/gear/ - Gear Thread

First for Sony 70-200/2.8 GoyM flop

File: fireworks8.jpg (413KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 667x1000px

British guy here, i'm thinking of saving for a pentax 6x7 mlu or 67 and the 105mm 2.4. Where would be the best place to look for these, i was thinking ebay. Also how much would i be able to snag one for either off ebay or where ever.
Cheers

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1200D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3456
Image Height	5184
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:30 16:52:55
Exposure Time	4 sec
F-Number	f/14.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/14.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 144501851005.jpg (11KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 225x225px

>>3012445
>go to ebay
>search pentacks 67
>see prices
>get answer

>>3012452
I've done that, but they're all buy it now and have been like that for months now, that probably means you can get it for cheaper on an auction.

>>3012452
Anyone whose shot a p67 with 105 2.4 knows what's up. Seriously find a bae in the sunrise window light and go fucking batshit on portra 800. She'll be on your dick like you didn't know possible fan

File: Fichier_000.jpg (442KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1000x750px

I finally got one of those to protect the shoe mount I never use. I intended to buy one but the guy from the store just picked one from a used mirrorless and gave it to me, free of charge, I didn't even buy anything at all.

It's kind of nice to have an actual brick & mortar camera store not too far. Sometimes I get to see nice gear they have laying around, like a Canon 600mm f/4 IS they had ordered last year, it was on display waiting for the client. Just seeing that with your own eyes is pretty cool. They sometimes have some gear taken apart on display too.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:30 17:57:35
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	-1.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3012457
Thanks for updating us on your personal blog

>>3012457
Yes having a relationship with a real store is vital. Whether it be for plastic covers or whatever.

I got to use an em5 with the 150mm f2 for free. FUCKING GARBAGE. Wouldn't lock focus if I sat there and tried over and over on anything at any contrast and the t stop must have been horrendous.

Redpill me on the olympus em10 mk2 or micro four turds in general, /p/. I currently have a pentax APS-C but I noticed that when traveling I rarely get the chance to take it out and shoot, especially when it's freezing cold. Eventually I tend to use my cellphone for snapshits and put it away in my pocket when done.

>>3012471
I just went out with my K-3 and 35mm babby prime. Git gud son

File: IMG_0067.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>3012434
i love cameras like this, i know it dings the value for collectors or whatever but whenever i use an old camera with heavy brassing (or similar cosmetic wear) i feel like it adds a lot of character to the gear. Always makes me wonder about the photogs who have owned/used it before me. this guy in the photo is the cam i use almost exclusively, and i like being able to see that it's been a workhorse from when it was built in the 60s all the way to 2017.

on a semi-related note, does anyone have suggestions for a reliable but cheap shoemount light meter? as small as possible - i'm looking to use it with the Olympus-Pen in the picture, so anything chunky runs the risk of being bigger than my camera.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone SE
Camera Software	10.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:30 13:18:58
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	187/4155 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3012480
I'm not going to replace my Pentax (although I'm one of those unlucky bastards with the aperture issue so basically I can only shoot manual now), I just need something that fits in my pocket.

>>3012471
What on earth could possibly confuse you about micro 4/3? The cameras are smaller. That means that the picture quality is not quite as good (con), but on the other hand m4/3 cameras are more portable and cheaper because they are smaller. Just go to B&H or Best Buy or whatever shitty local retailer sells cameras and play around with one alongside a somewhat similar FF camera, that's a good way to get a feel for how you might like it and for what the major differences are.

Why do you feel like you can't get the APS-C out to use it? I really doubt switching to m4/3 is going to make a major difference in your unwillingness to take your camera out of its bag, and to me your setup sounds pretty ideal anyway: take the garbage vacation snapshits of pretty beaches or what the fuck ever on your extremely convenient and ultra portable iPhone, then pull out your big guns only when you want to get serious about photographing something that is actually worth setting up a "real camera" for.

>>3012482
Hahahahaha! Your hand and wrist look so fucking fat dude! I knew you must be fat based on how much you shitpost compared to how much you actually go out and take photos, but I didn't realize it would be quite this bad. Are you literally obese? Serious question.

Literally /p/'s tripfag embarrassment of the century, somehow usurping isi and company to take the throne.

Fujibros,

I'm thinking of copping the 35mm f2 since it's all the rage right now.

But the 50mm f2 is also coming out and it's supposed to be great. Granted I have the 23mm f1.4 right now, what do you think I should go for?

>>3012489
If you shoot an x-pro (or the like), go for the 35mm f/2 if you'd like very fast focusing on a sharp enough lens to outresolve 24MP on crop. Your 23mm is close to normal though already. Also the 35mm f/2 will not obscure your optical finder.

50mm is very limiting on a crop sensor. I've used an adapted Olympus OM system 50mm f/1.4 on an x-pro2, and while the borkeh is nice I wouldn't spend a grand on the Fuji equivalent. But I'm a normal + wide angle guy, shooting tele only for reach.

>>3012484
You already have your phone for that, but if you want a decent camera then look into the Fuji X100T or X70 or a Ricoh GRII

>>3012498
I see... I have an XT-10, and the 23 is ace on that, but it's big and since I travel and take most of my photos then, that's why I'm considering the 35.

50 is just interesting, not quite a full tele, but a good portrait?

File: Type_Rollei_35_1600x1000.jpg (98KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1600x1000px

What are some cameras that /p/ like in theory but always wished were something more?

I have owned 3 Rollei 35s over the years and eventually sold each one. the idea and size of the camera is great but with no coupled rangefinder, a noisy shutter and, flash shoe on the bottom. it's just kinda meh to use.

share your disappointments

[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	Uncalibrated

>>3012529
Canonet ql17.

I've always wanted to try a proper film rangefinder, and I got one in great condition. But I haven't shot more than 5 rolls on it because focusing sucks.

The parallax overlay thing is faded to shit and it's really hard to focus in certain lights. The battery also doesn't exist and therefore you need to mod the camera or use a different battery. The batteries are usually for hearing aids, and the moment you open a pack it starts to drain for some reason.

Great lens, good results, totally unforgivable user experience.

Is there anything cheaper but comparable to a nikkor 50mm f1.4?

Looking for something that is fast and fixed, I shoot only with manual focus and I shoot lofi so old lenses are ideal I think.

For a d5000 by the way.

Any advice would be welcome!

>>3012513
Test them both out before you buy, if you can. You could also go with adapting some old niftyfifty for cheap to get a feel for the fov. My 23/1.4 and ancient konica 57/1.4 are the lenses I use the most on my xt1. I barely use the 35/1.4, not wide enough, yet not enough isolation, so I'm thinking about ditching it for the new 50/2. When I first started out years ago, all I had money for was a used nikon d70 and a 50/1.8 and I got used to the narrowish field of view, so that might have something to do with it tho...

>>3012560
manual focus 50mm f/1.4s are like $100, how much cheaper do you want? And if only Nikon made more 50mm lenses, all the cheap ones I can think of off the top of my head are:
50mm f/1.8 AI
50mm f/1.8 AI-s
50mm f/1.8 Series E
50mm f/2.0 AI
55mm f/2.8 AI macro
55mm f/2.8 AI-s macro
50mm f/1.8 AF
50mm f/1.8 AF-D
50mm f/1.4 AF
50mm f/1.4 AF-D
50mm f/1.8 AF-S
AI conversions of all the 50mm f/2, f/1.8, f/1.4, and f/1.2 non-AI lenses
A million off-brands like Vivitar, Sigma, etc

>>3012560
>Sigma 50mm EX?
>Old AI-S Nikkors?

The newest 50mm f/1.4 AF-S isn't even that expensive though, I only paid 200€ (-50€ cashback) for a brand new one.

>>3012581
Cheers mate, I don't know shit about lenses so thanks for the comprehensive list. Just wanted to make sure I'm not doing something stupid or missing something.

I'll check out some off-brands.

>>3012560
>manual focus at f/1.4 on a crop DSLR.

Yeah, good luck with that....

>>3012585
Dunno, I can focus fine on f/4 and f1.4 is only 1/3rd the dof (unless I'm misunderstanding something). So it will take some getting used to but it certainly doesn't sound impossible.

And as I understand it the aperture is adjustable on this lens so if it's impossible I can just go up a stop.

>>3012465
The old 4/3 lenses really need M1 or M1-II to be anything close to usable. The CDAF only models are pretty much useless with the older lenses.

I've switched to micro four thirds. Is there any benefit in keeping my old sony aps-c a-mount body? It's an a37 so it's not exactly expensive. Minolta lenses work with it, which is a big plus.

>>3012588
DSLR focus screen aren't accurate below about f/2.8

>>3012588
> Is there any benefit in keeping my old sony aps-c a-mount body?
Not really performance-wise.

>>3012595
Because they don't diffuse enough? Should I get a replacement then?

As I understand it, it's still possible to manual focus at wider apertures just increasingly difficult.

>>3012598
Focusing screens have to trade off between brightness and focusing accuracy. DSLRs choose brightness over accuracy because they're meant for autofocusing anyway. It's impossible to accurately focus below around f/2.8 or so like the other anon said, the screen just does not show the correct depth of field at large apertures so there's no way to tell. What you can do is use the green focus confirmation dot in the viewfinder, that will be more accurate.

Isn't the whole point of buying a manual focus lens that you're broke? If you're broke then why are you considering buying a new focusing screen and modifying your camera? It's not like autofocus is some rare expensive new luxury, you can get a 50mm f/1.8 AF-D for almost the same price as a manual focus 50mm.

>>3012603
Huh? Sorry if I didn't communicate effectively, you seem to have gotten the wrong impression.

I want to get a 50mm prime for fun, I don't shoot professionally, it's just a hobby. I want a fast MF lens is just because it sounds interesting to play with. It's cheap enough that I should just buy one.

I'm not some destitute portrait photographer, not everyone here is a /p/rofessional photograher...

>>3012603
His D5000 hasn't got a screw-drive so no AF for the AF-D lenses.

50mm f/1.8 AF-S is really the only reasonable choice with a low budget.

Which camera is a good starting point for someone who wants to get into photography as a hobby but has no idea about it at all?

>>3012611
You have a phone right? Just use that camera.

>>3012611
Entry-level mirrorless, for example:
>Olympus E-PL6/7/8 or E-P5 or E-M10
>Sony A5100 or A6000
>Fuji X-A3

File: .png (276KB, 531x659px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 531x659px

Dis good? Looks like them MF box cams. Can't find any info on it tho

>>3012638
eh looks like it's a kowa six. worth it for $50?

>>3012638
try it
if it works
buy it

>>3012687
what should I look for when trying it? shutter? mirror? anything else?

D3200 for $250 with 18-55mm lense or a D5300 for $450 with 18-55mm lense and 55-200mm lense?

>>3012697
The latter, probably.

And what I'd really get is a D7200 or A6000.

>>3012697
The lenses aren't very good but I'd have the D5300 and extra lens. You can always sell the lenses and get something better.

>>3012694
Bring a digital camera and ear test the slower speeds with both. Make sure the aperture opens/clones properly, check lens condition. Check shutter curtain condition. Check film transport by slowly advancing with back open and look for inconsistencies in winding.

>>3012638
>daiwa
>fishing brand
probably makes for a good anchor desu

>>3012701
Nice info. Thanks.

>>3012698
I saw a 7200 for $425 but it didn't come with anything, just the body.

>>3012712
Sounds like a very good price, does it work?

Anyhow, that's essentially what I'd go for. It's going to get used for 4+ years.

Posted this in the last thread without realizing this was posted.

>I've just been accepted to a university to pursue a degree in journalism, probably gonna swap that for a broadcasting degree though
What's a camera that can shoot in 1080p/60fps&30fps, has an optical zoom, is small enough to conceal in a bag (Or pocket, even better), has a standard tripod mounting system, and has full manual controls? I'm planning on buying it with scholarship money, but that's not a free pass to spend over $1k on a camera- I'd like to keep it under $500.

>>3012810
NX500 (probably dead mount but hey, that's why it's sold used cheaper).

Or Lumix G-7 (older model of the G80, also an option).

> I'd like to keep it under $500.
Yep, wouldn't we all?

But in reality you mostly can just barely keep it under $1k if you accept a good amount of compromises and a size that is a bit larger than ideal.

>>3012820
I'll keep them both in mind, thanks. What would you say if I raised that budget to like $800?
Sorry about not knowing shit. My experience in broadcasting so far has been mostly writing cookie-cutter scripts and editing video.

>>3012822
> I'll keep them both in mind, thanks. What would you say if I raised that budget to like $800?
It's basically already more or less that already with the cameras indicated. Depends on the lens of choice. Could also be a few hundred more.

If you want something cheaper, you probably need to go with 1920x1080 @ 30fps. A bunch of ~$400 bodies exist for that, [even if typically the video format / encoding / bitrate and color depth is getting worse.]

> Sorry about not knowing shit. My experience in broadcasting so far has been mostly writing cookie-cutter scripts and editing video.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/broadcast-cameras/ci/28625/N/3705627353

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Lenses/ci/1884/N/3908282152

Not that anyone here personally owns these. But you're probably not going to get your hands on broadcasting equipment very soon. Not even as employee.

>>3012835
Believe you me, I know about how expensive this stuff is. The TV station I'm interning at has cameras that were state of the art in the 80's and still run for thousands of dollars online. It's nuts.
Say I want to give up 60fps then. I'd like it, but it's not vital. Any new recommendations? The Canon Rebels are hot shit, yeah?

>>3012836
> Any new recommendations?
Yea, that would allow to more easily get a cheaper camera for sure.

Canon T5i, Oly E-PL6, Nex-6, A5x00 (or A6000 if you spend some extra for photo) and surely some more that I don't currently remember.

> The Canon Rebels are hot shit, yeah?
Only the ones that support magic lantern, mainly because of magic lantern and lenses. Not because the hardware is really good.

>>3012839
Woop, thinking about it, the NEX-6 HAD 1920x1080 @60fps video, as does the A6000. It just has a low-ish bit rate IIRC.

Maybe that's an option.

>>3012841
Thanks mate. I think I'll go for the A6000 once I actually get the scholarship money. Thanks again for the recommendations.

>>3012841
>>3012843
A6000 had some good bitrate xavcs after the update. Think it was 50mbps. Nex6 stuck on shitty avchd

>>3012843
Sounds okay. The A6000 supports a higher bit rate, so it "feels" like 1920x1080 proper.

Just so you know one of the biggest downsides: It does have pretty noticeable rolling shutter.

Life is never perfect, eh.

File: fucking why.png (6KB, 310x258px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 310x258px

>watching ebay auction for a Canon 1D Mark IV
>had four days on it
>was sitting at $23
>check a few hours later
>it rose to $200+
>because of this fucking cunt
why the fuck would you do this? what purpose does it server to just raise the fucking price needlessly?

>>3012857

How fucking retarded are you?

>hurrdurr surely the seller will sell for $23 hurrrrrr

It's probably the seller or the sellers friend upping the price to make it look like other people are interested. Stop being so fucking autistic.

>>3012857
Get rid of people by moving their attention onto the next cheapest articles that finish later in order to prevent them from impulse auction bidding at the end.

>>3012860
>lol ur autistic
sorry for wanting an auction that isn't inflated by some faggot

>>3012860
Or yea, that. Another possibility.

>>3012862
That runs entirely contrary to the spirit of auctions, which are kinda designed to be inflated by faggot's will to get the thing they paid attention to NOW.

At least that's part of the seller's and auction platform's motive. It drives the valuation up overall.

>>3012857
It could be the alt account of the seller not wanting his product to go to low...really scummy if so

>>3012857

You can't bid above yourself.

You set your max bid, and then it goes one step above the current max.

When someone bids against you, your bid goes up another step.

It wasn't one person needlessly raising it, it was other bidding against him.

>>3012882
this, 1D autist never used ebay in his life

File: zoooooooooooooooooooooom.jpg (45KB, 550x358px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 550x358px

I know these long zooms are supposed to have a lot of compromises, but is a Tamron 16-300mm f3.5-6.3 much worse in the same 18-55 range as the standard Nikon kit lens? Any point in bringing both, or is it even noticeable in this price range?

>>3012886
Yes. But it will give you images and if you don't mind downsampling to 10MP and you take in-camera JPEGs with all the lens correction options enabled then it will be a good travel zoom lens.
Don't expect to get crazy sharp images though that you can crop to 100% and see all the pixel level details. This is why I use a 35mm prime as my travel lens.

>>3012886
The old Nikkor kit lens was worse. (Do you already have the new one? That should be better...)

That's not to say the Tamron is good. The lens is only halfway okay (certainly not great) on f/8, maybe f/5.6 at up to like 100mm. Everything else is only sharp right in the middle 1/3 of the lens area or just not sharp.

YMMV, but I wouldn't bother with that.

>>3012897
> 10MP
More than 6MP or so will rarely make sense even on a 24MP camera, and that's with you trying pretty hard to stay at its best aperture at f/5.6 - f/8, which may be troublesome in itself.

Might be enough for something, but I find such lenses quite irritating.

> This is why I use a 35mm prime as my travel lens.
Far better choice.

>>3012857
User who bid $23 had put in a max bid of just under $200. Other user starts trying to outbid him but it doesn't work until he gets to $200. The highest bid was only $23 so long as nobody else started bidding.

>>3012897
Yeah, i consider maybe getting a 35mm prime for indoor stuff. But I really don't think travelling with JUST that would work for me, as I like to take pics in all ranges, and I'm not that fond of huge crops.

>>3012899
>The old Nikkor kit lens was worse. (Do you already have the new one? That should be better...)
This is the "old" AF-S one yeah (without the locking-button).

>>3012909
Trust me, traveling with JUST one standard prime makes the most sense. You don't have to think about focal length and it will give you the most natural scene. It is also the best option for stitching panoramas if you would need a wider angle.

>>3012911
Then you'll see this cool bird in a tree and be irritated.

idk, I don't see why so many people want one and only one lens when they travel. You got an interchangeable-lens camera for a reason, right? And by doing so you kind of implicitly decided that you're willing to carry more than one lens and change between them.

>>3012909
> This is the "old" AF-S one yeah (without the locking-button).
Okay. Doesn't matter that much. I was mostly considering whether you might perhaps have an AF-P.

Either way, I'd basically suggest less terrible glass - one or more pieces of it. I wouldn't do this lens to myself.

>>3012911
>>3012909
In addition, I tried to go with a standard zoom and a telezoom or just the standard zoom alone and it always got in my way, never giving me exactly what and how I saw it, going on the wide end only to have distorted corners.
The 35mm prime solved everything.

>>3012912
In that case I will look at the bird and note it's area and come back with my proper birding kit later on. It never happened like this before because when I go traveling I don't go hiking and camping. And running around with birding kit in a town would look stupid.
When I'm camping I bring the 35mm prime and standard zoom in case I will need the wide end.
When I go hiking I bring my birding kit. Going after birds is a separate thing altogether.
Get that cheap ass prime and make all the photos from traveling. If you are interested in birds get a 300mm tele prime or a telezoom like the Sigma 150-600 or Nikkor 200-500.
Don't waste your money on cheap middleground like a travel zoom lens.

>>3012912
You don't want to change lenses when you travel. You just don't. You will realize this once you get outside of your basement.

>>3012915
People with an IL camera actually do change lenses when they travel.

And you could actually see that even from inside your basement, 'cause the usual photography websites for hobbyists and enthusiasts usually show EXIF.

>>3012919
PS: I don't know how you could even make absurd statements like this.

Shit, you think all the IL cameras sold are used with those other lenses only in basements?

>>3012920
I know how it is because I use my camera in such situations. And especially traveling is about traveling, I don't want to bring a whole case of camera gear because I wouldn't be going out that much. It is big and cumbersome when you go out on your travel to a restaurant, to the beach, walk etc...
You want your gear to be light and ready for most things you might see. This is why standard primes are so popular.
But go ahead, bring all your gear with you on your next travel, have a backpack full of lenses and not being able to fit a small bottle of water even.
You do get what I mean, right, or do you still want to play your autism games?

Looking for a tripod, mainly do landscape stuff when camping. Was looking at the Vanguard Alta Pro 263AB and the Mefoto Roadtrip.

The Roadtrip packs up really small which I like the sound of, but I'm worried it'd be pretty flimsy. On the other hand the Alta Pro looks stronger, but packs up to almost twice the size and weighs twice as much.

Looking to spend about $200AUD, would welcome any recs.

>>3012923
> bring all your gear with you on your next travel, have a backpack full of lenses
And that's where the goalposts were moved far, far away.

You can put 2-3 lenses in a backpack or bag and still carry all your stuff no problem.

>>3012927
Get a Chinese Q666C/Q999C or Dic&Mic E302C/P303C off Aliexpress. Or the Alu variants if you don't mind extra weight.

Mefoto is ~the same Chinese design (okay, a variant - there are dozens of variants on these), but marked up a good bit.

File: stoptheshilling.gif (4MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x270px

>>3012930
>Dic&Shit shill is back

>>3012927
Believe me mate, save your money and frustration and stay away from that Dic&Mic trash.

>The Roadtrip packs up really small which I like the sound of, but I'm worried it'd be pretty flimsy. On the other hand the Alta Pro looks stronger, but packs up to almost twice the size and weighs twice as much.
Check out Sirui's travel tripods, they have some good options that are small, light and sturdy.

>>3012929
I put two lenses in my bag and the prime on my camera. Guess which lenses I didn't touch but I also couldn't fit a bottle of water? Yep, this is why I always go out with my 35mm prime only. Does the job and lets me be a normal human being without gearwhoring on the street.

>>3012939
>>3012929
Also
>backpack
That is the one thing you leave back in your hotel and go out with a messenger bag tops.

>>3012935
>Dic&Shit shill is back
Still no problems with the tripod, so the recommendation stays the same.

> Believe me mate, save your money and frustration and stay away from that Dic&Mic trash
Better listen to this guy who never had or used one, he can very strongly imagine it's a bad tripod.

> Check out Sirui's travel tripods, they have some good options that are small, light and sturdy.
This bit actually isn't wrong, the Sirui tripods also are good.

Main "problem" with them is that the lightweight carbon ones cost quite a bit more than the models I mentioned - with ~the same metrics, it can be almost twice as much. They do generally have a little better heads, though.

File: austin_rogers_fstoppers_irrational_sony_35mm_review_6_0.jpg (369KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1000x800px

>>3012939

I go with 35mm and something to play with. Like manual lens if alone or 90mm if i know I will take pictures of people, etc.

35mm or equivalent usually does the job though, and is quite compact. Put it on a shoulder strap and forget about it until I sit down and bang the thing all up.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	69 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:09:16 12:49:34
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	3.3 EV
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	69.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3012939

So instead of "I'm better than you because I have so much gear! Look at my four zooms and half-dozen primes!", you're "I'm better than you because I'm so minimalist! Look at how I only use a normal prime!"?

>>3012939
> but I also couldn't fit a bottle of water
Why can't you fit a bottle of water? So many photography bags / backpacks have side nets to pack these. Or enough space inside/in pouches.

> Does the job and lets me be a normal human being
It does the job of a 35mm. Normal human beings use lenses other than 35mm.

> without gearwhoring on the street
Again the same delusions about other lenses only being used indoors / in basements...?

If you don't see how this doesn't check out, I can't help you.

>>3012940
I almost always go with a backpack myself, but it certainly doesn't stop me from leaving some contents at a hotel.

But of course you can use a bag if you prefer. It still should let you carry 2-3 normal sized lenses + the camera.

>>3012941
>Still no problems with the tripod
>bendable legs aren't a problem apparently

>Main "problem" with them is that the lightweight carbon ones cost quite a bit more than the models I mentioned - with ~the same metrics, it can be almost twice as much.
Yeah who'd have thought that a well made, well trusted, far superior tripod would cost more than some knock off trash? Surely that can't be right...

>>3012951
>this level of autism

>>3012957
> bendable legs aren't a problem apparently
Yea, they aren't. Not on the Siruis, not on the Dic&Mic.

It's not a permanent deformation and it bends evenly. The tripod is stable and level all along. Not a problem for photography.

> well made, well trusted
Yes, it's a good brand. Never had big problems with them, actually.

> far superior tripod
Nah. I certainly haven't tried all of their models, but I own a Sirui monopod and a Sirui tripod (the latter of which I almost never use now), and I've tried a few more.

They aren't really equal until they're quite a bit more expensive, and even then it's mainly a slight weight reduction (dic&mic use fairly heavy joints on the legs) and better head rather than significantly more stable or more easy to operate tripod legs.

Plus even then they all have some small nitpicks - like that fixation plate on the screw under the tripod head on the center column. I kinda don't like how that one is easier to loosen than on other tripods, for example. Small thing, but its a thing.

>>3012962
Says the autist who somehow can't put 1-2 lenses, a camera with lens, and a water bottle into an absolutely typical DSLR/MILC sling bag, and who has all lenses other than a 35mm for use in basement only.

>>3012963
>not on the Dic&Mic
>It's not a permanent deformation and it bends evenly
There's literal proof contradicting your bullshit right here >>3012935 you fucking autie

>>3012970
>There's literal proof contradicting your bullshit right here >>3012935 you fucking autie
Unknown pressure (probably over load rating), with ridiculous leg rotation. Still no apparent permanent deformation. That's one point down.

The tripod also remains level when you load it 'cause the legs bend *evenly*. Not shown on image, another point down.

> But how can skis stand level if they BEND? How can cars be used if tires BEND? How can you stand on shoe soles if they BEND?
Yea. It's how they compress evenly and in a way where it's not a problem for the intended use.

You'd care if you constantly swapped lenses and cameras for different weights and needed a fixed perspective in terms of a few more / less mm of height. But you almost certainly don't.

>>3012973
PS: I checked- I can also just as visibly bend the extended leg of a Sirui ET1004 with the force of one hand pressing down. Fucking wow.

Still not an unstable tripod for the same reasons.

>>3012970
I've had the fatter P303c dicmic for over a year now.

Hang your backpack on the hook and it and you can shoot long exposures with a brick Memiya Press + 250mm murderweapon combo, even in basic windy conditions.

I don't really get that meme gif is trying to prove by putting force on a single tripod leg at an awkward angle. If I'd try to do the same thing to my old manfrotto tripod, it would flex in pretty much the same way.


If you have money to burn, by all means buy a Sirui or Benro or whatever (but if you have you probably wouldn't need to ask for suggestions on a russian handpuppet rotoscoping forum) - i would have done the same. But if you're on a budget, you'd be hard pressed to find something better value than the dic&mic in the same price category.

T. other chinkshit owner

I got a used Manfrotto 190 and a 498 ball head on ebay for the price of a new Dic&Mic.
I was about to buy the Dic&Mic when I found the Manfrotto and went with that instead. I'm not saying you should buy this or that, but given your budget range you should explore your options including the Dic&Mic. For it's price new you can only get much worse wobblers. It is by all means a decent option but not the only one.

is the a7ii kit lens worth getting
or should i keep the money for the sonnar 55mm?

>>3012973
>Still no apparent permanent deformation
>tripod leg is removed
>rolled along ground with finger tips
>literally no pressure applied and leg is clearly bent
Explain how that doesn't classify as permanent damage. And no, before you come back with some more bullshit, bending the leg back straight will not fix this. The leg is permanently weakened, and if straightened each time it bends, will eventually lead to the leg breaking entirely.

> But how can skis stand level if they BEND? How can cars be used if tires BEND? How can you stand on shoe soles if they BEND?
>PS: I checked- I can also just as visibly bend the extended leg of a Sirui ET1004 with the force of one hand pressing down. Fucking wow.
You're mistaking intentional flexing for unintentional bending, aka permanent damage, you fucking moron.

>>3012982

For a kit lens it is pretty decent IQ and sharpness, aperture is nothing special though.

The Sonar 55mm is absolutely fantastic though. Well worth getting.

>>3012983
>rolled along ground with finger tips
It's angled diagonally and there is obviously pressure on it, probably more than the load rating. Like the one with the camera leaning against it or something.

Not that it matters since it's not showing permanent deformation there, nor showing any realistic use.

> You're mistaking intentional flexing for unintentional bending, aka permanent damage, you fucking moron.
No. Like the other anon, I've had the tripod for a longer period of time, tested it with heavy loads, used it in cold and so on. It does not bend unevenly, and I didn't manage to bend it permanently.

The Sirui also isn't permanently damaged if I do it, it's also just temporarily compressing in the same fashion.

>>3012981
>I got a used Manfrotto 190 and a 498 ball head on ebay for the price of a new Dic&Mic.
Good find. Then again, it seems like they still weigh as much as my old 055XPROB studio tripod - 2.45kg for the legs only?

Arguably I've also successfully dragged that exact Manfrotto to a few places, but it's a noticeable difference to the 975g legs on the E302C. Feasible yes, but... I kinda don't have/want to anymore.

Plus I never got spikes - they were asking like $45 for these here, which is ridiculous.

>>3012990
I think the 055 series is heavier than the 190 series. Still not the most portable one but never had any problems with it attached on my backpack and between hikes the car has no problems carrying it.
Still I'm thinking about getting a used Befree just because it is more compact.

>>3012990
>It's angled diagonally and there is obviously pressure on it, probably more than the load rating.
You can see his fucking fingers, yeah sure thing m8 he has enough strength in his finger tips to apply more than the load rating, while simultaneously rolling the leg at a smooth and steady pace with zero effort.

>It's angled diagonally
No shit, it's to show the bend on camera... seriously how are you this fucking dense, I can't believe I'm actually having to explain something this simple to understand.

>Not that it matters since it's not showing permanent deformation there
But it is, it's showing exactly that. Like I said you're mistaking intentional flexing with permanent damage. If the leg has no pressure applied yet it's bent, that clearly means it's damaged.

>The Sirui also isn't permanently damaged if I do it, it's also just temporarily compressing in the same fashion.
Again no fucking shit, because it flexed under pressure, then returned to it's straight self once pressure was removed, aka intentional flexing.

As for the the Dic&Shit, it bent under pressure, then when pressure was removed it stayed bent, aka P E R M A N E N T D A M A G E. How can I make this more clear?

>>3012997
autism

File: 1456373752676.png (6KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 390x470px

>>3012999
>genuinely can't understand or comprehend simple images and sentences
>calls others autistic

>>3012997
This video doesn't even show it remains bent with no load on it.

Even if it did, we'd also first need proof that he didn't go way over the rated load of 12kg and all that common sense stuff. Never mind the "only finger tip" thing that isn't visible, and the video cut.

More importantly, I and the other anon had the thing for a while, and at least I for my part haven't been perfectly gentle (stumbled over it, pushed it off a table, and other stupid human actions). Plus I tested it with slightly heavier than rated load initially to figure out if it'd collapse or do some other bad thing. It never got damage like that.

>>3012857
That's how autobid works you newfuck dumbass. You enter your MAX BID and it bids against the other person's MAX BID

>>3013006
>This video doesn't even show it remains bent with no load on it.
I'm done, I can't go on repeating myself any more. You are so stupid it hurts my brain.

Best of luck with your life anon, I wish you good shilling and plentiful shekels. Goodbye

>>3013014
Thanks, but I'm not earning anything here, neither directly, indirectly, nor in a social sense.

At this point, I guess you must hallucinate or CDN see a video I can't see.

But I reciprocally wish you good shilling and plentiful shekels! Just in case that is what you are doing.

Hi guys, i want to buy my first Reflex camara, i dont want a digital one...i want a analog one and i have u$180 more or less.

Pd: has to be something that i can find in Mercadolibre.com.ar

>>3013050
Canon Elan 50E

File: spf.jpg (23KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 320x240px

Over the weekend my dumb ass dropped my Spotmatic F from a low height. Thankfully everything on the camera (including the lens) survived EXCEPT the fucking light meter. Now the needle just stays at the bottom no matter what.

I sent an email to a local repair shop that says they fix Spotmatics, but I got a one-sentence reply back that literally reads "sorry parts no longer available."

Do I just give up on fixing this thing and buy a new SLR? I really love this camera but I'm not an electrical engineer, and after removing the top cover and seeing no obviously disconnected wires or broken parts I'm at a loss. Also, is this repair guy just being a dick or is there really nobody left in this world who can fix Spotmatics?

How about buying a wrecked spotmatic f on which the light meter works even if the shutter is buggered etc. Or buy another spotmatic f (get the black one it's tops for looks and with a 28mm takumar it's orgasmic). Best.

>>3013070
I didn't think about buying a broken body for parts, and I'm already seeing a few on ebay. My camera is otherwise near-mint so I'd like to keep using it. And I agree, the 28mm is nice, the 50/1.4 is a fucking dream though

>>3013068
Use sunny 16 like everyone else or use a lightmeter app on you phone,

Advanced compact for 45% landscape, 45% people climbing mountains and 10% astro.

Which camera?

Panasonic LX100
Canon G5X
Sony RX100 III

Will be an upgrade from my Canon G16.

I want to get into photography, I really enjoy taking pictures on my phone but want something nicer to use, any suggestions for a cheap first camera?

for nature mostly.

is a Canon 70-200mm f/4 slow? I forget how many stops lower it would be that the f/2.8. I know it's like twice the weight of the f/2.8 too, plus that one would require me to save up some more.

Hi guys,

I got a Samsung NX300 with the stock lens a while ago, and I'm yet to properly take it out and use it. I have no idea what half of the options and modes do, is there any recommended guide for a complete beginner?

I'm going to get used to taking pictures and then invest in a film camera, but don't want to waste money on a camera and film just yet when I don't really know what I'm doing. What would a good beginner camera be for when I decide to do that, and do you think I'd be reasonably competant in a few months if I go out and take pictures every few days?

>>3013125
I'd say get the IS version if possible. That's the one I have, and even an overcast daylight sky can give you a hard time for anything handheld, that's when IS saves my ass.

>>3013129
I'll aim for that. is the non-IS awful?

>>3013133
I've never tried it, all I know is I would miss a lot more shots if I had the non IS version.

Money burning a whole in my pocket. Do I buy...
a) a second hand Sony a7 to use manual focus with some old m39 lenses full frame
b) the Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro
c) the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 or the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8
d) a trip to Italy to see the girlfriend
e) Adobe creative cloud subscription

>>3013133
Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC ya dingus
Look into it asap

>>3013148
Buy a train ticket and have a photo trip

>>3013150
Yeah but I can do that whenever

>>3013148

D is best option.

You get awesome Italy pics, you get laid, and hopefully sexy pics of your gf while you are at it.

Seems like a photography win win to me.

>>3013172
Fair enough. Can't argue with that

>>3013127
> I have no idea what half of the options and modes do
Read the manual or use trial and error?

> do you think I'd be reasonably competant in a few months if I go out and take pictures every few days?
Yea?

> but don't want to waste money on a camera and film just yet when I don't really know what I'm doing
My opinion is that you don't know what you're doing if you are going for a film camera without any reason to. Unless you know why you want to do that, it's just more expensive & harder to publish & takes worse photos than what you could have bought for the TCO of that film camera.

let's say i have a budget of 50 bux
what's a meme-tier camera for shitposting purposes

>>3013199
That buys you a really old used IL camera or some point & shoot.

Save up for something not terrible and use your smartphone meanwhile.

File: kowa six.jpg (304KB, 1347x1000px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1347x1000px

oh boy i got the kowa six for $50. fully functional, just needs a good cleaning. oh and lens release lever is stuck open, but that's not an issue. now i just need to get some nice film.

question, would it be worth it to take a risk and open up the lens for cleaning? there's a bit of dust in there.

File: .jpg (262KB, 993x1000px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 993x1000px

>>3013220
a bit might be an understatement. would i fuck something up if i opened up the lens?

>>3013222
While opening it, be as gentle as possible and pay attention to how it would go back together. Use a microfiber cloth ofc, then stick the whole thing back together without twisting it too tight. Should be good.

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-01 at 9.47.19 am.jpg (185KB, 1370x1660px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1370x1660px

This a good deal? Looking for my first film camera, and not sure if the canon AE-1 is any good.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	1370
Image Height	1660

>>3013223
sounds good. i'll probably record a video of me doing it just in case too. probably will still clean everything else first before attempting to dismantle the lens though.

>>3013230
I would snap it up for that price m8. Lense and camera combo is very desirable.

>>3013230

$200

>>3013196
>Read the manual or use trial and error?
Got the thing for about £50 used with no manual or anything. Guess trial and error will have to do.

>My opinion is that...
I don't have any real reason, I just thought the whole process seems fun. I'll save my money, but maybe I'll invest in one much further down the line if I still feel that way.

>>3013233
>>3013234

It's 250AUD so 190USD.

this is the description:
Canon AE-1 Program with Canon FD 50mm lens. Camera is in perfect working condition and practically brand new, minor scratches on the base of camera


so should I cop?

File: file.png (315KB, 806x817px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 806x817px

>>3013242
>Canon AE-1 Program with Canon FD 50mm lens

It's a pretty good 35mm Camera, I really enjoyed mine when I had it but $250 is overpriced

I'd cop for $200 just cause black body

>>3013242
It's rare that these pop up in such good condition, with a lense, for that kind of money.
>cop
kys you wannabe americuck

>Comparing my old Nex f3 with 650d, and my new nex 6 with 6d, I found the Sony cameras to be noticeably more saturated and rich in terms of their colors. Especially using adapted lenses that could give me a lot of bokeh, I actually thought that the Sony cameras produced images that were a bit more magical and radiant. The Canon cameras on the other hand were a bit less magical but definitely a lot more grounded in reality.

Am I getting worked? is Reddit Right?

>>3013240
>Got the thing for about £50 used with no manual or anything.
"NX300 manual" in search engine?

> I don't have any real reason, I just thought the whole process seems fun.
If you think developing film is fun as such, then sure?

It just sounded like you thought it was cost effective or had better quality with preparation - that's not the case in general.

>>3013248
Shoot RAW and then make these as ridiculously gaudy or normally neutral as you like with a a few sliders or a profile...?

You might still want the sensor to record as much of an image as was possible to begin with, and for APS-C cameras the Sonys usually have done that better in the last few years.

>>3012434
Wide angle for landscapes under $100 - $150? I would be using this on the A7II. I want something sharp, I don't really care about how fast it is, f/4 would be fine by me. I don't want fisheye.

Is $570 for a a6000 with the 15-50 lens probably the best deal I'll find til Black Friday?

I passed up the opportunity to get it back when it was $550 and don't really want to wait half a year trying to see if I can find a better deal

This'll also be my first camera

>>3013278
Look at the Samyangs if you want some of the cheapest viable options.

They cost a bit more even when directly imported from S.Korea or semi-directly from Hong Kong, but that's life with with wide angles.

>>3013281
Not sure, but the A6000 is a good camera.

I personally sold the 16-50 on day one and got primes instead. Kept the 55-210 though (two lens kit).

File: IMG_5353.jpg (30KB, 313x470px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 313x470px

Is a Yashica A a good camera?
I've been looking to give medium format film photography a try.
Is it a good deal for $120?

[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	313
Image Height	470
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Anyone ever used a clip-on meter/have recommendations for a cheap one?

I was waiting for the new x100f to come out to see it's specs and price before deciding between it and a x100t.

By the looks of it the x100f will be $2000 AUD.

I can get a new x100t from T-dimension for 1300 or a second hand over for around 1100..

I'm leaning towards a new x100t as I can't seem to justify the price of the x100f and I can't find any cheap 2nd hand x100ts.

Thoughts?

Thinking of getting a sigma art 50mm and maybe a 18-35 art for wider stuff. Any good?

>>3013451
Yup. Really rather very good.

There aren't many better lenses and they tend to cost more or are just for different systems.

>>3013438
Easy to carry compact? RX100 V.
Otherwise get an APS-C or FF IL camera.

>>3013468
Do you know if they still have af issues?

>>3013475
Same AF drives in them as in non-Art lenses. So yes.

>>3013381
It's cheaper to just use your phone and download a light meter app.

>>3013451
>>3013475
>>3013478
AF issue with primes can be easily negated by focus micro-adjustment via in-camera settings, but with zoom lenses, it becomes a little bit of a head fuck. It may pay to send it off to Sigma to get it fixed, just in case.

>>3013319
I have one and never really been a fan, it was my first 120 camera. It has a slightly soft, low contrast lens that is probably a tessar clone but really doesn't have any of that tessar special character. I upgraded mine after about 2 or 3 rolls, so I really haven't shot it a lot.
It's probably fine if you just want to try some 120 and not get to financially invested, but it is a pretty meh camera / lens. I paid $40 for mine and figure that is a good price for what it is, though if $120 is the going price for them I might just finally sell mine.

File: 1255268136230.jpg (8KB, 251x197px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 251x197px

Looking for a lighter nightclub photography rig as I'm sick of lugging around my Canon EOS 6D, Speedlite 430EX II and Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM II.

>Canon EOS M5
>EF-M 11-22 f/4-5.6 IS STM

Flash wise, I've been thinking of just using the built-in flash, but I guess I can also use a Speedlite 270EX with it.

What do you think /gear/?

One of my concerns here >>3013576 is the AF performance, but the flash will allow for AF assistance right? I'm usually shooting within 3-6 feet.

>>3013438
You'll regret getting the T instead of F. The F is literally a "mini Xpro-2".

Is the Asahi Pentax any good? Pretty much a beginner with film, looking for a decent 35mm camera. Willing to pay up to £100

File: phpbdblaj[1].jpg (201KB, 1200x684px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1200x684px

Soup /p/

I'm looking for a small camera to carry everywhere I go for about £100 ($130). What are your experiences and suggestions? Something flexible in terms if it's settings would be ideal. I love my Mju II a lot but film is a bit of a pain for daily duties and phone cameras still kinda of suck.

>>3013634
Why even bring this up when you know your garbage budget will not be enough for any digishitter worth a damn. Look for some old used Powershit.

>>3012434
I am a beginner trying to choose a DSLR to buy. My options now are (in order of price):

Rebel t6i
D5300
D3400
Rebel T5

Can /gear/ help me choose? I'm tending towards rebel T5 because the price is really, really cheap, but i am afraid the quality will be too low. Any help?

>>3013665
For a few more bucks i can get a T6 too,

>>3013473
I've already got a dslr and that Sony didn't really appeal to me. No range finder and I like the idea of 35mm equiv.
>>3013584
But are a few more megapixels and a button/dial or two worth $800? I can't really see any more advantages.

>>3013665
I don't know shit about Canon, but for Nikon:
- D3400 is basically a shittier version of D3300, so consider that instead if you're going cheap (unless you need snapbridge, but nobody really should care).
- D5300 is a *much* better all-around camera in my opinion, and I highly recommend it as a starter. Nikon gimps the D3x00 series by removing some of the nicer software features like bracketing etc, which might not matter to you, but you should be aware. D5x00 also has flip out screen, which is really useful.

As for a general tip I suggest going to a camera store and get some hands on with all of them. Picking one you actually like to hold and use can be much more important that nitpicky specs...

>>3013665
>D3xxx
Get a used D7000/D7100 instead, you'll get in-body AF motor for the older AF/AF-D lenses, nicer viewfinder, much better controls and weatherproofing.

>>3013738
this, my first body was a d3100 and I wish I had went for a used d7000 instead

>>3012434
another newfag looking a entry-level Canon dSLRs here (from what i've gathered, they are better for videography than comparable Nikons, and i plan on doing a lot of filmmaking along with still photography)

anyways, which of these bundles on Amazon is the better deal:

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-T6s-Professional-lightweight-Kit/dp/B00WRNMETS/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1485988158&sr=8-10&keywords=canon+t6s

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-T6s-18-55mm-Digital-75-300mm/dp/B016QUIOQY/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1485988158&sr=8-7&keywords=canon+t6s

that second option is the "International Version" of the camera, if someone would please clarify what that means.

Thanks, guys.

>>3013619
Sure. Get an ME Super, should be significantly less than that price with a 50/2

>>3013712
> I've already got a dslr
And I imagine the problem is it's too annoyingly heavy and big, so you're getting a MILC as your new primary camera.

IMO, you might as well get the smaller more versatile one if you're not trying to stick things on it.

> that Sony didn't really appeal to me
You're worried about the looks of your camera?

> No range finder
It's a focus peaking camera, which is pretty much always better than a rangefinder at letting you manually focus.

Never mind the PDAF points are basically on-sensor rangefinders.

> and I like the idea of 35mm equiv
It actually can do 35mm at the same aperture.

>>3013762
> from what i've gathered, they are better for videography than comparable Nikons
And Panasonic or Sony MILCs are typically better than comparably priced Canons, even more so if you do both video and photo.

I'd usually recommend these if you buy new at this price level.

> kit deals with a lot of nonsense on Amazon
Buy body, then buy the *good* lenses that you actually want.
Okay, I'm not sure you actually do want a better lens, but I would.

Regardless, I am fairly sure you might want slightly bigger memory cards, a tripod that is not more useless than helpful ($10 piece of shit tripods are useless, lean on something instead). Or maybe a decent flash.

You can get any of the remaining maybe halfway useful stuff from China in a better variant for a few dollars if you actually need it.

>>3013911
Cheers for the info

Hi /gear/,

What's the best value used Canon body in the lower end?

I think the 40D is my best choice, any thoughts on that?

Has anyone gone from a x0D to a xx0D and lived to tell? Contemplating some 18mp xx0D's as well, but since I've used the "prosumer" cameras lately, I think I'd hate the small viewfinder and body.

Also 40D vs 50D?

>>3012489
The 35mm 1.4 is pretty good if you have a new-ish body. Once I updated my X-E2 firmware AF speed is bearable now.

>>3013634
Used canon s95, s100

>>3014040
40D is still a good camera. Not the best in ISO performance but the AF is still used in today's cameras. Good tracking on center point.
Sensor is lower MP by today's standard but it means bigger pixels and excellent DR on base ISO. If you keep ISO at or below 800 you have nothing to worry.
50D is mostly the same, higher MP, higher ISO performance, same-ish DR at base ISO.
If you want weather sealing too then go for the 50D.

>>3014071
> but the AF is still used in today's cameras
Are you certain? That doesn't sound right to me.

At least I don't remember any halfway recent Canon camera being as bad as the 40D in terms of AF.

>>3014082
All the entry bodies use the 9-point configuration AF, at least the 40D/50D has cross type on all points, not just the center.

>>3014082
It certainly is not up to par with today's standards, but it does the job. And I used my friends 40D with L lenses, AF was quick, snappy and accurate. Maybe it depends more on the scene, the lens' optical quality and the lens AF drive.

>>3014084
Same number of points as the entry-level models I guess.

But even on them, the AF speed is slower overall (maybe a processor thing) and quite noticeably less reliable on the center point if you ask me.

>>3014085
> Maybe it depends more on the scene, the lens' optical quality and the lens AF drive.
Definitely also depends on that, yes.

>>3014085
>>3014089
It really bugs me, Canon people being forced to get high tier glass if they want quick and accurate focusing.
Compared to my K-3 even the old screw drive AF lenses are snappy and accurate with a few exceptions. Still, he is happy with his 40D and would only replace it with a 7DII.

>>3013712
The only new digital camera with a rangefinder is leica. The fujis just have a window, some models allow you to view a small portion of their massively underperforming evf in the corner.

If you want a rangefinder style camera, nothing comes close to the sonys.

>>3014100
>If you want a rangefinder style camera, nothing comes close to the sonys.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

File: 1470235959726.jpg (43KB, 699x637px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 699x637px

>>3014100
>If you want a rangefinder style camera, nothing comes close to the sonys.

File: Pocketwizard.jpg (92KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1000x1000px

Will the same Pocketwizard plus iii work for my Nikon and Canon cameras or should I get something else?

>>3014103
>best sensor
>best lenses
>best evf
>best autofocus
>has ibis

These are all objective truths, and fujicucks can't deal with it.

>>3014094
I myself think the cheaper canon lenses can focus quite accurately, but Canon definitely is just generally trying to upmarket everything.

Pentax is definitely more customer-friendly in most ways, yea.

>>3014108
> Will the same Pocketwizard plus iii work for my Nikon and Canon cameras or should I get something else?
Should work.

> should I get something else?
Yea, unless you need EXTREMELY long >100m or whatever range triggering, go with Godox (cross-platform TTL trigger support) or Yongnuo (manual system, single platform TTL).

Cheaper and more features (Godox / Yongnuo TTL trigger) or cheaper and kinda nicer to operate (Yongnuo manual triggers with a 560-TX).

>>3014110
see
>>3014105

>>3014071
>>3014082
>>3014084
Yea, but looking at the rebel prices, 550D is somwhere along that priceline, but has the 7D's 18mp sensor, as for af, I usually only use the center one anyway, kind of a habit, esp when all the other points are crammed in the center anyway. My biggest concern is the shit viewfinder and crippled ergonomics

File: canonguide.jpg (123KB, 1136x404px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1136x404px

>>3014071
>>3014082
>>3014084
>>3014089
>>3014131
pic related

[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	1136
Image Height	404

>>3014161
>>3014131
Oh, I see now, you're a gearfag so I shouldn't even begin to help you in the first place. Get that shitty rebel and be gone with it.

>>3014164
I just parachuted in from outside the thread, I'm not the newfag asking
>whch rabal plox? XD
But that infographic goes in all fields for anyone looking to buy a canon DSLR.
The 18MP crop sensor has been ubiquitous for literally almost a decade now and really should be considered the bare minimum level of acceptable res, IQ and ISO performance for anyone shopping for a large-sensor camera today.
Suggesting he buy a fucking 40D is like saying
>you should really let a tranny bareback you next time you're in Johannesburg!
You don't even know the guy but you hate him?

>>3014173
>I just parachuted in from outside the thread, I'm not the newfag asking
Then fuck off!
What right do you have to state which budget priced camera is shit and which is not?
So fuck off with your sensor scores, that sensor is as ancient as the 40D and 50D, you have literally zero reasons to recommend one over the other!
Go back to your shitty sonu vs fiju thread to decide which one of you gearwhores are the biggest cucks!

>>3013230
:D Thats worth like 100 eur

Looking for a fast M43 prime lens to shoot at night in Japan, mostly in cities. What's the tightest aperture /p/ would use? 1.7f or 2.8f? I'm looking at a 2.8 that's a lot cheaper but I'm unsure whether or not it'd be much good in low light.

>>3014196
> m43
> at night
f/1.4 or hell, f/0.95

Actually I'd ideally do this on a FF camera because it's still gonna be a bit of a pain. And even then... not gonna be perfect. Lots of long exposures or something.

>>3014198
>m43 at night

yeah i know, but i dig their style and how light M43 always are. It's hardly gonna be total darkness shooting, mostly well lit streets or early morning. I'll go for 1.7 then. Thanks, anon.

>mamiya sekor e
every camera and lens on ebay is in great condition.
it's like no one ever used them.

>>3014199
Yea, the faster lens will definitely help even when you kinda try to seek out a bit more well-lit places.

I'm sure it's also worth buying this lens for daylight shots (which I'm going to assume you'll also do eventually) anyhow.

Wish you some successful shooting!

>>3014191
>a non-native english speaker telling a bantss-kween aussie to fuckoff
Not today, sweetie.

>>3014201
>it's like no one ever wanted them.
fixt

>>3014205
>>>/pol/

File: 5640362825_bfe513bfbe_b.jpg (503KB, 1024x720px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1024x720px

Anyone got good recommendations for a film point and shoot? The camera should be able to fit in a jacket pocket and it should preferably be made out of metal. Also the price should be reasonable (so no 700usd Contax T3s or Minolta TC-1s).

>>3014196
f/2.8 is too slow for night time shooting on m4/3 if you're shooting anything even slowly moving.

Go get some fast (f/1.2-1.8) primes and you'll be fine.

>>3014272
>on m4/3
It is the same f/2.8 on MFT, APS-C and FF. Smaller sensor does not equal to less light you goddamn retard!

>>3014287
But m4/3 has worse noise performance at relatively lower ISOs than larger sensors you goddamn retard!

>>3014292
Not if you know how to expose properly, you goddamn retard

What lens should I get for my A6000?

Not sure whether I should get the 35MM Sony F1.4 or Sigma 30MM F1.4.

Does OSS help in taking pictures too or is it just for video stabilization? If so, I'm not using a tripod most of the times (and don't want to take one with me either, it's just for shooting porn).

They're both around the same price, with the sony being €50 more expensive.

I've read that the IQ is better on the sigma, but I'm wondering whether the Sony is a better allround lens or not.

>>3014287
>>3014295
I have to regularly use iso 3200+ when I'm using relatively slow glass like f/2.8 during night time shooting. IMO m4/3 bodies (excl. E-M1II) are only good enough for iso 1600 and after that the IQ drops quite rapidly. Iso 3200 is already borderline too muddy and noisy for me. Of course you can use longer exposure times to push the iso lower, but then you'll be risking severe blurring even on slowly moving subjects. For static objects like buildings or parked cars this will be ok though if your cameras stabilizer can cope with the slow shutter speeds.

Let's say that I wanted to get a Samyang 85mm 1.4 for my A6000. Is there any benefit in getting it in E mount rather than EF/Nikon and then just getting a dummy adapter (or maybe even speedbooster)? The only thing I can think of is not having to use an adapter.

>>3014339
You mean the Sony 35mm 1.8, right? The 1.4 is the Zeiss one and costs over 3x the 1.8 in USD.
It depends on what you're shooting. If it's a lot of low light stills with a slow shutter speed, then the OSS might be worth it. If you have a well-lit scene and are shooting stills, then you might be able to get away with shooting 1/100 or faster at 1.4 on the Sigma, and OSS might not matter as much.

I'm not too familiar with how it's like for video, so I won't comment on that.

>>3014339
>35MM Sony F1.4
I think you are meaning the Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS. Between this lens and the Sigma it's really a matter of preference though. The Sigma is a 2/3 stop faster so you'll be getting a bit more light to the sensor and slightly shallower dof. The Sony has the stabilizer that will enable you to use lower shutter speeds and still get sharp pictures. It's also great for videos

I personally would get the Sony just because I love stabilized lenses but if you want to get the fastest possible lens, Sigma will be better for you.

>>3014342
The benefits of getting a Nikon/Canon mount:
>You can use a speedbooster.
>You'll have much better compability if you want to use the lens on another system. The Nikon mount lenses will fit practically any system on the market right now with a cheap dummy adapter. Canon mount is almost as good, only the Nikon F-mount will need an optical adapter.

The disadvantages
>Slighly increased size and weight over the native E-mount lens
>Extra cost from the adapter.
>Extra hassle with the adapter.

>>3014346
>>3014347

My bad that was a typo, i did mean the 1.8. thanks for the tips.

I am leaning towards the Sony, simply because it's stabilized. I wonder how much difference it would make compared to the sigma, but I guess the low light performance would improve drastically compared to my kit lens for my A6000.

Wish I could just try them both out.

>>3014352
You can try turning off the stablizer on your 16-50mm kit lens to simulate whats it like to use a lens without one (like the Sigma).

>>3014353

That's a good idea, can't believe I didn't think of it myself. Mostly it would be for trying to capture my pets in dim lightning, without things getting too blurry because they tend to be unpredictable.

>>3014354
The Sigma is better for shooting moving subjects like pets because of that 2/3 stop advantage. The stabilizer will not help you freeze the motion of the subject, only the movement of the camera.

>>3014355

Thanks a lot for the explanations, I only got it like a month or two ago and still learning a lot. I guess I'll go for the sigma because video's aren't really important for me anyway, I'll try playing with the OSS settings once I get home from work to see how it'll feel like.

Also I've read that the Sigma F/1.4 30mm DC DN hunts AF hunts a lot, not really sure if that would be an issue because the kit lens already hunts a lot when light is less than optimal.

>>3014268
the fucking camera in your photo top one

>>3014351
Definitely sounds like getting it in Canon/Nikon mount is worth it. Thanks.

File: spede3.jpg (27KB, 560x438px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 560x438px

>>3014360
>it should preferably be made out of metal
>Olympus Mju

>>3013222
videotape the operation so you can watch how to put it back togeather

>>3014342

on the a6000, the e-mount version will autofocus considerably faster and nore accurately than an adapted Nikon or Canon.

On a6300 it is a different story.

Rebel T5/T6 or Rebel T5i/6i are any good for a beginner?

>>3014492
The Samyang 85 is fully manual...

>>3014575

Oh woops, thought we were talking about the new 85mm f 1.2

>>3014522
They're cameras, but not particularly good ones.

A A6000, K-50, D7x00 or something should be much better, a lot more functions, better AF and buffer, yadda yadda.

Actually the higher mid-range to high end of FF cameras with really great lenses would be best if it was *just* about you being a beginner.

>>3014342
There is no point if you don't want to use a speed booster.

But using a speed booster might be your point.

>>3014359
It does hunt more (feels a bit like the Fujis before the X-Pro2/X-T2 or something like that).

Buy a 28mm f/2 or something if you'd rather have the usual snappy reliable AF than the best IQ for the price. MF also is actually a lot more comfy on the 28mm f/2.

I think either lens can be justified, though. I'm personally using the 30mm DC DN and just dealing with the quirks, but they are rather big quirks.

I had to send the 1D mark ii N I bought back in because even though the battery had a full charge the camera kept thinking it was depleted. The seller said it was unrepairable and sent me a refund. Which was bad news for me because I really liked the camera :(

I guess I will have to look for another, but I don't think I will find a deal like that again soon.

>>3015089
> but I don't think I will find a deal like that again soon
Not sure how much you paid, but a lot of cameras now perform fairly close to a 1D II.

>>3015105
>perform fairly close
You mean surpass it in every single way? Yes they do, including entry level bodies

>>3015105
>>3015122
I paid $105 for it and I don't see any entry level body I can get for the same kind of money that will shoot 8 fps or have as fast of AF.

>>3015154
>$105
Yea, that would have been a good deal if the camera had worked correctly.

> I don't see any entry level body I can get for the same kind of money that will shoot 8 fps or have as fast of AF.
Yea, I also can't think of anything that won't be a few hundred more. Can be had at entry level pricing, but not for the same kind of money.

How do you explain the mirrorless gear fags that their soulless husk of a camera is shit to take pictures without providing dxo scores saying so?

File: nature.jpg (149KB, 859x573px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 859x573px

>>3015347
You could show us this alternative fact on collections of photos that many other people took:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3037408@N24/pool/
https://www.flickr.com/cameras/sony/ilce-7rm2/

Then you basically can get laughed at because no equivalently priced camera does better and most do worse.

Not even the humble A6000 looks bad - and there is surely a much larger fraction of complete amateurs with not so much experience using it:
https://www.flickr.com/cameras/sony/a6000/

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Theres this guy selling an a6000 with a telephoto lens for $475. The lens is the 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 telephoto Lens for sony. The camera itself is used but you can barely tell.

Pretty sure i can negotiate a lower price. What sounds like a better deal, lads?

File: IMG_20170204_082723.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>being a gearfag
>not shooting with a f285 pringles can

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Exif Software Version 1.0.2.0
Camera Model	GT-I9300
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Image Width	3264
Image Created	2017:02:04 08:27:23
Image Height	2448
Unique Image ID	ZDFI02
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
ISO Speed Rating	800
F-Number	f/2.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Brightness	-2.4 EV
Color Space Information	sRGB
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Image Height	2448
Image Width	3264
Focal Length	3.70 mm
Flash	No Flash

>>3015409
Sounds like a good deal. The A6000 is a nice enough camera if you don't need the AF / buffer / IBIS of an A6500, and the 55-210 is a useful lens.

>>3015409

I'd try to get it down. That is about what it should cost new.

>>3013281

I got that same bundle for $300ish at Best Buy open box. This was last xmas, though.

Like someone else said, I'd get rid of the kit lens unless you are completely brand new to photography. It's a good lens to see what focal lengths you're comfortable with, but it's not the sharpest lens at all.

>>3015409

Offer $400 and go from there. Asking price isn't terrible, but you could probably get the same deal on the Amazon Warehouse

File: 0e56dea8cd074f3cb11b2ed7caf8a481.jpg (29KB, 560x192px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 560x192px

I think about buying a Canon eos m with a 22mm pancake. I like it since it is a 35 mil equivalent, which is my favorite focus length, and that is so small compared to my 6d+35mm which means that I can take it everywhere with me, which not always possible/convenient with a dslr.

However, there is also ricoh gr, which is even smaller and does same things even better - I guess the biggest advantage is the focusing speed which should be considerably faster on ricoh. But then, do I really need fast focus for ordinary street/snapshits? Additionally ricoh costs almost twice as much as Canon.

Could someone share their experience with eos m? Maybe it'll help me a bit to make my decision.

>>3015497

The gr would probably be a lot more flexible, but a MICL with an APS-C sensor is a better camera.

I also hear very good things about the EOS M 22mm lens. Of course, it is hard to tell if it is desperate EOS M users pumping up the one halfway ecent lens they have, or it it id genuinly good. There are also very, very, very few available lenses for the EOS system.

You might also want to look at e-mount, they are dirt cheap now too.

>>3015412

I just poked a hole in my bodycap and called it a day.

>>3015497
go with the canon.
much cheaper.
i have it.

you can pop off the grip and stick a new one.
the touch screen is pretty handy.
22mm is sharp wide open and no distortion at all.
battery is awful, so you might need more.
dynamic range is noticeably lower, so get your exposure right. shadow boost will give banding.
iso6400 grains looks much better than sony's so i just denoise the chroma and leave luma as is with no sharpening.
colour looks better than my sony out of camera. even the raws. less work for me afterwards.

File: 131207004320.jpg (518KB, 1359x900px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1359x900px

>>3015503
>The gr would probably be a lot more flexible, but a MICL with an APS-C sensor is a better camera.
You have this the wrong way around.
>>3015516
>go with the canon.
No.
The GR is the finest handling digital camera available.
Its lense is flawless.
It's sensor is excellent.
Every moment you spend shooting with it, or looking at the images it produces will affirm the correctness of choosing it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Is the Olympus Trip 35 worth picking up?

>>3015520
>made in china with dust gr
should have went with a made in nippon folded 1000 times coolpix a.

>>3015541
>lens error

>>3013634
Just use your phone until you've got a decent budget

>>3015520
>GR

He wants a camera, not a vacuum cleaner.

File: 1482410193676.jpg (188KB, 1280x866px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1280x866px

Do brand name step-up rings differ at all from chink shit?

>>3015719
it's literally a screw.

>>3015725
I get that, but some screws are made of nasty pot metal.

I don't want my lens filter threads getting corrosion on them.

>>3015729
They're almost always anodised aluminium. Just get the 50 cent ones from ebay.

>>3015740
Thanks for your input.

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/first-images-new-leica-m-zeiss-otus-mamiya-schneider-kreuznach-fuji-gfx-adapters/

Naisu

What's a good zoom to go with my all around 35mm for my Nikon d5300? Something in the 17-50/70 range. Can't quite decide between Tamron and Sigma, dxomark isn't helping either. Any of you guys can give me some feedback?

What are peoples opinions on the Leica d-lux typ 109?

>>3015765
smegma 18-35 f1.8

>found zeiss planar 50 1.7 for $80
someone bought it first.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>3015829
It's ok lad, it's literally the same design as all the SLR nifty fifties out there because they just copied the Planar.

i have a canon 600d and want to move to full frame. i was going to wait untill the 6d mk2 came out but im thinking of buying a 5d mk1 to play with in the mean time. tell me your opinions...

Should I...

Simplify my gear by selling my Canon AE-1, with 4 lenses (28, 35, 50, 80-210), and buy a Nikon FE with one or two good lenses.

Or.

Not do that.

???

>>3015848
Your lenses are already good.
Switching to nikon is primarily a way to spend more money and get aperture priority.
The shutter on the Canon is smoother.

>>3015845
I did this literally last week. I don't know what the head-to-head comparison will tell you, but it doesn't matter. A 5D classic beats the 600d in all native 600D ISOs, in my opinon. And if that's not true, it fucking feels like it.

The 5D sensor is legendary. Honestly? I think it's great from 50 ISO to 1600, and very usable at 3200 if exposed and post-processed well (assuming you're not cropping the fuck out of your photo).

Nice, durable construction. It's not a 1D of course, but it's not a joke. Feels great in the hands.

If you think FF would make a difference in your work, go for it. The 5D DOES have a slightly slower FPS than your 600d though. I think it's 3.7 fps to 3.0. So not a big deal, but if you shoot sports at all, just realize your keeper rate is going down a tad.

I'm probably ranting, but honestly, I like my 5D classic. I DO want to get a Mark II or III, or maybe an older 1D, but all I know is I'm not getting rid of this one. They can be had for cheap too.

Just do it, actually.

First time owning anything better that a point and shoot camera here.

I have an Olympus omd em10-II and wanted to try some cheap prime lenses with an adapter. I bought an adapter that fits OM lenses to the four thirds mount, and wondered if this lens would be a decent pick for street photography, or any recommendations under $100

https://www.adorama.com/us%20%20%20%20825610.html

>>3015872
You've never owned a real camera, have you?

>>3015876
I have, but here's your (you). I await a nonsensical reply

>>3015876
Sure sounds like it.

>>3015862
Hmmm... You're probably right. I'd love to walk on the Nikon side and see what's it all about.

a6300 or xt20

>>3015900

Are you trying to turn this thread into a Sony v Fuji shitstorm?

Hey /p/
I ordered my first camera and was wondering if it would be a good idea to put all my raws and pictures on a external hard drive?
I'm thinking that might be good, so I could jump between my desk top and laptop seamlessly.

So if I should, any idea what size I should get?
Thanks

>>3016004

It would work. A couple TB I guess.

But you really need to keep proper backups too.

>>3013916
>And Panasonic or Sony MILCs are typically better than comparably priced Canons, even more so if you do both video and photo.

anyone with opinions on these Panasonic options:
G7 w/14-140mm kit lens (~$1,100)
G85 w/12-60mm kit lens (~$1,000)
GH4 w/14-140mm kit lens (~$1,600)

is the GH4 really ~$500"better"?

other Panasonic and Sony recs are welcome, too.

>>3016013
>is the GH4 really ~$500 "better"?
only if you want weather sealing. G85 has similar algorithms to GH5 and has the better 4K rendition, also better noise performance.
The G7 is almost the same as the G85 with worse AF and noise.
I say by overall value the G85 wins.

>>3016013
The panasonics have m43 sensors, sonys have larger aps-c (up to a6500) and full frame (a7 range) sensors.

A larger sensor will give you better low light performance, less noise, more bokeh and will be more suitable for adapting lenses.

You've yet to set a budget, the a7ii is my recommendation, the combination of size, full frame performance and ibis means it packs a massive punch, especially at its price point. It will destroy the panasonic for photos, but each has their strengths for video. The Panasonic sensor is a lot more demanding though, so expect pretty crap performance on any lens under $500, whereas a full frame camera can produce sharp images from deeply average lenses.

Is m43s even relevant anymore? A few years ago people said it was dead, and yet we still have them being produced.
It carries very little advantage over apsc sensors, and it's performance is sub par apparently.

Everytime I see someone with a brand new Olympus or Panasonic, I feel they've not done thier homework.

>>3016100
I work in a camera shop, the m43 stuff goes to clueless 50 something year olds, olympus especially, they see the brand, see the aesthetic and buy, with every accessory in the store.

So yeah, they are relevant, they bring in the money due to the accessories.

Occasionally we'll get a videographer, but they just come in, ask for their variety of gh body only, pay and leave.

>>3016099
Most fe mount lenses are gargantuan in relative size though, and there's not many interesting lenses for e mount. Pretty much all the oly lenses are sharp enough. I do have a feeling that m43 is on their way to irrelevance.

Recommendations for decent monitors? How much should I be looking at spending? I would like something thats good for photo editing that won't also have lag in games. Do I need to spend a lot?

>>3016110
Get something with an IPX panel or at least a decent TN one. Dell Pro monitors are usually good for editing.
>games
no

>>3016114
Why no?

>>3016106
>gargantuan
Not really, the sony 28, 35, 50, 55 are tiny, the 2 grand pro lenses are not.

The f4 zooms are also comparitively small compared to canikon.

There's then the zeiss loxia range and voigtlander which are much more akin to old rangefinder lenses (tiny)

The zeiss batis range are fairly normal sized and stunning.

>not many interesting lenses
Plz, look at the above ranges, there's also the new tokina firin, samyang autofocus lenses, the sigma dn range for aps-c e mount, the techart leica mount adapter that adds autofocus to ANY old lens, sony have also got 6 lenses on their roadmap for the first half of 2017.

Not to mention native performance of all a mount glass with an adapter, native performance of all sigma mount and sigma branded canon mount lenses with the sigma mc11, almost native performance of all canon lenses with a metabones/mc11 adapter. "dumb" adapters for every other mount available, tilt-shift adapters so you can use a standard canikon lens with added tilt/shift. Tools in camera to assist focusing and exposure with old/adapted glass.

Fe mount is a lens fetishists dream.

>oly glass is sharp enough
Bare this in mind, no lens on the market outresolves the sensor it's on (sony a7s excluded), the limiting factor to sharpness is always going to be the glass, the smaller the sensor, the more those imperfections will be magnified. Hence why shots on full frame have a crispness and pop you don't see from the smeared fine detail on a smaller sensor.

the pixels on sonys 24mp ff sensor are 137% larger than those on the 24mp crop sensor, if you want comparable sharpness on the crop sensor you need a lens that resolves 137% more detail, which, short of creating a new glass like material, isn't going to happen. Average lenses on small sensors look shite, but are fine on ff.

Crop/m43 is a false economy due to having to buy amazing lenses for ok quality.

>>3016116
>>>/v/

>>3016118
Ok so you have a childish view of people enjoying things you don't and there's no actual technical reasoning here then. Cool

>>3016110
Ideally as a minimum you want an ips panel that can do 99% srgb, 80% argb. Personally i don't think 1080p gives enough screen real estate and would recommend looking at 2160p or 4k. As you're gaming as well, let's stick to 2160p, it's got plenty of fine detail. Another thing to consider is a colour calibration tool, like a spyder or colormunki, screens colour come out of the factory way off "correct" and a hardware solution is the only way to fix that.

>>3016114
This guys a faggot, ipx does not exist and tn is literally the worst thing you could get, they struggle to hit 70% of srgb and shift colour depending on what angle you look at it, their only advantage is being cheap and cheaply able to do 120hz+. Also, games are great.

Personally I'd say a qnix 2710 is what you're after, ips, 2160p, good colour once calibrated, can do over 60hz if you get the right model and get lucky. I have one, can't complain, even without getting the DP only model (supposedly the best to get 120hz) i can squeeze 82hz out of it and the colours are a million miles better than my old samsung

>>3016118
Lol, you're a crybaby little faggot aren't ya bud.

I have a guy offering to let me rent a spyder 3 for a week for $20 so I'm set for calibration. I'd like to keep it to 1080p though purely because I'm on an i52500k and a gtx760 and its really struggling with new games at 1680*1050

>>3016120
IPS then, whatever! I don't care what is written on it, if it works I'll use it. I have a Dell Pro TN panel and it is more than enough for editing.
Do you think someone who wants to use the same display for games wants to edit for a living? Hell no, and for hobby purposes it doesn't matter what kind of panel it uses, it only has to be a decent one.

>>3016123
You can still run the monitor at your current res, but when it comes to lightroom and other productivity you will thank me. Also, you're gonna be pissed if you upgrade your gpu any time soon, i find monitors easily last 4 or 5 years of heavy use.

>>3016125
>more than enough for editing
So how much of the srgb and argb gamut does it cover? And how do you avoid colour shift when you look from marginally different angles? And do you even have a decent, calibrated ips screen to compare to?

Personally i love using my editing monitor to game, the added colour depth and dynamic range really adds to the immersion, I got a decent 144hz gaming screen, returned it within a week because colour > frame rate.

>>3016128
>how much of the srgb and argb gamut does it cover?
Doesn't matter for hobby. Games is not a serious business use. If he wanted a serious piece he wouldn't specify to use it for games.
For hobby a cheap laptop's display is enough.

Hey /p/, I really like traveling and I want to start taking some better photos (just used my phone camera till now), is the Nikon D3300 a good camera for a beginner?

I'm afraid of being overwhelmed since I'm really new to photography, from what I read on the internet the D3300 is pretty friendly to beginners.

>>3016130
Get something smaller.