/gear/ - Gear Thread

File: 25b742c105b81712e1695d6ba5ca211f_polaroid-1000-land-camera-polaroid-camera-clip-art_1884-1651[1].png (353KB, 1884x1651px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 1884x1651px

Looking at getting gf a polaroid/instant film camera for her birthday.
Budget is up to €100.
Any recommendations for that price (or less)?

Or does the budget need to be a good bit higher for one worth getting?

File: the best2.jpg (60KB, 672x411px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 672x411px

>>3052197
second for contentawaredevil

>>3052199

Instax Wide 300.

>>3052199
buy her a smartphone

>>3052199
Instax Wide

Also you're a dick if you don't also buy some film for her. Also that film is expensive and she's probably not going to use it much.

May want to look at plan B.

>>3052201
>>3052206
Cool, thanks.

Yeah I was wondering about the film. I'll buy her some at the start of course but I'll need to see if she would bother buying film herself after she runs out

I've got dark spots on my new-ish sensor. I've already tried the air blower

Is there no other option than those cleaning swabs? I'd imagine the thing will always have some spots after a couple of lens switches. Isn't there something I could just keep in the bag for a quick wipe?

>>3052210
Dude. Never use air blow on your sensor!
Use a soft (veeery soft) brush to carefully wipe off the stuff and turn on the vibration sensor clean for turn on and off.

D750 or K1? Pulling the trigger on one of them today.

Nikon has the better lens environment, but the K1 is the better camera. Is that right? I'm going to be shooting everything with this, so I need an all-rounder.

File: Air-Dust-Blower-Cleaner-Pump-for-Lens-DSLR-Camera-camcorder-musical-instrument-keyboard-computers.jpg (181KB, 527x454px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 527x454px

>>3052226
people told me to never ever use a brush and that an air blower was the safest

and I tried the vibration cleaner

File: gidzow.jpg (269KB, 1583x623px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1583x623px

Is Gitzo jewing us? Look at the reduced fitting length of the new Systematic tripods on the left. Looks like they want the legs to dislodge break so we break our tripods and cameras and have to buy new things.

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

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

>>3052238

>dislodge OR break

>>3052226

What's wrong with an air blower? I've heard to not use stuff like dust-off or any compressed air, but never knew dust blower was an issue

>>3052246
>What's wrong with an air blower?
1. You blow more dust on the sensor so it defeats the original purpose
2. A stronger blow can misalign the sensor or the filter stack ruining your IQ and you can blow dust between the filters.

>>3052236
>Is that right?
No.
Well. First of all, the lenses are the most important component to achieve image quality, so Pentax is already at a massive deficit there.

About the body itself, Nikon has a more robust company that will keep developing newer full frame bodies over time. Pentax is just overall miserable, it took them 10 years to develop the K1, and you will be lucky if you see a replacement to K1 in 10 years.

>>3052253
Hey moop, fuck off please

>>3052256
The truth sometimes hurts. Don't be so upset bro.

File: DSC_0162.jpg (422KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1000x665px

I currently have D3200 with 18-55 VRII and 55-200 VRII.
I would like to get a faster lens for better low light performance, but I'm also interested in getting into macro.
Would the Micro 40 f/2.8G kill two birds with one stone or should I just get the 35 1.8 and get better macro lens later?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Ver.1.04
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	38736
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	54 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1000
Image Height	665
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:04:05 22:59:18
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/4.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	36.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	665
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
ISO Speed Used	400
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	CLOUDY
Focus Mode	AF-S
Flash Compensation	0.0 EV
ISO Speed Requested	400
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Lens Type	Nikon G Series
Lens Range	18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	958

>>3052285
Used the 35 1.8 forever on my d3300 and still love it great price per performance value. No clue on macro lenses at all

>>3052285
If you want macro get a proper macro lens. For crop, there is the Tamron 60mm macro or you can use the 90/2.8 macro. Tamron has an old manual focus version with the same optics in Adaptall mount, with the Nikon adapter you can use it. You wouldn't want AF at 1:1 macro ratio anyways, it is better to move the camera itself on a macro rail on a tripod.
There is the Sigma 105/2.8 macro as well but it is not as good as a portrait lens. Less spectacular bokeh.

>>3052197
should i upgrade to a 4k monitor for my photo editing?

>>3052317
I'm looking forward to the ones with HDR support myself.

Is the price point worth the Contax G2 over the G1?

>>3052327
yes absolutely

atm i'm using minolta x-700 atm.i want to get something digital too. all around camera - some snapshits, some steet stuff, family events etc.
at first i was thinking about pentax k-50, then a6000 and x-10t too as mirrorless is smaller and lighter so i think i could be able to take it out more.

what doesn't matter for me:
- lcd
- video
- gimmicks like programs, auto, being selfie friendly, 100000 iso

what i'd like to have:
- good viewfinder (are EVF good? focus range meter on viewfinder would be sweet)
- good controls - ideally dedicated iso, shutter speed and exposure compensation knobs on body or a decent way to change it all w/o going through the menus. something that is full manual friendly and not just toy for people shooting auto.
- not shit kit lens
- other lenses with reasonable prices (so i guess fuji is out?)

being able to use minolta MD and m42 lenses would be a + too.

price range: something around the price of k-50, maybe $100-150 more for body + kit.

>>3052238
>are people on the internet morons?
Yes, almost always.
I'd imagine their overriding concern is to improve the design by reducing weight.
Who's to say they haven't improved the way the carbon shaft is glued/clamped/threaded into the lug? Or that the leg locking mechanism hasn't been made more compact, and allowed them to have the same amount of lug engagement in a smaller lug?
It sounds like you can't afford gitzo anyway and are just going to buy the benro knockoff, so what does it matter to you?

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

5KB, 275x183px

>>3052362

a7 series.

a7 itself can be found for under/around $700. a7ii has IBIS, better af, and pdaf adapter support and is closer to $1400. a7rii is probably the best sensor on the market but is a lot more expensive at $2,400.

The other advantage to the a7 series is that your MD lenses will be the same equivalent focal length as your X-700 when used. None of that crop nonsense. That is the whole reason I got one. The larger body also makes the large MD lenses less awkward than they would be on a crop body (though to be fair, most Fuji crop bodies are as large if not bigger than the a7)

Plus modern bodies can autofocus the MD lenses with the Techart Pro (pictured).

>- good viewfinder (are EVF good? focus range meter on viewfinder would be sweet)

Best on the market. Focus peaking and manual focus assist make it easy as hell to manually focus a lens through an EVF. You want to avoid the hybrid evf/ove viewfinders, they are a fucking mess.

>- good controls - ideally dedicated iso, shutter speed and exposure compensation knobs on body or a decent way to change it all w/o going through the menus. something that is full manual friendly and not just toy for people shooting auto.

3 control wheels (plus dedicated exposure wheel), almost every button re-programmable, and a re-programmable quick access mini menu for less often changed settings.

>- not shit kit lens

The FF e-mount kit lens is one of the better kit lenses ever made.

>- other lenses with reasonable prices (so i guess fuji is out?)

You get similar pricing to Fuji, but the lenses are FF and have a lot better IQ. Sony has also been releasing some affordable primes lately (see SEL50F18F [though this lens has AF issues], and SEL85F18).

File: 24184665863_9728ccf96a_b.jpg (132KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1024x683px

>>3052375

Whoa, what the fuck happened to my image, lets try that again.

>>3052375
sounds great but sadly even a7 is a bit above my price range. and that's just for body, not even including any lenses.
but thanks for that info, will be useful if i ever decide i want to drop more on gear.

>>3052226
Bollocks,
Get a sensor loupe and cleaning kit, soft brush for loose debris, wet pads if there's sticky stuff. You're cleaning a glass cover slip, not a sensor, be careful, but it's pretty hard to fuck it up.

>>3052210
>>3052237

>>3052389

Then you are better off going used.

NEX-6 can be had for $200-300. The good kit (18-55mm) is another $100 grey market.

Everything will be cropped though. A lot of your good MD lenses (i.e. the fantastic 35-70mm f 3.5 macro for example) will be awkward as hell to use.

>>3052197
I live in NYC and want to get into street photography. My D610 is way too much of a hassle to carry around everyday, so should I get the FujiX100S/T/F or a Ricoh GR ii?

>>3052423

X100 optics suck. Avoid.

GR is thr better choice, but you have to be careful because it sucks up more dust than my vacuum cleaner.

Guys,how Sony a3500? Found a deal at 90usd but sound too good to be true..

>>3052448

It is about what it is worth.

It is a mirrorless camera in a dslr sized body. Sensor is good, and mount has lots of lenses available, but it isn't the best when it comes to handleing.

It comes with the good kit lens, the 18-55mm. The kit alone is worth $100.

>>3052455

Oh wait, I am thinking of the a3000 with the 18-55mm.

The a3500 comes with a kinda meh 18-50mm. It has no OSS.

>>3052362
i got a new k70 with the great 16-85 wr lens used for $1100. I recommend it

you could get an adapter for those m42 lenses

>>3052437
>X100 optics suck. Avoid.
at what? f2? its sharp as fuck at 2.8

Need a recommendation on a tripod mount strap for my 5dii

>>3052473
You have to understand that all gear discussion on the internet focuses on extreme nitpicking because these days every camera is good. The X100 lens is pretty good, but not quite as good as the GR lens especially wide open. And the GR really doesn't get that dusty, either.

>>3052498
the x100 and gr dont even have the same focal length, thats a stupid comparison

>>3052473

More like f 5.6.

so i want to get a setup to shoot video with, but which is also capable of somewhat good stills (i'd say 50/50). starting budget is ~1000€ for the body and a first lense to learn and practice as i've only acquired theoretical knowledge and some experience with an old dslr from my dad. then after some time i want to do video and get some wide lense (around 21-24mm full frame equivalent) because i dont like to narrow shots for my scenery. im willing to omit zoom for better image quality so prime lenses seem like a good idea. now after some research, the following seem to be quite recommended:

a6000
x-t10/x-t20
g7.

my problem is that sony, allthough very suited for handheld offers basically nothing for wide shots and the most recommended panasonic has the small sensor which is also not ideal. fuji seems to be quite good for stills and also stuff like the 10-24mm f4.0 with stab exist. as first lense i may go for a fast prime like the 35mm f1.4, but it offers no stab. but then again i probably will shoot from a tripod most of the time.

so, are there any dealbreaking points on the fuji that im missing out? are there totally different options that i've overlooked? thanks for your time in advance.

>>3052535
>so, are there any dealbreaking points on the fuji that im missing out?
no 4K video and Fuji's video has always been the weakest around

>>3052236
>Nikon has the better lens environment, but the K1 is the better camera.
Yeah that's pretty much correct, ignore the butthurt faggot that replied by spewing out his ass.

>>3052253
>Pentax is just overall miserable
What happened bud, did a pentax user steal your girl??

>>3052539
>Fuji's video has always been the weakest around
what exactly does this mean? also what would be alternatives?

>>3052535

Go back and do some more research.

For example, there are numerous wide angle lenses for the Sony well suited for video.

Fuji video is extremely limited.

And with 7mm lenses, the panasonics crop isnt that much of an issue.

>>3052539
the x-t20 shoots 4k video

Looking to buy an Olympus OM-D E-M10 MARK II but the price went up by a 100 in Amazon with the 14-42mm II R Lens. It's 600 now. Should I buy it used for 400 or is the extra 200 dollars worth it?

>>3052549

It is also $1300. At that price you might as well get the a6500 for its IBIS.

>>3052365
>Who's to say they haven't improved the way the carbon shaft is glued/clamped/threaded into the lug? Or that the leg locking mechanism hasn't been made more compact, and allowed them to have the same amount of lug engagement in a smaller lug?

Because they'd be advertising the shit out of this. Instead they go on for pages about their bigger tripod feet which were available for almost 10 years as an accessory already.

To me this just looks like cutting costs.

>It sounds like you can't afford gitzo anyway and are just going to buy the benro knockoff, so what does it matter to you?

Actually, I have both tripods right here in front of me brand new with the option to return them within 30 days. Unlike most people here I'm not a poorfag, just trying to decide which one to keep.

The older model seems more sturdy to me while the current one has nicer leg locks and angle selectors.
What bothers me also is that the new tubes feel thinner walled. Gitzo even says on their website: "Carbon eXact – improved balance between rigidity and weight"

What does that even mean? If before there were 10 rigidities and 5 weights and now there are 6 ridigities and 4 weights they made it much less rigid and slightly lighter but improved balance. This is horseshit.

Nowhere do they mention that they kept their legendary rigidity while reducing weight which every marketing department would jump on. I'm not buying this, man.

>>3052498
Gr doesn't turn to shit over 1/1000 ss.

>>3052535
1000 will nearly get you a 2nd hand a7ii and 28mm f2, with a full frame sensor, ibis and the best oem 28mm on the market you'll be laughing.

I shoot food and portraits for a living.

Sigma 180mm f2.8 macro. Worth NZ$140000? Any catches? Because it looks fuckin solid

>>3052621
I want to make a book with recipes we make with my roommates to bundle them and want to make some proper photos of the dishes. Now I have a d90 with a 18-250mm sigma and a panasonic gx80h with a 19mm sigma f.28, what would you suggest is best to use for the photos? Thanks

File: 81eYTt4bTXL._SL1500_.jpg (211KB, 1500x1200px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1500x1200px

>>3052627

This:
>http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-ef-s-35mm-f2-8-macro-stm-officially-announced-349/

>>3052575
a6500 seems really nice but body only it's 1600€ while the x-t20 is 900€ atm.
>>3052587
stabilization was one of the things that made sony seem really attractive to me. just looked up how much ibis helps and it's very promising. i will definitely check used a7ii for availability around here, thanks.

regardless i would still be very thankful for more elaboration on this 'fuji is limited with video' thing.

>>3052621
>NZ$140000
>USD 96000
haha wat.

35 mm f/1.8 for A6000 a solid buy?

Bit pricey. Looking for a nice versatile lens for travel photos, family pictures, things like that.

>>3052642

Yea it is a good lens. OSS is damn nice too.

Also look at the Sigma 30mm. No OSS but a lot cheaper.

>>3052640

Whoa, a6500 body is ~$1000 here.

>>3052642
yes.
also check out sigma 30 1.4 and 30 2.8.

>>3052621
>Worth NZ$140000?
I'd probably buy a house instead if it were me

>>3052644
>>3052646

wow quick response. for sure, thanks for the recommendations!

do you guys often switch around lenses? new to the game, there's so many types and things to take into account haha.

>>3052640
So sony use s-log for video colour grading, it's become the industry standard, and sonys af-c is far, far better.

Fuji is more aimed at soccer moms, who just want to click a button and upload it straight to facebook. Also, fuji has zero third party lens support, so you're stuck with fujis overpriced underperforming ecosystem.

>>3052651
45mm equivalent is a little narrow for architecture.
might want to get the 19mm as well but try the 30mm first.

>>3052652
you can adapt crusty old lens brah.
lens turbo ii, available as well.

>>3052656
>lensturbo
Hey, let me just attach this shitty bit of glass that isn't matched to any lens, and I'll take all the spherical and chromatic aberrations that come with it.

No, just no, spend that money on getting the right gear in the first place. This is the equivalent of putting a k&n air filter on your diesel vw jetta.

>>3052652
ignorance is bliss

>>3052652
thanks. i think ill keep my eye open for a used a6500 for now.

>>3052660
Why do fuji fans always just make baseless disparaging comments about other commenters instead of trying to defend their platform?

Surely if fuji was as good as sony, you could counter some of the arguments?

>>3052641
>>3052641
Nz$1400 sorry us$~900

>>3052650
Couldn't get a house in Auckland with that much m8

i picked up a d3200 as a beginner photo/stills camera a while back but i recently became interested in video. i know nikon is typically described as inferior to canon/etc in that regard. should i try and get a different camera or is it worth sticking with?

guess i should direct this to you specifically as well in case you've shot anything with it: >>3052285

wut
https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/sheffield/miscellaneous-goods/kgb-photosniper-camera-fs-12-outfit-in-working-order-/1120859317

which would you get?

https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/beaconsfield/miscellaneous-goods/tripod-camera-spotting-scope/1142630912
or
https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/kings-meadows/miscellaneous-goods/camera-tripod/1140559898

>>3052676
What you mean wut? Haven't you seen these yet? They are pretty damn neato, the 300MM f4.5 lens is actually real good too

>>3052676
It is an excellent lens even on modern digital. If you have a Pentax and can get an 1.7X AF TC you can even have AF with 500mm FL. Just google it.
Without AF it is still a good lens with relatively easy AF but weighs as much as the Bigma. That rusky steel barrel design, you can bludgeon a bear to death with it.

>>3052679
>>3052680
more the pistol grip causing the wut than the lens

>>3052693
Is this the first time you saw such a grip?
Leica also had one and a bunch of other camera manufacturers, you can even get one made today. Eggy has one, something like bushmaster or similar wacky gun nut name.
The photosniper is the better one though but needs some (simple) mod for digital cameras.

>>3052698

Fotosniper can be adapted to work and even autofocus with the a7 series.

>>3052701
Nah, the A7 plastic mount can't hold the weight of the body for long. You need third party mount mods to have a stronger mount but still not as tough as a mid-range DSLR

>>3052703

Only the original a7 has mount issues. The rest of the series is metal.

You can only AF with the later ones anyway.

>>3052704
The plastic mount and bed is still present in the latest A7 line under the thin metal band that you can bend with two fingers.
A7 line is not designed for outdoor use, more of a pleb street and holiday/travel camera for soccer moms. It doesn't even have weather sealing.

File: mount2-1024x968.jpg (212KB, 1024x968px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1024x968px

>>3052705

>The plastic mount and bed is still present in the latest A7 line under the thin metal band that you can bend with two fingers.

That would be wrong.

The metal mounting ring screws directly into the magnesium frame.

File: Screenshot_2017-04-06-12-30-52.png (121KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1080x1920px

>>3052705
>it doesn't even have weather sealing

Wrong again, answer on official sony forum from a moderator.

>>3052713

To be fair it is just resistant, it isn't hurricane proof like Pentax.

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

78KB, 500x500px

>>3052713
Pentax can manage a decent sealing in their entry level bodies where Sony can only manage pic related.

>>3052718

Weather sealing is not the same as immersion proof.

And most cameras are not weather sealed at all. Pentax is an exception.

File: K-S2 mud.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

>>3052719

>>3052718
>drop camera in ocean
>hurrrr sony wont do warranty

Kek

File: K-1 mud.jpg (45KB, 467x245px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 467x245px

>>3052719
>duplicate reply my ass

File: Sony tears.jpg (218KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 300x450px

>>3052721
>Drop Pentax in stream
>Camera works like nothing happened

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:07:09 11:46:12
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	300
Image Height	450

>>3052661
>>3052535
Try asking the /vid/ general for more opinions, as I think they would rec Panasonic (especially with the newest cameras and their improvements in stability), though they also like Sony a good deal

>>3052757
sony and panasonic have completely opposite aesthetic to video.

Panasonic is small sensor, suitable for reportage and fast motion

Sony is big sensor, suitable for more artistic cinematography

>>3052761
>>3052661
>>3052535
Also, big sensor needs bigger and much more expensive glass
MFT sensor size still gives you enough leverage for artistic aesthetic as well, so if you need an all-around video camera then Panasonic is the way to go.

Can you guys recommend me any DSLR. I want to do:
- Urban landscape, scenery
- Event photography (wedding, graduation, etc)
Budget is $700

>>3052768
$700 is not enough to get a body that you can charge money for wedding/grad shots.

If you want to invest in tools to use professionally you're looking at a MINIMUM of $3k

>>3052766
incorrect.
Video is best shot on manual focus, manual aperture lenses, if you're on Sony you have the choice of every film lens ever made, and it will look as it should. And as you're downsampling massively, sharpness is completely irrelevant.

on m43, whatever focal length you want, if you adapt a lens you're gonna get a much tighter fov, if you want anything wider than a 50mm equivalent be prepared to spend out of the anus. Also, the tiny sensor magnifies the portion of glass used in the lens, enhancing any flaws, meaning you need higher quality lenses for an equivalently sharp finished product.

There's a reason that Sony isn''t just the most popular format for consumers, but also for professionals, even fuji, sonys greatest competitor, make cine lenses for sony.

>>3052768
any used mid-range APS-C DSLR like a Canon 60D/70D, Nikon D7000/D7100 or Pentax K-3 with a Sigma 17-50/2.8 or the system equivalent.
Your budget is going to be tight and for events, you will need the fast zoom lens. With Nikon and Pentax there is a nice 16-85 zoom lens but not f/2.8 and definitely not constant aperture.
You can start with the kit lens and work your way towards the fast zoom lens.

>>3052770
>>3052771
Thank you. I know my budget is very lacking but I want to do it anyway. My main thing is still landscape, the event photography thing is a side thing.

>>3052285
Depends on what kind of macro.

If it's insects or something you'll need a flash, get a proper macro lens, 90mm at least.

>>3052770
>$700 is not enough to get a body that you can charge money for wedding/grad shots.
>If you want to invest in tools to use professionally you're looking at a MINIMUM of $3k
lol fuck off you dumb cunt

>>3052768
>>3052776
Listen to >>3052771, the gear recommended is more than capable of handling weddings/grads, it all comes down to the knowledge and talent of the photographer. Even if you're shit (which if you're new you will be) you can still make money from plebs, just see >>3052181 for example

>>3052776
You can go lower with Pentax since the entry bodies are built well with weather sealing and are not gimped in features. Something like a used K-S2 or K-70 would help with the budget.

>>3052780
kek
>>3052181 should be a sign of hope to anyone starting a business.

>>3052780
>he thinks you can charge money for using a crop sensor camera and tourist lenses

kek, scrub.

>>3052780
>>3052781
Thanks, I think I will go with a Pentax then.

>>3052784
>he thinks the quality of a photo is measured by the gear it was made not by the talent of the photographer, the lighting used, the subject and the story captured.
It's like you would recommend a Sony. The only scrub here is you, even beginner anon is already better than you are.

>>3052786
Be sure to check out the DA 16-85 WR and see if your budget allows for it. It is currently the sharpest zoom lens for the system.

>>3052787
>he thinks brand makes a difference to image quality

kek, scrub.

>>3052786
bear in mind pentax lenses tend to be double the price of canikon.

>>3052789
It is time to stop, moop, you are already making a fool of yourself.

>>3052790
I know, but I have tried some different bodies before and I think I like pentax better.

>>3052790
Not really though, similar performance goes for around the same price amongs first party equivalents.

File: 14786898174526.png (10KB, 280x336px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 280x336px

>>3052784
yes because clients will first ask what model camera you use before checking your portfolio

>>3052770
2/10

>>3052793
Canon 70-200 2.8 - $1200
Nikon 80-200 2.8 - $1200
Pentax 70-200 2.8 - $1700

>>3052794
Yes, a lot of clients will ask what gear you use.
Clearly you've never worked in this industry before, stick around, you may learn things. :)

>>3052792
a fair point, of the dslr's i think Pentax does the best job, they're just not for me due to the abysmal lens selection and affordability.

File: pentax failure.jpg (206KB, 923x499px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 923x499px

>>3052793
Pentax doesn't have equivalent to L series and Nikkor.
They charge overprice for incredibly shitty glass.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

>>3052796

>Nikon 80-200 2.8

but that's 3 generations back, anon

gold ring VR and VRII are like $1500-2000. nikon is by far the most expensive of these 3.

>>3052796
Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II is over $2000 here.
Hence why I use Tamron 70-200/2.8 and very satisfied with it.

>>3052787

Have fun shooting in a poorly lit reception hall with your rebel+kit lens and no flash.

>>3052804
I have a Pentax with F2.8 zoom and a flash with a guide number of 60
But yeah, I had to shoot in a dimly lit church with no flash allowed at ISO 6400 and the shots turned out fine.

>>3052797
>Yes, a lot of clients will ask what gear you use.
Yeah no shit, and a lot of clients are plebs who don't know the difference between a rabal and a 5d iv. You saying it's not possible to charge money on a crop camera and kit lens is factually wrong and you know it faggot

>>3052806
There is not much difference between a Rebel and a 5D IV, from the viewpoint of modern DSLRs and MILC though.

any cheap digital point and shoot recommendation? with cheap i mean really cheap.

>>3052812
Your phone

>>3052812

smartphones and apps outperform low end point and shoot cameras

>>3052802
Not comparable, the ii rapes the pentax for iq and the pentax has no IS. The 70-200 I non IS is a perfect match.

>>3052806
They know the difference between big body and white lens and what they got their tween daughter for her birthday.

>>3052816
Pretty much. The Pentax lens isn't even corner sharp until you stop down to F5,6.

>>3052816
Pentax has IS in the body. 3 axis sensor shift in most and 5 axis in the K-1 and KP.

>>3052817
https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-d-fa-star-70-200mm-f28/sharpness.html

>>3052821
Bro, everybody else says otherwise>>3052799

>>3052822
That's the Northrup bullshittery for you. Notice how I posted the links with the actual test photos where the Northrup bullshit comes straight from DXO where there is none of the test shots posted, just a bunch of random numbers and charts.
Which one do you believe?

>>3052822
Also, star lenses are the L equivalent in the Pentax line, you can trust them with one exception being the DA* 16-50. That one is a pile of shit.

>>3052824
Both Tony and DXO are neutral 3rd party though. That automatically put them tiers above a pentax fan forum.

>>3052826
I strongly question the neutral part. And I still don't see any actual test photos posted other than in the pentaxforums link.

>>3052821
>ignore objective testing
>only use subjective, user reviews from a fanboi website.

This is why you don't go pentax.

>>3052832
And you still didn't post the test photos.
Please post the test photos to support your claims or else you will be regarded as a fraud.

>>3052833
He doesn't have to, he is appealing to two higher authorities than a pentax fan forum.

>>3052834
What kind of "authorities" are you talking about?

>>3052826
Neutral doesn't mean shit though. Northup is a fucking clueless idiot, dxo is not trustworthy due to the lack of transparency. I'd rather trust my eyes than some random french faggots word.

t. my only pentax is 30 years old

>>3052821
Except those are rebranded Tamron lenses without their VC system.
Did you expect Pentax™ -a Ricoh company- to R&D a 70-200mm f2.8, a 15-30mm f2.8 and a 24-70mm f2.8 out of the blue?

>>3052912
The 15-30 and the 24-70 are, yes but the 70-200 and the 150-450 are in-house designs, out of the blue as you said. The Tamron 70-200/2.8 G1 and G2 are different designs as you can see in comparison photos.
I'd love to see some Samyang UWA and 85mm designs with AF added though, that would be awesome.

>>3052912
>a 15-30mm f2.8 and a 24-70mm f2.8
According to Tony, those lenses are actually awesome (Because Tamron). The Shitty one is the Pentax designed 70-200, which makes sens.

>>3052891
>dxo is not trustworthy due to the lack of transparency
They at least publish their test methodology and papers explaining the data they use. I don't see how random review sites can be considered more trustworthy but it's pointless to even talk about it since DXO themselves haven't tested a single fucking lens on the K-1 at all let alone the 70-200.

File: 85mm.png (428KB, 818x2648px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 818x2648px

Pentax lacks the basic bread and butter portrait lens. Why do we care about this meme brand?

>>3052929
Coming this year, fag. There is the FA 85mm but it has that collectors tax added to it.

>>3052935
You sure showed me right there. But pinning all your expectations to a future lens in the horizon is not a recommended way to buy into a system.

>>3052936
Where did I pin any expectations in a future lens? I said that the 85mm is coming this year. You sure are projecting a lot, moop.

>>3052929
>#1 seller
:^)

>>3052929
>>3052936

actually the FA 77mm 1.8 ltd is about $600 and the FA 85mm f1.4 * is about $1300

>>3052938
you dumb fag, I'm moop. Not this guy >>3052936

>>3052944
There's the DA 70/2.4 Limited that is even cheaper but that is for APS-C
But it's a pancake.

>>3052929
Pentax and its memes have always been in regards to APS-C. It's not until very recently that they dipped their feet into digital fool frame land.

>>3052952
But they still retain compatibility for their film lenses, some of them are still awesome today on digital, like the FA 77 and FA 31, not to mention the FA 43 which started the whole pixie dust thing going on.
And of course the FA 50/1.7

File: 1491153398844.jpg (224KB, 1080x1349px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1080x1349px

Anything good in the 300-500 euro range?

Also how come you guys don't already have a sticky/website with all this info?

In fact I have a specific request, I'd like to film snippets of video games and stuff like that but film them filming my laptop screen and then cut it with Sony Vegas. I'm also interested in filming outdoors, mostly clips, nothing longer than several minutes.

From what I gather something like Samsung A5 would easily fulfill both of these needs and it seems that camcorders have gone completely out of vogue. I'd like something that can also film decent quality in .mp4 format (ideally). I'm rambling but if you catch anything out of my drift feel free to advise even if outside of this price range. Also important that it captures sound moderately well.

>>3052968
We do: >>1971605

>>3052970
yeah but that's a no reply sticky with general guidelines

File: small apartment.jpg (818KB, 1000x613px) Image search: [Google]

818KB, 1000x613px

>>3052197
Just picked up a nikon d3300 for my first ever dslr with a AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II Lens. This is a pic I just took outside.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:06 16:39:41
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	613

>>3052973
Good, now go and take more with more interesting subjects.

>>3052974
I plan to. I'm out in the ozarks so I'm hoping to get some good shots of nature around here.

>>3052975
Cool, I hope you got it with the 55-200 or 55-300 kit telezoom bundle as well so you can get some nice wildlife shots.
I always wanted to go to the Ozarks since I found KCMQ on the web but it's not so easy to travel from post-soviet europe.

>>3052979
unfortunately I don't have a 55-200 yet. That'll be my next purchase. I'm hoping my 18-55 will do the trick until then, but we'll see.

>>3052981
Get the 55-300 VR instead or the Tamron 70-300 VC. Cheap, decent IQ and excellent stabilization.

>>3052982
That's a nice looking lens, I'll pick that up in a few weeks when I have the money.

>>3052988
>>3052982
Just kidding, I just ordered it. Should be in Saturday.

Are "you can take great photos with your phone" and "shot on iPhone" memes? I have an SE and in no position to buy a proper camera.

>>3053035
Photography is about subject and lighting, not about the gear it was taken with.

>>3052236
K1 for when weather sealing is critical.
Canon 5d mkiii for all other times.

>>3052362
Pentax does great metering with m42 and adapted lenses. It can shoot "catch in focus" if you're using adapted lenses and will AF confirm with all lenses (does not need chip).
EVFs are way overrated.

>>3053078
>5d mkiii for when weather sealing is critical, and for all other times.
Fixed that for you. Pushing this Pentax meme is just ridiculous.

>>3052982
Why do people keep shilling the Tamron 70-300 when the Nikon 70-300 is just as good, and not mudblood with terrible resale value?

>>3052954
>literally only 5 primes of any note, 2 of which are are standard focal length, and all of which are hilariously overpriced for their vintage

>>3053078
The Pentax delusion is strong.

>>3053092
>Why do people keep shilling the Tamron 70-300 when the Nikon 70-300 is just as good, and not mudblood with terrible resale value?

Well think about it. For basically half the price you get the same performance and even cheaper when buying used. I got mine for under 300e new and sold it couple of years later for 260e. I'm sure I would have lost a lot more with a nikon equivalent.

What you should ask is, why would anyone shill the nikon version.

Nikon emergency support is obviously better, but a pro (who would care about that stuff) won't use a fucking 70-300 for any critical work.

>>3053133
But the 70-300 VR is a $300 lens used anyways? Yeah, you're going to pay more going brand name, but at that price difference, might as well.

>>3052891
lol.

File: image.jpg (42KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x500px

I have the opportunity to buy a second hand Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D for €390 in very good condition. Is this older lens worth it, or should I just go for a new 85mm f/1.8G instead?

[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	500
Image Height	500
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3053092
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/

I see more than 5 primes.

I just snagged a Canon 6D for some decent dosh, looking to get some glass for it.

I have three questions related to that

1. How does the 24-70 f/2.8 compare to the 24-105 f/4 (both Canon), apart from the 1 stop more light?

2. Same question but with the 50mm f/1.8 vs the 50mm f/1.4

3. Is the 17-40mm recommended for wide angle lens or should I look into some other?

Thanks lads

>>3053229
24 70 is a pro lens, 24 105 is tourist lens

Canons nifty fifty is objectively the worst 50 on the market, sack em both off and get the sigma

The new 16 35 f4 is a better lens than the 17 40, but the 17 is much better value for money.

>>3053232
>24 70 is a pro lens, 24 105 is tourist lens

how does this translate though? I don't mind spending the extra 300-400$ if it's worth it but if it's just the label "tourist" vs "pro", I don't care

>Canons nifty fifty is objectively the worst 50 on the market, sack em both off and get the sigma

I had the f/1.8 on a crop body before and actually liked it. With the Sigma you mean the 50mm f/1.4 Art?

>The new 16 35 f4 is a better lens than the 17 40, but the 17 is much better value for money.

thanks, I'll see which I can get my hands on

>>3053232
You're a fucking moron.
>>3053229
The 24-105 has amazing image stabilisation, is perfectly sharp throughout the range, and zooms to 105mm. As well as being smaller, lighter and far less conspicuous. It's objectively the superior lense for 90% of use cases.
Same comparison for the 50mm's except more, the f/1.8 is 90% of the lense for 30% of the cash, or 10% if we're talking about the Sigma moron is recommending to you.
Re: the wide angles, he's actually right, except I feel that the 16-35/4 is a very sound purchase.
The 17mm is cheaper, but it's a much older lense, and the optics, plus IS on the newer lense, are so great an improvement as to justify the extra expense.

>>3053240
Think of it this way, would canon be charging more for their 24 70 f4 than their 24 105 f4 unless it performed much better?

I sold my 24 105 because I stopped using it when I got my 24 70.

You can get objective testing results from dxo/dpreview/etc

The canon 50 1.8 isn't necessarily a bad lens, just the worst of it's type on the market, the bokeh can be nervous and contrast lacking. If you only want to spend $80 instead of 500 it will suffice.

The first version of the 16 35 is a bit shit btw.

>>3053242
>objectively superior lens
What, apart from not being as sharp or fast, having worse chromatic and spherical aberrations and much worse build quality?
Lol, so it's "objectively superior" in that it's lighter and has a slightly longer reach, sounds like a babbies first len to me.

>>3053242
>lense
Lol, faggot.

>pay more money because is, on an uwa lens made mainly for landscape, yet 30 seconds ago you were justifying the 24 105 because it's lighter.
You're confused bro.

>>3053240
What do you want to use the camera for?
The 24-105 is handy to have wen you go on a holiday and want to pack light. It covers the most useful focal lengths and doesn't weight much. The 24-70 is a fast zoom with crucial sharpness but bulkier and you can trust a business on. It is heavier though and is more cumbersome when you go on a holiday.
Get the 24-70 if you are a serious pro, the 24-105 if hobbyist.

>>3053215
Really good price. Might as well buy it. Sure, the newer lenses might be sharper in the corners, sharper wide open. That's not really an issue for their intended use. The 85/1.4D is no slouch. The only thing it loses out on is AF accuracy, and the ability to make very small adjustments accurately compared to an AF-S motor.

I'd buy the shit out of it just for the cachet of old tank-like Nikkors and that big chunk of glass, but be wary of its condition at that price.

>>3053215
The G is a better lens as far as optics, but the f/1.4D is a big fuckoff heavy piece of glass wrapped in a brick shithouse lens body. If the lens is actually in good condition that's an excellent price and I wouldn't blame you for taking that. I'm kind of suspicious of the price, though.

>>3053328
>>3053316
>>3053215

I have a full set of AF-S/AF-D primes and my experience with the shorter G primes is that I love the photos, but the lenses feel like cheap pieces of shit.

What camera bag do you use?

What camera bag should I get?

F-stop is nice with the inserts and quick access to the inserts, but its stupidly expensive.

Looking at Lowepro Protactic 450A, Flipside 400 AW and Flipside Trek BP 350 AW


I'm tired of hauling my ONA messenger bag around, my shoulder hurts.

What I plan on carrying:

Oben CT2491 tripod
Canon 80D
Tokina 11-20
Sigma 17-70
Canon 85 1.8
YN 600EX-RT II
12.5" lenovo laptop

>>3053232
>>3053229
The 50 1.8 STM is much better than the old design. Mainly it literally doesn't break off your camera anymore.

It's good enough. If you like the 50mm focal length, it's one of the best walk around primes for the 6D.


The sigma 50 1.4 art is stupidly expensive and heavy. You're paying for maximum quality. It's not necessary. The canon is still optically good.

>>3052784
I charge money using a crop canon

>>3053371
I do the same but with my iPhone. True story, was invited to a friends wedding and the photographer bailed on them. Got out my phone, snapped some pictures, sent them afterward and got rewarded with the normal photographer's fee.
It's not always about the gear. It is actually very rare that it is about the gear, the customer wants the memories and the story told in the photos. A few shiny plates and some friends can help with the lighting as well.

File: super takumar.jpg (513KB, 1024x822px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1024x822px

I've got an M42 Super-Takumar lens that I really like, but I need a new body. I've been looking for clear answers on lens compatibilities for a while and I'm not getting anywhere.

What mounts are easily compatible with M42 lenses?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-5N
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2603
Image Height	1949
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:11 16:05:21
Exposure Time	5 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-7.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	822
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Unique Image ID	0F95FB26C0514A02BCCF66A15B699B26

>>3053355
Not a specific recommendation, but
if you have a local military surplus store, CHECK IT OUT and try out the bags there. Cheap, durable, and all sorts of styles.
Medical and gas-mask bags are usually the ones to go for because of their square-ish form factor.
Ones with exterior straps allow you to loop the tripod onto the bag.

>>3053437
Mirrorless ones like Sony E, Fuji X, and m4/3.
Availability of relatively cheap focal length reducers is high too, for these newer mounts to all sorts of legacy mounts.

>>3053363
The stm is still the same old optical design.

Personally I got through about 8 different 50's before I found one I really loved.

>>3053437
Sony e/fe mount is by far the best option for using old adapted lenses, the evf takes away all the problems using manual glass on a modern body.

M42 lenses will also fit perfectly in a pentax mount with a cheap little adapter.

>>3053439
>>3053441

sorry anons I'm retarded and forgot to say I'm looking for a 35mm camera

>>3053437
any mount that is shorter.
even ef.

>>3052197
I have a budget of around 150(maybe160)€ i will be going to a vintage fair tomorrow. I may be look for a yashika tlr, which one should i look for like literal model name?
Also as far as slr what should i be looking for?

I am talking about film cameras of course thx

>>3053437
Pentax K

>>3053495
Also, Spotmatic is M42 but the light meter usually crapped out in them. You can still try an ME Super with a simple adapter ring, but don't forget to take out that small spring with the tiny screw. You screw on the adapter on the lens and mount it like any other K bayonet lens.
If you want digital then there is the K-1 but I assume you also meant film as well.

>>3053478
anyone?

Are there any cheap digital cameras that can take decent photos in low light?

>>3053511
old dslr can go as low as 150€, and i'm talkign about full frame cameras.

>>3053517
Oh wow, I didn't think old DSLRs could go for that cheap. Are there any you would recommend? I'd prefer something a little on the small side for portability, but if it's cheap and works well then anything is good.

>>3053520
I don't really know desu anymore i haven't been into digital photography fro a while but you cna certainly search on yt

>>3053523
Awesome, thanks man.

>>3053355
I have a Lowepro Flipside 400 AW, it is an excellent bag for hikes but not a good traveler bag. You can't fit any size laptop or tablet in and you have limited space for non-photographic stuff. It is strictly for going out on a hike and back.
The Manfrotto Advanced Travel backpack is much better, you can fit all that gear, some clothes and water flask and it has a separate compartment for a laptop.
There is one up for cheap on PF now:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/335069-sale-manfrotto-advanced-travel-backpack-black.html

>>3052570
the kit lens is not worth 200. you are probably better off with a good prime instead. the panasonic 25 mm 1.7 is often recommended. or even get the kit lens used for 50 or something.

File: file.png (357KB, 768x478px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 768x478px

The bitch in the Pepsi ad is shooting with a 645z
Are u jelly?

>>3052544
Well the camera only gets as good as the lenses get so...

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-07 at 7.45.58 PM.png (2MB, 1408x1182px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1408x1182px

Need a pocket-sized camera for mainly street photography that also does 24fps video. Considering the RX100 M4. Anything else I should consider? Fuji X70?

>>3052197
Thinking of upgrading from my t3i as it definitely bottlenecks my 70-200mm f2.8 at least in terms of auto focus speed but not sure if i should get like the 80d or a full frame like the 6d or something even better.

I want a fast zoom lens for my D5200
Should I get the 17-55 f/2.8 or 16-80 f/2.8-4?

>>3053591
Ricoh GR is actually better in terms of image quality than X70 despite being old, and the snap focus fesature is very handy if know what you're doing. X70 has better control layout though imo. The controls on the RX100 are garbage in comparison, and it is kinda slow to wake up, so you have to consider that as well. It's a great camera otherwise. Super slippery tho.

I'm looking to give my DX camera some use for Infrared photog.

What are some of the best DX lenses for a relatively lower price?

How come some lenses with shorter focal lengths are significantly longer than lenses with longer ones?

>>3053643
Because making a proper wide angle requires a complex optical design and a lot of lens elements to correct distortions.

>>3052813
>>3052814
i'm thinking about buying an usef X100 for 250 dollar.

>>3053446
Any pentax.

Which nifty fifty should I buy?

https://www.adorama.com/nk5018afdu.html?utm_source=rflaid913093

https://www.adorama.com/nk5018gu.html?utm_source=rflaid913093

File: .png (569KB, 879x648px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 879x648px

>>3053591
just a heads up for anyone ever getting an rx100 series. add the $15 grip. it's a 3M adhesive grip but makes all the difference in ergo.

>>3053596
Get the 80D or a used 70D

>>3052199
Instaxt wide, i have the neo 90 mini (? bad at remembering names), the controls are nice but it's just too small

>>3053670
>$15 grip
goyed. hakuba grip is $3.

>people trying to sell their 10 year old peanut sensor 10x zoom compact for $300 because they paid $700 at the time
hahahahahahaha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPXlUOkJ3Fw

tony was right all along.

>>3053355
>>3053438
>>3053534
I ended up on ebay searching for used Protactic 450 AW's.

I came across a listing for the bag, for 15€. I'm taking my chances and waiting 3 weeks to see how fake it is.

Every other china seller sells them at 90€, this was the only 10€ listing, so even if its fake, it can't be that bad.

>>3053635

for IR the only poverty option other than the kit lens is the 35mm 1.8 dx

Holy shit

http://kottke.org/17/04/incredible-low-light-camera-turns-night-into-day

>>3053643
In the most basic kind of lens design the distance from the lens to the focal plane is the same length as the focal length, so a 50mm lens will sit 50mm away from the image sensor. With very long focal lengths, the lenses become impractically long so instead they include a telephoto group which is basically like a magnifying glass. The telephoto makes the focal length longer than the physical length, so a 200mm lens can still sit 50mm from the image plane, for example.

SLR cameras have a flappy mirror in the way between the lens and the image plane, so a lens can't get too close to the image sensor. A Nikon F mount, for example, needs a clearance of 46.5mm between the back of the lens and the image sensor. So you physically can't fit a wide angle lens right up against the sensor. Instead, those lenses have a retrofocus design which acts like the opposite of a telephoto group. A retrofocus lens makes the lens longer than its focal length.

It also turns out that retrofocus designs perform better on digital sensors. The microlenses on a digital sensor work better with light entering nearly parallel, like from a telephoto or retrofocus. So although mirrorless cameras can physically fit many older wide-angle lenses, they often perform poorly with weird color fringing and smearing effects that don't happen when that lens is used on a film camera. Also look at stuff like the Zeiss Otus lenses which are supposed to be the sharpest lenses ever. The 55mm Otus is fucking enormous because it's a retrofocus design. There is no practical need for a lens of that focal length to have a retrofocus design, but that design makes it work very well with digital sensors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEQwdr5eIss

File: 20130811_143716.jpg (2MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4128x2322px

Can someone help me with some stuff I found in the attic?

What is all this stuff? Is it any good for modern cameras?

Can I use them with my Canon DSLR?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	GT-I9505
Camera Software	Google
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2322
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:08:11 14:37:15
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	-1/256 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.20 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2322
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	25a981ad57d0e6ca0000000000000000

File: 20130811_153418.jpg (993KB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 4128x2322px

>>3053818

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	GT-I9505
Camera Software	Google
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2322
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:08:11 15:34:18
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	0.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.20 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2322
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	9ac34702d4bc32fb0000000000000000

File: 20130811_153624.jpg (1MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4128x2322px

>>3053819

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	GT-I9505
Camera Software	Google
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2322
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:08:11 15:36:23
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	1.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.20 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2322
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	e7835369e00251d70000000000000000

File: 20130811_153716.jpg (1MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4128x2322px

>>3053820

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2322
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:08:11 15:37:15
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	7/128 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Focal Length	4.20 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2322
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	e07b60faa88beb950000000000000000

>>3053722
>hakuba grip is $3
fake news

>>3053818
>>3053819
>>3053820
>>3053821
resize your shit you cuck!

>>3053715
It's not worth getting a full frame?

https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B0058BW0LS/
ok, i guess it's $9

>>3053715
>>3053834
Also, the 80d doesnt shoot 4k video does it? Is there any canon dslr that does without being hugely expensive like the 5d?

>>3053862
5d4
1dx?
c300ii

>>3053863
i said without being hugely expensive. I would like a 5d mk4 but its just so much for a body that doesnt seem that amazing.

What do you guys use to carry around you gear with? any recommendation for a bag/backpack?

>>3053867
I usually throw it in a regular backpack with the rest of my stuff.

>>3053863
just get a canon whatever + panasonic g80

>>3053867
I'm the guy further up who ordred a fake lowepro protactic 450 AW

I've used an ONA Union Street past 3 years. It's pretty uncomfy for walking more than a few hours.

>>3053653
Do it, the original X100 is great. A little janky and the AF isn't fantastic, but it produces a very nice look to the files. It's basically a free camera if you consider the price of a 35mm f2 by itself.

>>3053738

I bought the dx body alone and all I have is a shitty AF D 50 1.4

I might just get a cheap AF-S or AF-P 18-55

Want to try getting into wildlife photography. Have about $500 I can spend, is the 70-200L non IS the best choice? Any other recommendations?

>>3054122
a 70-200L is nice but the long end will be too short most of the times, even on APS-C. Try and find a used 400/5.6, they are cheap but a very nice wildlife lens. The 70-200L can be used but it is better to have at least a 1.4X TC or rather a 2X TC.

6D for 700$ a good price?

>>3054169
No. 6D is old and has the same AF as in the plastic rebels and its sensor is outperformed by modern mid-range APS-C.

>>3054170
that doesn't really answer my question

>>3053599
17-50 sigma f2.8 and buy cocaine with the money you save

>>3053787
how the fuck does it have this kind of sensitivity

>>3054178
Big pixels, low MP (around 1-3), precise lithographic fabrication of the chip.
Many chips placed in a mosaic gives high MP count.
Precise electronics design negates readout noise and you have a night vision RGB sensor.

>>3054170
>its sensor is outperformed by modern mid-range APS-C

No it's not.

Anyone have any insight on how the Canon 35mm f2 non-IS compares to the new IS version?

The old version can be had for under $200 used, while the new version is around $475 used or $550 new.

>>3054178
From their (shitty, looks like it's made by a 14 year old) website:

>Large pixel pitch sizes allow the chip to collect ultra extreme amounts of light and translate them photons into a clear clean bright image in very dark night scenes. The x27’s low light color technology utilizes specialty algorithms that allow the sensor to see in extreme low light environments traditionally unseen before.

and

>sensor speed together with specialty processing power allows the x27’s CMOS sensor to realize features that you likely couldn’t do with even the best CCDs the fpa can capture light at very high rates of speed while delivering

and

>Back side illumination of chip technology is another area that allows the chip to output higher performance in low light

They also mention the Canon ME20F-SH, and this seems to be based on it:
>The niche specialist camera has an equivalent ISO rating of around 4,000,000 making it capable of shooting in the dark pretty much, and sports a newly developed full-frame 2.26MP 35mm CMOS sensor with a 1080p/60 output. Of course, Canon gave it the name ME20F-SH and a sleek boxy design. It’s a sensor in a box essentially, lacking internal recording, but featuring a state of the art sensor, of which Canon hinted two years ago in 2013.
full-frame 2.26MP 35mm CMOS sensor with a 1080p/60 output.

So what I got is:
- It has a backside illuminated 2.26MP full frame CMOS sensor.
- It can go up to ISO 5.000.000
- It uses a lot of processing to clean up the image.

>>3054183
Yes it is just not from the lolcanon line
Fuji, Nikon, Pentax, Sony APS-C all outperform it

>>3054052
>basically a free camera
why is this a meme?

https://www.strawpoll.me/12708618

>>3054052

But the x100 35mm f2 is trash.

>>3053725
He sure was

>>3054226
>you're tripod
>you are tripod

I am?

>>3054250
>https://www.strawpoll.me/12708618
kys

>>3054250

I have 3 legs.

So this guy is selling a Sigma 17-70 for a dirt cheap price, but he also said it was a "Canon lens".
I'm using an a6000 and never tried lenses other than Sony official ones. Can I use that Sigma on my camera if I use one of those adapter thingies?

File: 0081c80ff30404cfd8acb8693433c8b1.jpg (39KB, 1014x396px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1014x396px

I'm going away on holiday for a couple of weeks, and was thinking of getting a point and shoot. Will this Sony HX60 really be much better than just using my phone? Found it for £180

>>3054273

You can use it with an adapter, but a6000 is a rather old body so the autofocus will be slow.

>>3054297
I see. Thanks, anon.

>>3054287
it's shit.
rx100 minimum.

>>3054273
sigma mc11 adapter but the adapter is $250

>>3054273
Sigma 17-70 is not the constant aperture lens and is as slow as a kit lens. Are you sure you didn't mean the 17-50?

>>3054366
2.8-4 is slow as a kit lens?

Just got an Olympus OM-D E-m10 mkII for $400, it'll be here on Thursday. Did I just get mem'd or was it a good find?

>>3054457
It is compared to f/2.8 constant.
Kit lenses usually go from f/3.5-5.6 which is just half stop slower than f/2.8-4

>>3054462
It is a good camera for a good price. Enjoy it, anon.

>>3054462
Is it 2nd hands?

>>3054470
thx senpai

>>3054472
Yeah, manufacturer refurbished sold through verified retailer with 1 year warranty.

>>3054478
It's a good camera. You could've bought an A6000 for a couple bux more, but the difference isn't huge.

File: kodak-ektra-smartphone.jpg (385KB, 1600x1260px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1600x1260px

anyone own this? i have the cat s60 by bullit and i like it

>>3054468
That's not how f stops work anon. It's 2/3 stops and 1 stop slower on the long end.

I don't understand why people mention Sony for video. That screen dimming and overheating thing seems to hit every 4k capable model and it's a total deal breaker. That's what the GH4/5 are for anyways. Sony is for stills only.

Whats the cheapest full frame to get that isn't too ancient?

I've been waiting for A7II prices to plummet but thats not happening.

>>3054570

>screen dimming and overheating

Honestly, it was only an issue on the a6000 and mark 1 a7 series bodies.

The a6300 is fine.as long as it isn't super hot or over an hour. a6500 has zero issues, and so does the a7 mark 2 series (a7ii, sii, and rii) .

That said, their bigger issue is the rolling shutter. Less of an issue on crop bodies, but still there.

>>3054582

>That said, their bigger issue is the rolling shutter

and 8-bit. ;)

>>3054582
People report dimming on all of the models you listed.

File: DSTE DMW-BLC12.jpg (76KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 700x700px

>>3052197
Has anyone tried cheap batteries for their camera? Are they safe to use, or am I better off just paying a bit more for one that I know is safe? (Lumix G7 batteries are pretty expensive)

>>3054600
I got generic batteries for nikon and they were fine, never failed.

>>3054600
I also had good luck with wasabi brand batteries for my Nikon.

>>3054590
Get an atomos if you need 10 bit 422 with your sony. Or an fs5.

>>3054578
>plummet
>currently available camera, new
>hot shit camera that's got good demand
Do you know how these things work, or are you one of those people who think everything should be free?

>>3054600

I got some generic ones.

Work fine in my a7ii, but error out in my old NEX-C3.

File: 1000-sony_fe_85mm_f18_on_a7rII_with_hood_1488968904.jpg (99KB, 700x404px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 700x404px

>>3054578

a7 plummted, at 800, that is a steal.

Seen a7ii as low as $1,200 refurb. That is an amazing deal.

Will probably drop another few hundred if a7iii ever gets announced.

What's /p/'s opinion on GoPros? I am looking to buy one for me and my wife. She wants to use it to record some interviews, I want it to record my bike trips. Should I pull the trigger? Any recommendations? I have read quite a lot about them, but I still can't decide.

>>3054578
A7ii prices have plummeted, I've seen them go for £800, 5dii's still go for that much!

>>3054649

There are considerably better and cheaper options that the GoPro.

That said, used GoPros are dirt cheap. Plus they have lots of accessory support.

>>3054649
Runcam
Google it.

>>3054570
G80 does 4k indefinitely as well. G85 is limited but only for stupid EU regulation.

>>3054652

>There are considerably better and cheaper options that the GoPro.
Better and cheaper? I've looked into the xiaomeme yi 4k+ and it looks pretty good.

>>3054654

I've read about the runcam. It's super cheap, but it's intended for FPV drones and I'm afraid it won't perform as good as others. Thanks for the reply though.

>>3054659
There is also the Foxeer Box. Similar size as the runcam but 4k

>>3054604
>>3054605
>>3054637
Cool thanks, Sounds like it might be worth just getting some cheaper ones.

This is my first time on this board, so I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask:

I'm planning a trip to Tokyo/Kyoto in august and I'm looking to buy a nice camera to document my trip. Can any of you recommmend a nice camera for city/landscape photography. I was something portable in the $300-$500 price range, preferably lower if possible. I was thinking a DSLR, but I've never used one. I do have a friend that knows a bit about cameras, I thought I'd just ask her first.