/gear/ - Gear Thread

Have a company budget and narrowed it to Sony a7 II or Fujifilm X-T2

To be used at night time, outdoors and company events with limited lights. Will be heavily edited in PS of it matters.

Is there any other we should consider?

>>3000042

>mainly low light situations

Bigger sensor is probably considerably better. I'd go with the a7ii personally.

>>3000042
Canon 5DIII, Nikon D610, D750, D810, Pentax K-1

>>3000042
A7ii has ibis and a ff sensor, would be the far better choice for indoor/low light.

>>3000044
Awful suggestions, these are for a company, the user friendliness of exposing with an evf far outweighs your arguments for battery life or lens selection.

>>3000044
Unfortunate all of the ones recommended are about $ 300 up in this country. Even in the second hand market.

The 750 is the only one available, but was recommended not to get it because of having similar tech as their 2009 models. Would it bother in lower light? Colors have pretty high priority..

>>3000043
Thanks. It's cheaper but the low light color noise is worrying.

>>3000046
>>3000046
We are artists but not photographers, if it matters. Group of us working heavily in PS many different directions.

I know pictures but not photo. I have looked at the test image at dpreview and I can't help but notice the color noise in the a7 II. Should it bother me?

>>3000048
Get the D750, don't worry about the specs. Also get a speedlight

>>3000048
>the low light color noise is worrying.

All cameras do that.

My dad bought a used 7d for 300 bucks.
Rate pls

>>3000056
8/8

>>3000052
In this case we wouldn't be able to use any flash or extra light. Looking for anything that does great without the extra.

>>3000059
Then get the D750 without the flash, or better yet, try to find a D700, less pickles but much bigger photosites, boss in low light.

>>3000051
There's very few cameras with better low light noise than the a7ii, the a7rii and a7sii do marginally better for a lot more money. The d610/750/800/810 are almost identical and anything from canon is about 5 years behind.

Being artists (not togs), mirrorless is what you want, as it shows an exact preview of your shot, as opposed to looking through a fancy window and having to use experience to know how it will come out. There is a very vocal anti sony crowd on here, however the facts are that they make the sensor for every non canon camera, they're the only major brand that has ibis, they are the only full frame mirrorless, and the cameras are actually really freaking good and you get a fuck ton more for your money, as artists it may also appeal that you can attach any lens to sony mirrorless with a simple cheap adapter.

>>3000060
The d700 is a dinosaur that gets ass fucked compared to newer bodies in low light.

Clueless plebosite.

>>3000062
10/10 fantasy masterwork

>>3000066
5/7 rebuttal

>>3000062
you can hold any lens up to a cardboard box and get an image, that doesn't mean you're getting your money's worth out of it. but I guess a "true artist" wouldn't care about that kind of marginalia because daddy has deep pockets

>>3000062
Thanks, it's helpful reply to me.

They're having a sale today and discounted it $250 under the xt2 so I might just go ahead and get it.

Incidentally, it sells way under list price without the kit lens. Any recommendation there?

>>3000062
>he d610/750/800/810 are almost identical
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHhahahahahahahaaa
..
..
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

You catch my drift, don't you?

>>3000068
That's generous - I considered a point by point approach but figured we've been through this often enough already.

>>3000074
The kit lens isn't bad, but it is slow (needs more light), the 50mm f1.8 is cheap and will do great in low light. If you want to go super cheap, a manual focus old 50mm f1.8 and adapter can be had for £25.

If you want to bog yourself down with technical details heres comparisons of 4 bodies at iso 3200 (you will very rarely need to go higher, even at night) these are zoomed in crops of the raw files (so before any colour correction or noise reduction or Sharpening) as you can see the xt2 is noticeably softer, but the differences in the other 3 cameras are much more negligible.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7_ii&attr13_1=nikon_d750&attr13_2=fujifilm_xt2&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.8790034775928696&y=-0.1823450522451435

Apologies for the swarm of retards my reply gave you, as i said, the anti sony shill team are in full force, i bet the next post will talk about corrosion in sony bodies, which the only evidence of is one whiney teen that lives in a beachhouse and admitted to using it in the sea.

>>3000051
>I can't help but notice the color noise in the a7 II
>>3000048
>It's cheaper but the low light color noise is worrying.

All sensors have low light color noise.

The Fuji only appears to have less because noise reduction was applied in body. You would get the same thing if you apply it to a Sony raw.

If you will notice, the image of the Fuji is CONSIDERABLY softer. A lot of detail is lost.

You are better off with the a7ii.

>>3000082
Worth noting, to reduce chroma noise (colour noise), all you need do is turn on one slider in lightroom (which is actually on by default).

Also worth noting, if you lot use ps, its definitely worth getting to grips with lightroom to do your lens profile corrections, colour profile, basic colour editing, sharpening and spot removal. Then just hit ctrl+e to bring your image, with adjustments into photoshop. It will also help organise all your stuff.

>>3000066
>>3000071
>>3000075
>>3000076

Op, please ignore these faggots, you've got good advice from anons that have read about your situation and given relevant suggestions.

I know you already realised this, but the taint gargling incestfest hates people pointing out their stupidity.

>>3000074

That is a pretty decent deal, but you are still paying more for less.

>>3000079
All joking aside, don't forget to consider it in terms of overall system cost, and run the dpr comparison under artificial light if that's going to be a common shooting scenario.

I did some number crunching a while ago for cam plus 24mm and 85mm f1.8s on a7ii, d750 and xt2 - Sony is priciest but has the best lenses (batis), xt2 was in the middle (prices won't drop for a long time) and Nikon cheapest.

Frankly I wouldn't consider the Fuji unless you're really into the ergonomics and are prepared to go for a complex pp workflow (mandatory to get the best out of the sensor).

Last point is autofocus in lowlight, which is really hard to find empirical data on.

Sony dude you're all right, you just take it so damn seriously.

>>3000096
I just feel bad for all the people who have been mislead by people on here, about once a month there's someone complaining that they wish they hadn't gone with x company, but did so because someone here said it was the "best".

Yeah, there is a "best" camera for different situations, but for new users the benefits of evf's are too big to ignore. I can teach someone to take the pics they want within 30 mins on mirrorless, which would take half a day on a dslr,and the mirrorless will destroy dslr for consistency of good shots (thanks to focus mag, focus peaking, exposure preview)

And, why is it important to you to look at the shots under artificial light, with a relatively sharp shutter speed under strip lights, the colour will be different every shot due to the flickering nature of tubes. And presuming we all shooting in raw, the colour balance applied to a jpeg is 100% irrelevant.

>>3000097
Stop shilling your delusions Sonyfaggot!

>>3000097
artificial light usually increases noise (because the blue channel needs more gain applied for the same level of scene brightness) - the way each manufacturer tunes the sensor can make for a difference in results under those specific conditions.

I'm with you re. EVF, and having a histogram in viewfinder is a godsend for on the fly ETTR.

>>3000101
makes sense, fair enough :)

(hey look fuji fags, I can be swayed with a proper argument ;) )

>>3000101
Only if you don't know how to expose properly. I have never had any problems with my DSLR and same for the other thousands of people using DSLRs, because I know how to expose properly and in challenging situations I use bracketing.
Oh wait, you can't do that on your SONE because after you buy your camera you have to pay extra for all the usual in-camera features.

>>3000109
No ones saying you can't get get awesome shots with either approach, but you expose properly because you know your cam well and can dial in exactly the right EC for a given scene without needing a reference.
In the context of beginner photography (and the experience levels of people asking questions in these gear threads) the evf is a real help - plus there's a few scenarios (like artistic use of flare, or control of flare) where there's a real benefit to the evf.

We just need to be exhaustive when discussing options and different shooting scenarios, and reasonable in our statements - I lose it as quickly as anyone when the hyperbole and polarising positions kick in.

>>3000109
Don't need to pay extra to use bracketing on sony mang...

Also
>I just take 3 photos instead of taking one, correctly exposed one.

Great, definitely the better option.

>argues about knowing how to expose properly

OP admitted he's not a photographer, why are you trying to make life more difficult for them? If he wants to learn the EVF is clearly a powerful learning tool.

Also
>My DSLR can expose properly
You mean you leave it on AV and hope for the best, then chimp, then reshoot.
You know, you could just look through the viewfinder and decide exactly on your exposure if you didn't insist on archaic tech.

You can also use Sony's with your phone as an external viewfinder and trigger straight out of the box. The only things you pay for are the amateur hour apps, like their timelapse one or HDR one, that spit out finished jpegs. You can still bracket, or use an intervalometer just as you do on any other camera.

Can you pay for actually useful extras on your DSLR, like ibis or a tilting screen?

>>3000113
>OP
I see you fail to grasp at the basic structure of this thread

>>3000117
I see you fail to grasp at basic contextual cues. He clearly meant the OP that led to this ridiculously tangential discussion, you tit.

>>3000117
>fails to grasp what op refers to
Ell oh ell newbie

>>3000113
>Can you pay for actually useful extras on your DSLR, like ibis or a tilting screen?
No need to, already have them on my K-1.

>Leica M9-P
>$8000 new in 2011
>3500€ used today, body only
>no autofocus
>no shutter priority
>no program mode
>menu system is a single level unorganized mishmash
>exp. comp. in a menu
>center-weighted metering only
>metering area not constant on finder
>6 frames of buffer, discharges one frame for several seconds
>LCD was five years old at introduction, now 10
>2007 tier SOOC jpegs
<lifetime warranty

What the fuck is this? Limitations that would be OK in a photo-fetish rangefinder from nearly fifty years ago, implemented poorly, in a digital thing that's going to age like the M8 did. And at only five grand extra over the competition! (also, +1k per lens.)

And here I was, thinking the X-pro 2 was expensive for what it was.

>>3000132

The a7ii is a considerably better M-mount camera than the Leica.

>>3000132
You forgot
>DR and low light performance that a 1" sensor could match

>>3000064
>gets ass fucked compared to newer bodies in low light.
Why do retards in these thread keep comparing cameras available for $500 used to cameras that are brand new and $2,000?

If you want good low light performance on a tight budget a decent used D700 can't be beat.

>>3000136
And the main reason to use a M-mount camera is because Leicas are M-mount. With the Leica body taken out of the picture for being a brand-scam of a camera and macfag-tier value, why bother? "Leica glow", my arse -- and the focusing ring isn't worth 800€.

I'm glad to have spotted what a fraud that brand is before spending any money. The Soviet Leica-ii copies misled me into thinking there was something to that whole thing -- but there isn't, is there.

For a film Leica's price, I could have two OM-4T's (or just one and ca 80 rolls of film + soups). For the price of a 50mm f/2 M-mount lens, I could have a 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and a 135mm f/3.5 for the OM system.

No point here, I'm just bloviating to myself.

>>3000059
Sony A7S II or Nikon D5, both with a good lens.

>>3000139
>Why do retards in these thread keep comparing cameras available for $500 used to cameras that are brand new and $2,000

Because OP was asking about 2 cameras in the $2000 range, stop being angry at your lack of wealth & reading comprehension.

regardless, the Sony A7 is available 2nd hand at a very similar price to a d700, and is 5 years newer. I couldn't find a direct comparison at high iso for both, but the d600, which shares a sensor with the A7 shows off it's better performance in both noise and dynamic range here

https://photographylife.com/nikon-d600-high-iso-performance

So yes, good low light performance on a tight budget most definitely can be beat. IF you want to double the weight and lose the advantages of EVF's, the d600 is only marginally more than the 700 and a shit ton better.

>>3000153
>stop being angry at your lack of wealth & reading comprehension.
Nice projection

>>3000153
> I couldn't find a direct comparison at high iso for both
Here you go:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7-versus-Nikon-D700___916_441

Check the detailed measurements, they're pretty comparable, though DR is better on the A7 all along (and I guess it has the edge at ISO levels where neither camera does well at all, 12800+).

>>3000153
>IF you want to double the weight and lose the advantages of EVF's
>advantages of EVFs
LOL
Don't forget the advantages of a 100% coverage optical viewfinder (D600), superior AF system (D600), better responsiveness and speed (D600)

File: highres-highres-Fujifilm-X70-5_1457431587.jpg (568KB, 2000x1119px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 2000x1119px

Why does anyone buy the fuji x70?

im looking for a compact camera, rx100 series and canon g7x m2 are looking like my best options, but i stumbled upon the x70 yesterday.

>fixed 18.5 mm
>f2.8

what, why?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5MarkII
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Photographer	Picasa
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:08 10:06:07
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1119
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Unique Image ID	f71f21e61be60f04317e2b7ecd630042

>>3000160
Some people (hipsters) want to spend $700 on what is essentially an APS-C point-and-shit that looks cool I guess.

So I went ahead and got the A7 II with the kit lens (28-70mm). Anything I should expect? Stock up on spare batteries?

looking for any decent wide angle lens. Traveling and will probably find some second hand shops, if that could help.

I'm this guy
>>3000042

>>3000164
Start here

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/wideangle-lenses-for-the-sony-alpha-7-series/

>>3000164
It pays to spend some time setting up all the custom buttons, dials and menus how you want.

On the wide angle front there's either the sony 16-35 FE, which is a fantastic lens, if you would rather look into slightly more affordable options a good choice is the sigma mc-11 adapter, this will allow you to use any canon lens almost like a native lens (you lose a couple of autofocus options, focusing is marginally slower). Canon have the widest selection of good quality glass, and as there's been a few generations there are bargains to be had. For example, a 70-200 is a pretty essential bit of kit for serious photographers, there newest version is a couple of grand and comes with image stabilization built in, as your camera has ibis in the body you could get the first generation non image stabilized version for a quarter of the price and still have professional quality lenses. For a wide angle you could look at the 17-40, 16-35 i and 16-35 ii. Yes the latest version is better, but it's marginal and 5 times the cost, especially when you're not using a 36/42mp sensor.

However, as I said, you can adapt ANY lens, so if you find an old manual focus 20mm nikon or something at a good price, and reviews show it's of a quality that you are satisfied with, you can fit it using a very cheap nikon to nex adapter, it's only really canon that have a worthwhile autofocus adapter. The only difference with using a non canon adapted lens is that you will have to adjust aperture on the lens, as the body won't be able to control it directly.

I'd say grab a couple of spare batteries, it's not difficult burning through one in less than a day, read up on the basics of the exposure triangle and stops, and apart from that, enjoy it! I've owned many cameras and only some of my old medium format film stuff brings me the same amount of joy to use :)

>>3000160
It's really a competitor for the Ricoh GR and not much else. I've played around with one and it's a lot smaller than pictures make it look, shockingly tiny for an APS-C compact with a decent lens.

I think it'd be a great vacation camera for an enthusiast photographer who doesn't want to lug a bunch of gear or spend a ton of time on photos. It's not all that useful for much else.

File: 413876_081202210026_580exII_fb.jpg (43KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x600px

What is a good price for a ((used)) Canon 580EX II flash?

Any alternatives to consider?

File: images.jpg (19KB, 328x449px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 328x449px

>>3000166

>only canon have a worthwhile autofocus adapter

Don't forget Sony and Leica.

The Sony one is a good choice, because a lot of old minolta glass is dirt cheap.

The Sony shill is strong in this thread.
Remember newcomers, if you see someone shilling Sony hard, it is a single basement dwelling manchild samefagging. Don't listen to his ramblings.

>>3000189
Nah, it's just becasue once you go Sony you need to buy a new camera every 6 months to get all the latest "features".

They just try to convince newcomer to buy their "old" cameras which is understandable.

Canon is the only company that makes any sense.

>>3000169
>Ricoh GR
i hear alot about this camera. whats the deal?

>>3000195
Compact with APS-C sensor, excellent fast 28mm equivalent lens, features designed primarily for street shooters.
One of the best fixed focal length compacts along with Fujis X100S and X100T, but those are 35mm equivalent focal lengths.

I bought a Fuji X100t couple of years ago, love it but it isn't versatile at all and since inheriting my granddad's F801 and $5/600 of lenses (which im using but fuck me is film + developing expensive) I really want a dslr, but is it worth trying to sell the fuji first or should i just get an entry level/old nikon? im a poor student

>>3000176
I forgot about the Sony adapter, the la-ea3 is now a bit of a bargain and doesn't suffer from the focusing screen of the more expensive version, just a shame it doesn't work with screw drive lenses.

The leica one I'm still not sold on, apparently there's a nikon one on the way too though, personally I'd like a k-mount, as I'd like to use pentax's ltd range on it.

>>3000195
It's a walkaround compact with a better lens (though it's a prime), something a lot of people might be looking for. Good all around compromise for such a camera - there are better compacts, but they also cost quite a lot more more.

That said, like maybe most people here, I prefer IL cameras precisely because you can swap out those very important lenses.

File: IMG_0204.jpg (174KB, 1200x763px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1200x763px

What's a good compact/pancake lens which is compatible with my Nikon FE? I want to be able to fit it in my pocket if possible. Ideally 28-50mm.

Is the Voigtländer 40mm the only choice? Is there anything cheaper or a different model I can adapt to Nikon?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	763
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3000216
It's probably worth to sell it to get a slightly better Sony / Nikon / Canon.

But maybe you didn't plan for any good lenses yet? Then it actually usually (not always, but usually) is better to put that money from the sale a bit more toward lenses than the body. Might result in a situation where you can buy the (possibly cheaper) body right now anyhow.

>>3000223
I thought there *was* a native 50mm pancake. Wasn't that ~from the same era as that Nikon FE?

Just found it, uncle Ken to the rescue:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50f18E.htm

>>3000216
Sell the Fuji and get a D7100 so you can use all your film lenses with metering

>>3000219
Just get a Pentax then, mate

Ok ok
Anons

I previously posted about being a n00b and such and what kind of tourist-level decent camera I wanted between 300-400 euros

Anyway, after obsessively reading stuff since yesterday, and talking to someone else (they suggested the ks-2 which is fucking heavy and quite out of my price range even secondhand, but a lovely very high praised camera otherwise)....
I wanted to ask what anons think of the Olympus OM-D E-M10

This person I spoke to also kept mentioning something about 50mm lenses, but I still didn't understand why I'd need those specifically...

P-please tell me it's a decent camera so I can get one already and not hate myself anymore
>or suggest a decent alternative in its pricerange desu

>>3000227
>I wanted to ask what anons think of the Olympus OM-D E-M10
Slow AF, didn't like it.

The OM-D EM-5 II is like the first okay camera for me. But even then I wonder why I'm either getting weak as fuck lenses with soft images, or pay like $500 - 1k for anything shaper. (Okay, I know why, smaller sensor makes things more difficult ... but it's actually making APS-C and FF seem way more attractive to me).

YMMV if you never will get more than one lens and just want something cheap and small. I guess it might work. But even then I'd presumably be quicker to get a Panasonic.

>or suggest a decent alternative in its pricerange desu
A6000.

>>3000219

I bought the Leica one.

Damn good, but not perfect. The longer the lens, the worse the autofocus. I would be hesitant to go past 100mm.

That said, set it up with a small Leica prime and it is a dream.

>>3000229
I was actually looking at the a5000 yesterday, but so far I haven't figured out what the difference is between that and the a6000, besides ~100euros or so

their newer versions a5100 and a6100 I think also have quite a bump in price =(

>all sample pictures out there are taken with $700+ lenses
how the fuck is that supposed to help my case dammit
well, that at least applies to portraits and photos taken inside so yea

File: IMG_0205.jpg (118KB, 650x649px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 650x649px

>>3000223
Industar 50-2 is cheap as chips.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	650
Image Height	649
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3000239
For a reason though. It is a horrible lens. Helios 44M is a much better lens for the same price.

>>3000236
> I was actually looking at the a5000 yesterday, but so far I haven't figured out what the difference is between that and the a6000, besides ~100euros or so
Quite a lot.

The A6000 has a lot better AF and sensor. It has an electronic viewfinder. It has a flash hotshoe. It has more knobs and buttons (much easier to operate overall). And some more. Get the A6000 minimum.

The A5100 did get a better AF and sensor over the A5000 but the rest is the same - no EVF, no flash hotshoe, less knobs and wheels.

>all sample pictures out there are taken with $700+ lenses

~$300 lens:
https://pixelpeeper.com/adv/?lens=13719&camera=1875

~$150-200 lens:
https://pixelpeeper.com/adv/?lens=13478&camera=1875
https://pixelpeeper.com/adv/?lens=13632&camera=1875

> how the fuck is that supposed to help my case dammit
You mean the lenses are supposed to be included in that budget?

Well, I guess you get one of the cheaper Sigma Art f/2.8 or the Sony 50mm f/1.8 or something like that for starters. Or make do with the kit lens (which of course also has sample shots)

>>3000239
Why would you say a lens that doesn't adapt w/ infinity focus without extra optics was compatible? That's a m39 rangefinder lens! (a perfectly adequate one, mind; 60% of Leica at 5% the price...)

File: IMG_0206.jpg (52KB, 600x359px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x359px

>>3000223
There's also this ugly little cunt of a lens.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	359
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3000239
Don't buy this.

>>3000241 (cont'd)
And here, the kit lens for the one lens kit:
https://pixelpeeper.com/adv/?lens=13507&camera=1875

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2122756@N21/pool/

Second kit lens in case you get the two lens kit:
https://pixelpeeper.com/adv/?lens=13241&camera=1875

Does that help?

>>3000241
>You mean the lenses are supposed to be included in that budget?
ish
I mean if I get to 450 euro with the lenses, that's fine

apparently the A6000 is quite a bit more expensive over in yuroop....

but I didn't notice the fancy filter options on that website, so I'll play around with those first! thanks for the specific links anon

this website cameradecision.com seems to rate the om10 a bit higher than the a6000

ok, first to go through some sample pictures with decently priced lenses

>>3000222
I think the general idea with cameras like the GR and X70 is that they're something you own in addition to an ILC, not instead of one. It's something you can stick in your pocket for those times when it's not worth bringing your "big" camera but want something better than a smartphone.

File: LEICA-M-MONOCHROM_WINDOW-TEASER_teaser-1200x470.jpg (66KB, 1200x470px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1200x470px

>>3000082
>All sensors have low light color noise

>>3000244
>>3000223
There are a few russian nikon F mount russian lenses though

>>3000253
Technically that might actually output color noise but you never see it since there's no option for color jpeg conversion.

>>3000226
cool, ebay? do any camera shops pay decent prices for 2nd hand cams?

>>3000251
> apparently the A6000 is quite a bit more expensive over in yuroop...
Apparently.

> this website cameradecision.com seems to rate the om10 a bit higher than the a6000
Their scoring method. I'd score very differently.

This is what you fairly objectively get on a *sensor* benchmark (main imaging sensor only):
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A6000-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M10___942_937

Granted I'd also give the A6000 the win on a lot of other criteria.

> ok, first to go through some sample pictures with decently priced lenses
Sure, have fun with that.

>>3000256
I'd try ebay first, maybe B&H or KEH

>>3000252
I personally did get the feeling most people who do that don't even use a big camera. Either because they have none or because they gave up using it.

But I guess it's not everyone?

Personally, I if I needed the camera smaller for some reason, I'd just stick a smaller lens on my APS-C MILC and then carry that.

(Not that I actually need to, my regular EDC backpack can take my camera just fine, and I could also just wear a camera sling bag or stuff.)

>>3000030
I didn't see a "retarded ass questions" thread, but I'm sure this thread will suffice.
Do i have to format my sd cards again after taking them out of the dslr, putting them into my laptop to retrieve the photos, and putting them back into the dslr?

>>3000265
No, you don't have to.

But it's actually often the quickest way to "delete" photos.

>>3000265
see
>>2995773
and learn to use the catalog, faggot

>>3000265
No, but I always reformat my card once the photos are transferred to the computer anyway. I don't like having a bunch of old photos on the camera, I've never gotten anywhere near filling up a memory card but it just seems wrong to use the camera's memory card for long term storage.

>>3000257
ok, I get the feeling that that website (dxomark) has rating skewed in favor of high ISO value, or at least that seems to be the main difference between (most) olympus and (most) sony's

but anyway, for better or worse, my list has been expanded to include
Nikon D3300 (also has decent price even with the kit lens)
Pentax K-50 but I dunno really
and maybe the Olympus PEN E-PL7 which seems almost the same as the other Olympus

The A5000 I don't really like because no viewfinder, and the A6000 would be waaay outside of budget if I'd get a lens with it as well

Which by now makes sense, because it seems better on just about all fronts, so it's no surprise it's significantly more expensive...

I'm starting to feel there's barely any real difference between cameras at my price range, but I'm somehow more inclined towards the Nikon or the Olympus
>researching these things is tiring

but at least I've found that I want to have a viewfinder

If I start considering spending as much as a A6000 I'd have to start from scratch with a new price range ohgodkillmenow

>>3000240
seconding the helios,although its not a pancake lens, and its quite heavy. But i mean its a must own lens for how cheap it is

>>3000245
That's not ugly though

>>3000289
>ok, I get the feeling that that website (dxomark) has rating skewed in favor of high ISO value, or at least that seems to be the main difference between (most) olympus and (most) sony's
The color depth / dynamic range also contribute, too.

> the A6000 would be waaay outside of budget if I'd get a lens with it as well
Too bad, it's a great deal overall.

> Pentax K-50 but I dunno really
I'd prefer it to a D3300. Like the A6000, it doesn't suffer from its manufacturer pretty much expending effort to reduce software and small hardware features to give people a reason to upgrade

For example, on Nikon's system a lot of the cheaper AF capable lenses require a motor in the camera body, but you're not getting that until the D7x00. You also aren't getting the software feature to AE bracket for HDR. [And they kinda removed probably $0.5 buttons... etc etc - point is, they really want you to get to upgrade and you'll feel it if you ask me.]

It also just is kinda better in general. More cross-type AF points faster burst rates, and as bonus it's weather sealed and can use a lot of older lenses better. I liked it better hands-on... though I guess you know what I ultimately ended up with.

> I'm starting to feel there's barely any real difference between cameras at my price range
There is if you ask me. Happens also if you look at the Panasonic in the price range. They got some nice strengths -especially for video- over a Nikon or Olympus or Canon, too.

> If I start considering spending as much as a A6000 I'd have to start from scratch with a new price range ohgodkillmenow
Yea, very... horrible.

>>3000318
K-50 is more in the Nikon 5x00 price range, though? I think that evens out a lot of the advantages with AF and bracketing etc. It also has a great tilty-screen for low/weird angle shots...

Hey /p I am not a photographer but I want to get into photography what is a good entry level camera under $250

>>3000325
not the anon, but in NL it is literally the same price with a kitlens as the D3300 with a kitlens, the lenses being pretty much the same (18-50mm)

the D5300 for example is 100euros extra with a similar kitlens, same goes for just the camera

>>3000318
upon a closer look the k-50 is indeed better in just about all sensor aspects, and I just noticed the Nikon doesn't have the stability/anti-shake thing (which I found odd)
only downside so far is that it's 130g heavier but I'm starting to wonder how much that actually matters

a colleague will bring his D5100 which is of similar weight and such for me to play around with for a few days to figure out if I want/need anything like this in the first place

again, thanks for all the feedback and advice!

I'll probably come back once I play around with my friend's camera

>>3000336
A film Nikon/Minolta manual SLR and a few lenses. Yes a Canon SLR will work too but the manual ones (FD) aren't compatible with EF stuff, so you can't use your manual lenses on a DSLR you might buy and you can't use a newer lens on your manual film camera.

>>3000254
To be sure, I'd pay over the odds for one. Never heard of it however.

>>3000325
Checking Amazon.de, the D3300 kit is ~410 Eur, the K-50 kit is ~430 Eur.

A Nikon D5500 kit is ~710 Eur & a D5300 kit is ~550 Eur.

> I think that evens out a lot of the advantages with AF and bracketing etc.
Vs the K-50 - mostly so, yes.

But note the 4 shot buffer on a D5300. That will make that camera a relative pain. Yea, you can do a 3-step AE bracket. Once. Then your buffer is full.

For comparison, the D5500 has a 7 shot buffer, the K-50 an 8 shot buffer, and the A6000 a 22 shot buffer.

[The A6000 is way ahead there because this is measured at its 11fps rate of burst shooting rather than the 5-6fps burst on the other cameras.

And I guess the K-50 has it simpler by only having 16MP to store in that buffer... but it still presumably will not annoy you as much as a D5300 would.]

>>3000340
>upon a closer look the k-50 is indeed better in just about all sensor aspects
Not entirely, the Nikons have higher resolution.

> and I just noticed the Nikon doesn't have the stability/anti-shake thing (which I found odd)
Nikon's "VR" vibration reduction stabilization is bought on every lens individually. They don't have an in-body incarnation of it.

Pentax was early with this, but it's looking to be a standard feature on Sony /. Olympus / Panasonic etc cameras too, going forward (okay, usually they actually have *better* IBIS than a K-50, but they're comparaitively late to this party).

In the your price range you won't *yet* find it on other of these cameras though.

> only downside so far is that it's 130g heavier but I'm starting to wonder how much that actually matters
Not really much, and most MFT lenses will be lighter than APS-C lenses, too.

The drawback is really basically the lower resolution sensor, but it may be a lesser drawback than all the annoying downgrades on a lower-end Nikon.

> I'll probably come back once I play around with my friend's camera
Since that's possible, this sounds like a great idea. Your own perspective will surely help. Ultimately how I weigh the respective advantages / disadvantages may not be entirely the same.

> again, thanks for all the feedback and advice!
No problem, have fun testing things out!

File: DSCF0148.jpg (1MB, 1632x1088px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1632x1088px

>>3000240
This. Just make sure it's a 44M-2 for the famous bokeh.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T10
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.16
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:21 23:48:49
Exposure Time	1 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Brightness	-2.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	23.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1632
Image Height	1088
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Custom
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Manual
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Manual Exposure
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	Blur Warning
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

>>3000341
Thanks I look into it

>>3000365
it's way cheaper to shoot digital and you'll get much more practice, fyi

I'd like to get into portrait photography. I have a Pentax k3 and a tripod. What are the bare basics that I will need? (I'll be doing self portraits to work on my skill.)

>>3000399
Ideally for a beginner? 2 cheap light stands with brackets and umbrellas (3 in 1 is nice, but a bitch to get the cover on sometimes), 2 speedlights (1 ttl if you ever get the need to use in run and gun situations, cheap manual ones like YN560III/IV otherwise), 1 wireless trigger, 1 reflector.

Oh, and some creativity.

Can I get a good beginners camera for under 250?

>>3000415
> cheap manual ones like YN560III/IV otherwise
I'll recommend the YN660 now that it's out.

Those $5-10 extra will be quite well spent, the light output is stronger, the controls at the back are a bit better (if you use them rather than a 560 - TX), and it won't overheat and permanently get stuck on 1/1 anymore if you shoot at high power too rapidly (arguably most people didn't do this anyway, but with portraits it might happen).

>>3000428
250 USD?

You could do some video or maybe photos with a sports camera or chinese smartphone or whatever P&S is currently popular on Amazon with that. Not really my idea of a "good" camera, though.

Also, there aren't really any "beginner's cameras". Even as a beginner, you'll pretty much only have an easier time with a better camera & lens.

File: images (10).jpg (12KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 470x313px

Anyone got one? I've ordered one but on a wait list in this country.

>>3000428
>>3000442
Pretty much this, any camera worth 250 is kind of useless and you would upgrade fast from it anyway. stick with a camera phone until you are sure you will stick with it or just try and score something second hand.

>>3000454
You can build the same from a few pieces of wood, a Pixhawk controller and a basic quadcopter motor/ESC/Props kit from Hobbyking
You put a brushless gimbal and a Mobius Actioncam on and presto, you are still under 1/5th of the price with a more capable craft.

>>3000605
>a more capable craft.

Capable of not having ActiveTrack :D

I'm gonna give you a piece of advice you can apply to almost anything, and you don't even have to thank me.

If you don't know what you're talking about, STFU.

>>3000428
Easily.
Look at 2nd hand sony nex 6 or a6000 or nex 7.
Im suggesting sony as i presume your new to photography and these 3 models have an electronic viewfinder as opposed to an optical one. This means the viewfinder will show exactly whhat the photo will look like as you change settings. As opposed to a traditional dslr That relies on experience and knowledge.

You can pick manual focus old lenses and adapters for pennies, which is another great reason to go mirrorless if you're on a budget.

>>3000610
I'm a seasoned RC modeler, I built multicopters before DJI was a thing. I made controllers from disassembled Wii controllers. I did many builds with different versions of APM then Pixhawk.
I did flightplans, follow mode, self calibration before DJI made these software features a luxury option. I know damn well what I am talking about, your overpriced shit will break the first time you try to fly it and you can pay for the overpriced spare parts multiple times.
Just because you can buy an overpriced gimped gadget doesn't mean you can actually fly one. I can tell you are already having buyers remorse, kid.

Here's a question I haven't really seen asked before. What backpack do you guys use to lug your gear around, (and what do you usually carry)? Is it just an ordinary backpack or a specialist photography one?

>>3000708
I use a NatGeo Walkabout messenger bag, currently in the market for a Lowepro that I can use as a regular backpack but can take the body with two lenses, normal zoom and 70-200/2.8, flash, some other accessories like a water flask and I can hook a normal tripod on it.

File: abr800_face_0710.jpg (108KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x800px

Best budget flash for taking sexy pics of my lady friend in the bedroom?

>>3000727
what camera do you use?

>>3000730

Thinking a7ii w/ 35mm prime for pov shots.

>>3000732
>35mm prime for pov shots.
Too narrow

File: 28031739394_3680868097.jpg (78KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x500px

>>3000732
You do realize it is not splashproof, right?

>>3000734

Even on FF?

What would you recommend?

>>3000736

Thankfully, she is not a squirter.

>>3000732
you probably want to go for 28mm for POV, they will look trashy as hell though, women aren't in sexy flattering poses when they're being shagged.

Flash wise, for POV, ideally a ringflash, but they're expensive. It depends how much versatility you want from your flash, if you just want to set the power manually and be limited to 1/200 fastest shutter speed a cheap yongnuo will do fine, if you spend a bit more you can get ttl and hss, this will auto meter the flash and allow you to have shutter speeds all the way up to 1/8000. Godox and yongnuo have affordable options.

If you want to do actually nice shots, you will need off camera flash, again, you can go super basic with some $10 yongnuo triggers, some flashes such as the Godox V860ii have the triggers built in and can still do full ttl and hss and be controlled from your body by a master controller unit.

personally I like the Godox V860ii as it has all the features, and it comes with a pair of li-ion rechargeable battery packs, as opposed to using rechargeable AA's. 2 flashes and a master controller will set you back about $350, but they will give you a product that will do everything you want that will last a long time.

>>3000740
>Even on FF?
Yes

>What would you recommend?
28mm

>Thankfully, she is not a squirter.
You mean regrettably. Squirters are fun

>>3000740
But you are (I assume)

>>3000708
Since I got a MILC with some smaller travel lenses, its actually more often an ordinary backpack.

But I'm looking for a more adequately sectioned photography / travel backpack or nicer insert. This camera doesn't need a full backpack, but I need space for my hiking needs.

Presumably going to buy it from China again, like almost all of my last few year's bags and backpacks.

I also have two sling bags.

>>3000727
A lower end Godox Wistro perhaps (you never know what places you'll want to shoot at)? Or one of their relatively inexpensive cabled TTL studio strobes.

Or a bunch of Yongnuo YN660 + 560-TX if you mean as budget as you possibly can.

>tfw $100 duty fee for my package today
atleast I'm happy with the camera

>>3000030
Hi /p/,
My girlfriend has recently developed an interest in photography, but she's relucant to buy equipment because of money issues.
Now her birthday's comming up, and I figured it'd be a good idea to give her a camera. Thing is, I have no knowledge on photography whatsoever, so I was wondering what camera might be a good starting-camera, just a basic one to fuel her interest.

>>3000798
Give her a Nikon D3300 with a kit lens. She will be all over your dick, brah

>>3000798
> I was wondering what camera might be a good starting-camera
Sony A6000. Pentax K-50. Something like that.

> just a basic one to fuel her interest
Her smartphone camera.

File: watchcollection.jpg (2MB, 4587x3427px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4587x3427px

Hi

My friend is looking for a mirrorless at the moment. Which one to get? He is a nooby like me and probably won't upgrade forever or at least a long long while.

Easy on the money is important.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-PL5
Camera Software	Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2017:01:08 13:37:26
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Creative
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	14.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3000798
a5100 because womyn does not use evf and they prefer selfie screens.

>>3000885
A6000.

>>3000885

Fujifilm, A6000 is terrible if you're low on funds.

>>3000893
Fujifilm is terrible if you're low on funds.

Can't get too many good lenses for $300 or less whereas Sony has a good bunch of great primes.

Can't even get a body with good AF below like $800 (great only at $1500).

>>3000895

lmao, sony has literally three primes for the a6000.

>>3000896
Wrong. See here, lenses under $300 at B&H:

Fuji - 14 lenses, virtually all Samyang/Rokinon:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7C0&ci=17912&N=4196380428+4099560912&srtclk=sort&mnp=0&mxp=300

Sony - 27 lenses, (including the same Samyang but now also a bunch of AF lenses and more):
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=17912&N=4196380428+4099560915&mnp=&mxp=300.00

>>3000898
Woops, actually I forgot to include 5 more lenses, so it's actually 32 lenses - FAR more than on Fuji:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Lens+Mount_Sony+E-mount+%28Full+Frame%29&ci=17912&N=4196380428+4099560915+3999800997&mxp=300.00

>>3000798
>>3000801
if you want to get her a dslr, i'd recommend the k50 or even the k70 because pentaxfag.

File: 1482535746830.jpg (232KB, 979x832px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 979x832px

>>3000898

>counting third party trash

File: 1482394605182.jpg (182KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x1024px

>>3000898
>>3000899

>counting the same lens twice because it comes in different colors

>>3000904
There is no trash in a Samyang or Sigma or Yasuhara (or Zeiss or whatever).

They're mostly a pleasure or at least good to shoot with.

I guess we could omit the one weak as fuck Mitakon and maybe the Lensbaby? Doesn't change shit in the overall picture, just makes the X-mount look worse.

But if you really want to strictly drop all 3rd party lenses anyways 'cause even stupid lines of inquiry should be followed, well, Fuji ends up with *0* lenses, Sony with still 7 (2 of which are color variants).

> counting the same lens twice because it comes in different colors
Marginally alters the numbers but doesn't actually change anything about the conclusion here, even if you count them as 0.1 or 0 lenses.

File: 1480612032079.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>3000917

So... we went from 32 lenses to 5 lenses, all of which are much worse than their fujifilm equivalents.

File: GFX-A7rII_side.png (272KB, 700x493px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 700x493px

>>3000893

>Fuji
>a budget choice

top kek

There are lots of reasons to choose Fuji, but pricing is not one of them.

File: TS560x560-2775971.jpg (51KB, 560x372px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 560x372px

>>3000742

>not sexy when being shagged

My penis disagrees, but I do get your point.

A portrait lens would probably get more flattering facial (pun intended) shots, right? But I can't really use a 90mm and my penis at the same time. Saying hold still while I cross the room and dick around with my camera on a tripod will kill the sexy vibe.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	FinePix X100
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash
Focal Length	23.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto

>>3000742
just fucking bounce the flash off the wall

>>3000928
I think I clearly pointed out that it's stupid to ignore the 3rd party lenses (including things like the Sigma 60mm f/2.8 which fucks the entire X-mount -meaning including anything up to $3.5k glass- for sharpness, and the just great 12mm Samyang f/2, and so many more.)

But even then, no, the conclusion just *isn't* that 5 lenses are worse than 0 allegedly "better" lenses.

The X-mount glass is only very sporadically better, only on APS-C (when it however costs as much that you might as well get FF glass on Sony's side). And it just never happens in the $300 and less price range, as you can see.

>>3000030
Looking for some advice on a new camera. My options are:

Sony A6000 with 10-18mm f4
Olympus E-M10 MkII with 9-18mm f4-5.6

Sony:
- Larger sensor -> better quality photos
- Better C-AF

Olympus;
- Better features (live composite, IBIS etc.)
- Better and wider supported lens selection (also Sony seems to have given up on E-mount lenses)

My photography is 45% landscape, 45% climbers in mountain environments, 10% astro and urban.
See links for similar photos
ukclimbing.com/photos/?category=1
ukclimbing.com/photos/?category=11

Which camera/system would suit my needs best?

>>3000962
Why do you even hold it? It just causes trouble if you ask me.

Put it on a tripod and shoot at where you are.

>>3000969
>Sony seems to have given up on e-mount lenses.

You should try doing some research into each mount before you buy one. Sony released 9 first party lenses in 2016 alone.

>>3000969
>- Better and wider supported lens selection
Not really.

> (also Sony seems to have given up on E-mount lenses)
The fuck? No. Neither have third parties. I think it's the fastest growing lens mount out there overall (and certainly the mount that got the most high-end system seller lenses recently).

>>3000972
FE lenses though mainly?
I'm looking to keep the system light as I have to hike up with all the kit.

>>3000969
> My photography is 45% landscape, 45% climbers in mountain environments, 10% astro and urban.
Honestly, get the 12mm f/2 Samyang or something like it first. On either.

Yes, f/2 is great for landscapes, astro and urban and prime is great for climbing because you don't find out your zoom is now too close when you've only got one hand free.

>>3000976
Yeah, I've heard that's a great lens for astro too

>>3000974
A lot of FE lenses are still really light, no point in excluding them.

>>3000977
It's basically as good as it gets for a ultrawide lens on APS-C or MFT. And inexpensive - haven't found anyone yet who thought it was a bad deal.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/samyang_12mm_f2/

FF would have 2-3 better ultrawide lenses - but I figure you're not in that market, right?

>>3000980
One of the Sony A7 series would be nice, but I can't justify the cost and it pushes the size/image quality balance too far imo

>>3000980

Overall system could look like this:

A6000
E 10-18 f4
E 55-210 f4.5-6.3
E 50 f1.8
Samyang 12 f2

In the future, this could branch out to the E 16-70 f4, other Sony FE lenses or legacy glass.

My MFT system would look like this:

E-M10 II
Oly 9-18 f4-5.6
Oly 40-150 f4-5.6 R / Pana 35-100 f4-5.6
Oly 45 f1.8 / Pana 42.5 f1.7
Samyang 12 f2

In the future, this could branch out to the Oly 12-40 f2.8 and Oly 7-14 f2.8 / Pana 7-14 f4 or others.

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

63KB, 700x229px

>>3000974

Not all FE lenses are massive.

I have a Canon 60D, i want to get some vintage canon glass but will the lightmeter work with it?
Or LiveView at least?
I'm using MagicLantern btw

>>3000981
I do get the cost bit.

But size, not really, you can make that small enough to carry almost anywhere.

Anyhow, I guess you'll go APS-C either way then, and then it doesn't really get better than the 12mm Samyang f/2 at this point.

>>3000983
> E 10-18 f4
> E 55-210 f4.5-6.3
> E 50 f1.8
> Samyang 12 f2
Myself, I'd reduce this to the 12mm, 55-210, and probably just one-two of the 28mm f/2, 30mm f/1.4, 50mm macro f/2.8 or even the "tiny lazy" 20mm f/2.8 pancake.

The 10-18 isn't my kind of lens, it's neither sharp nor fast nor cheap.

And I'd be unlikely to use a 75mm equivalent on the go, even with f/1.8. Sharper 42mm, 45m or 75mm *macro*? Far more likely. [And that 30mm equivalent pancake counts as basically nothing in terms of weight.]

isnt it too late to buy a sony a7?

>>3001064
People who buy one now probably buy it used.

>>3000986
vintage as canon fd?
it won't even fit.

I just got an instax mini. Can I actually take interesting pics with it or is it just supposed to be used for mindless fun?

>>3000986
No vintage canon glass will work with a modern canon camera, they changed their mount at the beginning of the AF era.

File: IMG_0100.jpg (3MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5184x3456px

Cameras I've worked with:
>70D
>80D
>5D MKII
>RED Epic

My Cameras:
>Pentax Film Camera
>Canon 1200D

My Lens:
>Canon 18-55
>PK 75-205 f4
>PK 28 f2.8
>PK 28-50 f3.5
>PK 50mm f1.7

A bit of a waste seeing as the 1200D is a APS-C lens but anyone else do photography with these?

>Pic Related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1200D
Lens Size	18.00 - 55.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.1
Lens Name	EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:28 16:05:24
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/22.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Continuous
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Cloudy
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	133

Recently purchased a Canon 6D on the cheap from a friend. Currently I have a 70-200mm f1:4 and a 50mm f1:1.8 lens (and a 1.4 extender). As usually find myself gravitating towards landscape photography this obviously means I'm on the market for a wide angle lens. Preferably a zoom lens for added versatility while travelling as I tend to be abroad several months a year.

Was looking at a few Tamron/Samyang/Sigma/Rokinon/Zeiss lenses too, but the range is so wide I'm looking for some opinions and personal experience. Anything with 10-16mm at the lower end preferably.

Thinking about getting a canon 24-105mm f4 l as general purpose lens, anyone got experience with it?

I can get a used one for 470€ atm

>>3001302
For what?

>>3001279
It's supposed to make you pay a lot for consumables... "mindless fun", I guess.

It'll be really hard to shoot good photos with that.

>>3001300
Samyang 14mm since you don't have the option to use the 12mm.

Or the Canon 14mm / Zeiss 15mm if you got a bunch of extra money.

Or the Tokina 11-16 DX if you must have zoom.

>>3001300
That 50mm lens will give you the most neutral images for stitching panoramas. Also don't leave the 70-200 at home when you go shooting landscapes.

>>3001300
There's no 10mm rectilinear lens for canon.

And are you aware of how absurdly wide 10mm is?

The go-to for your body is canons 16-35, or 17-40 if you want to save some money. If you MUST go wider, there's the scarily priced 11-24 or you can go cheap with the sigma 12-24.

My advice, stick with the 16-35 or 17-40.

>>3001325
> And are you aware of how absurdly wide 10mm is?
Less wide than a FF 14mm, and there already are lenses wider than that.

Could be done, I imagine, but I figure it's not worth doing right for the APS-C customer bases...

> My advice, stick with the 16-35 or 17-40.
Personally, I think getting a sharp wider (14mm) prime and bringing it with you is worth it just about any day for land- and cityscapes.

>>3001322
Thanks!
>>3001323
Considered stitching too, but my current pc is so slow I don't get round to pp often. Def taking the 70-200 too, wished I had such a lens on more than one occasion before.
>>3001325
My old camera has a 12-50, so yes, I know. Loved it. Thanks as well anon.

>>3001334
>Considered stitching too, but my current pc is so slow I don't get round to pp often.
Figures you could fix that for like $400 tops, maybe $200-300.

But it's often still annoying since even in landscapes (never mind cityscapes) you have a lot of things that can move. Vegetation can sway in the wind, animals move, snow might fall, stuff like that. It can actually still be a little involved to blend these exposures then.

>>3001327

Voigtlander just released a FF rectilinear 10mm.

I'd like it but it costs $1000 and has a very meh aperture.

>>3001336
Got a friend who's selling his gaming rig soon for that price. Not brand new, but it'll get the job done without any trouble.

>>3001338
The Venus 12mm f/2.8 also will be out soon-ish for Canon EF. Still around $1k.

Figures you'd have to use the 12mm Rokinon Fisheye for a cheaper option - got that for my own use (even if I don't use it THAT often). It's a pretty good lens.

File: uwa_fov.jpg (997KB, 1450x967px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 1450x967px

>>3001342
>>3001338

Looks fun, but f 5.6.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	10 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016-06-28T09:23:54-04:00
Exposure Time	1/3 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	2.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	10.00 mm
Image Width	1450
Image Height	967
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3001334
I do PP on my 2013 Dell laptop. It wasn't cutting edge even back then and it still runs PS and LR CC decently. Not lightning fast, but still very much usable.
So you don't need the bestest most gamingest rig ever, even more gaming hardware is barely performs better than regular office PC hardware on such CPU and memory intensive usage. It is better to get a used decent PC and get a used Quadro video card, 16GB or more ram and an SSD + a removable external HDD or an outside HDD rack, something like QNAP to store your RAWs
And spend the money you saved on a good photo printer to store your best shots on paper.

>>3001343
https://www.flickr.com/groups/samyang12mm_f28/pool/

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2795323@N22/pool/

About the cheapest FF ultrawide option with a larger aperture setting. Fisheye lenses give you a different field of view from rectilinear lenses.

>>3001348
>even more gaming hardware is barely performs better than regular office PC hardware on such CPU and memory intensive usage
Typical gaming rigs have fast CPU and lots of RAM, typical Office PC don't.

> Quadro
Mostly relevant when dealing with obsolete software (using single fixed rendering pipelines and shit like that), otherwise your average gaymen GPU has all the graphics wrangling power a productive photography / videography application needs.

> SSD
Good ideas, sure.

> And spend the money you saved
With all these purchases I figure you spent more vs him using his friend's gaming PC...

>>3001350
Dude, there is a lot of difference between a PC designed for gaming and a PC designed for actual work. Image manipulation and photo editing is heavy calculations, much heavier than the display and speed optimized gaming use.
Put a bunch of RAWs for batch editing and export on a gaming rig and an actual workstation, the gaming rig will chug along like a 19th century steam engine. Similarly running a game on the same hardwares the gaming rig will perform better.
I did the same explanation a bazillion times in my work to clueless IT workers and they only started listening after they spent a lot of money on subpar performance. Gaming is not about heavy calculations, on the contrary, everything is optimized for the less posssible calculations for more speed (look up 64k intros for cutting edge optimizations).
Get a decent PC with a non gimped CPU (i5 at least, no celeron-like bs) and get a decent used Quadro card and loads of ram in parallel configuration. This is how you can speed up your workflow.

>>3001353
Dude I'm buying it from uses it for uses it for PS and LR as well, and he's quite a bit better at it than I am - says it performs very well. Probably should've mentioned that from the start.

>>3001327
>Less wide than a FF 14mm
Op has a 6d, which is FF, noob.

>>3001338
Op has a canon, the new VL's only work on mirrorless (short flange masterrace), noob

>>3001334
>old camera has 12-50
I presume that's some form of olympus mft camera, 12mm on mft is equal to 24mm on full frame, if this was as wide as you ever wanted just get a 24-70.

>>3001358
kindly fuck off

>>3001357
Correct, completely forgot about that because I'm an idiot. Still, as I'd often find myself wishing I had something wider, so in the end I'm still looking for the kind of lens I first mentioned.

>>3001353
>Image manipulation and photo editing is heavy calculations, much heavier than the display and speed optimized gaming use.
Uh, no. It's the same thing.

You don't seem to understand how many "images" (in textures etc.) a modern 3D video game needs to modify (perspective, various light scattering simulation techniques, maybe water effects, dozens of "atmospheric filters" and general filters in front).

Never mind the CPU are basically the same if you don't have a multi-xeon workstation that most definitely isn't coming from "some" office.

> Put a bunch of RAWs for batch editing and export on a gaming rig and an actual workstation, the gaming rig will chug along like a 19th century steam engine.
No. It's fast as fuck. Save for some dumb fucking programs that need a Quadro because they can't actually use modern 3D standards. But they're getting very sparse.

> Similarly running a game on the same hardwares the gaming rig will perform better.
Since their old use in accelerating shitty ass old graphics standards is vanishing, new Quadro are more like huge ass floating point co-processor.

What you're really going to use it for is to optimize or analyze some set(s) of a shit load of floating point numbers in some more complex way.

Editing some photograph or video? A gaming GPU can do this hands down. Even the GPU on an APU can do it almost all.

>>3001353
>He thinks quadro make a difference for ps + lr over geforce
Lol, nope. You used to get the 10bit advantage on quadro, but that's on all the cards now.

quadro cards show improvements over geforce when it comes to cad and render farms, and that's about it.

>recommending a non HT i5 cpu
Nigger, what, are, you, on. The biggest speed boost to your workflow is all in the CPU, This is one of the very few times an i7 is worth it over an i5

>SSD
For your raws to sit on? FUCK NO! DO NOT DO THIS. SSD's die, often unexpectedly and are completely unrecoverable. Just get 2 1tb standard hard drives and run them in redundant raid. Install photoshop/windows/etc on SSD, leave photos on safe HD's

>Ram
16gb is cheap, there's no reason not to have 16gb. Running it in dual/triple channel shows almost impossibly small gains, don't worry about it. Don't forget to enable XMP profiles in your bios.

>>3001365
>For your raws to sit on? FUCK NO! DO NOT DO THIS. SSD's die, often unexpectedly and are completely unrecoverable
HDD do that too.

Actually, all the indications we have is that SSD are a bit more long-lived now, even with intense use, though it's a bit hard to be sure due to so many different architectures being at work.

Either way, no reason to not use them for RAWs.

Plus he actually had a backup (suggested a NAS or extra removable HDD). Which is the way to make data safer anyway.

You could RAID1 your SSD too, by the way.

>>3001365
>>SSD
>For your raws to sit on? FUCK NO! DO NOT DO THIS. SSD's die
tfw you shoot film and all your RAW files are just pictures of physical negatives, which will never randomly and unpredictably disappear and which will only ever improve in quality with each iteration of backup you care to perform

>>3001365
Why on earth would you store ANYTHING on an SSD? It is for your system and software to run from, you used an external HDD or a QNAP rack to store your stuff, idiot!

>>3001361
I have a 12-24 and desu it's a bit of a nightmare, can't use filters unless you get the stupid expensive lee set, chromabs errywhere, not that sharp, front element begging to get fucked up. My 17-40 on the other hand stays in my bag all day erryday. See if you can try one or the other in person, I'd be very surprised if you didn't consider 16mm "wide enough", personally most of my uwa landscapes end up at about 20mm

>>3001367
>HDD do that too.
Nah, it's easy to tell when an HD is on it's way out, and it's easy to run a recovery on one even if it won't boot.

Once an SSD dies, that's it, it's all gone.

>>3001368
Feels good bro

>>3001369
This, but, people are lazy, offsite backups are a fantastic idea, but not all of us can be assed to maintain such a thing. a redundant raid setup will live through 99% of lifes problems, is very user friendly and very cheap.

>>3001369
It's also faster to edit off a SSD.

One of these days, you might want to check how many accesses LR or something makes (arguably also 'cause that software is stupid) and how much data it pushes.

Either way, it's almost not worth anymore contemplating whether you want to shave off all these seconds with how cheap SSD are now. 750GB are under $200.

>>3001371
>Nah, it's easy to tell when an HD is on it's way out
False. Not even Google or the other big data companies can tell this for shit.

They identified just a few signs under which there is an elevated chance of failure, but ultimately drives can fail at any time... or not fail despite having shown that elevated chance of failure.

Part of the reason why you have all the data clouds with all the data migrating and distributing... but that's too big (and too complex / single purpose) for homes yet.

So you do backups to other drives (maybe on your NAS or elsewhere) instead. Do it regardless if you use HDD or SSD.

>>3001373
>it's also faster to edit off an ssd.
Not really bruh, doesn't take long to dump 50mb into ram off a standard HDD. Interpreting full size previews is what takes time, CPU handles that.

>>3001375
lolwut, you're chatting shit mate, you ever hear of S.M.A.R.T?

There are more problems in a data centre, but at home, if you hear your hard drive clicking, or re-spinning up a lot, or pausing, then you know it's time to run a disk diag and see how many free bad sectors you got left and if there's any other problems.

And I got my 1TB SSD for under $150 over a year ago, lel.

>>3001377
Underage

>>3001378
30

>>3001376
In throughput in MB it'd kinda work out, but LR and other software will have "fun" doing like 30k reads and writes when you just browse through your images for half a minute, or with various edits and stuff.

>>3001377
> you ever hear of S.M.A.R.T?
Some fields in SMART are indicators of elevated probability of failure (many others are irrelevant). But it's never indicating that the drive is *safe* against spontaneous failure for the next x moments of time (for any value of x).

And I don't mean the ridiculously unlikely case of a full important component spontaneously disintegrating due to the insanely low probability in physics that such a thing might happen.
I mean a value of "safe" an engineer/technician might work with for, like, "ensuring" all parts on an elevator are fine and it almost certainly won't fall within 20k round trips. Can't realistically know this for HDD.

> There are more problems in a data centre
There are usually less problems per drive.

> if you hear your hard drive clicking, or re-spinning up a lot, or pausing
Obviously another indicator that the drive might fail, but you don't predictably get this before a failure.

> then you know it's time to run a disk diag and see how many free bad sectors you got left and if there's any other problems.
You should just clone and replace the drive. It's now a drive with a much elevated chance of failure or data corruption.

If this drive continues to get used, it should be for unimportant data only.

>And I got my 1TB SSD for under $150 over a year ago, lel.
Good for you. It's not the current market rate.

>>3001380
Manchild then. You can be of age and still not mature enough.

>>3001383
>all of this
Missing me saying to use them in a redundant raid array...

>>3001401
raid is not for redundancy, you idiot

>>3001415
redundant raid arrays are for exactly this you goof.

>>3001415
>redundant array of inexpensive disks is not for redundancy
good god how old are you?

or did I fall for obvious bait?

>>3001311
an eos 760D

>>3001433
Get a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 or a 17-50/2.8 instead
Much more versatile on crop.

File: 1453538_m.jpg (35KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x400px

Anyone know which Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are the best for producing that magical bubble bokeh? I know they're subpar in sharpness and CA, but that's not what I want from those.

File: 25_dollar_bokeh_1.jpg (135KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1000x667px

>>3001506
I think the Tessar 50mm was one.

Some others:
Meyer-Görlitz Trioplan 100mm
Meyer Diaplan 100mm
[... and like half a dozen more Meyer ... Duoplan, Domiplan, whatever - can't even remember many of them]
Pentacon AV 100mm
Fujinon 55

And well, there are a lot more that produce bubbles of sorts. Swirly for instance. Or -as is often the case in actually overall good modern lenses- with not as much "soap bubble" borders.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:02 11:54:47
Exposure Time	1/1500 sec
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	5.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3001506
>buying lenses for bokeh
kys

This.. this can't be bros!! It was supposed to be future-proof!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsKWo5rCQmw

>>3001561
Sony gay master btfo
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/an-update-and-comparison-of-the-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-oss/

>>3001584

>tfw the Sony test shot is obviously decentered

>>3001512
>buying lenses for their optical qualities is a bad thing
jump from a building head first, mate

>>3001370
Much appreciated, will try.

>>3001588
It's such a joke and clearly something sketchy is going on as lensrentals have mentioned decentered lenses that were much less severe in the past.

>>3001620
>>3001588

It is really off. The right side is sharper than the center of everything else, but the left side is a blurry mess.

>>3001597
>placing bokeh above sharpness and aberration control as optical qualities go

>>3001637
Maybe he's doing some sort of artistic photography instead of pixel-peeping like you

>>3001645
i guess you're right, sorry mate

>>3000030
So, I recently upgraded to an A7II from an a6000. I have the zeiss 55 1.8 and am looking to get more glass for my a7ii. My a6000 is in pretty good condition (just some scratches on the screen) and has a Samyang 12mm f/2.0 and the 16-50mm kit lens. I saw online the body/kit lens combo is going anywhere from 300 - 500 bucks used. The lens is in the range of 200 - 300 used.

I was wondering if you think it would be reasonable/doable to list it on eBay with a starting price of around 550 / 600 USD. Am I going to high or too low for this? If I can only get 400 bucks for it then I'll just keep it.

I should also mention it wouldn't include a battery because I use all of them on my new A7II.

>Fuck Sony's battery life, honestly... fuck that.

>>3001677
no one cares about your samsong meme camera you sony memer, just die already

>>3001677
>paying $600 for a used camera with no battery you can literally buy new with battery for the same price

>>3001637

To be fair concentrating on bokeh makes some sense.

Most casuals can easily notice it. Sharpness is ignored by the average commenter, and often timed can only be seen when heavily cropped or pixel peeping.

>>3001677

Used a6000 is only worth about $250-300 if in good condition.

You can try $600, but I doubt you will get a hit. Maybe if you include both your lenses.

Is there any real pro that uses crop sensors? I need some motivation since I wont be able to afford one in years.

>>3001696
No pros are more "real" than others.

And I think there are pros that (either occasionally or constantly) use crop sensor cameras from pretty much every system out there.

> I need some motivation since I wont be able to afford one in years.
Wat? Cameras are pretty cheap, work some and you should be able to afford a FF camera this or next year.

>>3001696
Why are people obsessed with full frame, I will never understand. Crop sensors have advantages and are sharp for no money at all.

>>3001696
>>3001696
>Is there any real pro that uses crop sensors? I need some motivation since I wont be able to afford one in years.

I'm going to do you a favor and deconstruct this post for you to tell you why you're barking up the wrong tree.

>real pro
Professional = get paid to do it. Says nothing about skill level. There are some total hack idiots who are pros. Don't aspire to be a pro, aspire to have artistic vision and create great images.

>implying professionals don't use crop sensors
Nonononono. Up until a couple of years ago every "pro" with a DSLR was using a crop sensor camera. Plenty of them still do, especially in situations where the crop factor isn't a liability (like anything where going wide isn't necessary).

>I need some motivation since I wont be able to afford one in years.
Motivation comes from within, you twat. Stop pixel-peeping and benchracing. Stop looking at DXOmark measurements of your camera and lamenting how shitty it is because it has 11.7 stops of dynamic range at ISO100 instead of 13.7 stops. Stop it crying over how the MTF table for the best lens in your collection doesn't come close to $3,000 "pro" lenses. Stop looking at numbers and pixels and start going out and shooting. Look at light and how it falls on things, look for the beautiful in the mundane. A good, inspired photographer wouldn't lament owning an 8 year old DSLR and some mid-pack lenses, he'd go make some great images with them.

T.
*former* "pro" photographer who stopped that shit because making a living and spending tens of thousands on gear was killing my love for the hobby.

>>3001698
Maybe he's a student, sure he could probably buy a D700 for $500 but when I was still in school there was NO WAY IN HELL that I could scrape together $2,000 to buy a camera I didn't need. My fucking CAR was worth less than even the cheapest FF DSLR is now when I was in school, full frame DSLRs didn't even exist back then though.

>>3001698
I live in the third world, everything costs 3x the price, and we have 1/3 of your salaries. So yes, I will be able to afford it someday, but not in the next 2 years. At least the camera and 2 primes. And I actually have a good job here.

I have a Canon T5 and i only shoot with a 50mm STM and i was wondering if a f/1.4 like the canon USM is worth it

Hi I'm looking to get into photography so was wondering what would be a good entry level camera? I don't really want anything with changeable lenses or anything, just something point and shoot I can use to develop my eye for composition.

My only thing is I would want a viewfinder.

>>3001807
I should also add ideally this would be somewhat tough and able to sit in my backpack every day.

Stupid question but.

I have an old nex with a handstrap and just ordered a bigger and newer model. Is there any reason to why I can't use the same one? Could the new camera be too heavy for the tiny leather strap?

>>3001854

>bigger and newer model

Depends on the model and strap.

Should be fine though.

>>3001707
no.

>>3001863
a7ii, so not super heavy I guess?

>>3000030

Shooting with a Canon 6D + lenses as my studio and location kit. Looking for an every day point and shoot for street and travel. Need to make up my mind by the end of this coming week.

X100t vs Leica Typ109 vs Ricoh GR II

Thoughts and considerations? I'm leaning towards the X100T.

Much love.

>>3001884

a7ii is kinda heavy compared to an NEX.

But as long as the strap is decently tough and you aren't swinging it around by the strap you should be fine.

>>3001807
>>3001810

RX100V

Though you could get an a6000 for much cheaper and be better off.

>>3001884
it's pretty heavy.
go to the store and check it out.

>>3001906
x70

>>3001906
The Leica is just a Panasonic LX100, in case you didn't already know.

The Fuji is by far my favorite of those three. I used to have an original X100 and absolutely loved it. The hybrid VF is brilliant and the general feel and interface of the camera is great, it just feels more like a "real" camera when you're using it than any compact I've tried. The images are also great, of course, especially if you're a JPEG shooter.

There are only two downsides compared to the other options. One is that it's pretty big for a "compact" camera. It's perfect for casual shoulder strap carry and slips into a bag easily, but it's not really pocketable. The other is that, depending on your style, the fixed 35mm equivalent may be limiting for travel use.

Oh yeah, there's also a third downside actually, and that's that if you're anything like me you might end up liking it so much that you sell off your DSLR system and replace it with a Fuji setup.

File: DSC08600.jpg (313KB, 666x999px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 666x999px

Just dropping by to thank the bro that recomended me a Sigma 60mm DN for my a6000, this lens is really outstanding. Planning to get myself a 35mm of the same series in a month or two.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:14 15:41:02
Exposure Time	1/5 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	-0.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Tungsten
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	60.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	666
Image Height	999
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: disgust.jpg (46KB, 620x400px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 620x400px

>>3002027
onion bokeh

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2009:01:27 11:27:29
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	620
Image Height	400

>>3002027
Might have been me, no problem. 'tis a great lens

There's only a 30mm AFAIK, both a "Art" f/2.8 and "Contemporary" f/1.4 - the latter of which is sharper overall but odd to MF.

35mm film camera & lens under $115

what buy?

35 or 50mm for aspc /p?

>>3002102
OM-2 w/ 50mm f/1.8. Spend other $65 on film & dev.

>>3002112
28 to 35mm should be more versatile in a lot of locations.

File: sigmeme vs pencuck limitmeme.jpg (59KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 600x300px

I got a pentax A 50 1.4 and a k3 but i need a need a lens more wider for indoor and general purpose.
I shot mostly people and i'm a bokeywhore sharpnes fanatic.

Should i get a sigma 30mm "Art" , or a 35mm HD macro limited , a telefag like tamron 18-50 2.8 or kill myself ?

>>3002129
Kys.

>>3002129
> Wider for indoor
Probably around 20mm or even wider in that case?

The Sigma Art isn't available for the K-mount, so I guess some Samyang (14mm or 20mm perhaps?) / Venus (12mm) or Sigma (10-20mm perhaps?).

> sharpnes fanatic
Eh, what are you doing on a APS-C Pentax?

>>3002129
35mm is a bit wide indoors on crop, I'd prolly look for something with an actual 35mm FF fov, so something in the ~20mm range.

Pentax does have the decent 15mm DA lens, but that's probably too wide if you want to shoot people. The DA21 is OK but not amazing. And if you get one of the sigma or tamron zooms, get the 17-50 version instead.

>>3002155
>around 20mm
i doesn't know theses focal and i'm scared that they distort to much at close range. I use 50mm on my film camera and it fit well 95% , that's why i want something similar on apsc.

Some sigma are available for k , like 30 35 and 18-35, so it's the only alternative to the limited...

> sharpnes fanatic
>According to pentax standard

>>3002156
Yeah i read some review of these lens but they ar used mostly for landscape and a to slow for indoor ?

thanks for the answer

I have a sony a37 (apsc), which I mainly use with a cheap 35mm f1.8 sony dt lens. I've recently bought a m43 camera for portability reasons. What m43 lens will give me similar performance? Would I notice a difference if I went for a m43 25mm f1.8?

>>3002165
> i doesn't know theses focal and i'm scared that they distort to much at close range.
I feel it's not even too bad with a 20mm on FF.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/agermay/30963735655/in/pool-2898141@N20/

Either way, I certainly would much prefer a ~35mm equivalent on APS-C still over a ~50mm equivalent that just constantly causes extra problems framing people and bigger objects indoors. But YMMV, I guess

> According to pentax standard
Pentax also has the K-1 and 645D/Z, which aren't great system-wise but can do sharp (already, in the case of the K-1).

Mostly just complaining about the lenses for APS-C Pentax K(AF), really. Wrong choice for sharpness whoring.

>>3002175
> What m43 lens will give me similar performance?
Should be somewhere around a Lumix G 20mm F1.7 II ASPH or M.Zuiko Digital 25mm f/1.8.

> Would I notice a difference if I went for a m43 25mm f1.8?
Not really much, no. Figures the lens might even feel better when you MF.

"Fortunately" your last lens and camera were pretty old and not high-end even then. Would have been annoying to impossible to achieve if you wanted to get the same as you'd get on a recent high-end APS-C or even FF or MF camera.

But if you got a decent MFT you shouldn't notice much except a few advantages in this specific migration.

I can get either of:

Panasonic GX7
Sony NEX-6 or
D5100

at roughly the same price, second hand

Which one would be better as a first camera for an amateur? Will mainly do touristy stuff and potentially nicer pics further down the road, but don't know yet

Mainly interested which anons would suggest between the Panasonic GX7 and the Sony NEX-6

>>3002241
Pentax K-50 or K-S2

>>3002241
GX7 because the lenses are the most compact and you'll take it out more as a result.

>>3002241
NEX-6:
Better sensor, faster shooting speed, better AF, overall better lenses available:

GX7:
Better display, less annoying startup delay (2s on the NEX-6 can be very annoying and getting them down to 1s is good).


OTOH I think you should want to spend more & get a better camera like the A6000 or K-50 or something to get a viewfinder, flash hotshoe, better AF and so on.

>>3002241
They're all pretty solid choices, i'd get which system you prefer the most. Since youll acquire lenses over time and then when its time you feel you want to upgrade you can do it easily with the body and keep lenses. In saying that the GX7 and other mft have great lenses for great prices

>>3002262
>better lenses available

That's wrong.

Looking for the best point and shoot beater I can get for under 300 bucks used. Prefer a fixed focal length, compact is a plus. Considering the Ricoh Digital III but I feel like there's a better Fuji alternative that I'm not thinking of. I'd like to put a lot of emphasis on 'beater.'

>>3002289
No shit, it's the resident Sony shill at it again. He def needs another swatting

>>3002289
It's pretty much right.

You can look at all lenses up to a not particularly high price ($400 or $500 or whatever) in a store, or look at the high end of lenses.

But Pentax' lineup is respectable and it has still one advantage that might matter: the greater number of lenses that feature weather sealing.

File: [HorribleSubs] Gundam Reconguista in G - 25 [720p].mkv_snapshot_08.44_[2015.03.20_22.02.30].jpg (114KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1280x720px

http://www.nokishita-camera.com/2017/01/gfx-50s.html

>804,060円

>>3002547
ain't clicking that shit nigga

Anyone wanna recommend their favorite OM lens

>>3002552
the one you have with you

>>3002262
>spend more & get a better camera like the A6000
yea, that's the thing, I have an option for an a6000 with kitlens but it's too much to spend on something without warranty (imo), and the new one is too expensive; or at least I have no idea how reliable those things are, if it's worth the risk of no warranty (it's 480 euro for the kit, 600 new)

the gx7 is only body at 320, unfortunately, I just discovered, so that'd be another ~200 euro to have a usable camera

but after playing with a DSLR over the last 3 days, at least I came to terms with the fact that if I get a big one I'm very likely to not use it that much, especially when traveling, which is the main reason I'm getting one in the first place

>>3002552
85 f2 and 20mm

>>3002550
fujifilm gfx50s is 804060 yen.

>>3002557
Get the Sony ONLY if you are willing to spend $2000 on a nice lens. Sony has no budget options and the lower cost lenses are abysmal. Slow and inaccurate AF, soft image, CA out the ass.
The GX7 has better lens options but a DSLR like the Nikon D3300 or a Pentax K-S2 would be more value for the money. Just look at the babby primes, 35mm and 50mm, 20 or 24mm on the Panasonic, I'm not very familiar with the MFT lens economy.