If you have questions about a new camera, what lenses to buy and anything related to gear or wondering about getting into photography, post it in this thread.
Do not attempt to make a new thread for your new Rabal, broken glass and being new. You have been warned!
I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!
And don't forget, be polite!
Previous thread: >>2760748
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
Got me the Sigma 18-35mm. She beautiful, but has some trouble with back focusing, especially on 1pt focus.
Now I got the calibration cap, and you can hone focus, but because you can't see the effects until you re-attach the lens it's going to take a whole lot of fucking time, going through every focal length.
Does anyone have a map of what they've calibrated it at to save me some time?
Got a 750D
So should I be getting used to moving my autofocus sensor around or should I recompose and shoot?
I take it both are valid, and one might be more useful in time intensive situations, which would be best to get the hang of first?
Got an X-T10 and the XF35mm f1.4. It's a beautiful lens, but the autofocus is a bit too slow for my use. Also feel like I would like to go wider. So I've been thinking about selling it and getting the f2 later when they pop up on the used market.
I can only really afford to own one lens at the moment, so which makes the most sense, 14mm, 16mm or the 18mm? Or even the pancake? I've read that the 18mm is a bit of a letdown, and I might get a GR later on which would cover that focal length.
Whichever you prefer. The earlier is good for multiple shots, the latter good for quickly getting one-two shots.
If you have enough resolution / a wide enough lens, you also can just crop in post.
I'm using a T3i right now, with a Sigma 35mm 1.4 lens. (I also have the stock lens, and a 50mm 1.8)
As I've gotten much better at photography, I kind of want something else now, but I'm not sure what.
-Ricoh GR (Looks sick)
-A New Lens
-A Speedlite (Never tried flash photography before)
Mainly I use my camera for martial arts pictures.
I'd get one of those tempered glass protectors if you really think you need one. The plastic film ones suck, as do the snap-on hard plastic ones, but I've had the glass ones on a few cameras and they do a great job of protecting from scratches without making it impossible to see your LCD.
>The Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 is a great option.
Out of my budget. I wasn't planning buying a lens right now, but since the 18-55 kit lens broke I have to. I need something more universal than a prime lens. Is it correct, that lenses from other manufacturers than Nikon are not supported by the camera's compensation and therefore perform worse?
The Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 is an excellent full frame *prime* lens.
The Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 is an APS-C *zoom* lens (covers 18 to 35mm).
They both actually have a fairly comparable price here.
YN-568EX II: ~$90, no wireless flash support and older controls, slightly weaker, less narrow maximum zoom (less zoom levels)
YN600EX-RT: ~$120, differences are the obvious ones vs above. The zoom level difference is quite significant for longer distance shooting, and I suspect so is the wireless functionality if you use it. The rest, perhaps not so much.
Shitty filters cause a lot of distortions, aberrations and ungly flares. Your best bet is to get a top shelf one, but I would advise against a UV filter. It is useless on digital and causes more problems then what it solves.
It makes sense if you look at the overall resolution you get in the end. Also often helps to simply get a decent people shot with some details.
Using this as an argument against Sony seems odd? Sony features some of the best high-end glass of all brands.
The typical complaint is about absence of cheap glass for APS-C.
I guess I also saw some nonsense about *Sony* lenses here, but no one can get more perfectly workable high-end glass for their body than A7 II / A7R II users, even if it's clearly not all made by Sony but also by Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, Canon, Minolta and many more.
Hope you have some fun with it.
Is the Nikon D3300 a good camera for a beginner?
If not, what would you say is the best camera under $400 for complete newbs?
I have Nikon DSLR d3100
I LOVE macro photography but also photography with (I think aperture?) Like focus and blurry backgrounds..
What lenses should I buy, I really want one, but never knew where to start
What's the point of using back button focus instead of just pushing the shutter button down halfway? From what I've been reading it's supposed to make the process a little faster, but I'm not really noticing a difference yet.
Because you separate focus from shutter. With a camera with a correctly positioned AF-ON button, this is very natural. It lets you effectively choose between AF-S and AF-C (oneshot/servo) simply by pressing the button once or holding it. It also makes it easier to focus and recompose.
Have anyone there used Samyang 16mm f/2? I'd love to buy proper lens for lanscape shots/night sky, this one is kinda cheap and f/2 sounds really great - especially for the night sky. I never used full manual lens before, but i don't think it'll be too much of a problem since i'm thinking about landscape photos - it probably won't require fast reaction, so i guess i can be clumsy at beginning without losing anything important.
f/2 and f/2.8 are not that different and it is wide enough for a bit longer exposure without trailing. Plus for nightscapes you want sharp pinpoint highlights through the whole image.
The 16/2 might be an excellent lens for landscape but the 14/2.8 is generally used for starscapes and nightscapes by pros and for a good reason. The 14 has smaller aberrations than the much more expensive high brand equivalent lenses.
Just look at the MTF chart, the resolution is crazy high.
Just to be sure, look for example shots on Flickr.
Alright, thanks for your advice. I guess i really have to reconsider it, especially since i can get used 14mm way cheaper than new 16mm, and i fail to find any used 16mm (which is a bad sign i guess, it's unpopular).
One guy in this video states specifically why to choose the Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 and how to use it to control noise, also how to do nightscape photography.
Might be worthy to check it out
For my starter camera, I'm buying a Panasonic G7 (since I also like video) and I was wondering what lens (or lenses) would you guys recommend?
I like portraits and street photography when it comes to stills. I'm willing to spend $200-$300 on a single lens.
I'm pretty sure A7 users mostly shoot their own pets or the back of chairs and rarely go outside of their home.
Concert shooters mostly use Nikons and Canons, and some rare cases Pentax.
You want the OVF of a DSLR for the low light environment of a concert, EVF has too much lag to catch the right moments.
>needing to change the battery on a photoshoot
>changing battery in the dark
Holy shit you A7 users have it hard. I never had to change the battery on a photoshoot, in fact I usually do 2-3 shoots on a single battery. Over the course of a month.
Okay, I don't do more than a couple hundred shots per event, but still, that sucks man.
It's my second body, I don't use it for mission critical shit. It takes really great photos at high ISO but the battery life is really not there to use it full time for professional work, at least not in my line of work. I bought it before I was photographing for money and I never had a problem with the battery life, but now that I'm taking 400-600 shots a night it only gets used sparingly
18-55mm is a good 'only lens' its fast and not as loud at focusing compared to the 35 too. Used ones come up pretty cheap especially if you get it in combo with an x-e1 or w/e. Its pretty sharp and the OIS compensates for the not as big aperture in low light as well
The image quality is stellar but I don't want to be taking myself out of the action to change batteries on a reasonably regular basis. I use a 5Dm3 for the majority of my pro work and battery life doesn't even cross my mind once.
The Sony has good image quality but it can't be relied upon when I need it. At the end of the day my client doesn't notice the low-light image quality, they notice that I got the shot in the first place. If I can't trust a piece of gear it doesn't belong in my kit
battery life - fine for consumers, not fine for working professionals
It can't replace every Nikon and Canon yet. For instance, the speedlights aren't quite as good yet.
Also, switching over a pro speedlight setup or replacing a professional set of Nikon lenses or whatever even when it's possible is very expensive - most professional photographers are not really rich enough that that wouldn't hurt. And most customers don't care, pro Nikon or Canon is good enough.
You might like the Sigma 105mm f/2.8's overall deal.
The best for very serious shooters might be the the 200mm f/4D IF-ED. Longer lens lets you more easily use bigger lighting options and gains you some DoF.
> The image quality is stellar but I don't want to be taking myself out of the action to change batteries on a reasonably regular basis
That regular basis is every 400+ shots. And you know about when it will fail in advance, with the battery indicator.
Basically, you're just opting for laziness on this end which doesn't even save much work. A little convenience for you, but no problem for "professionals" in general by any means.
the 40mm nikkor DX micro (or whatever its called). Shot working distance at minimum focus distance, but it is sharp and have nice bokeh. Doubles as a nearly fast normal prime lens.
I like mine.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D300S Camera Software GIMP 2.8.16 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.9 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 5104 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 60 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:09 16:56:23 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 1600 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Cloudy Weather Flash No Flash Focal Length 40.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 664 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 1600 Image Quality RAW White Balance CLOUDY Focus Mode AF-C Flash Compensation 0.0 EV ISO Speed Requested 1600 Flash Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV AE Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV Lens Type Nikon D Series Lens Range 40.0 mm; f/2.8 Shooting/Bracketing Mode Single Frame/Off Noise Reduction OFF Camera Actuations 74307
A CPL does the trick for most people's needs (they're generally 2-3 stops of light reduction).
I don't mind the decent variables. The IQ reduction isn't great enough in most cases for it to be worth the bother of carrying multiple density NDs.
Square versus circular to me mainly depends on your shooting style. If you're going from tripod/not really moving around that much, square/rectangular is preferable to me.
All of that said, get the largest of the best quality that you can afford (think 77mm, which'll be around $100 at the top end), then use stepper rings to adapt to all of your smaller diameter lenses. You'll have some vignetting to deal with, but with the thin filters like the Hoya HD series, you'll minimize that.
Oh, a benefit to square filters is that you don't have to have a hard edged grad, you can slide the fitler up and down to put the grad where you want it. This is also a general benefit to them -- the transition isn't stuck in the middle of the lens.
how's autofocus? especially for moving subjects. I shoot bands, usually punk bands with lower lighting. I'm getting more into DJs
I want an A7S so I can shoot video mainly, but I would love to have it as a primary camera so I can hit video and photo at the same time the same way I do with my 5DM2
what lenses do you typically use? I want to get an adapter and do canon lenses but I'm not sure how well they work in the live setting. I want to make a total switch to mirrorless eventually but I'm having a lot of trouble making deciding factors. I need to rent one or something.
It is a bad example, literally a handhold snapshit. I just grabbed it a random image, cause I think you should post your photographs on the photography board.
Look up more picture if you want to know more about the lens, or just carry on if you're only here to "shitpost".
I wanna buy a camera to start learning photography.
I've seen many used Nikons that seem decenton craigslist, like a Nikon D3300 (375$ with 18-55 lens), a Nikon D40x (100$ body only), a Nikon D70 (100$ with 18-70 lens) and a Nikon D2X (300$ body only).
Which one of these would you say is the best deal? I'm asking you because I'm a complete newb, and the price ranges are pretty wide.
Save your money for now and learn with your phone. After you learn enough about it and photography to know what you in particular need in a camera, you'll know enough to make your own decision about what camera system to buy into (and you'll also learn how little camera matters in the photographic process). Add into that, if you slow your roll about buying one, you can find a lot better deals when someone who bought a camera because they wanted to learn and took like 500 shots then stuck it in the closet and now needs money goes to sell it.
I want to get into photography, my university give us a bursary of money that can be spent in a specific shop that sells laptops tablets cameras etc so i bought a Canon 750D EOS DSLR Camera, anyone any experience with this and any guides that personally helped you that you could recommend cheers boyo's
is the RX100 worth buying ?
I'm new to photography , so i first wanted to buy the Canon 1200 D , bcause thats what lot of youtube movies says , its a good entry level camera.
But I travel , a lot ! and i dont want such a big thing in my backbag ...bcause big and its weight ofcourse .
so i was looking a bit , and found this rx100 of sony .. some sited says its lot better then the 1200D and its even little cheaper if you buy it new
so , anyone experience with this ?
would you recomand another camera
->i will be shooting a lot of landscapes
The D300 is the best of that batch. If you can find a 35mm 1.8 I'd get that, otherwise a 50 1.8 would be a decent bet.
I'd see if you can find a D90 with its kit lens, though. It should cost about the same, has decent features and build quality unlike the D3300, and the sensor isn't prehistoric like the D2X and D70.
If you're brand new to photography, though, I might suggest getting an RX100 instead, I think the first versions are down below $400 online now, and it's a capable and versatile enough camera to let you figure out what you want to do with it.
>some sited says its lot better then the 1200D and its even little cheaper
camera itself? it probably is, 1200d have rather bad sensor (let's be frank there, most canons do, and i'm saying it as a canon user). But DSLR have enormous advantage over p&s, this is interchangable lenses. RX100 is definitely a good camera and it'll probably do its job as travel companion flawlessly, but if you want to really get into photography, you may want to buy this 1200d (or better, used higher-tier Canon or even one of those new nikons with GREAT sensors).
tl;dr - rx100 is good idea for travel, but "real dslr" is better for nerdic aspects of photography. Only question is, are you 'nerd'?
no, no, scratch that. I just checked and i was wrong, RX100 does have rather small sensor. It actually may be worse than 1200d, at least in terms of noise. Still, if you just want to shoot photos and you really care about "portability", rx100 may be something to consider.
I was in exactly the same boat as you about 8 months ago.
I bought mine for personal video projects, but thought it silly not to get acquainted with it for its intended purpose.
Here's some advice i feel qualified to give:
1. It's a bit bulk to carry around everywhere, so devote a day at least once a week to go outside and take some pictures of things that interest you.
2. Acquaint yourself with the function and purpose of ISO, F-number, shutter speed and focal length.
2. Throw that 18-55mm kit lens in the trash and buy something else. The 40mm is great and quite cheap. ~£100
3. Get to grips with the menu screens, and all the buttons and dials. Know exactly what each one of these does and when you should use them.
4. Using Manual mode with improve your photography considerably faster than any other mode. Though, if you see a shot and you know you're M settings are all wrong, flip it to P.
5. Limit the amount of pictures you take. Think about how each shot is composed, what your subjects are, what it could represent and what it could be saying.
6. Have at least 2 batteries. Get a 32 or 64gb memory card that can transfer ~90mbps.
7. Stay away from using the highest ISO.
8. Don't use live-view if you're shooting street.
9. Be selective of what you show to the world. That picture of that dude where you missed focus, or that picture of that cool car...maybe just delete that.
10. Have fun. Keep shooting, and constantly strive to improve.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 750D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:05 18:17:13 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/7.1 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 32.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1132 Image Height 753 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>Throw that 18-55mm kit lens in the trash and buy something else
not really. i had a 50 1.8 and a 55-300 and needed a wider zoom lens so i bought the 18-55 WR kit lens. cheap and filed a hole i had. better to play around with different focal lengths until you find one you prefer than to pigeonhole yourself early on
>7. Stay away from using the highest ISO.
Let me add something there - my biggest mistake was doing the opposite thing, saving on sensor sensitivity as much as possible, in result more than possible. My first photos were often blurry because i started from full manual (to fully understand how everything works) and i was setting slow shutter to compensate for insensitive sensor.
So, i guess it's worth to add that beginner should avoid shooting from hand with shutter speed slower than 1/(used focal length).
This is fact. 18-55 kit lens is alright for beginners, especially for landscapes where it's not even that oh-so-bad (still bad though).
I think one should buy a new lens only after realizing that there is a need to do it.
I guess i knooooow, i also like it very much. Then you may want 1200d, shooting stars is kinda 'nerdy' thing since it requires a lot of technical work to look good. This picture is my old photo taken with 350d and crappiest kit lens available, and this camera is waaay older than 1200d. I doubt rx100 would be able to shoot stars as well as (even old and cheap) DSLR with a 'proper' sensor.
Sensor, um, catches light. Bigger sensor (or rather, pixel size on the sensor), more light every "pixel" can grasp, less noise in result. So, bigger sensor and less megapixels = better low-light performance.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL Camera Software Shotwell 0.20.2 Lens Size 18.00 - 55.00 mm Firmware Version Firmware 1.0.3 Owner Name unknown Serial Number 1230772069 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Left-Hand, Bottom Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 30 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/3.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 3450 Image Height 2102 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative Sharpness Normal Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Large Focus Mode Manual Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 288 Camera Actuations 957022252 Color Matrix 0
I've been told that DSLRs are really unnecessary if you don't care about moving picture and that you can get a Fuji / Sony mirrorless for a lot cheaper and it will have better picture quality. Basically just Nikon and Canon marketing the fuck out of DSLRs.
Agree or disagree, /p/? Can I get a quality mirrorless for $500 or less that will rival the $1k DSLRs in still image quality?
1) Mirrorless isn't really cheaper than a DSLR.
2) You can get a $500 dslr that will rival $1k DSLR's (or $1k mirrorless) in image quality.
3) You can also get a $500 mirrorless that will rival a $1k mirrorless in image quality.
Ultimately, image quality has nothing to do with a mirror or lack thereof.
Follow-up because cameras confuse the hell out of me and I don't want to insult this board by making a new thread.
$500 budget, Graphic Designer, mostly interested in close-up and street photography. Don't mind buying refurbs. Looking for a rec. Can always improve the lens later. Please help, I'm begging you.
Yes. Mirrorless cameras are basically DSLRs without, well, reflex thingie, this is mirror. Lack of entire mirror thingie and AF sensors makes them cheaper in production, and in the end light that falls on the sensor looks exactly the same as in DSLRs. As long as mirrorless have a good sensor, it can be just as good as proper DSLR.
When you use Live View in DSLR, you basically use mirrorless camera.
Are there any mirrorless cameras that you would recommend for a beginner? I'd like to get a decent body and upgrade the lens later, when I have enough experience to actually make it count.
Well, i'm not entirely sure if there is a DSLR that can beat price/IQ ratio of nikon d3200 (that is DSLR), not to mention additional gains from being into one of two biggest ecosystems - so, things like lenses or ability to switch to higer, more professional model when you feel like it. I may be wrong though, i haven't done proper research there - i'm sure other people in this thread will point it out if i'm wrong.
Sony A6000 is universally liked mirrorless.
Is it anecdotal if it's all over the internet, with responses from Pentax to send the camera in for service to correct it?
Also, where did mental illness come from? Any time anyone posts something you don't like, are they mentally ill?
I'm looking for an upgrade from my gen 1 RX100 after getting into photography a bit more.
- I don't need anything to do with video
- I'll be shooting mostly landscapes, stills, some low light and night shots, etc
- I'm experimenting with long exposure
- I've got about $1000 to spend
What should I get? Is anything less than full frame not worth upgrading from the RX100 for?
But you don't have to buy lenses now. For now, just get camera you'd like (d5200? d7000? maybe even full-frames like canon 5d mark <whatever just not 1>?) and have some fun with kit lens you'll probably get with it. Then, after having a lot of fun with kit lens (that is not bad at all for starters) decide what exactly do you need. Maybe it'll be nifty fifty, maybe it'll be fisheye, but at least you won't spend entire $1000 on gear just to sit around and realize how overwhelming it is.
You really shouldn't. That's just the blind leading the blind. There's half truths and idiosyncrasies stated as fact.
Hell, the best advice the guy has gotten was to save his money and learn with what he has. Gear and learning to use it is the easiest part of photography.
looking to drop ~300usd on a 35mm film body + f/1.2 lens to bring with me on late nights when i go out. dont really care if it's a rangefinder or slr, as long as the finder is useable in the dark.
which body + lens combo would you guys suggest out of the OMs, K-mounts, SR-mounts, FD-mounts, F's and etc?
>currently shooting with an rb67, ricohmatic 225, and a lynx 14 (dim finder, no use at night)
Alternatively I could recommend a Pentax, K-50 or K-S2 (maybe K-5II or K-3) for your night shots, dew buildup can easily brick a camera and weather sealing can make things much less stressful.
Also a D3300, D5200-D5500 or a D7100 will be good but you will need to find a way to protect against dew and moisture. Canons would be nice but not in low light. Too much noise you can't get rid of entirely in postprocessing.
Don't do that.
Panasonic doesn't have shit for lenses.
Get an a6000 or rebal or something.
Sony has a handful of lenses that'd be good for your purposes.
The only thing to be aware of with the a6000 is that there's no external mic port.
>panasonic does not have good lenses for portraits/street photography for $200-300
>but the sony does
nigga the panasonic 12-32, 20, and 14 are all compact, sharp, fast, and useful. what does your bitch boi sony have other than the shitastic 16-50PZ, mediocre 20 and 16mm.
> I've been told that DSLRs are really unnecessary if you don't care about moving picture
Uh, that makes no sense - mirrorless cameras are kinda better overall at video now.
> and that you can get a Fuji / Sony mirrorless for a lot cheaper and it will have better picture quality
Kinda. The $500 A6000 has overall specs (sensor, AF, burst frame rate, etc.) like most $1k DSLR and the new $1k A6300 is probably better than most $1.5k DSLR.
This does not apply to all mirrorless cameras, they're definitely not all Sonys.
(But they can be more compact or have a better lineup of lower end glass.)
whatever aps-c/d/ff camera you have the 50mm ~f2.8 or wider is always a fantastic choice!
Charts and numbers don't make a good camera. Ergonomics, ease of use, good functionality and consistent performance make a good camera, non of these are Sony specific. Sony makes consumerist shit, intended to be thrashed in a couple of years.
Having a mirror or not doesn't mean shit in this issue.
Just look at the X-Pro cameras, non Sony A7 or A6X00 will be as good.
Picked up my first film camera; a Minolta XD-5 with a Md Rokkor 50mm 1.7 lens for $50. Everything seems to work so far. Was this worth the $50? Especially since it's my first film camera?
Quite reliable for new cameras.
I recall some people still have problems with very high-contrast situations within the detection area (not sure who it was or what camera), but I've really not even had that problem on my A6000.
> Charts and numbers don't make a good camera
The key features on the "charts and numbers" are measured for good reason.
No, you can't make everything else entirely crap either, but primary feature is primary feature.
Numbers and charts related to image quality and ISO noise behavior and burst rates / buffer sizes and so on get measured in such detail because they're the most important features of a camera... you know, the image shooting capability.
> Sony makes consumerist shit, intended to be thrashed in a couple of years.
They make the best they can make at this point, and they're good at it.
I have no idea what you think will be better in a couple of years, but it sounds like you're with the traditionalists who want more metal on their camera, despite that not helping anything for shit over modern plastics? I guess there were enough people like you that Sony caved in and added "moar metal" to the A6300 now, despite there not being any need to do so.
> Just look at the X-Pro cameras
Yes, they should pick up their shit and compete harder.
Macro and street?
Tough, especially on that budget, but a Fuji X-E1 and a kit lens or a DSLR like the Nikon D3300, Canon 700D/650D or a Pentax K-50 with kit lens would be good for you.
Sony mirrorless is not very good on macro so I left it out, but a NEX 5/6/7 with kit lens is good for generic shooting.
Got an XD7 in storage. It's quite nice to operate, if you ask me.
$50 is probably okay for the XD5 + lens, but I myself however don't consider the subsequent film shooting cost worth it. Just costs too much vs. shooting digital. Which is why the XD7 hasn't seen use for a long time now.
Instead of the kit lens you can buy body only and get the nifty primes, like the DA 35 for Pentax or the nifty 50 lenses on the Nikon and Canon. Fuji also has great standard primes but I don't know if those fit in your budget.
> Sony mirrorless is not very good on macro so I left it out
Eh, it's one of the best systems for macro.
- Has a dirt cheap 30mm macro for APS-C.
- Has the best ~100mm macro lens of all systems, the 90mm FE. That thing is even better than the 100mm Canon "L".
- Has focus peaking & short flange focal length. It can adapt about any MF-capable glass perfectly with cheap adapters. Since most macro is done in MF anyway, you have a perfect camera for a gazillion of great macro and "macro" lenses from just about all systems, present and past.
While the 90mm FE costs more than budgeted, adapting any MF glass and the 30mm macro should surely be options.
30mm on macro means you have to be in the ass of the subject for a 1:1 image. Absolutely useless for most macro shots.
60mm is the most versatile with 90mm and up is the most useful for handheld and moving subjects (insects, foliage with windy conditions)
Like I said, Sony is not very good on macro.
> 30mm on macro means you have to be in the ass of the subject for a 1:1 image. Absolutely useless for most macro shots.
Same problem at 50 or 60mm. Works for a lot of plants and textures, spooks most living things.
> 90mm and up is the most useful for handheld and moving subjects (insects, foliage with windy conditions)
Yes, around 100mm is where insects and stuff start to care less. And you have the very best macro for that on the E-mount.
> Like I said, Sony is not very good on macro.
No. Again, you also have almost *every macro ever*.
Use that old 28-105mm Nikon "macro" lens the gentleman in this video suggests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BocMTiW-je4 . Or use a new Rokion 100mm macro. Or an old Zeiss.
You'll be using MF for macro anyhow, and MF lenses almost all adapt *perfectly* on MF to Sony cameras, with very cheap adapters.
They will however not be as good on cameras without focus peaking, or longer flange focal distance, or worse sensors... which really is most other cameras. It's still workable on some, but on others you can't even get an adapter for a lot of old glass (or need an expensive one with glass to correct for the longer flange focal distance).
In case you pull your head out of your ass, most cameras have pixel peaking, including DSLRs.
You can adapt many lenses on DSLRs, excluding Nikons because of their flange distance.
So eat a dick, mirrorless is not a magical new thing, just another camera, performs almost as good as any other. Sony still has no lens.
>In case you pull your head out of your ass, most cameras have pixel peaking, including DSLRs.
This is a feature a lot of entry-level DSLR don't have, actually. Besides, you can't use it with the viewfinder on most, which tends to be preferable to using the back panel for handheld macro.
They also often don't have the short flange focal length needed to adapt a lot of glass.
If you can get an adapter at all, you often need an expensive one with glass that downgrades your IQ.
No, it's *not* just Nikon. See table here:
Sony has almost nothing it can't adopt easily, with its 18mm. Canon DSLR's 44.00mm and worse have a ton that will need glass to adopt.
And then well, usually you pay more for a Sensor of the corresponding quality as Sony's.
> So eat a dick, mirrorless is not a magical new thing
You eat a dick. I did not claim magic, I claimed it was one of the best systems to do macro with. Which it is.
> Sony still has no lens.
- It has a cheap APS-C 30mm that is good for its price.
- It has *the best* ~100mm of all systems, with the 90mm FE.
- It is a near perfect option for just about ALL MF lenses ever.
(- It also has native 15 / 50 / 100mm macros not mentioned yet)
You must be super dense indeed to call that "no lens".
> Your tears are delicius, Sony faggot.
I have nothing to cry about, I just correct your nonsense.
> Stay delusional, the higher you are the harder you will fall.
1. You have your A6000 or whatever E-mount Sony, plus an old Zeiss Jena Macro or Nikon Macro. Or the 90mm FE. Or the 30mm. Or whatever other macro.
3. You "fall hard".
This does not work for shit. Fix your head, man.
The battery slot of my OM-1 broke and I need a meter.
There's someone selling me a Pentax MX with lens for $65
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer RR Image-Specific Properties:
Forgot my question... Is it a good camera to buy? Though I prefer a Nikon due to my manual nikkor lenses, I prefer something small and if it gets loss, it's okay and I won't get hung up on missing the lens.
Planning to get into flash and studio photography
How are all the impact products?
Planning to buy the air cushioned light stand, umbrella bracket and umbrella
Also I'm using a Yongnuo 560 III Speedlite, what's a good sync trigger kit to use?
> How are all the impact products?
Never had one, heard they were okay for light stands though.
> umbrella bracket and umbrella
Might want to look at whether you can make do with a Godox or something first, before you go with a broncolor para 222 (or a lesser but still expensive thing).
> Also I'm using a Yongnuo 560 III Speedlite, what's a good sync trigger kit to use?
YN560TX. Or maybe YN560 IV. Both have the RF functionality to trigger the YN560 III.
If you wanted to do HSS, you need a full TTL setup.
>look at whether you can make do with a Godox or something
I was asking about Impact Umbrella and Umbrella stand, but i'll look into godox.
And I'm not looking to getting into HSS right now. Mainly portraits with models and what not
Yup, I referred to the stand. Didn't know they also had an umbrella.
Not a big fan of shooting through umbrellas myself (I prefer shooting through flat softbox diffusers - one mounted in front of a reflective umbrella is fine), but I could surely imagine using that in the reflector configuration. Looks quite good, really.
>And I'm not looking to getting into HSS right now. Mainly portraits with models and what not
Yup, get the 560TX then. Faster to operate than a 560 IV on-camera, does about everything you want a manual flash control want to do.
Very useful device.
Eh, if you've already got a 560, I'd actually tell you to get monolights. Godox has a two light set for pretty damn cheap that puts out 300Ws each and you can get ridiculously cheap radio triggers, just work wired, or just roll with using your on camera flash as a trigger.
Speedlights are cool and all, but they're ridiculously weak compared to monolights (the plug-in strobes). Stronger lights=more flexibility in what kind of looks you can create. Speedlights=flexibility w/r being easier to travel with.
Now, if you do opt to go with the speedlights over monolights, I'd back the other anon's suggestion, but I'd strongly encourage you to consider using monos.
How do I make sure to get the longest battery life? I mean, how/when should I charge them, what should I avoid etc. I have an a7s if that matters, it uses npfw50 Lithium-Ion batteries like any alpha mirrorless
Get a battery grip and learn to cope with 300 shots per day. Mirrorless uses much more power than a DSLR because it uses EVF and the sensor is used all the time.
There is no magic option or technique to make battery life longer. You can only change batteries more often and use a battery grip if there is any because it makes the camera as big as a DSLR.
I suppose you mean maximizing the lifespan of the battery before you have to buy a new one?
Don't store it dead.
Don't store it fully charged (80ish% is pretty good)
Don't fully discharge it if you can help it (35-40% is around the best place to swap).
Further, don't be afraid of buying off brand batteries. There's basically no reason to pay those extortionist prices for first party batteries.
Let me rewrite my question: are there some tips that I should follow to make sure my battery stays healthy as much as it can? With smartphone batteries people always says to not go below 15%, avoid low temperatures, avoid high amp charges etc.
I am perfectly ok with the amount of shots the battery can give me because I have 4 of them, 2x Sony and 2x cheap third party brand.
Who here thinks gear threads should be sponsored by Sony from this point forward? The Sony shilling is outweighing the Pentax shilling at this point, and it's only right that the camera of the month headlines the gear thread.
>I invested into shitty DSLR system and now I'm jealous of mirrorless master race
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2009:04:24 14:27:13 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 331 Image Height 319
Ah, bitching in every gear thread about people actually finishing their studies i see. That's pretty sad.
Oh dear god.
Go, buy "Understanding Exposure" and read it.
Camera meters are stupidly reliable. Given the same conditions, they'll give you the same results over and over and over again. That isn't necessarily the same exposure you want though.
It's your job as the photographer to know when and how to adjust from what the camera is telling you.
In order to do this properly, you have to understand how the meter behaves in each of the available metering modes. If you're too cheap to buy the book above (and you should feel ashamed for not being willing to spend $20 to VASTLY improve your ability to use that camera that cost hundreds to thousands of dollars), then go read through the tutorials at cambridgeincolour.com because detailing all of the stuff you need to know to understand the meter and how to actually use it is well beyond the scope of any post here.
Bingo, yeah thank you, lifespan was the right word. Should I avoid charging my batteries if they're not below that 35-40% and I don't absolutely need a fully charge one? Or is it better to always charge them to 80% no matter what?
Last question: there are 3 ways to charge my batteries, is there any difference? The manual says the first one is the fastest, I suppose it is also the most detrimental but I'm not really sure
1. the usual battery charger
2. usb cable connected to a laptop/computer, battery inside the camera
3. usb cable attached to an ac adaptor, battery inside the camera
I don't even know if it is worth the effort to give a fuck about all this, maybe the difference is only +1 month of lifespan lol
Fully charge them if you're going to use them, storage is more in terms of fully charging then sticking in a bag for a couple of weeks. Full side is no where near as important as not fully discharging them though...it's one of those it's better if you do, but not earth shattering results. Fully discharging them though will quickly and significantly affect the battery life though.
Of those three charging choices, I wouldn't worry. While offbrand batteries aren't a big deal, some offbrand chargers can be (some do a great job, others can fuck batteries though, no easy way to tell beyond doing a lot of research before you buy).
The biggest thing that I'd worry about is not fully discharging them more than I had to. You better believe I'm going to do it to get a shot or something along those lines, but if I can avoid it I will. So long as you do that, it seems like you're at least not doing anything stupid with them, so you'll be fine.
I always use the battery charger but I usually charge 10-12 times a year. That is 5-6 times per battery.
One tip, with multiple Li-Ion and LiPo batteries it is better to store them when they are depleted and only charge before using them. If you take several with you for a trip/vacation, of course you can charge them before you leave.
Li-Ion and LiPo storage charge is not much higher than the depleted/nominal voltage and is much safer to store it this way than fully charged. The usual chargers and USB charging doesn't have storage function, this method is the closest.
http://batteryuniversity.com/ is probably what you want.
That said, those lithium chemistries for portable use are not worth managing extremely well. Yes, you want a safe, decent charger, but that's about it.
They're meant to be used for energy density - weight ratio, not longevity. Fully use them as much as you can. Buy new Chinese ones if your old ones break / become too bad. Same as all smartphone users and everyone else using this lithium chemistry.
Anon is right.
Around 3.78V~3.92v is a good range for storage of typical lithium cells, and in a dry place not too far above 0 degrees degrees Celsius (but also usually not under).
Trying to do this for your camera's batteries? Waste of time, just gets in the way of using your camera. They're cheap (at least 3rd party ones are) - use them, replace them when they break.
Anon is dead wrong.
>Finding the exact 40 to 50 percent SoC level to store Li-ion is not all that important. At 40 percent charge, most Li-ion has an OCV of 3.82V/cell measured at room temperature. To get the correct reading after a charge or discharge, rest the battery for 90 minutes before taking the reading. If this is not practical, overshoot the discharge voltage by 50mV or go 50mV higher on charge. This means discharging to 3.77V/cell or charging to 3.87V/cell at a C-rate of 1C or less. The rubber band effect will settle the voltage at roughly 3.82V. Figure 7-2 shows the typical discharge voltage of a Li-ion battery.
Moderate charge is not fully discharged. Fully discharged destroys lithium batteries, period.
>While nickel-based batteries can be stored in a fully discharged state with no apparent side effect, Li-ion cannot dip below 2V/cell for any length of time. Copper shunts form inside the cells that can lead to elevated self-discharge or a partial electrical short. (See BU-802b: Elevated Self-discharge.) If recharged, the cells might become unstable, causing excessive heat or showing other anomalies. Li-ion batteries that have been under stress are more sensitive to mechanical abuse.
I use huge packs for RC models, from 3 cells series to 12 cells series so I know my stuff. The smallest difference can make these things explode so I use specialized equipment with monitoring and logging. Leaving the pack fully charged in storage is a sure way to kill it and these packs go for $100-$400 depending on the capacity and number of cells in a pack.
>Fully discharged destroys lithium batteries, period.
True, but your camera has protection against that. It will not allow it to go under the nominal voltage which is a good charge for storage. I didn't want to go into details but you can look up some Lithium battery related info on wikipedia and most RC model sites.
Please note, while Li-Ion and Li-Po are basically the same, LiFe/LiFePo4 batteries are much more different. Only the former relates to your battery life question.
>I don't know what self-discharge is and assume that many various technlogies take it into effect.
The reason you're supposed to ensure there's a charge on batteries you store over time is that they discharge over time. If you store a battery that your camera/phone/whatever hasn't allowed to go below say a 20% actual charge (as opposed to the charge it reports), over time, it will reduce to damaging levels of charge.
More fun reading:
Lithium-ion should not be discharged below 2.50V/cell. The protection circuit turns off and most chargers will not charge the battery in that state. A “boost” program applying a gentle charge current to wake up the protection circuit often restores the battery to full capacity. [ See BU-803a: How to Awaken Sleeping Li-ion ]
There are reasons why Li-ion is put to sleep when discharging below 2.50V/cell. Copper dendrites grow if the cell is allowed to dwell in a low-voltage state for longer than a week. This results in elevated self-discharge, which could compromise safety
Figure 5 compares the self-discharge of a new Li-ion cell with a cell that underwent forced deep discharges and one that was fully discharged, shorted for 14 days and then recharged. The cell that was exposed to deep discharges beyond 2.50V/cell shows a slightly higher self-discharge than a new cell. The largest self-discharge is visible with the cell that was stored at zero volts.
the tl;dr is
>don't fucking store and don't fully discharge lithium batteries.
What does /p/ think of the Nikon P900? I'm thinking of getting a superzoom/bridge camera this year, probably in summer.
Any alternatives? Canon SX50 HS or SX60 HS maybe?
Under any circumstances, do NOT buy a bridge or super/ultra-zoom camera!
It is all of the bulk of a DSLR with the sensor of a smartphone and you are permanently stuck with a shitty superzoom lens.
You will have tons of noise, aberrations that will make you vomit is only good to show off to your layman friends.
For the same money you can get a decent DSLR with standard and telephoto kit lenses.
Like almost all of /p/, I see no reason to use anything with image quality this low (the price of having a zoom lens this long and a sensor this small).
Could be a fancy replacement for a monocular telescope or something, though.
In terms of mid-range products (which I assume you're looking for, I suggest the following:
1) If you want the best image quality for the cheapest price, and the most versatility, get a Nikon 3300 or 5500 DSLR with a good Nikon prime.
2) If you want excellent portability with good image quality, get a Ricoh GR
3) If you want a combination of both versatility, image quality and portability. Get a mirorless system. Preferably the sony a6000
>not mentioning Pentax
>not mentioning Canon
Wow, you brandfags are the worst.
Pentax is one the greatest values going in photography.
Canon will always be a good recommendation because *everybody* shoots Canon, so it's really, really easy to find or sell used gear.
>recommending a body+prime with no caveats
Stop parroting this shit. It's bad advice and causes frustration in many users with an idiotic artificial limitation. Yeah, you can get a faster prime, but that doesn't do shit for informing a new shooter how various focal lengths behave, and god help all the poor fuckers running around with some flavor of crop sensor and *only* a 50mm. Yes, for some people it's the right choice, but that's a more rare thing than just sticking with the kit lens for a while is.
Choke on a dick before giving incomplete, bad advice again.
Get a Pentax K-50 with 18-55 WR kit lens and an HD DA 55-300 WR for telephoto.
Now you have a weather sealed system and you can literally go out shooting even if it is pissing down.
Later you can get a cheap DA 35 prime for a compact sharp go anywhere setup.
I have a K50 and it's pretty bulletproof. I've taken mine across America a couple times, been caught in torrential down pours, dust and ice storms, I even dropped it in a silt pile and just blew it out when I got back to the car. I broke the kit lens when it fell while I was on a mountain and they made me send the whole body back for a replacement. If my new one lasts as long as my other one did I'll be super stoked.
>using canikon to refer only to canon
>being enough of a retard to think that they're not and that the strength of the aftermarket is not an important factor that anyone with sense should consider.
hey guys recently purchased an x-t10 with the kit lens. I had a question is it imperative that I get a filter on the lens? if so whats good for a protective filter?
No, it's a waste of money and degrades IQ. The only exception is a select few lenses which require a filter to be weather sealed, and that's something you don't have to worry about.
Just be reasonable in how you treat it and it'll be fine.
Just purchased a canon eos xti for $169.99. Comes with 4 batteries, a 28-70 lens, 3 macro?? lenses?, 4 gb flash card, and a cool strap. I'm a newbie and was just looking for something to learn on. Was it an ok purchase?
No it's not imperative. You can if you're very concerned about protecting your front element, but there isn't much evidence to suggest that it does any good. It doesn't do much harm either, unless the light is coming in to your lens at just the right angle for it to flare a little.
For the price, yeah, you'll do okay. Fun fact, I started with the Xt (one model older than yours) and paid $700 for it with just the kit lens.
Imho people grossly exaggerate how much it impacts IQ. I tried testing not-shit tier filters with my kit and under normal conditions I have to actively *try* to get any noticeably bad effects, and even then it's usually something I would have to point out to someone.
Amount really doesn't matter.
They negatively affect IQ performance by a real amount (not necessarily a great amount, but a real amount) and they don't actually protect like they're thought to protect. They're a waste of money in most all situations.
The only time I'd think they weren't is if you were using one to keep like liquid spray off of your lens, but at that point, why not just get a camera condom and be properly protected?
my canon rebel xti just came in and im playing with it but its really bothering me that it takes like 5 sec to take the pic after i hit the button, anyway to change that?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:11 03:48:43 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/5.0 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/5.0 Exposure Bias 2 EV Metering Mode Average Flash Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce Focal Length 40.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2816 Image Height 1880 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
In my experience it totally depends on the quality of the filter. One with good anti reflective coating isn't going to make itself known, a cheap uncoated one that a Best Buy employee will tell you to buy will absolutely shit on your sharpness and contrast, just like an ancient uncoated lens would.
Do you mean the autofocus is slow? The rebels don't have the best autofocus, and the lower and shittier the light, the harder it is for the camera to lock focus.
If you mean the pic review after you take the pic displays too long, then yeah, you can fix that in the menu, look around.
Most camera's AF just barely works in the dark.
You'd want an A7R II or A7S or something to do that. Or with Canon, the twice as expensive 1D X.
Since these are somewhat to very expensive, most people with cheaper cameras use MF or some assisting light (even before they trigger a photo flash) when it gets dark.
I love my 50's. <3
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 6D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Photographer Ray Neal Caird Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:11 17:51:27 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 3200 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 63.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1920 Image Height 960 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
bought a really weird and interesting lens i'm anxious to try out when i get it through the mail: the venus optics laowa 15mm f/4 macro. it's capable of 1:1 reproduction.
filter thread is 77mm so i don't think my ring flash is going to fit, cant_wake_up.mp3.pif.jpg.zip. but it's about time i bought a goddamn speedlight anyway.
If you want a camera that has auto-focus that works in VERY dark places, here are your options:
-cameras that AF down to -3 EV [moon-light]:
Canon 6D/7D2/1DxII; Nikon D7200/D750; Panasonic G6; Pentax 655Z/K-5II/K-3/K-3II/K-S2.
-cameras that AF down to -4EV [black cat in a coal mine];
- Nikon D5/D500; Panasonic GH4/GX7/GM1/GM5; Samsung NX-1; Sony A7s/A7sII;
Cameras that AF down to -3EV and further literally have no need for any assistance from a flash light. You should try it sometime - eg a K-3 with a fast prime will AF OK practically in total darkness.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K-5 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Brian J Davies Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 120 dpi Vertical Resolution 120 dpi Image Created 2013:11:19 08:09:55 Exposure Time 1 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 758 Image Height 720 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Macro
I wouldn't say it's a waste of money if you're using em as replacements for lens caps.
And anyone who is obsessing over something as small as that probably isn't actually getting paid for anything unless it's product photography.
I have a lot of shit rattling around in my bag, and I killed a couple expensive lenses when the front caps popped off a while ago.
I just leave (good) UV filters on and maybe I'll pull them off if I'm shooting at night or if the angle of the light is obviously going to cause problems. The difference is so minor that under most circumstances, I'd have to take two identical shots and spend a while comparing them to tell the difference. For my uses it's just not something worth caring about 99% of the time.
>I have a lot of shit rattling around in my bag, and I killed a couple expensive lenses when the front caps popped off a while ago.
100% bullshit unless you're literally running around with shit like diamond tipped grinding burrs, which if that's the case you're a retard.
Are there actual paid Sony posters here?
So many generic comments in ever gear related thread that sound like cheesy one liners from marketing rep
>Sony leads the pack
>Sony has the top technology
>I dont worry about missed shots, I own an A6000
Do you faggots even read the shit that you post? Most of the time it's not even relevant, you're just posting about Sony products for no apparent reason. It's been especially bad lately.
I think it's probably just shitposters with a few gearautists in the mix. I can't see the point to paying advertisers to post here. There isn't a large enough unique visitor base to warrant it, imo.
That said, it is pretty hilariously bad.
>Can someone recommend a good tripod head for using with an equatorial mount?
>>using a tripod because you don't have an a6000
It has been done to hell in /v/ with EA and probably some other companies paying people to post about their products, spark arguments and resulted in a shitfest.
/p/ is too slow for something like this but I see Sony shitposting increasing in numbers around new announcements.
I say we probably have one or two payed shills starting up things until the autists and gearfags keep it rolling.
>Sony leads the pack
>Sony has the top technology
This is justifiable, there are plenty of tests showing why the A7R II or A7S (II) are "leading the pack" / "have the top technology" in a lot of regards, including what traditionally has justified the prices on the high-end (low light and AF performance, sensor quality ...)
Of course that doesn't automatically make every positive statement about Sony true:
>I dont worry about missed shots, I own an A6000
>using a tripod because you don't have an a6000
Are nonsense and smell like trolling.
Yep, this is why I bought the 7Rii. No other company matched it in specs, you'd be paying much more with other companies. Their advancements are groundbreaking. You can hardly find a fault in Sony they are very aggressive with their superior RD while canon and to some extent Nikon, lag behind. As of now Sony is the best choice.
>Sony is the best choice
Not if you're a working professional.
Inaccurate and unreliable AF (having thousands of focusing points means shit if they're all shitty) and for me, the shitty battery life is the worse thing.
I was tempted by the a7 series but after trailing it for a week I was left with a bad, BAD experience.
Not grinding burrs,but I do have rock hammers and other assorted things that are similar. Lenses are tough, but not impervious to all kinds of damage. To say that filters are always a bad idea is going full retard.
I say if other brands had announcements with this much cool new shit on an about yearly base, you'd also see a lot of people jubilating and rubbing it into other people's faces on /p/.
I mean, what do you think would happen if Canon or Nikon announced a 24MP camera with, say, 500 cross-type AF points covering about the entire sensor?
Hell, I can see a lot of people that would be very happy over getting great IBIS on their FF cameras.
If you need ISO 2million, or 50 megapixels, you must be a shit photographer. Sony is doing the equivalent of adding a stapler to the side of a washing machine. Yeah, they can say they have it and nobody else does, but is it actually doing anybody any good?
Quick reminder that nobody on /p/ owns an a7rmk2.
> Inaccurate and unreliable AF (having thousands of focusing points means shit if they're all shitty)
Made up problem, they're reliable.
> the shitty battery life is the worse thing
People dealt with 10-32 shot film cartridges, who can't deal with 400+ shot batteries that are really quickly swapped?
> I was tempted by the a7 series but after trailing it for a week I was left with a bad, BAD experience.
Uh, you mean the old a7? Okay, that one had pretty bad AF...
If you think that 43 megapixels prints much larger than 36, then you don't know how to math very well.
Also, I forgot you guys have to crop in camera because you don't have any lenses that would get you to the right focal length in camera. My mistake. Carry on.
(If you're shooting professionally, you're not cropping in camera dude, sorry)
Yes it is. a7 series cameras suffer from severe focusing issues. For some reason they lock onto the subject at half press then fucking focuses to infinity at full press.
That was with the native 28-70mm OSS lens and that was what put me off the a7.
The A7 *series* doesn't, only the A7 model within the A7 series specifically was a bit shit.
The other members of the A7 series are doing fine, especially the current ones are neat:
- A7S / A7S II has precise CDAF.
- A7 II & A7R II have precise PDAF and CDAF.
The A7R also was already okay.
No. And also, this is still not the A7 series anyhow. Current models are great. The majority of models is perfectly fine to great.
> Inb4 Canon "5D series" can't focus a shit, 'cause muh 5D and 5D II had horrible AF with just a few less reliable points bunched together in the center.
It just makes no sense to judge this like that.
The 5D III is fine, so you can't say the 5D series is shit anymore..