Gear Thread

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?

>>2733291
Samsung is dead, forget about it mate. Go for a K-3 instead or wait until spring for a K-3III

>>2733291
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:

Question here.

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?

>>2733325
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.

>>2733325
Do you need that extra third stop of light? If not, then just use your f/1.8

>>2733341

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)

>>2733357
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.

>>2733359

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"

>>2733357
>I don't know if I do, that's why I'm asking.

If you do not know and you are asking about that then


you do not need it.

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.

File: Screen Shot 2015-12-31 at 5.27.10 PM.png (158KB, 498x290px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 498x290px

can someone give me a link to where i can find this mount please?

>>2733321
trigger trap is pretty cool for wired remote/time lapsing. Not the cheapest route but definitely the most flexible, I think.

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?

>>2733407
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.

>>2733407
>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.

Best overall prime for a6000 under £500 ($750~)

HIT ME

>>2733407
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.

its new year and you guys are talkin about cameras

>>2733428
shh, don't prod them

>>2733424
for what, retard

>>2733433
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.

>>2733438
What's the best overall vehicle?

>>2733455
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.

>>2733455
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:

1. Photography
2. Vehicles
3. Analogies

>>2733458
But I need to haul things. Why didn't you take that into account?

>>2733460
To add, I even included the focal length. Just saying

>>2733462
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

>>2733464
Overall, a semi truck is much much more useful and productive than a saloon. Also, an RV can be used as a home, which is overall, much more useful.

>>2733466
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?

>>2733468
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?

You have a budget of 2500usd

You own a mid-level APS-C Sony

Do you a spend the money on glass

or

Buy a full frame body and a lens?

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?

>>2733495
I'd pay a down payment on a real doll

File: images-2.jpg (22KB, 332x357px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 332x357px

Bodies
- EOS 6D
- EOS M3

Lenses
- 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

Flash
- Speedlite 430EX II
- Speedlite 90EX

Filters
- 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?

>>2733500
Use the money to buy a ticket to other countries you want to go to. Take photos with your gear there.

>>2733407
>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.

>>2733502
Have already booked Japan and the US for this year. Europe and South America next year.

>>2733503
The Pentax 24-70mm f/2.8 is a rebranded Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 at $2,000 instead of $900. It's ridiculous.

>>2733500
Get a long telephoto, like the 100-400mm L, or a macro, like the 100mm L. All your lenses are clustered in the "standard/normal" range.

>>2733500
> 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.

>>2733511
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.

>>2733512
understandable. How much do you have to spend on a lens?

>>2733513
Less tha $3,000 I hope. Gotta have booze and charlie money when I party overseas.

>>2733504
I wish I am that rich. Poorfag here and I can't afford to get out of this country.

>>2733519
Eh, I'm not exactly rich. I just don't have any responsibilities apart from the usual bills. The benefits of being single and working full time.

>>2733520
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.

>>2733514
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1092632-REG/canon_9524b002_ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is.html

Canon 6D or Nikon D610?

>>2733528
D750

File: 1451418647320.jpg (1MB, 4865x3358px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4865x3358px

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?

>>2733528
Same guy here >>2733500 ergonomics and features (wifi and GPS is real handy) wise the 6D is better but for overall AF and IQ the D610 wins... It's really up to you.

>>2733532
Is the 6D better for low light w/ fast lens?

most of my photos are at night time

I also think the 6D looks and feels better

>>2733533
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.

>>2733533
Not as good as my K-3.

File: Capture5.png (314KB, 574x291px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 574x291px

>>2733533
They're both fine for that

>>2733532
>ergonomics
I've tried for years, but can't stand Canon ergonomics at all, it really is something 100% subjective

>>2733533
In all honesty, save up just a bit more and you can get the D750. It's the best value DSLR at the moment.

>>2733539
Canon has objectively the best ergonomics.

>>2733539
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.

>>2733539
Canon grips are designed for human hands. You really can't argue that.

File: Capture6.png (434KB, 956x422px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 956x422px

>>2733542
>2nd dial where your palm rests
or
>2nd dial wher your thumb rests

>>2733545
Where your palm rests? Nigger, do you even know what you're doing?

File: Capture7.png (281KB, 607x412px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 607x412px

>>2733544
It's far more natural for the front dial to be forward facing, that's why both shutter buttons are slanted forwards.

>>2733542
>not pentax
canons are fat, oblong pieces of shit

>>2733546
Well at least adjacent to your palm. You have to reach your thumb down to change it. It's much easier to change on the Nikon's, especially while shooting.

>>2733547
>>2733545
Nikon bodies are so ugly as fuck. Even the Df, but it's kinda of a beautiful kinda ugly.

>>2733552
>implying Canon body design isn't an abomination

>>2733531
Used 6D or D610 with a 24-70mm f/2.8 VC. You'll be set for a while.

>>2733541
>>2733536
>>2733539
I'm leaning towards the D750

thanks guys

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.

>>2733578
I see you've never used a Pentax before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4DnVnCfqSY
This brand new Pentax S1a is broken. any way to repair it?

>>2733600
>brand new
your trollfu is weak

>>2733603
It is tho, my dad bought 2 of these bodies at the same time, one as a spare. He never used his spare one. been sitting in the attic in a box for who knows how many years.

>>2733290
what lens is that ?

>>2733361
>>2733325
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.

>>2733608
D-FA 100mm WR Macro lens
It's what you use for harsh weather nature macro shooting.

>>2733611
>D-FA 100mm WR Macro lens
didn't relalise pentax still knew how to make a beautiful lens.

>buy 6 volt varta battery for 12 eurobucks
>leave camera on overnight cuz I have no idea how it works
>feels bad
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?

>>2733503
This is the one thing putting me off pentax. There's very little by way of a second hand market here too.

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.

>>2733652
Rokinon/Samyang 14/2.8 or 16/2

>>2733658
14mm -No filter thread - yes theres filters but theyre awkward as fuck, otherwise id be sold.
16mm - APS-C only.

>>2733503
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.

Yo /p/
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.

>>2733667
keep the a7 its a overall good camera.
Yeah it feels fragile but if it breaks just buy a gr.

>>2733669
DA 35/2.4 and DA 50/1.8
You will be set with these for a while.

>>2733660
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.

>>2733671
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.

>>2733691
Get the GR II if you can. Much more refined than the GR.

>>2733667
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.

>>2733696
Having the GR II, I can fully agree.

>>2733306
Would it be stupid to buy a k-3ii now for $800 when the k-3 iii is about to come out?

>>2733710
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.

>>2733325
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

>>2733372
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

>>2733503
why in the name of bejayzus did you switch from Canon full frame to Pentax?

>>2733727
To benefit from a modern sensor obviously.

File: smc_Pentax-A_50mm_F1_7.jpg (24KB, 300x287px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x287px

>>2733669
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

>>2733736
This. BUT do watch out for the Minolta 58mm f/1.4. I managed to get one off eBay for £36. One of the best lenses ive owned.

>>2733652
budget <£500

>>2733501
Bump?

Which 645 camera should I get? I have $540 but I don't plan on spending it all on the camera.

Right now I'm torn between the Pentax 645 and the Bronica ETR

>>2733780
Pentax has cheaper lenses of similar (some would say higher) quality, plus the ability to use the truly world-class Pentax 67 glass.

general purpose lens for the a7000 should i go with the 35mm 1.8 or 28mm 2?

>>2733813
a7000 is not out yet. Troll harder.

>>2733736
Is this lens viable for any k mount, like the k3?

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
24mm 2.8
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
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

>>2733545
Nikon's button placements always give me anxiety. how can you guys deal with that?

>>2733823
Pentax-A is KA-mount. K-mount with auto aperture and metering.

File: Lewis_Hine_Power_house_mechanic_working_on_steam_pump.jpg (436KB, 2155x3000px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 2155x3000px

How to fly with a tripod?
Will they let me bring it as carry-on? I don't think it fits inside my suitcase.

>>2733826
tripod, and a TTL cable for your flash.

>>2733866
get a smaller tripod, or a taller bag.

>>2733870
Is that you, isi? Some of us aren't made of money.

I want to buy a Ricoh GR (digital).

Which model should I go for?

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.

>>2733877
Swing and a miss, per usual.
Have you tried googling it? I know you haven't, because the answer is right there.

>>2733884
I'm with you, I'm unsure what film to try now.

>>2733878
The newest one.

>>2733888
How does the Ricoh GR compare to the Sigma DP or the Fujifilm X100?

Is the GR the best compact with a fixed lense?

>>2733495
sell aps-c sony, buy a FF body and a lens.

>>2733893
for what, idiot.

Also, google it. The specs, and the comparisons, are all over the place.

>>2733894
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.

>>2733897
For taking photos

>>2733901
Use your phone. It fits in your pocket, and takes photos through a fixed lens.

>>2733783
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

>>2733780
I very much enjoy my 645N. It would be nice to have interchangeable sealed backs, but it doesn't get in my way often.

>>2733877
>>Is that you, isi? Some of us aren't made of money.
you can afford camera equipment, airfare, and all the other expenses of traveling. you can afford a bigger bag or a new tripod.

>>2733906
It's not actually a bad idea. The iPhone 6S takes pictures as well as an Ricoh. Somebody even shot an entire feature film on an iPhone and showed it at Cannes.

>>2733929
>Somebody even shot an entire feature film on an iPhone and showed it at Cannes.

Tangerine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALSwWTb88ZU

Very impressive indeed.

>>2733925
>if you have $100 you have $200

>>2733727
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.

>>2733866
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.

>>2733731
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.

>>2733932
try
>If you have $2000, you have $50

So nikon d5200 used from b & h or a new d3300? Which one should I get?

i've been looking to possibly upgrade from my nikon d5100 what would be the next step up for a poorfag that wants to use and keep current lenses

>>2733945
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.

>>2733949
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?

>>2733950
well, nothing really my gf is looking for a camera and figure if i decide to upgrade i would give her mine
>>2733945
you can find a d5100 for decently cheap i payed 200 bucks for mine used with a decently low shutter count

>>2733495
If it's the A6000, I'd buy glass

File: Joby_Gorillapod_SLR.jpg (18KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 450x450px

hey guys is there a quality clone or alternative to the gorillapod? I need a small little tripod but $70 sounds pretty steep.

>>2733962

Pedco Ultrapod II

Manfrotto Pixi if you don't need to wrap your legs around stiff poles

What's a similar film camera to the Ricoh GR but a lot cheaper?

I want a 35mm camera that's small, compact, has wide, fast glass and lightweight.

>>2733962
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.

File: image.jpg (37KB, 460x309px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 460x309px

>>2733985
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

>>2733986
http://www.ballpod.com/products.php

Forgot the link.

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.

>>2733985
>>2733989
I have the Trip 35 and it's a little too bulky in my opinion. Get the Olympus XA instead.

It's a nice looking camera, though.

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.

Welp.

>>2734030
It could have been worse. You could have actually bought it. At least this way you still have all your Jew gold.

>>2734012
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.

>>2734037
If Bridge Cameras are so bad then why do people still buy them and manufacturers still buying them?

>>2734025
What about olympus pen ee series? I like the olympus pen f but its 5x the price.

>>2734084
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.

File: Screen Shot 2016-01-01 at 9.43.08 PM.png (5KB, 50x48px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 50x48px

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?

>>2734112
You probably need a 645z

File: Screen Shot 2016-01-01 at 9.44.36 PM.png (5KB, 58x46px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 58x46px

>>2734113
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.

>>2734112
>>2734114
you don't need to post an image each time, only for starting new threads

>>2734114
If all you want is better AF, go for the X-T10. Keep the lenses and ergonomics you know.

>>2734114
i got the x-e1 for a week.
sold it.
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

>>2734116
I realize.
>>2734117
Is the a7's AF shit? Im okay switching, as always FF vs Crop...
>>2734118
I bought it 3 or 4 years ago, i needed it for travel and it was one of the better options for me at the time. I don't mind the loud shutter at all really.

Thanks all

>>2734124
It's not SHIT, but it's not spectacular. it's also slow, the lenses are large, expensive, slow, etc. The X-T10 is a more refined camera, smaller, newer, great image quality, etc.

>>2734125
Have you handled the a7 and the x-e1? How would you say they compare?

>>2734132
One is small and slow, with small expensive great lenses.
One is larger and slow, with large expensive okay lenses.

Best affordable beginner camera?

>GO

>>2734139
Your cell phone.
K5
D7000

google.

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.

>>2734148
A7Rmk2 is the only one that can compete AF wise.

>>2734149
how does the a7r2 EVF fair in the dark? i really can't stand those things :/

>>2734149
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.

nikon D60 w/ 18.5mm - 5.5 mm lens for $300 on craigslist, is this a good deal and how is the camera itself?

>>2733884
Luminous landscape has a comparison of different negative and slide films. It's not like there's a constant stream of new film products coming out to compare though.

Which is the good Pentax 18-55mm kit lens? There's a DA, AL and AL II

>>2734204
What about the DAL kit lens?

>>2734205
There's so fucking many lol, is the DAL the best one?

>>2734207
I have no idea I was just saying that's the one that came with my k-50 lol

fucking kek

>>2734210
How do you like the k-50? Is the noise performance good?

>>2734204
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-18-55mm-F3.5-5.6-II-Version-2-Zoom-Lens.html

This one is rated highest by this site

>>2734213
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 got a a6000 for xmas. Came with a 16-50mm lens.

What are some good lenses to look into if I'm interested in taking pictures of my figures and possible astrophotography/stars?

>>2734214
>>2734216
Okay thanks guys

>>2733290
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.

>>2734222

A6000 is pretty much the best starter mirrorless. Still use mine all the time when not using the A7 for work.

>>2733943
I wouldn't trust a 50-dollar tripod or suitcase and your fallacy remains the same anyway:
>if you have $2000 you have $2050

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.

>>2734204
>>2734205
>>2734207
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.

>>2733989
>50-75$
Can be literaly picked up for 15€

>>2734242
Thankyou very much

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?

If I buy a camera from eBay jp will the old be in Japanese?

>>2734216
With that fast prime you will feel you have a completely new camera, the difference will be so great.
It will bring out the most of your camera.

>>2734261
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

>>2734264
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.

>>2734266
So ready

The kit lens minimum aperture at 35mm is f/4.5 and isn't particularly sharp yet

This is gonna be the shit

>>2734182
They just put the website behind a paywall.

File: 1408231788725.jpg (3MB, 2592x1728px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2592x1728px

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.

>>2734314
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.

>>2734314
>as long as it's digital.
Why?

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

with old analog camera i should buy for snapshits? cost is important, i want to spend 25$ for body, max 50$.

>>2734318
oh, i forger - smaller slr = better

>>2734316
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.

>>2734317
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.

>>2734318
Leica Mini 3 or Olympus XA

File: Picture3.png (643KB, 489x422px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 489x422px

Has anyone here bought cheap canon adapters for the sony a7 & Co?
Is it even worth bothering trying to find a budget one?

>>2734323
Why would you use Canon lenses on Sony when there are native Zeiss lenses?

>>2734322
I want something with changable lenses

>>2734329
Pentax ME Super.

>>2734332
i want something cheaper than me super, not need 'vintage look'

>>2734353
Make yourself a pinhole camera then you cheapskate piece of shit.

An EOS M3 twin lens kit (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM & 22mm STM) with the EVF-DC1 for $350. It's on clearance from $499...

Good buy?

File: Pentax_P30.jpg (366KB, 1000x714px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1000x714px

>>2734355
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

>>2734364
Uh, dunno. For you perhaps?

Personally, I wouldn't want to work with that, even if it is fairly cheap. Personally, I'd get a better MILC or DSLR.

>>2734326
I've got a few lenses that would be useful and spending a couple hundred on new lenses is unnecessary if I can get a decent adapter for cheaper

>>2734323
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?

>>2734383 (cont'd)
Found it:
A7R II / A7 II with new firmware:
http://briansmith.com/sony-a7rii-canon-ef-smart-adapter-tests/

The other cameras:
http://briansmith.com/canon-ef-to-sony-e-mount-smart-adapter-compatibility-guide/

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?

>>2734381
>a couple hundred on new lenses
Haha /p/

>>2734388
Huh?

>>2734387
> 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.

>>2734387
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.

Is there any way to see that the a7 is charging? Like a little light or such?

>>2734233
Anyone able to give me some advice on this problem? Or has anyone encountered something similar?

>>2734405
Learn to push exposue, 2-3 stops shouldn't be a problem. f/2.8 is plenty wide on non-Canon

>>2734405
What is your priority. That is literally the only question, and we can't answer it for you.

>>2734387

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.

>>2734398
>>2734397
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.

>>2734400
Yes, there is a little light. Fiddle with the plug for a moment until the yellow light comes on.

>>2734408
What do you mean by "push exposure"? Are you referring to how I should learn to get the most out of a given aperture?

>>2734409
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.

>>2734417
>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?

File: ZYFRONT-MD.jpg (42KB, 289x190px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 289x190px

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
>Cybershot DSC-HX50V
>Cybershot DSC-HX60V

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?

Why does /p/ prefer the k-3 ii to the d7100 when everywhere else prefers the nikon?

Hello /pg/,
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

>>2733290
Is there any better, pocketable camera than the RX100 for around $250-300? Want to get mom a camera but have no idea about compacts.

>>2734233
Buy the Sony 90mm now, and the Batis later if you still need it (who knows, maybe you got an A7S III then or whatever and don't need it anymore...)

>>2734420
Gotta be different.
It's cheaper.
Weather sealing.
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.

>>2734426
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.

>>2734426
I'd get a Sigma Art myself. 35 or 50mm, maybe even the 18-35mm f/1.8.

The last one is really rather sharp anyways, despite being a zoom lens.

>>2734419
some sort of tough camera.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/top-10-best-waterproof-tough-cameras-2015-17302

if you want the best nikon 1 aw1.
then olympus tg4, any version of the ricoh, nikon aw130

>>2734428
sony a5100 can be found around 300

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?

>>2734418
> 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.

>>2734435
Those look nice, but it's absolutely not what my mom is looking for. A zoom lens in the range of 10x-20x max zoom is practically mandatory.

File: DiC-MiC-E302-Golden-Coloe-Professional-Camera-Tripod-Monopod-With-Panoramic-Ball-Head-Aluminium-Alloy-Photo.jpg (139KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1000x1000px

>>2734440
Completely unusable? Not really, but maybe you'll have to send it in for service around that time...

>>2734441
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?).

>be me
>buy a mint Trip 35
>everything is working fine
>lightmeter is as accurate as it goes
>halfway through the first roll
>lightmeter dies

fuck me

>>2734440
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.

>>2734426
35DX a gud
>>2734420
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.

File: P224S_P324S_P424S-9.jpg (85KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1000x1000px

>>2734446 (cont'd)
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).

>>2734447
fuck. not only is the light meter dead, but the catch needle is jammed, so I can't use manual speeds

>>2734450
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.)

>>2734456
>last in a year
DIE in LITTLE MORE THAN a year.

>>2734411
>I've never run into this "legendarily slow and inaccurate" autofocus.
Wow. I wonder if that might be because:
>I've taken about 10 photos with it.

>>2734456
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.

>>2734217
FE 50mm f1.8 OSS
FE 90mm f2.8 OSS
Zeiss Loxia/Batis lenses
Canon EF lenses by using an adapter which supports aperture and auto focus

>>2734456
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.

File: IMGP8411.jpg (669KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 1000x665px

>>2734432
>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

>>2734522
the focus is about five feet behind the bird...

>>2734522
It looks like you really nailed the focus on that grass, too bad a bird flew in front and ruined the photo.

File: Auto-Focus-Assessment.jpg (286KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1000x665px

>>2734522

>>2734538
Red line representing where it focused should be moved back farther, actually. Maybe 15 or 20 pixels.

File: IMGP8413.jpg (422KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1000x665px

>>2734531
>>2734532
>>2734538
>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

>>2734551
Perhaps you should have posted something in focus then.

Let's see a 1:1 on that bird.

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.

>>2734551
If you're saying "This camera has a completely capable AF system you idiots, pic related" the pic related should be in focus, don't you think?

>>2734562
>>2734556
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?

>>2734567
Dude, MoopCo, chill out. You don't even own a K3.

>>2734568
Not moopco. I own a K3. Kindly fuck off.

>>2734567
>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.
You retard.

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.

>>2734570
>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.

>>2734522
>I like how you were providing all kinds of evidence to prove that.

https://youtu.be/gPAu0q6rRSE

>>2734575
You forgot your trip, isi

>>2734580
You just keep yelling at those squirrels buddy.

>>2734472
But...but... I'm a poorfag. Oh well, I guess it'll be cheaper to send it to repair when that day comes than to buy a new camera. It'll all be okay.

>>2734580
oh it really is moopco

If I buy a camera used from Japanese ebay/ yahoo jp auctions will the camera have a Japanese on screen display? Is that changeable?

>>2734432
>>2734450
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

>>2734694
I live in berlin and take the dslr out in winter no problem.
When it's raining/snowing enough to be a concern I just take a plastic bag and put it over the camera.

>>2734440
>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.

>>2734420
>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.

>>2734440
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.

>>2734420
because on paper, the K3II is better, and on paper is all that matters to /p/

>>2734364
>An EOS M3 twin lens kit (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM & 22mm STM) with the EVF-DC1 for $350. It's on clearance from $499...

>Good buy?
Yes, very good buy. Where are you finding this?

>>2734440
http://www.olegkikin.com/shutterlife/nikon_d3200.htm
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.

>>2734418
>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.

>>2734420
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

>>2734418
>Sharpness is not a priority for most photographers. Increased fine detail in your image does nothing beneficial for the image itself.
tell that to ansel adams

>>2733495
Get the glass. The censor size debate is overblown. The difference is so negligible you'll get more flexibility from having more glass.

>>2734567
>>2734551
>>2734522
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?

>>2734716
>namely weather-sealing, all metal construction, superior sensor, and reduced price.
>weather sealing
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.

>superior sensor
Alas, Nikon has stuck with the Toshiba instead of using the Sony in the D5300.

>reduced price
Nikon pls. And considering grey market 7D2s are $1200, Nikon barely has a market to play in at all.

>>2734770
But how many Nikon lenses are weather sealed and do you need to use a front filter to complete the weather sealing?

Love the combination of the K3 with the 100mm 2.8

>>2734112
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.

>>2734118
shutter isn't that loud. try firing it from your hip. you can't hear it over ambient noise unless you're really listening for it.

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?

>>2734774
Not that guy but:
http://www.bodzashphotoastro.blogspot.com/2013/03/updated-complete-list-of-weather-sealed.html

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.

>>2734783
It's easier to be a gearfag than simply getting gud it seems.
It's fun to talk about gear while at home, but for some it turns a hobby more than photography itself.

whats your camera bag /p/?

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...

>>2734787
incase DSLR Pro Pack for my DSLR kit. Peak Design messenger bag for my mirrorless.

File: IMG_1259.jpg (486KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1600x1200px

I have the pictured camera equipment, as well as the Canon s95 that was used to take the photo:

>Pentax K3
>18-55 WR
>50-200 WR (planning to sell, since it overlaps with the 55-300)
>16-85 WR
>55-300 WR
>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
>18-55 zoom

>+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

>>2734124
a7 + 28mm f2

>>2734387
wait for a7000 in march.

>>2734791
sell me that 100 macro bb

>>2734785
>If my pictures suck, it's because my gear is holding me back
so toxic

>>2734789
>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.

>>2734787
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.

>>2734791
>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.

>>2734796
>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...

>>2734443
>a klutz
>buy another fragile camera

fz1000
g3x
g5x
rx10
rx10ii
stylus 1.

>>2734797
Please don't patronize me. Either answer the questions seriously or else don't reply.

>>2734364
fucking where?
that's a steal

>>2734804

REEEEEEEEEEEE

>>2734784
>>2734770
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.

>>2734804
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.

>>2734796
>This. In 10 years people will be laughing at how shit the top tier SLR's are of today.
Probably?

> 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?

>>2734370
Pentac ME Super is great what's the problem?

>>2734804
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.

>>2734812
>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.

>>2734815
> 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?

>>2734810
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.

>>2734814
You literally think that focal length is all there is to a lens. Just stop typing.

>>2734816
Referencing the 5dmk2, and the D600

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.

>>2734819
Stupid Fucks like you make me like my Pentax even more, if people like you dislike it, they have to do something right :D

>>2734819
>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.

>>2734819
There's more than enough decent usable cameras and glass for shooting weddings

Now flashes on the other hand...

>>2734817
>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.

>>2734809
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.