Gear Thread

Only cameras to consider are from Sony.

File: gear.jpg (701KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 1000x750px

Post your essential gear and people rate and guess what kind of photography you're into/what kind of person you are.

[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	1000
Image Height	750

>>2766204
Replace that 18-55 to an HD 16-85 and you have a decent set.

>>2766207
that's my next purchase when i get the money

>>2766201
Heh, no.

They are amazing cameras, but you should pick them after evaluating the market and coming to the conclusion it's the best option for you, not before.

>>2766209
and then the HD 150-450mm when I graduate and get a job

>>2766222
Ah, so it's you. Please stop posting pics about your gear, it is really looked down upon even in the gear thread.

>>2766236
>Please stop posting pics about your gear
i've only really done it this once tho

>not sony OP image
Face it, Pentax's time is over. Pentax FF was too late.

>>2766258
All the bells and whistles are for nothing when Sony can't make a decent camera.
Why would I choose Sony when half the features are only unlocked if I buy their shitty app? I'd rather just buy a K-3 and use it until I can decide on a pro body. Who knows, the Pentax FF can actually turn out to be useful for professional use. If not, then there is the Nikon D750 or D500, maybe a Canon 5DIII
Bottom line is Sony is a consumer product, not the kind of thing you would go for if your business and your family's well being depends on it.

>>2766263
You're right, Sony is for pros, something you aren't so a k3 is perfectly fine for you.

>>2766266
>Sony is for pros
Or at least it will be when you can stop having to borrow lenses from other photographers to put on your system with clunky adapters that make things almost as good. Do we have pricing on those three lenses that should have come out with the very first camera yet?

>>2766269
Yeah, not that you can afford it, pleb.

>>2766273
you must be really unhappy with yourself

>>2766274
You're the one trolling and shitposting about Sony shit, non-stop
If this is what is fun and entertainment for you, you must be a really lonely and unhappy person. If you get paid for it, well your are even lower.
Either way you are a sad sack of shit everyone looks down upon, no matter what you say is true or not.

>>2766278
>You're the one trolling and shitposting about Sony shit, non-stop
you got your replies mixed up m8

>>2766281
Could be, it's getting late over here.

Anyone have opinions/ suggestions regarding the Nikon Df? It looks beautiful but I'm not sure it's good enough for the price.

>>2766286
It is a camera designed to look good and the actual performance is not the same level as it's price. If that doesn't bother you then go for it, it's still a good camera. Just not the kind you would expect looking at the camera lineup.
It's like buying a pro body without video features, AF module from the D600 and slower, less precise shutter mechanism from the same D600.

>>2766286
I regretfully have to say it isnt, you'd better off buying Sony at that price. The Nikon is overpriced and is clunky.

>>2766294
Fuck off shill

>>2766295
The other anon said it was over priced too. Why are you giving me so much flack?

>>2766297
Fuck off shill

>>2766302
Shill out dude...

>>2766286
If you like it, go ahead! A lot of people seem to have a love / hate view of it, I think it's neat. I do think it got a bad rep (much like the Coolpix A), because of the pricing.

>>2766294
Apples and oranges

>>2766312
I think you mean diamonds and rubish.

>>2766315
Fuck off shill

>>2766286
Well, let's be clear, it's good enough in probably every single way you could ask. It's a modern camera, which means it's about 1000x better than anything that was being used to take professional photos 50 years ago. But it's not designed to be a top of the line front of the test chart style camera. Its styling is its selling point, and everything inside is just sort of "good enough". Strip out the styling, and compare it to cameras at the same price point and there are much better options, but obviously they don't have the looks. You have to decide what's important to you.

If you're into the retro styling, check out some of the newer Fuji options, which are coming of age lately, but are smaller and mirrorless. If that's a problem for you, don't bother there. full frame DSLR wise, the Df is sort of on its own.

>>2766319
>check out some of the newer Fuji options, which are coming of age lately, but are smaller and mirrorless.
Might as well buy the Sonys. At least they have IBIS, while maintaining or bettering any feature the Fuji has other than muh hipster film sims.

>>2766324
Just report it and ignore it. Janitors will see a single poster getting reported for most comments they're making and take care of it.

>>2766325
You should report the Pentax, NatGeo bag and Dic&Mic shills too.

How good is the Nikon D5500 for a beginner coming off of a point and shoot? I'm thinking of buying my first SLR and I've narrowed it down to this one.

I also like the grip and feel of it (i made sure to check it out in person).
The only big downside to me was that in reviews of the camera, the video and general auto focusing look like crap.

If anyone one has owned it, i would also like your experience with it. Thanks.

>>2766331
Who's shill such crappy products? At least Sony makes sense.

>>2766331
>Dic&Mic shills
fucking this
every rec for a tripod is that damned dic&mic
but there are def times when a pentax is the best option for someone looking for a capable camera for cheap

What's the cheapest Canon prime lens with IS you can find?

>>2766319
Understandable. I really really like it, but I think function is better than appearance. I want something that isn't entry level anymore. Should I try for a Pentax or a Nikon in this range?

I really don't want to spend more than 1K USD give or take a little, but I suppose I'm somewhat flexible. I intend to do more portraiture. I might take one really nice prime and a great telephoto zoom and call it good for starters.

>>2766338
Tamron 35 and 45 SP

>>2766332
It's perfectly fine.

>>2766286
Go handle one before you buy it. I thought it was pretty cool until I tried one, and then was sad to find out that it doesn't feel like a vintage camera at all.

It kind of reminds me of an F4, which in my book isn't a good thing.

>>2766338
Probably the 24mm f/2.8?

>>2766339
$1000 tops mean you'll much better with a middle range Nikon or Pentax APS-C and have budget for a better zoom lens.
A D7100 or D5500 from Nikon or K-50, K-S2 or a used K-3 from Pentax and their 16-85mm zoom lens would fit into that budget.
You must know that it is better to have a lesser body and a good lens, last gen older DSLRs have still excellent performance you can fully utilize with a good lens.
Later on you can get a 35mm or 50mm prime.

>>2766339
Well, one really nice prime and a great telephoto zoom is going to cost you more than your $1000 before you even have a body at all.

You definitely want to spend more on your lenses than you do on the body, and if price is really important, you don't really want a niche gimmick body like the Df. You want to buy everything used, where you can, and get a low-middle of the road body, and the best lenses you can afford with what's left.

You can't get a new T6i with a nice prime and a nice tele zoom for $1000 and that's more or less bottom of the barrel, new camera wise.

>>2766338
$600 for the 35/2 IS

>>2766351
>You can't get a new T6i with a nice prime and a nice tele zoom for $1000 and that's more or less bottom of the barrel, new camera wise.
bruh you can get a K-3 with a 50mm 1.8 and the HD 55-300mm for 1000 bucks all new. you dont need a $2000+ lens to take nice, sharp photos

is eos 70d a good camera?
i need a pretty low budget aps c canon
is there a better choice around the same cost?

I usually auto focus using the rectangle thing in live view to focus and recompose. I heard focus and recompose is kinda shitty though specially when shooting with a shallow depth of field. So how does setting manual focus points work? I assume you pick the focus point closest to their eyes? But what if your camera doesn't have that many focus points and there's no point that covers their eye on the frame?

>>2766374
IIRC, you can use your directional D-Pad or w/e to move the "rectangle thing" along the LCD screen when in Live View, and then when you zoom in, it will zoom in on that part of the "rectangle thing", not the middle of the frame.
Your camera should have this feature.

>>2766357
And what does he do when he needs a focal length wider than around 85mm (as many many many people very very very frequently do)

You're right though, that's definitely a way better direction to go than the Canon. That was merely an example to make a point.

>>2766369
Well, you don't have too many options with "low budget aps-c canon"
Maybe the 7D? Are you having trouble googling for Canon's offerings? or what.

>>2766377
you can pick up a kit lens for cheap. just going based on his ask for a prime and tele

>>2766369
The 70D is a medium level APS-C, I'm sure it will be good for you.
I wouldn't recommend anything lower though, the Rebels have crippled viewfinders.

>>2766379
nah, i know what my options are, but i don't know which possibility is the best, so i'd like an opinion from you guys

>>2766381
alright, thanks, im upgrading from a 450 d so anything would be a huge leap i think

>>2766385
You'll like the 70D and it'll be a significantly better performer for you.

>>2766385
>nah, i know what my options are, but i don't know which possibility is the best, so i'd like an opinion from you guys
Best for what? We don't know anything about you. If one camera was "best" don't you think you'd be able to figure it out pretty quickly with a google search? It's like tools. A hammer isn't better than a wrench. It depends on the job you're trying to do.

> im upgrading from a 450 d so anything would be a huge leap i think
with Canon, you'd be surprised.

>>2766389
Nothing compared to the A6300

File: IMG_8701.jpg (179KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 800x1200px

Guess what just arrived!
I bought this magnificent feat of Czechoslovak engineering for mere 590 Kč (~25 USD). And it's fully working and everything.

>>2766392
>Guess what just arrived!
Man, took long enough! I'd complain if I ordered something in 1984 and it took until now to arrive!

Man, you probably gave up on waiting and bought a computer and digital camera by now and don't even need that piece of junk anymore!

>>2766392
I have one in the garage, my dad used it for his negatives. I think he had a Zenit with a TTL meter at the time.
I vaguely remember when I was a wee lad, he used to convert the bathroom into a darkroom and for that time if someone had to go, there was only the backyard. Oh the fun I had that time... I'll probably look it up, he still has his developed negatives in some of the shelves.

>bought a uv filter
>gets a little smudgy for whatever reason
>clean it with water
>still smudgy
>clean it with water and soap
>still smudgy
>buy one of those lens cleaning sprays
>still smudgy
What fucking sorcery is this? Why won't you get clean?

>>2766400
It probably got scratched. Try cigarette ash and water. Get a clean cloth, get the corner wet, dab it in the ash and carefully wipe the filter.

>>2766390
alright, i'll be mostly doing street/portraits, also filiming is a pretty important factor
don't really care about crazy iso/low light AF

>>2766374
You can do the live view zoom in and MF thing like the other anon said, or if you're shooting f/2 or less, you're generally fine picking the closest AF point and then recomposing a little bit. It's much better than recomposing from the center point.

When shooting with really fast glass, my preferred method is to just eyeball it through the viewfinder, but that only really works if you're shooting an FF camera with a nice viewfinder, crop VFs are just too small to judge focus well IMO.

By the way, if you're on a DSLR that allows it, try doing the sports shooter thing and binding AF to a back button instead of the shutter release. It makes focus and recompose much easier.

>>2766410
70D will treat you fine.

whats a good sensor cleaning kit or any
pieces that you guys recommend?

>>2766429
Those cheap vacuum packed swabs are fine.

Hell, if you're anything like me, sensors aren't the problem to keep clean -- it's keeping dust out of the fucking interior elements of lenses that's a nightmare.
>fuck shooting in the desert and midwest during the summer

>>2766400
It's the greasy filth that oozes from a poorfag's body. The kind of poorfags who can't afford a good camera from sony which would never need a filter as its optics are perfect.

Does anyone know any M mount telephotos with a focusing tab?

My wide to normal is pretty well covered, but I'd like something a little more on the telephoto side (75-135). All my current lenses have the focusing tab on the bottom and I've really gotten accustomed to it, so I'm wondering if there's any tabbed telephotos? Or am I out of luck?

>>2766447
It's kind of a cheesy way of doing it, but you can put a ziptie around the focus ring and use the nub where it zips as a tab.

My suspicion is that the teles have long focus throws and that's why they don't have tabs, though.

Looking for a cheap but decent small point and shoot 35mm camera for everyday street/travel use.

Stuck between an Olympus XA and a Canon AF35M

>>2766347
>>2766351
Okay, thanks for the info.
Assuming I expanded my budget, what do you think of a Pentax k3 (or K3-II) with the following two lenses:

PENTAX smc DA* 55mm f/1.4 SDM
and
PENTAX HD DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8 ED WR with case

If I was going to get just one of the two, honestly I'd rather get the nice 55mm 1.4

Any recs for printers? I'm thinking $500 max

>>2766478
>with case
i dont know why youd need a case for anything especially not the 55-300. its not a big tele like a 200 or 300 f2.8. but otherwise the k-3 or k-3 ii are great

>>2766478
The DA* 55 is an excellent portrait lens but with the HD 55-300 you don't have any wide angle or even standard lens. That is why I suggested the HD 16-85.
I also started with a telezoom and no standard and it was agony not being able to get those wide shots. Trust me, you will want a standard-wide zoom first, later you can expand on the HD 55-300.
Instead of the DA* 55 there is the DA 50 if you are interested in portraits and the DA 35 if you want a standard prime. Both are cheap as nails and have excellent IQ.

someone is selling their likenew ricoh GR on CL and I got it down to $425

however its not II and no wifi; should i cop?

Is this PC any good for photo editing?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/VIBOX-Standard-Package-WarThunder-Connection-AvP-Mamba-Neon-Red-Full/dp/B00LA11P0C/ref=pd_sim_sbs_147_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=51J53qmISaL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR157%2C160_&refRID=06RWC9629AK5VYJNQJMJ

I'm looking for a desktop for around £500.

>>2766504
Needs more RAM. I'd personally build your own rig, it's generally a better deal. I did the same for mine, but spent quite a bit more. (My build has about $2200 into it now.) I had 8GB for a long time and just upgraded to 16GB last week, and it's made a HUGE difference. I was having a lot of performance issues when running LR, PS, and a filter suite at the same time with 8GB, with 16 it's butter smooth.

I'd check out http://www.logicalincrements.com/, pick a rig around your budget, and then scale back the video card and use that budget to get 16GB of RAM.

>>2766494
For WiFi you can use an Eye-Fi card

>>2766504
It looks like something and edgy snotty teenager would buy.
Get a used Dell desktop with i5 processor, max out the RAM and put in an Nvidia something. A used Quadro will be the best for processing.

>>2766483
I pretty much copy/pasted the name, don't see a reason myself.

>>2766485
I suppose before I get the telephoto I'll start with something great for close up and portraiture, preferably at least 1.4. Which would you suggest?

>>2766518
In that case replace the HD 55-300 with the HD 16-85 and keep the pixie dust.
That will be a nice starter setup, it will also last you through a few bodies. It will also make most Pentax owners jelly for both those lenses.

>>2766523
Pixie dust?

>>2766524
It's the nickname for the DA* 55
Look up a few photos on Flickr and you'll see why.

>>2766524
>>2766525
Actually it is one of the few lenses that are named pixie dust for having an extra "pop" or 3D effect and clean images.

>>2766525
I'm on page six of the pool and can't understand why.

Also, nothing on google about "DA 55 PIxie Dust" even brings up the lens.

>>2766527
Interesting. Yeah, I think that combo is a pretty good bargain.

Appreciate the assistance!

Last question is really, do you think there's a large difference between the K3 vs the K3II?

>>2766531
The difference is the K-3II has no built-in flash (big minus for most), has a GPS instead and has the pixel shift resolution feature. Everything else is the same.
I'd rather suggest getting the K-3.

>>2766531
>do you think there's a large difference between the K3 vs the K3II?
Fun thing is, we don't have to guess! There are known specifications and features for both, and dozens of comparisons freely available all over the internet! If you'd type that question in to Google, in stead of /p/, you'd know the answer already!

>>2766529
I've seen on some forum a few posts that referred to it as pixie dust. The Pentax jargon is a bit cryptic for me still.

>>2766535
Never been a fan of built in flashes, so that's probably good.

>>2766538
Aren't you cute, :^).

>>2766549
Built-in flash is the easiest and cheapest way to trigger an off-camera speedlight.
But if you are interested inastrophotography, the built-in GPS of the K-3II has the astrotracer function where the stabilization system moves the sensor in a way it cancels out the earth rotation giving you night shots with sharp stars and nebulae. It's a fun feature to play with, I use it with a separate GPS unit on my K-3.

>>2766552
Well. What about the pixel shift resolution feature? I prefer natural light anyway, on the off chance I won't use it, I'll use some other more desirable third party flash/ light.

>>2766579
Not much other than it records RGB value per pixel and the slightest movement destroys the image. Google it if you want to know more.

>>2766581
So then the PSR might actually make it worse, simply by making the margin of error larger?

>>2766590
no. it's not like its always on. it a special feature to get higher res if you need it for say a landscape. you wouldnt use it handheld

>>2766590
Worse in what conditions? It is for still subjects, mostly for studio work or some architecture. Where the subject is still, it works just right.

>>2766467

I have an XA. It's great, and the attachable flash is cool. The rangefinder sucks though. The meter is great because it's aperture priority only and absolutely nails exposure every time. Really nice image quality from the lens, and it's a really enjoyable camera in a tiny package.

If you'd like autofocus instead of the rangefinder, try an olympus mju ii (more expensive on ebay than an XA though).

Can someone redpill me on TLRs or point me to a good resource?

I've been getting into 35mm lately, developing my own b&w, and all my knowledge from digital is instantly transferable. Is there anything significantly different about the light from your lens being spread over a bigger area? Do I get the same results from the same asa? I've heard bokeh is different, how so?

>>2766643
It's the same, just more resolution. You get a thinner depth of field but that's about it.

D5500 vs D7100 for a beginner DSLR? (stepping up after years of iPhone point and shoot)

Price doesn't matter, I can get both for relatively cheap. When it comes to what I'll be shooting, mostly just street/day to day (also nighttime) whatever

>>2766690
k-3

>>2766645
Thanks. I know the focal lengths are about double to get the same FOV, I just didn't know if I'd have to re-learn a bunch of other shit.

>>2766643
Bokeh is different for a few reasons. One is that you're closer to the subject for the same focal length, another is that the film is further away from the lens and so the circles of confusion can "open up" a little bit more compared to 35.

If you're making the same size print or scanning to the same size, you can in theory use faster films with better results, because the silver grains are the same size but your image is spread over more of them.

Whats a decently priced compact point and shoot 35mm that could substitute for a Mju II?

Something pocketable would be great

Most im willing to pay is $70

>>2766690
D7100 has the screwdrive AF drive, you have much more options on excellent older Nikkor glass. I'd get that instead of the D5500.

Hey, I'm having a hard time deciding on a new monitor for editing.

http://www.amazon.ca/ULTRASHARP-24IN-MON-U2415-3YR/dp/B00NZTKOQI/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1455266080&sr=8-3&keywords=dell+ultrasharp


or


http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/benq-benq-27-4k2k-uhd-60hz-4ms-gtg-ips-led-monitor-bl2711u-black-bl2711u/10403436.aspx?path=9f2579bfb727db5137e544c5669b418een02&fromBrandStore=benq
Any suggestions would be nice, don't want to spend more than $800.

Tip: if you're looking for DSLR+lenses+accessories purchases, there's priceworth.info to automatically find bargains on Amazon, compared on the value of the single components. Canon and Nikon seem to be the only brands it offers, but it seems you can find pretty good deals with it.

>>2766385
>im upgrading from a 450 d so anything would be a huge leap i think

The ergonomics are a lot better, plus you have an LCD which is really nice. Until recently, I didn't know Rebels newer than the 350D didn't have LCDs. It's a good purchase.

File: DSC_0003.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

Just to make sure, is there anything stopping me buying a 5D mk1, an adaptor and a 30 year old FD and taking some delicious full frame goodness? Will the photos be alright?

>>2766887
A 5Dmk1 body is still nice for cheap, IMO. I have one, and don't feel the need to upgrade yet. Saying that, I still shoot with a T90 now and then.
Make sure you get one with the "mirror mod" done. If it hasn't had it, then Canon won't modify them anymore (not since last year, I think.) Problem without the mod is that the reflex mirror was only originally attached onto the moving frame with a few dabs of glue - it eventually comes loose and pops off.

FD to EF adapters that preserve infinity focus have a glass optic inside them that is not usually very good, so expect some slight loss in image quality. Otherwise get one without if you only do close focus work.
If you particularly like the look of certain FD lenses, then you could look into getting some of yours converted to EF. (for instance, look up Ed Mika.) Most FD lenses are convertible, but not all.

The EF mount plays better with M42, Leica R, Olympus OM and Nikon lenses, insofar as the adapters are simpler.

Another issue would be manual focus. 5D1's have no live view, and no split prism/micro prism on the focusing screen, so MF is mostly a best guess and/or using the lens' distance and hyperfocal scales. You can get replacement ground glass for the viewfinder - for instance the Canon EE-S.

>>2766899
Cool! Good info.
I'm perfectly happy with using OM lenses.
When you talk about focus, the focus will show through the viewfinder, right? I'm pretty comfortable focussing by eye without the aid of a split prism. I used to do it quite successfully on my Samsung NX1000 with a Canon FD lens :) And that was with a screen only.

There's even a 5D1 on eBay right now with a faulty autofocus so might cop that if it a good deal.

>>2766929
You can indeed see the image focused though the viewfinder.
But the look and feel of an optical viewfinder is not quite the same as a monitor screen. The plain ground glass gives the impression of very slightly deeper focus than you actually have, and it's sometimes very hard to tell if the focus point is spot on. It's not strictly WYSIWYG.
Although I suppose you can argue that a low-resolution monitor does a similar thing, as less resolution (or image size) == deeper perceived field of focus..

I forgot to mention before, but you can get lens adapters for Canon that have AF confirm chips installed, so you can get that beep & blink of the AF point to work with MF lenses. But if you're getting a body with busted AF then I wouldn't expect these to work.

File: 5970530985_4.jpg (52KB, 595x572px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 595x572px

PLS HALP
CV12 + polarizer + Fuji-M adapter (which I can sell) for $490,
or
CV15II + UV filter + original VF (also for sale) for $450?
Focal length doesn't matter that much. I'd prefer 12 mm, but there are mixed opinions about this lens...

>>2766972
I'm using the A7 btw.

Anyone had experience using a Nikon D7200?
Planning to upgrade to it from my D3100.
From the reviews and comparisons it's supposed to be a pretty great camera but I'd appreciate some feedback from you fuckos.

File: 11122015-E-P1012733.jpg (662KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 2000x1333px

what strap can be recommended for pen cameras

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-P1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Color Filter Array Pattern	790
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:14 20:29:38
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

I make videos with a focus on nature clips.
Any suggestions for a good
>camera/
>lens/
>gear kit?

What's the cheapest radio transmitter for a speed light?

Quick eyes-related question.

On my old SLR, when I have something in focus (aligned split image) I see it blurry.
But then I move it back and I see it sharper, but it's obviously not in focus since the prism is not aligned.

Do I need glasses?

>>2767220
>pen cameras
a purse strap

>>2766977
not had experience with the 7200 but I am in the same position pretty much. you can get a D610 for a little bit more and enjoy the many benefits of FF, such as erm... erm.. spending more on glass? not worrying that anon might disregard your photo on /p/ because it's on an APS-C camera? I need a wide-medium zoom and the price for a usable FX one makes that setup just a bit too costly for me right now, so pretty settled on the D7200

>>2766194
hi i need help choosing a camera to introduce myself to the world of photography. I like photography quite a lot but i dont understand much about the gear. i know a lot of brands that are great, but i really want a camera that i wont regret. I'm looking for quality. i'm also interested in analog

>>2767251
If you want quality you want a A6000 or a A6300. But really i'm only guessing this because you really aren't giving us a budget.

>>2767251
k-3

Is there such thing as a 38mm filter? I'm shooting x ray film on my 4x5, and I want to be more accurate when metering for it, so I'm looking at filters for the sekonic 778.

The damn thing doesn't seem to have a standard barrel size. It is clearly threaded, but it is not 37mm. I measured it to be 38mm, but I'm not sure if that's a standard size.

>>2767256
tape a larger one over it bro

>>2767256
Man, I'm not seeing much about it either. The first result on google was what must have been your post on another forum.

I'd probably just rig something up with gaffer tape and the like.

>>2767267
You'd think someone would have asked before, considering this product is what, nearly 20 years old?

>>2767251
Whatever you do, do not get the sony a6000. They tend to overheat and drain batteries quite quickly. That's why Sony is going to discontinue them soon.

A Sony rep told me this after he refunded the camera for me.

>>2767256
can't find adapter rings?

>>2767270
Wow what a fucking liar.

>>2767271
My adapter rings just arrived in the mail today; a cheap chinese set of step up/down rings.

Frustratingly, they only step up or down in pairs, so you can't assemble them in a cone. Regardless, they came in sizes from 82mm down to 26mm, and none of them fit. The closest was the 37mm.

A couple of questions for you guys:

I'm thinking about getting a "prosumer" supertele of some sort for my FX Nikon body. I shoot motorsports and the 70-200 isn't long enough. I sometimes rent a 200-400 or a 500 f/4, but rentals get expensive fast, and they're so big that travel is an issue. I'm looking mostly at <$2000 options, like the new 200-500 5.6, the Sigma 150-600, or maybe a 300/4 with the 1.4x TC I already own. Does /p/ have any experience with these lenses?

Next, I'm also in the market for a new EDC camera. My current one is a GX1 with a 20mm 1.7. I like the lens a lot, but the GX1 sucks at high-ISO and the overall package is big enough that I can't pocket carry it. I'd like to spend no more than $400, and I'm thinking of a few options: get a new M4/3 body, not sure which one, get a good P&S with a fixed ~35 lens of some sort, or replace my phone with a Lumix CM1. (Yes, the CM1 is above budget, but I need a new phone too, so I can add the $200-300 it would cost to my budget.)

I like the CM1 idea because it means I'll ALWAYS have it, unlike a camera where the extra bulk may mean leaving it home when I'm not wearing a coat or carrying a bag. I'm not sure if IQ will be up to par, though. Any recommendations?

Is it okay to use cheap Chinese metal lens hoods? Are they bad to use for any reason?

>>2767315
I think the primary reason why they'd be bad is that they're metal. Doesn't seem to be the right material for a lens hood to me.

>>2767317

What kind of material should a lens hood be? I thought they were usually metal.

>>2767306

The 150-600mm is sweet if you're on a budget.

>>2767318
Most are just plastic.

>>2767322

Oh...Well, how detrimental would using a metal lens hood be? What issues could it cause?

>>2767325
Weight, risk of accidentally scratching your front glass. And depending on the design, extra risks of damaged people or damaged lens if you happen to create an impact.

Nothing very huge, but plastic should probably be preferable if it's an option.

Speedlight / Flash question. I want to add a couple manual flashes and already have a Yongnuo 600EX-RT and a YN-E3 transmitter. What is my cheapest and/or best option for adding another flash/speedlight?

I found I am shooting almost exclusively in manual mode.

>>2767335

Alright, thanks...I already bought a metal one, but I'll look into getting a plastic one.

>>2767337
I think you add more YN-600EX-RT.

Unless you want to switch over to the 560TX / III / IV system.

Arguably, you could also just use a 560 I or II and optically trigger without remote adjustments, but where is the fun in that?

>>2767339
There's literally nothing to worry about. If you have metal, use metal. If you have plastic, use that.

>>2767337
Are you using lights in a studio or are you out and about shooting?

>>2767243
The prism plane of alignment is not the same plane as the ground glass. It's usually a bit deeper, but this is where it is aligned. You can get a high contrast ground glass without prisms but you will have to align it with shims to get it properly aligned with focus.
Trust your split prism and only compose with the plain ground glass part

>>2767340

What's the advantage of the 560TX / III / IV system?

I plan on adding more flashes as I go, perhaps building up to 3-6.

Also, at some point I am thinking of switching from Canon to Fuji as my main camera. (But keeping the Canon). Would the Yongnuo's work with the Fuji X series?

>>2767273
It's true. All NEX cameras including the A6000, which is just a NEX 7 with improved sensor, get hot very quickly. My friend has one and it gets scary hot after half an hour of random shooting.

>>2767345

Mostly out and about, but I do use them at my home studio.

>>2767325
metal hoods will deform when damaged. plastic hoods have a better ability to absorb energy, and either spring back, or snap.

>>2767306
1) the 200-500/5.6 is a sweet lens at a sweet price. you're not going to be shooting at night with it, but the days that you are, a 70-200/2.8 or 85/1.8 are pretty cheap to rent. I personally did just fine with a 70-200, but then again, I dont shoot on tilkedromes nor do I generally shoot towards the head of the cars.
2)
GR
R
because anything bigger is not pocketable. at that point, just buy a 1st gen EM5 and the P20 or P14

>>2767358
I already own a 70-200 2.8, so I've got that covered for low light stuff. I'm mostly looking for more reach for daylight stuff at tracks where I can't get particularly close to the track (which is a lot of "trackday circuits" around here), and to do head-ons and stuff. 5.6 is also plenty for nighttime panning shots.

As for the GR, yeah, it's on my list, they're a bit more than I want to spend though. I'm also not in love with the 28mm FL, it's a bit too wide for a lot of the stuff I shoot. I really like the 35-40mm range, but it seems like the only cameras that offer it are the RX1R and the X100, and both are too big and expensive.

File: 51S3WS3tAqL.jpg (47KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x500px

Are these canon fd to pentax k adapters decent?

I've got a 50mm 1.4 and a 24mm 2.8 that I'd love to be able to use on my k-50

>>2767446
These kind of adapters have a corrective glass element in them that usually reduces IQ. You will be able to use the lenses but you will not have their true resolution and detail.
Pentax K mount is much more at home with M42 lenses.

>>2767354
Why do you do this? What is the purpose of gear threads with posts like yours?
>why do you just go on the internet and tell lies?

>>2767455
Not a lie. My friends Sony gets uncomfortably warm, same amount of shooting on my DSLR and it's just as cool as before shooting.
We mostly did long exposure at the time. It can be either bad heat dissipation (with better dissipation on the metal body of the DSLR) or Sony is willingly using lower performance electronics and just overclocks the shit out of them.
One thing is true, heat is the number one enemy of electronics. Maybe Sony is ensuring this way you have to replace your camera in a couple of years.

>>2767449
fuck oh well

I love that 24mm 2.8 and I haven't been able to find an m42 that's as good as it yet

>>2767449
On the review for this one

>IQ does not deteriorates noticeably, maybe some little CA on the corners but nothing that is not fixable.

Might not be a problem, no?

>>2767353
> What's the advantage of the 560TX / III / IV system?
It's cheap for a remote controllable manual flash system with output power tending to be at the upper level of speedlights. (YN-660 should definitely be up there). Usability is also great. So it's a really fairly popular system.

Might be interesting to completely set yourself up with that if you don't need TTL, probably saves quite a bit of money.

Maybe also have a look at Godox' new system & Godox strobes.

>>2767461
Think about it. You are introducing an extra element into the lens optical formula that was not part of the original optical plan.
The lens has elements arranged to correct chromatisation, an extra element can only reduce that. If there was a magical corrective element that didn't reduce IQ significantly it would cost a lot more than a new lens simply because the material has to be extremely low dispersion, almost zero. No such material exists, even the most expensive low dispersion glass would cost more than a lens and it would be only compatible with a few optical arragements, not to mention it would still introduce aberrations into the system.
This is physics and mathematics. If you want to use those FD lenses then get a camera capable of mounting them without corrective elements.
Or you can buy that adapter, see how the lens performs with it and decide if you can live with the aberrations or not.

Hey guys I'm looking for a nice macro lens. I narrowed it down to a few and was wondering which one would be best. Thanks

Tokina ATX 100mm 2.8
Sigma AF 105mm 2.8 DG HSM
Tamron AF 90mm 2.8 DI VC
Canon 100mm 2.8

>>2767510
What for?

>>2767512
For taking pics of my micro benis. Want to make it look larger to send it to some honeys.

>>2767514
What macro applications? There are several focal length for several different macro shooting you dumbass

>>2767510
Get the Tokina, that's the pick of the bunch.

>>2767510
They're all good, buy the cheapest if you just want a sharp macro lense, the tampon if you want to shoot handheld anything, the canon if you want resale value and reliability.

>>2767510
I like the 100mm Canon 2.8L. The macro lens I'd pick if I didn't have the 90mm FE now.

the focusing screen just popped out of my fucking 5d2, I'm really worried should I kill myself? wtf do i do i didn't even drop or anything recently

>>2767661
Put it back in. It's made to come out.

>>2767663
but im scared

>>2767664
Just push it back in place with your finger, nothing bad will happen, trust me.

>>2767664
Okay.

>>2767666
why the fuck would I trust you with trips like that? fuck you, you're trying to break my camera

>>2767666
>666
>nothing bad will happen
>trust me
Do it anon

anyone use the rokinon 14mm 2.8?
considering picking one up for landscape/astro
how close does it focus? hoping for pseudomacro shots with wide angle

>>2767691
im using a K-3 btw in case theres a difference in iq or anything on apsc vs ff

File: 1441310950371.gif (1MB, 303x307px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 303x307px

I'm extremely new to photography and the last camera I owned was a Kodak easyshot. I've been wanting to learn how to properly take photos of my chinese cartoon toys. I've been using my note 5 as of recently, does anyone know of any bang for your buck dslr or mirrorless? Would rather not break the bank but I'm aware this is an expensive hobby. Or should I just practice with my old point and shoot? Any guides that you could recommend would be highly appreciated, I'll start with fully trying to read through /p/s sticky.

What's a cheap but decent tripod? I need one for my shitty FZ-28, because the previous one broke. I mostly want durability and at least 5 feet/150cm height.

>>2767695
this is what I use. assuming you have a head from the old one

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/655219-REG/Induro_472_114_Alloy_8M_AT114_Tripod.html

>>2767699
they have bigger ones too i just bought that one because its light and small and perfect for hiking

>>2767699
Is the head that thing you screw into the camera? I have one, with a rectangular shape and tapped pyramid bottom.

>>2767694
find a used eos m.
and rickety old 50mm adapter and tripod.
shoot all your plastic boobs.

>>2767704
yeah its the thing that allows you to move the camera around to different positions on the tripod

>>2767695
Vanguard is my goto not-stupidly-expensive tripod brand.
http://www.vanguardworld.us/photo_video_us/products/tripods.html?dir=desc&order=price
Best bit about them is if you're patient, you can usually find them around 20-40% off on woot.com

File: i-freepower-szybkozlaczka-35x35mm-1006.jpg (32KB, 640x398px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x398px

>>2767707
Found a pic. Is it this thing?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2011:07:19 10:24:51

File: Manfrotto_488_RC4.jpg (1MB, 1810x1933px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1810x1933px

>>2767710
that's just the quick release plate. this whole thing is the head

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3456
Image Height	2304
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2008:03:21 05:06:37
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1810
Image Height	1933
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2767705
>used eos m
Thanks anon, I've just been looking at some high ends at the used and refurbished level.

my DSLR is a pentax K-x, and i quickly bought a couple of lenses (got 18-55 and 50-200 kit, 50mm 1.8, 35mm 2.4). Now i wondered, as I will probably continue to spend money on pentax lenses, if I ever upgraded my body it would have to be another K-mount. and I think if i continue to spend lots of time with my new found hobby, it might be pretty soon, as the K-x has only 12mp and a pretty weak display.

now: Which pentax DSLR (crop) would actually be worth the upgrade cost? as in, which model do i need to get so that i at least feel some actual improvement?

>>2766194

I don't want to use my D90 when travelling, and I've lost (yes, lost. Not stolen, not broken... lost) my Olympus Pen epm2 which used to be my carry-everywhere camera.

So, for traveling, could I essentially just stick with my Sony Xperia Z5 Compact and just blast away with the phone camera, or should I invest in a camera again? Should I get the epm2 again, or get something more recent. I still have lenses for the Olympus.

>>2767711
I don't have such a thing. My previous tripod was a piece of shit called hama star 75 IIRC.

>>2767714
Master what you have first homie.

Also, their product line naming scheme is a hint at which bodies are better than others.

>>2767716
it had a different kind of head. google pan and tilt head

>>2767717

first, sure. it will be a while before i upgrade, i am pretty content with the K-x performance so far - but have some problems, especially with the shit display (getting perfect focus on the eyes in portraits is a struggle).

second, yes it's obvious how the bodies are ordered, but the price range is huge and i'm curious how big of a step is actually reasonable to feel improvement.

>>2767722
Come /p/ and witness the nascent gearfag in its larval stages.

But yeah, none of those lenses give particularly shallow depth of field on a crop body (yes, even the 50mm 1.8 included). Problems with nailing focus are your problems, not the camera's.

Anon with the sekonic 778 here. I've discovered it is a 37.55 diameter thread. Now the issue is that I can't find square filter holders at that size, nor, alternatively, a minus red filter that is 37.5mm. Anyone know where I could get that kind of shit?

>>2767735
Call up machinists.

>>2767732

before i had the K-x i learned the ropes of manual photography with an rx100ii, and i miss the way you could use the crystal clear display to focus with the dslr. the displays resolution is terrible and doesn't really allow checking for perfect focus in live view. the viewfinder is just way too tiny to do it well, at least for me - i'm a wearer of -5,5dpt glasses.

i have resorted back to auto focus more often than i'd like to admit, as i barely ever needed to used it on the rx100. if there is a way to do it that i just missed so far, please teach me. i'm still bloody new to dslrs.

Anyone got any recommendations on ARCA compatible L Brackets for the D800 that don't cost silly money?

>>2767680
>>2767668
It's true tho

I take mine out of my F4 all the time :^)

I'm looking at buying a 50mm for my minolta X-300 and looking at 1:1.4 and 1:2. How much difference does this make? Is it noticeable? Worth the £60 price difference?

Hey /p/, I've been playing around with my D90 and 18-105 for a while but I feel kind of limited when it comes to low-light situations, even indoors during the day sometimes I struggle to get sharp pictures.

What would be a more sensible purchase for me? A lens such as the 35mm 1.8G or a decent tripod?

>>2767840
I'd go with a faster lens for now. You can't always use a tripod, won't want to use a tripod all the time, and a tripod won't eliminate motion blur from having to use a slower shutter speed.

>>2767737
Ayoy, they'll bleed me like a fucking slaughtered heifer.

>>2767854
Can't hurt to ask..I suspect it might be cheaper than you think.

Also, offer to sacrifice one of your rings that's slightly smaller than what you need so all they have to do is cut one set of threads.

...oh, there's also the possibility of using thread tape (teflon tape) to make a 37mm one fit...

Is it worth it to buy a broken 5D Mk II for $200 and fix it?

There's one for sale with power supply problems, and I think I can have it running for $350-400.

To be honest, even though I have canon lenses and I'm a total poorfag, I want to get something current like a Pentax K-3 or a Fuji X-T1.

That brings me to my next question.
Does a camera being current mean anything? I mean, the 5D mk II was shit-hot back in its day, why shouldn't it be good for an amateur now? (although I'm loving Fuji's dynamic range).

>>2767910
It depends entirely on you and the photos you take.

>>2767914
I take photos of every category.
Astro
Motorsports
Nautre/wildlife
some macro
Street
Portraits

>>2767916
Astro, motorsports, wildlife, and portraits will benefit from more modern cameras to some extent. More important for all of that, however is lens selection.

File: IMG_1664-2.jpg (508KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1000x667px

I currently own canon 600d with the kit lens
thinking to either upgrade the lens to 17-55mm f2.8
or sell it and get fujifilm x-t1 + 35mm f1.4 or f2 and xf kit lens
which in your opinion would be the better choice for street photography and low light?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 600D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:13 23:12:46
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2767970
sell 600d

>>2767840

Depends on what you shoot, but I would get a faster lens. I haven't got the G version, but I'm pretty happy with the D one and it's quite a bit cheaper.

>>2767970
also the x-pro1 is like 250 gbp maybe a better bang for the buck? or x-t1 hands down

>>2767970

If I cared only about low light I'd ditch the Canon.

>>2767354. He's not 100 percent lying I have the a6000 battery drains fats and overheats near the end of filming. never had it overheatcwhen I was taking pictures

>>2767970
I'd go for the 17-55 2.8, but I like zoom over primes.

There's also the 20mm 2.8, 35mm 2, and 50mm 1.4 which you could choose two of for cheaper than the zoom...

>>2767843
>>2767974

Thank you both for the help!

Found a decent second-hand deal for a 35mm 1.8G, 50mm 1.8 AF-D and some HOYA filter kit. Asking price is €175, while the 35mm is €200 new and the 50mm is €140 new. Is it worth getting this?

>>2767996
Sounds pretty good -- just make sure to use common sense with the purchase (if not through something like ebay, meet and examine in person).

When you're looking over a lens to purchase, don't worry about scratches/marks on the objective lens (the outside, big one). It takes some ridiculously large marks to affect IQ (google up "india ink lens fix"). It's the rear element that you want to be critical of.

Aside from that make sure there's not stupid amounts of fungus (google up "lens fungus" for examples) and everything works electronically/mechanically.

>>2767999

Thanks friend, nice trips

File: Nikon D7000.png (146KB, 700x595px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 700x595px

I need help, Im getting my first camera and Im thinking between a Nikon D7000 and a Nikon D5200, I found a guy selling a used Nikon D7000 with three lenses included that are 18 to 105mm, 35mm,and 55-300 telephoto for $840. Is it a good deal?

>>2768083
Why not google the prices of the pieces, and find out for yourself

>>2768083
just buy a k-3

>>2768083
Also what are some "must ask" questions that I should ask the guy, apart from how old is the camera and how many shots it has?

>>2768084
because Im not american and cameras in my country are more expensive.

File: image.png (146KB, 300x363px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 300x363px

does anyone know why the Ricoh GR is the same price as the GR II when they're practically the same camera? Adorama's selling the two for $559 each

>>2768083
The D7000 has the screwdrive AF drive and has a lot more options for excellent older AF Nikkor lens.
With the D5200 you can only use the few DX lens which are not particularly good nor cheap. Also the options are a lot more narrow. Get the D7000

>>2768101
>does anyone know why the Ricoh GR is the same price as the GR II when they're practically the same camera?
>when they're practically the same camera?
>the same camera
>the same

you answered your own question.

>>2768101
GR II owner here.
The main difference is the Wi-Fi option. You also get a faster shutter speed wide open and a somewhat better sealed lens to prevent dust from entering the lens segments.
There are some minor software based improvements as well (faster starting time etc).

Haven't had any issues with my GR II so far (3 months of ownership and having it in my pocket all thetime)

Should I buy a P20 and P14 for about $450 used, or buy an O17/1.8 for about the same? I lose out on size, but gain a manual focus ring, some sexy design, and fast AF.

I'm new to photography and i'm looking to buy a decent camera for my mum.
She's done a course in photography.
Any advice on how to find a camera that would suit her? I think she would mostly be using it to take pictures of nature stuff.

>>2768133
Google "best camera for $???"

>>2768138
Is that really all there is to it? I would like to learn what specifications mean what and have an informed opinion. Are there any resources that do this?

>>2768142
Google "what to look for when buying my first camera"

What do you guys think about the fuji finepix s1 for a first camera?

>>2768109
haha, looks like the differences are marginal but they do exist

>>2768121
the faster shutter speed wide open was something I didn't know about. I've read complaints about dust entering the GR. whether it's sensationalized who knows but it's good to hear that changes were made to correct the issue.

I've owned a GRD IV for as long as that many years now. comparing the images from that to the newer GR cameras I'm having difficulty justifying a new camera purchase. I might buy solely because I want to spend $$$ on a thing, we'll see. thanks for the help by the way

>>2768165
I'm sure it's a fine camera. anything that shoots .raw will do just fine, honestly. you can even get away with one of those fit-inside-your-pocket canon powershots

>>2766194
Currently have a 5Dmkii.
It's serving my needs for the most part but I sort of want something smaller to bring around with me.

>want: small(ish) camera for portrait/street photography

looking at

>a6000
I was originally pretty much set on the a6000 and it still seems like the best way to go. Plus that way I can start collecting E-mount lenses because someday I would like to upgrade to an A7ii or A7Rii (quite a ways outside of my price range for the time being).

>x100t
But lately I've been looking at the x100t. It seems like a such an impractical hipster-y camera but yet, I really want one for some reason. It's more expensive, less versatile... yet...

I don't know. Anyone care to offer insight?

Any other cameras I'm not looking at?

Woud ideally like to spend under $1000

>>2768171
>can't see the improvement from a peanut sensor to apsc.
i think you need new eyes.

>>2768200
a6000 is popular because it's good and cheap.

x100t is nice but crap video, expensive, raw is baked and slower to load on your pc.

>>2768203
yeah, i'm pretty sure i'm going to go with the a6000.

i guess it just seems kind of 'too good to be true'.

i mean, no one talks about it on here, but everyone else on the internet has a boner for it. i get suspicious, you know?

Looking to sell my XE-1 to get something I like better. Set would include
>Body in original packaging and one year warranty left
>3 spare batteries
>extra grip
>2 adapters (MD to FX and M42 to FX)
>might throw in a 4gig SD card

How much should I ask? I was thinking 260-270€ to get the money I payed for it back essentially

>>2768204
> i guess it just seems kind of 'too good to be true'.
What, the a6000? Eh, it's so well-reviewed...

The new camera of which you can doubt that it is this awesome is the a6300 anyhow...?

>>2768200
>But lately I've been looking at the x100t. It seems like a such an impractical hipster-y camera but yet, I really want one for some reason. It's more expensive, less versatile... yet...
And yet, you prefer hipster looks. Yes, that's what not too few people do for some reason I don't really understand (I don't), but if you go with that, at least do yourself a favour and get an IL Fuji...

File: Z-sony-a3000-beauty.jpg (172KB, 1024x878px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1024x878px

Hi guys. So we got our hands on pic related for 50 bucks open box. I only started using it seriously like a month ago and I've really enjoyed it. However, upon seeing the higher end model, a6000, I've started to consider getting that one and using the a3000's kit lens with it. What do you think I should invest in? The camera or a new lens? I was thinking something along the lines of a prime 35mm

>>2768260
Either is probably fine? Hard to tell for me what you need more.

> I was thinking something along the lines of a prime 35mm
Maybe?

Give a look to the Sigma Art 30/60mm f/2.8, they're very inexpensive for good new glass.

File: 2_14_2016_screenshot.png (311KB, 1017x1181px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1017x1181px

>>2768260
do you miss something on your camera that the a6000 offers?
also the ative lenses for the a6000 are expensive and there are not many.
if you don't actually have a nice prime, i would consider one.

>>2768266
>faking an Apple commercial
>not setting the clock to 9:41am

Hey guys. Looking at buying the rebel sl1 today. Opinions? On sale for 550$

>>2768204
only ricoh gr and fooji shills on here.

I currently have a 1100d, shall i upgrade to a 600d? im not really sure seems sensors are pretty similar. I would get it for the 1080p video capability but im not really sure if its worth it. saw some retailing for $250.

Is a 1:1.4 lens noticeably faster than a 1:2? Worth the price increase? I do a lot of night shooting without a tripod so could use the extra light but it's like quadruple the price.

>>2768275
yes.
just get a 1.7.
i suggest pentax m 50mm 1.7
minolta md 50mm f1.7 if you want that leica glow wide open.
contax yashica carl zeiss 50 1.7 if you want a zeiss.
50mm f2 are usually plastic crap.

>>2768275
1:1.4 is exactly 1 stop faster than 1:2. If you were shooting at 1/30 with a 1:2, you'll be shooting at 1/60 with a 1:1.4.

File: huh.png (160KB, 1789x599px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1789x599px

I'm nowhere near buying anything like these because i'm just starting out but i can't see what's going on here - surely the prime has some advantage:

>same price
>both L
>100-400mm has IS, 400mm does not
>same F5.6 at 400mm

So... i'm guessing that the prime has way better `sharpness` or some other quality which cannot be captured in a line of text but probably only in a graph?

There's also the II series which has the same properties as the above between the fixed and adjustable one.

>>2768287
The prime has better color rendition, is sharper (not just graph differences, real world differences -- generally not enough to ruin an image, but noticeable) , and is a fuckton lighter.

>>2768296
Interesting.

I'm guessing for sports the 100mm-400mm might be really nice since you may want to capture more of the scene, but wildlife the 400mm wins.

>>2768300
Exactly. Lenses are always tradeoffs and you try to match their strengths to your situation.

>>2768306
Surely nobody on this board thinks differently, right?

Although I'm glad I was able to pick out two distinct situations that call for one or the other.

>>2768313
>Surely nobody on this board thinks differently, right?
Of course they do. These fuckers would argue over the ideal "black" for a black bodied camera before they ever actually get into a situation where they just have to worry about getting the shot. They'll go round and round over insignificant differences and not for a moment think about how others might have different needs or have to deal with different circumstances which calls for one over the other.

Like another reason to choose the 100-400mm over the 400 is budget. Say you're a freelancer who buys all his own gear. The 100-400mm doubles as portrait lens on the short end of its zoom range. You don't get the minimal DoF that a 70-200mm f/2.8 gets you, but you do get a lens that you can also take out to the field for doing wildlife and/or have that extra reach for certain sporting events, which if you can only afford one new lens and need to cover both...well, you do the math.
>Although I'm glad I was able to pick out two distinct situations that call for one or the other.
You've the power of critical thinking. Don't advertise that too much around here. They might organize a lynch mob.


Seriously though, in the real world, you use what you have/what works. If you don't have the ideal/can't get the ideal gear (which'll be quite a lot of the time), you make it work with what you have access to.

Sorry, the gearfaggotry on this board just got to me for a bit.

>>2768326
>Of course they do
I was joking, 4chan has a strong retard demographic

cross posting here because i think it fits

Prefocus makes perfect sense as a concept, including setting it and waiting for your subject if you know that he is going to move into it.

Has anyone created (either officially or as a firmware hack) a way to automatically trigger the shutter when an object moves into a certain position?

For instance you could do it by triggering when certain pixels become a certain color (or rather, change from what they are in the pre-focus situation)

You could add a delay as well if you wanted to give your subject some time to move.

>>2768272
Anyone?

>>2768341
You have much better options for that money, Pentax K-50, K-S2 or Nikon D3300 are much better value

>>2768336
There is the Miops controller, no need for that finicky battery chugging thing you described.

>>2768345
>Miops controller
very interesting, never heard of it

yes, it would use battery (but so does liveview..). but it would be nice to have in a custom firmware to play around with - either becuase you dont want to drop 250$ on the controller, or because you don't have it.

i wonder if magiklatern is still alive development wise

>>2768347
>magiklatern
>magik
>k
...

>>2768347
With an off-camera controller you don't need the sensor and processing to operate all the time saving you 90% or more power.
And yes, MagiClantern is still going strong.

>>2768354
I forgot the spelling. Hackers tend to be a little bit dumb/edgy with their spelling so i thought that mighta been it

>>2768358
Are you from the 80s?

Any good lens recommendations for the GH4? I'm thinking of getting a new one.

>>2768375
no but many of the people who hack this stuff together aspire to be if they aren't

some of the the smartest reverse engineers on earth, the ones who break every console security (a product which brings in billions) are named 'fail0verflow'

its just how it is

>>2768264
>>2768266

The thing with the a3000 is kind of slow and the viewfinder and screen aren't very good. Also, for being a mirrorless, it's not very compact. The 6000 has an excellent autofocus as well as being extremely compact. As for the 35mm lens, I want one for their versatility.

>>2768443
>6000 has an excellent autofocus
Not when the subject is moving.

>>2768445
use continuous af brah.

>>2768473
Face it, focal plane PDAF is not as accurate as a separate AF module. It's margin of error is 10x in continuous AF than on a generic DSLR.

>TFW fast wide angle macro

>>2768476
> It's margin of error is 10x in continuous AF than on a generic DSLR.
Your imagination and inexperience is about 10x bigger than the average kid's.

Reality is that PDAF on Sony MILC is now just spot-on.

>>2768487
Who are you quoting?

>>2768493
Looks like you never used a pro DSLR in your life.
Mirrorless is not there yet, doubt it will ever be. It's all about being compact. Pro equipment doesn't do such compromise.

>>2768497
> Looks like you never used a pro DSLR in your life.
Of course I have.

More importantly, so has about every goddamn reviewer who didn't really have to point out focusing issues on the A7R II or A7 II or such cameras. They work fine. I bet the A6300 will also get rave reviews with regards to AF, the limited press feedback we got so far was positive.

> Pro equipment doesn't do such compromise.
DSLR is literally the last decade's compromise solution.

MILC with on-sensor PDAF is the less compromising, more complex new solution that just has advantages. Far more PDAF points and coverage, PDAF continues to work during video, and so on.

Which is why the likely market leader in sensors focuses on doing these.

>>2768505
>sensors = phtoography
sonyfags ladies and gentlemen

there's a smudge on my viewfinder on the veyr edge but nothing on my photos

should i worry or do anything? it doesn't bother me shooting 99% of the time, and i'll probably replace this body in 1-2 years anyway

telephoto extender for entry level wildlife - yea or nay?

>>2768540
1.4x not 2x if you're shooting crop.

The light loss of the 1.4x is manageable, but 2x is death in a lot of situations.

What's your longest lens as is? If you don't have a 50/55-300mm, that would probably be better for you.

>>2768545
75-300mm

i had plenty of light today shooting outdoors, and wouldn't it be better to have the extra 0.6x and just have the iso bump from say, 200 to 400?

iirc there's no perceptible noise change on basically any dslr below 800, and top end it's like 1000-2000 iso which below all noise is equal

>>2768550
>extender results in lost autofocus on telephoto
oh that's gay.

guess i'll get magiclatern and focus peak.

>>2768550
If you're fine with only being able to use it in good light, sure, but you'll have problems and have to start using long shutter speeds if you try to shoot in the mornings/evenings.

Okay /p/ I want to buy lenses for my nikon d7000, I need clarity focusing wide extensions, a manual optical shutter and resistance to the elements because i'm going to an excursion to the dessert to do landscape photography, what's four recommendations?

>>2768554
yeah i'll have to think about it, i guess a lot of bird wildlife is best in the mornings

thanks anon

>>2768577
>>2768577

Are there any criticisms of the X100? Megapixel count isn't an issue for me.

>>2768336
that's called trap focus. old Nikons from the D3 era and before could do it, but they removed that functionality with the D4 era. you pre focused and tracked your subject until the AF system saw your subject come into focus. it requires the use of back button focus/single af, and focus priority release. then you hoped your subject isnt moving so fast that shutter lag puts it out of focus.

>>2768128
pls halp. am I crazy for thinking I should be switching between a 40mm and 28mm, or should I just deal with the 35's less than perfect sharpness and larger size

>>2768618
The original? It's a bit slow to operate, the autofocus isn't amazing, and the menu system is a little fiddly. Other than that, you're in good shape. Great colors, great sensor, etc.

Are samsung NX cameras rubbish? They're so cheap and adaptors are available so I can use my 28mm canon lens.
Apparently their colour reproduction is really accurate.

File: Nikon_FG_1982_8872836[1].jpg (606KB, 1817x1203px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 1817x1203px

I got this little beaut for free today. It hasn't been used in ~30 years. Came with a nifty fifty, unfortunately on my crop D7100 it creates a focal length not quite tele and not quite normal which is awkward as fuck.
Can I pretend to be war journalist now?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D200
Camera Software	Ver.2.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2007:07:30 14:16:36
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	500
Exposure Bias	-1.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cool White Fluorescent
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Image Width	1817
Image Height	1203
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2768676
it's 75mm equivalent.

File: 1447483447713.jpg (54KB, 480x643px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 480x643px

Used Nikon D3300 or used Nikon D300 for a beginner?

>>2768652

Didn't Samsung pretty much give up on the camera business?

>>2768536

I personally wouldn't care unless it starts actually becoming a problem.

>>2768697
a6000.
evf is easier to use than ovf.

>buy rabal dslr
>shoot in liveview anyway.

>>2768652
No, the newest cameras of theirs are really quite okay. They just mostly left the business.

Figures they didn't see a good chance of turning a decent ROI in the future with all the other manufacturers competing.

>>2768652
only nx1 and nx500 are worth buying.

>>2768707
>>buy rabal dslr
>>shoot in liveview anyway.
this is the unfortunate reality if someone wants to use manual lenses. Cant wait to get my EVF.

>>2768707
sony's releasing the a6300 soon. might as well wait and see what it improves upon its predecessor

>>2768764
it's already announced and previewed.
just faster af, metal body, better evf, same sensor but reworked with copper wiring, no bsi, no pixel binning 4k video but slightly cropped to 20megapickle area of the the sensor.

$1000

Is there a guide on good cheap chinese tripods?

>>2768774
oh I didn't know that. for the price the differences appear to be marginal or at least on paper it is anyway. I would have liked to see a touchscreen for menu items, a bit of environmental sealing and a price cut on the lenses but as bob dylan said, "you can't always get what you want" :-(

File: 1455494994243[1].jpg (31KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 450x450px

Does anybody have any experience with the Minlta SRT 101? I can pick it up with a 50mm 1.7 for around $60. Also, just found a Pentax k1000 for around the same price with a 50mm f/2, would that be a better buy? Complete noob to film, but am curious

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

252KB, 1000x1000px

>>2768823
I'll suggest the Dic&Mic E302C, or some Sirui or Benro.

But no, no proper guide. Figures very few even had as many Chinese tripods as I did, and I don't really feel like I can write a guide either.

Been shooting with a 5D MKIII for 3 years. It was provided by my employer, but I'm looking at getting a personal camera soon. Is the 6D a good equivalent? I'm more inclined to drop 1k on a camera rather than 3.

>>2768879
I think the D750 or A7 II is the better equivalent.

Some differences in menus and stuff, sure, but it keeps you fresh.

>>2768697
Bumping this question, need more answers.

>>2768879
The 6D is worse in pretty much every way, but still way more than pretty much anyone needs for day to day photography. Full frame cameras require full frame lenses, and your $1k budget doesn't leave much room for them.

>>2768873
how does it compare to more expensive ones?

>>2768886
Dunno. Both of them aren't cameras I'd like to use.

D3300 has a better sensor for image quality (if you have suitable glass), D300 will probably actually have better AF.

When I say it like that... likely the D3300.

File: nikon_1544_d5500_dslr_camera_body_1111429.jpg (737KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 2500x2500px

D5500...

/P/ recommend something else within that price range?

>>2768697
I would say D300.
It's more fun and easier to use.
Only down side is slightly outdated image quality, but it's still decent enough.

>>2768888
Rather damn well, actually.

The main "tripod" part can be marginally lighter on some high-end travel tripods, but not really enough that I care. It's already light, and works very well.

The head is upper midrange only because it is not quite the most lightweight, or precise when half-arrested. And when the pan is loosened you also might get like half a degree tilt. Nothing really problematic. If you're somehow bothered, of course you can just get some other head, but I doubt the vast majority of people will care about the smaller flaws this one has vs. fully professional heads. It's otherwise a good head. Arca Swiss compatible plate, spirit levels, high load capacity (of 12kg) for a cheap tripod head.

>>2768897
Give the Sony A6000 and the A6300 a look. The latter only is scheduled to be released some time this month, AFAIK not on the market yet. Those are my choice.

Also, give Pentax's K-3 (II) a look. Some anons here really like theirs, I think.

>>2768868
Pentax. the K1000 is a beast and there are more K-mount lenses out there than Minolta.

I wanna buy a Zeiss for my D610, should I go for the Distagon 35mm F2 or the Planar 50mm F1.4?

I feel like I like the 35mm better but I'd like the 1.4 ;___;

>>2768939
Honestly, I'd think about getting the Sigma Art lenses instead.

But between these two? Distagon 35mm, probably.

>>2768940
I don't like the bokeh

>>2768939
This is probably gonna sound crazy, but have you tried the Korean MF lenses? I've shot with a Zeiss 2/100 and I feel like my Rok 85 1.4 is actually pretty close to on par optically. You could have a 35, 50, and 85 1.4 for the price of one Zeiss.

But if you're set on the Zeiss, I'd get the 35. I think it's a more useful focal length, and the smaller max aperture and wider FL will make it a bit easier to focus with the D610.

>>2768963
I have a Nikon 50mm F1.8D

I have been looking at the Samyang 14mm F2.8, the Zeiss 35mm or the 50mm and the Nikon 85mm 1.8G, these are the lenses I intend to buy, hadn't thought of going with 35mm and 85 samyangs tho

Any recomendation to buy a good steady/estabilizer for a Canon 6D in a good price/quality relation?
It will be used for video

Thanks and sorry for my bad english!

>>2768902
Thanks bruh.

>>2768908
Thanks anon. I'll def check them out!

>>2769085
New thread

Best camera for $100-200? Preferably slim, but I'm willing to sacrifice that for quality. Pretty new to photography outside of smartphones, and I really wanna get into it. What do you recommend?