and the newer Canon Powershot models as well as some Sony Cyber shot models seem to be what I'm looking for.
Specifically, I'm looking at
>Powershot SX710 HS
The HX90 would be great, but it's a little out of my price league.
Anything terribly wrong with my choices? Any better alternatives you would suggest?
I bought a nice D7100 DSLR a few months ago and am really getting the hang of things, but I'm starting to feel limited by my slow & heavy & soft 18-140mm kit lens. I want to get myself a prime, and the options are as far as I can see the 50mm 1.8G DX, the 35mm 1.8G DX, or the 24mm f/2.8D. 50mm is pretty much a non-option because shit's too tight and I like to shoot as wide and close as I can, so the real big consideration is the 35mm vs the 24mm. How's the performance on those two lenses? Is the 35mm worth it for those extra-wide f-stops? I also heard the 24mm is a bit of a shitty lens, or perhaps it doesn't perform well on a DX body.
If someone can post pics he has using either of those lenses that would be swell
Gotta be different.
Pentax legacy lenses.
That feature with the multiple pixel exposure seems nice but I haven't used it.
Pentax has been a meme recommendation since /p/ was born.
It has shit AF, GPS doesn't make sense imo, no integrated flash means no flash to trigger with, movie mode is eh compared to others.
I personally would simply recommend the camera that goes for cheap, does what you want (priority for stills or video? or both?), and has cheap lenses in your region (used or new). This is simply because beginners will get the camera with the kit, probably a fifty too but some instead will get a terrible 55-200.
You can't go wrong with any brand imo, if you start taking it seriously you can sell the basic kit and change systems to one that fills what you need.
I personally wouldn't even drop that much money if in my first year as a hobbyist or student.
35mm on a crop will give you the equivalent to 50mm on a full frame, which is the "normal lens" (you can google that).
24 will give you 35mm equivalent which is a very versatile focal length, popular with almost anything, from landscape, street, weddings, reportage, etc.
Google the name of both lenses and add "flickr" and check the photos.
some sort of tough camera.
if you want the best nikon 1 aw1.
then olympus tg4, any version of the ricoh, nikon aw130
So I was curious about the life span of a DSLR. I have a Nikon D3200. Nikon's own information gives it 100,000 shutter cycles.
That ticks me off a bit because I bought mine in September and am already on a shutter count of 10,454... according to the embedded image data.
Should I expect the camera to shut down and be completely unusable in, say, 2-3 years at this rate? If so, I'll honestly admit I was expecting it to last quite a bit longer...
Sometime in janruary I'm going to go out and buy a tripod, and possible a monopod. anything i should look for when buying? anything to avoid? brando? buy on internet or should i see it hands on in a shop before making the purchase?
> Sharpness is not a priority for most photographers. Increased fine detail in your image does nothing beneficial for the image itself
Who are these "most" photographers? If you look at B&H photo or Adorama or whatever, you can see that apparently, new sharp lenses sell well.
It helps a great deal to have modern high-end glass on modern high-resolution sensor cameras. Lets you crop more easily, leaves you more pixels to work with after noise reduction, and all that.
Completely unusable? Not really, but maybe you'll have to send it in for service around that time...
If you want a decent travel tripod, just get the Dic&Mic E302C from Aliexpress. Recommending this one often here on /p/, its a great tripod with about everything you might need in a travel tripod. Compact size, all the features, heavy load rating, useful enough ball head, decent price ($120 for the Carbon model, alu is $30 cheaper, with DHL shipping).
I also like Sirui and Benro if you want to spend more.
And Manfrotto for studio use, but their proprietary QR plate system is something you might not want (so maybe Manfrotto with Sirui or something head for studio?).
100k is the MTBF. it's expected the average shutter in that camera will have an average life cycle of 100k actuations. maybe more, maybe less.
you should probably ask your self why you racked up 10000 snapshits in 3 months though. digital is gud for shooting as many frames as you need, but there's no need to go wild.
35DX a gud
because /p/ makes and drinks the pentax koolaid. if it's not pentax, it's shit and will die at the slightest change in humidity and you can't mount shitty legacy glass, and you won't have IBIS. dont mention that canikon dont skimp on sealing (for bodies that have it, anyways), have the best AF systems, the best IS systems, and yes, you can in fact old Nikkors on your Nikon what a surprise. if you wanted to stand in a torrential downpour taking still life photos because your autism prevents you from interacting with people, then yes, I suppose a pentax is perfect.
The Dic&Mic can also be assembled into a monopod (Center column + leg).
But if you very often use a monopod in an urban setting, I really like this Sirui. It has a mini tripod; one that is way more stable than the ones that I've seen on other brands (Manfrotto, Benro).
I've been practicing intensively in that time. It sure hasn't just been snapshits for the sake of it. Now that I have my technique acceptably down, I'll be spending more time on the creative process and getting the shots I want.
But hey, even the D4 only does 400,000. Pros might easily shoot 1,000 photos in a single day. That'd make it last in a year.
Are you sure it's not a minimum value in stead of an average value, and that the shutter won't just start decaying from there? (I don't know anything about this stuff, just reading while panicking.)
Different anon, but IMO, it's fine, shoot as much as you want. It's cheap per shot anyways, the camera isn't exactly a precious unique valuable, plus it can be fixed if it breaks there.
> Are you sure it's not a minimum value in stead of an average value
No, of course it isn't. There is just going to be some mechanical failure at some point.
A professional shooting 1000 photos a day, 365 days per year, is making a shit load of money, and can buy a replacement without issue, and deduct the expense on taxes for the company. it's a very different mindset.
>it has shit AF
Yes. Right. Shit AF.
I like how you were providing all kinds of evidence to prove that.
In the mean time I was shooting small birds mid flight with the worst kit telezoom lens.
You can see in this photo how shit the tracking AF is.
How about you take a few steps back and FUCK YOURSELF IN THE FACE! Motherfucker!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 300 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:26 13:43:50 Exposure Time 1/2000 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 200.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Distant View
>expecting /p/ro results from a slow kit tele lens
It's soft as fuck at 150mm and onwards. How do you expect an AF module to determine the exact position of a 10cm wide subject traveling the speed of sound when the softness gives at least a meter plus and minus?
You do realize you are judging a shitty lens here, just like any DXO scores or charts and numbers?
Biased much? I still got better shots than you did.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 300 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:26 13:44:03 Exposure Time 1/2000 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 200.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Distant View
Looking for a good video camera, my budget is 1k.
Z Camera E1 has everything I'm looking for, but the samples on Youtube looked shitty, maybe because it was on Youtube?
And it's very small, I'm afraid I'd drop it.
You just proved you are blind. Must be because your head is so far up your own ass.
Fast small subject moving in front of detailed background. Soft lens. And you still want tack sharp shots?
Why are you so salty about this? Nobody invited you to the new years party? Not having any friends? Your family is disregarding your "art"? The ladies saying you are a creep?
This is something even worse than gearfaggotry. How come you didn't post a singe photo?
>You can see in this photo how shit the tracking AF is.
>How about you take a few steps back and FUCK YOURSELF IN THE FACE! Motherfucker!
If we're looking for salt, I think most of it seems like it's coming from your direction....
Nobody is saying a shit zoom has to have great photos. What is being said is, if you're going to say "The AF is great, look at this result" the result should support your point.
It's like posting saying "The dynamic range on a Canon is fucking great you fucking faggots look at this!" and posting an image with all the highlights blown and all the blacks are crushed.
>Insulting the ability of your viewer to see your work
>Implying it's because your viewer is retarded somehow
>Accusations of Salty
>Making excuses for failed photos
>Missing the point of what people are saying to you, while calling them stupid for it
>Getting super ad hominem out of thin air
>Making up a strawman to then knock down and feel like you're winning
>Demanding photo results when someone points out that your photo is out of focus
No, you're MoopCo.
For me, as a European. Currently just even for the body alone, the nikon is 150 dollars cheaper. I don't own any old glass, so does that make the nikon the better buy? I am worried about the sealing though as it is very wet here and having a good build probably means more than anything.
new (used) lense just came in today
sigma 28-200 mm 3.5-5.6 for my K-3
much better performance out of it than i was anticipating. pretty soft at 28mm but from 35 to about 180mm its very sharp. havnt gotten a chance to really test it, but from the couple of test shots i took in my apt it rivals my 50mm 1.8 when stopped down to f8 and f11
very happy with my purchase, especially for 40 bucks from ebay, and it came with a UV filter that wasnt advertised so that was a nice surprise
>So I was curious about the life span of a DSLR. I have a Nikon D3200. Nikon's own information gives it 100,000 shutter cycles.
>That ticks me off a bit because I bought mine in September and am already on a shutter count of 10,454... according to the embedded image data.
>Should I expect the camera to shut down and be completely unusable in, say, 2-3 years at this rate? If so, I'll honestly admit I was expecting it to last quite a bit longer...
I drive a GMC Yukon and the manufacturer rates the transmission at about 100,000 miles and the engine at 200,000 miles. I'm at 225,000 miles and going strong. I just got back from a 1,300 mile road trip earlier this evening. Granted, I did have the transmission re-built recently, and after the 100,000 mile mark, the car has required considerable maintenance every year to keep it running well.
>Why does /p/ prefer the k-3 ii to the d7100 when everywhere else prefers the nikon?
I am not crazy about the K3 II, since the loss of a small fill flash is a much bigger cost to me than the benefit from the addition of GPS. I don't care about location-tagging my photos and I don't shoot the night sky enough to care about the star tracking feature. The pixel-shift feature is interesting, but not essential, given its limitations (need to be tripod-mounted, shooting a still subject). However, the K3 and the K5 II/IIs are both fantastic cameras that have a lot of advantages over Nikon, namely weather-sealing, all metal construction, superior sensor, and reduced price.
You bought one of the cheapest DSLRs on the market. Yes, something will fail eventually. Most likely the shutter mechanism or the mirror assembly. Try to make at least $500 with the next 80,000 photos and use it to buy another body when this one dies.
As you can see most users don't go past 10-20,000 shots, there's a 15% it would have died already but it hasn't so I'm sure you can keep at it without fear.
>Sharpness is not a priority for most photographers. Increased fine detail in your image does nothing beneficial for the image itself. The difference between an uncoated 4 element lens from 1903 and something from last year may matter a small bit, but the difference between two fantastic new lenses? Absolutely not.
Absolute sharpness isn't the priority, but it's nice to have uniform sharpness across the frame. With digital sensors and computer screens, people notice blurry, darkened corners a lot more easily. If the center of the frame is in focus, but the corners are blurry, distorted or purple-fringed, it can make the whole image seem ugly.
i just got my first digital slr, a K-3 and i was had been considering nikons (tried a friends canon and it felt like shit, bulky, strange, not pleasant) and read about pentax and decided on the k-3
glad i did, because its great. sharp as a tack, ergonomics are perfect, best settings dials imo, and a dedicated aperture and shutter priority mode that is basically manual but chooses the ISO for you (whereas with nikon you have to go and set a special setting for auto iso and use manual mode) and the inclusion of a lot of great features. feels so much better to handle and shoot with than a fat as shit canon 7d
It's funny because between DOF and a not shit AF system, I have no problems with a D3200 and 55-200.
If your shit sin't even remotely sharp at 1000 pixels, it was definitely muddy shit at full resolution.
Also you are one mad motherfucker. How's it feel to be compensating for your Pentax memecamera so hard?
>namely weather-sealing, all metal construction, superior sensor, and reduced price.
The Nikon has the same weather sealing as the D300s and D800, according to press materials. If that's not sufficient for you, then I guess pros are wrong to use cameras like that.
>all metal construction
The Nikons opt for metal chassis with metal top and bottom plates. Plastic panels cover the grip areas because A) it's not as fucking cold to hold in cold weather, and B) easier to replace when inevitably damaged. Good luck getting a damaged metal chassis back in shape.
Alas, Nikon has stuck with the Toshiba instead of using the Sony in the D5300.
Nikon pls. And considering grey market 7D2s are $1200, Nikon barely has a market to play in at all.
A7II, though it will be hard to get used to. A little noisy at 1600 ISO for my taste, but no worse than the X-T1 at 3200 (which is equivalent with Fuji's shenanigans). Image quality is incredible though. Size, not that large.
I've been looking at some other forums and I've discovered there's worse gearfags out there compared to /p/. I've read multiple posts/threads where people talk about buying and returning multiple copies of lenses until they get an 'acceptable' one.
Wtf /p/ doesn't anyone just take pictures anymore?
Not that guy but:
I think Pentax fans, hype up the features that seem impressing on paper but in real world aren't deal makers.
I'm not sure how many are storm chasers, but Nikon is very popular for news coverage everywhere, landscapes. You see Canon and Nikon everywhere, in stadiums doing sports coverage while it rains or snows, desert, rainforest, etc. and they hold up, if that wasn't the case they wouldn't be standard tools.
Maybe they are aiming for the small niche of extreme location photographers that do want a gps over a flash, but even then I see those using Nikon and Canon still anyway.
I do want Pentax to do well, it's good to have good competition and they have some very good ideas. But for every good feature it seems it lacks two good/basic features.
The thing about gear is that all that "better" talk is just bullshit, you can do almost everything with almost every dslr, it's all about taste and personal preference. I picked up a Pentax, not because some paper told me that or that but because it felt best in my hand...
I have the pictured camera equipment, as well as the Canon s95 that was used to take the photo:
>50-200 WR (planning to sell, since it overlaps with the 55-300)
>31/1.8 FA ltd
>100/2.8 D FA macro
>35/2.8 DA ltd macro (might sell, since it overlaps with the 31/1.8 and the 100/2.8 macro)
>Canon EOS M
>+extra batteries, a basic flash for Pentax, and some assorted CPL and ND filters
A couple questions:
1. Am I right to think that the 35/2.8 DA ltd macro is superfluous, and that I might as well sell it and put the money toward other lenses? I recently bought the 35/1.8 with the idea being that I sell the 35/2.8 to fund that purchase, I'm hesitating because I've gotten a lot of mileage out of the 35/2.8.
2. What should my next lens be? I want to use both cameras effectively, simultaneously at times, meaning that I'd want one camera to be set up for wide and the other to be set up for either normal or telephoto, and both slung on my body. The EF-M 18-55 that I have is a little long and clunky. I'm not crazy about the slow focus time of the EF-M 22/2 (I owned one, but gave it to my dad). The EF-M 11-22 is very interesting, but expensive - it would be an instant buy at half the price. How are the wide Pentax pancake lenses (21/3.2 and 15/4)?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot S95 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Lens Size 6.00 - 22.50 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.00 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2016:01:03 13:33:22 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/2.8 ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 9.64 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1600 Image Height 1200 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Av-Priority Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative Sharpness Normal Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode Single Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal Subject Distance 1.200 m White Balance Fluorescent Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 256 Image Number 131-1259
>If my pictures suck, it's because my gear is holding me back
>The thing about gear is that all that "better" talk is just bullshit
This. In 10 years people will be laughing at how shit the top tier SLR's are of today. If the 5dii / D700 were perfectly capable cameras in their time, you'd have to be retarded to feel limited by a 6d/D600.
Kata DR 467 for actual shoots, generic brand big backpack when I need to take everything. Usually I just toss 2 of my cameras in my normal backpack for everyday stuff.
>What should my next lens be?
If you have everything in that photo, you have way more gear than you need, and more lenses are not going to help. Also, you don't need 2 35mm lenses, no.
>you'd have to be retarded to feel limited by a 6d/D600.
But then why do my photos suck? I need sharper lenses with faster apertures. Better dynamic range, and more megapixels. If my cameras were good, then my photos would be good. They aren't, so clearly...
Honestly, I don't know that much about Nikon because I've never considered the brand seriously. The camera bodies have a lot of load-bearing plastic in their construction, AF compatibility is a fucking joke, and the lenses have lagged behind Canon, in general, for years. All I can tell you is that Pentax's top end camera bodies have some important advantages over Canon's entry level and mid level camera bodies, at about the same price point.
>I think Pentax fans, hype up the features that seem impressing on paper but in real world aren't deal makers.
All modern DSLRs have some form of image stabilization now. Canon uses lens-based IS, which is much more complicated, more fragile, more taxing on the battery, and much more expensive. Pentax has sensor-based IS, which is none of those things. Canon weather-seals their top end bodies, so apparently it's a desirable feature, no? As for the dramatically increased dynamic range, I agree. That looks great on paper, but doesn't affect every photo.
>I'm not sure how many are storm chasers, but Nikon is very popular for news coverage everywhere, landscapes. You see Canon and Nikon everywhere, in stadiums doing sports coverage while it rains or snows, desert, rainforest, etc. and they hold up
Again, I'm not an expert on Nikons and I can't be assed to learn everything about them for the sake of this conversation, but Canon weather-seals their professional level bodies and lenses for a major price premium, which are being used by the pros in your examples. Pentax does it on their mid range bodies that sell for $500, as well as their $100 kit lenses.
>But for every good feature it seems it lacks two good/basic features.
What are you even on about? None of Canon's top end bodies have a built in flash. I agree that the inclusion of GPS on the K3 II was an odd choice, but if the competition is the Canon 5D, then there's no "missing basic feature" in the lack of a flash.
Different anon, but if you have all that gear and don't in fact already know exactly what lens you want to get next, you are kind of retarded (though owning an EOS-M already kind of shows that).
If you have to ask what to buy, you really don't need anything.
>This. In 10 years people will be laughing at how shit the top tier SLR's are of today.
> If the 5dii / D700 were perfectly capable cameras in their time, you'd have to be retarded to feel limited by a 6d/D600.
That does not follow. Isn't the more natural conclusion that if you might downright laugh at 10 year old gear because of the progress that happened during 10 years, you maybe are right to contemplate if 3 year old gear isn't worth replacing for the still substantial benefits that has?
It's not patronizing, and it is a serious answer. You've got the whole range covered and then some. Stop buying shit and go take photos. If your photos aren't good, work on creativity, technique, and timing. You don't need more gear. If you did, you wouldn't be here asking for "what lens should I buy now"
You literally have two 35mm primes.
>That does not follow. Isn't the more natural conclusion that if you might downright laugh at 10 year old gear because of the progress that happened during 10 years, you maybe are right to contemplate if 3 year old gear isn't worth replacing for the still substantial benefits that has?
To get there, you have to ignore the fact that, right now, people are using that gear to take literally perfect photos, and pretend that the gear is holding you back somehow.
> the fact that, right now, people are using that gear to take literally perfect photos
What 10 year old digital camera (of the kind that /p/ uses, too) takes "literally perfect" photos or videos?
I have some ideas of what lens I might like next (I even named them in my post), but wanted to keep the question open, so I didn't ask outright if I should get X, Y or Z. As for,
>muh """""""""all that gear""""""""!!!
it's really just four basic lenses:
>slow standard zoom (2x)
Both do about the same thing. One has more reach at the cost of size and weight, while the other is lighter and more compact. Neither is as compact or as fast as I'd like, but they'll do the job for now.
>slow telephoto zoom (2x)
Both do the same thing. Neither is as fast as I'd like, but the 55-300 has been good so far.
>dedicated macro/short telephoto
Only on the camera when doing macro stuff.
>normal prime (2x)
One is fast, the other is a little more compact and has macro capability. Probably don't need both, but they're not exactly the same lens.
Lenses have many dimensions besides just the numbers printed on the sides. Sometimes a physically small lens is the best lens for the job, regardless of the focal length. Sometimes a fast lens is the better call for low light conditions than to crank the ISO or use a flash. Sometimes a weather-sealed lens is called for because of the activity: for example, hiking up a mountain through an all day downpour.
For the Pentax, I don't have anything that's truly wide, and the only truly compact lens I have for it is a normal (the 35/2.8), while short telephoto and wide compact lens options exist. For the EOS M, there are some wide angle options which are wider, more compact, and sharper than anything that's available for the Pentax.
My short list is:
>Pentax DA 21mm f/3.2 ltd (pancake)
A little slow.
>Pentax DA 15mm f/4 ltd (compact)
A little expensive for the amount I'd use it, and not al that much wider than the 16-85 anyway.
>Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6
A little too expensive for the EOS M system.
You literally think that focal length is all there is to a lens. Just stop typing.
Pentax buyers are those who have been memed hard. Seriously there's no pro who use a Pentax and since clients prefer CaNikon you can barely get any. Not to mention if you are a wedding photog you can't borrow any lens from your co-photogs because you are using a shitty M42 and K-mount.
Pentaxfags are only a notch above filmfags for being memed hard.
>Seriously there's no pro who use a Pentax
Who cares? I am not a pro, nor do I have any desire to become one. I'm a hobbyist who likes to take photos of the world and people around me, and I have no desire to sink $5000 into a 5DIII and a bunch of L glass to get a weather-sealed camera and image stabilization.
>Sometimes a physically small lens is the best lens for the job, regardless of the focal length.
100% couldn't agree more. But that's on you and literally only you can make the call on. And like I already said, if you're not retarded, you should know exactly what you need already.
>I don't have anything that's truly wide
Then get a fucking wide angle, you don't need our approval.
>My short list is:
If you're indecisive, don't fucking get it. If those lenses don't work for you, they don't work, period. Find another that does or grow some balls and say x y z lens is "good enough" and just get it.
That's how retarded this is. You should only get stuff you're sure about, and anything you're sure about, it's kind of retarded to ask for our permission.
>You literally think that focal length is all there is to a lens. Just stop typing.
You literally can't think for yourself. Just stop typing.
If you sincerely, genuinely want advice, synthecize your question down to a sentence or two. If you can't do that, you obviously have no idea what you want and are wanting to buy shit just to buy shit. If you can, the answer should be glaringly obvious.
I agree that the IBIS is super neat since it allows you to use whatever lens you want and have IS.
Nikon also has weather sealing too on their cameras, afaik. And have overall good construction, they enjoy having a better reputation than Canon for that, or used to, I don't care since all brands perform very well.
>None of Canon's top end bodies have a built in flash
At that price point and tier of camera body you will already have, or will plan to buy, triggers, syncs, wireless releases, etc.
The K-3 line is not competing with the FF lines, they are completely different tiers.
Also, from what you said at the start
>The camera bodies have a lot of load-bearing plastic in their construction
There's also nothing wrong with load bearing plastic if it's well engineered. Also that's only for their entry enthusiast tier.
>AF compatibility is a fucking joke
This only applies to their super entry levels, everything else has in body AF, which means all AF and above F lenses are compatible with it, which is almost all of their line.
>the lenses have lagged behind Canon, in general, for years
Wait, how? both have the usual wide, standard, and tele zooms, both have sharp primes, canon has some longer teles and Nikon has better wides. Also, Canon ditched their legacy lenses for the EOS mount so rip in pieces those.
>Pentax's top end camera bodies have some important advantages over Canon's entry level and mid level camera bodies, at about the same price point.
No fucking way at all, where do you live? Pentax K-3 (II) body goes for 1000 here, maybe high 900s at best, that's Nikon and Canon enthusiast range but not shit tier at all, that's on par with Nikon/Canon top APS-Cs.
D7200, D300s, D70, D7 are great cameras that don't make buyers think "gee I wish I had a Pentax", in fact they work well enough that you usually see them as second bodies to FF bodies that are carried around.
THOUGH, If I were just starting and stay as a hobbyist I would get Pentax.
Hoping you guys can help me out with something. I recently obtained a TOPCOR 55mm f/1.7. Currently using it on my K-5II and noticed that no matter what aperture I set it to, it'll always use 1.7. The blades aren't stuck. If I pull the lever, it can close or open it. But, the ring doesn't affect it unless I pull the lever to a certain level and it doesn't do anything when it's mounted on the camera. I'm thinking of trying this method.
Any other suggestions?
I only know the 5D II, but it is very much showing its age.
As far as I'm concerned, one can really easily see why you'd not want to shoot with that anymore. The difference to modern cameras from the same price segment is really rather massive already, and so is the quality of their images.
I don't have a K-5 so I wouldn't know, but maybe the camera isn't pulling the aperture lever.
For some cameras and lenses, you have to set the aperture on the lens at it's smallest, screw the lens and then set aperture on camera.
Well, shouldn't be bad anyways since you have the aperture ring to set it manually.
I'm not asking permission. You're supposed to comment if you have experience with the gear indicated. This is the gear thread, isn't it? I would buy all the lenses if only I had all the money, but I only have a finite amount of money. Any one of the lenses would be nice to have. Positive user experiences about one but not the other lenses indicated might sway me one way or the other. For example, I really want the Pentax 21mm pancake, but if people comment saying it has terrible autofocus or that theirs broke after 13 months of use, then I might not get one. See how this is supposed to work?
>If you sincerely, genuinely want advice, synthecize your question down to a sentence or two.
I did that, but no one read it. Re-read my first post to the thread: >>2734791 and see the questions marked #1 and #2. Further replies to the thread by me were for the sake of elaboration and justification. My original two questions are right there in the first post, though.
>"I want a lens somewhere betweeen XXmm and YYmm, with a max aperture at leasy f/Z, and cost below Q, for V mount"
Sorry, but that's not actually specific enough, since it makes no mention of physical dimensions.
>I would buy all the lenses if only I had all the money, but I only have a finite amount of money
You're being a gearfag, this is why people are going against what you want.
Don't buy just because, buy because there's something you don't have but really need.
>What should my next lens be?
Basically tells us that you don't need anything, because if you did, you'd know.
Do you use all your lenses regularly? All focal lengths?
>No fucking way at all, where do you live? Pentax K-3 (II) body goes for 1000 here, maybe high 900s at best, that's Nikon and Canon enthusiast range but not shit tier at all, that's on par with Nikon/Canon top APS-Cs.
I bought a Pentax K3 last month for $625, new. Right now, Amazon has it selling for $608.45, and they have the K3 II listed for $729. I'm seen the K5 II/IIs in the $500-550 range when they were new, although right now Amazon has those priced oddly high, at $739 for the K5 IIs. That's certainly in the Canon 60D/70D price range.
>You're being a gearfag, this is why people are going against what you want.
>Basically tells us that you don't need anything, because if you did, you'd know.
Again, I indicated what lenses I think I'd get a lot of use out of right there in my first post to the thread. I repeated it in a later post and then named just one lens specifically in my most recent post. I'm not a professional where I "need" a lens for a particular use. So sue me. Sometimes I get lenses and I find uses for them. You really need to stop implying that I don't know what I want.
Basically, the question is, does anybody have experience with the lenses I named, and if not, what other viable options am I ignoring? Not like I'll get any serious replies to that question now.
>Do you use all your lenses regularly? All focal lengths?
Some of those are recent purchases that I haven't used much yet, but there are situations when I use all of the focal lengths I have. That said, there are gaps, and you can never have too many lenses. There's nothing wrong with gearfagging.
Is the Sigma 35mm 1.4 worth the dosh? I've heard great things about it.
>Who cares? I am not a pro, nor do I have any desire to become one.
You'll never make it if you don't aspire to become a pro. You need to become a pro in order to reach a level of mastery and improve yourself as a photographer.
I just won a bid for an unused 70d with a 64gb card and kit lens for £600. Did I fuck up? I've been looking for a k-3 which is said to be superior but I thought that that price was really good.
Showing its age in that it's slower and worse than it was when it was released? Thousands of photographers used (and still use) it to take millions of great photos. It has fantastic colors, great resolution, great ergonomics, a fantastic lens system, a good viewfinder, good video, etc.
The people who think it's "showing its age" are the people who are buying it for the wrong reasons. i.e. A cheap way to get into full frame for their shitty light boring "lifestyle" photos. It's made to be a studio and landscape camera, and with those uses in mind, it's still a fantastic camera. As good as the day it was announced.
As always, the flaws are not in the camera, the flaws are in the people using it. If your photo doesn't have pleasant light, no camera body is going to change that. No lens on earth is going to improve a boring subject. ISO 30,000,000 won't do a thing for your inability to tell a story, or process a photo nicely.
Newer cameras are measurably better. I won't deny this. But they are measurably better in ways that so few people actually need or benefit from that the percentage is essentially zero.
I posit that you could take away every single camera /p/ owns and replace them with a 40D, and without EXIF, nobody would know the difference.
I'm with you, fuck, people could be shooting left and right with a 30D or a D90 all day long and the results would be the same, most will be shit and the good ones will be good.
Gearfagging is something we all excel at here at /p/.
> It has fantastic colors, great resolution, great ergonomics, a fantastic lens system, a good viewfinder, good video, etc.
Photos and videos produced by it are looking pretty poor, and its AF system is really shit.
> If your photo doesn't have pleasant light, no camera body is going to change that.
Actually, we now have cameras that can shoot subjects (humans, animals) moving at walking speeds in moonlight and under weak street lamps and such.
Whether you or not you regard moonlight as pleasant (I usually do), good luck doing that with a 5D II.
> No lens on earth is going to improve a boring subject. ISO 30,000,000 won't do a thing for your inability to tell a story, or process a photo nicely.
Clearly not every photo is about telling a story, and even if you want to tell a story, it's just a huge bonus if it looks better in terms of image details and quality and colours.
> I posit that you could take away every single camera /p/ owns and replace them with a 40D, and without EXIF, nobody would know the difference.
And you're just wrong about this, to the point where I don't even know how you got to this conclusion.
I currently shoot Pentax and love my K5-iis but I'm contemplating switching systems even while anticipating the new full-frame out this spring (possibly next month according to a rep at PhotoExpoPlus.) The problem is I've used a 5D3, a 6D and an old ass xti. I just don't like the ergonomics of them compared to my Pentax. I like not having to take my eye away to adjust exposure compensation or adjust iso. I can adjust my focus points with my thumb, I can switch metering modes with my other thumb. It just works.
I don't know any Nikon shooters so I can't spend any real time getting to know the camera. But I'm leaning towards them. I'd like to spend a little more than what my k5 cost new ($1,200 body only) only because I would need a lens - say $1,600. I shoot mainly birds/wildlife/nature with some landscape.
tldr: Sell me on a Nikon comparable to Pentax K5 ergonomics and with a full frame upgrade path in the $1,600 range with lens.