Gear Thread

I don't want to get a new DSLR because I can't be fucked spending money on glass.

How's the Fujifilm X30?

>>2737067
Buy an older used DSLR, the kit lens will be more than enough for some time. After that you will likely to learn about cheap old glass and adapting them.

File: mediocre.jpg (125KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 960x540px

>>2737067

>>2737067
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+is+the+fujifilm+x30%3F

>>2737070

Hauling a DSLR around is a pain in the ass and I really don't need one.
I want a nice enthusiast compact, maybe someone can share experiences using one.

I've already played around with the old glass route and while it's fun to dick around with, it's impractical and still loads more expensive.

>>2737075
Use your phone

>>2737075
>>2737078
Or the Sony RX100 but that might be over your budget. Cheap compacts are usually shit and not really better than your phone.

reposting from previous thread >>2737082

>>2737083
What exactly are you reposting?

Where do I find cheap medium format cameras?

>>2737100
At B&H, look for Pentax

>>2737075
The best you can get is a RX1R II. Not cheap, though.

RX100 III or IV is probably what most in your situation would buy.

>>2737100
keh.com

I've got £500 (around $700) and I'd like to get into photography. Ideally I'd like a DSLR that hits all the basics and is gonna last me. I'm mainly planning on doing landscape and close-ups and shit, not action stuff.

Any recommendations guys? Apologies for being a newfag

>>2737118
Sony A6000 or Pentax K-50/K-S2, with kit lens.

>>2737118
Used D7000 with kit lens

Still not sold on Canon over Nikon. Posted in the other thread looking at switching from Pentax due to lack of second hand lenses in the area and used good long telephotos online. Whole attitude could change based on quality of Pentax full frame.

>>2737124
Thanks for the update.

>>2737124
If you can afford the good lenses, and good lenses are what you're after, Canon is where you want to be. Alternatively, check out some of the newer Sigma offerings, which are both long, and excellent.

>>2737096
Me wanting to know why Olympus made a 300mm f/4 that's $2500 instead of just making a 300mm f/2.8

>>2737124
>>2737128
If he could afford the good lenses or Canon equipment, he might as well get the Pentax ones, since their top lenses are excellent.

>>2737153
size, price, weight. The usual.

>>2737166
That's what they all say, same reason Sony has allergies to fast zooms

I want f/2.0 zooms and unheard of optical designs, those shouldn't be limited to the Oly SLR system

I want a 100mm f/2 macro, I want superfast primes that have AF and don't have "leica" slapped all over them

>>2737124
Canon's probably your best choice for cheap telephotos. 400/5.6, 300/4 IS, 70-200 2.8/4 non-IS/IS (not IS II). Common, cheaply priced lenses. Canon made their name off of lenses like these, and bodies to go with them.

Nikon's only got the 80-200/2.8D, AFS 300/4, and if you consider it, the 70-200/4G VR. Comparatively, more expensive, less features, older designs (except the 70-200), more expensive.

>>2737176
So... the Zeiss 100mm f2 Makro-Planar?

>>2737179
That's not autofocus though, and it only does 1:2, so it's not a true macro lens, the cheap bastards don't even give you a matched extension tube to make it go to 1:1, as if we need diopters which will degrade the IQ

File: 20130108-figure1.jpg (168KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1000x667px

>>2737176
You want an f/2 macro? Why, exactly? Do you enjoy most of the photo being out of focus?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4080
Image Height	2720
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:12:10 11:39:34
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	65.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2737188
Actually I do, I'm actually a fan of the way it can make flowers look like paintings, and the "out of focus" problem is dependent on the angle at which you are shooting the subject at.

Needing everything to be in focus is fine, but is more suited to product shots and copy work than it is plants and nature

>>2737192
What is your experience with macro lenses?

>>2737196
I don't have one, the closest I have is shooting 1:1 with a 55mm f/1,.2 lens via extension tubes, wide open, and I was actually able to get what I wanted in focus without any dramatic falloff

File: IMG_1172-11.jpg (1MB, 1427x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1427x1500px

>>2737201
Then, you may have to just take my word for this, but f/2 is basically not workable in 1:1 macro photography, for the reason that can be seen in >>2737188. The majority of the subject is out of focus, which, you may think is a neat artistic effect now, but it really gets old fast. It's one thing to have a shallow depth of field to blur the background - no one wants their actual subject to be out of focus, though.

Fast macro lenses do have an advantage for low light photography, as can be seen in the attached photo, which was taken at f/2.8, at nighttime, under the lighting of a dim outdoor sconce. Most of the subject is in focus, but even then, it's only unevenly in focus, and the only reason so much of the subject is in focus is because it's so far away. If this were a 1:1 magnification photo, only the lizard's eyeball would be in focus.

The point I want to make is that lens speed increases the usefulness of the lens, but there are telephoto lenses that can take photos like the attached photo. It's low enough magnification that it probably didn't have to be taken with a macro lens.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2012:06:24 08:10:12
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.47 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2737220
That picture was shot on an MP-E at f/8.0, not f/2.

>If this were a 1:1 magnification photo, only the lizard's eyeball would be in focus.

That's only because of the angle that you shot it at, if you knew anything about the Scheimpflug principle, you would know that focusing distance and aperture alone are not the only factors in depth of field, but also the angle at which you are shooting the subject at, and example of this would be lensbabies, tilt-shift lenses, and even tilt shift adapters, all of which can change the depth of field by simply moving the lens at an angle to that it is not parallel with the sensor

File: image.jpg (324KB, 1273x1273px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1273x1273px

Just got a Nikon D 3300
Don't know anything yet.
Is there a recommended book or resource I can teach myself from?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Instagram
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1276
Image Height	1273
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 1908 (6 of 19).jpg (556KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 1200x798px

>>2737201
A lot of the time when you are shooting close to 1:1, your camera will likely be mounted on a tripod anyway, and there's really no reason not to stop the lens down to f/22 to get the whole subject in focus.

2/3

>>2737223
>That picture was shot on an MP-E at f/8.0, not f/2.
Oops, good catch. But the point still stands. The MP-E is a greater than 1:1 magnification lens. At 1:1, you get a similar effect at f/2.

I'm not aware of any tilt-shift macro lenses that are autofocus. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

[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 6.0 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	150 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:04 22:38:27
Exposure Time	5 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Macro

File: scorpionfly-web.jpg (2MB, 3500x2469px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3500x2469px

>>2737201
For hand-held outdoor shooting, flowers, insects and such, I usually stop the lens down as much as I can get away with so my ISO isn't so high to make the photo visibly too grainy and my shutter speed isn't so low that motion blur negatively affects the photo either. Even f/5 will blur the background very nicely on a macro lens. At f/2, the whole subject in this photo would not be in focus.

3/3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2012:05:27 20:38:19
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.35 m
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3500
Image Height	2469
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2737225
I'm not aware of any either, I think the only way it would work would be to use a motor of some sort to drive the bellows part of the tilt shift lens, which would be tedious and loud

>>2737223

There's only so much changing an angle can do when your depth of field is literally tenths of a millimeter.

It's also worth noting than an f/2 lens won't be f/2 at macro distances.

File: spider hug.jpg (297KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1500x1500px

>>2737201
One more example to add. This was shot at f/16, but because of the subject distance, the background is still blurred quite nicely. At f/16, most of the spider is in focus, but at f/2, it would be mostly out of focus.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Paint.NET v3.5.10
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:05:27 14:20:37
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5616
Image Height	3744
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2737224
Start with Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson then read the rest of his series.

File: 123.jpg (496KB, 1641x2620px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 1641x2620px

>>2737056
Ok /p/ i'm going into MF and i have a choice between a Flexaret Automat for around 50$ and a Pentacon six TL for around 100$. I'll be shooting landscapes so what do i get?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	picnik.com
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>2737243
It doesn't matter. The quality of the film you're putting into it will be a much bigger factor on the quality of your images.

Any recommended old Pentax lenses? Thought about getting a 50mm f1.4 but not sure about what else. Was thinking of an 85mm too.

>>2737247
>It doesn't matter. The quality of the film you're putting into it will be a much bigger factor on the quality of your images.

RETARD.

>>2737243
get the one that works properly. both are commie machines of fail, so be careful.

>>2737252
For what purpose?

>>2737252
Which old 50mm f/1.4? Which 85mm?

>>2737252

the 1.4.

>>2737253
>RETARD.
Not him, but he's not completely wrong. Lens is more important, sure, but if you put a great lens in front of shit dollar store film, you're not going to get a good photo.

>>2737243

Flexaret if you want TLR, albeit a heavy Czech killing brick.

Pentacon if you want moar lenses.

File: 123.jpg (287KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1024x681px

>>2737247
i know
>>2737253
>get the one that works properly. both are commie machines of fail, so be careful.
i really hope that doesn't happen because i'm squeezing money out of my ass to get a MF camera right now.
Ok how about a round two? I can also get a Minolta Semi P for around 80$ and a Franka Solida II for again somewhere around 100$.
Sorry for the gearfag questions but i really need a good machine that's going to serve me well.

>>2737266
>Sorry for the gearfag questions but i really need a good machine that's going to serve me well.
Then you need to spend more money, obviously. You get what you pay for.

>>2737266
>Sorry for the gearfag question

youre in the gearfag thread duh. if your money is so precious to you id say get a yashica 124 or a mamiya tlr, these are sometimes very cheap and are of outstanding quality. also you can change lenses. my pentacon gave me lots of cool shots, but is kinda unreliable. you cant gamble with film being expensive too.

>>2737259
>shit dollar store film
>120

like what, shangai? that shit is not even made anymore afaik ..the "cheapest" 120 film ive seen is like pro image 100, or superia... both can give stellar results. tell me about those cheapass 120 films, because i havent seen them, and ive tested LOTS.

>>2737118
used D7000 is the only sensible option

File: 3705708940.jpg (58KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x450px

NOT SO FAST 7Dmk2

>>2737294
>Not using NX1 sensor
>No flash

Bitch what?

>>2737294
Do you happen to know, how to get in contact with Satan? I want to ask him, has Hell frozen over.

>>2737307
I don't think there is one pro DSLR with a flash. And I'm sure they have a great sensor in there.

File: canon vs nikon.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

Broad, but serious question here. I legitimately am curious...

Do most people choose only one or the other system, i.e., Canon or Nikon (or Pentax, Sony, Samsung, or Olympus) and stick with only products from that manufacturer? Or does anybody regularly use camera bodies from more than one system because one of them just offers a set of features that they prefer for certain things, but not others?

For example, availability of certain lenses, overall bulk/weight, ergonomics or the control layout might motivate a decision to use one camera over the other for certain settings. I am just wondering if I am missing something, but are there things that Nikon simply can't do that Canon can do and vice-versa? One thing I can think of in the APS-C range only is that Pentax has the most affordable option for a fully weather-sealed system, but Canon lenses are generally faster.

>shit dollar store film

C'mon, as long as it's been stored properly, drug stores are selling Fuji Superia 400, Kodak UltraMax 400 and Kodak Color Plus 200, which are pretty good for the price.

Using 400H and Portra won't magically give you better results if your lenses sucks, your light seals are gone and your lab processes your film using spit.

>>2737316

Real camera sluts blow all their money on multiple systems and lenses, pile all the gear on a shelf, and stop taking photos entirely. Collector mode is final destination.

>>2737307
10 fps with a 79-shot buffer is far, far better than a few extra pickles. Also have you EVER seen a built-in flash give a decent result?

I might actually buy one if I can find the money

>>2737312
On-board flash isn't just for family snapshits, it is a very effective way of triggering speedlights.

>>2737316
There are plenty of fast lenses for Pentax, but that is irrelevant.
Someone is choosing a system based on something, and buys native lenses. If the options are limited there are also third party (Tamron, Sigma, Tokina Samyang etc...) lenses to choose from and depending on the base system there are options for adapting lenses from other systems or old lenses.
There is not one single way of choosing your preferred system. For beginners, any system will be good.
For me choosing Pentax was due to niche usage (affordable astrophotography), the weather sealing, pentaprism, great lenses were only added benefits that I care of more now than the initial reason to buy the camera.

>>2737327

>On-board flash isn't just for family snapshits, it is a very effective way of triggering speedlights.

the d500 uses the radio system for that, fwiw

>>2737327
I know. It's a nice backup if your trigger doesn't work but the lack of flash isn't unusual. Quite the opposite actually.

>>2737326
I've seen the Fuji X-T1 do 8fps WITH a flashgun attached in burst mode

>>2737327
>There are plenty of fast lenses for Pentax, but that is irrelevant.
There are not that many fast primes for Pentax's digital line. What they instead chose to focus on was overall lens size, in their DA limited primes. You could say that it's form over function, but I really like pancake lenses for their improved handling. There are also a trio of excellent and fast FA limited primes with the 31,43 and 77, but no f/1.x wide angle prime (wide angle in terms of APS-C) in either DA or FA lines. This is not irrelevant at all when you have Canon with half a dozen wide angle primes in the f/1.x range. On the other hand, Canon barely has any pancake lenses (although what they do have are excellent), so Pentax wins in terms of handling.

I guess my question to you would be, if somebody gave you a Canon 5DIII and an assortment of L lenses, would you still use your Pentax?

>>2737316
If you want to have both systems you need to buy two sets of lenses. Lenses are expensive. If you had a Nikon D750 and a 24-70 it would be insane to spend nearly four thousand dollarydoos on a 5Dmk3 and another 24-70 instead of just getting a Nikon 70-200, some nice flashes, a decent tripod and a plane ticket to somewhere interesting. The cameras from Canon, Nikon and Pentax do pretty much exactly the same thing. Nikon sensors are less noisy and some people think Canon cameras feel nicer. That's about it. No camera makes your pictures magically better. No camera will make people more photogenic. No camera will let you take pictures of things that don't exist. No difference between the manufacturers is worth doubling the cost of your camera kit so you can switch at the drop of a hat.


The real advantage to CaNikon APS-C over Pentax is that you'll find second-hand lenses far more easily. For someone who isn't rich the best camera is probably a used Nikon D7000 with the best second-hand lenses you can find.

>even in the last thread people here were shitting on the k3-ii for not having a built in flash even though they replaced it with a GPS unit
>nikon does it (presumably without the GPS) and it's great

>>2737331
at 16 megapickles. It wouldn't be able to do it with the 28 of the Samsung NX1

>>2737227
Holy god what is that?!? It looks like a scorpion crossed with a wasp! What has science done?

>>2737338
If money were no object, would your answer change? Keep in mind, this is a question about very high level gearfagging, and not photography directly. Yeah, I get that any camera is going to "do about the same thing." However, there's a reason why a lot of people get a mirrorless camera as their secondary camera. It does something (portability) better than a full size DSLR does. That's what I'm asking about.

>>2737336
I would probably sell the 5DIII and lenses to get the better DA*, FA* and D-FA lenses and the coming FF body. Without the FF body those lenses would be so sweet for my K-3. A man needs his dreams...

How good of a camera is the fuji x-10?

>>2737346
>if money were no object

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/camera-lenses/all-lenses/index.page

Add up the prices of all those lenses and you'll get well over a hundred and fifty grand. Then you have camera bodies, flashes, discontinued collector's-item-type lenses and vintage cameras, and branded merchandise.

If money were no object I'd have a Ferrari, a McLaren and a Lamborghini sitting beside each other outside my house as decorations while I drove around in a Rolls-Royce and occasionally took one of those three out for a spin. In practical terms it wouldn't make sense to use Canon on Saturdays and Nikon on Sundays cos you'd just confuse yourself and get pissed off with the different menus and layouts.


Even if you only wanted equipment to sit on shelves as some sort of weird display there are more than enough cameras, lenses and accessories from either company to swallow up plenty of your money.

>>2737359
If you like the feel of it and you see it for a decent price it won't be spectacular in low light but it'll do the job most of the time.

>>2737368
>Add up the prices of all those lenses and you'll get well over a hundred and fifty grand.
That's flawed reasoning. Every photographer has their preferences, and even when money is no object, people aren't going to get too much overlap, once they've decided on a system.

>>2737346
> However, there's a reason why a lot of people get a mirrorless camera as their secondary camera. It does something (portability) better than a full size DSLR does.
AFAIK, few buy into Sony FF mirrorless for portability. They're just very good cameras in their own right.

People who want portability go for smartphones / RX100 / RX1R II or whatever, right?

>>2737375
I was referring more to the appeal of the EOS M.

>>2737378
I don't get anyone who buys an EOS M in the first place.

Basically everything is better on Sony's side, even using EF lenses with an adapter.

>>2737372
the point is that almost nobody has a Nikon system and a Canon system at the same time. It would be a complete waste. On the rare occasions people do switch systems they normally sell their old cameras to fund the purchase of more gear. Even if you wanted to spend the price of several cars on camera gear you could do that without spreading it over two systems.

>>2737384
The low end native EF-M lenses are quite a bit better than the native E-mount lenses. If you have to adapt an EF lens in a pinch, that's one thing, but the assumption is that you'll be using the native lenses most of the time. With the the price (at least the EOS M classic, a few years ago when they were new), around $280-300 for the camera and kit zoom, it was a no-brainer. I have not seen anything so far that has caused me to want to upgrade to the EOS M3, or buy another lens for the system, but I get a lot of use out of my EF-M 18-55mm and 22mm pancake.

>>2737388
>It would be a complete waste.
The point of my question is: why?

On the rare occasions people do switch systems they normally sell their old cameras to fund the purchase of more gear.
Most people are money conscious. I'm talking, if you had the money.
>Even if you wanted to spend the price of several cars on camera gear you could do that without spreading it over two systems.
Why do you insist on still using the fallacious claim that buying into a system means buying every lens for the mount?

>>2737392
> The low end native EF-M lenses are quite a bit better than the native E-mount lenses
Really? Name the better equivalents to the 28mm f/2, 18, 30 and especially 60mm f/2.8 Sigma Art, 50mm f/1.8, or 16mm f/2.8?

Or just any lenses that have better sharpness than the 60mm f/2.8 or 28mm f/2?

Never mind there isn't even a midrange and high-end of lenses on the EF-M mount, is there? It's quite retarded that you couldn't get a great native lens for a reasonable price.

> I have not seen anything so far that has caused me to want to upgrade to the EOS M3
You'd be silly to, even the cheaper A6000 is much, much better.

>>2737405
>28mm f/2, 18, 30 and especially 60mm f/2.8 Sigma Art, 50mm f/1.8, or 16mm f/2.8
Those area all "low end native" lenses, huh? I got my 18-55mm and 22mm pancake EF-M lenses for about $100 each + shipping. Are all the lenses you named equivalent in price to that? I don't think so.

It used to be that when you bought a NEX, you got either an 18-55mm or a 16mm Sony native low end lens with the kit. I know that Sony has come out with a new standard kit lens since then, with the 16-50mm power zoom, for example, but I haven't heard much good about it. Both the 18-55mm and 22mm EF-M lenses are excellent, and priced extremely well.

>Never mind there isn't even a midrange and high-end of lenses on the EF-M mount, is there? It's quite retarded that you couldn't get a great native lens for a reasonable price.
I'm not saying that the EOS M is the best stand-alone mirrorless system, am I? When did I say that? I didn't. What I said is that I own one to complement my DSLR, and that I like it a lot because of its size and the image quality I get with it. I didn't even go out of my way to make that claim; I just said it as an example of how two systems can complement each other and then you jumped down my throat about it. Hell, I'd love to pick up an a7 next time I have about $1000 to spare, but my EOS M cost me a little under $300 brand new with a kit lens, and it's been well worth that..

File: tumblr_ltwdzpaxCQ1qzado8o1_500.gif (475KB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 500x200px

>>2737395
Jesus
Fucking
Christ


IT WOULD BE A WASTE BECAUSE CANON AND NIKON MAKE THE SAME FUCKING THING AND THERE'S NO POINT CONFUSING YOURSELF BY HAVING TO LEARN TWO CONTROL LAYOUTS AND MENU SYSTEMS

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BUY ALL THE LENSES BUT EACH COMPANY MAKES MORE LENSES THAN YOU COULD EVER WANT

THERE IS NOTHING TO BE GAINED BY HAVING BOTH CANON AND NIKON

NOTHING

AT ALL


YES I MAD
FUCK

I have a Nikon d60, when I do upgrade maybe I can spend $600-$900. I'm an amateur who takes pretty decent photos on my Note 4, I have some photographers commenting on my photos with compliments about lighting and composition.

I am trying to pickup professional skills and want to shoot manual. I get trolled because people are telling me I can't take good manual focus pics on a crop sensor, but a full frame is out of my price range. What do you guys suggest? Willing to buy used too.

>>2737449
a used D7000

It's a fantastic camera, nothing else on the market is much better, even 6 years after it was released.

"Shooting manual" refers to manual aperture and shutter speed control, not manual focus. You can do that with your D60. There's rarely any point wasting your time with manual focus if you use an AF lens. If you want to take pictures of people get the Nikon 50/1.8 as well. Whatever lens(es) you use on the D60 will work on the D7000

Alternatively you could just get a Fujifilm X100S, which is small, light and quite beautiful. The lens doesn't zoom and isn't interchangeable but you can just take a few steps forward or back.

>>2737440
There is no call for all the anger or tumblrfaggotry. Likewise, I would argue that there is no call for a photographer to get married to only one brand of camera equipment. If you don't like it, deal with it.

>>2737424
> Those area all "low end native" lenses, huh?
Yes. ~$150-300 for most. Low-end lenses.

> I got my 18-55mm and 22mm pancake EF-M lenses for about $100 each + shipping.
That's not low-end pricing, that's vintage / abandon ship - tier pricing.

> but I haven't heard much good about it
If we go by that standard, most reviewers with standards shredded the EOS-M, and even more the M3 and M10 'cause they suck even more in comparison to the rest of the market than the original did.

But actually, the kit lenses (there's an A6000 kit with 16-50 and 70-200) are quite okay.

People probably are unenthusiastic because you can actually get much better lenses anyways. The thing you can't really do on the EF-M mount.

> I'm not saying that the EOS M is the best stand-alone mirrorless system, am I? When did I say that? I didn't. What I said is that I own one to complement my DSLR, and that I like it a lot because of its size and the image quality I get with it.
But that's literally why you'd want a bunch of good lenses to exist for your augmentation camera? It makes for a much better augmentation, and not just your cheap emergency backup camera that then produces so much worse pictures than your other camera would.

>>2737449
An A6000 is surely one of the best options in that price range.

It's a great option for MF, because of focus peaking and the option to have 1:1 magnification, and you can adapt pretty much any MF lens to it.

It has excellent AF with native lenses too. Which, by the way, professionals also use.

File: canon40d.jpg (174KB, 1280x1013px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1280x1013px

Is the Canon 40D still a decent camera by today's standards? I may be able to get one body only for about 150€/160$ with allegedly <1000 actuations.

>>2737449
>>2737473
By the way, with good modern cameras, "muh professional photographer skills" are becoming trivial as fuck. Cameras are generally really good at doing things automatically, and every moron can do a lot of fixing and touch-ups in post-processing software.

Just look at how the shots here look, most of them surely haven't been done by very experienced pros who took a ton of time to create them on manual settings, and yet they turned out fine:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/ilce-6000/pool/
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2678261@N25/pool/

>>2737478
>Is the Canon 40D still a decent camera by today's standards?
I'm usually doing comparisons against new entry-level IL cameras like the Nikon D3200 or Sony A6000 or Pentax K-50 for that question, and the answer here would then be "no".

But that's before the $150 price tag. If that's essential to you, then it's not the worst *deal* despite being a not really very decent camera. Especially if they come with their kit lens.

>>2737482
Thanks for the input.

>>2737471
>$150 for any of the lenses you listed
Bullshit. Your listed lenses are all $200 and up.

>That's not low-end pricing, that's vintage / abandon ship - tier pricing
Wrong. Take a look at other manufacturer's kit lenses and they are all in the same price range of $100-150.

>If we go by that standard, most reviewers with standards shredded the EOS-M, and even more the M3 and M10 'cause they suck even more in comparison to the rest of the market than the original did
You seem confused. I was talking about lenses. Or do you think that bare camera bodies take pictures?

>But actually, the kit lenses (there's an A6000 kit with 16-50 and 70-200) are quite okay
>just "okay"
Point taken!

>People probably are unenthusiastic because you can actually get much better lenses anyways. The thing you can't really do on the EF-M mount
Adapting every EF and EF-S lens isn't adapting much better lenses? HUH???

>But that's literally why you'd want a bunch of good lenses to exist for your augmentation camera? It makes for a much better augmentation, and not just your cheap emergency backup camera that then produces so much worse pictures than your other camera would
The EOS M isn't an emergency backup camera at all, and there's no degradation in image quality compared to a DSLR. It's a portable camera I can travel with that takes pictures with DSLR level image quality. It's my main camera for certain travel (backpacking, or when the rest of my luggage is too bulky, or when I'm traveling light). The autofocus speed sucks, sure, but it is very accurate when it does find the focus. The battery life sucks, again granted, but there are cheap aftermarket batteries available. Just carry an extra. Compared to the a6000, it lacks focus peaking and doesn't have any way to zoom the live view display. That doesn't make it a bad camera that "takes so much worse pictures," though. It still has the same sensor as the Canon 60D, and the native lenses for it are sharp corner to corner.

>>2737478
it'll be fine, people took excellent pictures with the EOS 40D once upon a time. It'll be more pleasant to use than a new entry-level camera because it has proper controls.

>>2737471
>Low-end lenses
Sigma ART is not a low end line of lenses, friendo. The Sony FE 28mm f/2 lens is a $450 lens on Amazon.

>>2737480
Have Lightroom downloaded, never really used it before. Any place I can find good tutorials about how I should be using Lightroom?

>>2737514
lynda.com

>>2737486
> Bullshit. Your listed lenses are all $200 and up.
Bullshit. All of the Sigma Art (typo on one, 19mm) cost ~$150-160 shipped here, and they're nearly the same price on eBay (though shipping to here in Europe can cost more).

> Wrong. Take a look at other manufacturer's kit lenses and they are all in the same price range of $100-150.
All right, it could *also* be kit lens pricing.

> You seem confused. I was talking about lenses.
If "I heard nothing good about them" is an argument somehow, then I question how you ever end up with an EOS-M, sorry.

There's nothing to be confused about here.

> just "okay"
> Point taken!
EOS-M has a bad body with an average kit lens. You'd apparently call both of them good - I don't.

> Adapting every EF and EF-S lens isn't adapting much better lenses? HUH???
You were specifically trying to steer this to native lenses when it suited you. Now we're back to adapted lenses...?

And I already addressed this at the start, Sony has *much* better bodies for adapted EF lenses, if you're going to do that.

> and there's no degradation in image quality compared to a DSLR
To some older entry-level DSLR perhaps? It's really quite bad by today's standards.

>>2737502
>Sigma ART is not a low end line of lenses, friendo.
These are just $150-160, so you're wrong.

> The Sony FE 28mm f/2 lens is a $450 lens on Amazon.
It's ~$350 here now and some past gear thread had linkage to it being sold new for under $300.

Either way, irrelevant details - it's entry-level.

>>2737514
I think a lot of people learn with Youtube. Or even just by playing with sliders.

Make sure you shot RAW before you try to edit in LR, okay?

>>2737527
>here
Where are you, Andorra?

>>2737527
>It's really quite bad by today's standards.
In what way is it bad? You're going to need to start justifying these opinions of yours.

>>2737527
>Either way, irrelevant details - it's entry-level.
At $300 it costs more than my EOS M and kit lens combined. You're so full of shit your eyes are turning brown.

>>2737254

My bad. Forgot to specify. I usually shoot candids of my friends when we hang out, sometimes outdoors, sometimes when we go on trips. Also, I'd shoot some landscapes but it's not as often. Hoping for some fast glass.
>>2737256

What do you think of the Takumar?
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Takumar-50mm-F1.4.html
I'm not sure about what 85mm to get. Maybe something close to that focal length could work too.

>>2737548
Why don't you like autofocus?

>>2737547
> At $300 it costs more than my EOS M and kit lens combined.
It being entry-level or not just is not related to whether it costs more than your EOS-M or not.

> You're so full of shit your eyes are turning brown.
You redefined terms and then you add insults, congratulations, you won.

>>2737553
Can't afford it. Am poor. I'm just collecting lenses slowly.

>>2737548
Whoops, meant indoors, not outdoors.

>>2737557
All you have posted is unsupported opinions and made wild claims that Sony lenses are so much cheaper where you live so therefore that makes them the same as $100 lenses.

File: IMG_0756.jpg (609KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 1600x1200px

Canon Sx400

Cheap auto, but I can't afford anything better right now. I am just getting into photography and think i have a good eye for it but my current piece of shit is worse than my phone camera.

So sx400 for like $130, any better options?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot A495
Camera Software	Photos 1.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	1980:01:01 00:00:11
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/3.0
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/3.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.60 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1200
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2737565
> All you have posted is unsupported opinions
And so did you.

> made wild claims that Sony lenses are so much cheaper
Nope, I listed a bunch of low-end glass, namely the "28mm f/2, 18, 30 and especially 60mm f/2.8 Sigma Art, 50mm f/1.8, or 16mm f/2.8".

When prompted for the price, I gave "~$150-300 for most" as an answer. That's "approximately".

Here's the 16mm:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/695859-REG/Sony_SEL16F28_SEL16F28_16mm_f_2_8_Wide_Angle.html

Here's the 50mm:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1001008-REG/sony_sel50f18_b_50mm_f_1_8_lens_black.html

Here's one of the Sigma Art for just under $150:
http://www.missnumerique.com/sigma-art-30-mm-f-2-8-dn-noir-monture-sony-nex-objectif-photo-hybride-p-14333.html?pays=us

CBA to do all of them.

>>2737576
>And so did you.
Not at all! See: >>2737486, >>2737424 and >>2737392. I clearly explained why I think the EOS M is a worthy secondary camera. The native lenses are all high quality, it has two excellent native lenses that are both high quality and inexpensive, and the sensor is very good, even by today's standards (since it's the same sensor as the 60D has). You, on the other hand, have made the opposite claim, that the EOS M is a "bad camera." You haven't supported this claim at all.

>>2737576
>Here's the 16mm:
I've used this exact lens. It is what I was referring to, specifically, when I said that the EOS M has better native low end lenses than the Sony E-mount.

>Here's the 50mm:
$300 is a different class than the two EF-M lenses I have repeatedly referred to.
www.amazon.com/dp/B00CJZDL0K/

>Here's one of the Sigma Art for just under $150:
That is a good price if you're French. But then you have to be French, so it's really a lose-lose situation.

File: 61vxwZIGboL._SY400_.jpg (45KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x400px

Does anybody have any experience with accessory kits for the go pro from Amazon? There's so many options available for cheap I don't know which to get.

>>2737607
Why not just buy the accessories you need?

Also, Aliexpress and so on tends to be cheaper than Amazon, 'cause this stuff is mostly from China anyways.

>>2737618
I know what you mean but why not get something that already has everything you know?

File: image.jpg (509KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 2500x2500px

Hey guys, newbie here. I just bought a nikon D5300 with the basich 18-55 lens. I have never have had a DSLR but im really stokes about getting into photography. Any tips are obiously welcome

[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	2500
Image Height	2500
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2737625
Because it will just take up more space, because it can cost more than just getting what you need, because it will be crappy quality, because those bundles are for people who don't know better...

If you made up your mind I can't change it for you but it's really just a way for them to make more money by selling you useless things they can't get rid of because you want a couple of things. Just get what you need.

getting a prime for my a7ii; what would you consider from. AF is not an issue for me

>voigtlander nokton 50mm f1.5
>sony sonar 55mm f1.8
>zeiss loxia 50mm f/2.0

>>2737638

Experiment with your camera while learning about Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO.

Read your manual or google how to get everything set up so that accessing different settings becomes much faster for you. Like for example programming the "record" button to instead change ISO (so you won't have to take your eyes off the viewfinder ever time you want to change it), or changing the AF-L/AE-L button to be back-button focus.

File: N2020 f.jpg (197KB, 1600x986px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1600x986px

what does /p/ think of this camera? Will be pairing it with a 50mm 1.8 af.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	986

>bought a suny a5100 for $300
>shit so small
>can't fit my hand
>hate it

>>2737681

is that 50mm D or G? Not sure whether that body can AF with an ultrasonic motor lens

>>2737681
I wouldn't fuck with that body, unless you already own it or can get it for super cheap.
Otherwise there's no reason not to go with a later body with better AF. N90 is cheap and better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMBkm-zOANA ...

i'm a cheap bastard
what are some good/decent tripods for me

>>2737709
Anything from Walmart.

It's here, guys! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSb1f_15ev0

>>2737709
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003SQEAY0/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B003SQEAY0&linkCode=as2&tag=pixe05-20&linkId=3S5OBKRM4CJU5NMC

>>2737712
old news

>>2737709
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002821ESU/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B002821ESU&linkCode=as2&tag=pixe05-20&linkId=EAVORFHV3KN7HVUR

>>2737712
>4K
>Nikon

I cannot wait to see that red bar on the video meet green.

>Select all popcorn

>>2737625
It won't have everything anyways, and actually you don't need 90% of the possible GoPro mounts any more than you need 90% of the market's special tripod heads.

>>2737709
See >>2737038 if you want good rather than okay. It's still quite cheap.

I'm thinking of going MF for landscape and architecture.
The RZ67 seems nice, I see some people selling it as a "kit" on ebay with a film back, some kind of finder, and usually the 90mm f3.5
What's a good price? I see some for around 500 and some go up to 800. Is 500 around the normal asking price or should I wait for something better?

File: ss+(2016-01-06+at+08.45.35).png (288KB, 888x487px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 888x487px

>>2737734
I've seen a nigh-immaculate RB67 go for 200, with a bunch of goodies thrown in. Unsure how much the RZ model would deviate in terms of price though.

>>2737786
Then fuck it, it seems MF is expensive in my country, might as well just go FF digital.

>>2737789

Don't expect deals on ebay. Have you tried local listings?

>>2737791
Yeah, nothing good atm sadly.

>>2737734
>RZ67
basically medium format with all the size and convenience of large format and no movements

>>2737638
THROW IT AWAY AND PRE-ORDER A NIKON D500 WOOOOOOOO

>>2737799
If you needed that format with movements you could have gotten a Fuji GX680 for the same price

Do they sell mid - high end range DSLR cameras at your local retail stores like Best Buy? I want to buy a 6D, but only Canon cameras I ever see in every single Best Buy I've been to are Rebels and the occasional 70D. The Best Buy website says they'll have the 6D available in my local store on the 9th, but I'm skeptical because I've never seen one there before.

>>2737972
They sell D750s and 6Ds at mine. Can't remember if I saw D810/5D3 too, but possibly.

>>2737972
Why on earth would you buy an outdated camera when Canon is being outclassed in every corner of it's market? But you know what you want so go to a dedicated camera store or order one from B&H.

>>2737992
price, ergonomics, lens ecosystem, and color reproduction.

>>2738000
Yes, Canon is being outclassed in all of those. Hell, my Pentax has better color reproduction, has excellent lens, excellent ergonomics and unbeatable price. And it's not even the best in its class.

>>2738007
None of that is true.

Pentax has better color depth, on paper. In an actual photo, Canon sensors produce fantastic colors, that people with Sony sensors have trouble replicating. Pentax has SOME nice lenses, but they don't touch Canon's pro lenses. Many people hold Pentax cameras and find them to be much too small and light, whereas the size and weight of Canon fits a lot of people better.

Wow, never thought Canon users go into damage control so fast. It's been only a day since all their new cameras got outclassed.

>>2738012
>end minutes diving into menus
No, our cameras got outclassed years ago. For incance when the D3300 has a better sensor than a 5Dmk3.

But that doesn't mean that Canon has absolutely nothing going for it. The 24-70 f/2.8 mk2, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS mk2 still haven't been touched. The AF systems in the 1Dx and 7Dmk2 are still top shelf. The have the best low budget options for lenses, etc.

They're behind in their sensors. That's it. And even then, the colors you get from them are beautiful. If you haven't used both, you can't really understand it, but it goes against what you see on a chart. They don't push as far, and you can't do as much with them, but they look very very nice, right off the bat.

just bought a D610 for 700€ to use with my Tokina 19-35mm? did I do good?

which lens should I buy now? Was thinking a 50mm F1.8, a 24-70 F2.8 and a 85mm.

>>2738017
I kinda agree with you. I'm a nikon guy at the moment but my "family" is small so I could change at any point if I wanted to.
I'd be lying if I said I haven't thought about changing to canon.
Ergonomics wise, I like both nikon and canon.
Image quality wise, I like both of them. Nikon I feel gives me more room to play with but is always flat in the raw, canon feels a bit more saturated from the start and the noise ceiling is lower.
Build quality wise... it's weird, the canon bodies and lenses feels cheap even if I know they are sturdy, the nikon bodies feel and look more premium imo even though I know they don't necessarily offer more.
If you gave me one or other I wouldn't complain.

I tried a 70-200 from nikon and it was very nice, I don't feel it loses against the canon, but it might be the better sensor compensating for a worse lens and vice versa.

>>2738024
Well we don't know what you shoot, so it's hard to recommend anything.
All those three are good, I personally prefer a trio of primes over a zoom, but the 24-70 standard zoom is nice.

>>2738010
not that guy but i hated using my friends 7d when he asked me to take photos of this big presentation. it was bulky and awkward to me. it almost turned me off of the idea of getting a digital slr and trying out mirrorless cameras but i went with a pentax k-3 and its perfect. the grip is nice and deep but its not fat and its significantly lighter so you can hike with it and track birds handheld so much more comfortably. obviously everyone has different opinions on ergonomics but pentax has the best imo and the dials are better placed. plus that sweet 100mm 2.8 macro lens with weather sealing

>>2738010
>Pentax has better color depth, on paper. In an actual photo, Canon sensors produce fantastic colors, that people with Sony sensors have trouble replicating.
If you cannot show it "on paper" (which is the authoritative thing, not your feels), then you're probably wrong about this.
Sony beats Canon in terms of sensors, color reproduction. And also for the lenses that both systems have ("L" glass is pretty much always worse than the same glass one the E-mount... but it's arguably also generally worse than 3rd party Sigma Art or Zeiss is for Canon EF).

Canon even has retarded JPEG processing that makes photos more red rather than realistic, 'cause muh healthy-looking people.

>>2738064
>If you cannot show it "on paper" (which is the authoritative thing, not your feels), then you're probably wrong about this.
Sounds like a Sony fag, who prefers his charts to his results. Oh well, I'll keep reading anyway.
>Sony
baaahahaha

> And also for the lenses that both systems have
haha exactly.

>The 24-70 f/2.8 mk2, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS mk2 still haven't been touched.

>>2738039
I do landscape, car photography and street photography, I would also like to start taking some portraits.
I think i'll start with the 50mm and some 85mm.
Is the 50mm AF 1.4 worth 4 times the time the 1.8?

I have a Yashica TLR but don't enjoy shooting with it that much. Want to shoot some medium format sometimes. Thinking about the Pentax 67. What do you guys think? I would prefer cheap.

I mostly shoot street with 35mm, I guess this would be more for different stuff. Also I only ever shoot hand held.

File: IMG_1563ss.jpg (180KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1000x667px

>>2738010
>Pentax has better color depth, on paper. In an actual photo, Canon sensors produce fantastic colors, that people with Sony sensors have trouble replicating.
Yep. To my eye, my Canon produces better-looking colors than my Pentax. I don't know how else to explain it, but the Pentax images just can't touch it in terms of color rendition.
>Pentax has SOME nice lenses, but they don't touch Canon's pro lenses.
I have found the latter half of this statement to be untrue. Pentax's pro lenses are every bit as good as Canon's pro lenses. The problem is that they cost the same as or more than Canon's pro lenses, and while Pentax does have entry level lenses in the $100-400 range, they DON'T HAVE MANY mid range/high quality lenses to offer superior optics in a $500-$1000 lens.
>Many people hold Pentax cameras and find them to be much too small and light, whereas the size and weight of Canon fits a lot of people better.
I like the way a Canon fills my hand, but some people would say that the small size of the Pentax is an advantage. Canon has only recently broken into the pancake lens market. Pentax has been doing small and light for years, and you really don't sacrifice much with a K3 and 21mm pancake lens compared to a Canon and one of their pancakes.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Paint.NET v3.5.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2012:08:02 21:42:48
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	220.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2738069
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the 1.4, but I have used the 1.8 D and the G and I like both.
Landscape, the standard zoom will fit in nicely, I do recommend it for that.
I personally would buy the standard zoom first and use it for some time, then see what focal length am I using the most and go with that for my next lens.
That said the 50 is very cheap and on full frame it's the normal perspective lens, so it fits well for street, although it would be already covered by the standard zoom so you'd only gain in less weight, an extra stop, and (maybe) less chromatic aberration.

>>2738067
>Sounds like a Sony fag
You were the one who talked shit about Sony, Canonfag in denial

> who prefers his charts to his results.
Anon, the charts that you can see on various sources are real. Actual measurements beat your feelings about how things should be just to suit you, *every time*.

Sony takes technically better pictures on their sensors than most Canon cameras.

> haha exactly.
Well, laughing is good. It again doesn't change reality, Canon should really make some better lenses to replace their now often sub-par and yet still expensive high end "L" glass.

> The 24-70 f/2.8 mk2, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS mk2 still haven't been touched.
Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC & Sony 70-200 f/4 are beating / touching it just fine.

The 24-70 f/2.8 is pretty good, I guess.

Doesn't change anything about the general statement that Canon's glass is quite underwhelming in general, while also being much more expensive in most cases.

And it's worse for primes, which is what I'm mostly concerned about.

>>2738091
If you really think that Sony cameras take better pictures than Canon cameras based on sensor data alone, then try taking the lenses off and take your pictures with the bare body.

Anyone here use one of those filter adapter/holder things? Was looking into getting one now that I'm full frame, and I have 3 lenses that are all different thread sizes. I would need 2cpl and 3nd. But I'm doing the math, and those adapter systems are far more expensive when it is all said and done. The more I think about it, the less I care to invest in that. I only have 3 lenses, and I'm going to be buying 1-2 more, but otherwise, I'm not a gear whore and I Dont mind carrying a few extra accessories. Thoughts?

>>2738103
I don't know what kind of "filter adapter/holder thing" you're referring to, but a filter step-up ring is much cheaper than a new filter.

www.amazon.com/dp/B00N3N7LMQ/

I've used these and they are a life-saver when you get a lens with a new thread diameter. The main disadvantage is that you typically can't use a lens hood anymore with the big filter on the end.

>>2737597
Still no reply to this. The silence is louder than words.

>>2738098
That makes no sense. I mean, I even stated I *also* like the generally better lenses.

Anyhow, it's a sequence of lens AND sensor, if one or the other bottlenecks your shot's quality somehow, it's going to be visible.

> based on sensor data alone
Sample shots then?

APS-C from late 2014, Sony A6000 vs. the 2-3 times more expensive Canon 7D II:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/ilce-6000/pool/page7
vs
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2171704@N23/pool/page7

You can try other pages too, but regardless if you look at animals (washed out bird plumage vs gloriously neat goat hair), foliage or other plants, or anything else, the 7D II generally looks shittier for colors.

It's not just gut feels because we're talking about 13.1 EV vs 11.8 EV in terms of DR, one of the indicator numbers that would tell you how it is.

>>2738115
>bottlenecks your shot's quality

Just stop right there. You don't actually have a clue what you're talking about and further continuing this conversation will only embarrass you further.

>>2738117
Canon has been cucked out of the game. Just accept it.

File: 1395634089074.png (31KB, 750x816px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 750x816px

>>2738119
>could engage in rational debate using reason and evidence
>instead chooses to vomit memes onto his keyboard

Your posting style reminds me of another, equally annoying Sonyfag from earlier in the thread. >>2737527

>>2738117
This is very simple. Light goes from subject through lens to sensor.

If sensor can't record enough colors or pixels or whatever, you have a bottleneck for your image quality there, no matter how good your lens is, or how good your subject looks.

But you appear to be too stupid or too much in denial to understand that.

>>2737343
It's a scorpionfly. Can you not read the filename? Google it, nigger.

>>2738126
It's been going on for years and you're still in the denial phase? How sad.

>>2738126
Looks like there has practically only been evidence for Sony again.

And some nonsense summary dismissal and ad hominem bullshit and opinions that some Canonfag considers "evidence".

>>2738132
>>2738134
Not all Canon users are like this.

But at the point where you refuse scientific measurements and hard numbers and go "muh paper values are worthless", you're just ridiculously in denial.

And I confronted the other anon with flickr sized pools of sample pictures, too. You can easily see which has the better colors overall, the difference isn't exactly subtle.

File: olimpiada-pekin-2008-foto-31.jpg (191KB, 990x600px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 990x600px

>>2738128
>>If sensor can't record enough colors or pixels or whatever
>or whatever
>>2738117
>You don't actually have a clue what you're talking about

>>2738134
Pic unrelated, am I right?

>>2738135
>flickr sized pools of sample pictures
Wait, THAT'S what you considered to be your evidence?? I didn't realize you were serious. Let me laugh harder, then.

>>2738137
> or whatever
There is actually a lot more that could be bad on a sensor, yes.

>>2738137
> Pic unrelated, am I right?
Yes, it is unrelated. See that number in the file name?
> 2008

Never mind appeals to popularity also don't beat science.

Lastly, let's not forget that for sports, shit like this is what actually gets published:
http://www.bild.de/sport/startseite/sport/sport-home-15479124.bild.html

File: image.jpg (56KB, 570x380px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 570x380px

It's a good idea to begin in photography with an analogic camera? I mean, I will learn from the mistakes in the hard way

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	570
Image Height	380

>>2738167
>bild.de
Why do people keep linking this website? I've never gotten an article to open up properly without the Nazi message about "der Adblocken."

>>2738175
kek

>>2738139
Just me indulging the other anon who didn't want to discuss numbers.

But yea, it's actually direct evidence anyways, not of the scientific kind but the court kind of evidence.

With how hard you're in denial and how much you try to make this about my person instead, I don't really feel like indulging your trolling much further, though. It's plain to see for everyone who cares. And more scientific numbers also are out there.

>>2738175
It's just the most popular online newspaper in Germany.

>>2738172
I would say no. The DSLR was a breakthrough for every level of photographer because it allows you to take so many more pictures for so much less money, and with no delay and associated extra costs at the developer.

>>2738172
I don't think there is any benefit in that, no.

You'll just end up paying quite a lot for film, and feedback will be far less immediate.

To learn what settings were good and what were bad, you'd have to remember them or write them down. At least if you don't have a great memory (I don't).

Sure, you'll probably eventually get it anyways, but IMO you're just paying pointlessly for a learning experience you might not even have needed.

Besides, if you want good photos, "p" or full auto is fine in almost all daylight / speed light shooting cases on a modern MILC / DSLR.

>>2738182
Flickr albums are a valid way to see the capabilities of a lens because usually a lens' optical flaws will manifest, such as purple fringing, vignetting, blurry corners, and so forth. These collections of photos are not a good way, in fact they are a really bad way, to precisely measure a camera body's capabilities against another camera body.
>but dem highlights is all blowed out with the canons tho!
Do you really not understand the effect of individual exposure and processing skills? Really? You think you have a good case with this? Just checking in case this is some farcical comedy routine that I'm the brunt of.

The only evidence you have demonstrated so far is the "on paper" values for Sony sensors, and no real world tests using the actual scientific method. Since you seem to be allergic to reason, it may be that you don't view a camera body as anything but a sensor, but those of us who have been shooting for years know better than that.

One of the main reasons why pros choose Canon and Nikon over Sony is because Sony has problems offering a variety of desirable or good native lenses. Its funny to watch Sony fanbois scream about how their camera is so great, while they take most of their photos with adapted Canon lenses.

>>2738184
>>2738189
thank you so much guys

>>2738203
> Flickr albums are a valid way to see the capabilities of a lens because usually a lens' optical flaws will manifest, such as purple fringing, vignetting, blurry corners, and so forth.
And sensor color etc. performance too. There's nothing stopping you from that in most instances.

Only detailed sharpness may be hard 'cause the different lenses and people not shooting with tripods get in the way, a great number of what people use isn't sharp enough for comparisons.

> Do you really not understand the effect of individual exposure and processing skills?
Is the proposition that the Sony users are vastly better than the Canon users?

Or that you can't tell which photos have been exposed well enough to not be off by entire EVs?

No? Then it doesn't fucking matter, it's going to be the sensor that did the colors.

> Its funny to watch Sony fanbois scream about how their camera is so great, while they take most of their photos with adapted Canon lenses.
Most factually use native lenses, check EXIF, eh.

But if some sport or wildlife shooter needs his Canon EF mount super telezoom or whatever, that is no problem for me or with anything that was said.

File: image.jpg (47KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 400x600px

So...
Sony, Canon or Nikon?
Can't choose

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	400
Image Height	600

>>2738224
Not enough information.

What do you want to shoot / what lenses do you want to buy, what budget?

>>2738215
>And sensor color etc. performance too.
You mean the things that are most easily corrected in postprocessing? Right.

>Is the proposition that the Sony users are vastly better than the Canon users?
It could be argued that there are a lot more, and a broader range skill sets with Canon users, whereas most Sony users are hobbyists who know what they are doing, kind of like how Pentax users tend to know their way around their gear, inside and out.

>Or that you can't tell which photos have been exposed well enough to not be off by entire EVs?
>No? Then it doesn't fucking matter, it's going to be the sensor that did the colors.
Unless you are doing scientific tests, side-by-side where everything is identical with only different bodies, all of this can be chalked up to individual skills, postprocessing, and variations in the actual shooting conditions. Your claim is not a scientific one, but an emotional one.

>>2738224
Right now Nikon is the top dog. Sony is for chartfags.
Canon is literally bottom of the barrel. I'm really curious how Pentax will do with the FF, as things are looking right now they are going to be the prime competitor on DSLRs.

>>2738226
Street photography and i need lots of telephotos. What would you recommend?

>>2738229
I liked your answer.
So, in your opinion Sony is better than Canon?

>>2738224
Most manufacturers, at present, offer a good range of cameras for a range of people, from casual shapshot person to professional photographer. What level photographer are you? Do you ever intend to sell your work? Do you postprocess your photos in Photoshop or Lightroom and look at your photos on a computer screen in excruciating detail?

>>2738234
Eggles, that you?

>>2738227
>You mean the things that are most easily corrected in postprocessing? Right.
You can't easily add in the color shades that are missing, no.

> It could be argued that there are a lot more, and a broader range skill sets with Canon users, whereas most Sony users are hobbyists who know what they are doing, kind of like how Pentax users tend to know their way around their gear, inside and out.
Anon, the Canon is 2-3 times as expensive, it will be more likely them that are the hobbyists and pros. Mom and pop buy cheaper.

> Your claim is not a scientific one, but an emotional one.
Yes, because the other anon was dismissive about numbers before, and I indulged him on that level. [He clearly knew the numbers weren't good.]

If you want the science, look at the color measurements (Dynamic Range / Tonal Range / Color Sensitivity) here:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Sony-A6000___977_942

Large to huge differences at base ISO (good light), also very big differences a moment after the sensors get noisy.

>>2738234
Probably Nikon with Sigma lenses.

Maybe Pentax if you like pancakes for street and cheap TC options to go super telephoto.

>>2738238
Amateur. No man, just for love at art.
And yes, with Lightroom.
I just want to buy a new camera, a really good one to begin with this in a more serious way

>>2738235
Anything is better than Canon at the moment, and probably will be for a year or two.
I don't really like EVFs so I recommend Nikon. Get Sony if you want to use old manual glass though.

>>2738235
>>2738234
>>2738224
Here's my answer:

>Canon:
1. OK for casuals: The Rebel is kind of expensive and maybe too big for people coming from a point-and-shoot or iPhone.
2. Very good for enthusiasts: The 60D/70D and 7D/7DII are both well made cameras and there are a ton of excellent lenses available for good prices.
3. Ideal for professionals: Despite lagging (a little bit) behind Nikon for low light noise performance, Canon still has the best glass, which counts for more.

>Nikon
1. OK for casuals: Nikon tends to have very good and inexpensive bodies, but size will be a limitation for casuals.
2. Very good for enthusiasts: One of the big problems with Nikon is their weird AF compatibility with lower end lenses. Enthusiasts may be moving up from an entry level set up to a mid level body, and thus may end up with a bunch of lenses he can't use. Otherwise, great stuff.
3. Great for professionals: Excellent lens options and excellent bodies that have slightly better low light noise performance than Canon.

>Sony
1. Great for casuals: Sony's mirrorless cameras are small, sexy, and fit right in a purse, while at the same time producing image quality on par with something like the Canon 70D.
2. Good for enthusiasts: The sensor performance in all Sony cameras is quite good, but good lens availability, ergonomics, and usability features will bog down the enthusiast with mis-matched technology and annoyances, such as having to use manual lenses and having the camera lock up/lag in certain situations.
3. OK for professionals: It can be done, but not for all situations and the returns for the expense are pretty low.

>Pentax
1. OK for casuals: I'd put Pentax's desirability for casual photographers at about the same as Canon/Nikon.
2. Great for enthusiasts: Too many desirable features to list, affordably priced, and lots of excellent lenses.
3. OK for professionals: There are great lenses, but not enough. No full frame body option is the deal-breaker, though.

>>2738257
tl;dr, If you are a casual photographer: Sony is the way to go. If you are an enthusiast with no dreams of becoming a pro: Pentax will woo you the hardest, but Canon and Nikon are also excellent choices that will give you the option to move into professional capabilities with an upgrade at a later date.

>>2738257
>No full frame body option is the deal-breaker, though.
Not for long, pal

>>2738257
>Enthusiasts may be moving up from an entry level set up to a mid level body, and thus may end up with a bunch of lenses he can't use
I think you have things backwards there. There are no lenses that have AF on the entry-level D3000 and no AF on the amateur-enthusiast D7000 as far as I know.

>>2738264
They still have a lens problem, and, unless they upgrade their shutter and video capabilities from the K3, the camera would still be non-competitive. I'm just curious to see if they will do ANYTHING different with their FF body, or if it will just be a K3 frame with different internals.

>>2738267
Oops, yes I did get that backwards, then. Still a problem, though. A Canon user can use top of the line Canon glass on a low end body, but a Nikon user can't use top end Nikon glass on a low end body... that's fucked.

>>2738272
There are plenty of excellent FF lenses and there are some new digital FF lenses being released. Also I don't know what is problematic with the K-3 shutter and how is this relevant to the FF body? The FF is completely new design, very very different from the K-3 both externally and internally.

Currently have a 50mm and 10-20mm lens. My kit lens is broken, but I don't really mind.

Thinking of getting a 22mm, 28mm or 35mm. Is there any real reason to get a telephoto/zoom? They seem incredibly dumb to me for some reason.

>>2738235
In my opinion, yes.

>>2738257
> Canon still has the best glass, which counts for more.
This is true only for super telephoto (>=300mm).

For just about everything else, there are better alternatives and/or lenses that are only very marginally worse at half the cost.

>>2738276
>There are plenty of excellent FF lenses and there are some new digital FF lenses being released.
Plenty, but not as much as Canon or Nikon, especially in terms of the mid range part of the market, and especially in terms of lenses that were made for digital sensors. Film era lenses tend to have problems with edge sharpness and chromatic aberrations that weren't noticed as readily back then.
>Also I don't know what is problematic with the K-3 shutter and how is this relevant to the FF body?
How could you not think that the shutter performance would not matter if we're talking about pros adopting a camera? K3II: 8.3 fps. 7DII: 10 fps. 1Dx: 12 fps.
>The FF is completely new design, very very different from the K-3 both externally and internally.
Source where?

File: 1445141819801.gif (2MB, 340x191px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 340x191px

>>2738283
>better alternatives and/or lenses that are only very marginally worse
>better alternatives...that are worse
>better...worse

>>2738262
>>2738257
>Sony
>Not talking about their A-mount system which has more lenses and access to Minolta glass

>>2738289
>which has more lenses
I was referring to A and E mounts collectively A mount has more lenses than E mount, but not better options, collectively, than what Canikon has to offer. Both mounts have some great lenses, don't get me wrong. It's the system that I'm rating.
>and access to Minolta glass
I did mention this >>2738257
>mis-matched technology... such as having to use manual lenses

>>2738288
They can be better *alternatives* because they're only very marginally worse at half the cost..

Or they be both better and only half the cost.

>>2738291
No, I meant Minolt'as A-mount glass, before Sony the A-mount was used by Minolta's Maxxum line. Hell, The Japanese name for Maxxum was Alpha.

>Not knowing the A-mount existed before Sony
>Not knowing about Minolta Maxxum cameras

Is the X-Pro1 still worth getting? It's so cheapthese days, with the X-Pro2 just round the corner.

I like the look of Fujis lens lineup, and the camera styling desu.

>>2738335
Get it only if you dig the unique viewfinder.

Its IQ still holds up, but the AF is slow, the EVF is subpar, and by mirrorless standards it's huge as fuck.

i have aps-c camera

what is better for landscape photography, samyang/rokinon 12mm or the 16mm?

File: IMG_1866ss.jpg (107KB, 1000x647px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1000x647px

>>2738388
You know that you can take great landscape photos with normal and telephoto lenses too, right? See pic related (67 mm, APS-C equivalent) and >>2738075 (147 mm, APS-C equiv.), for example. Some of my best landscape photos have been taken in the 70 mm (APS-C eqiv.) range. I get a lot more mileage out of the 20-35 mm (APS-C equiv.) range for landscapes than I do from an ultra-wide like a 16mm or a 12 mm. That's not to say that ultra-wides have no use in landscape photography - the one landscape style that I really need them for is architecture, but not everybody likes to or has to photograph buildings. I do a lot of landscape photography, but 95% of the time, I only ever use my ultra-wides for close ups when macro is not called for.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Paint.NET v3.5.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2012:08:02 21:45:01
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2738294
Any suggestions? Looking to get a wider prime. Currently just have a 50mm.

>>2738436
>pic unrelated

>>2738462
>>pic unrelated
loled

>>2738436
your colors are ass, my man.

File: 1393097176789.jpg (6KB, 194x259px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 194x259px

>>2738462
>>2738465
Let's see some of your photos then, dipshit. Pic very related.

>>2738436
i know, i have a 18-55 (fuji xf). I want something a bit wider too though.

worth getting a a7II or a d6?

>>2738476
or a 4 hour anything goes session with a high class prostitute

>>2738475
Not knowing what else you have in your arsenal, I'd say to go with the 12mm, just to have something that wide, regardless of use.

>>2738478
>4 hours
Waste of time and money, tbqh

If going full frame mirrorless, what's the most sensible body choice on a budget (so A7R II is out)? Girlfriend wants a new workhorse to replace an aging 7D. She got the X100S earlier and has shot a bunch of work with it, but would like more resolution especially for studio stuff. Doesn't want a DSLR anymore.

She uses a 50mm like 99% of the time so is there such a thing as a nifty fifty for Sony?

>>2738287
Saw it at PhotoExpoPlus - it's a completely different body.

>>2738511
Don't just leave us hanging. Details, info or pictures?

>>2738494
Why rule out the original a7? Any full frame camera will give you the advantages of full frame, namely shallower depth of field and improved low light/high ISO noise performance.

>>2738525
I'm not sure why it should be. I mean, there's plenty around for cheap enough, and isn't the A7 II basically the same sensor?

File: 1382326667522.gif (2MB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x253px

I just found out the RX100 4 has built-in ND filter.

Does this thing brew coffee if you ask it to?

>>2738571
Sorry, I totally misread your question. I thought you were saying that you were looking for a mirrorless FF on a budget and were considering the A7R II. Brain fart on my part.

>>2738576
How does that work? Is it a partial frame ND filter for horizons that comes down from the top of the lens?

>>2738587
I don't know. I suspect it's a physical sliding mechanism that sit right in front of the sensor.
That's how it works with the built-in variable ND in the FS5.
I just don't know how they can make room for such a thing in the RX100.

Does anyone have any bag recommendations for an A6000 and 2-3 lenses? I just have the kit lens but I'll be adding the 55-210 and a 50mm prime. I'd like to keep things under $75.

>>2738598
If you didn't have the 50mm prime, I'd have recommended the 60mm Sigma Art f/2.8.

>>2738476
Generally speaking? Sure.

>tfw you were hoping the Fuji X70 would be a digital Natura with a 24mm f/1.9 equivalent lens
>It just has a boring f/2.8 28mm equivalent instead

>>2738604
Sony's 50mm is better than Sigma's 60mm though. Faster, more compact, and OSS.

>>2738494
> is there such a thing as a nifty fifty for Sony?
No. The popular thing on Sony seem to be the 55mm Sonnar T* and 50mm Loxia.

Actual nifty fifties aren't doing particularly good on 24-42MP cameras, though of course you *could* theoretically use them with an adapter... which would work easier on an A7 II.

>>2738610
There are advantages to the 50mm.

Then again, even with the drawbacks it has, the 60mm f/2.8 is a noticeably sharper lens, and about half the price. It's a trade-off.

Nikon fag here. What do, get modern glass or buy old school glass. Looking for for fast and sharp recommendations.

>>2738494
it's not like you have many choices. a7 can't focus worth a damn, a7s and sii are expensive and unsuitable for commercial work, a7R a shit, a7RII really expensive. a7ii has the ibis, proper controls, and updated AF at a good price.

>>2738619
For me, modern high-end glass.

Sigma is often what I'd recommend, but it depends on what you want to shoot.

>>2738621
> She [...] would like more resolution especially for studio stuff
I figure she could replace her 7D with an A6000, actually.

See, the other FF mirrorless generally don't have more resolution than the 24MP the A6000 has, except for the A7R II, which you ruled out, and the A7R.

A7 II is also fine, but I figure if you ask about a nifty fifty, you want to save some money? Have her try the A6000.

Better A6000 with nice glass than A7 II with a nifty fifty, as far as I'm concerned.

>>2738621
> a7s and sii are expensive and unsuitable for commercial work
I think they're suitable for commercial work, but they don't have higher resolution, and there is little point in using them especially in a studio.

They're low light specialists, but that's really a thing that doesn't need to happen in a studio.

>>2738621
Why's the A7R shit? Seems like the A7 II could be a good choice and it's not terribly expensive either.

File: sm_s2_zpsf7d3dbab[1].jpg (147KB, 700x315px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 700x315px

should i cop?

or go with a voigtlander or zeiss?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	587 dpi
Vertical Resolution	587 dpi
Image Created	2014:05:28 13:44:05
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	4.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	27.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	315
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2738627 (cont'd)
To clarify: The A6000 is an APS-C, not a FF camera.

There is however no reason I heard so far that would indicate that it couldn't provide the higher resolution or be a viable setup for your studio shots and more.

>>2738632
For what purpose?

>>2738633
want a 50mm prime for mostly casual outdoor portraits (already have a 25, 85), AF doesnt matter

>>2738630
shutter shock and CDAF only.

also I think only ii series cameras got the 14 bit RAW update? all first gen a7 and a6000 are 12-bit only?

>>2738627
right, any camera's suitable for work, but the a7s would be limited in regards to delivering for print media.

>>2738619
take your pick m8. any D series prime longer than 35mm still has optics that hold up to today's lenses, except the 180. autofocus even happens to be faster for the 50 1.8/1.4 D than the Gs. certain AIs lenses are damn good, like the 28/2.8 with CRC. in fact, a lot of the wide angles in the AF and AF-D era had worse designs than their AIs cousins. zooms aged faster, modern is better here.

the 50/1.8D is a very well designed lens that continues to satisfy even on 36MP bodies, and that's before you consider the price.

>>2738634
Figures that Mitakon 50mm will do good if you are happy with MF. An even cheaper Rokinon / Samyang might just be fine too.

Granted, a Zeiss or Sigma can be sharper (or other Zeiss / Voightlander more compact), but they might not be worth it for casual portraits.

>>2738633
We tried the a6000 once at a camera store, she didn't really like the feel and usability. Also besides more megapixels than X100S/7D, the better low light capabilities and thin depth of field stuff that's easier to achieve with full frame is something she wants.

I should add that she uses manual focus a lot on the X100S, so AF speed/accuracy isn't THAT important. Although the not-that-impressive AF on the X100S might be a reason...

Also thanks for all the advice! I think I'll take her to the camera store nearby to try the A7 II.

File: 71KGTpZLeaL._SL1200_.jpg (143KB, 1177x1200px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1177x1200px

I've been looking at the Song a7 line of cameras in the past week, and frankly, I can't figure out the appeal.

First, I get it, the a7 is a full frame body in a very portable package and the price isn't astronomical. You can get an a7 classic, used for a little under a thousand dollars, which is competitive with the Canon 5Dii and 6D, and the a7 is much smaller than the Canons, which is a major advantage in certain situations (though not all, since ergos go out the window at this size).

Ok, I thought. It seems competitive and it offers something that other FF cameras don't. Let's look further... So I looked at the lenses, imagining that I owned one of these cameras. Want a fast, normal prime? $1000. Want a fast, constant aperture standard zoom? That'll be $1100, and it's only f/4. Want a telephoto lens that's not a superzoom? $1500 (oh, and the superzoom is $1000). Want a fast, wide angle prime? Ok, this is the one area where where you actually have options, probably due to the overlap with crop E-mount users. The cheapest of these lenses goes for $500, with two others priced at $800 and $1600, respectively. Other than that, you've got a $1400 constant aperture wide angle zoom, a $500 slow, variable aperture standard zoom (only $300 when bundled with the body), and a 90mm macro that's probably pretty good but is priced at $1100.

What the hell is Sony thinking here? With only three lenses priced under $1000, they are practically forcing their users to adapt lenses from other systems or from the A-mount system, which destroys the size savings of mirrorless. And they already have like 6 versions of the a7 body out by now?? Absolutely bonkers. To make a direct comparison, the legendary Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro only retails for $900, and Canon's 24-70mm f/4 zoom, likewise, sells for at least $200 less. Pentax's new 100mm f/2.8 macro only sells for $360 and it's weather-sealed, which the Sony is not. Where are the reasonably priced options for FE mount??

>>2738642
>right, any camera's suitable for work, but the a7s would be limited in regards to delivering for print media.
Prints with an area of ~500cm^2 at ~300DPI or should be realistic enough for the 8MP effective resolution you might get. That's still a 27 × 20cm poster.

And you much more rarely will have trouble with poor lighting or massive resolution loss due to noise reduction.

It's probably a camera that is irrelevant to the other anon - but I think it could be a surprisingly nice choice for photojournalists and so on, even with "just" CDAF and a 12MP sensor.

>>2738646
>she didn't really like the feel and usability.
The feel is one thing I like much better about an A7 II.

The usability... isn't really terribly different, as far as I'm concerned.

> the better low light capabilities
Never mind that this seems unnecessary for studio use: One t-stop difference for FF isn't *that* much after you already have ~5 stops that you can adjust okay on ISO settings (up to ~3200 is okay on that camera to me), and more on the lens.

If you want much in the ways of low light, you might just want to get an A7S. That one is ~6 stops extra over the A6000.

> and thin depth of field stuff that's easier to achieve with full frame is something she wants.
If you want that too, you could stick a focal reducer "speed booster" on the A6000, but then you mostly use adapted EF glass (Sigma Art 50mm?).

Well, I guess the A7 II is the more elegant option...

>>2738652
> and it's only f/4
Canon's and Nikon's comparable f/4 basically cost as much, too?

> To make a direct comparison, the legendary Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro only retails for $900
That legendary Canon 100mm is actually quite a bit worse than the 932 swiss francs = $930 (current retail price here, not $1100) 90mm FE, so that is not a problem?

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-90mm-F28-Macro-G-OSS-on-Sony-A7R-versus-EF100mm-f-2.8L-Macro-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1517_917_346_1009

> What the hell is Sony thinking here?
We have ~the same pricing as the competition, but not entirely always as expensive as Canon?

We have lenses adequate for our high resolution cameras?

Maybe also a bit of regional marketing, capitalism, ho!

>>2738652
It's the perfect camera for gear fetishists who want the latest and greatest all the time. It's full frame, it's mirrorless, it has lots of pixels and dynamic ranges and ISOs and numbers, it has lenses with good DXO scores, it becomes obsolete and gets replaced with a new one every few months. Whether or not it's a very good camera and how suitable the camera and lens ecosystem as a whole is for most people is a different matter.

>>2738622
>>2738642
Thanks for the info

>>2738659
You're dumb. No, seriously. I laid this out very clearly in my post.

No, they're not the same as the competition. Even Canon's DIRECTLY COMPARABLE lenses are $200 less expensive, but more significant is the fact that there are only three FE mount lenses that cost less than $1000. Still don't get it? People are not going to always want to get the top of the line $1500 lenses for a focal length range when there are excellent native alternatives costing $200-500, as there are with Canon, Nikon, and Pentax. Just as an example, the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens is incredibly sharp on a full frame, even wide open, yet it only costs $150. Where are comparable FE lenses to this?

who wants to buy a broke uni student a tripod?

Just bought a Mamiya M645 body for $50CDN ($35 US). Came with a 120 insert. No viewfinder or lens though. How did I do?

>>2738673
Why is the value of your currency unit so low? We were at parity like 2 years ago.

>>2738670
Go to KEH and buy an old heavy rock solid high end Manfrotto for dirt cheap because everyone these days is a weak pussy who wants a lightweight carbon fiber tripod instead.

>>2738674
Oil based economy, oil price dropped, US economy bounced back from the 2008 recession. It was around the same as it is now prior to the recession you boys went through.

>>2738667
> No, they're not the same as the competition. Even Canon's DIRECTLY COMPARABLE lenses are $200 less expensive.
On the 70-200 f/4? The missing tripod collar is almost the entire difference already:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/478561-REG/Canon_1694B001_Tripod_Mount_Ring_A_2.html

I also did the 90mm FE before and still suggest it's a great deal at its ~equal price.

I'm sure you can find lenses that are very unequal, but you can do that for Nikon and Pentax and whatever too.

> but more significant is the fact that there are only three FE mount lenses that cost less than $1000
I see 15 in a single shop over here (we seem to have lower prices for many lenses, though), and 26 on B&H. Certainly, most are MF lenses, but still.

> when there are excellent native alternatives costing $200-500
They are not usually excellent on 42MP or even 24MP sensors. That's may be one of the problems here.

> Just as an example, the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens is incredibly sharp on a full frame, even wide open, yet it only costs $150. Where are comparable FE lenses to this?
Bargain lenses? There are not many. The 28mm f/2 is the closest thing there is.

Arguably, the thing I'm actually hoping for is Sigma's lineup - not Canon's. They're responsible for most great deals on the EF mount, as far as I'm concerned.

Though I or you were too bothered, we could easily just adapt EF lenses on an A7R II or A7 II for now...

>>2738677
Yep, you're dumb. Thanks for clearing that up.

>>2738677
>> but more significant is the fact that there are only three FE mount lenses that cost less than $1000
>I see 15 in a single shop over here (we seem to have lower prices for many lenses, though), and 26 on B&H. Certainly, most are MF lenses, but still.
Now you're deliberately lying. There is no way a person could misunderstand "FE mount lenses that cost less than $1000" and take that to mean some old as fuck Minolta or Super Takumar MF piece of shit that needs an adapter to fit the mount.
>FE mount
What the fuck is there to not understand?

>> when there are excellent native alternatives costing $200-500
>They are not usually excellent on 42MP or even 24MP sensors. That's may be one of the problems here.
Given your severe communication difficulties, I strongly doubt that you do any kind of photography where the pixel level detail in 42 MP photos is of any critical importance.

need a cheap tripod for the occasional landscape or astro shots. the ability to do macro work is a plus. are any of these decent enough. dont want to waste my money on cheap crap but le happy merchant is my spirit animal and im a cheap bastard so i cant rationalize spending over 100 bucks


http://www.amazon.com/Dolica-GX600B200-Proline-60-Inch-Aluminum/dp/B004XC3GWU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1452155213&sr=8-2&keywords=Dolica

http://www.adorama.com/DOZX600B103.html

http://www.amazon.com/Ravelli-APGL4-Professional-Tripod-Adjustable/dp/B003SQEAY0/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

>>2738685
> Now you're deliberately lying.
Go to fucking B&H, filter for "E-mount (full-frame)" mirrorless lenses, sort by price. 26 results.

They do not have entirely all lenses that exist in that store, either.

> What the fuck is there to not understand?
That is what I ask myself, too. Was it so hard to check?

> Given your severe communication difficulties, I strongly doubt that you do any kind of photography where the pixel level detail in 42 MP photos is of any critical importance.
Just let it all out, anon.

But yea, I myself am generally actually at the 24MP end (because that's what I own), not 42MP. Still, you already need a very good lens there to even just get 16MP or something like that off that 24MP sensor.

Of which not so much remains after cropping and maybe noise reduction.

I sure wished pixel-level detail was possible to record exactly for convenience's sake, but it's not.

>>2738695
I don't know any of the tripods you listed, sorry.

My suggestion usually is the Dic&Mic E302, sold on Aliexpress. The Alu variant is ~$90 with shipping.

> the ability to do macro work is a plus
Perhaps most simple would just be to put a macro slider on top of your tripod head. They are $8 or something in China.

>>2738699
That cheap 53 dollar Dolica tripod should be just as good as the Dic and Mic you are suggesting. The ballheads have the same design.

>>2738699
i figured they couldnt be too bad considering theyre all rated pretty well for the price, tho you have to consider the people rating them and what theyre using them for will be different than someone more serious about photography than someone buying a 50-100 dollar tripod

File: 90123789234.jpg (35KB, 401x303px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 401x303px

>>2738696
Are you dyslexic? You're dyslexic, right? Please tell me there's a reason you keep reading the same English sentence and understanding it in an imaginative, non-literal way that only you can see. The vast majority of those lenses ARE NOT made by Sony. There's still just the three FE lenses under $1000. You're so fucking dumb you can't even understand the topic of the conversation. Or maybe you're just doing it to piss me off, because it's working.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	480
Image Height	499

>>2738701
Neither the legs nor the ball head look quite the same, but beyond them being different models both, that tells me pretty much nothing.

>>2738703
Hm, the bad ones on the $50 dolcia are suspicious (with quite many breakages), but I couldn't tell you what to do.

>>2738704
> There's still just the three FE lenses under $1000.
You must be literally retarded, I even explained how to list FE lenses on B&H.

FE = "Full-frame E-mount".

> The vast majority of those lenses ARE NOT made by Sony.
Utterly irrelevant, they're still native "FE mount" lenses (your wording, >>2738667).

They are also specifically not requiring an adapter or anything.

> Are you dyslexic? You're dyslexic, right?
Proceed with letting it all out, anon. It's clearly not you.

>>2738714
>your wording
>>2738652
>What the hell is Sony thinking here? With only three lenses priced under $1000
This wording? I was very clearly talking about Sony lenses. Dumb fuck.

>>2738521
dpreview.com

>>2738719
>>2738521
Oh and the Pentax teaser site here:
http://www.pentax.com/en/pentaxff/

>>2738717
>This wording? I was very clearly talking about Sony lenses. Dumb fuck.
No, the wording where you said "FE mount".

You know, the one I actually quoted and responded to.

But even this:
> What the hell is Sony thinking here? With only three lenses priced under $1000, they are practically forcing their users to adapt lenses from other systems or from the A-mount system, which destroys the size savings of mirrorless.
Is obviously completely something you can respond to with "there are more fucking FE lenses, even if they're by Zeiss, Rokinon, etc., you can use them just fine before you adapt other lenses".

Hell, if you had wanted to discuss only Sony's lenses only anyways, you wouldn't have responded with:
> Now you're deliberately lying. There is no way a person could misunderstand "FE mount lenses that cost less than $1000" and take that to mean some old as fuck Minolta or Super Takumar MF piece of shit that needs an adapter to fit the mount. (>>2738685)

>>2738727
Just stop posting. You're not right, and no amount of pedantic whining can make you right.

>>2738521
It actually looks goddamn sexy, styled after the Pentax 67. The few sample photos they published also suggests it will be a serious pro body.
2016 will be the year Canon is kill.

>>2738436
soft as butter and horrendous blue/green shadows.

>>2738593
>>2738587
sony recently put out a patent for a variable ND based on an electrically darkening layer in front of the sensor. it's hot stuff.

>>2738604
I don't have the 50mm yet. I was leaning toward it primarily because of OSS. Is the 60mm Sigma a better bang for your buck choice?