Gear Thread

I've been wondering lately:
Why spend <700 bucks on a dslr when I could invest less or the same in a mirrorless that does the same in a more compact format?
For example, why get a 70D instead of an a6000 and then move on maybe later to an a7, both which have the potential to use a lot of glass thanks to adapters.
I can even ditch my dslr system and move to mirrorless and still use my lenses thanks to adapters.

Just as a hobby, not professional photographer with very specific needs.

>>2734889
For one, focusing speed. The difference is big enough to be annoying even to a hobbyist. No, it's not a professional-only type of thing. You will miss many shots because your camera is taking forever to focus.

>>2734889

I thought the same, but in terms of handling more compact isn't always better

>>2734893
>>2734889
It's not that much difference in focusing speed, but if it takes a half second longer then you will most likely miss your shot with a moving subject. With still subjects it doesn't matter.
You will be frustrated with sports and wildlife.

>>2734889
Try taking a picture into the sun or against any high contrast scene with an electronic viewfinder or LCD display screen and tell me that a mirrorless camera "does the same" as a DSLR.

>>2734893
I do mostly landscape and architecture, plus I'm used to manual focus thanks to my old slr.
>>2734895
It's not comfortable indeed, just more compact (stored, with the lenses is just as big anyway)... which can be a big deal when travelling.
>>2734897
I agree composing with a mirrorless can be awkward sometimes, but lately I don't think it's much of an issue.

>>2734898
Arguing with compactness for the mirrorless is stupid. Putting on any lens (except native pancakes) will make it as awkward to put into your pocket or small pouch as a DSLR.
If you want compact, buy a compact. If you simply want a camera, buy the mirrorless or DSLR based on which one you like. Don't go into bullshit reasons, buy it because you like it. End of story.

>>2734898

Actually I practically only take pictures while traveling, of course in terms of storage compact can be a deal but imagine spending a day taking pictures with a camera which doesnt fit your hand. I would stop caring about the few grams/cm a more compact one would give me taking it from a to b. Of course it's all about personal prefernence every system has its trade-offs and none of them are perfect. If you have the chance to try different systems for a day or so do it and pick which ever feels more natural to use.

>>2734889

I've had an A7 since 2014, before that I had a Pentax k7.

Obviously the image quality of the A7 shits all over the K7 (it's from circa 2009 iirc). But the K7 was WAY more fun to use, the ergonomics of the A7 series, the build quality, the menu systems are just flat out inferior to the Pentax.

Don't get me wrong though - if you're just looking for size benefits then the A7 is much smaller, but only with manual primes. Stick a fast zoom on there or a f1.4 autofocus lens and you've just erased your size advantage though however.

Full frame EVFs shit on APSC OVFs though as well.

>>2734898
>I do mostly landscape and architecture
I sometimes bring my mirrorless alongside my DSLR as a secondary camera if I have a telephoto on the DSLR because I know I can always count on the mirrorless to do a fine job with landscapes. I would not want a mirrorless to be my main camera for many of the reasons already mentioned, and more I'll list below, but it does a passable job on stationary subjects.

Mirrorless cameras are:
-too small for your hand, poor ergonomics that are hard to hold onto for long periods of time
-hard to compose with using live view or an EVF
-slow to focus
-slow to boot up
-bad at conserving battery life
-very difficult to use for certain specialty situations, like long exposures of the night sky (try focusing on a star at night through live view)
-although you have access to "great" manual lenses, the good ones are practically as expensive as modern lenses and focusing them is always a little buggy, even with special features like focus peaking

>>2734901
My camera case for my DSLR is about five times larger than the camera case for my mirrorless even with my biggest lens attached. That said, pancake lenses are a thing, for mirrorless cameras AND DSLRs. Canon has the awesome EF 40mm and EF-S 24mm STM pancakes, and anybody who shoots Canon should own one of them.

>>2734907
Put a native magnifier on the APS-C OVF and it will be as big and comfy as a FF viewfinder.
I tried out one and refused to take it off ever since.

>>2734889
Imagine menu-diving to switch from AF to MF, or to change the ISO. Yeah... kind of like that. Stay the fuck away from mirrorless.

>>2734889
Google "shutter shock." You're welcome.

>>2734901
I'd say the compactness is a fair point, not a deal maker but more like "why buy big if it can be small".
A small dslr is quite big, it does take some space in any kind of backpack.
I mean, I carry around big stuff like the tripod, and two lenses, then some small stuff like spare battery and some filters, saving a bit of space is valuable since it means the free space can be used for an extra lens or extra shit. I'm not looking for a point a shoot.
A mirrorless with a prime is as big as a k1000 or OM-1, which is pretty nice.
>>2734905
>>2734907
True, I remember using a mirrorless that was lent to me and it's kind weird to shoot, you basically hold the camera by the lens and the buttons aren't laid in a comfy way.
>>2734909
>hard to compose with using live view
Wouldn't this be better since it let's you see the true picture to be taken?
I haven't used live view to compose at all, ever.
Other points sound fair. Although I thought focus peaking was great since it ensured perfect focusing.
>>2734912
Doesn't the alpha series have buttons to be customized? so you can make them be those.
>>2734915
But mirrorless cameras don't have a physical shutter, and if I shoot with tripod then I don't get it, am I missing something?

File: image.jpg (208KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 900x675px

I want to get something small and compact for candid/street film photography.

I know the Ricoh GR is probably the most popular but it's also out of my price range.

Is there anything similar (small, compact, fast lens) for a cheaper price?

[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	900
Image Height	675
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2734931
What is your budget.
If it's like 200, then just get an S95 or something like that.

File: image.jpg (540KB, 847x1296px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 847x1296px

>>2734931
Yashica T4 and Contax T3 are pretty popular compact film cameras.

It's what Uncle Terry uses.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	LS-9000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3745
Image Height	5658
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2010:04:26 00:18:07
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	847
Image Height	1296
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2734932
S95 is digital you pleb he said film

>>2734933
He is also HIV positive. No thanks.

>>2734936
Why would he use film when nobody is selling film anymore?

>>2734931
Leica Mini

>>2734932
>>2734933
>>2734940
>>2734941
My budget is $100, and yes I'm looking for a film camera. Plenty of places sell film.

>>2734944
black spotmatic

>>2734944
>>2734936
Ah sorry, I missed the film part.

I personally would recommend Olympus mju-1 or 2, 2 has a faster lens, they are small and sleek.
Konica POP with the Hexanon glass, only thing you can play with is speed by way of the ISO switch and flash, everything else is fixed, but it's surprisingly good, inoffensive as it gets so no one will get angry.
Yashica and Contax T series are good, but are super overpriced imo, and the glass is sharp in the center but buttersoft on the edges, it gets you street cred if you care about that.

Manuals, rangefinders are good, but then you have to manually focus.

Rollei 35 for small as it gets, guess the focus manually.

I have two Konica Pop, I really like them. Only issue is that you'll probably need to replace the lightseal in the back, but it's cheap and easy to do. People like the colors.

>>2734957
Cheers, thanks. I'd want something I could tweak the settings of rather than a point and shoot. Will check out those recommendations!

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 just jumped on this as there was 2 minutes remaining.

>>2734991
It's okay, don't worry about it.
When it arrives, go out and take photos. Also set the on-board flash to -0.7.
Have fun.

File: muhmf.png (334KB, 1282x969px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1282x969px

I'm want to move onto digital MF. About to sell my Canon EOS 6D, spare crop bodies (60D, 70D and M3) and about $4,500 worth of glass and accessories, hopefully all up should be about $3,500 cash or so.

Leaning towards Pentax so is it worth getting the 645Z over the 645D?

I'm not really into sports/action/wildlife so AF not so much of a concern, but I will be using it for portraitures and occasional street snapshittings on my travels.

What think /p/?

>>2734998
What I heard is that the 645D while being the most accessible digital MF camera is quite cumbersome to use. Has some noticeable mirrorslap and it takes a long time to record one image due to older image processor.
The 645Z has fixed these issues though the AF points are still quite clustered together in the middle. Not really a problem with manual focus 67 glass.
Portraits will be magnificent with these but for street snapshitting you'd rather use a compact, like a GR or a Fuji.

>>2734997
I plan to buy a 28 2.8 and a 50 1.8, what EF lenses are inexpensive telezoom/macro while still providing decent results?

>>2734999
I don't like anything smaller than a proper sized DSLR. They're too small for me. Hell I even find the 6D a bit cramped, compared to the 5D.

I like the MF weight and grip.

>>2735000
I'm not really into the Canon system, but instead the 28/2.8 get the 24mm EF-S pancake.
Dunno much about the budget consumer telezoom/macro lens.

>>2735001
Get the 645Z and use 50mm for street and around 110mm for portraits.

>>2734998
Why not get a common MF body and get a digital back for it?

File: XF-System_lowres-680x363.jpg (29KB, 680x363px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 680x363px

100 MP, Full freaking Frame 645, finally!

>>2735045
I still don't get why they can't give such an expensive thing a nicer body.

>>2735042
that's more expensive, less convenient and more prone to failure. why on earth would you do that?

Where can I find a cheap medium format SLR? Are TLRs decent? im a canada btw

>>2735108
Mamiya RB67 or RZ67
Mamiya 6 or 7
Pentax 67
Pentax 645N
Just to name a few

>>2735042
It's not much cheaper and I like the modern convenience of AF, though basic AF is enough for me.

Why are Pentax cameras featured in every OP of every gear thread here?

>>2735185
It's tradition. It pisses off brandfags so they can be identified and ignored more easily.

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

486KB, 1600x1200px

Let's try this again...

I own the pictured lenses. You can Google the numbers found on the lens bodies to find more info about them, including their f-stop ranges, if you don't know what you are looking at. On the cameras are a Pentax FA ltd 31mm f/1.8, and an EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6.

I am considering a new lens, either for Pentax or Canon EF-M. I want to be able to use both cameras in tandem, so having the whole package be as compact as possible is a priority, as well as having each camera body able to cover a focal length range that the other cannot (for example, having one set up for normal/standard zoom, while the other is set up for wide or telephoto).

How are the following lenses and should I be looking at anything else besides these?

Pentax DA/HD ltd 15mm f/4
Pentax DA/HD ltd 21mm f/3.2
Canon EF-M 22mm f/2
Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6

[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

>>2735194
50 bucks for that 100mm macro

>>2735197
Is that what your mom tells you when you proposition her for sex?

>>2735185
because pentax gear is solid, and made for the photography enthusiast, not just the consumer or professional.

What gear should I get for my t3i

>>2735212
24mm pancake

>>2735194
Well you don't have an ultrawide prime, so I suggest an 8mm. You're also missing a 50mm prime, an 85mm prime, an 135mm prime. I don't see a fast ultra telephoto for birding at night, so something that sits around 100-400mm f/4.5. You'll need a heavy motorized tripod mount and a big fat telescope for astro stuff... I don't see a dive housing, so you might miss a few photos of fish or underwater plant life.

Your strobe setup is pretty weak, so I suggest getting three flashes, with wireless triggers. Flashguns for portability, or profoto heads for studio style stuff. You'll need umbrellas, softboxes, strip boxes, a beauty dish, grids, a couple of different sizes of parabolic umbrellas, a ring flash.

You'll also find yourself wanting an ultrazoom for when you don't feel like changing lenses, so maybe an 18-300. You'll want to find weather resistant versions, and non WR versions of all of these, so that you have options. You'll also probably want to pick up some old classics like a Helios so you can have swirly bokeh too.

>>2735212
A subject to shoot, and a creative mind with which to approach it.

>>2735227
>Gear

>>2735232
no

>>2735234
Then happy new year and go fuck yourself

>>2735236
here this can apply to you too.
>>2735226

>>2735226
First good reply I've gotten yet.

>>2734885
Anything I should know / be aware of when I pirate Lightroom 6? I heard something about certaintimes peoples RAW files won't load/display and such.

File: gear.png (276KB, 1695x342px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1695x342px

>>2735234
L o o k w h e r e y o u a r e .
o
o
k

w
h
e
r
e

y
o
u

a
r
e
.

>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.
>"you do not need new gear"
>"you need a good subject, not more lenses"
>"you won't gain anything by upgrading your camera body"
>"you can take any photo with even the crappiest gear"
Into the trash goes your opinion.

>>2735212
I like high-end lenses.

Personally, I would at least get a bunch of Sigma Art lenses. Perhaps get a 18-35mm f/1.8 or a 50mm f/1.4 or such?

File: Canon8512lens.jpg (45KB, 284x287px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 284x287px

Any good excuses for getting pic related when I don't have anyone to take portrait photos of? My plan was to get it when i got a gf, but that turned out to be too optimistic.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Phase One
Camera Model	H 10-11M
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	600 dpi
Image Created	2006:06:29 10:28:31
ISO Speed Rating	100
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	284
Image Height	287

>>2735263
>buy expensive lens with niche uses that you do not have for
no. there's other nice lenses that are more useful

>>2735263
"Portrait" doesn't necessarily mean of people, numbnuts. It's just a photo style. You can take a portrait of a flower, or a cat if you don't have any people who want to pose for you.

>>2735263
I don't like that lens too much. Too expensive for what it can do, IMO.

Would suggest the 100mm macro ('tis good for macros and pretty good for portraits) or Sigma 85mm F/1.4 if you can't afford an Otus.

>>2735275
I second the 100mm macro, you can do a lot with it.

File: 1428453057704.jpg (28KB, 500x502px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x502px

>>2735275
>'tis

File: Sigma-50mm-Art-vs-Sigma-50mm-vs-Nikon-50mm-vs-Nikon-58mm-Bokeh-Highlights.jpg (192KB, 1600x1070px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1600x1070px

>>2735275 (cont'd)
Ah yes, and if you want neat bokeh balls together with a great portrait lens ('cause sharp and generally neat), maybe get a Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4, too.

>>2735277
Picked it up in 'straya. Took me years to stop addressing people with "Oy, mate".

File: TD24.jpg (16KB, 192x400px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 192x400px

I'm thinking about getting a big-as-fuck dobsonian telescope, not sure exactly what size, but the telescope wouldn't have a tracking motor. Is there anything I can do with this and my DSLR body? Would photos of the planets be bright enough for a fast enough shutter speed to stop the motion of the Earth?

Should I get a Industar 61 L/Z, or a Volna 9?. Looking for some sweet cheap Russian macro action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3u6jb0OBbM

>>2735371
Wouldn't recommend it, a good tracking mount is one of the very most important things for astro.

And you probably want to get an APO refractor for better images.

>>2735371
There are DIY tracking wedges for dobsonian mounts but they are kind of limited.
I'd suggest using a barndoor tracker and a short refractor or longer telephoto lens, around 400mm, but your kit telezoom at 200 is enough for the bigger objects.
You can buy a similar tracker like Vixen Polaire or iOptron for your DSLR.

>>2734957
>I personally would recommend Olympus mju-1 or 2, 2 has a faster lens, they are small and sleek.

Not a good recommendation for street because they are so damn noisy.

Would it be stupid to spend 1k on a body now, when possible new releases are around the corner?

>>2735487

There are always new releases around the corner. Always.

I've been watching tutorials trying to teach myself how to become a photographer. I figure I need to be able to shoot good photos on my nikon d60 before I upgrade. Thing is my first time trying manual focus today, I didn't know what I was doing and everything was unfocused.

Anyway I got a 50mm sears Pentax k mount lens and need an adapter to nikon. I see some on ebay with glass and without glass and the 25 to 40 dollar ones say they will focus to infinity. Which adapter should I get?

Just purchased my first dslr it's an aps-c,when I feel ready to move up from the kit lens should my first prime be 24(35) 35(50) or 50(75)?

>>2735487
There's always a new camera.

You probably should think more about what body you spend 1k on, not if there will be a better one in the future.

>>2735551
That obviously depends on what you'll be shooting.

Could also be a 100mm or 300mm or whatever.

>>2735521
>Thing is my first time trying manual focus today, I didn't know what I was doing and everything was unfocused.
Other cameras have focus peaking, magnfication to 1:1 and such features. so actually it could be time to switch if you want to do a lot of MF shooting,

>>2735521
1) you're not going to MF shit on any crop body camera, unless your subject is still enough to use the rangefinder dot.
2) pentax doesn't adapt to nikon. just buy a nikon prime, dummy.

File: Camera Setup.jpg (18KB, 345x460px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 345x460px

This is my setup. I cant figure out how to use flash though, like i cant even get it to discharge. I shoot everything in manual. Help a noob out?

>>2735590
read the manual, for both the camera, and the flash. I assume there are batteries in it, and you have the Canon version.

Is mirrorless shit?

>>2734910
Native magnifier?

>>2735684
No. Sony has some of the very best cameras on the market right now with its mirrorless lineup.

And other manufacturers also made great cameras. Panasonic did well with its GH4, making a good video / photo camera. And Olympus, Fuji and so on also have pretty nice MILC.

>>2735596
>read the manual
i bet you "feel the bern" you fucking bitch boi faggot
if you cant figure out how to use something without instructions, you dont deserve to use it

>>2735698

lazy trolling 101.

>>2735703
>implying instructions are written for men

>>2735596
i imagine it should just be a plug in and use type of thing. right?

I have a Nikon d3200 which is a crop sensor as you know. I want to make short movies for my hobby and possibly get out of my little cave.
My question is that what prime lense should I buy, 35 mm or 50 mm

>>2735738
35mm on a crop sensor is going to be your standard 50mm on full frame, 50mm on crop is equivalent to 75mm which is more suitable for portraits.

What's a good wrist strap for a DSLR? I really don't like neck straps, and I find that I frequently have the camera just in my hand anyway.

>>2735758

wrist straps are cringe tier. just take the neck strap off and be done with it.

>>2735760
This >>2735253 applies to you too.

>>2735761

You're an idiot. The post you referred me to is also idiotic.

File: 1338015615117.png (31KB, 661x601px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 661x601px

>>2735763
I'm going to buy a wrist strap whether you derail the thread with your tantrum about hating them or not, so if you're going to have a cry about it, at least start your own thread and do it there.

>>2735765

ok

>>2735766
Good for you. Let it all out.

>>2735767

I did in the very first post. I don't think anyone needs a wrist strap and stated that fact simply. You got rump ravaged because .. I'm not really sure? I've been here for nine years and I've never really seen a reaction like this in a gear thread or any other.

>>2735768
>coming to gear threads specifically to tell people they don't need gear
>calls other people "rump ravaged"

Loving this meme!

>>2735770

I come into gear threads to offer my opinion on gear. Sometimes my opinion is "don't buy this gear. you'll regret it."

I really don't know why this upsets you. If anything, you should be glad, since I'm trying to save you some coin on a shitty accessory.

>>2735775
>person asks a simple question: sup /p/, what is your opinion on X accessory?
>faggot replies: do not buy that shitty accessory and be GLAD to me for giving you this sage advice!!
The current state of /p/, folks.

>>2735687
There are chinese viewfinder magnifiers which are ass, no exception. See if your system has one, it is awesome, sits comfy on your cheekbone, the screen is larger, easy to see details, perfect for manual glass. Dunno if these are available for EVF though.

I will buy a Pentax KM with 50mm f1.4 lens for $60. It's my first time shooting film what should I look for when examining it? How can I check the light seals? I made some research and I saw that old film cameras need CLA. Does this one needs it? Thanks.

>>2735816
Pentax film bodies are cringe tier. Just burn your $60 in the fireplace and be done with it. What you need is a good new subject, not new gear. If you even have to ask us questions about it, then that means you don't have a clue and you do not need that gear. Why do feel the compulsion to seek our permission to justify how to spend money? I honestly feel sorry for you.

>>2735820
troll/10

>>2735821
You're an idiot. Why are you so butt ravaged?

>>2735820
2meta4me

>>2735820
What do you recommend then? As I said this is my first time shooting film so I don't have any idea. I did some research and it said Pentax KM is better than the K1000 because it has a self timer and depth of field preview. I'm asking what to look for because it might be defective.

>>2735846
What you need to look for is a better sense of composition and better subjects. Throw all your gear away except for a single point and shoot compact.

>>2735846
Don't listen to him, he's imitating the retard from earlier in the thread, though it's starting to get annoying now.

>>2735566
A mix of most things, sports landscapes and portraits

>>2735861
Switch to Pentax if you want to do manual focusing, it has the best almost seamless integration and focusing assist features. Pentax cameras are also good at sports with AF.
If you stay with Nikon, adapting non-Nikon lenses are tricky, mostly possible with corrective adapters destroying the IQ. You can only use old Nikon glass with limited or no assist and metering.
Nikon is literally the worst system for using old lenses.

>>2735865
>Pentax cameras are also good at sports with AF
AYY
Y
Y

>>2735776
So the only opinion you want is the one that agrees with what you want to buy? The current state of /p/ indeed.

>>2735698
Fucking WHAT??

>>2735714
It has the ability to be, but it may not be by default. And again, you have to at least put batteries in.

>>2735698
This is actually the funniest comment I've ever read on 4chan

>>2735888
https://www.flickr.com/photos/43432823@N05/8531198856/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/boozary/15739317044/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/elkaypics/14804750153/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/maevcr/17202000791/in/photostream/

AYYY

I wanna quit photography.
It's too expensive, even old shit is constantly over 150 bucks.
Zuiko 24mm? - 170 euros
Zuiko 35mm? - 180 euros
Nikkor G (non DX)? besides the 50mm, all fucking expensive.
Hell, just yesterday I saw a hipster couple pay 40 euros for a mju-i.

[spoiler]ui[/spoiler]

[spoiler] ui [/spoiler]

>>2735927
>>2735926
tags don't work here

>>2735925
Whinge more faggot, we don't care

>>2735925
I have the same problem but I have a job, plan ahead and work relentlessly for months so I can buy the gear I want. It's not going to be the best in class but good enough for my tastes and more importantly my budget.
Remember, you don't need the best lens to take good photos.

>>2735925
You can do a single portrait/family shoot and charge double that, with even low end gear and little to no experience. Making small amounts of money off photography is fairly easy if you're not a socially crippled basement dweller.

>>2735935
>>2735937
I have the money, I just don't feel comfortable that kind of money into something I feel shouldn't be that expensive (talking about old gear).
That said resale value of gear that's not digital tends to be pretty good so it wouldn't be an issue if I decide to sell at some point.

>>2735941
Go for M42 lenses with adapter. There are awesome ones for cheap, like Pentacon 50mm or Helios 44M, series 4 and later, all CZJ and Meyer lens. Volna macro lens, Flektogon copy MIR lenses, these usually go for less than €80, in some cases less than €40 and still produce great images.
You just need to widen your selection, there are many cheap lenses to experiment with.

>>2735947
Good idea, never thought about it, thanks.

>>2735949
So you're complaining that old lenses are too expensive, and yet you never thought about buying... less expensive old lenses? Cool. Welcome to the gear thread.

>>2735957
Well, I was looking at second party lenses like vivitar, but for some reason I never thought about buying an adapter to adapt old lenses to an old camera.

What's wrong with the EOS M?

>>2735975
It's a Canon.

>>2735975
Pretty bad AF system, no viewfinder, nearly no native lenses, and a typically behind-the-competition sensor.

It's only bad in comparison to other cameras. In a vacuum, it's not terrible, and you can absolutely get good photos with it, but there is much better out there.

>>2735980
Why do you need a viewfinder?

>>2735994
It's much more stable than trying to use an LCD, it's easier in bright light, it uses less battery, and also, just a personal preference. With a viewfinder, you have the option to use either, at times when one works better than the other. With the M (and a lot of similar cameras), you don't have the option. It's not a deal breaker for everyone (obviously) but it's still something to be aware of.

>>2736000
I don't even know what a viewfinder does honestly.

>>2736006
With a viewfinder you can put it up to your face making a three point support with your hands.
Without it you only have a two point support which is not stable.

>>2736006
Well on a mirrorless camera, a viewfinder is just a smaller screen, inside of a shielded eyepiece. It displays the same information as an LCD screen on the back of the camera, except it's meant to be held up to your eye. Your arms don't get nearly as tired, you can brace the camera against your brow bone, adding stability (and therefore, sharper photos at lower shutter speeds). The smaller screen uses less battery, and the housing means that even in bright sunlight, you won't be dealing with glare or reflections.

How good/bad of an idea is to switch from a D3000 to an a6000?
Consider I have some old manual lenses from old cameras, and the D3000 only has a 50 and the kit.
The a6000 is going for cheap with a kit lens, 550€.

>>2736014
Without knowing anything about you, or your goals, all we can do is compare camera specs at you, which you very easily do yourself with a quick google search.

>>2736016
You're right, sorry.
I shoot mostly landscape and city stuff, not much street.
I guess what I find appealing is the idea of carrying it with one or two old primes and enjoy something with a bit more features, also the movie move especially since I'd like to film band practice with it.

>>2736022
Then yeah, that would be a good jump. Even just for the video quality. Also, if you get rangefinder primes, rather than SLR primes, you can shrink your kit considerably, making it easier to lug around, or just toss in a bag.

>>2736026
>tossing a camera
You might as well toss yourself you tosser

>>2735905
I was asking which wrist strap is good, not to tell me I'm special. It's a nuanced difference, but an important one. Welcome to tthe English language.

>>2736047
Wriststrap on a DSLR is too cumbersome. DSLRs are big and the wriststraps are thin weak things, also very easy to cut and steal the camera.
You can wrap the neckstrap twice on your wrist for a quasi-wriststrap but this is much stronger and double linked. You can also look at sling straps for your DSLR.

>>2735746
So I should get a 35mm then?

>>2736047
>>2736051
I hook both my neckstrap ends to one of the strap connector things, keep it nearly as short as possible but not the shortest (like ~3-4 centimetres from the shortest), and loop it around my wrist 3 times. It's 100% safe if you're not a retard, and after a few times you get the hang of how to do it quickly.

>>2735850
Is this for real? I just want to try film. Anyhow my sister has a point an shootd LX5 that I can use. Are you saying that I will improve if I use that camera?

>>2736056
If you want a 50mm field of view, yes.

What's a good compact-ish 35mm SLR? I'm looking at the Olympus OM1.

Is there anything else I should consider? I don't want to spend too much.

>>2736056
I'd probably go with a 28mm or wider senpai, it depends on your personal preference tho

>>2736056
It is never a bad idea to have a standard focal length lens. You can do a lot with it, general shooting, landscape, street, portraits etc...
It has many uses

>>2736071
Pentax MX is about the same size.
Pentax k1000 is a bit larger but not by much.
I think some Nikons are on the kinda small side.
Canon AE-1, bigger than the OM but still small.
Minolta srT101 or variations are AE-1 size.

I personally would recommend the Pentax bodies since it's easier to find lenses for them, also way cheaper than Zuikos (OM).

>>2736071
canon ae1 aka the 90s rabal

om1s come at an insane premium, if you can't find one bundled with a 50mm below 150 dont bother

>>2736079
Also if you don't mind buying newer cameras, Nikon F90s, F80, go for very (very) cheap since they aren't considered "cult" cameras like the others mentioned, they have semi-auto modes, AF, etc.
Only drawback I guess is that they run on batteries.
I can show you my F80 with a 50mm and my OM-1 with 50 too and you'll see it's not much bigger, they also weigh about the same.

>>2736080
Are they really that expensive?

There's one in my local shop OM-1n with a 50 1.8 for £80, is that a good deal? Fully serviced with a warranty.

>>2736087
Yes please if you've got pics. I've got a couple of Nikon AF-D lenses. Will they work on that body?

>>2736051
Again, I'm asking which wrist strap is good. I'm not asking if a wrist strap on a DSLR is a good idea.

>>2736058
>and loop it around my wrist 3 times.
All I'm doing is trying to cut out this step.

>>2736065
You will only improve if you go pro, which is impossible with that Pentax shitbox you want to buy.

>>2735698
#makeamericagreatagain
#applywatertothebern
#stopthedarkies

>>2736101
I have never seen any wriststrap designed for DSLR, only the wimpy ones you see at any trinket store.
Buy one, nobody is stopping you but don't come to us crying when someone steals your camera or you braking it while swinging all that mass into a pole.

>>2736103
Get a trip so I can filter you out.

File: F80 and OM-1.jpg (319KB, 1000x742px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1000x742px

>>2736100
Yeah they will, here it is with a 50mm 1.8 D.

>>2736109
>when someone steals your camera or you braking it while swinging all that mass into a pole.
I only shoot photos in nature or at family events. Hence, I don't like a neck strap while hiking, since it chafes my neck and also swings the camera around constantly hitting my body. I know there are things that wrap around your abdomen to stop the swinging, but I don't like those.

The camera is in my dominant hand 99% of the time anyway. I just don't like that long neck strap dangling on the ground or twirled around my wrist, and would feel more comfortable if I had a wrist strap on - something - rather than carrying it without any strap at all. For example, there are situations while I'm hiking when I might need to use my hands for something unexpected - that way, instead of dropping it to the ground, I'd only drop it 12 inches to the end of the strap.

Understand now? I really shouldn't have to justify myself this much to you idiots just to get a non-troll reply.

>>2736113
peak design cuff

>>2736113
I don't like to be judgmental of others but you are a dick. Give me one reason to help you any further, I feel I already helped you much more than you deserve, you ungrateful little piece of shit.

>>2736112
Cheers, seem to be able to pick one up for £120 body only

>>2736125
120 gbp for the F80 or OM-1?
That's a lot for any of those.

>>2736119
I only dish out what's dished out to me.

>>2735763
>>2735768
>>2735775
>>2735905
>>2736051
>>2736109
>>2736103
>>2735850
>>2735820
>>2735823
>>2735234
>>2735227
>>2735226
>>2734834
>>2734828
>>2734824
>>2734814
>>2734810
>>2734797
>>2734418
>>2734355
>>2733433
>>2733455
>>2733458
>>2733462
>>2733466
>>2733470
>>2733468
>>2733502

>>2736097
go for it, I'd say

>>2736133
Just a hint: When you see "Anonymous" as the post author, it doesn't mean you are talking to one person only.
Now fuck off and leave it. Nobody wants to argue about nonsense, even if it is about your ego.

>>2736134

what?

>>2736137
Another quality post.

>>2736139
>butthurt over nothing

>>2736133
You asked for a good wrist strap for a DSLR. Many people came to try to help you, to let you know that there is no good wrist strap for a DSLR, and gave you lots of reasons why. You are a spoiled bitch, and took that to be some sort of personal attack. It changes nothing. The weight of a DSLR and lens is not meant to be supported by a single lug, and even if it were, the single attachment point is going to leave your heavy, expensive, clumsy equipment dangling, swinging, and bumping around. If you're hiking, this is going to be dangerous for you, but also dangerous for your equipment. I'm not telling you why you're stupid, I'm telling you why DSLR wrist straps don't really exist. Nobody has really designed one, because most people aren't looking for one.

The Peak Design Cuff that has been suggested is probably your best bet, as all the connectors are rated for very high loads, but still, you're going to be dealing with the other issues. You could consider slinging a strap all the way over your shoulder, so the camera rests on your back hip, rather than swinging in front of you. Also, depending on the size of your camera, there's the Capture system from Peak Design also, which is a clip that attaches your camera to your bag or belt, so it's out of your hand, but not swinging. I have one of those, but don't like it, because with a DSLR (or even an X-T1) it's awkward to have the camera sticking away from my body that way.

>>2736139
Maybe you should've used the stupid questions thread in the first place instead of forcing your stupidity and arrogance on us.

File: Camo-Camera-Sling-Strap.jpg (79KB, 570x570px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 570x570px

>>2736145
>pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:03:28 09:15:00
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	570
Image Height	570

>>2736145
>Many people came to try to help you
Out of the "many people" who replied to me, only one of them actually named a wrist strap. If insulting me is what you need to do to make it through your day, then I honestly feel sorry for you.

>>2736134
So basically, these are all the posts of people who are suggesting you might have the wrong priority, or haven't thought your question through? And you believe that the problem is the board, and there's no chance that, without the experience or ideas, that the problem might be you?

You'll notice there's also a lot of help and good advice happening, without drama, in these threads. The only variable seems to be the attitude with which the question is asked, and the way the answer is received.

>>2736145
>and even if it were, the single attachment point is going to leave your heavy, expensive, clumsy equipment dangling, swinging, and bumping around
Also, thanks for proving that you're not actually reading the posts that you're replying to.

>>2736150
>If insulting me is what you need to do to make it through your day, then I honestly feel sorry for you.

>I really shouldn't have to justify myself this much to you idiots just to get a non-troll reply.

indeed.

>>2736150
I am politely asking you to kindly fuck off. Thank you.

>>2736153
The people quoted in >>2736134 are in a gear thread saying not to buy or discuss gear. They are very confused about where they are yet they keep posting their incoherent replies. Does it not follow that they are idiots for doing so? By contrast, I am attempting to talk about gear in the gear thread. There is nothing spoiled or bitchy about that.

>>2736157
The gear thread is not a "buy all the gear you can afford" thread, it's a place to get advice to improve your photography. Many MANY times in photography, buying gear is not the right answer, and sometimes, being told that by a third party is the only hope one has of snapping out of the "My photos aren't good, I need a new lens" trap.

For instance,
>>2735226
was a joke reply listing every conceivable piece of equipment available, and was clearly meant to be satire, and yet was met with:
>Thanks this is the first good reply I've gotten
which is telling.

They are also snarky replies to poorly asked questions like "I have a T3i. What gear should I get?" Which is impossible to answer, and should never have been asked.

Just because you don't like the implication that good photos don't come from a deep wallet doesn't make it any less true, and having someone in the gear thread attempting to turn the babes lost in the woods down the correct path is not something to be upset about.

Again, go back and look. When people ask real questions, or are trying to solve real problems, they're getting real helpful answers.

>>2736157

If you're asking gear questions in a gear thread, it's presumed that you are looking for other options, opinions and ideas. Sometimes the best option for a piece of gear is to not buy it. What don't you understand about that?

If you're looking for a hugbox that will only validate your preconceived notions, 4chan is the wrong place. Hell, anywhere is the wrong place, because asking a question and then getting mad when you don't like the answer is lunacy.

>>2736157
Please consider this again >>2736154
It is clear you are not welcome here.

>>2736128
£100 is the cheapest I've found the Nikon. Local shop is selling a mint OM-1n with 50 1.8 for £80.

>>2735758
I like the peak design one

>>2736161
>The gear thread is not a "buy all the gear you can afford" thread, it's a place to get advice to improve your photography.
What a conceited, trite, and, frankly, wrong opinion. The rest of /p/ is for improving your photography. The gear thread is EXCLUSIVELY FOR discussing gear. Since gear threads DO NOT directly address photographic technique or artistic composition, the rest of the board has traditionally treated them with disdain. That's why all gear discussion is currently relegated to these gear general threads which even direct people in the OP specifically to NOT start separate threads for any manner of gear questions.

I used to post on /p/ more, but stopped back in 2013ish because the place had just gotten too hostile (not even talking about gear; this was around when a guy who posted here called Eggles was doxed and bullied into practically committing an hero) and I admit that I haven't spent much time on the board in the past two years. However, I have been lurking the past three or four gear threads because I've recently been in the market for new camera gear, and I've really been disgusted by the attitudes of a vocal minority of posters here, you included.

The majority of people I've seen come to these threads have sincere technical questions about equipment, and when you reply to a person who has done considerable research on lenses and is merely looking for a 5th or 6th opinion with "you don't need any new lenses, you just need a better subject," it helps no one. Constantly snarking about how some comment "is telling" does not help your case either.

>>2736162
>Sometimes the best option for a piece of gear is to not buy it.
This would be a valid point, but is actually irrelevant given the state of these threads on this board. Since all gear questions are specifically relegated to being posted in this specific thread, it's illogical and inappropriate to assume right off the bat that the question-asker is not serious about his question.

>>2736260
Look through both gear threads, and find one person who was asking about a lens that actually filled a need, rather than a "collection", and described that need in any way shape or form, that got told to not buy any gear. I'll wait here.

In the mean time, here you see rational people asking rational questions in rational ways getting helpful rational answers:
>>2734944
>>2734945
>>2734960
>>2734991
>>2734931
>>2734932
>>2734933
>>2734941


That was about 30 seconds of scrolling by the way. I'm sure there are LOTS more.

Nikon F80 vs F90/X vs F100?

Obviously the F100 is the best but also the most expensive. Which one of these three will give me most bang for my buck?

I'll be using it with a 24 2.8 and a 50 1.8.

>>2736270
What are you trying to do with it?
The cheapest will be the best bang for your buck, since it's better than no camera at all, and you get a pretty strong diminishing rate of returns from there. Are the features added of value to you? We can't know.

>>2736272
I just want a cheap film camera which I can use my Nikon glass with.

Are there any others apart from the F80/90/100 I should consider?

>>2736267
That's incorrect - all the posts that got trolled in the two threads quoted were perfectly sincere - but irrelevant. If you are unsure how to answer a question, the appropriate response is to ask for further details or else don't reply. The inappropriate response is to be dismissive, sarcastic, or condescending, which is what you and others have done when you deem the question-asker to be just totally below you and not even worth your consideration. It's like you actually have a personal vendetta against "gear queers" and won't rest until these threads go away. It wasn't enough that all gear discussion was ostracized to these general threads. You actually want the general threads to go away too, don't you?

Is 50 ISO a shit? I heard it decreases dynamic range too much to be useful. Anyone use it?

>>2736277
>That's incorrect - all the posts that got trolled in the two threads quoted were perfectly sincere
Sincerity was not in question. If you are asking for my help, for free, at the sacrifice of my time, out of my day, I shouldn't have to pull the question out of you. We don't work here. We are not employees. There is no commission. If you say "I got a camera, what do I do now?" you deserve to be berated.

Conversely, if idiots have the right to be here asking stupid half cocked questions, then people who DO know what they're talking about have the same right to be here making fun of them.

Trying to coax someone off the path of collecting $5000 in gear they don't need and will never use is not the same as having a personal vendetta. Making fun of someone for asking a stupid question that's obviously impossible to answer is the price that is paid.

>You actually want the general threads to go away too, don't you?
Not at all. Gear is important to photography. But what SHOULD happen is people taking the time to try to answer their questions themselves with even a cursory google search, and then being self aware enough to understand that strangers need certain information in order to help them. A grateful and modest attitude also goes a long way.

>>2736279
I think that would depend on the camera.

>>2736279
If it's actually true ISO, it's fine. If it's pulled from ISO 100, it's not good, it's just shot at ISO 100, pulled back to ISO 50 in post, which does lower the range. It's for exposure needs (allowing you to shoot a little wider open in the sun, for instance) rather than dynamic range and image quality needs.

>>2736285
>Sincerity was not in question.
>>2734885
>And don't forget, be polite!
I don't know where or how you were raised, but I was always told that it's polite to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and impolite to be dismissive or condescending when they reveal their ignorance about a thing.

>Trying to coax someone off the path of collecting $5000 in gear they don't need and will never use is not the same as having a personal vendetta.
If you have to formulate a strawman in order to explain why you apparently don't have a personal vendetta against gear queers, then chances are that you do have one. I shouldn't have to say this, but a fucking wrist strap is not $5000 worth of lenses and camera bodies. I haven't seen a single person in the past two threads ask about buying their 20th L lens or otherwise 5000th $ of gear.

>Making fun of someone for asking a stupid question that's obviously impossible to answer is the price that is paid.
Which of the questions were impossible to answer? Was it the question about the wrist strap? It was the question about the wrist, strap, wasn't it?

>But what SHOULD happen is people taking the time to try to answer their questions themselves with even a cursory google search, and then being self aware enough to understand that strangers need certain information in order to help them.
It's only your arrogance that causes you to assume that people aren't doing this.

>A grateful and modest attitude also goes a long way.
Given this post, I didn't know that "modest" was in your vocabulary.
>If you are asking for my help, for free, at the sacrifice of my time, out of my day, I shouldn't have to pull the question out of you. We don't work here. We are not employees. There is no commission. If you say "I got a camera, what do I do now?" you deserve to be berated.

Let's not kid ourselves. This is 4chan. You are a boob, not a lawyer. Your time is worth less than the bandwidth that I will use while submitting this reply to you.

>>2736279
Depends if that's the native ISO of the sensor or in the extended ISO range, as well as on the sensor.

Some people use already bad Canons where going into the extended range is a bad idea, unless you nail the lighting / exposure exactly.

>>2736285
Seriously, this feels like teaching a kid how to behave in a restaurant. I have a sinking feeling our "friend" is either a spoilt kid with more money than he deserves and uncaring parents or a troll.
Again the original replies making fun of him has to be masterful trolls, I bet he will feel the bumsore for weeks.

>>2736299
Wait, I thought that you were a guy who was just lurking in the gear thread after a few years away? Now you're wrist strap guy again? Huh. Weird.

Also, the "$5000 on gear" comment was related to >>2735194

>Which of the questions were impossible to answer?
>>2735212
for instance, or every post like it.

>Given this post, I didn't know that "modest" was in your vocabulary.
I don't have to be modest. I'm not asking strangers for help on equipment. But you can bet your ass that if and when I do, I'll be appreciative for any input I can get, even if it doesn't agree with me preconceived ideas.

>>2736301
There are several trolls buzzing the thread, see: >>2736134. At least half a dozen individuals. They won't learn. All we can do is try to teach the non-trolls to stop replying to them.

File: realsimple.jpg (1MB, 1150x1050px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1150x1050px

what would you think what focal length this picture was taken in? looking for a prime to do a last minute page shoots for a local magazine but cant decide on the 50mm or 35mm

File: IMG_0918.jpg (2MB, 3456x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3456x2304px

Hello /p/

I bought this Lidex lens.
I understand the shutter and the lens elements are made in Germany but the housing is Jap shit, which is why the aluminium is corroding.
After I cleaned the corroded aluminium, I found that it etched a crack into the housing and I knocked some of the powder in between the elements. I can remove the glass easily as it screws on but I need to know what kind of oil to apply to the aperture to keep the blades from tearing. I apologize for the bad picture.

Also, who makes the best lens caps?
The front cover on my Olympus is crap.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Firmware Version	Firmware 1.0.3
Owner Name	unknown
Serial Number	0420209152
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2004:10:21 03:56:53
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/inf
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3456
Image Height	2304
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Fluorescent
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Camera Actuations	-1740439402
Color Matrix	0

>>2736299
>This is 4chan. You are a boob, not a lawyer. Your time is worth less than the bandwidth that I will use while submitting this reply to you.
Obviously you feel this way, which is why you're getting the replies you're getting. You're literally demanding respect, while vomiting out nothing but disrespect.

Meanwhile, around your vitriol and whining and faggotry, you have real people asking real questions, and getting real answers, from the exact same people who are trying to get you to shut up and leave.
>>2736279
>>2736287
>>2736288
>>2736300
etc.

>>2736307
Really hard to tell. Maybe 50mm, maybe older 90-100mm (borders aren't too sharp if I see this right).

If you do product shots, the primary thing I'd get is a modern, sharp as fuck 90-135mm macro lens. And of course lights.

>>2736307
I'd guess 50, but for this sort of shot, it could be even longer. It shouldn't matter too much though. Whatever works best for your space requirements is probably what you'll want to look for. A zoom may even be best.

>>2736299
>It's only your arrogance that causes you to assume that people aren't doing this.
Uh, I'm not him, but the gear thread REGULARLY has questions like "What are the differences between a D5300 and a D5200" and the only answers there could possibly be are exactly one google search away.

>>2736314
thank you for the reply

macro lenses isnt important to me as the client im working wants to do alot of these spreads, which i can only assume a lot of objects filling the page; so im really looking for a specific workhorse prime

but im googling and seeing that people who do food use 50mm for more group shots

File: you are a boob.png (24KB, 1326x350px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 1326x350px

>>2736305
>Wait, I thought that you were a guy who was just lurking in the gear thread after a few years away? Now you're wrist strap guy again? Huh. Weird.
Do I really have to point out that two posts with the same posting style and same stance in the same conversation were made by the same person?
>Also, the "$5000 on gear" comment was related to >>2735194
Did you quote the wrong post? There isn't $5000 worth of gear in that picture.
>>Which of the questions were impossible to answer?
>>2735212
>for instance, or every post like it.
Did you try what was suggested in >>2736277? "If you are unsure how to answer a question, the appropriate response is to ask for further details or else don't reply."
>I don't have to be modest. I'm not asking strangers for help on equipment. But you can bet your ass that if and when I do, I'll be appreciative for any input I can get, even if it doesn't agree with me preconceived ideas
Modesty goes both ways. On the one hand, the question-asker needs to understand that people answering his question are doing it out of their free time and may have slightly different preferences or may not have understood the question perfectly. On the other hand, the person answering needs to understand that he may not be the best person to opine about that particular question, due to lack of experience/knowledge or radically different preferences causing irrelevant or unhelpful replies. You need to be modest about your own knowledge. If you don't know anything about the question, then don't pretend like you do just so you can have a turn to talk!

>>2736310
What a strange post. Sorry, but you're still wrong. Asking people to be polite to one another is not the same as me demanding respect. If someone respects what I have to say, I expect that to be earned. I'm not going to harp on about how I'm replying to you "for free, at the sacrifice of my time, out of my day," or bemoan how people are "vomiting out disrespect" to me. That would be really arrogant.

>>2736318
So ignore those questions. Why is this so hard?

>>2736324
Not hard at all. But fun to remind an idiot that they're an idiot. Part of the fun of coming here. Want to be ignored? Don't want to be ridiculed? Want help? Ask an intelligent, researched, considered question.

File: marumi_achromat_close_up_filter_lens.jpg (67KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 800x800px

>>2736319
> but im googling and seeing that people who do food use 50mm for more group shots
It's more easily possible to shoot on a plate placed on a table with that from all the usual angles, sure.

Though if you simply place it on the ground and shoot it there, you'd be fine with a 90mm or 100mm too. Almost no one wants an exact top-down shot, and at an angle is no problem with food on the ground.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:09:13 13:51:29

>>2736319
> macro lenses isnt important to me as the client im working wants to do alot of these spreads, which i can only assume a lot of objects filling the page; so im really looking for a specific workhorse prime
I wouldn't underestimate it particularly for a work horse.

Maybe you rarely need 1:1 macro macro, but decent macro lenses are practically all very sharp (kinda what you want for product shots) and 1:2 or such happens more often than you'd think. Someone might want a picture of the front of some cut leek or close-up shot of a knife and onion. Or a piece of candy or chocolate on top of some ice cream ball. Or spread-out grain on a surface. Or whatever.

It's really not that rare for food, whether you shoot it for restaurant menus or eBay retail or food packaging.

Hey /gear/ I have a dilemma here.
I have a K-3 and it is great, but the 50-200 lens it came with is not so much. I was looking at suitable telezoom lens that are sharper and if possible faster than that. Since my budget is limited I am left with two choices, both ending with selling the DA 50-200.
One is the HD DA 55-300 WR, the other is the Tamron 70-200/2.8 Macro. The Tamron is roughly costs double of the HD 55-300 and this is the main source of my dilemma.
The HD 55-300 is sharp throughout the range and goes from f/4 to f/5.8 with 200mm is still in the f/4.5 range, that is one stop faster than my current one.
The Tamron is sharper, has constant aperture but the reach is not that long. It is also considerably heavier and lack weather sealing.

My question is while I'm already leaning towards the HD DA 55-300, is there anything that goes for the Tamron and justifies the higher price? Anyone used it? Did you like it?
I am also doing photography purely for fun, mainly for myself so there is no paid work involved. Mainly doing local events, some sports and flying field photos. And birds, lots of birds.

>>2736322
>If you don't know anything about the question, then don't pretend like you do just so you can have a turn to talk!

How's your first day on the internet treating you?

>>2736322
Why would I be nice to someone who doesn't deserve it? To someone who doesn't value my input or my time? Why would it be okay to negatively influence the board with shitty questions and argumentative idiots, but NOT okay to "negatively influence" the board by telling those idiots that they're idiots?

If you say "How do I hang my thousand dollar camera from a string" and a bunch of people say "ooh, dude, that's not really a thing, and also, it's a really bad idea, here's why" you don't really get to come back all indignant about it. Literally everyone trying to talk you out of it is doing it for your own good, not because they have some secret society vendetta against you.

Your attitude is very similar to a rich guy who goes into a restaurant and is pissed that there is a wait. Don't you know who I am!! How can you treat me this way!

You are nobody. You are on 4chan. You asked a question, and got multiple answers. You got faggy and started arguing with those answers. You didn't listen to reason, and now you're diatribing about how everyone should respect each other (which translates very easily to "why aren't you respecting me")

If you want to be treated nicely, no matter what your behavior, you need to find another site. The cruel people here have just as much right to be here as you do.

I, for one, would rather be surrounded by 20 nasty people who know what they're talking about than 200 idiots who don't even know how to ask what lens they need, and will argue with me when I give them the answer they weren't hoping to hear.

>>2736339
I have the HD DA 55-300 WR and am satisfied with its sharpness. The main source of blurred detail I get in photos is from motion blur and not having a fast enough shutter speed. It's a slow lens, which contributes to that motion blur, but the IBIS compensates a little, and I'm not sure how often I'd be shooting at f/2.8, if I had the Tamron, anyway. I have considered getting the 70-200/2.8 in the past, but the reach wasn't what I was looking for when I bought my telephoto. If you're considering the Tamron, why not the DA* 60-250 f/4 or the DA 300mm f/4 prime? Maybe you could find a used copy for a good price, but they are in the same general price range as the Tamron, if you're talking $700-800 already, and only one stop slower. The DA* lens is weather-sealed.

>>2736347
Oh, I would lick my toes over the DA* 300 or the 60-250. Sadly those are double the price of the Tamron, totally out of my budget.
I have trainings coming up related to my job, those are the first priority.

>>2736343
Two words sum up this post: damage control. Admit your own fault and maybe we'll talk. Until then, just fuck off.

>>2736339
Do you find yourself using any particular focal lengths on your 50-200? Or do you use the whole range?

>>2736350
Am I looking at the wrong Tamron lens?
www.amazon.com/dp/B0012GHSF6/

>>2736354
I only go down with the zoom if the subject comes closer, but mostly I'm at 200mm and cropping in post.

>>2736351
>Two words sum up this post: damage control. Admit your own fault and maybe we'll talk. Until then, just fuck off.
hahaha
>Maybe nobody will notice I lost!

>>2736357
What was the point of the tantrum you threw in >>2736343, if not to cry about your hurt feelings? That post is not an actual contribution to a discussion.

>>2736355
It is the right one but I only order from the EU. The import tax from outside of EU is retardedly high in my country.

>>2736362
Dang, that sucks. I personally prefer extra reach to cropping, but that's just me. Most of my telephoto shots are of wildlife quite a ways away.

File: x.jpg (37KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 700x394px

Can some gearhead ID these lenses for me?

>>2736260
>it's illogical and inappropriate to assume right off the bat that the question-asker is not serious about his question.

Being "serious" and being well-informed aren't mutually inclusive. With a little more experience, information or insight from those who have been doing a thing longer than you, you might find that your reasons for being so "serious" are ill-founded or even totally baseless. This isn't always the case, but it can be, and no one should be attacked for suggesting that you might not actually need a piece of gear, especially if they know nothing about your experience level or needs.

>>2736400
Are you planning on buying them? Because they're all shit.

>>2736400
no i'm gonna need a shot from even farther away

>>2736451
Training lenses for my nephew.
They are supposed to be shit, he will need to earn his good gear.

Pure photography!
https://youtu.be/qSoSqMpiSBM

>>2735698
kekked a little

I've been memed hard by this board and now I'm thinking of buying a film camera.

I'm aiming for medium format because I figure 35mm wouldn't give me a big enough change from my Sony a6000.
Is my logic flawed on this?

The thing is I havent got much money. I could go maybe £200 for a camera with lens.
I've got a room with no windows and a shitty scanner.
The price of film seems fine as long as I'm not getting through too much of it.
What about developing fluids and assorted bits? What do I need?

>>2736524
>>I'm aiming for medium format because I figure 35mm wouldn't give me a big enough change from my Sony a6000.
>Is my logic flawed on this?
Not really. From experience, results on 35mm film rarely are as good as on a A6000 with a decent lens.

> I've got a room with no windows and a shitty scanner.
I guess you'll be scanning with the A6000 then?

But seriously, if you want digital high resolution images, save up for an A7R II or something. It's up-front cost, but at least you won't be paying like $3 per shot, it amortizes really quickly.

>>2736531
>But seriously, if you want digital high resolution images, save up for an A7R II or something. It's up-front cost, but at least you won't be paying like $3 per shot, it amortizes really quickly.
What???

>>2736524
Look around on KEH. Bronica is a great starting point for medium format, and KEH's BGN rated stuff will probably get you a kit for that price.

>>2736531

>resolution is the only thing that matters.

Oh, STEM.

>>2736535
> What???
Yes? You apparently want to shoot MF and then make it digital (you mentioned the scanner).

I'm just pointing out that MF is damn expensive at like $3 per shot, and your best chance of scanning it is the A6000 anyways - good MF scanners cost a lot more.

>>2736536
Does not follow from what I said.

Also, STEM obviously is what made cameras possible (not just digital ones), never mind almost everything that we make or build in general. Deal with your jelly.

>>2736456

>We have purposely trained him wrong, as a joke.


Christ, he doesn't need L lenses, but at least give the kid something that is better than "shit".

>>2736544
>I'm just pointing out that MF is damn expensive at like $3 per shot, and your best chance of scanning it is the A6000 anyways - good MF scanners cost a lot more.
I can get a roll of portra for about $5. TriX for about $4. Home Dev puts development costs at around a dollar per roll. 645 gives you 15 frames. What's 15/6? That's your cost per shot.

And the "what" was more for the "Who cares that you have £200 you should just save up for a camera that costs literally 10 times that much, without a lens attached, and also, doesn't fit your ONLY requirement stated, which is "a film camera"

>>2736559
>>2736544
This is top quality bickering and also very helpful.
The A7RII is basically my dream camera but I won't be able to afford it until I get a new job.

I was planning on home developing my MF shots and using my shitty scanner for now. I figure the negatives will still be there when I get a better scanner.

File: image.jpg (866KB, 3686x2765px) Image search: [Google]

866KB, 3686x2765px

I got this Canon Rebel T2 a few years ago for $30 (with lens!) off of an eBay auction and have been able to find very little info about it since. I do know that it was the last film SLR made by Canon in 2004, though. Anyway, does anyone else have one? If you do, could you share some pictures taken with it?

>>2736559
> I can get a roll of portra for about $5. TriX for about $4. Home Dev puts development costs at around a dollar per roll. 645 gives you 15 frames.
It's not as cheap here in Europe, I'd pay at least twice as much for the film plus import fees and then more for developing - or having it developed - too.

> What's 15/6? That's your cost per shot.
2.5, but you did it the wrong way around, you want 6/15.

Which would be $0.4. Arguably that's still only 7500 shots until you have spent $3000 anyways.

> and also, doesn't fit your ONLY requirement stated, which is "a film camera"
Not quite, he was mentioning scanning too. And if you want a good scan like with a Hasselblad Flextight X5 ('cause you aren't very much into building scanning robots for DSLR/MILC), it gets quite expensive - even when you just rent / have someone else scan.

>>2736573
>I was planning on home developing my MF shots and using my shitty scanner for now. I figure the negatives will still be there when I get a better scanner.
Probably, but a shitty scanner will almost certainly do worse at scanning than the A6000.

And there's the other crux of this plan that I see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66hEpTrvOtE

The high pitched voice is the best part

>>2736275
film cameras are so cheap, you might as well get the best of the lineup. F90X is probably the best bang for your buck. 1 focus point, but cross type unlike the F4's line type, so it's actually dependable. F100 is, naturally, the best of the lot, with VR compatibility and pretty much modern controls. I love mine, and I dont know anybody who doesn't love theirs.

>god knows I wont be able to afford a pro-tier digital body for a long time, this is as close to the dream as it gets

Why is it so hard for Nikon to design a camera that has clean lines and isn't ugly?

There was nothing wrong with the designs of the f5, f100, and f80. So why did they have make everything all curvy and bulgy looking?

>>2736628
Is a bulky mans camera too much for your little pussy hands to handle?

>>2736219
Check ebay, the Nikon should go for very cheap as in lower than 50.
http://www.ebay.de/itm/Camera-Lens-expert-Nikon-F80-F-80-35MM-Film-Camera-Strap-Cap-/351610678532?hash=item51dda12d04:g:aX4AAOSw9N1Vivu~

>>2736658
A camera can still be bulky without being overly rounded or curvy looking

>implying the f5 was small

>>2736627
F100 go for 100, the others go for half of that so I'd go with one of those instead.

>>2736451

What's wrong with the Canon 70-210?

>>2736583
cool think pad

>>2736628
I dont understand what youre saying. a D3 isn't so far removed from a F5. a D4 is only a little more.

curvy bulgy shit is canon's schtick. blame Colani. Giugaro stronk.

the answer to your question, however, is industrial design and ergonomic demand by professionals.

>>2736743
Ergonomics shouldn't affect the shape of the viewfinder, the D3 and D4, and now the D5 all have the same round Viewfinder hump, which I don't see a reason for. But maybe that's just me wanting to see a pro DSLR with interchangeable viewfinders and focusing screens.

>>2736755
>return of interchangeable viewfinders
yes pls. had that on a F4, shit was cash just to play with. using it as a shitty WLF with AF was fun. alas, it's also a weak point structurally and for sealing.

nikon regressing in their design philosophy? I doubt it. I wouldnt mind the return of the metering mode dial. it wasn't conveniently placed (left side would be better), but physical controls a best.

>>2736756
In a perfect world I would also want an articulating display, and a control dial around the D-pad , maybe chunkier dials and an electronic shutter, as well.

>alas, it's also a weak point structurally and for sealing

Eeeh, that's debatable. I'm sure pros aren't complete butterfingers who hold their camera bodies by the viewfinder or by the screen so it's a non issue, and medium format cameras are weather sealed ans still have swappable prisms AND backs

Should I get the Sigma 35 1.4 or the Tamron 35 1.8?

I heard the Sigma has focusing issues, but not sure about the Tamron.

>>2736760
Get your systems nifty 35, that is the sharpest.
If Canon, get the 24mm pancake.

>>2736759
>I'm sure pros aren't complete butterfingers
Shit happens. These cameras aren't just built to be tanks, they're built to be handled by people who give zero fucks because they didn't pay for it, and they ship it out to get it serviced while they get another one to use.

>hold their camera bodies by the viewfinder
I do this. I hook two fingers under the front corners of the VF above the lens to pull it out of my bag. Pretty handy. I noticed on my F4 it was ever so slightly loose if I pulled on it.

>medium format cameras are weather sealed ans still have swappable prisms AND backs
There's always that. It's not impossible to do, just more expensive.

>control dial around D-pad
pls go
>glove friendly controls
yes
>electronic shutter
why is this so hard nikon

>>2736779
I use a 6D, I'm pretty sure the 24mm pancake is APS-C only. I'm not really worried about sharpness... But I'm trying to weigh up what's the better lens out of the Sigma 35 1.4 and the Tammy 35 1.8. I can afford either one of them.

One lens is slightly brighter and more bokeh (although pretty negligible), as well as hundreds of reported focusing issues specifically with the 6D. The other has stabilization, weather sealing, and as far as I know - better focusing... So what's better?

>>2736785
Do you need every last stop of light? Or do you like a smaller, lighter prime?
Sigma - Tamron - EF 40/2.8
Really fast - fast - slow
Really big - big - really small
No frills - frills - no frills

>>2736558
You don't even know what those fucking lenses are, you autist. How did you come to determine that they are 'shit'?

why do some digital cameras get a frame rate boost from extra batteries? I could understand why a film camera would, being able to drive the winder faster with extra voltage, but where does a digital camera benefit? digital SLRs are only limited by processing speed (not changed by supplied voltage; a single 3.7V battery has more than enough voltage for overclocking), sensor hardware (I dont think a battery would help here), and mirror speed (would help here, but it seems like it's more a mechanical design problem, see 7D2).

also on the subject of battery grips, are there any that take 2 batteries, but also dont connect through the grip like Canon does? I'm just thinking, 3 batteries is even better than 2.

>>2736805
Mostly due to the mechanical parts, faster sync rate between mirror mechanism and shutter.

>>2735698
topkek

>>2736830
leave it already

whats the best pretty long zoom for pentax k?

is the 55-200 decent? or is there a faster like 80-?

>>2736865
The kit 50-200 is usable but not stunning. The 55-300 is much sharper and faster while being a budget lens. The HD version is weather sealed.
The DA* 60-250 is godlike, sharp, silent, weather sealed and constant aperture. The FA* 80-200 is fast but AF is screw drive coupled. There is the new D-FA 70-200/2.8 which is fast, weather sealed, sharp and has fast silent focus. The D-FA 150-450 is longer, otherwise the same.
Third party are Tamron 70-200/2.8 and Sigma 70-200/2.8, also offers optical stabilization. Third party are not weather sealed.

>>2736867
Thanks for the info. The da 60-250 sounds almost perfect I'll have to look into that more but that 55-300 is really quite cheap. I could grab that for 100 bucks what the fuck

Got me a Nikon D60 a few years ago and planing to upgrade. I'm still on amateur level tho.

Any ideas on what to get?

>>2736868
The SMC DA 55-300 doesn't have weather sealing, the HD DA has.
For me that's a deal breaker since I had to shoot in the rain. I had the 50-200 WR in my bag and the looks of all the Nikon and Canon users covering from the rain watching me caring fuckall and getting my shots was awesome.
Weather sealing or nothing.

>>2736871
Did you buy lenses for it besides the kit or whatever lens it came with?
How much money do you have for the upgrade?

If you have some lenses and a good budget you might want to consider going full frame, if you just want a new camera but not FF then a D7100/D7200.

>>2736871
What do you want from an upgrade, then?

> I'm still on amateur level tho.
You could operate the most expensive of general purpose cameras more easily than the cheapest.

>>2736883
I just got what came with it.

I can spend somewhere between €500-€1000

>>2736884
Actually, it's mainly because the camera is pretty old

>>2736886
Well, that's a good budget and you're not limited to a brand since you don't have extra gear.
What do you like to shoot, what do you use it for most of the time?
Traveling, family pictures, landscapes, etc.

It's hard to recommend a single one because there are a lot of good options out there.

>>2736890
Hm, sure.

But where specifically did you hit the limits of the camera (/ lens)? I mean, every camera on the new market is newer now, but that doesn't really help...

>>2736891
I mainly take landscape and animals (mostly birds) pics.

>>2736892
I guess you're right. Maybe I should just invest in a new objective or lens first. Thanks for the help senpai

>>2736893
What the other anon said isn't a bad idea, I'd probably get a 70-200 lens for it. It's quite nice and should fit your bird spotting needs. For landscape the kit should be good enough, no point in investing on wide glass if it's a crop sensor.

>>2736893
> I guess you're right. Maybe I should just invest in a new objective or lens first. Thanks for the help senpai
It was actually literally a request for more information 'cause I (/we) have nothing to go on to decide what the best upgrade might be.

But better lenses often do more for you than a new body, sure.

>>2736895
>>2736896
Ty guys! I will look more in to this later.

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.

>>2736905
If you love your camera, why are you contemplating switching? What you're saying in this post makes no sense.

>>2736905
Well, why not wait? You could get a D610 for around that amount but I don't see the point if you already have Pentax gear.

>>2736583

It is compatible with all EF lenses, EF-S doesn't work on it. There is a battery grip for it I believe that lets it run on AA batteries.

Canon made the 1V for a few years after the T2 so it wasn't the last but damn near it.

>>2736905
I use a K-3 and tried out a 70D, 40D and a D7100.
All I can say, compared to my Pentax UI experience is the Canon is much closer to the Pentax in terms of simple use and comfort. I don't know if it's the D7100 or it's the same for all Nikons, I just couldn't figure out a simple way to adjust the most mundane things without looking at the controls. With Pentax it was very quick, everything was under one of my fingers right away, Canon needed a bit more adjustment because of the rear wheel placed at the palm.
After Pentax using a Nikon felt awkward as fuck.
I suggest to stay with the K-5IIs, it is plenty of camera for everything, no real need to switch bodies unless you have a specific need.

File: tripod.jpg (76KB, 962x1406px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 962x1406px

What tripod would you recommend for a heavier camera (specifically RZ67)? The one I have currently is a little sketchy for supporting the weight and not as tall as I'd like it to be. Also a ball head would be nice, as well as the ability for the legs to fold out for low angles.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	KONICA MINOLTA
Camera Model	DiMAGE A200
Camera Software	DiMAGE A200 Ver1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	67 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2009:05:07 09:29:34
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	4.1 EV
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	17.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	962
Image Height	1406
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

>>2736992
Studio? Hiking? Flying?

>>2736992
Dic&Mic E302C

File: 300mmf4is.jpg (103KB, 1500x750px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1500x750px

Olympus 300mm f/4 IS

This shit is the BEES KNEES of super tele!

File: 300mmf4is2.jpg (114KB, 1500x750px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1500x750px

>>2737005
Olympus is saying that this is the sharpest lens they have ever produced! That means some insane resolution. This thing will be a perfect pair to the upcoming E-M1 Mark II, which will have a 20mp sensor, and hand-holdable high-res shot mode that creates 80mp images.

The IS in the lens also works together with the glorious 5-Axis in body IS, enabling 6 STOPS of stabilization! Say hello to hand-held base ISO 600mm.

File: 300mmf4is3.jpg (99KB, 1500x902px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1500x902px

>>2737007
And of course, you can use it with the 1.4x teleconverter, getting 840mm equivalent field of view.

>>2737005
>>2737007
>>2737009
In case you didn't know every other manufacturer already has sharp 300mm f/4 lenses, some even faster. Most of them havas stabilization, some uses the in-body stabilization.
There is nothing new under the sun.

>>2737018
How many are this sharp?
How many are this small?
How many have 6 STOPS of IS?
How many are this cheap at this aperture and sharpness?

>>2737027
How many of them only cover a M4/3 sensor?

>>2737032
burnt to a crisp

>>2737032
The one and only, purpose built, revolutionary, glorious, zeiss stomping, canon raping, nikon ravaging OLYMPUS 300MM f/4 IS!!! of course.

Why the hell would you want to use a gigantic, soft, slow to focus, heavy, wasted light gigadong fool frame lens on a glorious, portable, stabilized, affordable M4/3 sensor?

>>2737027
>How many are this sharp?
All
>How many are this small?
Most of them are light due to them being primes, but Nikons is the smallest and lightest.
>How many have 6 STOPS of IS?
*citation needed
>How many are this cheap at this aperture and sharpness?
Generally Pentax lenses are the cheapest in their respective range. That makes the DA* 300 the cheapest of the bunch, not counting that old Canon 400mm prime which goes for pennies.

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

252KB, 1000x1000px

>>2736992
As always in the last few threads, this nice $90/$120 (alu/carbon, with express shipping) tripod from Aliexpress, or it's bigger variant.

Sirui, Benro also have some nice travel tripods that might apply if you have more money.

Gitzo if you are rich and just want "the best" to avoid spending time on evaluating tripods.

And then there is also Manfrotto if you want a heavy studio tripod that you don't usually carry around on foot.

File: lgmtf.gif (16KB, 450x275px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 450x275px

>>2737036
>All
Doubt it. This is Olympus's sharpest lens ever. That means its sharper than the Otus crushing 75mm f/1.8. Here is the MTF chart for that lens.

>Nikons smallest and lightest
This thing is almost 12 lbs, nearly $10,000. Sure.

>citation needed
Olympus' own papers. The sensor alone gives 5 stops, combined with the in lens IS you get 6 stops.

File: 1233150256000_520646.jpg (25KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x500px

>>2737040
>Nikon's 60mm lens
>12 lbs
>$10,000
>smallest and lightest

>>2737035
Why the hell would anyone purchase photographic equipment not manufactured by Canon or, god forbid, Nikon?

Do you want your kit to be obsolete when the company goes out of business or pulls out of the camera market like Samsung?

>>2737035
Isn't that an unreleased lens...?

>>2737043
Full specs were just announced today. Reviews and tests to follow soon.

>>2737042
>Why the hell would anyone purchase photographic equipment not manufactured by Canon or, god forbid, Nikon?
Oh, I don't know, because I actually want to carry my camera around with me, not spend $10,000 on a 1Dx with a sensor that produces terrible image quality for its size and price, and lenses that are three feet long and weigh 15 pounds, and cost more than a three year old used car?

>>2737040
> the Otus crushing 75mm f/1.8
Lel, what? The 85mm Otus and even the Batis are much better than the Olympus 75mm f/1.8...

>>2737045
> Full specs were just announced today. Reviews and tests to follow soon.
Well, I hope you get a good lens, but I have no reason to assume that it will be particularly great.

File: nikon_2223_af_s_nikkor_300mm_f_4e_1111442.jpg (390KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 2500x2500px

>>2737040
>>2737041
>Brags about 300mm lens
>Compares it to 600mm lens
>Olympus' own papers "Hey guys, buy my stuff, it is the best and no other is better than it. I said it so it must be true! Believe me!"
How about you stop being a shitty shill and start comparing with other 300mm lens? Real focal length not equivalents. also pic related, the lightest sharpest 300mm prime. It's so light it doesn't even need a tripod collar.
Also charts and numbers don't mean shit, lets see those real world photos proving your claims.

>>2737051
>Look at this bandaid!

>>2737047
Now, granted, the lenses are both good in almost every regard. But look at the field map of sharpness on DxO:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Apo-Planar-T-Star-Otus-85mm-F14-ZF2-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-75mm-F18-on-Olympus-PEN-E-PL5-versus-Sigma-60mm-F28-DN-A-Sony-E-on-Sony-A6000__1384_814_898_839_1104_942#measuretabs-2

I also added the cheapest lens that I frequently use on the E-mount for comparison, the ~$150 60mm f/2.8. That 75mm is just not that impressive overall, and very far from beating an Otus.

Anyone with the Pentax 50mm 1.8 (k mount) have any problems with the lens? I'm wondering if I should just save for the 1.4.

>>2737057
The 1.8 is an excellent lens. The DA* 55/1.4 pixie dust is godlike.
Also the 50/1.8 is so cheap, you can buy it and still be able to save for the pixie dust.