/gear/ - Gear thread

Need to sell some film gear, I have two options:

1) Sell everything at once in a single listing

or

2) Sell everything individually, with the hope that each item will bring a bit more cash than all of them together


Thoughts?

>>3022707
Lenses and bodies are probably worth selling separately. Accessories, flashes, etc are probably best dumped in with a body, though.

Does the Sony A5000 still hold up? I'm looking at the A6000 but I'm currently poor as shit and can get a good deal on the A5000 with the kit lens and I don't have a camera right now, so if I get that I can just reuse the kit lens and other lenses I might buy and just buy the body when I can afford the A6000.

>>3022709
how good of a deal?

>>3022710
$360 with the kit lens and the kit lens alone cost $280, but I'm in Europeland. The A6000 with the kit lens cost twice that.

>>3022719
That's new, right? Don't buy it new man. I just bought an A5100 (an A6000 in an A5000 body basically) that still has 1y10mo of warranty that someone literally used once for 400 bucks.
You can also get A6000s for 400-500 bucks if you're lucky.

>>3022719
Doesn't worth it, mate.
You can get a nice used DSLR for that money though, like a Pentax K-20D, K-30 or Nikon D3200.
Maybe an NEX 5n with the EVF addon if you look enough, don't get the simple NEX-5 though. Too limited.

>>3022723
Well, of course he can, but if he's like me, he wants something that's smaller.
If I didn't want to take it on backpack-tier-intercontinental travel, I wouldn't have gotten my A5100 but a DSLR in that price range.

>>3022723
...was meant to continue that.
Mirrorless is too new, and it only recently managed to get out half-ish out of generic over glorified p&s hell so you can't really get as good deals as on used DSLR. Keep looking though, the market is changing day by day.

>>3022721
True, but it's hard to find used camera gear where I live. There are some cheap used A5000's on Amazon UK, I just hope they ship to where I live.

>>3022723
I just sold my D3200 because I want a smaller camera and so I could make the jump to mirrorless before investing a shitton into DSLRs. I also want to record in 1080p 60fps which the D3200 doesn't, and I know that the A5000 technically doesn't either but 1080i is better than 720p.

>>3022733
Where do you live then? I live in fucking tiny ass Switzerland and I was able to find some deals really fast.

>>3022735
Sweden, there's only one A6000 and no A5000 on the biggest auctioning site here, and it took weeks for me to be able to sell my D3200 even though I put it up for less than half of what I bought it for.

>>3022742
what's preventing you from using ebay EU-wide? You're not going to pay taxes on anything shipped to you from the EU.

>>3022744
Nothing, I just prefer buying locally, easier to make sure everything is in good condition and that you're not getting ripped off. I'll probably have to go via Ebay though.

>>3022745
I've never had any bad experiences on ebay so far. Just look at the profile of the seller too, not just the listing.
There's probably some hipster that thought he wanted a camera that now realized he doesn't need it at all and that he prefers his iphone

>>3022709

a5000 is worth it if you can find it for like $100 new.

Otherwise, just get an a6000.

>>3022735
Tiny ass Switzerland is literally next to anything worthy. France for good food and wine, Germany for good cars, Italy for good food and clothing
It is very much different from Northern or Eastern Europe.

>>3022760
The a6000 costs twice as much as the a5000, I wouldn't have asked if I could just get an a6000

>>3022765

The a6000 is way more than twice the camera of the a5000.

Save up, it is worth it.

>>3022708
Good shout, how do you think I could go about shilling a terrible FD soligor 80-210mm tele with mold?

I was thinking of taking it apart and just playing with the optics - but there might be some scrub that is willing to pay for it.

What can I do with a bricked camera? I was told by the shop it would be cheaper to purchase a new one, so I did, and now I'm stick with a completely dead 5DMk2. I thought I could sell it for parts so I checked a few months ago to see if anyone was selling them on eBay and they were, but the problem is I checked today and the same guy is still selling the same camera, so nobody seems to be buying them.

Are there any places that will purchase broken cameras for parts?

File: 40-nokton.jpg (52KB, 600x481px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x481px

How much is the Voigtlander Nokton 40mm 1.4 worth used?

File: 20170215_155007.jpg (486KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1280x960px

My Minolta 7s arrived today, I'm really happy to say the thing is in near mint condition, it arrived with the lower half of the ever-ready case which means the camera was protected well at least from the back, bottom, and most of the front.

Kind of surprised the top half of that case wasn't included. However everything seems to be working.

Should I bother with a battery or can this thing function just fine without one?

>>3022802
300, 2-something would be a steal

Olympus OM-D-EM5 II or Fuji XT20?

>>3022869
X-T20

Looking to sell my 600d with the kit lens. How much should I be asking for?

xt20 or xt2 ? is it weather sealed camera really useful for beginner like me ?

>>3022907

I got the X-T10 about a year ago, and I'm now looking to upgrade to a used X-T1 because I want a sturdier feeling camera with weather sealing. Those things might not matter to you, but I want a camera I can take backpacking, shoot in rain/snow, etc. If I could do it all over again, I would have gotten a used T1 instead of a new T10.

With that said, the T10/20 really is 95% of the T1/2 for just over 50% of the cost. My suggestion: either get a new X-T20, or get a used X-T1.

>>3022869
xt20

is it worth it to buy pentax k10d + helios 85mm 1.5?

Is there a list of "holy grail" camera bodies or lenses to be on the lookout for?

>>3022761
The thing is that Switzerland has import tax, so it's like an 'island' for buying things from other countries.

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-15 at 11.51.31 PM.png (461KB, 1886x984px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 1886x984px

$60 for a Fuji lens hood. Is it worth the money? The free lens hood that comes with the 23mm f2 is plasticky, which I don't like

Didn't get a response last thread: can anyone recommend an M42 to FD adapter ring? Or is it not even worth pursuing?

>>3023034

>$60 lens hood

Is that a joke?

>>3023038
oem hoods cost this much

>>3022768
No it's not, it's the a5000 with an evf.

The A7ii is way more than twice the camera.

>>3023046

No, the a6000 is the a5100 with a viewfinder.

Considerable difference, especially autofocus speeds.

And yes, the a7ii is an even better choice (well, maybe not anymore with a7iii launching soon).

>>3023034
Fuck no. $5 on Aliexpress gets you three or four. Just pick the right size for the filter thread (42mm I think?) and the 35mm equiv focal length that's applicable, i.e. a normal lens.

>>3023043

Looking at $20-30 for oem Sony, the company known for overpricing shit.

Either Fuji is an even bigger scam, or you should try somewhere else.

>>3023038
>>3023051
It's a premium product so they can charge what they want. Lens hoods in general are ridiculously expensive for what they are. Here's a hood for nikon lens, for only $270: https://www.adorama.com/nkhk30.html

Personally, I'm so pro (dat glare and low contrast breh) that I never really use hoods at all.

>>3022960
Get a K-20D instead

I already have a mirrorless, but I just now found a 100D with a 18-55 and a 55-250mm lens and a camera bag, everything looking new for 350 bucks.
The lenses themselves cost more than that brand new. Should I just do it? Think I could resell it for more than that?

File: 1.png (28KB, 623x159px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 623x159px

That freebie tripod Adorama gave me is actually not too shabby.
You can tell the aluminium is sort of weak and would probably break if swung as a weapon, and probably won't survive being dropped off a cliff, but it has all the necessary features.
360 degree pan sideways and pan vertical.
Vertical shoot.
Sandbag hook.

I think I won't have to get a real tripod anytime soon.

>>3022765
>>3023046
The other Anon is right. 5000 used the older sensor which was mediocre.

5100 and 6000 used a newer generation sensor which was the beginning of faster PDAF with very wide coverage across the screen.

6300 and 6500 now use the latest generation.

>>3022719
>kit lens alone cost $280
That Kit lens is actually worth 150$ with you buy it bundled with a new camera.

Last December I bought my A6000 for 400$, there was an option to get the 16-50 lens included with was 150 more.
And an option to include the 55-210 lens which was also an additional 150.
I went for the 55-210.

I think you're a bit unlucky the deal isn't active anymore. But is using the A6000 for aggressive sales a lot. There will be a new deal in the future.

>>3023079
>You can tell the aluminium is sort of weak and would probably break if swung as a weapon

/k/ pls

What is the best ND filter to buy for the 82mm and the 67mm sizes?

>>3023061
I prefer using hoods at all times, especially since it helps protect your lens if dropped.

>>3023105
I'm kind of clumsy and still, never in my life have I dropped any of my cameras of lenses... Except that one time I shoved my concerned friend what kind of a beating my old D80 could take, I dropped it and kicked it around on gravel. Turned out fine. Also, my home insurance covers accidentally breaking stuff up to 5000€.

>>3023111
this. Even if you're clumsy, if you're not a retard, you know when something's worth protecting and you'll pay extra attention to take precautions that even if your clumsiness comes through, you won't break it, like neckstraps etc.

Saving up for a new lens for my OMD EM5ii.
Looking at the 12-40mm 2.8 and the 12-100mm 4. Anyone with experience with both?
the 2.8 is more attractive to me as I like night photography.

stupid question but how am I supposed to zone focus with a 35mm sigma ART which is a lens for almost only AF use?

>>3022709
So I'm still trying to make my decision, but would it be a bad idea to just buy the A6000 body, a $10 adapter and a cheap used Canikon lens to save some dosh? I still have my D3200 kit lens but it's broken and I don't know if it's actually worth repairing or not.

>>3023156
What, you didn't know you're supposed to spend $5k on Leica stuff if you want to shoot street?

Okay, shitposting aside, I'd do one of two things. Option one is to pick the distance you want to be focused at, stand that far away from a brick wall, and focus on it. (AF or MF, either way) Then click your camera into MF mode and walk around with the lens set at that distance. You will, of course, want to be stopped down.

Option two is to just use the hyperfocal distance. There are calculators online for it, punch in your focal length and desired aperture. Then focus at that distance, either manually or by just standing that far away from something and then focusing on it.

>>3023165

Many thanks, the first option seems to be the less complicated. Will give it a try today.

>>3023111
*showed

File: 1.png (78KB, 692x1294px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 692x1294px

>>3023164
It's a bad timing. You should have bought last new years eve when it was 400 bucks.

I'm almost right in the same area as you, just on the other side of Kattegat.
And I got all this stuff for 400 murrican dollars. And the 55-210 lens for 150 dollars.

Shipping the stuff to Europe was a bit expensive though. It cost me 74 USD in total to have it shipped to Europe, using Shipito as mailforwarder.
(Would have been cheaper if the Tripod wasn't included)

475 USD is like 450 Euro at the moment, so not so bad.

>>3023164
Kit lenses in canikon world are cheap and almost completely made of plastic, it would cost more to fix it than get a used working one to replace.
Adapting old lenses is a lot of fun and there's a lot of cheap lenses out there to try out. Nikon lenses seem to be the most expensive in general. For example, Canon FD, Konica AR and Minolta MD lenses are plentiful and cheap, and third party brands like Vivitar also have some great lenses. Tamron adaptall primes are also worth a try, eg 28/2.5 and the 90mm 1:2 macro. Nikon G lenses aren't really made to be manually focused, and the aperture control needs a special type of adapter, in my opinion they're not worth the hassle, unless you already have them.

Don't know much about sony, but it seems that A6000 could be a worthy camera, try one out if you can. Always buy used.

>>3022691
Whats a nice 35mm body for ef lenses.

>>3023173
EOS 3
O
S

3

>>3023183
What's the difference between eos3 and elan7e?

File: worldpressphotogear.png (54KB, 825x800px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 825x800px

>even pentax made the list
daily reminder that Sony is only good for shitposting on /p/ about muh superior system

>>3023242
Sony exists solely to make your life sour and mad when they release new bodies and lenses every year.

>>3023242
also no m43

>>3023242
why are the best photographs always so damn devastating? cant we get something lighthearted and funny to make the list?

Hey guys - im thinking about starting with photography soonish.
Got any recommendations for a camera I could start with?
I would like to take photos at low light conditions. (dawn or night)

>>3023258
any recent-model camera (preferably used, saves money) and either a fast prime or a tripod. (or both)

File: 20170216_191345.jpg (437KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1920x1080px

I think it was the last thread, where I asked about the eos m vs ricoh gr (apsc) and I had some spare cash and went for Canon. And what the fuck man, this thing is so compact! Not pocketable like gr is but still an apsc with a 2.0 lens in such a small package. And I found it for 200 eur used with that small flash, which is also handy for my 6d. The af is ok, even in the dark, the thing has a small light like you get on flash guns, but even without it it's ok. What I don't like is the that you don't have the scroll for your index finger, but you have one for your thumb.
But overall, I'm really happy with it. I'll post some pics in rpt, when I have something to show.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-N930F
Camera Software	A Better Camera Unlocked, Single shot
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1080
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2017:02:16 19:13:45
Exposure Bias	2 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.80 mm
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1080
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/2.1
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.80 mm
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3023269
Any certain camera you can recommend?

>>3023271
No shit. Sony mirrorless is better tho.

Anything particular to look out for with soviet lenses? Checking out a Jupiter 8 50mm later today, want to avoid nasty surprises. The seller said the glass has some cleaning marks, which seems standard, but aside from fungus anything I need to be aware of?

>>3023282
Assuming you're talking about the m39 Jupiter-8, i.e. the 50mm f/2 Sonnar copy. I've got one. It's fucking nice. Wish I had some coloured filters for it as well.

They'll mostly look dirty. Some focusing rings will be off on the distance scale, i.e. a couple of millimeters' worth or some such. Aperture blades will be dirty. Aperture ring may have enough play to make it difficult to choose between f/16 and f/11. The focusing ring's grease will have conked out and become sticky, so unless the lens has had a CLA you can expect to use a bit of force (which may lead to a m39 lens unthreading, after a while).

But nothing like light leaks or any of that shit. If they work, they're real nice. Get yourself a 40.5mm hood and a lens cap from Aliexpress; hoods are damn near a necessity because otherwise the lens will not just develop absolutely disgusting flare but also eat ridiculously much into overall contrast, even when outright flare isn't apparent. With a 40.5mm std. lens hood for a Leica though? Night and day!

I've got like seven Soviet m39 lenses, mostly Industars of various revisions, and none of them have fungus. Some do have very unsatisfying focusing rings. Look out for the "zebra" version of the 50mm f/2.8 Industar, with click-stops; it's awesome in its own right -- dead sharp at the center, nothing lomo about it at all.

>>3023274
Anything you can get used for a good deal that's been released in the last 3 or 4 years, it really just comes down to if you want something super compact or not. If you're going to do night shooting then you don't really need to prioritize the absolute most compact camera you can find, but you need a lens that has as large of an aperture as possible.

Look into something like a Nikon D3200 or D3300 and buy the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 to go with the 18-55 kit lens.

File: collapsible_50mm_f3_5_long_exp.jpg (122KB, 659x1000px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 659x1000px

>>3023282
Picrelated: example of flare from a 50mm f/3.5 collapsible Industar. Soviet lenses tend not to have any better coating. The flare in the right upper side is from a single street lamp shining down well out of frame during a 8s exposure of t-max 400 at f/8; and most of it was dealt with in post using masked tone curves (e.g. past the railing, most of the left side of the picture). But some of that shit I just can't deal with, so it's part of the a e s t h e t i c now.

File: DF.jpg (176KB, 1020x677px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1020x677px

Does anyone have any experience with the Nikon DF? I see them for sale once in a while for about 1300,- eurodollars. Does it have any significant advantages/disadvantages compared to let's say a D750 or D4?

I kind of like the look of it, but looks alone is not going to cut it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-5N
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	51 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2014:03:07 11:27:58
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	1.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	34.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1020
Image Height	677
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3023314
I've handled one. The design is nice and blocky, unlike the contoured ladies' cameras that DSLRs have become. The prism is massive, D750 tier, nicer than the D610. Manual controls for nearly everything -- but you'll need a non-G lens to have an oldschool aperture ring, and the Df's kit lens is the 50mm f/1.8G (smashing good, but kills the illusion). Buttons can be a bit janky. There's no top screen. The camera is also surprisingly thick compared to even a DSLR; it's easy to see how they rejiggered some other camera's internal layout to yield the Df.

If I ever have too much money, I'll definitely get a Df just for the simple pleasure of having one. Also, full-frame D4 sensor.

But definitely get one with some kind of a takeback period, or lay your hands on one for a while before buying. It's not for everyone, and probably not good for your first DSLR either.

>>3023328

Ah that is informative, thanks. I heard some mixed stories about the DF when it was new. Back then it was almost EUR 3100,- and now I see it crawling slowly towards a 1000,- it has appeared on my radar again.

I did hear that the DFs kit 50 1.8 tends to have some autofocus issues but some people might have gotten a lemon. Either way I do like that Nikon made this one, even if there won't be a DF2.

>>3023314
Df is sort of a schizofrenic camera. It has a fantastic sensor but the af system is not the best. All the controls are on the top like in the film days, but there's also the usual control wheels like in every other nikon dslr. It wants you to use old lenses, but it doesn't have a proper focusing screen for that. And it doesn't do video at all, even tho it should be capable. It looks pretty good and solidly metal from the front and top, but the back is just boring and looks like everything else. D750 and D4 are both better cameras to be honest.

In my opinion, they had something great in the works with the df. They didn't quite get it right in the first iteration. But instead of trying harder, they shat their pants and quit it. Fuck you nikon. Fuck you.

File: téléchargement.jpg (5KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 275x183px

Do somebody ever tried a Olympus OM-D-E10 Mark II with analogic MC or MD lenses? I'm thinking about buying one, but I want to know if it's viable for me to use the lenses of my old OM-2

>>3023314
Disadvantages:
- no video
- retarded controls (form over function)
- low fps compared to D750 and D4.
- same Renesas sensor as D4, whereas most other Nikons have nicer Sony sensors.

Advantages:
- looks

I want a dslr but am poor, but I have several friends who can lend me lenses they all have Canon, what do should I get?

>>3023386
Anything used from the last 3 years that's within your budget

>>3023386
Used EOS 550D

>>3023385
>no video
That's not a disadvantage IMO

I sprung for the Lumix G7.
It's already shipping out, so feel free to tell me if I've made a mistake.

>>3022709
Fuck it, I'm just going to go for the A5000, having a camera is better than not having a camera, and then I can just buy the body only when I buy the A6000 since I get a better deal for the kit lens instead of having to buy it separately.

>>3023386

if you were about to have sex and couldn't afford a condom but all your friends were having sex and they could let you use their used condoms would you? Photography is sex. Used condoms is borrowed canon lenses. Globs of someone else's cum is a used canon body.

If the rebel is used you must refuse.

>>3023435
Congratulations, you win the most autistic poster of the day award for February 16

>>3023435
STOP BEING LEWD!!!!!

What is the best value for money travel tripod?

>>3023398
It's a good camera. Have fun

>>3023495
Used aluminium Befree

File: t3_5uh32e.jpg (182KB, 919x823px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 919x823px

I have an ext flash (manual mode, remote by optical slave only), and a 1.8/50mm prime lens on my T2i. Which upgrade will help me improve indoor events shots?

>>3023401

At least look at a used NEX-6.

a5000 is honestly not worth the money.

just bought a nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 on ebay for ~$550
anyone had experiences with it?
i know the auto focus will fall apart eventually

>>3023301
Appreciate the advice, picked it up and it seems to be in great shape. Excited for this thing, 35mm frame lines on the Bessa R such for someone with glasses

File: 7a0a7d_f5db3c09726a45588dda7607993e135e-800x533.jpg (137KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 800x533px

If you were going to do conflict photography what body & lens would you take?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:30 11:41:24
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	533

>>3023501
Oh, good.

>>3023509
Going FF could help, but given your current equipment it doesn't seem like you'd be in the market for that.

Maybe a more powerful flash with TTL? Or multiple of them, especially if you can find someone to hold one off-camera for you.

>>3023550
D3s, 24-70G.

>>3023527
Then you know the whole story. For $550 I bet the AF motor squeaks.

>>3023509
TTL flash with diffuser or mini softbox.

>>3023606
it said no squeaks. but i just know it will eventually break down.
i searched the lens on youtube and all the videos are of it talking about broken af motors and squeaky sounds lol

>>3023550
That very much depends who you intend to make the pictures for, and where.

If you want to tell a story NOT from the frontline, you might bring stuff like a 40MP+ camera, 12mm wide angle, 85mm prime, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, like you might for an event or fashion show or something.

If you are doing this for customers that want the current happening from hot spots, maybe a robust little Pentax or Olympus setup or something might do better.

>>3022691
what sort of bag does /p/ carry their camera in?

currently in need of a bag for a Lumix G85 and a lens

>>3023663
ina leather bag i made myself out of my first kill in the wild

my pentax-a 70-210mm f4 arrived.
it's so mint i can still smell the new box smell.
paid $23 including shipping straight from nippon.

Hey guys,

I got this a350 for free (with kit lens) with kinda good condition (it hasn't been used for few years). Just wanted to ask: Is it okay?

Should I just upgrade to, for example, to D3300?

>>3023511
The NEX-6 is harder to find used but you're right, I'll try finding one. Feels pretty silly to buy a camera without a viewfinder but my options are limited on such a tight budget.

>>3023663
Chinese photo bag and backpack, they cost like $25/45.

>>3022805
pls
anybody know if the battery isn't needed?

>>3023739
It's an old camera with an old-ish sensor. Of course a newer model with a better lens could do much, *much* better.

"Okay" is relative to your own needs, preferences and available money for a hobbyist though.

I personally wouldn't touch a D3300 - if you ask me, it's annoying entry level crap. Some A6000 or D7200 is the minimum I'd bother to use, and I'd be way more likely to get a A6500 or better at this point.

File: Nikon-Df-with-dc-nikkor-lens.jpg (40KB, 550x421px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 550x421px

>>3023314
I own one. I originally intended to buy something smaller like an A7 or RX1 but found this one for really low price and had to get it. I've been using it for about half a year now and overall I like it. It has some annoying quirks but also a lot of redeeming features.
Pros:
>Fairly small and light for a full frame DSLR. It's smaller and lighter than a 5D and about the same size as a Canon 6D. Also build quality is good (lots of metal) and the camera feels surprisingly comfortable to hold.
>Great sensor. 16mp is enough for me and lowlight capability is really good. Iso 12800 is absolutely usable and iso 25600 is still fairly good. Also thanks to the D4 heritage, the image quality stays pretty much the same from iso 100 to iso 1600.
>Viewfinder is nice, bright and big.
>Weatherproofed body
>Physical controls feel confident and tactile to use.
>One of the few modern Nikon bodies to accept old non-Ai lenses (the ai lever folds away).
>Looks nice, old pro lenses fit nicely to overall aesthetics.
Cons:
>Expensive AF when new
>AF system isn't on the same level as on the D750 or D800/810. The area of the points is fairly small and only covers the center of the frame. Also, the AF doesn't work as good in totally dark areas (IMO not as big of a problem as one would think, I haven't really encountered any problems when shooting during the night.)
>Menu system isn't as good as the one on D750.
>Physical controls are otherwise OK but the iso knob won't work when using auto-iso. To activate manual iso adjust, I must do a menu dive and change it by hand. It would have been much easier to have auto-iso activation/disable on the knob itself.
>No touchscreen. (I have one in my other camera and I constantly find myself trying to use one on the Df)
>No video. (Retarded Nikon marketing decision, fortunately my other camera has good enough video)
>The top screen is quite small and it only holds the most essential info. At least it's backlit.
>No built-in flash

>>3023663
I don't even have a bag lol. Usually I just use a 50mm or an universal f/2.8 zoom and leave other lenses and crap to home. If I need more flexibility, I just put a small m4/3 body with a wide angle or a universal zoom to my jacket pocket and attach a tele lens to my DSLR.

>>3023663
My backpack. What do you need a bag for? If you're just out shooting then you're going to miss a bunch of shots when you have to take your camera in and out of your bag all the time and if you just need something to carry gear in then any bag ever will do.

File: StrapOn.jpg (16KB, 422x348px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 422x348px

>>3023663
I just use a shoulder strap. I wish I could have both a shoulder strap and a hand grip at the same time.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:02:16 16:38:41
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	422
Image Height	348

>>3023663
a canvas beachbag i bought in thailand, with a cheap pouch to separate the stuff inside.

>>3023838
>What do you need a bag for?
What do you keep it in when you travel in planes, trains, etc.? Even in a car, I'd like some real protection for it and accessories.

File: 16181031234_dd7800bd79_b.jpg (197KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1024x683px

>>3023852
I have these camera inserts for my backpack but I don't really have that much gear that I need to use it all that often

File: 12-12-20161481561800alp2460-01-hard-case-image-1.jpg (55KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 960x960px

>>3023852

For travel I use HPRC 2460 case.

tfw you bought your first camera a week ago and you're already fighting yourself to withstand GAS

>>3023663
a cheap shoulder camera bag, a leather bag I made my self or finnish army gas mask bag. it depends on my mood and what I need to lug around.

>>3023908
Or maybe you just bought cheap and now realized that having good lenses, lights, a nice body etc. matters in many situations.

Heads up for poorfags.
Best Buy is selling the Sony A5000 for $300 and free shipping. If you use Visa checkout, you supposedly get an extra $25 off

>>3023812

Yeah the no video part bothers me because I have gotten used to a camera having one. Something like a 70D (video, mic-jack, touchscreen, flipscreen) would complement it.

Nikon almost nailed it for me with the DF, I've been looking into Fuji but the lenses are a bit too pricey for my taste.

>>3023970
>Sony
no thanks

File: i-q8NVN6H-X3.jpg (344KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1600x1066px

I'm currently using a T2i. Will I be able to upgrade to a FF Canon on a budget of $300 max? Will it even be worth it? I mostly shoot indoor events with a 50/1.8 .

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 50D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:31 17:40:51
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: whatslr.png (1MB, 1228x843px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1228x843px

I might be retarded but does anyone know what SLR this is? Looks like a Praktica to me but I can't find the one.

>>3023973

The fuji lenses go on sale about every 3 or 4 months, in the united states, and are substantially discounted. Gives you time to save up and research plenty before you throw down on a purchase.

I just checked out the t10 and t2 in person today as i've been thinking of buying a t20 when it is released and that t2 is just so much better all around. I don't know if it's $800 better but the viewfinder difference might just make it worth it to me.

>>3024002

a full frame canon at $300 bucks? maybe a stolen one from a heroin addict. or a film camera.

>>3024008
The first 5D is within his budget.

There's a Minolta SLR with 50mm lens for like $28.

Should I get it? it's not the x-700, but some consider it the sister of it.
Please hurry! Help me with this IMPULSE buy!

>>3024012
It's probably priced that low to offer someone the chance to experience some film gear.

If you don't intend on using the gear you probably shouldn't.

>>3024014
It will be my first SLR, and since i'm pretty low on the income scale it's a great price for something that's considered on par to the X-700 which is much more popular.

So oyu think I should? It looks a little dusty but that's nothing i can't fix.

>>3024016
Not the one you're responding to, but yes you should.

>>3024012
Probably not if you have to ask. Better buy a good digital camera. It'll just be better, cheaper, faster.

>>3024002
> a FF Canon on a budget of $300 max
It'll be the most ancient used shit. Basically don't bother.

Add a zero, then it basically works out okay.

File: ss+(2017-02-17+at+03.10.09).jpg (23KB, 279x212px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 279x212px

>>3024025
I got it!
HAHA, I GOT IT! HAHEEAHEHAHEAHE!!!!
$28 with s&h included total!

What's the cheapest Sony mirrorless you can pick up that actually has a viewfinder? Is the NEX 6 the lowest you can go?

>>3024040
New? I would say A6000, Sony produce it in such large quantities it often goes on sale for cheaper than A5100.

You can catch them for 400 dollars once or twice a year, months at a time.

>>3024040
I wouldn't even recommend anything below an A6000.

But if you must make yourself suffer, the NEX-5N/R with it's add-on EVF has been cheaper, I think.

>>3024050
>>3024051
Nah, used, I just need a camera temporarily so I can upgrade to the A6000 later and keep the kit lens since I'm broke right now.

File: 1481678287243.png (258KB, 552x873px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 552x873px

I love you /p/unks

File: scs.jpg (82KB, 600x363px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 600x363px

Can I do off camera non ttl flash with Nikon d750?
How about rear curtain sync with Nikon d750 with PW triggers?

Canon cant do this- they limit second curtain to ttl only.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2009:08:11 22:08:32
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	363

what would be a better pick for a first (used) camera? 100D or D3300?

>>3024389
>Can I do off camera non ttl flash with Nikon d750?
Nope, impossible. I can do it on my D3100 though. Good job cucking yourself with a D750.

>How about rear curtain sync with Nikon d750 with PW triggers?
Just set flash mode to REAR and fire away. Nikon doesn't care what's attached to the hot shoe, it fires on second curtain.

File: NivsCa.png (41KB, 562x431px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 562x431px

>>3024406
According to DPReview the only thing the Nikon does better is image quality and low-light performance. I'd personally go for the Nikon.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-100d-rebel-sl1/12

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d3300/12

>>3024406
Pentax K-50

>>3024445
K-50 only for people who never intend to buy a lens beyond the kit lens

>>3024406
sony a6000

>>3024488
That feel when I got mine completely new for 400 bucks.

I plan to use mine for Infrared conversion.

>>3023862
What are the lenses you have there?

>>3024494
>Sigma 50
>EF 85
>EF 100 Macro
>Extension tube
>70-200/4
Apply yourself

>>3024494
That's just a picture from Google, I don't even have a camera right now

>>3024499
typical /p/cuck

>>3024488
E-mount lenses are fucking expensive tho.

>>3024513
It sort of depends. Sigma has 4 excellent AF lenses that are very affordable.

Rokinon has some superb+cheap lenses too which were made specifically for mirrorless APS-C cameras.

>>3024510
Excuse me for prioritizing paying rent and having food over photography

>>3024527
listen pal, if i can get a $15 film camera with decent lens then so can you.

you gotta REALLY want it

>>3024454
Weak bait

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/

File: canon_70-200_on_7D.jpg (177KB, 2200x1329px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 2200x1329px

>>3023862
>>3024496
>70-200/4
Do you really lose much with the f/4 versus the f/2.8?

>>3024552
Depends what you shoot. The f4 is vastly lighter weight and compact. You could throw that into a bag and barely notice it. The f2.8 is giving you that last stop of light, which might be important if you're shooting at 1/1000+ and in marginal light. Every stop counts at that point. If you're using artificial light, or generally shooting in ok light, the F4 is fine. If you currently use a 70-300 IS or 55-200 IS or similar lens, and have not had problems with not having enough light, then the F4's a fine alternative.

Of course, you can also buy a 2.8 IS I.

I've always had an interest in photography and I want to start doing it more seriously. is the t5i i have(I have a couple of lenses for it, too), worthy of a starting camera? Or should I buy a better one?

>>3024577
It is good for starting out.
Read up on exposure triangle, read Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson, watch Youtube tutorials and avoid anything that is connected with the name "Northrup"

>>3024577
It doesn't matter which camera you have if you don't know how to use it. Focus on actually learning photography before upgrading your gear, because you don't know what kind of lenses you need for the kind of pictures you want to take when you're just starting out.

>>3024584
>>3024583
I had an interest in film and went to film school. I know about exposure and shit like that.

>>3024588
Point still stands, just start out with your camera and the kit lens until you know what lenses you need for the pictures you want to take.

>>3024588
Then you are set. What lenses do you have?

>>3024595
I have:

The kit lens
50mm f/1.8
24mm f/2.8
Some basic kit lens/cheapo zoom lens

Not the greatest lenses but I didn't really put any money or effort into buying any.

>>3024597
Excellent, you have everything you need. Go out and start shooting!

>>3024598
thanks, I'm gonna start tomorrow

>>3024604
Start now by planning a main route and don't forget to forfeit it before you get halfway through

File: fit=1440x1440.jpg (454KB, 1440x960px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1440x960px

How the fuck did anyone do conflict photography before autofocus?

Canon here

I have a 24-70 f/2.8 and an 85mm f/1.8 (it made sense back when I was on a crop body) but now I'm considering selling my 85mm 1.8 and getting a 135mm f/2 L

I would also be okay just replacing the 85 with a 100mm f2 but that might not be enough somewhere down the line.

I really like my 85mm but the similarity to the 70mm focal length is just barely enough that I feel like changing up to a longer lens.

Would it be a wise choice or would I be regretting it? I live in the city and so there is a bit of cramped space but a 135mm on a full frame is just enough with portraits for me (based on my experience with an 85mm on the crop).

>>3024649
Lots and lots of practice, I assume.

File: F2.jpg (20KB, 496x268px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 496x268px

>>3024649
Like dis nigga right here

>you will never be some poor as Brazillian slum kid who gets handed a F2 and a 135/3.5 and told to go shoot some gangsters
Feels good, to be honest.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	496
Image Height	268

Going to some weeb cons in a few months.

I currently have a Pentax K-5 with the 18-55 WR, 18-250, 50/1.8, and a Tamron 70-200/2.8. I've found the kit zooms to be too slow, and the 50 to require me to stand too far away and end up blocking part of a hallway or something just for a waist-up pic.

I've been looking at 24-70/2.8 or 28-70/2.8s -- would this be a good idea? Or should I get a 28mm prime since I seem to use 28-30mm on the zooms a lot? I could get a FA28/2.8 for about the same price as a Tokina AT-X Pro SV 28-70/2.8. Double that and I can get the Tamron 28-75/2.8, Sigma 24-70/2.8, or FA* 28-70/2.8 (which apparently sucks at 60-70mm). Save up a bit more, and I can get the D-FA 24-70/2.8 WR (I especially like the WR part and the in-lens focus motor, whereas the rest are screw-drive AF).

The reason I'm not considering cheaper crop-only f/2.8 lenses is because I intend to upgrade to full frame later on. I am considering the 24- or 28-70s because it would mostly complete a full-frame setup, since I already have the 70-200. However, I could also go with a 24 or 28mm prime and a 35mm prime and I would have 24/28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 70-200mm.

Which path would be the best in the long run for general use, considering I need something to use on my crop camera now (actually in a few months), but also want to build up my full-frame kit for the upgrade in a few years? I can save up more than enough for the most expensive lens mentioned (the D-FA 24-70/2.8 WR) by the time I need to use it in a few months.

>>3024712
take me with you pls

>>3024713

If you're in the area, then sure. :^)

>>3024715
pls be in Cali

>>3024718

I am.

>>3024719
now we're gonnna have to narrow it down.

all or nothing
Bay Area?

>>3024723

Awww shiet. Then you know which con is at the end of May :^)

>>3024712
You're indoors. F/2 or bust, or artificial light or bust. Wide is good, keep the 50 on hand for portrait length shooting.

>>3024726
BayCon?
I honestly never been to it

>>3024730
I could get a FA 35/2 for ~$300 (inb4 35 Art). I do need AF because my eyesight is poor.

If I went for the artificial lighting route, I assume my kit lenses would be fine for now, and the costs would end up less than if I bought a new lens.

How would I into flashes? I haven't had much experience with anything except the on-camera flash.

>>3024731
I haven't been to that either. Go a little bit more south.

>>3024737
>If I went for the artificial lighting route, I assume my kit lenses would be fine for now, and the costs would end up less than if I bought a new lens.
>How would I into flashes? I haven't had much experience with anything except the on-camera flash.
http://strobist.blogspot.ca/2006/03/lighting-101.html

Honestly, if you're on /p/ and don't understand the lessons in Lighting 101 and 102, you have a gaping hole in your theory and practical skillset. As far as flash goes, it's as simple as shooting RAW (very important), and having a ceiling or roof close enough to bounce light off of. TTL flash is nice, fucking around with a manual flash isn't too bad once you learn how to gauge GN/distance/aperture. Saves you about 50 bux or whatever. Or more because Yongnuo doesn't make a Pentax TTL flash so you'd have to go first party? I don't know.

>I could get a FA 35/2 for ~$300 (inb4 35 Art). I do need AF because my eyesight is poor.
I don't know what your con floor looks like. I personally prefer a 35mm equivalent, fuck whatever people think about distortion.

>>3024737
>Go a little bit more south.
No idea mate

>>3023314
Honestly if you want a DF for the retro looks then get a used X-T1, much better camera at a much better price.

>>3024514
Okay, the Sigma lenses are pretty cheap, but Rokinon? Really? The cheapest one is the price I paid for my camera + Kit lens

>>3024824
Rokinon made two mirrorless lens for APS-C.
The 10mm F2,8 is a bit expensive I agree with you one that.

But the 12mm F2 is actually reasonably priced. It's a manual lens, but it's optically better than the Zeiss Touit 12mm, which is truly expensive.

>>3024835
Can confirm, the 12mm f2 is pretty awesome, the only critique I have is the distance scale which is not very accurate. I got mine for 320€, but I've seen a few used ones go for around 250. Mine is branded samyang though.

>>3024737
>>3024739
Yep, I agree. I have the DA 35/2.4 and while it is an excellent generic lens it is just too tight at events.
If I were you I would look for a Tamron or Sigma 17-50/2.8 or Sigma 17-70. The couple first ones are fast lenses and constant aperture, the latter has more reach if you want to do some close-up portraits a cheap manual flash like the Godox TT600 or Yongnuo YN660. You do a few shots starting out, set the flash underexposed a little bit to give you some leverage and go on. You don't need TTL this way.

what mirrorless should i buy if i don't want to spend more than $600 on a camera ? is Lumix GX85 good ?

>>3024873
The lens choice for micro four thirds is good. You could go for a Sony e-mount mirorless but honestly the difference in iq between apsc and m43 is not noticeable. The gx85 also comes with more features as standard, and the ibis is great.

>>3024875
GX85 is more modern, has better features, and has better video.
But A6000 goes for as low as 400 bucks when you catch it in a campaign sale.

>>3024873
I would get the G85 instead of the GX85. More features and more comfortable grip.

>>3024881
Why the hell do they add the X, but make it worse?

That shit naming makes no sense. Common sense suggests GX is more awesome than G.

>>3024881
Yeah but it wont fit in a pocket, the gx85 will.

>>3024884
If you want a camera in your pocket you are better off with your phone, m8y

>>3024873
I just bought a Lumix G7, if that helps.

>>3024875
>You could go for a Sony e-mount mirorless but honestly the difference in iq between apsc and m43 is not noticeable.

In a well lit room this is true. The darker the riom gets, the bigger that gap widens.

>>3022805

You can operate it fully manual without battery, but after shooting with it a while, I always feel like it wasn't intended to. Just get a batter adapter and some LR9 battery or a WeinCell MRB625.
Great camera, although a bit too heavy IMO for what it is.

>>3024881
too big and too DSLR-ish. doesn't make me wanna own it.

>>3024895
Use your phone then

>>3024900
no i mean i want vintage looking camera but i don't think i can stand living with film photography.

like, you know, i don't care about dslr or mirrorless, i want the vintage look.

and what's the point of photography if you use your phone ? you're joking. it's not a serious and exciting hobby if you're not happy and confident to be seen with your gearz.

like, come on, i am /mu/, /fa/, and there's no way i'm seen with modern looking camera

>>3024903
>i want vintage looking camera
Get a manual SLR or a rangefinder.

>>3024904
this
chrome if you can

I just need to sperg a little here
SIGMA RELEASING A 135mm 1.8 LENS HOLY SHIT I'M COMING.
Gonna sell my Canon 100mm 2.8 IS L Macro (used it just for portraits, yes) and maybe Canon 7d to afford it if it's going to be over €1k, but holy shit I'm buying it.

>>3024915
Heavy and expensive shit.

I just sort of decided my 85 F1,8 provides me enough background blur for my needs.

>>3024917
I'm a 58kgx176cm skeleton and I have no problems lugging around a 5dII with 24-35 f/2 for hours, heaviness is relative to how balanced it feels in your hand and these days if you own a FF reflex camera you kinda have to accept the weight. With all the mirrorless options, if you don't buy gear just because "it's big and heavy" then maybe you're into the wrong system.

"enough" for you isn't enough for everyone. I want a flatter perspective and more separation than what an 85 can provide.

>>3024903
Just get any silver colored mirrorless interchangeable lens camera

>>3024915
>Gonna sell my Canon 100mm 2.8 IS L Macro (used it just for portraits, yes)
Look at him and laugh.jpg

>>3024935
Got it for 450€ 6 months old, with original package and receipt, from a guy that just threw around money like it was toilet paper. Excellent lens, very lightweight, great optics, best IS ever. I will regret selling it, yes, but I was always on the edge of doing it for Canon's 135mm f/2, but if Sigma releases another beast of a lens and the price point is reasonable, well that's all I always wanted. (Or almost. My dream lens is Canon's 200mm f/2...)

>>3024943
Get the 135/2 L instead. You will only regret buying Sigma for anything remotely serious job. Their quality control has not improved ever since.

Is there any benefit to using a mirrorless over a non mirrorless?

File: 1308736143359.png (112KB, 510x778px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 510x778px

>>3024957
Some of the lenses are smaller. Some of the bodies are lighter.

But not always.

>>3024957
Less moving parts means less noise. I imagine it would be easier to do street photography considering most DSLRs make the noise of
>cuh-SHEEEEEEENK

>>3024873
Well a GX85 would be terrible if only because it's hard to even find one for $600. Then you'd need lenses...

Cheap good options would be A6000 or XT10/XE2. I wouldn't buy any M43 that isn't current.

>>3024957
inb4 EVFIDF

>>3024955
You're about... at least 4 years late with that drivel. Their art series is excellent, their late EX production was very good too. I've owned their 18-35 1.8 lens straight from launch, an early first batch lens, and it was perfect except for the rubber zoom ring going loose on me. No other brand offers and USB dock for lens adjustment, either, so there's really no reason not to buy Sigma since they've been regularly outdoing Nikon and Canon.

That's why I bought the 24-35 f/2, too. If their newer Quattro cameras weren't still so stupidly limited I'd have bought one too. (And I'm not talkinb about the sensor, but they're just weird. That horrible shape, the bad EVF and the sensor is more usable but a step back from their Merrill cameras as far as quality goes.)

Can't believe there's still people going on about that horseshit about reliability, when their last issues were with what, their 50mm 1.4 EX? That was 9 years ago, built quality was already excellent but the AF chip sucked dick. (I own one by the way, completely inaccurate on most bodies I owned, but for some reason it's perfect on my 5dII, so I'm keeping it.)

>>3024963
"Art" is just a marketing buzzword. Their new optics are a hit or miss, heavily dependent on the background quality and distance.
Their lens mechanics are also a hit or miss, some people report the lenses are fine, some report horrifyingly basic malfunctions like loose or missing aperture blades (in the latter case it is clattering somewhere in the lens body), broken switches dislodging the optics, small broken plastic piece inside makes the whole lens bricked etc...
Not your generic first party problems where you have to give a quite decent beating to a lens to brick it or just the AF drive going wonky, these are serious issues you have to think about when your work depends on it.
I'm still saying go first party with this lens.

>>3024957
Mirrorless pros:
>lighter
>smaller, with smaller lenses you can have a very portable package
>less intrusive, big dslrs scare people away
>you can adapt pretty much any lens unless it's some specialty rangefinder stuff
>cheaper since there's no complex OVF and mechanical stuff in the way
>...so the more expensive ones tend to compete with DSLRs that are many times the price
>EVFs can be very useful
>generally quieter but not all the time

Mirrorless cons:
>battery life sucks dicks
>not as sturdy as a professional DSLR
>EVFs are not what your eyes really see, you're still looking at a screen
>their size and lightness is useless if you buy big fat lenses
>support for flashes and studio hardware can be disappointing and/or expensive
>horrible for balancing said big fat lenses
>can be not taken seriously by people you work with. Yes, people are dumb and have always been dumb. Back in the times some pros had to show Hasselblads to their clients and work with Mamiyas because Hasselblads attracted more money just because of "lol, brand". It's stupid, but you gotta consider this.

The gap on AF systems is pretty much closed unless you want to talk about 6k+ large pro dslrs.

so the short version is that mirrorless are great unless you need long teles, you're working and need 1000+ shots from a single battery, you need to build a good but cheap studio lighting setup, etc.
If you're doing birding a mirrorless camera has only downsides, if you're doing street photography a mirrorless might be exactly what you want, for example.

>>3024967
>"Art" is just a marketing buzzword.
It's the fucking name of a line of lenses, no shit?

>Their new optics are a hit or miss, heavily dependent on the background quality and distance.
Ehr, no? This is just fake bullshit.

>Their lens mechanics are also a hit or miss
Again, no? You're mistaking Tamron for Sigma. Sigma never had those issues even back in the days of worse QC. Their issues have always been about AF inaccuracy and bad rubber parts, their more expensive lenses have always been mechanically reliable in the past 5 or so years, that's as far as I remember at least. Their older early digital lenses were pretty terrible, but that's more than 10 years ago.

>I'm still saying go first party with this lens.
Because you don't know jack, it seems - you're repeating horseshit that was true a decade ago. Sigma's primes have been shitting all over Nikon and Canon, with the same or better reliability, and good luck getting the USB AF and firmware adjust from the jews at Canon/Nikon.

>>3024972
Shill pls go

>>3024974
>Shill
>because I'm mad as fuck

That retard is spouting senseless bullshit about a brand that has been releasing products so good that they've been pricing them OVER the first party lenses and they're still selling like hot cakes.
Stupidity and ignorance make me mad.

is the Fujifilm X-T20 a good camera?

>>3024739
Thanks, will go read up on that. I always shoot RAW so that's not a problem. As for the flash, I don't mind spending a little bit more for TTL, but if it's really not worth it then I'll consider going full manual.

If I do into a flash, I will be able to live off my kit lens for a while longer right?

>>3024740
I'll be going to Fanime.

>>3024868
I was considering the Tamron 17-50/2.8 for $300 with 6-year US warranty and all, but I plan to go full frame in the coming years as I said in >>3024712.

I'm not sure if I should go for a 24- or 28-70/2.8 instead of buying a set of faster primes. And for those 24- or 28-70s, I can go for a used Tokina 28-70/2.8 for 250, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and Sigma 24-70/2.8 used for about 450, the FA* 28-70/2.8 used for 600, and the D-FA 24-70/2.8 for its ~1200 price new. I like the SDM and WR in the D-FA, and wouldn't mind saving up for it if it's the best choice in the long run. Otherwise, I can probably live with the cheaper ones. What do you think?

As for the flash, it seems like a necessity now. Then, would I be able to live off the kit lens for a while longer?

>>3024976
Yes, but for the money you could get a full frame Sony.
Think deeply about the Fujifilm lens lineup because that's going to be the deal breaker or maker for you: Fuji lenses are great, but you need to really want them to justify buying into the system, otherwise Sony offers more options.

Also, Fuji gear loses little value (software updates that completely overhaul their older bodies, expensive and well made lenses, all stuff people tend to stick with.), while Sony with their constant updgrades and sidegrades creates a very convenient used market for their lenses and bodies.

>>3024989
I lied. The Tokina 28-70/2.8 and the Tamron 28-75/2.8 are about the same price, the Sigma is way more expensive for some reason, and the rest remain the same.

>>3024997
The Smegma zoom sucks dicks.

Tamron's 24-70 is the way to go, it's sharp and light. The Tokina lens is a little bit sharper than the Tamron, but it's significantly heavier.

>>3024989
The FF standard zoom will bite you on APS-C, 24mm is nowhere near wide enough for events. You actually need wider than 20mm on crop, I had to use my 16-45/4 despite in a dim environment because I needed the absolute wide end.
Get the 24-70/2.8 only if you plan on switching to FF in the next month, you will only get frustrated with it on crop. With that said it is a very very nice and sharp lens, you will love it on FF.
Oh, and Tamron doesn't offer its 24-70/2.8 in K-mount, you have to get the upper priced D-FA with the same optics. Sans VC of course.

>>3024990
> Fuji lenses are great
So are many E-mount lenses.

> software updates that completely overhaul their older bodies
Sony also did quite a lot of software upgrades -for example on the A6000- but big differences in hardware arrived in a fast pace, plus there is the upper half of their range on FF that Fuji doesn't even have. There was (is? hard to tell if Sony is done being quite so quick...) just more potential for people to upgrade their camera.

>>3024999
Tamron doesn't make a 24-70 on Pentax as >>3025000 said, and Tokina doesn't either -- I'm talking about the AT-X Pro SV 28-70/2.8. I do like the all-metal construction on the Tokina and don't mind the weight.

>>3025000
I do not plan on grabbing a K-1 anytime soon, as I recently just got my K-5 as a gift for babby's first DSLR. It's pretty much mint, with about 5k shutter actuations on it (half of which are mine). I'll probably be staying on it for the next 2-3 years at the minimum.

Seems like the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is the best choice here. Have you tried the DA* 16-50/2.8? What are your thoughts on the DA*? I've heard the SDM is prone to giving out, but screw-drive works as a fallback and the WR sounds good for me.

>>3024999
Smegma's 24-105 is the best one around but they still don't have a competitor in the 24-70 arena. Their 24-35 is amazing but it's a "prime with zoom", not something that really covers what a 24-70 is supposed to do.

For APSC there's no reason not to get the 18-35, it's perfect and only a tiny bit too narrow. (28mm at the wide end feel tight, often.)

>>3025008
wasn't beating on Sony, just trying to put the pros of Fuji out there. I'd too buy Sony, I can't justify that amount of money on a system that is still focused only on APSC.
There is nothing inherently bad about APSC, but with sensor prices dropping there's no reason not to stick with FF, eventually Fuji will have to move to FF too, and their lens lineup will be useless.

>>3025016
I never tried the 16-50/2.8 but I heard about its notorious behaviour. It is actually the least sharp lens in the star series, so much that my plastic fantastic 16-45/4 vastly outperforms it.
Also, it is the most prominent example of the early SDM plaque where the AF motor craps itself. It is an early design so the redesigned SDM doesn't fit, getting a repair or replacement will leave you the old motor that will break. It can be easily converted to screwdrive though but the optics doesn't worth it to buy one. Good to know only if you already have one.
The sharpest crop standard zoom today is the DA 16-85/3.5-5.6 with the new DC motor, fast and accurate, just as sharp in the corners as in the center and has WR. Also has variable aperture, if you don't specifically need f/2.8 this is the better choice.
Star lenses like DA*, FA*, A* etc... are generally equivalent to Canon L lenses and Nikon pro lenses, with some exceptions they have excellent optics. The ones designed for film still perform well on the small pixel sensors. The 16-50/2.8 is an exception that proves this rule, anything other than that is an excellent lens.

Just look up the examples here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
and here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/

>>3025020
I was mainly looking at the f/2.8 lenses for indoors stuff, as that feels like the only time my current lenses are lacking (DA 18-55 WR and DA 18-250). The 16-85 is attractive, but I don't think I have a need for it right now.

However, if I get a flash, then the slower lenses would fare just fine, right?

Also, thanks for the info about the naming scheme.

>>3025032
>flash
Absolutely. I did excellent protraits with my 16-45/4 and a cheap manual flash.
Something like a Godox TT600 or a Yongnuo YN660 would do nicely. Both works with AA batteries and two packs of Eneloops would last an event, maybe more.
The 18-55 while works is not a very nice lens. I would replace that as soon as possible, after getting the flash. The 18-250 is not worthy to talk about. Get a 55-300 WR or PLM WR instead if you want sharp telephoto on a budget. This where APS-C comes in handy with the extended reach by the crop factor.

File: IMG_3365.jpg (349KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1280x720px

Gear Thread?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot G11
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2013:02:07 12:25:21
Exposure Time	0.8 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	8.11 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1280
Image Height	720
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3025040
>taking photos OF your gear, not WITH
This is 2017 now, America is Great Again and /p/ is about photography.
Your kind is looked down upon.

>>3025048
Stop posting irony.

>>3025049
Says the guy posting photos of his gear

>>3025038
Looks like I'll grab a flash and git gud at the next con, then decide on which route I want to take between some f/2.8 zoom and the 16-85 after I figure out which area needs improvement.

Many thanks for the help.

>>3025051
You're welcome. Feel free to ask around on Pentaxforums but don't mention this cesspool.

File: 32254_1_xl.jpg (38KB, 675x450px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 675x450px

I'm thinking for my first camera to get a Canon EOS Rebel SL1, or something in that price range, but I don't know what specifically to look for. Anyone got some unironic and legit advice?

>>3025050
sorry not the same guy. But you're still not posting photos on the photo board. C'mon man, put your money where your mouth is.

>>3025056
Scroll through the guides on dpreview
https://www.dpreview.com/buying-guides

The short answer is that the SL1 is not very good at all. It'll work just fine but saving your money, even just an extra $100, will allow for much better cameras.

>>3025056
When the 20D was designed, one of the sensor designers was an astrophotographer and made a modified IR filter to include the 650nm range for Hidrogen alpha. It was available in the 20Da but since some APS-C models used the same IR cut filter in later models, such as the SL1. You only need to find a lens without a hotspot and slap on a 680nm or 720nm IR filter and you can easily do IR photography off a tripod. Also you can use it as an astro camera right away.
That, or get a used Pentax K-50 or K-S2.

I'd like to film some stuff as such:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B27TyiGj51I

So outdoors, fairly good lighting? static plane shots with some movement once in a while. I'm an owner of Canon IXUS 125 and I'd like to up the video quality a bit. Can spend around 400$. Could you please advise me what can I get with this budget?

Is it a bad idea to slap a Canikon telephoto on a mirrorless if you need to go longer than 200mm for birding and wildlife or are you better off with just buying a cheapo DSLR and use the telephoto with that?

>>3025079
Cheapo dslrs will have bad AF too. You need to get non-cheapo ones like D500.

>>3025079
A used D7100 will do the job nicely. It is a good hobby wildlife camera. I use a K-3 and my friend uses a 60D for motorsports and birds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPTCrXbIbh4
Sony is BTFO in their own game. Well done Panasonic!

>>3025079
If you want to do completely manual, why not.

If you need support for AF or aperture control or the on-lens IS, AFAIK you need a relatively recent Sony camera plus Sigma or Metabones adapter.
Cool if you already have one and only need the adapter, but maybe not so economical vs just buying some cheapo DSLR if you don't.

>>3025091
I don't understand how this BTFO's anything Sony "at its own game".

File: stabilization_s.jpg (34KB, 260x212px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 260x212px

I've never used image stabilization.

Is it as good as I imagine it is?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot G10
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2011:09:06 19:54:44
Exposure Time	1/5 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Subject Distance	0.17 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	15.67 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	260
Image Height	212
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 1366519494013.jpg (145KB, 1282x930px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1282x930px

>>3025091
KEK.

Sony's next sensor will be Full Frame Backside illumination at 24MP -> 6K full pixel readout supersampled to 4K.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Icinko
Image-Specific Properties:

>>3025110
Is it going to set the furniture on fire after shooting video for 5 minutes? Panasonic solved that issue, why can't Sony?

>>3025117
I'm pretty sure the Panasonic will burst in flames too if you put it on a baking hot rock like they did for the A6500.

But you will see the reviewers treat the pana more gently, no one is going to put it through the same treatment.

http://photorumors.com/2017/02/19/pictures-leaked-of-the-three-new-sigma-art-and-one-contemporary-lenses/

new Sigma lens leaks

>>3025119
Maybe because the Panasonic doesn't overheat and you can shoot video indefinitely, as long as the camera has juice where you have to turn off a Sony every 5 minutes for 10 minutes to let it cool down and not have the shitty system disable video.
Panasonic is a serious work tool, Sony is just a shiny toy wannabe.

>>3025120
>new Sigma lens leaks
That is bad news, don't they get fogged up more quickly leaking like that?

>>3025121
>doesn't overheat and you can shoot video indefinitely
A6500 can do this too, with a little software hack.

And so long as you don't bake it over a hot rock.

File: IMG_2894-1.jpg (588KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 1000x1000px

>>3025108
I aquired my first IS lens a short while ago, 70-200mm f/4 IS. So far I'm very happy with it. It's pretty obvious it allowed me to get shots I couldn't get otherwise, but I don't know if the 2.8 non IS, being the same price, could have achieved the same result with the additional stop of light.

I was surprised by the audible sound it produces when functionning though, it sounds like a small electric scale model train is choochooing in there. Apparently it's normal.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 760D
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Focal Length	173.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Exposure Mode	Auto

>>3025124
Or not doing video with it

>>3025125
Yeah, the floating element controls do some minor sound and some clicking when the element resets. Kind of like faint smooth static with the additional click-click while the image jumps a little in the viewfinder.

>>3025122
I'm not sure, but I have to say that 14mm f/1.8 looks neat. though their new 24-70 looks kind of cheap

>>3025120
> 14mm f/1.8 Art
Nice. More high end wide angle lens choices sounds great.

>>3025128
Yet another lens you can't afford. Keep shooting that kit lens, it is just good enough, mate.

>>3025127
> though their new 24-70 looks kind of cheap
I sure hope they want it to be cheaper than other 24-70 f/2.8. Maybe I'm interested in it as a secondary lens if it's cheap enough.

>>3025132
I'm maybe not super rich, but like many first worlders, I can easily afford to spend a few hundred for my hobbies every year.

No, I don't shoot shitty kit lenses. How abjectly poor would you have to be to feel compelled to do that on one of your few hobbies?

>>3025132
>Keep shooting that kit lens, it is just good enough, mate.
>Never improve
but what if you've already done all that you can with the kit lens and you simply aren't satisfied by the results? What if you bought the camera's body only?

>>3025120
let me guess, there'll never be any K-mount versions of these ones, either

>>3025139
People told you to get Canon for a reason. Don't come around later to complaint.

>>3025137
> but what if you've already done all that you can with the kit lens
It wasn't *impossible* to do something else with it - I objectively sold it way before that.

The point was only that it was simply not nice or efficient to do more with it.

Companies mass produce better lenses, and thus I can and will afford to use some of these for my hobby.

File: Tokina_Firin_20mm.jpg (41KB, 534x450px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 534x450px

>>3025139
I think most of the attention manufacturers might have been willing to give to DSLR mounts other than CaNikon is now mostly going to making E-mount + MFT lenses... but maybe you get lucky.

File: laowa_7.5mm_2.jpg (239KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 800x600px

>>3025145
>E-mount + MFT lenses
Laowa is doing the exactly that.
A full size 15mm F2 e-mount. + a scaled down equivalent 7,5mm F2 MFT.

Tokina seems to go full E-mount

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-LX100
Camera Software	Ver.1.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:21 09:40:57
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/1.7
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	10.90 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	600
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Image Quality	Unknown
White Balance	Auto
Focus Mode	Auto
Spot Mode	Unknown
Image Stabilizer	Mode 1
Macro Mode	Macro
Shooting Mode	Aperture Priority
Audio	No
Flash Bias	0.00 EV
Color Effect	Off
Contrast	Low
Noise Reduction	Standard

>>3025155
Laowa does K-mount as well

is the sony a5000 a piece of shit? I'm going overseas for vacation and I dont want to carry a heavy dslr around

>>3025211
It's not too good. No EVF, slow AF, worse sensor, small buffer, slow shooting pace.

Just get a A6000 or even A6500 instead.

http://www.canosa.com.hr/foto-tripod-69/stativi-glave-i-oprema/

Is there any okay tripod for filming on first page here? I know its not your language but you should be able to make it out.

>>3025139
Sigma has stated the reason they don't like doing pentax lenses is because of the (mechanical) aperature lever, which makes it so you can't just make "generic" lenses, and then switch the rear mount ring/flange adjuster piece + flash firmware as needed to quickly answer to fluctuating demands of all the different lens mounts - they have to do entirely separate batches for Pentax lenses, so it makes only economical sense for the most popular models.


However, with the more recent Pentax cameras like the K-1, Pentax also "updated" the K-mount to its KAF4 version. The big thing with this is the removal of just that mechanical aperture lever mechanism - it is now controlled electromagnetically, like on most other contemporary brands.

This would mean that the main hurdle for Sigma to to produce more Pentax lenses is now gone.

Of course, this has the other chicken & egg problem of only being able to sell the lenses for users with the latest pentax bodies (k1, K70, K3-ii, K-S -series), so the potential target audience is also smaller....

>>3025211
Just get an A6000, they're excellent cameras.

>>3025226
I was under the impression that Nikon had the same issue until the E lenses arrived relatively recently, and that Sigma Art lenses in F-mount feature the same old-style mechanical stop-down lever.

They also for some reason make the 35/1.4 Art in K-mount, just not any of the others.

if I want to start trying my hand at shooting film, should I get a new camera or an old camera?

>>3025302
try >>3022311

>>3025082
>Mirrorless users will purport this
Fact: A cross type sensor on even an entry level DSLR is more reliable than your shitty little PDAF pixels.

>>3025108
Handy dandy for hand-holding in more static scenes. Also practically eliminates camera shake at marginal (1/FL - 1/1.5FL) shutter speeds. Also useful for panning shots.

>>3025125
>I was surprised by the audible sound it produces when functionning though, it sounds like a small electric scale model train is choochooing in there. Apparently it's normal.
whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrcluck

>>3025211
a6000 > a5100 >>>>>>>>>> a5000

Why are Voigtlanders the only company with wide yet small and fast lenses? You don't usually see other brands with something like a 35mm f1.4 that tiny. Is it because they lack something that other brands don't? Or maybe they're not as high quality?

is the OM-D E-M10 worth the $600?

>>3025350

They have some sharpness and vignetting issues when used wide open.

Fuji has some similar lenses for their x-mount.

>>3024835
As I said, I don't consider any lens that costs more than body + kit lens 'cheap'. Maybe it's great value, yes, but it's definitely not cheap.

So do you guys think the A6300 will be the price the A6000 is now in 3 years?

>>3025375
You picked a wrong hobby then buddy. Should have taken up water coloring or running or some other shit. Besides, if you actually had talent and vision, gear shouldn't matter in the least.

Best wide angle lense for pentax k50 that is in the $100 range?

>>3025376
Generally yes. But because the market is undergoing huge changes, it's hard to predict.

>>3025425
There are no good wide angle lenses in the $100 for any brand. Use your kit lens until you can afford a better one.

>>3025390
Of course, I'm already astonished by what I can accomplish with the kit lens, but I'd like at least one faster lens for nighttime pictures and muh bokeh. I think I'm gonna go with the 30mm Sigma.
I didn't say the more expensive lenses aren't worth it, I just said I don't consider it cheap.
Adding 500$ of GPU to your 500$ PC isn't a 'cheap' upgrade. Of course, it makes your pc perform better, but it turns your 500$ PC into a 1000$ PC.

>>3023156
Another stupid question:
What means "zone focus"?

>>3025431
Get a 35 or 50mm plastic babby prime like everyone else.

>>3025430
What's the price range for a decent wide lens?

>>3025432
It's a focusing mode setting on your camera.

Tells the camera to focus on a zone. [Rather than a point or the center, for instance.]

>>3025435
~$300 (some Samyang on direct import from SK or HK) to ~$1k (Tamron 15-30 etc.)

Of course there are also more expensive good ones, but these should be decent.

>>3025376
Maybe not; it very much depends on what companies release.

I'd certainly not wait for it to happen.

>>3025437
Yikes, that'll put a dent in my wallet. After I finish paying for my college classes I'll look more into it

Hey guys, what do you think of Olympus in general ?

I want that particular camera :

https://m.olympus.fr/msite/fr/c/cameras/om_d_system_cameras/e_m10/e_m10_main.html

Mainly because it is interesting for this range of price. What do you suggest ? Should I go for it ?

>>3025446
Not too interesting. Noisy sensor, slow AF, low resolution.

Get a EM-5 II or better instead. Or an A6000 like apparently everyone else.

>>3025439
Eh, I'm currently on an A5100 which I snagged up for a phenomenal price, and while I think a viewfinder would be nice to have, it's not worth to upgrade to an a6000 just for that, the added buttons and a few more shots per second (which I don't need). I'm just hypothesizing 3 years into the future when an upgrade would probably be in order.

>>3025451
The flash hotshoe alone would be enough reason for me, but YMMV. Plus I'd probably get the A6500 either way.

> I'm just hypothesizing 3 years into the future when an upgrade would probably be in order.
If the only thing you are missing is the EVF, then sure, just wait for a few years.

I'm really not sure about the price in 3 years, though. Seems like the trend currently is to release new and better APS-C and FF cameras in higher price segments rather than actually compete much in the lower range.

Maybe 3 years isn't enough to push the A6300 down in price below $700 or so.
Or maybe (even though that seems unlikely) everyone added IBIS and even better sensors in two generations of entry level cameras already and the A6300 is now in the $400 or less bargain bin - but I don't expect it.

>>3025454
I'm still in a kind of purgatory between point-and-shoot and 'real' photography. I'm not totally sure I want to get heavily (moneywise) into photography, but I'm amazed in what my A5100 delivered so far. I mean, it is technically on the same level as the A6000, only the usability (buttons, evf, flash shoe) is different. The only thing that's different in performance of the camera itself is the 11fps of the 6000 vs the.. 5.6? of the a5100.
These are some pictures I took within the first 2 days of owning it
>>3023155
>>3023259

>>3025462
New thread

>>3025458
> I'm not totally sure I want to get heavily (moneywise) into photography.
Sure, take your time.

> but I'm amazed in what my A5100 delivered so far
Glad you're happy then.

> These are some pictures I took within the first 2 days of owning it
Especially the second shot with the pond bothers me. Has an annoying lot of very visbile sharpness and contrast issues.

Arguably, this would be a problem with the lens and maybe postproduction software, not the camera body (or flash).

But I guess I'd upgrade it all and not even consider it a particularly "heavy" expense over a few years that I'd use this. YMMV.