/gear/ - Gear Thread

Right as I posted my reply, there's a new thread. Anyway

I'm gonna buy the Canon EF-S 24mm f2.8 (the pancake)

It has a 52mm filter thread, but the front element is tiny. I was thinking I could get a step up ring, and get tiny filters (to lower the cost).

How small can I go? Are 40mm filters gonna vignet?

Does anyone have the lens, that could try measuring out how small I can go?

>>2995064
The general idea is to buy a filter for your largest lens and then buy step up rings for that, not the other way round. Say you're largest lens thread is 67mm and all your other lenses are 52mm, you'd buy a 67mm filter and then a 52-67mm step up ring.

>>2995064
This is a bad idea and will result in you losing a lot of money. Listen to what >>2995071 is saying or you could also buy a filter system like Cokin makes where you just buy the adapter rings for whatever filter thread your lenses use and then all the filters can be used interchangeably. Cokin uses the square glass filters if you weren't familiar. They can be had for pretty cheap now on eBay since they were really popular in the film days. Good quality– made in France as well

File: Canon-EF-S-24mm-f-2.8-STM-Lens-Angle.jpg (94KB, 675x464px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 675x464px

>>2995071
I know.

Anyway, I just measured the size of the front element (from product pictures), 16.4mm.

Using 58.8 degrees angle of view(diagonal), dividing that by two, moving 1cm "above" the front element, forming a right angled triangle, the lens will actually see the edges of a filter thats 51.8mm in diameter.

17.7mm*2+16.4mm = 51.8mm

Guess the 52mm filter thread is spot on.

Pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>2995035
sony is the best.
fuji is just a pretender that uses sony sensor.

>>2995076
>I posted this in hopes /p/ would think I'm a clever boy
No one cares bud

File: jjclh52_e002-500x500.jpg (45KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x500px

>>2995064
this is the hood

>>2995086
i suppose others might find it useful if they were thinking the same thing

File: 25349_MH_23_Quick_Charger_for_EN_EL9_front.png (110KB, 700x595px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 700x595px

Anyone know if I can charge modern Nikon EL14a batteries with the old MH-23 charger? I much prefer the old style (with a cable) to the new and would rather bring that when travelling etc.

>>2995107
Pretty sure you can't.

Buy a Chinese charger if you want a cable or w/e.

File: ZA7BEAUTY-L.jpg (107KB, 1024x871px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1024x871px

Is the Sony A7 as plasticy as it looks? Does it feel good in the hand? Is it solid?

>>2995133
> Is the Sony A7 as plasticy as it looks?
Not enough, unfortunately.

Should have been essentially the whole body minus the mount for the lens and flash, but it's not.

Photographers apparently always want god damn magnesium alloy or steel or worse nonsense to the point where companies are almost forced to use it from the upper midrange onwards.

> Does it feel good in the hand?
It's workable, but the A7 II and many DSLR feel better. Mainly because the grip is a bit small.

Actually, just get the A7 II.

>>2995133
I just got one about a month ago. It feels solid, and most of where you normally grip is rubberized. All in all it feels good, my only grip is that is much smaller than I expected. Not a huge issue, I just carry it with a wrist strap, and am looking into getting a battery grip just to increase the size. I have not had any battery issues with "airplane mode" left on, unless I need to use the wireless.

File: kit-lens-better-than-think-02.jpg (83KB, 516x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 516x600px

Looking to replace my current kit lens.

Already own a 10-22. Been eyeing the canon 24-105 F4L since I dont need the wide end and there are quite a few used ones in the area.

>>2995168
Are you using a FF or APS-C Canon?

>>2995178

Sorry, APC-C canon.

>>2995181
I'd suggest to get the Tokina AT-X 24-70 F/2.8 instead.

About the same size and weight, but it can do f/2.8 on the wide end and is *much* better at f/4 on the narrow / telephoto side.

ive been thinking of getting started with photography, its always interested me but ive never had the chance to do anything with it. does anyone have advice or some starting gear thats good for cheap?

>>2995195
> advice
Buy the camera and lens as good as you want it to be straight away.

There is no point in getting training wheels first. The gear isn't difficult to operate (actually easier the better it is).

If you don't know what that would be, a recent upper midrange to high-end APS-C or low midrange FF camera together with a good lens is probably a good choice for someone with a normal first world income.

> some starting gear thats good for cheap
You'll probably not really notice a big downside if you buy bag/backpacks, lighting (portable strobes, standing lights / LED panels, or even studio strobes), tripod or monopod, batteries & charger and accessories like that from China.


There are of course also some cheap cameras & lenses, but I'd see if you can't just get something a hobbyist would like to use (if not a high-end professional camera).

>>2995210
thanks brah.

>>2995216
Well, if you give me an idea in what kinds of situations / subjects you want to photograph, I could give you some more specific suggestions.

>>2995220
landscape, nature and people, mostly nature.

>>2995220
keep in mind i know damn near nothing about cameras or photography, ive been interested in it but never got the chance to do anything.

>>2995222
I'd suggest two lenses for that: As wide as you can get a sharp lens (this will typically be 10-14mm), and a "normal" (28 to 50mm equivalent) lens. Prime will often be cheaper and sharper, but zoom also works.

For the body, you'd still get more resolution or better low light from FF, but I think you'll be still okay with an APS-C.
Maybe a Sony A6000, Nikon D7200 or Pentax K-3 II? (That's not the lowest end possible cameras, but rather pretty decent / versatile ones).

>>2995223
I see. Well, it's not that hard if you just want a bunch of respectably decent shots to show to the world rather than aim for regular employment or awards.

>>2995133
I just bought one for Christmas and thought it was the best feeling camera I had ever used. Then a few days ago i made the mistake of finger fucking my friend's a7ii and now I can't help feeling like it's cheap plastic. I couldn't afford the a7ii so I guess I'll live with it.

>>2995236
thanks man you helped me a lot.

anybody here have experience buying used lenses on ebay? I'm thinking of picking up some old nikon AF lenses like the 35-70 f/2.8 sometime...

>>2995236
>Pentax K-3 II
Don't trigger me, anon. The K3II is a high-end (crop) camera, not entry or mid level shit.

>>2995274
Never said it's was an entry-level APS-C. I was actually suggesting this:
> a recent upper midrange to high-end APS-C or low midrange FF camera

But like the other two cameras, it's somewhere in the midrange of cameras overall.

So, is there a decent Pentax kit that I can get for under $200 new or used? I want to buy my first DSLR, but I want to go cheap because it's going to be more of a practice camera until I have more of a budget to work with.

>>2995322

k-50 and k-30 with a nice MF legacy lens or AF kit lens / 50 1.8

>>2995324

Thanks for the quick reply.

>>2995271
I buy used photography gear on ebay a lot. I've never been burned. Follow common sense rules and you'll probably never get burned.
>only buy from sellers with perfect feedback
>only buy from listings with multiple good pictures
>only buy from listings with the kind of details in them that a photographer would include
>only bid in the last 30 seconds
>do not used equipment from overseas

>>2995344
Pretty much spot on.

You get the feel for what's good and what's not. If you're hesitant then skip it.

Forgive me if this question is really dumb, but if you buy really old, circa 1960 to early 1970 lenses, you don't get much multi coating, if any. And you buy coated screw in filters to compensate for this and improve contrast, or does this not exist and it's a stupid idea?

>>2995361
Doesn't exist in the way you want it to.

Okay, if you want extreme contrast you can get a filter for that, but it's not doing what the modern glass coatings do.

I'm going to be buying a Fujifilm X-T2 and can only buy one lens with it. I'm mainly interested in photographing models, but I'll also be doing some street stuff for myself. I'm not into landscapes or anything like that; I'm primarily interested in shooting people. What lens would be the best multipurpose lens for what I want to do?

>>2995375
A fast 24/28/30.

Is it worth getting the a6000 even though Sony iterates the Alpha series so frequently? It's my first good camera, so should I just buy and learn on the a6000 and worry about it being outdated, or save and buy the a6300/5000?

>>2995375

Something longer for people. At least 50mm.

>>2995391

a6000 is one of the best cameras under $1000. a5000 and the like aren't worth it.

If you can afford it, and new features are worth it to you, buy the newer version.

Unless you intend fucktons of lowlight photography, you should be fine with the a6000.

>>2995391
Makes sense to buy the A6000 now.

The A6300 and A6500 are quite a bit more expensive and do not *necessarily* offer a huge upgrade to you (YMMV).

Anyhow, you might as well buy the A6000 and then upgrade to the A6500 or a successor. Almost the same thing with regards to saving up, really.

>>2995375
Almost certainly the Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f/2.8.

>>2995395
>>2995394
Thanks guys, appreciate it. I was concerned with the constant interactions but it seems like it won't be a problem since they're so minimal. Would you be able to explain to me the issues in low light the A6000?

>>2995400
>Would you be able to explain to me the issues in low light the A6000?
Basically, it's an APS-C camera.

It will have a lot more ISO noise and less good color reproduction than a low light FF camera like an A7S or A7S II.

It's also just a tiny bit worse than an a6300 or a6500 or another APS-C that has a newer sensor like that, but for the difference to be relevant in a random situation is... unlikely.

The cheap / reliable way to fix this in situations where you have subjects nearby is to have a hotshoe flash.

>>2995400
>Would you be able to explain to me the issues in low light the A6000?

I forgot to word.

>>2995403
That makes sense, thanks a lot for the explanation.

File: sony-a6500-mirrorless-camera-hands-on-front.jpg (274KB, 1020x680px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1020x680px

I just sold my t2i, my first DSLR. As sad as it is to watch it go, I needed a better replacement for work.

For now, I have my eyes on Sony, but

>Need an adapter for Canon glass -Sony lenses too expensive and not as easy to sell
>No swivel screen, which I found useful on my friends t5i (not a deal breaker)
>wow factor, truth be told, clients love when you show up with a big huge camera
>No magic lantern

That said, I want that creamy smooth low light performance and sharpenss I could never get out of my t2i-t5i after iso 200

Any advice on what to do? the thought of having a small camera with a pancake lens to carry around every day seems really good.

>>2995414
> Need an adapter for Canon glass
Sure.

> Sony lenses too expensive and not as easy to sell
Both kinda wrong for most lenses.

> No swivel screen, which I found useful on my friends t5i (not a deal breaker)
Still has a tilt screen and if that's not enough, you can use your smartphone as remote display / trigger.

> wow factor, truth be told, clients love when you show up with a big huge camera
You still got big lenses, right? Problem solved even with the clients who don't know Sony as a video / photo brand.

> No magic lantern
Yea. But theoretically it has a hack (OpenMemories) and you can run apps, plus maybe 1/3 of the most important ML features are standard fare on Sony cameras anyhow.

Focus peaking even lags less and stuff like that

Not to say it's replacing all of ML, but that'd be the case even with another ML-like firmware.

>>2995419 (cont'd)
> Any advice on what to do?
Buy it, the adapter, and some of the cool high-end native glass for the 2-3 most important lenses.

> a pancake lens
And maybe also get that, but I'll caution these are *very* weak as compared to the good native glass. Regardless if you mean the native pancakes or some vintage ones (or a Fujian 35mm f/1.6 or such).

You mentioned clients? I probably wouldn't expect you to use these with them.

>>2995424
Thanks for the detailed answer. I did find those things agreeable, but still. The previous purchase jitters and all that.

I do small scale video production for small business but photography is my hobby, I'd like something that is good in both areas; I was considering the gh4 but it's just adding every thing I found wrong with the Sony, plus not really liking Panasonic.

>>2995400

>a6000 low light issues.

There are none.

Sure, some cameras perform better, but cost a lot more.

I just meant to say that if your main intention is low light, you may be better off saving for an a7 or the like.

>>2995426
> The previous purchase jitters and all that.
Maybe, but even if it might not be the perfect camera for you yet, the A6500 or the recent FF cameras should still be a very huge upgrade from a T2i.

> plus not really liking Panasonic
I actually kinda do, but yea, I'd go Sony even just for the lenses. Never mind that the specs are quite a lot better overall.

>>2995365
So what the options then, does a lens hood help much with contrast, or will it all just be correcting in post?

>>2995444
A lens hood might help if the issue was the stray light shining into your lens from the side.

It's possible that you also have a problem with that, but I'm going to guess it's maybe not your main problem.

You *could* test out how much it changes on your glass with a newspaper or whatever instead of a lens hood.

That said, lens hoods are good against damage, flaring and so on. I tend to pretty much systematically use them on all lenses and can find few reasons why you wouldn't (except on the cheapest lenses perhaps).

> will it all just be correcting in post
Probably that.

Though you can't reasonably correct for everything. The way it happens means there is also a bunch of actual information loss if you have these contrast issues.

As a hint, Nik is free now:
https://www.google.com/nikcollection/

It might help you a little if you don't have other good software yet.

so my first digital camera was a pentax k-s1 and i'm looking to finally upgrade it. at the moment i'm looking at the k-3II and i'm thinking about getting the Pentax HD DA 16-85mm Lens along with it. i was wondering if anyone had a lens they would personally recomend over that one. and i'm also curious how weather sealed are these cameras? would i be able to bring it out in a strong downpour or just like a light rain?

>>2995468
> I'm also curious how weather sealed are these cameras? would i be able to bring it out in a strong downpour or just like a light rain?
These Pentax' are fully weather sealed if the lens you choose is also sealed.

It should continue to operate normally even in full rain. (Of course you might want an umbrella regardless 'cause droplets on or in front of your lens usually hurt the image).

File: 00000001709914_A02.jpg (44KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x600px

>>2995414
>Need an adapter for Canon glass -Sony lenses too expensive and not as easy to sell

Not really true. It is more of a lack of intro-level lenses. If you wanna shoot intro level junk, I'd stay away from Sony though.

>No swivel screen, which I found useful on my friends t5i (not a deal breaker)

Has tilt screen, plus a pretty awesome remote control app for mobile. Especially nice if you have android, it is literally touch and shoot thanks to nfc.

>wow factor, truth be told, clients love when you show up with a big huge camera

Yea, I get this. But an a7 is a pretty serious looking camera. Slap a battery pack and big lens on it and people will be wowed.

>No magic lantern

Not needed. Most of these features are default even on intro level cameras. Open Playmemories can add the rest.

>Any advice on what to do?

Buy an a7ii. Cheap for what it is, considerably more compact than an DSLR, and still has that wow factor. I run around with an a7ii w/ SEL35F28Z for my everyday carry and have been very happy with the results.

>>2995359
goes with anything on ebay

>>2995448
>As a hint, Nik is free now:
>https://www.google.com/nikcollection/

what the fuck! I paid for that shit in 2015 baka

>>2995522
Yup. Well, now you have unlimited licenses, too!

Also some baka paid the 2009 price rather than your 2015 price.

I want to buy my first DSLR, but the one thing holding me back is the idea of investing a lot of money into something that's going to become obsolete in a few years. So, realistically, how long should a current DSLR last before it's outdated? Am I going to be able to use it for AT LEAST a decade?

>>2995568
Realistically it's neither a lot of money nor will it likely look up to date for a decade, no.

But if you bought high-end lenses, they might still be okay for something in a decade. At least in quite many decades, this was true.

Canon t6i VS. Nikon D5500 which would you guys pick?

>>2995594
I'd wait until I can get a A6000, D7200, 80D, K-3 II, OM-D5 II or some such.

>>2995594
Pentax

>>2995568
You're not "investing" money, anon, you're "spending" them on a hobby. It would be investing if you plan on getting money for shooting.
Anyway, I get the sense that regular people replace bodies every 2-3 years.

>>2995568

>investing

You mean spending.

Camera body will be worth using for about 5 years. Lenses can go longer depending on what they are, but there is always something better coming out.

File: Canon_6255A003_Pro_Neck_Strap_1_387060.jpg (435KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 2500x2500px

Why does it bother me so much when I see people using the brand straps that come with the camera?

File: xS8fIJAh.jpg (121KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1024x768px

>>2995628

I use an old Minolta strap, how does that make you feel?

No clue what it is from originally.

>>2995625
>worth using for about 5 years
I don't think that's really true anymore, we've hit a point where current camera bodies are worth using indefinitely (i.e. until the cost of repair is prohibitive) for most people. The image quality won't get any worse in a decade. I mean, when medium format becomes affordable it will be exciting, but most people aren't interested in producing such detailed pictures. There comes a point when a camera is good enough.

>>2995636

The biggest thing is low light performance I think. Every generation of cameras improves it drastically, even Sony who releases two a year.

I was thinking of selling my 600d with 18-55 mm lens to buy a new nikon d5500 with a 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 lens.
Is that a good upgrade? id also have $100 left over from selling my camera and buying the d5500.

>>2995647
yeah there may be dramatic improvements, what I'm saying is most people don't NEED them anymore
what will really be a game changer is when consumer cameras produce good low-light images with high depth of field, but that's a long way off

File: 1447423896267.gif (708KB, 408x303px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 408x303px

>>2995633
Those shiny plastic-rubber lenses with disgusting early 90's design make me want to hurl every time.

Fuck the AF age that suddenly turned everything into ugly, clunky plastic shit that's only now started to change.

>>2995676

Yes. It is uglu as fuck.

But it is quite sharp, has a a decent aperture, and is cheap enough to be disposable.

File: fujilenses1[1].jpg (45KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x426px

>>2995676
>i don't mind my overpriced APS-C system weighing as much as a contemporary fullframe system because the fashion company behind it decided on muh metal lenses

>>2995729
>want to like Fuji for bringing out APS-C standards
>they build their lenses out of recycled drinks cans
I'd rather have plastic

File: fuji.jpg (55KB, 496x330px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 496x330px

I have been thinking of ditching my Nikon gear into Fuji, what is the ecosystem of lenses on fuji, is it anywhere as good as it is in Nikon?

>>2995736
Its small and there are mostly high end lenses.

IMO not bad but /p/ complains a lot about the much wider but also high end biased E-Mount lineup already so it might not offer enough choice or cheap glass for you.

File: pic_02.jpg (164KB, 880x860px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 880x860px

>>2995740 (cont'd)
Essentially this plus Samyang lenses

File: IMG_6175.jpg (67KB, 543x960px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 543x960px

>>2995633
>Mounting crappy Minolta lenses onto a based Sony A series model

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:05 06:04:39
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	543
Image Height	960
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: aligned.jpg (63KB, 700x229px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 700x229px

>>2995729

Top kek

>>2995736

It is rather limited and pricier than your Nikon. But with a few exceptions most of what they have is decent. Poor third party support compared to other mirrorless. Also, no autofocus adapters for lenses from other ecosystems.

>>2995745

>Mounting crappy Minolta lenses onto a based Sony A series model

>crappy minolta lenses

The secret handshake there is one of the best a-mount zoom lenses ever made, the 35-70 mounted on that camera is pretty good too.

>>2995745
The macro is actually still quite good.

But I guess moar G series APO glass would be good.

File: Minolta.jpg (2MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1200px

>>2995676
Can't you feel the A E S T H E T I C S ?

File: alice-eve-star-trek.png (444KB, 845x352px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 845x352px

>>2995762

More like this.

Those old lens coatings flare like fuck.

>>2995746
the 18mm f2 is soft as fuck.
the sony combo wins here.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/movie-maven-panasonic-lumix-dc-gh5-first-impressions-review

>>2995767
GH5 First Lok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yelWWaxo9rc

File: dscf5188-copy~2-2400x894.jpg (509KB, 2400x894px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 2400x894px

>>2995736
The lenses render like shit, bokeh tends to be distracting and busy, they have very little in the way of ibis/ois, no 3rd party lens support, the only flash you can get is $500, no af adapters, raws don't render correctly except in fujis version of silkypix or iridient developer, no pro lenses, no full frame upgrade path.

They are a toy, if you just want to take sooc jpeg holiday snaps they're great, bit apart from that they're ridiculously gimped. Especially the lenses, holy fuck are they bad, the fuji 35 1.4 ($300 lens) gets rekt by canons $70 nifty fifty on ff.

Just look at the gross distracting purpley branches in pic related, and this is one of fujis "best" lenses against the worst and cheapest ff prime lens.

>>2995746
>one of the best 35mm lenses ever made on a full frame body with ibis
Against
>a shithouse lens on a crop body that uses adopted parts from the other company

The best bit is the almost non existent variable in price

File: IMG_9098.jpg (140KB, 634x800px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 634x800px

>>2995762
>one of the best a-mount zoom lenses ever made
>one of
>a mount
>zooms
Those 3 qualifying points are more than enough to get any lense from your camera to the trash.
>hey check it out, I found 3 more underrated classics!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	634
Image Height	800

>>2995779
And of course I meant to quote
>>2995748

>>2995769
uh oh, its the bin-man again

Bought an a6000.
Deciding between the Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS, adapting legacy lens of of an equivalent focal length, or any other lens, really. Can't make a decision.

what do

>>2995783
Probably just buy the 28mm f/2, or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (or f/2.8 if you're on a budget).

About to pull the plug soon. Need some opinions.

Nikon 24-70 or Tamron 24-70 VC?

>>2995793
Tamron is cheaper and pretty good as in money-maker quality, Nikon is better though

>>2995568
>invest
moron
you're not getting it back, the money is gone. Unless you're a pro (you're not) your gear won't make you money.

I'm currently shooting with a 10 year old DSLR
Today's DSLRs will IN NO WAY be ""obsolete"" in 10 years with their image quality. They will still be perfectly usable, just not new.

If you're a techfaggot who believes that something is obsolete garbage as soon as something better comes out, pound sand. Photography is not the hobby for you.

>>2995820
>If you're a techfaggot who believes that something is obsolete garbage as soon as something better comes out, pound sand. Photography is not the hobby for you.
You just described Sony users.

>>2995823
Even if Sony users actually believed that, they'd obviously still be successfully practising photography as a hobby.

Your logic is flawed.

>>2995823
But I have a sony mirrorless to supplement my large fleet of Nikons.

>>2995823
>You just described Sony users.

Which is why the 3 generation old a6000 sells better than anything else.

Sony users only buy the latest and greatest.

/s

>>2995838
>3 generation old
>generation
You mean the "generation" that started in 2011 with the NEX 7?
That 24mp sensor they're still milking now 10 years later?
Samsong made the last push in APSC IQ, and they're ded now.

>>2995768
>>2995767
>anamorphic 6k
suny is kill.

>>2995838
>Which is why the 3 generation old a6000 sells better than anything else.
>3 generation
nah more like 3 iteration. The A6000 doesn't span 3 generations.

>>2995783
Playing with legacy glass on the a6000 is quite the tits. Adapters are cheap, lenses are usually not that expensive either. Get some nice primes (MD 28mm f2, Takumar 35mm and 50mm f1.4 for example) and you're good to go.

>>2995860
It's because you don't have any proper modern lenses you can afford

>>2995864
>ONLY NEW STUFF IS GOOD!
Looks like photography isn't the hobby for you

Gear is just a tool, your snapshits with your state of the art brand new shit can still get blown away by people with better technique and old gear. Judging by your post, you're the kind that's all gear and no technique anyway.

>>2995865
Not really, my Helios 44M and Pentacon 135 are amongst my best lenses.
I just stated that Sony has no lens.

>>2995783
20mm f2.8

>>2995783
Get the Sigma primes.

Dirt cheap (〜100 each) and they will give you an idea of what focal length you like best. Then you can buy a better version.

>>2995912
199 new

>>2995918

I was thinking the old plastic versions.

I think I'm going to buy an a6000, but I was just wondering about the camera colors. I read online that a black camera body absorbs heat faster, while white/silver don't but can be more difficult to look at in sunlight. Is anything to really be concerned about outside of aesthetic preferences?

I also live in New England so our temperatures range from 30F to 95F (with high humidity) depending on the season.

>>2995926
Black body absorbs heat quicker but also radiates heat away quicker than lighter color bodies.
But the body is plastic with very low heat conductivity so it doesn't matter. Enjoy your pink plastic.

>>2995930
I think I'm just going to do black because the more I think about it white would eventually become discolored anyway.

>>2995926
> Is anything to really be concerned about outside of aesthetic preferences?
No. Unless there is reflective materials inside the barrel of your lens you can't notice shit.

Granted you can get a thermal shutdown on a A6300 or A6500 with 4k *video* and hot ambient temperature. Or by ridiculously persistently shooting bursts.

But it's not really something to worry about for photos at all.

>>2995133
>A7 is a lil bit shitty

>Get the A7ii feels good, got built in stabilization

A7ii is just better in most ways

File: WIN_20170105_13_52_46_Pro.jpg (3MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x1836px

Was told to post this in here. I know it's a Graflex but can't identify the model. If anyone could help out that would be great.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Intel Corporation
Camera Model	OV8865
Camera Software	Exif Software Version 2.2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:05 13:52:46
Exposure Time	19999/1000000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	520
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	3.57 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: WIN_20170105_13_53_07_Pro.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Intel Corporation
Camera Model	OV8865
Camera Software	Exif Software Version 2.2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:05 13:53:08
Exposure Time	7889/500000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	352
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	3.57 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: WIN_20170105_13_53_14_Pro.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Intel Corporation
Camera Model	OV8865
Camera Software	Exif Software Version 2.2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:05 13:53:14
Exposure Time	15509/1000000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	352
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	3.57 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: WIN_20170105_13_53_19_Pro.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Intel Corporation
Camera Model	OV8865
Camera Software	Exif Software Version 2.2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:05 13:53:19
Exposure Time	15509/1000000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	352
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	3.57 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2996142
Not sure but looks like a Pacemaker Speed Graphic

Sell it to me plz

I want to get my first DSLR as an amateur/hobbyist. I have a very limited budget ($400).
I was looking around and the Nikon D5100 and D3300 caught my eye. Which one should I get? Or should I get something else?

>>2996270
Buying a DSLR now is akin to buying a typewriter in 1990. Mirrorless more than matches them in every way and surpasses DSLR in many ways.

File: 1463539590703.png (137KB, 623x527px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 623x527px

>>2996278

>>2996278
Are you being truthful, anon?

>>2995729
The metal makes almost zero difference though, it's thin aluminum. Fuji lens housings probably don't weigh any more than plastic ones and the internals are the same as any other modern AF lens.

I don't get why /p/ has such a boner for bashing Fuji. I'm a Fujifag and I don't go around hating on Sony, in fact I recommend them more than any other camera brand when people ask me for advice.

File: 21 21 21 21.jpg (32KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1280x720px

What do you guys think about buying used cameras?

I'm accustomed to buying used goods, but I've never bought a used camera before. I have zero experience with purchasing used cameras, so I have no idea how to look out for lemons.

As far as finite life is concerned, I'm not too worried about used batteries or SD cards, as those are easy enough to replace. But I wonder, are there any internal parts I need to worry about? The flash? The mirror mechanism inside of DSLRs? Zoom lever wear? Are any of these legitimate concerns? Are there any reasons why I shouldn't buy used?

File: butwhy.jpg (84KB, 516x598px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 516x598px

>>2996288
>I'm a Fujifag

>>2996289

Mainly shutter count. But check every function when you get hands-on.

File: ER_Photo_143[1].jpg (768KB, 1284x722px) Image search: [Google]

768KB, 1284x722px

I'm a poorfag that wants to shoot wrasslers over the next summer. Never owned DSLR.

Been thinking about getting an old one from the 2000s for less than $200. I already have a 35-80mm EF lens. My research so far has told me the best camera to get is a Canon EOS 1d for dat 8 fps. Am I fucking up?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1284
Image Height	722

>>2996295
I like the feel and interface and the look of the finished photos. I've been shooting seriously for almost 20 years now and don't try to shoot everything under the sun, and the Fuji is great for the things I do.

>>2996289
There's no reason to shy away from buying cameras used. Just stay away from anything that's obviously gray market on sites like ebay, and go through trustworthy marketplaces like KEH, or forums with good reputations. Super old gear might require some following up with the seller re: known issues or shutter count, but I've never had issues buying 3-4 year old cameras

>>2996322
probably, depends on the lighting.
The lenses is aids tier slow, and the noise performance wont be that great, but if you get faster glass and have better light the fps and AF wont disappoint you

>>2996353
>Keh
>Trustworthy

Wait, really?

Both times I bought something from them, they sent me junk even though it was graded excellent.

They don't even show real pictures of what they are selling, even fucking ebay sellers do that.

Looking for some counter-intuitive advice here.

So I have my mind set on the Sony A6000. Heard many great things about it. I've heard people saying great things about it not just on /p/, but also on YouTube, Amazon, and photography enthusiast forums.

It goes without saying that I want an A6000. However, I don't want to buy it right now. I have the money, don't get me wrong, but I would rather be using that money on more important things for the next few months.

By the time I'm comfortable & ready to buy a camera, I think I'll have even more money by then. I'll probably have so much more that I'll probably be able to do better than an A6000.

Alright, so tell me, /p/. What camera would you recommend to an A6000 "fan," that is better than an A6000? I would guess a slightly more expensive mirrorless, but I'd like to see what you guys think.

>>2996347

Yea, if you are a sooc snapshitter, Fuji is the way to go. Their jpeg output is pretty awesome.

>>2996379

Simple question.

a6300. Wont be long before a6000 is discontinued and a6300 takes its place.

>>2996379
If you only say slightly more, than yeah, I'll corroborate what ^^^ said and A6300.
But a more would fetch the XT-2.

>>2996383
I actually do neither SOOC nor snapshits, but I still like it. I find that Fuji RAWs have a unique quality to them and I can get a look I like just by choosing one of the conversion presets in LR, tweaking a few sliders, and then doing whatever pixel editing I need to do. (I shoot location portraiture and EPs so that's mostly skin retouching.)

It's not that the look from the RAWs is unattainable with other cameras, but with my Nikons it took me 3-4 times as long to tweak photos to where I was happy with them. That's not a big deal for, say, a landscape or street photographer who will pick a small handful of photos from a day's shooting and then spend a few more days tweaking them to perfection, but I shoot a lot of volume and so speed and workflow are big deals to me.

I always get shit for saying this, but the look of my X-Pro2 itself is a help for the photography I do. My clients are normal people, not models, and they get comfortable faster with a quirky little camera pointed at them than they do with a big intimidating DSLR. They're often very interested in the camera itself too, and that makes a good icebreaker and helps develop a rapport and make the shoot more friendly and casual. I'd always heard Leica guys talk about how much of a different it makes when your subject can see your face as your shooting, too, and never really understood it until I started shooting with the X-Pro2.

>>2996389
Not the guy you've been talking to but
you mention the "your subject can see your face as your shooting"
Can people see your eye through the OVF?

>>2996278
That analogy only works if the mirrorless is a cordless wifi keyboard that shuts down halfway through writing the first chapter, while the typewriter successfully lasts all the way through writing a full novel.

Only complete faggots buy mirrorless trash. It ends up weighing just as much, costing twice as much and half the utility.

>>2995930
>Black body absorbs heat quicker but also radiates heat away quicker than lighter color bodies
Things that have never been true at any time.
Black literally has 0% increased radiation, there's no mechanic in all of physics that says a black object sheds heat faster, color has absolutely NOTHING to do with heat transfer, inbred gullible fuck.

>>2996411
OVF is on the far left and the camera is small so it only covers the area around your right eye, unlike a DSLR that usually covers most of your face.

As for the eye itself, I actually didn't know either so I just checked in the mirror. The answer is no, unless they're a few inches away and shining a flashlight into it. The OVF is basically a little ultrawide zoom lens, so when you look the front you only see a teeny tiny circle out the back, maybe 2mm wide.

Oh, and in case anybody says something, yes, it's a zoom. Fuji doesn't document this worth a shit but it actually changes magnification depending on lens. The whole camera is weird like that though, there's tons of "secret" features that Fuji doesn't advertise or put in the manual. (Another OVF one is that pressing the center of the OFV/EVF switch gives you a frameline preview.) I almost think they do it on purpose to make operating the camera and "discovering" the hidden features more exciting, which is kind of stupid but fun.

>>2996421
The only truthful downside you could find is ameliorated with 25 dollars worth of spare batteries. Literally LMAOing at your life dawg.

>>2996424
Ah, okay.
I agree, it's nice to have your face more exposed.
The Japanese attention to detail is a pleasant experience, isn't it?

>>2996422
How about you educate yourself in heat transfer first, specifically look up the Stefan-Boltzmann law

>>2996483
Not that Guy but suddenly curious. How significant is thermal radiation actually compared with molecular collisions for the cooling of dark hot everyday objects such as a cup of black coffee or the Sony a6500?

>>2996487
Radiation is a surface phenomenon, the whole thing depends on the bull heat conductivity. Plastic insulates, metal conducts and ceramics can both insulate or conduct. Color affecting, more specifically the magnitude of grey to black becomes apparent over 80 degrees Celsius.

>>2996490
>bull
*bulk
stupid phone

>>2996490
Are you familier with the term "back-of-the-envelope calculation? I believe physfags call it"Fermi problems"?

>>2996461
It's not bad, I just wish I didn't have to dig through the turboautist Fuji forums to figure out how to do the "secret" stuff. It's all well thought out and intuitive once you know it, too, but just not documented.

I just wish Adobe would get their shit together for Fuji files. It's not as bad as it's made out to be, especially once you know how to properly sharpen them, but it could still be a lot better.

>>2996440
worse autofocus
pig expensive lenses and no legacy alternatives
poor telephoto support
lag makes it poor choice for action
plus carrying one around labels you a cunt who would be dumb enough to believe that battery life isn't an important consideration in choosing a camera

File: 4382403541_134fb5e443_b.jpg (334KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1024x681px

Bought this for less than my lunch money

>>2996499
>no legacy alternatives

Mirrorless cameras can adapt so many legacy lenses it's ridiculous, what the hell are you smoking?

>worse autofocus

Sony mirrorless cameras have among the best autofocus available.

>lag makes it poor choice for action

Even though they are intrinsically better at high fps and are used by most actual sport photographers now?

>>2996496
Finish a school first, kid.

>>2996504
>Sony mirrorless cameras have among the best autofocus available.
Any DSLR ever made including Sony SLT would like to have a word with you

>Even though they are intrinsically better at high fps and are used by most actual sport photographers now?
*citation needed

>>2996421
> It ends up weighing just as much
How? The Sony FF bodies are half the weight, and so again are many lenses, especially most primes.

> costing twice as much
No for almost every comparable setup.

> half the utility
For what?

>>2996509
> Any DSLR ever made
Is not remotely a match for the modern Sony mirrorless AF, no.

They neither have anywhere near equal AF coverage nor equal AF performance.

>>2996509

Yea, mirrorless fan here myself. He is right about the rest, but mirrorless autofocus speeds lag behind most professional DSLR.

>>2996554
Delusions, the post.

>>2996556
> but mirrorless autofocus speeds lag behind most professional DSLR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G98HfUIY9D8

Oh, the D5 and maybe 1D X II will do it a little better yet, but that's not even "most" professional DSLR.

>>2996565
>posts example where the subject moves parallel to the focus plane
How about posting proper sports shots with no isolated subject, lots of distraction, subject moving to and from the camera etc...
It's almost like you never went out to a football field or bike track because you would know how things work in real life.

>>2996570
You mean if you put your AF to the entire frame (the thing most DSLR under $6k can't even approximately do, there is not a fuck's worth of decent AF points anywhere near the corners), and then want subject tracking algorithms to decide what place to keep auto-focusing on?

Sure, that's still actually a little better on a $6k Canon/Nikon professional FF camera than on a $1k A6300 or RX100 V. Not that they can't already do it well, but I guess the best incarnation of that still is on the $6k DSLR.

And it's pretty damn close to these $6k DSLR anyhow - easily among the best AF available, and with good (but not the best) subject tracking.

>>2996594
Like I said above, post the photos you made

>>2996605
Post videos of the UI and actual photos showing how your oh so superior DSLR tracks a flying bird across the frame (including when it flies into corners) first.

Then I'll maybe consider putting in the effort, but I'll not promise anything.
It's ultimately completely irrelevant ad hominem bullshit to discuss what I do with *my* cameras, rather what the cameras under discussion do. You can already find photos for many MILC that show football, bike races or shit like that.

>>2996504
>>2996554
Holy shit dude. I dumped DSLR for mirrorless and even I don't believe this shit. AF on my old D3S shat all over any mirrorless I've ever used, and that includes the A7SII with good glass.

Go shoot some indoor baskeball or even an auto/bike road race and see how that mirrorless holds up. Not everything is BiF against a nice smooth background, tracking erratic subjects in subpar conditions is the big deal and nobody has come close to canikon in that arena.

>>2996609
The A7S II is a *CDAF only* low light specialist camera, so that's no surprise.

You kinda should have noticed that it also won't track a flying bird or and might have some trouble even with a running person and it also looks completely different on the UI you're looking at as compared to the PDAF enabled A6000-A6500 (of which mainly the A6300 and A6500 do really well), RX100 V, A7R II.

I figure you never tried one of the more recent >200 point PDAF cameras.

>>2996612
Oh, I thought the S was supposed to be the good one. I've tried the R and the 6300 as well. Wasn't impressed compared to the D500/D5 or 7D2/1DX.

Billions of AF points sound great in marketing paperwork but they're useless for sports IRL, it takes too long to scroll across them. Everybody I know uses the lowest number of points possible when doing sports work.

BTW if you're wondering why I've shot everything under the sun, I'm an adjunct professor at a community college and the photo advisor for the student newspaper. We recently decided to upgrade our gear, since we were still mostly using D200s and a few D300s, and borrowed or rented pretty much every major camera on the market. We ended up sticking with Nikon and getting a bunch of D500s and a few D5s. (Partly because we already had Nikon glass but I also thought they were the best all-around choice anyway, plus Nikon gave us a really good deal on the package.)

>>2996615
I usually use the center point and the ones around it for tracking, it gives the most coherent results.
Using whole area AF makes the tracking algorithm confused when there is a flurry of bodies in a bunch around the ball. It tracks one player then jumps to another and so on and the one subject I was tracking goes out of focus.
Small AF area means control and control makes a good photo.

File: Screenshot_20170106-162507.png (127KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1080x1920px

So any of you use massdrop?

File: i (2).jpg (147KB, 950x277px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 950x277px

I'm going to buy $~450 tier macro lens. I'm wondering about these two guys:
1. Samyang 100mm
2. Sigma 105mm OS

And I don't know what to choose because I can't find quality comparison chart photos. Autofocus and stabilization is really just optional as 90% of my plans are shooting non moving stuff indoors with tripod.

Please, help me out /p/

>>2996615
>Oh, I thought the S was supposed to be the good one.
It's about the best camera in around -1 to -4EV very low light.

It's not good in more light. In conditions where PDAF could work, you'll miss PDAF - even if it has respectable CDAF it's still just CADF. Plus it's 12.2MP only ('cause big pixels for low light).

> it takes too long to scroll across them
Yea, it generally takes too long to do that, no matter which camera?

Even the touch screen AF on the A6500 and RX100 V won't really do it too well. That said, you tell me how you select AF points faster than with a touch screen...? Not that these are perfect touch screens yet, but you're still not going to do that faster with a knob.

What you really usually do is obivously aim the center at your subject and try to track ( even if it slips outside the center of your frame). You definitely aren't changing the AF points around as your subject moves.

And certainly, some Nikon / Canons still do that better, but not AF. Plus there are also moments where the face detection of a Sony kicks in or you aimed right, and then you quite possibly have a more precise focus.

> Partly because we already had Nikon glass but I also thought they were the best all-around choice anyway
Maybe you did, and it's certainly a defensible point of view that Nikon makes some good cameras. They also do have some with nearly the best AF.

But I have almost no doubts you'd have decided otherwise if you had a pile of Sony glass (55mm Z, 50 and 90mm macro, 70-200GM, 21mm Loxia, 85mm GM, a bunch of Bati's and all that glass) already.

Once you own that, you're not going to switch to a Nikon (with worse and heavier glass) . Never mind for a community college student newspaper.

>>2996642
Nah, directly buying from Asia is almost always cheaper (by means of eBay, Aliexpress, Hong Kong stores).

Not going to advertise any store, but the same seems to be available at US$1620 with shipping included.

>>2996643
Can't find conclusive results either, but from not directly comparable tests I get the impression that the 100mm Samyang is sharper.

If you don't have a camera yet or are adapting, the Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro should be far better if your subjects allow using a 50mm.

>>2996649
Is drtv supposed to be cheap?

Because the prices they display to me are not. Wondering if that's a yuro thing (customs + taxes) or is it a general thing that you need less scrupulous stores to save money?

>>2996653
> Is drtv supposed to be cheap?
No. I don't think so.

> Wondering if that's a yuro thing (customs + taxes)
Do they even cover these? I never ordered from them.

> is it a general thing that you need less scrupulous stores to save money?
Scrupulous how?

But anyhow, the margin trader stores will often be less obliging than stores where you are paying a premium on every order if something happens.

>>2996615
>community college student newspaper
>a bunch of D500s and a few D5s

Jesus

>>2996646
>Nikon (with worse and heavier glass)
That's quite a generalization you have there fiendo

>>2996646
jesus, are you retarded?

File: 3670016957_5154342750_o.jpg (127KB, 961x1280px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 961x1280px

>>2996355
It's a 4-5.6 lens. With the 1.3x crop factor that means It's 7.28 at the worst.

This photo was taken with the same camera, but no focal length or aperture was in the exif data. It's got a pretty good amount of noise. Is this what I can expect? Because it would be good enough for me.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1D
Photographer	SANTOS
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2009:06:28 20:49:09
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	175.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2996689
Broad generalization, but it works quite well.

For instance, try to find a F-mount prime in the range from 20 to 90mm (wide, normal, short telephoto) where there isn't a lighter and equal and/or better resolving E-mount prime at +-5 to 10mm.

>>2996726
In the same price range? Every single one of them.

>>2996725
That is an okay amount of noise, it doesn't even show up in print, don't worry about it friendo

>>2996730
No, obviously just on the high end of mass market lenses in general.
Lenses that hobbyists and professionals alike will almost naturally buy along with their recent FF cameras.

Feel free to omit practically not affordable lenses though. I also don't care if there's a near unique made-to-order 20mm Sony E-mount or Nikon F available somewhere for $20k or $1m+.

File: Zeiss_Carl_Zeiss_Batis_85mm_F18_Sony_FE[1].png (47KB, 188x153px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 188x153px

>>2996730
For Sonyboys, getting to pay double price for a slightly higher resolution lens is part of the advantages of the system

>>2996745
>slightly higher resolution lens
*citation needed

>>2996504
legacy adapters don't give the same autofocus capabilities as using the lens natively. the optics are also iffy. the idea that you can use pro sport lenses and get the same results is nonsense.
the sony mounting system is also retarded. there is no reason to make the sensor-to-lens distance so small

>>2996747
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Batis-85mm-F18-Sony-FE-on-Sony-A7R__823_814_1536_917

File: 1456021989231.jpg (49KB, 500x326px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x326px

guys im selling my PENTAX K-3II with lenses , buy it so i can spend my money on more shit i dont need. http://www.ebay.com/itm/282309152665?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

>>2996752
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-on-Nikon-D810-versus-Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Batis-85mm-F18-Sony-FE-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sony-FE-85mm-F14-GM-on-Sony-A7R-II__823_963_1536_1035_1680_1035

>>2996752
Says they are the same resolution: 27 P-Mpix

I need help on switching systems. Up till now I've been using Sony for my video jobs, first an A6000 then I got a second body A7RII.
Now that the GH5 is coming out I'm going to switch systems.
I know all about the camera control and the needed features but I don't know a thing about lenses.
Do I need lens with OS? What are the best wide to standard zoom and wide primes?
I'm doing both handheld shots and tripod and rail panning shots. I know I will need to set up a new rig too but I have friends with 3D printers to make specialized parts for the focus pull mechanism.

>>2996754
>putting the sony lens on a camera with more pickles than the nikon camera increases the peeping score

Really makes you think

Hey /p/, I'm a newfag looking to buy a camera to take pictures of music shows (low lights, lots of movement) and film-making. Most of my film takes will be either inside or out at night (then again low-light).
Do you have any suggestions or leads about a good model or even a brand?
My budget is 1500-2000$
Thanks.

>>2996762
These are simply the current high-end of the respective camera series.

Even as a fraction of the sensor's resolution, the Sony lenses are doing a significant bit better. And it's harder - not easier - for glass to perform better on a higher resolution sensor of equal size.

On top of that, the GM also is almost exactly a stop (1 EV) brighter in terms of the light transmission than the Nikkor.

>>2996770
http://www.ebay.com/itm/282309152665?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

>>2996770
Used Sony A7S.

If you need lenses with that same budget too, it's kinda difficult. Maybe a used FF Canon that can run magic lantern, a GH4 or GH5, or a A6300 or A6500?

>>2996773
there's no long-term reason for this nonsense
you get more bang for your buck by increasing sensor size than by squeezing the absolute highest quality possible out of small format glass. and lens manufacturing isn't going to keep pace with sensor manufacturing, not even close.this whole zeiss glass meme is obnoxious and will be obsolete the second the MF sensor craze begins

>>2996770
what is your working distance? i.e. what kind of focal length do you require

>>2996779
> you get more bang for your buck by increasing sensor size than by squeezing the absolute highest quality possible out of small format glass
If you take a very long view, perhaps? Or perhaps it will be a problem to push glass to MORE extreme performance than a 90mm FE perhaps?

Right now and for the foreseeable future, digital MF or general large format and its glass is more expensive and also overall more limited.
Even if you pay a lot of money, they won''t be so nice in terms of shooting speed and features and weight and on top of all of that your workflow might hate it on some or another software or hardware and you'd have to restructure and possibly limit it seriously.

As compared to that, the good MILC glass we discussed (no doubt they'll follow up with at least optically comparable if maybe not equally lightweight glass on DSLR eventually...) is a much better deal.

> this whole zeiss glass meme is obnoxious and will be obsolete the second the MF sensor craze begins
Or it'll be the MF Zeiss glass craze. Maybe. Either way, that's certainly not now, and it's probably not going to happen until Sony or Samsung (as sensor manufacturers) make it happen.

>>2996773
>These are simply the current high-end of the respective camera series.
We're comapring lenses, not systems. Sensor performance must be kept as constant as possible. D8xx and a7r i are all 36mp

Even as a fraction of the sensor's resolution, the Sony lenses are doing a significant bit better. And it's harder - not easier - for glass to perform better on a higher resolution sensor of equal size.
They perform the same at 36 mp. We have no point of comparison for Nikon so we can't compare them at 43 mp
Nikon will probably release a 43 mp ff this year, and we will probably find that the Batis outperforms the Nikon G slightly. Don't expect wonders. It may be twice the price but you are also paying for the Sony tax + the fucking OSS lol

>On top of that, the GM also is almost exactly a stop (1 EV) brighter in terms of the light transmission than the Nikkor.
How the fuck did you post this without actually looking up the nikon 85m f/1.4 first?

But yeah. The GM is better than the (equivalent) Nikon. It's also fucking expensive, but the performance is there to match. And if I was gonna buy a 1.4 lens, I'd make sure to get the more expensive, comparably better one

The problem is that, apart from the G Mustard lenses which have all been praised, most of Sony's lineup is overpriced shit

>>2996792
medium format cameras are already sub-$5k, I don't think it's so far off

>>2996802
> We're comapring lenses, not systems.
Sensor performance should be as demanding as possible so you can see better which is the better lens.

Plus this is what you actually get.

> We have no point of comparison for Nikon
26/36.3 ~= 0.716 for Nikon
36/42.4 ~= 0.849 for Sony

It's obvious that the Sony lens is a better. It gets harder to have good glass at higher resolutions for the same sensor size, not easier.

> How the fuck did you post this without actually looking up the nikon 85m f/1.4 first?
I did, and of course the Otus too.

Do you want to compare how much they cost, weigh, and how they perform? Heh.

>The problem is that, apart from the G Mustard lenses which have all been praised, most of Sony's lineup is overpriced shit
Want more non-GM highly praised primes?
90mm FE
55mm ZA
50mm FE Macro
50mm Loxia
35mm ZA
25mm Batis
28mm FE
21mm Loxia
12mm Zero-D

There are quite many more that aren't as noteworthily great, but don't meet "overpriced and shit" .

>>2996847
Recently bought an Adaptall 2 Tamron 90mm macro lens. Resolves perfectly on my 24pickle APS-C, no need for more resolution than that. A fraction of the cost of a new macro lens.
Jokes on you, Mr. pixel peeping Sony autist.

>>2996807
It was like $10k for a setup with 2.5FPS and 30 line type equivalent AF points or something like that. Feels quite far off.

But I sure wouldn't mind if FF cameras were surpassed by a surprise announcement of a MF camera with metrics equal to a better FF Sony / Canon / Nikon tomorrow..

>>2996859
How many FPS do you need for portraits, landscapes or product photography?

File: what (2).jpg (16KB, 216x310px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 216x310px

>>2996859
>2.5FPS
>medium format
>shooting bursts

>>2996862
That's the point. It's not yet so close to a FF replacement, is it?

>>2996861
A lot of FPS would be nice for landscapes / cityscapes. Various blending / stacking techniques depend on it.

Getting portraits of random amateurs and events is also much easier with fast bursts.

Either way, it just doesn't feel like we're anywhere near the point where FF users start migrating to MF to overcome limitations. Maybe the comparatively far more rapid progress of FF cameras and glass actually even had the opposite effect recently?

>>2996775
Thanks for the link!

>>2996778
I have a friend who wants to sell a Sony GH2 and a GH4. Do you know about that?

>>2996782
Most of it would be up close (5-10cm) and the rest would be as far as 8 or 9 feet.

>>2996904
>Thanks for the link!
That was a semite shamelessly plugging his own sale >>2996753 not trying to help you

>>2996904
>I have a friend who wants to sell a Sony GH2 and a GH4. Do you know about that?
Uh, it should be a Panasonic.

And I don't know the GH2 at all and the GH4 only poorly. Seemed like a pretty good camera for video; wasn't happy with its AF and some lenses.

So I just spent $200 on a set of extension tubes for my D3300, since I need macro photos for my food tumblr blog, but a friend told me I overpaid, is this true? They are a very sturdy looking plastic to me and seem to be of extremely fine optical quality.

>>2996957
Yes, very much. Extension tubes are like $10-25 for a set of three (typically fine for almost anything) including with shipping.

You paid as much as 2-3 achromat close-up filter lenses or even a cheap used macro lens would cost.

>>2996962
Yeah, but good extension tubes with electrical contats can be priced quite high (Kenko etc.). For 10-25$ you can buy only cheap, plastic ones. However it doesn't affect optical performance so I don't really see a reason to buy such expensive set of extension tubes. If interior of the tubes is black without any flaws, they are good enough in most cases.

>>2996957
you didn't overpay vs market price, quality extension tubes cost about that much. the cost gets you aperture control and metering and autofocus and build quality, which IMO are important. and they'll get you better results than those cheap fucking diopters people use. not quite as good as a macro bellows, but definitely useful. whether they are worth it to YOU is another story, I'm not sure why you would want super high magnification for food anyway.

>>2996989
$25 gives you electrical contacts.

They're cheap (that's the point?) and partly plastic (apart from the metal reinforced mount), but I still couldn't tell you what's wrong with them vs a <whatever> brand thing for $200, and I couldn't tell you why you'd prefer a mount made of <not plastic> either.

>>2997007
you want build quality so your $1k macro lens doesn't break off and shatter on the floor

>>2997009
Shouldn't be a problem as long as the tube isn't made from PVC that's been bleaching in the sun for 20 years, and considering they bought the 200 dollar set for a D3300, there is no way in hell they have a macro lens at all.

>>2997009
No signs of that happening. Why would it. It's plastic+metal and only a 1kg load with some horizontal leverage.

Hey, want to buy some $1500 shoes with my brand stamped on from me? You wouldn't want to fall and incur a $25-100k medical operation, right? No, I won't give you a warranty, nor is this a common problem with cheap shoes or anything. But you wouldn't want it to happen!

>>2997006
>not quite as good as a macro bellows
Macro bellows without contacts are $20-40 if you prefer those.

People just can't into China.

>>2997007
Sorry, English is not my first language, but I do my best to write correct. I didn't said that I prefer a set for $200. I said clearly that
>"I don't really see a reason to buy such >expensive set of extension tubes"
I would just consider the factor of precision of aperture control (it's important). And if you ask about plastic mount - they can wear out after some time. It's just a fact, but 10 times lower price is of course a huge advantage. If I buy extension tubes at all, they will be probably the ones for $25.

File: PSC3_112.jpg (294KB, 1000x1417px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1000x1417px

Any precautions to take with radioactive lenses? I picked up a Kodak Pony IV recently. And I think I have some manual lenses that I read is radioactive. Granted I'm not sleeping with them down my pants, but any concern about them sitting on the shelf a few feet away from me or to other camera stuff?

>>2997012
> I would just consider the factor of precision of aperture control (it's important).
How would aperture control depend on the adapter's quality?

> And if you ask about plastic mount - they can wear out after some time.
The $25 ones with electrical contacts are already almost all metal plated at the mount's contact surface, even if the ring's "body" is plastic..

If you manage to wear out the plastic by touching the outer body so much or through the metal ring by screwing the adapter on and off SO many times, then I'll be
1. Impressed as fuck with your enthusiasm for photography and amount of lens swaps
2. Concerned you're probably blind and have no sense of touch because you didn't see or feel that kind of damage

>>2997014
If you mean the ones that had traces of Thorium oxide in the lens glass:
Try not to eat them and don't wear them on you. That's basically it. Normal distance to the lens will make it very low risk.

If they're stolen from Prypjat or such, then don't use them.

>>2996904
>8-9 feet
at such a close distance a 50mm f/1.8 on a crop body would be fine for you, it might even be a little longer than you want.
>8-10 cm there you're talking macro distances, are you sure you need to get that close? nikon I know has a cheap 40mm macro you might consider if that's what you're really after
I wouldn't buy all the lenses at once if I were you, you sound inexperienced so you'll want to mess around with a crop body and kit lens for a bit so you can see what focal lengths mean and what you really need

>>2997014
I'm not an expert, but I heard that you shouldn't point the "radioactive" lens directly in the eye from close distance.

>How would aperture control depend on the adapter's quality?
If aperture lever in extension tubes is loose, it will not provide enough precision (especially with 3 tubes) and real aperture value in lens can be different from expected. Of course this problem doesn't exist if lens has aperture ring.

>>2997016
>>2997025
Sorry, I forgot to add your post number.

>>2997016
good adapters have mechanical aperture transmission for lenses that need it. this makes a HUGE difference shooting macro.
>>2997011
I mean a GOOD macro bellows, you cheapskate. only a complete shitlord would pretend manual everything macro is worth the savings

>>2997025
>I'm not an expert, but I heard that you shouldn't point the "radioactive" lens directly in the eye from close distance.
You probably misunderstood an advice about not using radioactive eyepieces.

You wouldn't use a lens this way. It even poses immediate danger from not THAT radiation but the sun's. Photo lens and eye = danger.

>>2997016
>The $25 ones with electrical contacts are already almost all metal plated at the mount's contact surface, even if the ring's "body" is plastic

Cheap extension tubes I have seen have metal plate only in female mount. Male mount is all plastic and can be worn out or broken as easly as in my cheap Nikkor 18-105 VR. Maybe you have seen better extension tubes for this price. I can only tell about things I've seen. I'm amateur photographer and after one year of using 18-105 VR I can easly see first signs of wear on the mount. It's nothing serious and I swap this lens very often - that's right.

>>2997031
No, this advice was for sure about camera lenses. Of course you wouldn't use a lens this way, but some people are just looking inside lenses out of curiosity, or to inspect internal parts. I'm not an idiot and I would never look at the sun through a lens.

>>2997029
> good adapters have mechanical aperture transmission for lenses that need it.
As far as I'm concerned, good lenses don't.

> only a complete shitlord would pretend manual everything macro is worth the savings
Samyang are usually a good option if you want cheap macro etc. and they don't need contacts anyhow.

But I guess you can get better adapters if you sport more premium lenses. At least I get why you'd pay some extra for this. Unlike with the mechanical aperture control.

Speaking about macro...
I'm thinking about buying Tamron SP AF 90 mm f/2.8 Di Macro for D7100 as first real macro lens. If anybody here uses them together I will be grateful for advice if the problem with overexposing pictures with flash is really serious and I should avoid this lens, or not? I know all reviews on the internet, but I stil cannot make a decision. I don't want to throw money down the drain.

>>2997037
> No, this advice was for sure about camera lenses.
Then someone else didn't understand.

Yea, you can damage your eye more easily with radiation than other body parts, [I think it had to do with cells in it not usually absorbing it or dieing off as gracefully as skin would.]

But you're not going to look into a lens directly for a long time, and the levels of radiation are still low. I think someone mentioned it's about like getting a modern medical x-ray if you hold it directly on your skin for an hour or so.

Pretty sure you don't have to worry about checking it out from a normal distance while you clean it.

>>2997044
> the problem with overexposing pictures with flash is really serious
Are you even sure this combination doesn't work properly with iTTL and overexposes in general? I somehow can't imagine that being the case.

And if it's manual flash, who do you blame but yourself and maybe insufficient settings on your flash?

Whats the point in the nifty fifty if you have to stop it down to like f5.6 to get sharp pictures?

>>2997055
I have not yet bought this lens. That's why I'm asking. This problem seems to be very popular among Nikon users. This lens just overexposes non-macro (>1m from lens or so) photos with flash in TTL or TTL-BL (TTL-BL seems to be worse). Some people say that exposure compensation by -1.0 EV solves the problem and they found a rule to live with this problem, other people wants to get rid of this lens. But this lens has many positive reviews and is very popular so maybe this problem is not as bad... I don't know personally any user of this lens.

>>2997064
It's very cheap, fairly light, and okay sharp in everything but the corners at f/2.8.

It's one of the lenses that don't make me wonder too much why people get it. Even if there are better 50mm and I also don't wonder why people get those instead.

>>2996904
I no longer wonder who's hiding behind that post

>>2997024
What is the model? Most of the people I know have suggested Nikon for what I want to do. Basically I want to experiment with wax figures and candles and other small things. What kind of lens would that be?

>>2997064
Don't confuse "sharpest" with "sharp". If the nifty 50 you bought isn't shit it will be sharp at f2.8, and will be passably sharp at f2.0. If you got a lens that started at something slow like 4 or 5,6, it would be sharpest at something ludicrously slow like f8 or f11. Besides, sharpness isn't everything, some people like the "dreamy" soft look these lens have wide open, and having a very wide aperture is a godsend in low light and if you like shallow DOF.

>>2997064
>b-b-but it is f/1.8! That means it is good!

>>2997067
I guess I understand why people might get issues with TTL BL, it's a stupid mode for extreme situations that it just can't "BaLance". Yea, the reflective insect a bit further up on the plant gets a lot more light than the continuation of the more absorptive plant it tries to "balance" against. Or such.

I wouldn't expect spot metering regular TTL to miss it's light level, though. And a google search turns up not much that makes me believe it fails.

>>2997072
Better to get the shot at f1.8 and 1/40th and have it be slightly soft due to the optics than to miss it entirely due to motion blur or camera shake at f2.8 and 1/15th or f3.5 and 1/10th.

>>2997078
As far as I know the spot metering works well. Matrix metering is worse with this lens, but only in non-macro pics. For TTL-BL Nikon uses information from the lens about distance from the object. TTL-BL can work without this information, but can't work well when this information is wrong. Maybe just this Tamron gives wrong value about distance... If you google search "Tamron 90 overexposure" you can find a lot people complaining about this. But still... it's only a small part of all users. At least one user of D300 has no problem at all. It's just weird. Maybe I just try to buy this lens for a good price. In the worst case I will regret the purchase and try to sell it. I know that nobody decides for me, I don't expect that.

>>2997088
Sure, information being wrong could also cause trouble.

Anyhow, if you can use regular TTL / spot metering, adjustments, full manual mode and maybe more, that doesn't sound bad at all.

I don't see much of a reason to worry.

>>2997088
Meh, if it's a consistent exposure error the correction is simple; dial in compensation when you use the lens. I don't have that lens but I tend to always underexpose by 1/3rd stop with my old D300, dialing in more as needed. helps save my highlights.

>>2997092
Yes, of course I can. I'm amateur but not a beginner. I just try to spend my money well. It's really annoying when you think that you have just found a perfect lens for you, and than you read, that it has a well-known design defect or another big flaw. I think that almost everyone knows that feel.

>>2997093
Based on what others write this exposure error is not consistent. Some people claim that they found a logic in behavior of this Tamron. I hope that I will find it too, because it appears to be really good optically.

My old D80 always overexposes with my 35 and 50mm by 0.7EV. This is nothing new for me. I get used to it. Nothing is perfect.

>>2996646
On Nikon you can select how many AF points you want to have selectable. By using the lowest number (11 point I think) you can get across the frame with just a few taps, and without taking the camera away from your eye or hands off the grip and lens like you'd have to with a touchscreen.

Of course you're not trying to follow the subject with the points, but you often need to change them very quickly, as when action turns around and you suddenly want your subject at the other side of the frame. You may also transition between horizontal and vertical quickly or zoom in and out and need to move the AF point around in a hurry.

Sony's glass is nice but they still don't have everything we'd want, especially in terms of crop glass, which is the bulk of our gear. We were also prepared to replace everything if we felt like another brand would be more relevant in the long term.

One other major factor you have to consider is that we hand these cameras out like candy to students, often ones who've never used a "real" camera before and don't understand how to take care of it. Nikons are built like tanks and it's pretty tough for students to fuck them up unless they do something MASSIVELY stupid, but I can't say the same for Sony. We would've been replacing the flippy LCDs every other week and in particular we really need weather sealing.

>>2996671
Yeah it's kind of hilarious, I was amazed we got to do it.

It actually makes a bit of sense though, we keep cameras for close to 10 years and durable pro bodies that'll last through years of abuse are actually more economical in a way. We also got a major grant after winning a bunch of student journalism awards and the retailer we got the gear through has an educational program that gave us a crazy deal.

>>2997098
>Nothing is perfect.

Even my D600, the most expensive camera body I have ever purchased, isn't perfect. I tend to spot meter and use my experience to expose correctly around it, even with that state-of-the-art camera

What is more important for autofocus on nikons /gear/? I have a 50mm 1.4 afd and a 80-200 push-pull 2.8 afd and despite both being screw drives my d7000 seems to focus the 50 far better, especially in low-light. Will AFS lenses focus faster or is the AI in my camera my limiting factor here? my kit lens 18 105 feels slower to focus than the 50 so idk

>>2997104
>despite both being screw drives my d7000 seems to focus the 50 far better
It makes sense, the shorter focal length lenses are always easier to focus because depth of field is inherently greater, plus the moving mass inside is smaller and lighter so the motor isn't working as hard. Telephoto lens focusing gear is also usually gear reduced more aggressively because precision is important. My 300mm f4 ED is pretty slow compared to my 85mm f1.4D, but those are my only two screw-drive AF lenses. The 300mm f4 has a focusing limiter though, and I engage that when shooting birds and other quick things, this drastically improves focusing speed, because if the camera loses lock and hunts, it only jogs back and forth quickly instead of hunting for the full 2 seconds it takes the lens to go from infinity to minimum distance and back. As for your 18-105mm kit zoom, I've never used one but I've heard it's slower than the 18-200mm, which I have. Even though it's the most versatile lens I own and likely ever will own, what with its VR and super zoom, I don't use it too often because it really isn't "great" at anything, it's just "ok" at everything.

>>2997103
From time to time I work with D750. This is the reason why I'm afraid to buy expensive body nowadays. "Not perfect" is not enough. At the beeginning it had problem with flares from AF sensors, then with shutter and betweenwhiles it freezes (fortunately not in important moments). When it works well it's very nice camera, but I would never buy it myself after this experience. In theory of course, I don't need such expensive camera at all, even if I could afford it.

>>2997111
>"Not perfect" is not enough.
You're being an idiot. You could replicate the quarter-million dollar arsenal of a big-timer like Moose Peterson and still find a flaw in every piece of gear if you used it enough.
Nothing
is
ever
perfect

>>2997069
I have nikon stuff but I have no idea if it's the best out there, and their starter options are relatively expensive for what you get. if I was starting from scratch I'd seriously consider the nontraditional brands like pentax and sony, they have some useful features that canon and nikon refuse to put in their starter cameras, so you might get more bang for your buck. I'm not enough of a gearhead to have a strong opinion though

>>2997069
oh and in terms of lens: I know at least that the nikon 18-55 kit lens has pretty decent close focus capability that many people are perfectly happy with for those purposes. you might not even want a macro lens for what you're describing. true macro capability would be the ability to fill the image frame with a 3 cm long object on crop -- not the typical goal in photography!

>>2997112
I can assure you that I'm not an idiot and as an engineer I think that 3 major flaws in one expensive product is definitely to much. It shouldn't happen. But I am called an idiot because I expect quality. Fine then...

>>2997125
>I'm an engineer
that explains EVERYTHING

>>2997114
>I have nikon stuff but I have no idea if it's the best out there

I'm one of the few who has had significant money tied up in multiple different brands over the years and I don't know if there is a "best out there"

My Nikon bodies were always better than my Canon bodies except for the old FD stuff, Canon has had a better lens selection and better bang-for-buck in lenses, Minolta/Sony has in-body IS and adaptability which is really nice, I don't have any pentax digishit though.

>>2997125
No you're called an idiot because you literally said
>"Not pefect" is not enough
Which is the most retarded thing I've seen in a gear thread in a while, and these threads are full of tardation.

And I KNOW you're not an engineer because an engineer would know that NOTHING IS EVER PERFECT. People whose job it is to design and specify things know that there is ALWAYS compromise and no matter how hard you try, a production good will NEVER be pefect. If you want "perfect" you buy stuff that is one-off and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, not mass-produced crap.

>>2997127

Every single person on 4chan is an engineer.

>>2997136
wrong

>>2997127
I'm glad to not have to explain anything.

>because an engineer would know that NOTHING IS EVER PERFECT

That's exactly what I've said! Of course nothing is perfect, but 3 major flaws is to many. You can say that something is not perfect if the flaw doesn't affect basic funcionality. If the camera freezes this is not the level of "perfect or not" but it just doen't work at all. Do you undestand the difference? And yes, I'm really an engineer and my prototypes aren't perfect. Final versions either, because NOTHING is perfect and I said that.

I see that consumers do not see anything wrong with shitty quality for a huge price. I see. Maybe I just live mentally in old times. Sorry for that. I know, durable products are unprofitable. Mea culpa.

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-06 at 9.44.04 PM.png (626KB, 2700x1076px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 2700x1076px

kek fujifags getting cucked

>300 more for a shitty color
>outdated tech by the end of CES

>>2997136
ken rockwell is also an engineer

it all fits

>>2997099
> By using the lowest number (11 point I think) you can get across the frame with just a few taps
~1s to get halfway across the frame even on small spot mode. Not... such a big deal.

> without taking the camera away from your eye
You'd just be looking at the other display, which unlike with a Nikon doesn't force CDAF & make the camera essentially useless for anything moving.

You could shoot the whole event that way if you have a cap that shades the display. Not that you have to. There's also still the cross to move the AF point with.

> you suddenly want your subject at the other side of the frame
Somewhere more centered is particularly good if something could "suddenly" happen.

Even generally less prone to cutting off anything you might later find out you wanted on the image.

> Sony's glass is nice but they still don't have everything we'd want, especially in terms of crop glass
Feels like even doing something like a D500->A7 II and D5->A7R II (never mind just getting A6500) should finance the difference in price for lenses, if there is even any.

> One other major factor you have to consider is that we hand these cameras out like candy to students, often ones who've never used a "real" camera before and don't understand how to take care of it.
Aren't those people adults...? But I guess you know them better. It's probably necessary to have armored cameras then.

what is the likelihood of nikon releasing a d750 successor soon? Should I pull the trigger now?

>>2997152
> Should I pull the trigger now?
Dunno, what are you using right now and what do you get from the D750?

>>2997152
wait until the price drops more IMO
keep in mind if nikon releases a successor this summer it'll be another 6 months before you get your hands on it

>>2997143
nikonfags are the real ones getting cucked, 100th anniversary and all they announce is a fucking d5600
what are the big trade shows this year, IFA?

>>2997153
currently have a d7000. I'm >>2997104
get full frame (muh res), better autofocus, ability to get the most out of my FX glass, a second body for looking like a fool with if I want to dual wield.

Would be considering the kit 24-120 with it for a single lens travel kit.

Honestly I am kind of bummed about the AF of my 80-200 it's gorgeous when locked on but getting there can take some serious time / I often feel like it's locking on the wrong thing in AF-A. I don't know if that will change at all on a newer body.

>>2996142
It's a Graflex Crown Graphic, 4x5. Top rangefinder makes it the latest version that was made, like from 1960 to early '70's. It has a Graflok back on it. In case you haven't figured it out, there is a little bump under the pleather directly above that Graflex emblem shown in this shot: >>2996143 . Press that bump to open the camera so you can see what lens you have. If it's the same as mine, it has a Schneider Xenar 135/4.7 in a synchro-compur shutter. This cam looks to be in really nice shape.

>>2996195
A Speed Graphic has a focal plane shutter hanging off the back side and is noticeably fatter than the Crown.

>>2997157
>100th year anniversary literally 6 months before they actually turn 100.

ok

>>2997146
I'm sorry dude, but you're making it pretty obvious that you aren't an experienced sports shooter, and you really shouldn't go around telling people how to do things you know nothing about.

First off, try shooting a whole game with a big telephoto and the camera at arm's length. You'll find that setup gets pretty damn heavy really fast. We shoot sports with the viewfinder for a reason, that that's because it lets you lock your arms into a position where you can hold the camera steady for long periods. It's also vastly easier to follow action when the camera is at your eye and you can just pivot at the waist.

You don't use a center AF point because composition still matters with sports. You put the AF point where you want the player's face to be, and that's generally in the top right or left corner depending on which way he's going. You can't solve this with face detect either, it's not reliable in heavy weather or through football/hockey helmets and it's totally useless if your subject is, say, something like a race car.

You don't just shoot wide and crop because that's not an option, since as a serious sports shooter you'll often be using tele primes. You want to shoot tight because that gives you the best view of the action and because you get the shallowest DoF that way, and background separation is a big deal in sports photography. We're not lucky enough to have a pile of 400 2.8s for our students to use, but we train them so that they'll be ready for it if they move into a career in photojournalism.

As for durability, these kids are barely "adults." They're mostly brand new high school grads who couldn't get into a real university. Not the most shining example of responsibility. We also shoot in tough environments, our football team plays in the rain so we have to shoot them in the rain, and our guys often go out in gnarly weather to cover it because it's newsworthy.

I think Sony's cameras are great for some things, but not photojournalism.

https://youtu.be/GSsoe12cDIA?t=183

lololol

>>2997168
...why are you using AF-A? Use either AF-S or AF-C you fool!
Also use the small area AF in AF-C and single point in AF-S

recently got a nikon D3400 with a few lenses as a gift. pretty new to photography, can anyone tell me how quality this is? anything specific i should know about?

>>2997254
It is capable of stunning results but you will have a long way till then. Don't give up, you will turn in results in a year or so. Learn exposure triangle (read Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson), get a 35/1.8 prime if you haven't got it already, later on get a tripod and/or a cheap manual speedlight like a Yongnuo YN660 or Godox TT600.
And most importantly have fun.

>>2997254
Also switch off snapbridge and leave it off, 3x battery life.

Hello all,

I want to adapt lenses on my Sony a6000. I will use a speedbooster because the goal is to go full bokeh whore for bellow 300€.

The question is: Which lens mount should I prefer: Canon FD or Pentax K? I will only purchase the lens in the 50 to 85 mm range.

Which system has the more interesting 50mm fro bokeh?

>>2997330
get the zhongyi lens turbo ii.
metabuns is overprice that you might as well get an a7.
no name chink is junk.
i had both fdn 50 1.4 and pentax m 50 1.4.
i like the canon better.
sold them both for 100% profit
:^)
minolta md is also good. i have the 50 1.7.
olympus is bleh.
nikon is pricey.
there is also about the focusing ring on the pentax turning the other way round.

File: MX_071111_12k_wex.jpg (12KB, 300x204px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x204px

Any tips on cleaning the outside of my film camera?

>>2997330
>bokeh
kys

>>2997358
>sold them both for 100% profit
You mean for $50?

>>2997014

Why bother? Literally junk cameras, you are only buying them to tell normies the lens radioactive and you're so edgy and self-sacrificing for using them. So sure go ahead and get cancer of the retina.

>>2997361
rub it with orange peel.

>>2997361
Put it in the dishwasher like everyone else does.

>>2997423
where can i get a fd 50 1.4 for $25?
actually i bought one for 2500 yen and sold it for $130.
that was 2 years ago. now, price is around $100 on shitbay.

>>2997453
I got an fd 50/1.2 for free from my neighbour. He said it is useless because it can't be used on modern cameras, he was about to throw it out with the rest of his kit.

Sigma 30mm f1.4 art or the Canon 35mm f2 IS

Which one should I get for a "normal" lens for my 80D?

Is the f1.4 vs f2 aperture gonna make a big difference in regards to my bokeh?

Is the sigma really that shit at autofocusing, or is it just the extremely shallow DoF?

I would imagine the IS of the Canon would be extremely useful in low light situations.

I would obviously be trying to shoot them both wide open all the time. The Sigma seemingly has shitty corner sharpness, but more importantly, the bokeh has horrible color fringing in high contrast situations.

Thoughts?

File: over the line.jpg (6KB, 166x231px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 166x231px

>>2997454
>fd 50/1.2
>he was about to throw it out
mfw

>with the rest of his kit
so what did you let him throw out?

Is an used Nikon D100 a good buy for a first camera?

>>2997511
It's cheap. Pretty lackluster as DSLRs go though. You're better off buying a D200, which can be found for $300 easily, or a D300, which can be found for $4-500

>>2997489
IS is extremely useful and you can go like 4 stops slower shutter speed and that will far surpass f/1.4

So I heard that old russian film cameras are cheap as fuck. And i'm looking to get one anyone have any suggestions as to what I should look for when ordering these off ebay. Brands and models. I also read that I should get a non-russian lense because the russian ones are shit and that I should stick to an real brand like canon or panasonic.

>>2997555
Russian cameras are shit (as everything made in Russia), but I guess Western hipster whores could be impressed by something like that.

>>2997555
This sounds like a bad bait but whatever. Russian lenses are generally keepers, cameras themselves less so. And if you want one that is guaranteed to work at the moment of purchase, you aren't likely to find a Zenit or something for any cheaper than a Japanese camera of the same era that's both more reliable and better in every conceivable way. If you're new, forget about Soviet cameras. They're fun to tinker with once you know what you're doing, but buying a Zenit to start a film photography hobby with is just asking for a bad time. Just get a Minolta or something.

>>2997559
>>2997558
Sadly that was not bait.
either way i'm realizing film may not be for me whats the cheapest decent camera one could buy.

File: D3S_7456-1200.jpg (221KB, 1200x891px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1200x891px

I'd like to pick up photography as a hobby. Should I just get a cheap manuel camera so my barrier to entry isn't so bad, or invest in a digital?

I'm not sure how I'd pull off developing my photos in my small flat either.

>>2997571
How the fuck do those "passed" stickers stay on fucking cameras? 30 year stickers wtf

File: SL380100.jpg (4MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3264x2448px

Hi /gear/, lowly art student here, posting for the first time on /p/. I don't own a smartphone so I'm looking to upgrade my 2007 Samsung L830 for something small and inexpensive. I just need to take photos of mostly street corners, buildings and small setups. I don't really need to record videos, I'd like the money to go towards high image quality of the small setups, if possible.

Quick research is giving me the Sony DSCW800 for my needs. Just wondering if there are better options or if I could get the green light from enthusiasts for it; It would make me much more comfortable. I'm not very good at the manual controls so any auto features would be a plus, but not opposed to learning them.

Pic related is from my current camera and what I need to do with it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Samsung Techwin
Camera Model	<VLUU L830 / Samsung L830>
Camera Software	710111
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	71 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2015:01:28 12:32:43
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/4.2
Exposure Program	Creative
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/4.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	11.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Exposure Index	1
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal