/gear/ - Gear Thread

First for A6000 is for faggots.

File: 14714636185053.gif (1MB, 320x240px)

1MB, 320x240px

>>3083362

Would the a7s used be a good all around camera for photos and video? I'd like to have the option of 4K later down the line but would like to ease myself into the full frame meme.

>>3083362
>>3083364
Toppest of kekkles!

>>3083362

fpbp

>>3083365
Get the Lumix G80/85 instead.

>>3083365
Unless you're doing the vast majority video, the a7s isn't great. It's pretty poor for stills and the low mp count can often lead to soft looking shots. The a7s also won't do 4k native, you need an expensive external recorder.

I'd suggest getting an a7ii for now, It's affordable and does a decent job of both video and stills, the first gen a7 range have some pretty shitty usability issues.

>>3083380
>get a news reporter camera instead

Lol, no.

File: 1143786.jpg (27KB, 430x368px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 430x368px

What can you guys tell me about this lens Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM?

Is it nice for a beginner?

>>3083386
Yes, it is perfect for portraits on crop sensor bodies.

>>3083386
>Is it nice for a beginner?
Dude it's THE beginner lens.

>>3083397
35mm would be better for beginners since it is the normal focal length for crop.

>>3083386
NO.

Save up the extra $200 and get the 1.4. The 50mm 1.8 is plasticy shit with a terrible focus ring. You only get one if you truly can't afford anything else/want a lens that you can beat up and replace for cheap. The 50mm 1.4 is worlds better in terms of build quality and will last you. I hate that people continually recommend that lens.

>>3083402
Stop giving advice. You're dumb.

>>3083452
Hi moop, please check your privilege before posting

>>3083455
Nope, I'm not the local Sony Shill.

35mm on a crop body isn't "the normal focal length for crop".

Go learn how crop bodies actually affect focal length.

For a bonus, also figure out why "telescopic compression" has nothing to do with focal length and everything to do with distance to subject.

>>3083460
Think that through again and you will realize how stupid that post is.

>>3083461
So dumb you can't actually show how I'm wrong. Imagine that...

>>3083463
It's the typical anti-sony argument, all front, nothing to back it up.

t. Moopco

>>3083466
Thanks for verifying that you're irredeemably ignorant. I've told you exactly how to verify that your statement is entirely incorrect. Lead a horse to water and such, but you just deflect and insult. I'm done here because I'm not the one walking away from this interaction without having learned something fairly elementary when it comes to photography.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJSRKsj31bE

>shit af
>laggy evf
>slow as mollusk start up
>crappy touch screen. is it resistive touch screen?
>shit lens
>octagon bokeh balls open
>getting btfo by a sony a7r2
>$9000

haslelbad literally became chink shit after getting chinked.
how will they ever recover?

>>3083385
>news reporter camera
>panasonic
hahahahahaha.

>>3083481
Fuji GFX and Pentax 645z totally trumps that hassy.
It is sad how hassy dies in such a shame.

>>3083471
>wall of text
Lol, nah, you've said nothing senpai.

>>3083483
Gh4 have been used extensively by the media, bbc in particular.

>>3083484
Pentax has nothing on the Hasselblad. Its image processing is behind the other two, and it's 4 times the size and weight of the Hasselblad.

>>3083485
News reporters use smartphones these days.

They fire all their camera guys and just give the journalist bitch a selfie smartphone.

>>3083494
>image processing
Nobody shoots a MF for out of camera JPEGs.

>>3083496
There is processing before that stage, retard.

Compare the Fuji to the Pentax at high ISO, you will realise Fuji gets more out of the sensor than pantax memebrand.

>>3083497
>fuji
>brand renown for fuckign with it's raws and applying super heavy noise reduction

>implying that identical sensors can be objectively improved as opposed to deciding which areas will be a little lacking and which areas will be improved.

lol.

Is something like the Ricoh GR good to learn with, or do I suck it up and get a DSLR/mirrorless?

I want something I'll always have with me.

>>3083498
>moopco
You can't make me take you seriously

>>3083498
>I'm a gearfag but don't know what signal processing is

>>3083504
please, elaborate. I'm down for a laugh.

>>3083386
Anon, don't listen to >>3083450, it is the most retarded opinion I've heard in a long time. The 1.4 is softer than the new 1.8 across the entire aperture range. You'd have to be a retard to spend 3x the amount on something that produces overall worse pictures.

>>3083501
Ricoh GR or any other compact fixed lens camera is better than a DSLR/Mirrorless to learn with because you can make an informed decision about what kind of system you want later after you learn the ropes, instead of being stuck with something and realizing you don't like it at all. Plus, even if you later get some expensive camera system, the ricoh GR is still really useful.

Is an Olympus E-P1 worth it for $100? Comes with both kit lenses, flash and optical viewfinder.

Looking for something relatively portable, will be doing largely landscape/street photography, some low-light and portrait shots.
Heard horrible things about the autofocus on those things but I shouldn't be shooting moving subjects too much.
Will be my first 'proper' camera.

>>3083525
That's a great deal. Don't expect amazing low-light performance, though. There will be noise.

File: 1487864880944.png (133KB, 500x356px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 500x356px

I work at a hospital as photography. It's the only reason I got into photography, but I haven't been doing it for a very long time. Only the last 8 months or so. I've been branching out using my camera outside work, but I want to expand my collection of lenses.

>Canon 50mm 1.8

Standard lens I use for neonatal photos. They don't need to be super detailed and not super wide or close. This lens works well for this.

>Sigma 30mm 1.4

I only got this for the wider aperture. Sometimes I shoot in lower light conditions indoors. Again, focal length didn't matter.

>Tokina 11-16mm 2.8

I got this to shoot a friend's wedding. Things went well! I just needed something wide.

>Sigma 18-35mm 1.8

This was the only lens I bought for myself without consideration for work. I watched a lot of reviews and it seemed to be one of the best lenses for the $1000CDN I paid for it. I use this lens the most.

I want to start doing portraits so I'm looking for a telephoto lens, something with effective focal length 120mm or so, give or take. I was eying the Canon 85mm 1.8 since with APS-C this works as 136mm but I think a zoom lens would be better for me. I don't need a wide zoom range, definitely NOT something like 18-200mm/18-300mm, etc. Something like 70-100, a thin zoom range but still in the range I want.

What do you guys suggest for my first telephoto lens? I borrowed a friend's Canon 55-250 3.6-5.6 I think it was? I didn't like the rotating threads when zooming, nor was I fussy for the extending body. I know zoom telephoto typically does not have internal zooming, but any exist?

My budget is at highest $800, but ideally I'd like it to be $700 or under. Someone suggested the Tamron 70-200 but this is a $1500 lens here.

What do you think of the image quality of Nikon Coolpix P340 as opposed to having a Nikon D3200 system camera?

I have a D3200 and I'm looking for a camera that fits in my pocket when I go out and dont necessarily want to carry a camera bag.

File: Screenshot_20170526-192227.png (737KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 1080x1920px

Fuuuuuuuck


I wanna go!

>>3083360
I want to create content that isnt fucked by the shitty canon t3i's my university makes us use. Im broke af. I have 1k to my name. Maybe more if a parent helps. But I dont know what to do. Should I buy a better lens for the t3i I can personally use? Or buy lights, mics? Or a whole new camera. What brand?

Ive done so much research yet I really get info that contradicts each brand. Its such a cluster fuck!

Tl:dr what should I have to make decent documentary films at school

>>3083583
Try to make it work. Learn the weaknesses of the system and try to overcome them. Even the absolute trash gear will produce quality content in competent hands.
Save your money and take the time you have to use shit gear to actually learn shitload of useful skills to produce good content. Taking the easy route of buying the best of the best will backlash on you years from now.

>>3083580
>What do you think of the image quality of Nikon Coolpix P340
It's shit. Not even fancy shit, just plain shit.

>>3083589

But the point is, do you think D3200 creates shit as well?

>>3083590
D3200 is a very capable camera in good hands, it lets you improve a lot as a beginner.

>>3083580
Ricoh grii if you really need the portability. The d3200 is fine though m8

>t. D3300 cuck

>>3083599

>Nikon D3200 body
$100

>Ricoh GR II
>800 bucks

Prolly a nice camera but I'm unemployed so..

Is there any way to get D3200 quality in pocket size?

>>3083604
If you want pocket size, use your phone.
If you want DSLR quality in pocket size you need to pay for it.

>>3083497
>implying bentax image processing is not the best
>implying fooji didn't cheat by cooking the raws and giving lower exposure than the rated iso.

>>3083386
Listen to >>3083506 not >>3083450.

The f1.4 is universally regarded as a downgrade from the f1.8 stm. The older f1.8 while optically identical are mechanically trash. I don't recommend 50mm lenses on crop for beginners. On full frame it's great. I turn off all lens corrections in the camera. When you do that it has a lot of vignetting wide open and is only acceptably sharp in the very center. With lens correction or stopped down it's a fantastic lens. It's so small too so it makes your camera more compact.

I would recommend the 50mm f1.8 STM. I would not recommend the older f1.8 version. I would not recommend it on crop unless you know that you are really getting an 85mm lens.

>>3083606

>use ur phone

I have a Nokia 3310 as my daily carrier.

>>3083525
That is cell phone tier performance. I recommend you save up unless you have no other use for your money.

>>3083552
Why don't you use your 50mm for portraits since you're on crop?

>>3083580
Just throw your D3200 over your shoulder. It will get more use that way.

>>3083582
Why? It looks like a bunch of market up shit for Chinese people to buy. You are better of shopping on ebay or yahoo japan. Worst case scenario get a middleman.

>>3083583
You want to shoot video?

Good morning,

I'm in desperate need of a compact, fixed lens, rechargeable battery and most importantly under 1mp camera. The lower the better in fact.

Are there any cameras that fit my description?

Please help sen/p/ais

>>3083690
Like fifteen years ago they used to have these keychain cameras on ebay. They were tiny little things that took one AAA battery and took 640x480 pictures. Try seeing if they still make those. They cost like twenty bucks then, check ebay and the chink shit places /g/ likes to shop at.

>>3083690
Sony A6000

>>3083700
Nice maymay friendo but I need a usable camera.

>>3083402
This is true, but the 50 is cheaper and more commonplace.

>>3083707
The 35 for my Pentax cost me 80 bongs and 5 shingles.

What's the consensus on the Nikon D610?

Anything better same price or cheaper?

>>3083761
Pentax K-1 or D750.

>>3083765
>same price or cheaper
And I really mean it, the D610 already stretches my current budget to the limit. Both of those are like 30% more expensive.

File: IMG_1557.jpg (49KB, 564x415px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 564x415px

Is this a good all round objective for a beginner?

[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	564
Image Height	415
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3083761
D600 is the same camera for cheaper

>>3083770
K-3II or D7200 then.

>>3083774
You will also get more oil for your money.

>>3083771
Your objective as a beginner is to learn proper exposure and composition, not to buy new lenses.

>>3083771
This is an okay lens for a cheap one.

There isn't really any beginner's gear. Get something nice and current straight away if you can. You'll be able to operate it no problem in only hours.

>>3083495
Whatever you say, Isi

>>3083805
It is true though. I saw a few local photojournalists selling bakery products and gyros after the local photog market got saturated.
All the reporters are making the (shitty) photos with their phones.
Furiatingly enough a dumb kid from high school got hired to the local town news to exclusively taking photos... you guessed it, with the company iPhone!
The industry is no longer respected.

>>3083811

As long as you can make photos with BOKEH you are considered professional to the gwneral public.

>>3083814
Not really, no. The general public only knows their phone photos, so they don't care about borkeh
A phone photo in the news is not really news anymore.

>>3083660

I'm not super experienced but from what I gather, focal length plays a part in how flat the face appears in a portrait. 50mm (80mm) doesn't look right, although when I played with the 55-250mm, it did look good. That lens in particular isn't super sharp or of note, however.

Additionally, focus distance has been a problem.

>>3083851
Focal length is irrelevant in the "flat" look. The term you are looking for is perspective distortion, it is only related to the distance of your subject.
Focal length affects your framing and how far you place your subject. 80mm equivalent means upper body portraits, maybe head and shoulder, but longer focal length (100-135mm) will get you a good distance with head and shoulder framing for a flattering image.
You should experience with your subject placement with the 50mm (80mm equivalent) lens, maybe you will find a sweet spot.
For full body portraits a normal focal length (40-60mm equivalent) is the best, but in this case you have to play with surroundings to place the subject in a pleasing composition with the environment.

>>3083816
you idiot
the general public knows their phone cant do bokeh, which means that professionals do bokeh

you absolute fucking idiot
do you even know a single normie

>>3083861
You expect too much from the crowd.
I told you this from experience, from lots of different "normies" who don't give a fuck if you take photos with a camera or with a phone. Most will say it's a nerd thing because a phone can take as good photo as anything else.
And now you see why the industry has fallen so deep, no respect for the photographer because a single tap on your phone does an acceptable job. The key word is acceptable, and that the news doesn't need to keep photographers on the payroll or even keep an inventory of gear.

How long until Sony makes an e-mount phone?

File: 3344288263.jpg (33KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x450px

>>3083866
Already did. It sucks.

File: 17080753629_1532ddebe2_b.jpg (139KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1024x576px

>>3083867

That is just an attachment for any phone.

My friend has one, it is okay for snapshits.

>>3083659
How much better would an OM-D E-M5 be? I can get one for $300.

>>3083885
Much more modern. It's 4-5 generations newer than the E-P1, has fast AF, an EVF, and better controls.

File: Clipboard02.jpg (78KB, 959x751px)

78KB, 959x751px

So I bought a Vivitar 100mm/2.8 Macro from eBay ridiculously cheap - only it seems some idiot got a shitty lens hood either stuck or possibly even glued to the filter thread. Any good way to get rid of it?

Pic related. The whole three-layered stack of shit is actually the offending part. The shiny (fouth from the top) black ring below it is the top of the lens' own, integrated, extendable lens hood.

>>3083866
>yfw you can make calls and text on the A7III
>But you need to buy the phone app on the Sony marketplace for $300

I'm thinking about picking up another camera, I have a canon Ae-1 which i really enjoy, but I wouldn't mind 1 more film camera. How would a fuji natura s or Leica be? I was thinking between the two. I do definitely want something which has some good specs, good quality, no cheap slav shit.

>>3083604
The sony nex 7, a6000, a6300 and a6500 all use the same 24mp sensor as the d3200 and are much smaller.

>>3084020
Not to mention the EVF is actually better than the shitty pentamirror in the D3200. Can't exactly compare it to the pentaprism in the D7X00 series, but definitely better than a 3200.

>>3084014
O L Y M P U S
X A

>>3084020
That's wrong.
Nex7 to A6000 was completely new sensor.
A6000 to A6300 was completely new sensor.
A6300 to A6500 was the same sensor.

The difference between T1,5 and T1,8 is basically nothing even in low light. Right?

I'm thinking of getting an F1,8 lens, and thought they would save a ton of size and weight compared to big F1,4 lens.

File: mamiya-m645af.jpg (46KB, 516x454px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 516x454px

Is a Mamiya 645 AF + 80mm 1:2.8 lens + 120 film back for ~$560 as good a deal as I think it is?

How heavy/portable are these?

>>3084038
It's still about two thirds of a stop - can be quite noticeable.

And for quite many lenses particularly on DSLR, the f/1.4 variant is sharper than a cheaper f/1.8 variant.

>>3084038
Yes, you shouldn't be shooting wide open anyways. Less true for newer lenses, though. I fell for the 1.4 meme and got a Zuiko 50mm 1.4 when I already had the ultra cheap and ultra sharp 1.8.

In terms of handheld systems (compact/mirrorless) at what price point do cameras start to surpass smartphones?

I have a crummy g4play. Would the Fuji x70 be a good upgrade?

>>3084050
Depends on what you're using.

Mediocre f/1.4 lenses may be a newer thing for MFT, but sharp f/1.4 have been around for FF for quite a while now.

>>3084073
At around $400-500 it should become fairly obviously better than even the higher-end smartphones. A6000 or GH80 or RX100 II or whatever surpass most smartphones. Surely that Fuji, too.

>>3084074

you kinda just repeated what I said but ok

>sharp f/1.4 have been around for FF for quite a while now

yes, I love my rokinon 35 and 85 1.4 but he was asking about light difference and weight

>>3084024
Not to mention the atrocious user interface

What would be better and why: entry level full frame cameras, or equivalent price range aps-c cameras?

>>3084086
That's a very difficult choice, the vendors that have both APS-C and FF cameras will give you many reasons to get either, and I don't think I can list them all.

If you often want to do wide angle shots, FF will probably be preferable because it has the better lenses (they're still not cheap, but it has them).

If you much prefer lower weight or packing size, the higher-end APS-C might be preferable - though some FF setups also are really quite small.

File: pcamer.png (27KB, 281x133px)

27KB, 281x133px

I want to be a sony fanboy and buy useless gear, waste my money

Why do they make this shit so difficult for me?

pic related

>>3084093

What? The apps just give you shit .jpegs.

No reason to bother with them.

>>3084098
so even if I did go through with all sign up and shit

their basic timelapse or smartphone control app would still be only jpeg?? wtf

File: C-GpHuQUAAATo0U.jpg (116KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 900x1200px

>>3084131

Control app is raw, it just wont transfer raws to your cellphone.

There is a better timelapse tethering app in the android market.

>>3084133
>raw
but no video right?

>>3084131
I think the smarphone control app is preinstalled on all cameras and you don't need to sign up to get it.

Timelapse... was that preinstalled on some newer cameras? I don't remember. I'm just using a hardware device or the smartphone control app, not the in-camera app.


But you *do* need to sign up with Google to get the Android apps on the smartphone side.

>>3084092
What about low light performance and upgrade possibilities?

File: 10.jpg (97KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 600x399px

What am I to look for when getting some lights at home for model photography?

I live very small, do a lot of girls portraits and some nudes. Big part of the the challenge has been to convince them to agree to any photos. Big professional stuff would probably just scare away people (and I'm shit tier photographer so it wouldn't matter anyway)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Photographer	Cameron Knight
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	966
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2011:01:07 15:24:32
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/14.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	399
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3084172
Get a couple of cheap manual flashguns, two mounting poles and a remote for the flashes, maybe a couple of diffusers.
Boom, you are ready for 90% of professional grade portraits

>>3084148
Full frame will be better in low light if you shoot at the same aperture.

But with an APS-C camera you can get faster zoom lenses.
Like the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 instead of the typical full frame 24-70 f/2.8.
Or you might use a 70-200 f/2.8 instead of a 300 f/4.

With prime lenses on the other hand full frame is at a clear advantage.
You'd need an f/0.95 to get the same result as an f/1.4 on full frame - and those are unfortunately rare and AFAIK all lack auto focus.

>>3084141
Nah you need to pay like $10 for timelapses because Sony.

Why do people willingly trade their old gear into places like KEH and B&H at prices well under the going rate?

>>3084253
Quicker, easier and you don't have to deal with niggers.

>>3084254
So sell on forums, not CL/Facebook/eBay.

CL is full of lowballers anyway.

>>3083911
mirroless is the future

>>3084287
Takes time, months even. With B&H you just walk in or send in the gear and you get paid immediately. Not as much as you could get selling on your own, but time costs more so you are better off this way.

>>3084148
> low light performance
Normal for APS-C (basically nothing better though any higher-end APS-C will perform ~the same).

Sony has very low light capable FF cameras with the A7S II, A7R II and A9 and there are matching good primes - but as always that starts to cost some money.

> upgrade possibilities
Normal. Costs money but you can get a lot of good glass, much better bodies and good accessories.

I found a good deal for a xt10+ f2 35 mm lens.

I don't want to change lenses when I'm travelling (it will also be my first camera). I found the x100t for about the same price (maybe a bit more) and the x70 for about 200 euros less. What's the best option? I'm kinda wary of having something fragile in my bag.

>>3084426
Well, what focal length do you want? Those are 3 different cameras, with 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm equivalent lenses. The build quality should be similar, the x70 will be the smallest, the xt10 will be most versatile, and the x100 is a solid middle ground. Do you want to shoot using a screen, optical viewfinder, or electronic viewfinder?

>>3084440
Not bothered by no viewfinder as I'm a pleb that has always used by phone before. Basically just looking for an upgrade from my phone. I'm terms of lens, I hike and sometimes take pictures in the street of architecture.

I've been holding off on buying a few Pentax lenses for a little while, but did the prices just shoot up by $300 per lens across the board?

I've been watching the 31mm FA limited in particular. They used to be $700. Now they're like $1000+.

>>3084477
Pentax has half a leg in the grave. You should have gone for one of the big manufacturers instead.

>>3083771
When I had a 5DII, my go-to lens was the 40mm pancake and I used it for practically everything, so the 24mm should be pretty good too.

I'm about to buy this for my canon.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Excellent-CANON-new-FD-28-85mm-F4-NFD-Zoom-Macro-MF-Lens-From-Japan-/122517146005?hash=item1c86974995:g:KN0AAOSwtGlZDHDe

Should i hold off or hit the trigger?

>>3084481
>$128.00 for an old zoom lens

>>3084481

That is similar in quality to the Minolta 35-70 f/3.5, right?

Go for it, the Minolta is fucking fantastic even on a modern body.

>>3084490

It's for my canon ae-1. All i have is a 50mm It just doesn't get the job done for anything more then 20-30 feet. I've heard really good things about it for close and long range. It looks to be in mint condition, can't really get it for lower then 80-100

>>3084492

Ya it's not as popular as the 35-70 mms that were released but I heard it has a good reputation for an all around lens.

I already have a D5300 but I found a Rebel t5 for $125. Comes with some lenses too. I know it's not a t5i, but at $125 this should be a obvious pick up right?

>>3084510
What's the shutter count?

>>3084512
Not sure, but it's coming off some chick on fb marketplace so I can't imagine it being obnoxiously high.

>>3084510
It will be less than you D5300 and the sensor is definitely worse. Stay with the D5300 or if you don't mind the 11 AF points, look for a used D7000, that will be an excellent upgrade for you, especially with the cheaper screwdrive AF lenses.

I've been seeing a lot of footage from compact cameras with extreme amounts of zoom capability.

I have never checked up on these because lol point and shit, but these footages really impress me.

What are some recent cameras that can zoom really far?

>>3084678
The RX10 mark 3 currently has the highest quality 600mm equivalent lens.

It doesn't have PDAF though. I bet you the mark 4 is on the way with that faster AF.

>>3084678
All bridge cameras are junk. Even if the lens can zoom in you are stick with a shitty superzoom lens and a tiny ass sensor in a DSLR size form. Shitty CA ridden soft as fuck images no matter what you do.
You are better off getting a proper DSLR and a good tele/telezoom lens, 300mm lens will give you a 450mm equivalent angle on APS-C which is enough for most uses.

File: J5l3AQY - Imgur.webm (1MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x404px

>>3084679
>>3084690
The RX10mk3 doesn't have this kind of range though.

I'm not saying I'd buy one. But it would be very cool to have for long zooms like this. Scouting or whatever similar.

>>3084694
That's a completely different thing yeah. Probably has a very super tiny sensor that is smaller than smartphone to get that range.

>>3084694
For scouting I use simple (but good quality) binoculars. For photos I use a Sigma 50-500mm on crop body, this is wildlife and sports only.

>>3084695
It has a very wide angle range too. This is why I'm curious.

>>3084698
500mm on crop sensor wouldn't reach that far though.

My old 400mm pentax with 2x converter, on crop sensor, doesn't reach far at all.

>>3084077
Fuji x70 is apsc its a massive upgrade from a phone

.t someone justifying their x70 purchase

>>3083907

Slowly cut the inside of it while you keep trying to snap it. Be careful.

a7 vs a7r vs a7II and why, keeping value in mind as I want to upgrade later

>>3084707

a7ii.

Best third party adapter support in case you want to dick with other mounts.

Though honestly, a7iii is rumored to come out in November.

>>3084701
You are misunderstanding this, long lenses are not meant to reach far. They are meant to have a reasonable reach without disturbing your subject and have enough magnification for your subject to fill the frame.
Telephoto is not about peeping into the cleavage of the girl on the next mountain. The air is not still, you will have shimmering distortion and softening after a few hundred meters anyways.

>>3084707
All three are low value. Get a Panasonic, Fuji or a decent DSLR, Nikon, Pentax or Canon FF.

I was all set to buy a 90mm f2 portrait lens everybody raves about, but then I saw comments that it's hard to shoot a 90/135 lens handheld with no stabilization, that it pretty much isn't going to work indoors in most situations due to light and the distance to the subject. Would I be better off getting something in the 50-60mm range?

>>3084708
eh I'd probably need to wait at least a year until I could get a used A7iii at a decent price.

As it is A7ii and A7r are both ~30% more expensive than A7 here, which is still something I can afford.

>>3084707
>keeping value in mind
A7R ii is the value proposition in my opinion. It goes for 2200 dollars these days. It was originally a 3100 dollar camera.

It's also the camera with the best high resolution sensor.

>>3084713
and the a7ii can go for under $1000
IF more resolution that 99% of people will never utilise is worth $1200 to you then go ahead and get the r.

>>3084713
Look, I also want the best shit around, but listing a camera that's twice the price of any I listed isn't exactly helpful.

That's the upgrade path(or the A7Riii).

>>3084715
Value is a relative term I guess. It was just in case you didn't know.

>>3084715
having owned the a7, a7r and a7ii
Get the a7ii all day.

The A7 was great when i first got it, but the autofocus was pretty poor and the finish goes a bit oily and greasy.

The a7r, whilst it could make VERY sharp images, only the very best lenses showed up those differences and at the cost of lightroom taking fucking AGES, even with an i7, 16gb ram and an SSD. I had this for all of about 2 weeks before returning it.

The a7ii has been the perfect blend of everything, sensible resolution, awesome af speed, nice finish on the exterior, ibis is the absolute tits. The only thing that would tempt me towards an a7iii is if it has a completely new kind of sensor in it as CMOS has pretty much hit it's limits.

Oh, look guys, poopco is going strong today. Too bad the A9 sucks donkeyballs, huh?

>>3084718
Every time I ask a question about a Sony camera, someone finds it necessary to start saying something about a poopco/moopco, it's boring, get a life, let others have an adult conversation.

File: 1383731317312.jpg (61KB, 536x375px)

61KB, 536x375px

>>3084721
Heh. Nintendo fans can never grow up. They are children for life.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Live Photo Gallery14.0.8081.709
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2009:11:02 09:30:25
Unique Image ID	555BD546351B446C8712083713D3385E

What causes mold to develop in older lenses?

Is it possible for it to happen as a lens ages even if it is in regular use?

Is there any treatment to stop it if it has started?

>>3084736
Humidity, warmth, dust, having an already mouldy lens next to other gear, so poor treatment in general.
You can stop it with intense UV treatment, but if it etched itself into the glass it's a goner anyways.

I have a d3200 and I find myself not carrying it places due to bulk (I know it's small already...but it's true.). I seem to be struggling on learning how to properly expose a scene anyways...

I was thinking of switching to a mirrorless system, especially since I'm going on a trip to Europe in September. Would a Fuji XT1 and Fuji 35 f2 for $740 at my local shop be a good deal? Would the xt1 be a good camera to learn on? I think I would appreciate the more direct control dials...

>>3084712

I can't recomend an a7 unless you plan on using nothing but old manual lenses.

The AF on it is just too slow.

File: X-E2-BBJP3568.jpg (298KB, 1499x1000px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1499x1000px

>>3084743
>Would the xt1 be a good camera to learn on?

As long as you are aware of it's limitations, yes.

The autofocus is slow on the XT-1 body, and Fuji does weird things to their jpegs. Some swear by it, but if you prefer more neutral colors you will be disappointed.

Fuji raws are also a pain to work with, they must be converted before you can do anything with them.

And to be honest, it isn't that much smaller than a DSLR. It is not pocketable by any definition of the word, and you will pretty much need a bag that could fit your DSLR to bring it with you anywhere (pic related).

You'd probably be better of upgrading your current body or picking up some lenses.

Or hell, picking up an old manual film camera and using it to learn the exposure triangle. A properly scanned 35mm film negative has just as much detail as the best digital sensor. Plus there is just something nice about the tactile feel of flicking the film advance lever and handling film spools.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	83 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4811
Image Height	3207
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	222 dpi
Vertical Resolution	222 dpi
Image Created	2014:04:30 20:24:30
Exposure Time	1/180 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Brightness	-3.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1499
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3084743
Put on a 35/1.8 or a pancake, I know Pentax has a a few, maybe Nikon as well. Put it in a small carry bag with a bottle of water and some other junk and you are set to go anywhere with a camera.

>>3084772
>posts camera with grip and huge lens on it
fuck off retard

>>3084743
I'm going to tell you a secret kid. If you really plan on using your camera then feels should be more important to you than specs.

Only you know what you want to use it for. I own a XT1 and a D800 and I love both of them equally for different things. I'm also a stranger on the internet so there is no way for me to tell what's good for you.

A mirrorless camera could help you expose better due to the EVF, but exposing right shouldn't be that hard to beginn with and can be learned with any camera.

>>3084772
>comparing a 1.8 with a 1.2

>>3084703
I'm thinking of that camera. Would you actually recommend it?

>>3084819
It's a good camera if you mostly shoot 28mm equivalent.

>>3084823
28 seems pretty useful for me. I do Street and the occasional landscape.

>>3084879
Alternative is the Ricoh GR, but use a lintfree sleeve for it to protect it from dust.

>>3084886
Surely if the problem with retractable lenses is that they suck in air/dust when turning them on and off, then putting it in a sleeve wouldn't help? I saw someone online put an adapter and a filter which looks like a pretty good solution (except for making it a bit large).

should i upgrade from a 600d to a 6d or a 5d mk2?

I recently picked up a 24-105 4l and 50mm 1.4. Feels like im being short changed with the crop factor.

>>3085050
Replace the 24-105 with a Sigma 17-50/2.8 or 17-70 and you will have the wide angle. The 50/1.4 is an excellent pro grade portrait lens on a crop sensor.
The problem with Canon (and Nikon) is that they don't offer good lens options for APS-C, so the crop compromise becomes a drawback.

i require a macro lens for canon, can be used under $200. what do you fuckers use and what do you like about it or dislike

>>3085050
5D II is an ancient device with painful AF, poor sensor and all that.

You should upgrade to a 5D IV (or a comparable model from competitors) if you want a camera that isn't making you "miss out" on current FF - tier performance.

>>3085058
Tamron 90/2.8. There is a cheap manual focus adaptall2 version and frankly you wouldn't want AF over 1:2 ratio, it is better to use a macro rail on the tripod.

>>3085062
I'm sure it's still a upgrade over the 600D. 5d IV is too much money for me.
Probably should have mentioned this in the first post but I'm only looking to spend $800-1000.

>>3085056
Thanks for the suggestion, I check out some reviews on the 17-50. The lower f stop would help in low light situations.

>>3085058
> what do you fuckers use and what do you like about it or dislike
Sony 90mm FE.

Sharp, bright, so even it doesn't even really need a lens correction profile, works next to perfectly with MF and also does really quite well with AF.

On Canon, the closest equivalent (and my prior favourite) I know about was the 100mm Canon L macro, which I recommend almost without reservation.

> under $200
I have a Marumi DHG close-up filter lens.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/marumi/pool/

But the 90mm FE is brighter, has much less distortion and other flaws, easier to work with, sharper - it's just superior in every way other than size and weight.

If you somehow need to travel compact, maybe bringing the close-up filter lens is better.

File: 1.jpg (146KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1000x500px

Between these two types of extension tubes, is there a difference in performance?

They both are made for Full frame, but one of them is a full circle shape, while the other has those walls.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:07:18 11:55:12
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/9.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	68.00 mm
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3085067
If you still want to upgrade the body it worth checking out the 80D, or switching systems to either Nikon or Pentax, the lenses are available for them too and especially Pentax has an extensive lens library for APS-C, including pro grade lenses. The 70-200/2.8 equivalent (50-135/2.8) costs less than the Canon one and weighs less than half, also better weather sealing.

>>3085063
>>3085068

thanks

>>3085068

Seconding the 90mm.

Was hesitant to spend $900 on a lens, but it was worth every penny.

>>3085067
> I'm sure it's still a upgrade over the 600D.
The 5D II actually pissed me off with its tiny buffer, slow buffer clearing time, slow shooting speed, slow AF and quite many other deficits.

I'd take a decent APS-C like the 80D or such over the 5D II any day.

> too much money for me
I'd save up until I could afford a better camera, or kit out an overall cheaper to maintain over time MFT / APS-C setup.

YMMV. I can see how it somehow could be possible that you might have just the right compromises on the 5D II and also have your future lenses (if any) adequately covered by inexpensive FF ones.

Give me suggestions for your favorite wide angle/standard lens.
(please)

>>3085084
Mount? Format?

>>3085084
For what lens mount and format?

>>3085089
>>3085090
Whoops. Canon EF/EF-S, APS-C (canon).

>>3085091
The old plastic 50/1.8 EF II has a gorgeous rendering. Haven't tried the STM version.

I have an Olympus EPL-2 and want to upgrade. Would it be better to move to an Olympus OM-D EM-5 (can use current lenses) or get a Canon Rebel T5i? I'm getting a little tired of micro four thirds to be frank.

>>3085093
STM version is supposedly slightly sharper but has more vignetting

Just bought this Pentax ME with a 50mm f1.2 lens for $10 at an auction. The lens alone is worth $300, people don't know shit about film cameras lmao

File: IMG_0890.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>3085130
PIC RELATED BAKA

>>3085135
NIGGA WHAT THE FUCK I TYPED IN "BAKA" NOT "BAKA" I DONT EVEN TYPE THAT SHIT HOW TF DOES AUTOCORRECT EVEN DO THAT SHIT FOH MY AUTOCORRECT IS A MF WEABOO

>>3085136
I typed in s m h. I guess 4chan
does it. That shit ain't funny

Are plastic macro tubes better than metal macro tubes?

The plastic ones are 52 gram
The metal is 95 gram

>>3085136

baka

>>3085139
There isn't really an advantage to have metal as tube material.

But at the mount's contact points it usually should be a good thing to have metal.

>>3085158
Yes there is, especially if you intend to use a big heavy lens like a 70-200/2.8

Popping in to say thanks to the people who helped me with my macro lens a couple weeks ago, handed in my photography assignment today and it did really well.

>>3085312
gg

File: 793A2861-acr.jpg (43KB, 590x393px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 590x393px

Sup /p/. Clueless fag here.

I'm looking for a point-and-shoot camera under 400€ and RX100s seem the most interesting option so far. Any other model I should take into consideration?

I want something durable and simple for taking thousands of photos when travelling.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual

>>3085339
Why would you want a point and shoot? Also Panasonic Lumix Lx100

>>3085348
Can't be used on a professional camera.

>>3085339
I bought a Canon G7X mkii, it's a point and shoot that's about on par with the rx100 mk3 and seriously regretted it. Not having interchangeable lenses was painful, as was the shitty manual focus that took years to do. The picture quality is good but not stellar for post process. Anything you can do with a point and shoot can be done 10x better with a regular crop sensor camera. And don't fall for the "fast autofocus" meme. I did and not the only lenses I use are manual lenses and I couldn't give less of a shit about fast focusing time.

>>3085370
You did good, the G7XII has the better lens than the G9XII. Much better in fact.

hey guys, say if this is utterly retarded but O just had a brainfart:
RN we have lots of 5-axis stabiliyation cameras and the 6th axis missing is AFAIK the forth-back axis that moves the sensor towards the lens or away from it.
I am a fan of adapting lenses, and couldnt this axis technically also be used to create a sort-of autofocus on manual lenses?

>>3085424
This is basically what you are looking for. It's still a pretty new implementation, but they'll surely perfect this kind of adapter over time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaX7LglfqLw

Theoretically this might somehow be done by moving a sensor too, but there isn't necessarily enough physical space between the sensor and rearmost element of a lens on a modern mount.

Plus you'd need another control to manually focus with the internal method then adding another method to the tradition method of twisting or sliding something on "the lens" or its mount.

>>3085475
>>3085475
that's a really neat thing.
I thoughtmmore on "perfecting" a manual focus down to the hair
I love my Panny autofocus, so missing manual focus when adapting is frustrating AF
the space thing is kind of a limiting factor tho

how do you carry your tripods around when you are actively shooting without them but might need one?

>>3085479
Attached to the outside of my backpack, I used to be able to fit it inside my older bag until I got a new one

>>3085477
A linear motor in such a device can produce perfect focus down to the hair - same as linear motors inside modern lenses.

This is just not a perfect implementation yet.

> I love my Panny autofocus, so missing manual focus when adapting is frustrating AF
I'd think any lens mount that opens the lens-camera communication protocols to third parties will have theoretical chance of getting something like this device.

Though if you have a long flange focal length, you don't have that many lenses you can adapt - most entities will really not be able to produce and market an adapter WITH a set of complex geometry glass that corrects for a longer-than-designed overall distance between lens and sensor.

These adapters will remain be far more useful on mirrorless cameras with short flange focal length. And the best variants will probably be on Sony's E-mount for a while anyhow, it's where they started making and perfecting these.

>>3085479
Travel tripod?

Folded in the carry bag that came with the tripod. Individually or inside a backpack.

Studio tripod? Uh, that'd have to be in the back of the car and then just kinda lugged around by hand individually on site.

File: Screenshot_20170529-233228_01.png (662KB, 1080x1051px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 1080x1051px

Hello /p/,

I'm torn between the Olympus OM-D E-M5 (Mark I) and the E-M10 Mark II. Have anyone used either of those two?

The E-M5 is still quite expensive in my country, would it be worth it to get a used one of it rather than a new E-M10 Mark II?

Is the price difference worth it? Or is the E-M10 Mark II a much better camera than the E-M5?

Help me. Thank you.

>>3085484
my only tripod right now is a bogen professional tripod 3001 that used to be my grandpa's, but it seems to fit fine to the side of my backpack like the other guy suggested

>>3085489
That's certainly a way of doing it if you have a backpack where it works well.

I myself got a Chinese carbon tripod with small folded length (~40cm) - apart from lowering the size it also reduced the weight from what I had / have for stationary use. Didn't cost very much, was well worth it.

You can get even smaller ones if you don't mind them being less high when fully extended (many of the really short ones are "tabletop" ones).

>>3085515
the backpack I have has 2 straps for a tripod so its working just fine, a bit unbalanced while I only have the tripod on it but when I get an adapter for my older lenses it should balance out the weight

Complete ignorant here

I got a shitty canon 1300D with the shitty standard 18-55 canon and a shitty 70-300 tamron

I love shooting huge landscapes, portraits and street photography, I have absolutely no idea of which kind of lens would be the best to help me improve as a photographer, I'm really focused on getting better and understanding the most I can!

So, any advices on how should I choose new lenses ?

Btw my English is shit, sorry about that.

>>3084254

Nigs pay better prices though.

CL is all lowballers, people who "know what they've got" or brokedicks trying to pay their rent by 4:59pm"

Granted I've got some good deals on CL from the last one but for the most part if you're a seller on CL you get fucked

>>3085063

this.

you will want to find a Nikon version if adapting to EOS none of the adaptall2s are for EOS mount I believe. The Nikon is the only one that achieves infinity focus on EOS, and I think Pantecks does too, but if you're buying it for macro work none of that matters anyway. Hell I used an m39 Soviet 85mm f2 for macro on EOS

>>3085058

also would like to suggest this if poorfag

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=190428

i did something similar with an old 28-70 from the same era and got similar results

>>3085535
>Nigs pay better prices though.
I thought they didn't pay at all? I was lead to believe that they just stole gear out of cars owned by greasy, fat, fucking retard truck drivers.

File: 2016-07-04 12.42.18.jpg (642KB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 2592x1944px

Selling my Voigtlander Vitomatic IIIb! current going price $80 but according to sold listings its more 100-200$.
link: http://www.ebay.com/itm/222524160406

>>3085524
Great - then until you find reasons to use something else, stick with that.

>>3085534
> So, any advices on how should I choose new lenses ?
Figure out how wide a field of view you need want (it'll generally tell you what focal lengths you'll use - pick narrower if you don't need wide), and whether you need more options with regards to aperture settings (a lens good at wide apertures costs more, but you can let more light in and can get a shallower DoF).

Then you generally pick the sharpest lens you can / want to afford unless you find reasons not to (such as it being too heavy or it not having AF when you really want AF for the purpose you have in mind).

That said, /p/ for instance is rather poor, so it's not like the average here has the sharpest lenses - many compromised towards cheaper ones. If you do that too, you're not alone. But the "ideal" ones would more often be the expensive sharper ones.

>>3085534
>Complete ignorant
You described yourself pretty well.
The gear you already got is more than adequte for producing decent landscapes. What you need is a tripod, an IR remote and a set of filters.
Set the camera to manual, lens to manual focus. ISO 100, f/8 to f/11, place the focus somewhere halfway distance in your scene. Take DOF preview shots if you want to make sure. You don't have to go to per pixel sharpness, just acceptably sharp throughout the frame. Blurred movement doesn't need to be in focus, it will be blurred, so in this case you can place focus in the foreground to some rocks or whatever.
Set shutter speed so the needle in the light meter is around the center, correct with shutter time so your histogram is not clipping.
That's it, buy new lenses when you know how to use your existing ones.

>>3084043
Not a bad price, If you were in the market for one I'd snag it. As far as medium format goes though you could get a bit more "bang" for your buck. Depends what your needs are though.

The Mamiya C series has bellows focussing, leaf shutters and is a fifth the price of the 645, and you get a bigger negative.

>>3083552
Most quality zooms have internal focusing. Maybe check out the Sigma 50-100 f1.8? I remember there being some minor problems from the og reviews but I don't remember.

>>3085594
Cheaper alternative would be the Sigma 50-150/2.8

>>3083452
shut up

50mm on crop is awkward as fuck for general photography

>>3085622
I concur, I really regret getting a 50mm right away. 35mm on crop for general unless they know they want to do portraits.

I'm thinking of getting a Pentax K1 with the 43mm 1.9 and 100mm macro.

Due to circumstances I no longer have my D810 w/ Sigma 35mm 1.4 and Nikon 105mm 2.8 Macro.

I mostly shoot commercial portraits and some walk around new topographics kind of shit. Does anyone have experiences with the K1? I think the weather sealing stuff is overkill for what I do but I like the idea of IBIS since I do a lot of daylight studio stuff and am often around 1/15-1/30 shutter speeds. I usually crop portraits from the 35mm to 4:5 and I think the 43mm is a good compromise (I don't like 50mm on FF).

I was looking at the a7rii + Sony 35mm 1.4 + Sony 90mm Macro but all of that together is like 2.5x the price of the Pentax kit.

The Pentax kit is a bit cheaper than repurchasing the D810 kit I had, is it worth switching? Also I have a Pentax 67 so I have a romantic notion of having a Pentax DSLR

>>3084695
1" sensor in bridge cameras is pretty common, that's what the rx10mkiii has. Cellphones typically have 1/1.2" sensors.

>>3085706
> I was looking at the a7rii + Sony 35mm 1.4 + Sony 90mm Macro but all of that together is like 2.5x the price of the Pentax kit
You *could* get an A7 II and/or cheaper lenses if you're tight on money.

Sony 85mm f/1.8 and Samyang 35mm f/1.4 or even the Samyang 85mm f / 1.4 or such.

Should be about as good or sharper than the Pentax glass you listed anyhow (that macro lens is no match for the 90mm FE or even the non-macro 85mm f/1.8, and the 43mm doesn't look particularly good either.)

>>3085733
I'm not that tight on money. I moved from 24MP Sony sensors of that generation to the D810 and don't want to have to move back really. I'm also not interested in manual focus lenses for digital, although I'm sure they'd be better with the EVF.

Are Pentax lenses that bad? I don't use the macro lenses wide open and mostly for focus stacking/stitching. I could just get the Sigma 35mm instead of the Pentax 43mm.

>>3085738
> I'm not that tight on money. I moved from 24MP Sony sensors of that generation to the D810 and don't want to have to move back really.
Yea, but do you want a lens that produces a like 12MP usable image at 36MP?

> I'm also not interested in manual focus lenses for digital, although I'm sure they'd be better with the EVF.
It's extremely easy to work with, I more often use MF with the 90mm FE than AF even despite EyeAF and fun things like that.

> Are Pentax lenses that bad?
Haven't tried many recent ones, but the older ones are bad, yes.

Now for the 100mm macro, you can check the detailed measurements here:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/smc-D-FA-MACRO-100mm-F2.8-WR-on-Pentax-K-3-versus-Sony-FE-85mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sony-FE-90mm-F28-Macro-G-OSS-on-Sony-A7R-II__379_914_1818_1035_1517_1035

You'll see the massive difference in the sharpness field map and stuff. [They didn't measure the 100mm macro on a K-1 but perhaps setting the other lenses to a A6000 might help to get another reference point.]

> I could just get the Sigma 35mm instead of the Pentax 43mm.
Quite possibly, that's a good idea. Might want to test that in a store.

>>3085741
I love that perfectly fine lenses are now "bad" because there are now $2.5k+ bodies with sensors that outresolve them.

What are those 36+ megapickles being used for, anyway? Making a lot of 16x24 prints? If so, cool.

>>3085741
Hm, thanks for the link to the macro results.
For bodies my main concern is dynamic range as I also shoot natural light portraits on Portra 160 on my Pentax 67 and have a good setup for scanning with a DSLR + Macro lens. For the sake of consistency in my portfolio when shooting digital I usually underexpose quite a bit and do a lot of local edits to get the shadows back up.

I've tried this with the original a7 and found the EVF annoying since it kept trying to preview my underexposure, not sure if there's a workaround for this but it is a concern. As I mentioned, I like the idea of Sony and wouldn't mind shelling out for the a7rii. Do you use a Samyang 35mm? I saw a lot about Sigma making a 35mm for Sony, I'd also really like to try the upcoming Voigtlander 40 1.2 for FE but I haven't seen anything about price/release dates for those.

>>3085745
> I love that perfectly fine lenses are now "bad" because there are now $2.5k+ bodies with sensors that outresolve them.
First of all, that's apparently exactly what he wants to use. And yes, then it's rather "bad", because that high resolution sensor will do little good.

Apart from that, even on the 24MP FF cameras you'll see a difference, and it's not entirely new

Sure, the E-mount has pushed some of the primes further into "adequate for >40MP" range, but at least for the 100m macro, Canon and Zeiss and I think Nikon as well had better, more even and sharper lenses before.

Besides, most older lenses on Pentax that I had tried don't really quite match even the 100mm macro. Most lenses I remember are beaten by what Samyang now releases into the budget segment of lenses (like aforementioned MF lenses).

> What are those 36+ megapickles being used for, anyway?
Fancy digital images. Large prints. Ability to crop and edit more and easier before it's below your target quality.

This and all the advantages resolution increases brought before - but mainly with good lenses.

I can understand that not everyone needs it, but even if you have a rather very common 24MP camera you might *still* see the appeal of better glass if you compare.

File: 1427652884880[1].jpg (26KB, 338x338px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 338x338px

>buying a film camera
>buying a non-pro spec camera
>buying a camera without a 100% optical viewfinder
>buying a camera with less than 5mp
>buying a camera with more than 18mp
>buying lens adapters

>>3085752
>For bodies my main concern is dynamic range
The K-1 is absolutely fine in that regard.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-1-versus-Sony-A7R-II___1075_1035

Actually generally speaking I just about only heard good things about the K-1, but didn't test it yet.

> I've tried this with the original a7 and found the EVF annoying since it kept trying to preview my underexposure
You can turn the exposure preview off in the settings.

> Do you use a Samyang 35mm?
Tried it on a Canon. It's quite fine for its price. Of course I only thought it looked equal or better than that 43mm.

It is not quite a match for a Sigma Art 35mm or a the 35mm ZA (well, both of the 35mm ZA)

> I'd also really like to try the upcoming Voigtlander 40 1.2 for FE but I haven't seen anything about price/release dates for those.
Me neither, but the Voightlanders so far were about $700 to $1k. I'm just going to guess it's not going to be cheaper.

>>3085762
So I should own either a 7D, 1st gen 5D, D7000, or a D700.

I recently bough a canon 70-200 f2.8 USM and the front eliment is like an 7 or 8/10 and the rear is a 10/10 (it's set really far back into the lens so i imagine it's near impossible to scratch it.)

The serial number puts it as a 2000 made lens. What is the expected lifespan of these things? Will the USM ever go? What can i do to keep it functioning as best as possible?

>>3085799
> What is the expected lifespan of these things?
I don't think that was published.

> Will the USM ever go?
Something will go eventually. USM is a good guess for something that might go, sure.

> What can i do to keep it functioning as best as possible?
Send it in for service when it fails. Or buy a new one. Same as always.

>>3085765
I'd relax that list to 99% viewfinders, but otherwise good advice. And you can't go wrong with the cameras you listed.

>>3083360
Looking to upgrade from my t3i because the autofocus is super slow and it really handicaps my 70-200. Should i just get the 80d or is there something better for a similar price? The only thing im hesitant about the 80d is the best video it does is 1080 which is annoying.

>>3085820
There are alternatives like the Sony A6500, A6300 or Nikon D7500, D7200 or Pentax K-3 II, K-70.

You could have a look at them. But the 80D is pretty nice overall.

Xt10 with 35mm or pancake lens Vs c100t? Same price.

For holidays.

Is there any website that will compare cameras from different brands that are equal to each other?

For example, say that I wanted to see what Canon's equivalent is to the D810, and it would show me the 5D Mark IV

>>3085823
X100t*

>>3085825
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Camera+comparison

>>3085822
Is there a noticeable drop in af or quality when using a nice canon lens on an adapter? I was somewhat considering a sony but ill probably just get the 80D

File: IMG_20170529_220636.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px)

3MB, 4032x3024px

Just picked up a t6 kit for $100
Pretty sure it's stolen though. Guy was sketch.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Nexus 6P
Camera Software	angler-user 7.1.2 N2G47O 3852959 release-keys
Equipment Make	Huawei
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Sensing Method	Unknown
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:05:29 22:06:36
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/2.0
Subject Distance Range	Macro
Focal Length	4.67 mm
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Height	3024
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Program	Not Defined
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	4032
Metering Mode	Unknown
Subject Distance	0.28 m
Flash	No Flash
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Brightness	0 EV
ISO Speed Rating	1299
Exposure Time	4166667/62500000 sec

>>3085830

I worded that wrong. I meant a website that when you search a certain model, it shows you the equivalent to that camera from other manufacturers.

>>3085852
if it didnt have the charger it was definitely stolen lmao

>>3085852
Totally stolen. Ask your local PD if anyone has reported a missing T6 if you want to get stabbed on your porch.

>>3085855
Came with everything, strap, charger, micro usb cable, etc.
Original wrapping too. Even the fancy canon bag.

File: IMG_3750.jpg (4MB, 3007x2034px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3007x2034px

Any reccommendations for a 1:1 EF mount Macro lens?

Budget isn't a problem.

I'd like to take water droplet photos like this for instance, and not have to digital crop like in this photo.

>Posting from phone pls no bully on filesize

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:17 18:29:49
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3007
Image Height	2034
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3085862
100mm Canon L. Maybe 100mm Zeiss Makro-Planar.

>>3085842
No drop in image quality (there is no glass in the adapters unless you're using a speed booster thing.

AF performance depends on the lens and adapter. Sigma's MC-11 and Metabones' adapters are some of the most popular ones that you might have a look at first. Many combinations of these with lenses work really well, some not so well yet, and I'd call the average "pretty good".

>>3085868
Thanks anon. Found both of the lenses you're talking about. Think I'd prefer to buy Canon for the sake of servicing and warranty just in case.

Alright here's a gear question for you /p/:

I currently shoot with a d700 with among other lenses) a nikkor af-s 80-200mm 2.8.

I want to upgrade both my camera and my 80-200 but I can't afford to do both at the same time.

Which would you do? Buy a D810 and keep using the old lens, or buy a new 70-200 and keep using the D700?

>>3085876
It's the more "obvious" choice anyhow since it has AF which is fast enough for using it in many non-macro situations.

That said, as far as I know Zeiss also has good customer support in various countries.

>>3085828
x100t is better for holiday-style snaps, had one for years before I got into film, no regrets.

>>3085879
I probably would upgrade the body in this case and then upgrade the lens later.

>>3085541

careful you don't cut yourself with all that edge

>>3085842

No image quality loss at all with the more popular Metabones IV and Sigma MC-11.

AF is dependent upon lens, but pretty good overall. The most common lenses have no issues at all. Some gimmicky stuff like macros and tilt shift have issues.

I hear the Metabones adapter was prone to occasionally locking up the camera requiring a battery pull, but from what I hear it has been fixed with new firmware.

I love my a7ii and highly recommend it, but if you don't mind the bulk and have no intention of ever getting e-mount lenses, just go for the 80D.

>>3085587
I do have a Mamiya C3 actually. Since you compared it to the Mamiya TLRs I guess it would have been too heavy to regularly lug around for outdoor shots.
Welp, it's gone now anyways.

I found this old telescope in my parents' attic.
Are telescope to DSLR adapter universal or are there different types of telescope fittings?
I really want to use it with my Nikon.

>>3086034
Try the astro thread.
Also T-mount is universal, but it is better to consult someone knowledgeable in the astro thread.

>>3085879
Depends if you need more resolution and body features vs af and iq. Lenses are forever though and the d810 can only get cheaper.

hi there fellow gear-fags!

i'm thinking about getting myself a (used) nikon d750 in the near future. do you think the prices will drop significantly when nikon releases the d750's successor? rumor has it that this is going to happen at the end of the year, and that nikon is going to release something big as part of their 100 year anniversary...

shooting with a d300s as of now, but i guess an upgrade wouldn't be the worst idea, especially considering iso performance.

any thoughts?

File: Nikon_Kogaku_Tokyo.jpg (24KB, 380x313px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 380x313px

So I mostly shoot to student paper and ocasionaly portraits, I own D600, 24-70mm and 70-200mm lens, but lately I have been having a craving for prime lens, I have been thinking 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 witch one should I get?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2007:12:06 13:46:07
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	380
Image Height	313

>>3083360
I got a HB-33 lens hood for my nikon 18-55mm VR lens and it won't fit. Any ideas?

>>3086076
Prices will probably will drop gently over time.

> any thoughts?
Don't buy FF if you then can't afford a bunch of nice lenses for it.

>>3086094
Sigma Art 50mm + 85mm f/1.4 or Tamron Di Vc 85mm f/1.4, though I wonder if these are in your budget if you say "student paper".

>>3086076
Get a D7200 unless you have a really good reason to go FF beside of "muh fool frame"

Medium fornat film, and medium format cameras.

Are they still relevant in todays time? I'm interested in going medium format film, but I don't know where film will even be 10 years from now.

Aside from being used in cinema.

>>3086229
There are few users of either medium format film or digital - but they are actually useful even to a bunch of professionals, yes.

> I don't know where film will even be 10 years from now
Probably still around because some people love working with film, or special purposes still somehow require it.

Probably still *mainly* some expensive limited slow and bothersome old relic of the past to most other people.

You pay much more for film over time, you work slower, you get archival issues, and most of the sharing / work in photography now pretty much requires digital. Scanning film isn't fast or entirely easy and not cheap to do with good quality, particularly not MF quality.

If you don't know why you'd use film, don't. Pay for a decent or high end digital setup and use that.
If you don't know why you'd use MF, also don't.

>>3086178
I work so my budget is pretty flexible, it just takes more time.
I was more wondering between thos focal lengths. Not sure which one I should get 1st.

>>3085485
I can tell you that the M10II is on par with the M5II in terms of IQ and stabilization. the main difference is that the M5II is weather sealed.
I would go for the M10II. A mark III is rumored to come out this year.

>>3086284
Try this: set your zoom at the specific focal length and tape it there so you only have that to use. Do this with both focal lengths and see which you like better. Also try 35-40mm.

That said, a used 50/1.8D can be had for peanuts so there's really no reason not to have it.

>>3086284
If in doubt, get the wider lens. The 50mm.

I've been thinking of taking all my film camera stuff and bundling it together and making a thread in the B/S/T section of DP review where I will ask to trade it for a good DSLR kit and lens. I sold my 1d mark II a couple of months ago and regretted it ever since, and now I want a DSLR again.

Does this sound like a good idea?

>>3086341
Sony

>>3086342
Unfortunately, they're still out of my price range.

>>3086344
Well, it's the best available camera system, not intended for dirty poorfags
Get a job, you lazy ass spic!

>>3086344
It's not like the good Canon FF or APS-C cameras are cheaper.

>>3086341
If film isn't what you wanted and you're done with it for now, then yeah, go for it.

File: ech.jpg (4MB, 3676x2345px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3676x2345px

Hey guys.
So I was thinking of getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens (canon).

I'm really interested in it. However, it's a full frame format, and I have an APS-C.

Do you think I should still make the dive, or should I choose a different lens? Really torn up about it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Version 1.7
Photographer	Picasa
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2014:04:22 14:10:39
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/13.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3676
Image Height	2345
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Unique Image ID	bb9761f68b0a283061c66daa19c57a75

>>3086408
If it has the effective focal length you want then it doesn't matter.

>>3086348
I think I'm going to try to trade for another APS-H camera. Those can go for under $200 sometimes.

>>3086346
Not everyone can just "get a job", anon.

>>3086341
>I sold my 1d mark II

Why?

File: 1394685964066[1].jpg (43KB, 433x378px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 433x378px

>>3086346
>Sony
>it's the best available camera system

>>3083360
After shooting m4/3 for several years now, I'm considering making a jump to a full frame DSLR. It's just a hobby for me, so I don't need the very best or even Top Tier, and, after a little research, I've been looking at a Nikon D610 or Pentax K-1. Would mainly use for wildlife/landscape and art photography (keeping my m4/3 stuff for street work)

Any advice or other opinions?

>>3086484
Well, they're nice bodies. Did you budget for good lenses?

On the K-1 I personally find the available lenses overall a bit weak.

> other opinions
Canon and Sony both also have really rather good options. Not least when you orient yourself on the glass you might want to use.

File: thinkpad user.jpg (136KB, 960x1280px)

136KB, 960x1280px

How much better is the RX100 IV compared to the RX100 III or RX100 II?

>>3086484
I know the K-1 has weather sealing, so it's something to consider for your wildlife needs

>>3086517
Between the II and the others:
Clearly better low light performance than the II. The lens also got quite much better after the II.

Between the III and IV:
Noticeably but not dramatically better EVF on the IV, option to use much faster shutter speed, 4k video & slow motion recording. Faster bursts.

Also:
The V again had bigger changes over the IV - much bigger buffer, much better AF, ability to take stills while recording video and quite many more things.

>>3086517
Quick rundown:
RX100 mk1 introduced a very high quality 28–100 mm equivalent zoom lens.
RX100 mk2 introduced BSI image sensor.
RX100 mk3 introduced Viewfinder + changed to a new 24-70 mm equivalent lens + built-in togglable ND filter.
RX100 mk4 introduced stacked image sensor with 960 FPS slowdown framerates for video.
RX100 mk5 introduced PDAF.

I can't remember if the highspeed distortion reducing e-shutter was introduced in 4 or 5.

>>3086471
Because I had the opportunity to make money on it. I only paid $115 for it and sold it for $250 with two lenses. It had a shutter count of less than 5000 photos. At the time I thought I was done with photography, but that was just a passing feeling.

>>3085852
>>3085855
>>3085858

Yeah talk to the cops. Can't people track where a camera has been uploading a photo that was taken with it so it tracks the serial number or something? I'm sure not everyone knows about it but thats more than enough for me to go to the police and swallow the $100 I spent. The thought of a possible reward comes to mind though.

>>3086548
>>3086550
Thanks for this. I'll probably try to get a cheap III then.

>>3086551

Welp. You live and you learn.

I've had a 60D and a Tamron B008E since 2012. I've owned no other equipment apart from this and would like to find a wide angle lens as I tried one out while on holiday recently and it was nice, and I'd like to get better at taking photos of landscapes. Any advice? I'm not hugely into photography the way most people on this board are so I don't really know where to start.

>>3086568
I recall on APS-C Canon various Tokina / Sigma / Canon zoom lenses around 10mm somewhere were popular options.

I'd also advise to have a look at the Samyang wide angle primes, pretty sure the 14mm was fairly popular on Canon.

Noob here, I have Canon Rebel XS and I need new pair of lens for it, something below $200, any recommendations?

>>3086568
EFS 10-18

>>3086572
Thanks, do you mean this one? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/859167-REG/Samyang_SY14M_C_14mm_f_2_8_Super_Wide.html

>>3083362
Why is it so expensive recently? They were $300 us new a couple months ago, now they're 400+ used

>>3086589
>They were $300 us new a couple months ago
No. 400, and it was during christmas sale.

eofy soon

>>3086593
Guess I'll wait a little

>>3086346
>the best available camera system
ahahahahhahahahahahahhaa

File: P900.jpg (303KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 2048x1365px

Was in the market for a cheap spotting scope, but then realized looking at shit far away with no other purpose was retarded. Decided a camera with a good zoom lens was the best route. Saw how much lenses cost and balked. Then saw the Nikon P900, which is totally in my price range. Beginning to think it'd be fun to learn basic photography with while also scratching my itch for seeing things far away much closer.

Is it a decent camera to fit my priorities and usage? Or is there another solution I haven't stumbled upon in the ~$600USD price range

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuC5JejmMmI

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON 1 V2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.9
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	854
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	56 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:04:30 10:08:19
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	21.10 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown