/gear/ - Gear thread

what's a cheap, lightweight lens for nikon aps-c for streetscape photos? 35mm is too tight on a crop sensor for me? Don't really need the ultrawide ends too much.

Thinking of:

sigma 17-50mm f2.8 ~$250
tokina 12-24mm f4 ~$250
nikon nikkor 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 VR ~$300
tokina 11-20mm f2.8 ~$500

File: _20170714_144240.jpg (95KB, 1042x710px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1042x710px

Fug

File: IMG_0359.png (669KB, 800x430px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 800x430px

>>3114317
Go fuck yourself you Nikon artificially gimped camera buying faggot. Get a Sony or just fuck off and stop bringing down the art.

>>3114317
>17-50mm
>f4.5-5.6
Uh, the kit lens?

File: panasonic_dmc_g7kk_lumix_dmc_g7_mirrorless_micro_1148282.jpg (564KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 2500x2500px

How's the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7. Would it with a Lumix G Vario 14-42mm Lens be a good camera for a beginner. Would it outclass cheaper DSLRs like the d3300 or T6? How would it compare to a Sony a6000 with the kit lens only?

File: 1137-0547.jpg (1MB, 1400x927px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1400x927px

>>3114312

fbpb

>>3114317

Tokina 11-16 2.8 pic related 300 dollarydoos used

The factory 18-55 VRII is over-the-top sharp it is the best kit lens I have used ever. It weighs nothing and you can use it about anywhere. Up until I bought my Df it was the lens I used 95% of the time on my D7000

>>3114322

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dbR2JZmlWo

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	750
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	16 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:08 20:00:27
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	11.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Portrait
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3114337
Where is this

>>3114354
Murrica.
Fuck yeah

>>3114357
America is a large place

File: 1137-0467.jpg (1MB, 1400x927px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1400x927px

>>3114354

California, on Route 166. Not far from Santa Maria. Definitely required shooting if you're in that area.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	770
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:08 20:21:10
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Portrait
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3114359
Thank you

>>3114358
And you better keep that in mind, boy-o!

>>3114364

My mistake, it's just west of Arvin, CA, south of Bakersfield. You can get there via 166 to 99.

The second picture with the horses is on 166 though.

File: sodb.jpg (13KB, 352x264px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 352x264px

I ordered it. Found it for $490.

>>3114336
yeah, Panasonics are pretty user friendly

but unless you are deadset on a SLR-body type, I'd rec the GX85 over a G7. It is just as capable in stills and video but has IBIS and gets rid of the AA filter.

>>3114429

Fuck, where at?

It is the only APS-C G lens ever made btw.

>>3114521
Allen's camera. Got the only used one they had.

File: HERO5_Black.png (62KB, 364x219px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 364x219px

What about a gopro, or can you recommend other type of really sturdy cam.

>>3114582
Yi 4k or SJcam 7 Star, better than the majority of the gopro lineup and cheaper than most. The Yi 4k is probably the best action cam on the market.

>>3114582
RunCam 3. It is the Session beater, no wonder GoPro lawyered them out in the US and EU, but you can order them from china.

>>3114634
>>3114648
thank you

File: Screenshot from 2017-07-15 12-46-41.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>3114336
Get the G85 like this >>3114478 anon said You'll get IBIS AND weather sealing, which you cant beat at this price. And the G85 doesn't have the glassfilter in front of the sensor which I guess makes images sharper I've been told
I would not recommend the 12-42mm. Get either the 12-60mm or the 14-140mm: You can even sell the 140 for more than you paid extra in the kit IF it's fresh out of the box.
Panasonic can't be beat in price efficiency and ergonomics. The photos are noisy as fuck above ISO800 if not properly exposed. Even compared to an Olympus Lumix is very noisy, but for videos Lumix has a very good noise perfomance and it even looks sort of "pleasing", more like grain than noise. Image is from the G7 4k video at ISO 1600 - 3200, can't exactly remember

any recommendations for nikon fe2 35mm lens? under 400€

>>3114336
>>3114478
>>3114678
the G85 is not the same as the GX85

but if you wouldn't mind spending a few more hundred, it'd definitely consider it (or a GH4) over a G7 and GX85

File: nikon 3400 vs 5300.png (235KB, 767x499px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 767x499px

What lens would you recommend for someone just starting out with a D5300. Something to compliment the 18-55mm VR kit lens. Preferably $200 or less.

>>3114763
Go vintage, you'll find something for $200 shipped

I can only really suggest something fast since the kit lens is what, f4/4.5?

Look for old 2.8's

>>3114758
Shit you're right, my oversight.
The GX85 doesn't have a mic input tho, so it's a VERY poor choice if you want to do video.

>tfw want to buy a new lens, but don't want to invest into the aps-c format any more

I read a lot about camears and stuff related, but I have almost no experience and while I know differences between mirrorless, DSLR, FF, APS-C and m4/3 I still don't know what to choose...

I'm looking for genereal ideas about upgrading body and lens. I want better than X-A1 ISO and ergonomics from my new body, and fast (f/1.8 and wider) aperture from my lens. I'd prefer something narrower than 24 and wider than 50 mm. Bokeh is secondary for me. I don't have my most favourite topic yet, but it's mostly street, travel and event photos in available light these days (more candid than with flash, which I like).

In near future I'd like to try astro and macro, but on the most basic level.

What body and lens would you buy if you had $2000 at absolute maximum to spend?

Few seemingly good ideas were born when I was browsing the web, but I wish to know your take on this first.

>>3114478
no vlog lol.
video with clipped highlights out the ass.

>>3114763
18-35 1.8

Olympus TG-5 or Ricoh WG-50?

File: hadley_small_sage_tan_shadow_fn_1_002.jpg (41KB, 500x450px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x450px

Are these worth the price?

>>3114827
They're bags. Nice bags. Still bags though. Do you like nice bags? Or are you more of a plastic shopping bag sort of guy? Or maybe a foam insert in any old bag sort of person?

>>3114776
Worry about your photos, not the lenses you use to take them. It's likely whatever you buy for your system, new, is going to be highly capable. Resale value only matters if you're an indecisive cunt who switches system every year.

>>3114763
DX 35 1.8G, accept no substitutes.

>>3114795
>buy XT20 and 23/2
>keep using fuji lenses that you already have
>???
>prof- not spending as much as you would switching systems

>>3114720
A Nikon 35mm lens. Preferably one from the same era.

For an all around camera, which camera should I get? mirrorless for around 1300$.

>>3114837
I didn't invest in the system at all, I just have body + kit lens + m42 adapter and cheap lens.

>>3114847
used Sony a7R

Why do people go for the 500/4 so often? Why not a 400/2.8+1.4x, or all in for a 600/4?

>>3114876
500/4 is often lighter than a 400/2.8 or a 600/4.

>>3114878
Huh, you're right. The newest Nikon FL ones are 3800 g for the 400 and 600, and 3000 for the 500.

>>3114337
>>3114359
Can you not HDR the crap out of all your photos?

>>3114317
18-55 kit. If you have a body that supports it, grab the 10-20 as well.

>>3114763
35mm 1.8, 70-300 AF-P, 10-20 AF-P, 50mm 1.8 g.

>>3114905
What's wrong with them, honestly? A bit saturated, but certainly within the capabilities of any modern sensor.

>>3114905
it's called 'dynamic range'
not that a sonygger would know

Would you get a gm5 or gx800?
new since the gm5 costs more used (greedy fuckers), they're about the same price

>>3114305
Looking for a lens for video for the 80d to replace the kit lens ive been using (kit lens from t3i). I was looking at the sigma 17-50mm f2.8 but it's autofocus is so loud and not very smooth. Im tempted to get the canon 17-55 f2.8 but at $800 its so pricey. Is there any other similar options?

/p/ recommend me an AF Nikon 35mm, money is no object but I don't need the AF of the F6 or even really the F5. I'm sure my F100 is about to kick the bucket I get errors with film loaded and I think it has the dreaded film advance error that plagues the F100.

G compatibility is a plus. I've got an N60 that I've been pinch-hitting with and it's okay. Is there anyone that services F100's still? I'm not too fond of the size of the F5 and the F100 does most of the things the F6 does without the F6 tax.

>>3114917
>A bit

>>3114582
I have the yi 4k+ and it's pretty decent. The problem is you have to have the waterproof case on so audio quality becomes garbage.

Getting a d800, I've got $600 for glass, what should I get?

>>3114990
more money

>>3114967
The 80D comes in a package with the 18-135 as well as body only. The 18-135 is one of the fastest, quietest zooms I've ever used personally. You might look into it, if it's too expensive check the used market. It's just not fast (like 3.5-5.something)

>>3115005
when i upgraded to the 80d i just got the body only. I dont particularly want the 18-135 because of the f3.5-5.6, id rather have something with a constant aperture. 2.8 would be nice but id settle for less if it's a good lens/price

File: IMG_8786.jpg (542KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 750x1000px

>>3114827

I have that bag. It's really high quality and built tough as hell. It'll last a long, long time too.

If you have the money, and already have your body and lenses sorted out, it's definitely worth it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 6 Plus
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:15 19:32:56
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	2.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Unknown
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3115009
I know the 24-70 f/4 L lens is one of the most popular, and for a good reason. It's a great quality lens. Looks like it goes for as low as $650 used.

The other option I'd consider is the 24-105 L which is a bit cheaper (comparing new prices).

Both are USM lenses so they will be fast and quiet.

>>3114990
There's nothing I can get that'll be good for $600? I'm fine with buying used or vintage glass. Most of my shooting is slower paced so no af and a manual aperture isn't really an issue.

>>3115012
yeah i was thinking of the 24-70mm f4. I would sort of like something a bit wider than 24 since on a crop sensor that's not that wide but it does seem like a nice lens. Not sure if its better than the 17-55mm though and theyre similar price

>>3115026
Meant for
>>3114991

>>3114935
Depends if you absolutely positively have to have an EVF. It's not that great since it's tiny.
>>3114980
Another F100. F80 or F90X if you're poor.
>>3115026
>>3114990
24-85 VR for zoom, any of the Nikon or Sigma Art primes if you want primes, 18-35G VR if you want wide angle zoom.

Does anyone know of any good constant-aperture vintage/manual zooms?

>>3114544

Ohhhh, thought you meant new.

>>3115115

Stop buying up all the nice film lenses and driving up the price.

>>3115115
Minolta 80-200 f/2.8 APO G.

>>3115117
>Stop buying up all the nice film lenses and driving up the price.
>implying

>>3114317
the kit lens - if you're having GAS buy a 50 1.8 and call it a portrait lens.

the kit lens is lightweight, has VR, and you already own it. Plus for streetscapes you're not gonna need those wide apertures unless youre shooting in low light but thats why you have VR. If youre shooting at night you'd bring a tripod anyways

>>3114763
>>3114768
vintage lenses wont meter on the 5300 so take that into consideration

>>3114837
>Worry about your photos, not the lenses you use to take them

As you gain more experience in photography you'll learn that you need a lens to take a photo. In fact, not all lenses will be appropriate for the composition one has in mind.

File: gpod.jpg (138KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1500x1500px

I'm looking for something like this, but in the form of a Tripod head.
I want it to equip to my Monopod with the standard thread filter, then I want to be able to orientate my camera around as if it was as easy to operate as a selfie stick.

Does such a product exist?

>>3115138
No shit bud. He's worried whatever APS-C lens he gets will somehow not be satisfactory and will bring buyer's remorse, not whether or not the lens he buys satisfies his technical requirements.

>>3115115
Any 70-200 f4 design will be sharp, but CA can be bad enough to see it in the viewfinder. As for standard zooms, there weren't many. 35-70 f4 was the most common design usually.

>>3115140
> the standard thread filter
I'm assuming you mean a standard modern UNC 1/4"-20 or perhaps UNC 3/8"-16 screw mount? No filters involved.

> then I want to be able to orientate my camera around as if it was as easy to operate as a selfie stick
That's what you have a tripod head for. You presumably are looking for a ball or gimbal type of head.

>>3115146
My bad, one of those screw threads, yes.

>You presumably are looking for a ball or gimbal type of head.
But I want Tripod head with the flexibility of those types of legs you see there>>3115140
Like I can just bend the head to a certain position, and it will stick to that position, without the need to unfasten and fasten some knobs first.

File: Manfrotto_324RC2_324RC2_Joystick_Head_680139.jpg (647KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 2500x2500px

>>3115148
> without the need to unfasten and fasten some knobs first
Knobs, latches and push button and such releases are far faster to operate with the necessary degree of precision.

As such, I don't think the thing you want exists.

I still suspect you might possibly like a push button integrated in a grip like this if you don't like twisting knobs and latches.

>>3115151
What a shame. I use a very small and light APS-C system, so such flexible tripod head would have been perfect for me. But oh well.

File: mounted4.jpg (292KB, 968x1296px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 968x1296px

>>3115155
Small and light is no problem, you can easily get ball heads that featuring a lower volume (never mind a more rectangular one better matching typical bags) and smaller weight than a typical Gorillapod.

Only "flexible" is not something you can get AFAIK. I say it is because it's really not such a good solution, but I guess you disagree. Still, I don't think it exists and there may not really be a market for it.

>>3115168
I'm not looking for a small tripod. I already have a real ballhead. But just I don't like the workflow of
>unfasten -> readjust -> fasten

If my tripod head was very stiff, yet flexable I could operate it far more easily.

>>3115174
> I don't like the workflow of unfasten -> readjust -> fasten
I guess I can't help you get what you envision.

Then again, it is really my opinion that what you lament is actually so much faster than dealing with joints on a gorilla pod even if you do the "full" procedure of doing a minuscule twist to unlock a ball, moving the camera to the point of desired adjustment then doing minuscule twist to lock.

Which you actually don't even really need to do, because if you just set your ball head to somewhat high friction but not fully locked you can just "freely" adjust it as if it were a joint on a gorilla pod, without operating the knob at all.

>>3115183
>Which you actually don't even really need to do, because if you just set your ball head to somewhat high friction but not fully locked you can just "freely" adjust it as if it were a joint on a gorilla pod, without operating the knob at all.
Wouldn't the high friction eventually damage the ballhead?
I can't imagine this type is usage is what it was meant for.

File: sirui_head.jpg (95KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1000x1000px

>>3115184
>Wouldn't the high friction eventually damage the ballhead?
Over ages of use, the (AFAIK typically plastic) part that is pressing against the ball when you twist the knob will wear down... presumably.

At which point you maybe send it in for service or just get a new ball head or something. [Honestly, it's not something that seems to require any planning with how rarely that happens on non-geared heads. Buy a new head in the worst case, eh.]

> I can't imagine this type is usage is what it was meant for.
One of the fairly defining features of "better" ball heads is that you have more precise control over the exact friction applied on the ball when it's half-arrested.

But I'd say most ball heads in general are designed to be used like that anyhow, even the cheap ones.

File: 2017061607.jpg (716KB, 1280x956px) Image search: [Google]

716KB, 1280x956px

I'm going to go hiking in Japan and I need a tripod that can hold a Bronica steady while not being heavy and massive by itself. The plan is to take some mountain shots at sunrise and sunset. Are fiber tripods strong enough for the bulk of a MF SLR? Pic somewhat related.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M10
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.18
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Color Filter Array Pattern	1320
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:16 17:40:40
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1280
Image Height	956
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3115198
There is a really good one on Aliexpress that's 160cm, carbon fiber, and just 73-83 bucks.

>>3115198
> Are fiber tripods strong enough for the bulk of a MF SLR?
Yea, sure - many can. My cheap Dic&Mic E302C has a 12kg load capacity. From weight tests (don't have an actualy camera setup THAT heavy), it works at that weight.

And this shouldn't even be too surprising, people's collapsible hiking sticks and such need to take impacts equal to more pressure than your MF camera will ever cause by just gravity pressing down on a tripod or such.

>>3115198

Note that many temples or shrines will not allow tripods.

>>3115134
I don't have the kit lens though. I bought the cheapest camera body I could find, so I have some cash for better glass. Isn't the larger f-stop better for low light?

>>3114678
>12-60mm
that lens is shit. it came with my g85 and I only keep it around because weather sealing and its tolerable for video. even that plastic $99 Oly 40-150 blows it out of the water at a 1/5 the price

>>3115235
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8.

Not low light (don't bother doing that with a shitty APS-C body - just get a strobe or a tripod) or lightweight, but at least nice and sharp.

File: 66d.jpg (33KB, 480x375px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x375px

>>3115284
go away tony

>>3115285
>APS-C sensors gathers the same amount of light as Full Frame
no, you're retarded

>>3115285
>>3115237

Are you going to post that in every thread, crop baby?

>>3115302
>doesn't understand physics
What is intensity

>>3115308
>implying sensor size doesn't matter
in that case, then m43 is as good as APS-C and Full Frame, too, especially considering m43 is closer in size to APS-C than APS-C is to Full Frame

>>3115302
>>3115307
I'm going to post it in every thread until you learn how physics works.

If you have an APS-C and a FF camera in the same spot shooting the same subject at the same time, with the same lens on both and the same aperture/iso/shutter, they will expose exactly the same.

Pull up a photo, any photo, and crop it. Tell me if it magically gets darker. I'll wait.

>>3115308
While you can be excused for not being able to get optics, the physics of light and engineering details of sensors to the required detail to predict how a system will perform, not understanding the gist of test results isn't really excusable anymore.

If we're talking about mass produced MILC and DSLR, all the fucking cameras that do well in low light are full-frame.

>>3115311
Depending on what metric you're going by that can be true.

Here's a fun fact for you, you can set up a medium format sensor so that it gets more total light than any smaller format, but less total light per individual sensor site!

>>3115320
>learn how physics works.

ISO isn't part of physics.
It's an artificial way to compensate for smaller, less sensitive, pixels.

>>3115320
In low light, FF cameras will have less noise (if they have larger sensor pixels) / more potential for eliminating noise (if they have more sensor pixels).

There are no physics to compensate for that one in APS-C cameras, you are just a poorly educated person.

>>3115321
Which is because they use larger individual sensors and can cram better snd electronics into the larger form factor you retard. It has nothing to do with the size of the sensor. You could make a 1/3" sensor that performs just as well as say the a7ii in low light, but you'd lose a bunch of resolution.

>>3115327
>>3115329
I'm not entirely convinced this isn't a troll.

>>3115311
>m43 is as good as APS-C
it pretty much is. you can only really spot a difference between either crop sensor vs. full frame

>>3115330
>You could make a 1/3" sensor that performs just as well as say the a7ii in low light, but you'd lose a bunch of resolution.

No, that's not how it works.

Unless you use the 1/3" to make thumbnails and the A7ii to make full images, which is a ridiculous assumption, the image from the 1/3" sensor will get magnified far more.

And it's this magnification that is the main cause for poorer noise performance. - the higher the magnification, more more visible noise becomes.

>>3115341
LOL holy crap man, no one can actually be this retarded.

>>3115341
>>3115329
>>3115327
>>3115320
>>3115307
>>3115302
https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/72685/does-a-full-frame-lens-require-more-light-on-a-crop-body

>>3115344
Don't you have some shit quality photos to take with your crop baby cam?

Or is your crop cam actually so utter shit all you can do is shitpost on 4chan and cry about it?

File: 20170716_124703.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>3115349

>>3115352
>AF 35-135

Couldn't you put something nicer on it for the photo at least? Or did you spend all your money on the body?

File: 20170716_141447.jpg (3MB, 2627x2291px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2627x2291px

>>3115359
>>AF 35-135
Wut?

That's the 35-70 2.8. Old as balls yeah, but I just sold my 24-70 because I prefer this one.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	SAMSUNG-SM-G891A
Camera Software	G891AUCU2BQF2
Equipment Make	samsung
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	26 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:07:16 14:14:47
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Orientation	Unknown
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/1.7
Focal Length	4.20 mm
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Light Source	Unknown
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Height	3024
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Program	Normal Program
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	4032
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Brightness	3.2 EV
ISO Speed Rating	50
Exposure Time	1/60 sec

>>3115348
Yes, at the same t-stoppage you get the same amount of light per area. (As a remark, the t-stoppage is often closer to the f-stoppage on decent FF lenses than it is on APS-C lenses.)

Except AGAIN, the FF camera has bigger or more pixels on its larger sensor area! Yes, that's pixels with more area each, ergo more total light on each pixel. Or more pixels over a larger area, allowing for more averaging of values to smooth out noise in software with the same final target resolution as APS-C would have.
So, unsurprisingly, FF cameras are generally much better in low light, and this is also TESTED to be the case.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to make an even lower resolution APS-C with similar sized & equally modern pixels as a low light FF camera would have (so, about 6-8MP). But AFAIK no one actually makes such cameras in a typical MILC/DSLR format. (Maybe 1" ish smartphone sensors have some of that, but not entirely sure...)

>>3115400
>a remark, the t-stoppage is often closer to the f-stoppage on decent FF lenses than it is on APS-C lenses.)
Holy shit you're stupid. I could mount a lens to your anus and it wouldn't affect the t stop.

File: Minolta.jpg (61KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 750x1000px

I shoot video with a Lumix G7 but I found photography also quite enjoyable. I am often asked to do photography for friends at parties etc. So I rummaged through my dad's old stuff and found an Minolta Programm AF 4000, which is a beast of a flash, but it doesn't allow TTLM on my camera. i finally want to get a modern flash for my Camera where I don't need to fiddle with the level and waste at least one shot most of the time.
What's a good MFT flash that allows me to stay halfway compact for below 200€? It really should take AA because all my videolights use them as well. and it should be fully articulating
I know nothing under 200€ will have more power than the Minolta because that thing can illuminate an entire backyard in blackest night from the 4th floor. I had professional photographers come to me and ask where I got the floodlight. There have been cases of permanent blindness filed against me. I am pretty sure It can be used for tattoo-removal when put on the skin directly and fired. A bald guy with a scar and a white cat asked me if I could tell him the secret of my handheld evaporator device.

The root to all this arguing is basically just a religious Fujiag with inferiority complex.

It would kill him if he had to admit his F1,4 crop lens isn't equivalent to F1,4 on Full Frame.

mainly /out/ and /g/ - looking into buying the 1300D for taking photos when on an /out/ing what should I know? give me as much newbie dslr advice as you can

>>3115468
oh also any basics I should buy already got
>tripod
>bag (storing it my tacticool tryhard military bag wrapped in a towel for protection also a drybag just for safety

>>3115468
1300D isn't even AMD tier, it's more like an old VIA processor built on 500 nm process.

A6000 is the i2500K of our time.

>>3115481
>A6000
had a quick google and assuming that's the sony camera if so it's out of my budget also the 1300D has 5 star reviews and got recommended to me off a friend who is a photographer for a living - what makes it so bad? is there anything better at around the £300 mark?

>>3115482
Yeah it's around 390£ mark, so it's above your budget unfortunately.

>what makes it so bad?
3FPS vs 11 FPS
18MP vs 24MP
Don't be fooled into thinking the 18MP sensor has better low light than the 24MP sensor. Canons sensors use 500nm process from 2 decades ago, and the metal wire walls between each pixel are so large, they take up all the surface area, leaving very little low light capability to the actual pixels themselves.

>>3115486
ok be honest is it worth the £90 extra if I never intend to buy any additional lenses and only plan on sharing my photos on /out/, twitter (using imgur) and facebook? will the difference actually be worth the extra £90 to someone like me?

>>3115489
Better but more expensive. Cheaper but slightly worse. Everything is a compromise which ever you choose.

>>3115496
alright thanks, any accessories or any common practice I should know about photography? thanks for all the help btw

>>3115497
USB battery?
Portable solar panel?

Just read the sticky for the basics.

>>3115498
thanks

guys I want to buy a camera

is mirrorless overrated or not? The size seems kind of cool with a pancake lens, but a lot of other lenses seem to be just big as hell anyway. I think the volume is more of an issue with DSLR, rather than the weight for me. So is DSLR the way to go since they seem to have the best lens selection? At least until maybe nikon's mirrorless is actually pretty good?

>>3115466
No, it's that you're an idiot.

>>3115468
If you're /out/ then Pentax.

>>3115552
had a look at pentax the weatherproofing is really tempting but I'm new to this so don't really know what to look for when buying currently canon 1300D vs pentax K-50

>>3115550
The lens size is more of an argument for mirrorless in my opinion, it's a flexibility that you can go smaller when you need to, or go just as big when you need to. And having the histogram displaying in the corner in the EVF is too useful for me to go back.

All future mirrorless will be completely blackout free, and all have silent mode. That's something good to look forward to, since SLRs can't really achieve that ever.

>>3115558
>it's a flexibility that you can go smaller when you need to, or go just as big when you need to.

In theory this is great. But whenever a mirrorless manufacturer makes a lens small but without perfect image quality, it gets shit on.

Just look at Sony's 16-50mm lens. It is perfect for what it is, an aps-c pancake zoom that NOONE has come close to equaling in size. It is quite sharp, but some ca and fringing issues on the wider side. It is nothing special when it comes to image quality, but it is absolutely tiny.

Yet it is universally known as the "worst lens ever made".

>>3115565
Much of that is shitposting, but to be fair I think some of the criticism compares them with other collapsible lenses like the RX100 ones which are incredibly sharp.

Sony could always revise the kit lens if they are tired of the criticism.

>>3115569

The 16-50 kit lens can actually be wow-is-this-really-a-kit-lens sharp.

The quality control is fucked though. That is what Sony needs to fix.

>>3115570
>>3115565
Lol at you sperging out over that shitty lens. I love it since adding an auto lens cap that makes it stupidly fast to start shooting but you really gotta stop down and/or resize down for it to be sharp. I'd rather they make a collapsible FF kit though because I'll eventually upgrade my NEX-6.

File: test.webm (498KB, 688x608px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 688x608px

>>3115575

>>3115557
The tl;dr is any camera will work for you. Even like a 9 year old Canon Elph can make better pictures than you'll be able to coax out of it for a decently long while, especially if you're not going to make a dedicated study of photography. So that means shit like image quality, lens selection, and the like take a back seat to the features like ruggedization (and don't get me wrong, Pentax cameras are very capable as far as making good images go, but then so are all of the other entry level cameras), which is what Pentax has to offer that no one else does unless you start going much higher on the food chain to the "pro" level bodies.

>>3115577
That's actually pretty cool. I wish all lenses that this mechanism built into them.

Sigma is starting a new lens lineup, if they are smart they will standardize such a feature into that line up.

>>3115575
>I'd rather they make a collapsible FF kit though because I'll eventually upgrade my NEX-6.

The a7 series is too big. Absolutely tiny for a fullframe camera, but not something a pancake lens would be super useful on.

What they need to make is something in the a6k form factor with a fullframe sensor.

>>3115593
Only works on a PZ lens that has to extend to turn on and have a small front element. There's 2 pressure switches on the backside of the cap, and it screws into the filter. It really would not work well for anything with a large opening (just look at the plastic leaf size), or something that you would want to attach filters to. But it is far faster and more convenient that an annoying manual lens cap. Oh and durability is also a problem since those plastic leaves are pretty thin.

>>3115596
Really though it shouldn't be that hard if they keep the same shitty IQ.Taking out OSS should give it more area for larger lens elements. I mean just look at how small the front element is compared to the barrel of the lens.

>>3115607
They can incorporate it into a new lens lineup that has such an auto lens cap mechanism built in, and having the filter thread in front of the cap.

>>3115609
Sounds like a lot of work that Sigma would never do. Their E-mount lenses all lack OIS and have shitty AF. They should fix those before doing anything else.

>>3115609

Minolta actually made a few of those back in the day.

They were early digital lenses, and are well known as the worst lenses Minolta ever made.

Scored an a-1, auto rewinder, 199 speedlight, 70-210mm f4, 50mm f1.4, 28mm f2, 200mm f4.5 macro, and a shitty bag for $50. All the lenses had old uv filters too, so the lenses are in great condition. Which ones should I keep and which should I sell? I want to keep the 50mm 1.4 to replace my 1.8 but I don't know abput the others

what are some mirrorless cameras with wide variety of lenses that are available everywhere ?

>>3115497
Lenses, flash unit, tripod, carry bag.

That's the most typical accessories for cameras.

>>3115557
>>3115583
I would recommend the K-S2 or the K-70 over the K-50. The K-30 and K-50 had the "aging aperture block" issue which was replaced to a revised one in the K-S2 and onward. (Maybe a used K-5IIs or K-3?)
I agree on the rest, every camera is capable of great images, given its user knows how to take them. There are crazy stories going on forums regarding the weather sealing and ruggedness putting other brands pro line cameras to shame.
My other tip would be, no matter what camera you get, ask the seller where to set the AF micro adjustment. Good DSLRs have this setting to bring the AF sensor and the imaging sensor into perfect sync.

>>3115684
No lenses are widely available everywhere.

But MFT, Sony and even Canon if you count the not specialized EF lenses have a larger system than I assume you want to afford or would meaningfully buy anyhow.

File: Sony-Alpha-7-vs-Sony-Alpha-a6000-size-comparison.jpg (52KB, 720x372px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 720x372px

>>3115596
> The a7 series is too big.
But it's still barely bigger and remains small as fuck.

How did your bag and hands shrink that far?

> but not something a pancake lens would be super useful on.
Sure it would be useful, there just aren't a ton of these lenses.

>>3115557
>>3115468
I'd buy a better camera like an 80D or D7200 or A6500 or D750 or A7 II or whatever, because you are able to operate a more decent camera in a day or two - more likely than not, it's easier to start with due to better automatics, actually.

IMO just go straight to the approximate midrange of cameras (higher end APS-C / cheaper FF camera). And of course get a good lens or two extra on top of the kit one.

No need to poorfag the shit out of a "beginner's" camera. There is nothing you can easily break and you will not learn "holding onto things and not dropping them off a cliff" only now with your first camera.

>>3115550
Mirrorless is good regardless of whether the lenses are big.

Panasonic has great video functions at a budget.

Sony has great prime lenses and great adapters to other, older lens systems. Plus for many of its cameras, very good specs on the overall device. Never mind even lenses on the high end are often 1/3 to 1/2 their relative weight lighter than DSLR pendants.

Both have better manual focus assist functions and other features than most DSLR.

> DSLR the way to go since they seem to have the best lens selection?
Only if you can afford all the glass you want to buy either way, and you don't actually want Sony's high end primes or other such glass where a MILC system is overall better than a DSLR one anyhow. (Also, Olympus and Panasonic will be slightly more compact on average, 'cause MFT).

> At least until maybe nikon's mirrorless is actually pretty good?
Lel, what are you waiting for Nikon for? There is no guarantee they'll even catch up to MFT Panasonic / Olympus, never mind Sony.

why do some people choose DSLR over mirrorless ? it's thinner and lighter and is not worse.

>>3115550
>The size seems kind of cool with a pancake lens, but a lot of other lenses seem to be just big as hell anyway.

Hold an a7rii in one hand and a 5d4 in the other and try saying that again.

Even with large lenses, a mirrorless is well worth it.

>>3115716
Many reasons.

Because they are already accustomed to a DSLR system and have lenses for it. Because they prefer the Nikon D5 over the Sony A9. Because Pentax's fully sealed system will be better in a desert. Because Canon / Nikon sound good. Because Canon / Nikon *are* actually about the most interesting brands service-wise if you shoot all the time and have the gear to qualify for professional service. Because Canon / Nikon have essentially still the best telephoto lenses overall.

And more reasons, I guess. That said I'm on a MILC, but not for size reasons primarily.

>>3115716
Because not everyone is a manchild with the mindset of a 12 years old spergling.

>>3114336
g85 has ibis

>>3115699
FF will always be on average bigger than smaller sensors. You can already tell when comparing EF-S with EF-lenses and the APS-C lenses for E-Mount with the FF-Lenses.
The sensor makes the weight&size, not the body.

Anon, i want to shoot portraits on my crop, i cant' decide either
50/1.4
or
90/2.8 macro
What is more useful lens in general?
(both lack of light or urge to soot flowers occur sometimes)

>>3115721
please be more specific. what is it about dslrs that is superior to mirrorless/rangefinders ?

>>3115778
With a mindset of a 12 years old spergling you would not understand. Fuck off poopco.

>>3115778
mostly lenses and battery life

File: 4cbfd8fc8dbf3deb52ffbaa98107de5e?fmt=pjpeg&wid=1014&hei=396&bgcolor=F1F5F9&bgc=F1F5F9.jpg (37KB, 1014x396px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1014x396px

I want an RX100
I have chance of VERY lightly used RX100 I for $220
or new RX100 III for $620

Is the 400 dollars difference worth it? I am mostly interested in the image quality.

>>3115793
The biggest differences you will find is the lenses probably.
Mark 1 has the equivalent to a 28mm - 100mm lens.
Mark 3 has 24mm - 70mm equivalent.

Then the viewfinder on the 3 isn't present in the 1. It's useful since it will be hard to see the LCD screen in sharp sunlight.


>I am mostly interested in the image quality.
The mark 3 won't give you 3 times better image quality than the mark 1 if that's important. You will get most out of the money with the mark 1.

Unless you talk about video, in which the mark 3 is quite a bit better.
It even has built-in toggleable ND filter

File: 1.png (396KB, 602x470px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 602x470px

>>3115793
Extreme corner pixel peeping: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3/12

You sacrifice a little bit of reach with the shorter mk3 lens but it's higher image quality.

>>3115716
I don't like EVFs

once they get to a point of 0% lag in any lighting condition, I might buy one

I have a very specific question: I will be traveling soon with no access to my laptop. I will have a Ricoh GR II and a Canon 6D with me. If I put the memory card from the 6D into the GR, can I transfer the JPEG files over to my phone using the Ricoh app?

>inb4 try it
I'm only going to buy the 6D during the trip so I can't do that yet

Looking to make a FF Canon purchase. I wanted to pick up a used 5D3, but now that the 6D2 is coming up, I'm not sure whether to hold out and save up the difference. I plan on keeping the body for a number of years and the 5D3 is already 5 year old tech - however I'm wary of being drawn into paying more for the 6D2 just because it's brand new.

Thoughts?

>>3115815
Realistically both are 10 year old tech, when you zoom out to the broader perspective.

So don't let that stop you.

File: fujifilm-x20_blk-front-up.jpg (150KB, 1200x835px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1200x835px

How is this camera? I already have a full-size DSLR and want a smaller camera for casual photos, is it good enough? i can get it for 400 dollars

>>3115699
>But it's still barely bigger and remains small as fuck.
>How did your bag and hands shrink that far?

With a prime, the a6k is pretty much pocketable, or at least something you can forget about in the bottom of your bag.

The a7 series really isn't, even with the tiny 35mm.

>>3115818

An extremely mediocre camera. Useless raw files, funky jpegs, limited lens selection, etc.

But it is stylish as fuck, and at $400 it is a pretty good deal.

Get it, will totally get you laid.

>>3115809
Better a little lag in low light than basically no visibility at all through some OVF.

>>3115815
For what uses? So far APS-C is more advanced in Canons offerings, the 80D or the M5 have much better AF and better ISO performance for example.
There are already a number of lenses suitable for APS-C format pro works. FF is just not the cutting edge right now unless you are willing to shell out for a 1D X MkII.

File: Samyang-AF-35mm-f2.8-FE-05-1024x683.jpg (112KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1024x683px

>>3115824
> With a prime, the a6k is pretty much pocketable, or at least something you can forget about in the bottom of your bag.
With a like 3cm larger pocket or bag or just a smaller lens, so is the A7 (II).

We're easily already at a size that allows for very small bags, just pick an appropriate one.

File: 9327dd8129e7457ab572d17c5fa80f20.jpg (329KB, 1125x1500px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1125x1500px

>The A6000 histogram updates in real time when you adjust SS/ISO/Aperture
That is so ridiculously cool.

I had to change some stupid default settings to make it happen, but after I did this, it's like the camera got twice as good.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

>>3115827
I shoot music and nightclub work - so mainly dark, mainly needing decent ISO performance, which is why I was looking to move to FF.

My main crop lens is an 18-35 1.8, and while I'm definitely somewhat tempted to stick with that lens and go for a crop body 80D instead, it cuts through me a bit to shell out for high end crop lenses.

>>3115818
It's great if you know what you're doing and you don't expect too much above iso 800. I've used mine as a vacation camera instead of lugging my DSLR kit and been perfectly satisfied with it. There's a lot of flexibility in the jpeg settings and the output is pretty nice, but it gets noisy fairly quickly. On the other hand, the lens is quite sharp wide open and 28-112 f2-2.8 is pretty handy. Has a nice macro mode but shitty video.

>>3115826
for you maybe, I hate lag more than anything and it really takes out the fun when shooting

>>3115848
High end lenses are high end lenses, no matter if crop. Bigger aperture will give you more light and there is no real difference in light between FF and crop.
The ISO performance is better on FF in the Canon system, but only in the same sensor tech. The 7D MkII is old tech, the 80D is the new sensor tech. It is equivalent of a 6D sensor, even better in medium (400-1600 ISO) performance. I doubt Canon developed a new tech for the 6D MkII sensor, most likely it is the old tech with a newer image processor.
So far I see a dead end for you in the Canon system, switching to Nikon D750 or a D500 would be a better solution, Sigma offers mount change service for some newer lenses, see if your 18-35 can be serviced this way.

>>3115853
>I doubt Canon developed a new tech for the 6D MkII sensor, most likely it is the old tech with a newer image processor.
You realize that there's nothing stopping them from using the same tech from the 80D in the 6DIII, right?

>>3115853
High end lenses are high end lenses - but the Sigma 18-35 is a crop-only lens. There are some high end crop-only lenses out there, but investing in them does then limit you to that sensor size in the future.

I can shoot bright on crop - Sigma's 18-35 and 50-100 are both crop-only lenses and both constant 1.8, but for a lot of my work I can't shoot at straight 1.8 because I need more depth of field, and I need to shoot at a decent ISO either way.

>>3115855
The 6DII is supposed to have the same tech as the 80D. It's touted as a FF 80D. It's whether that adds up to being worth £500 more than what I can pick up a used 5D3 for.

>>3115850
>>3115824
thanks for the info about >>3115818
as for the noise, i like camera noise for some reason, and casual photos are mostly just for me to look at anyway. Will probably buy it before going to vacation in a few days, will report back after i return from vacation.
No problems getting laid here, so no need for that ;)

ricoh gr or a6000 with a pancake?

>>3115883
The GR lens will be better image quality against the pancake.
But the A6000 has the better sensor, the viewfinder, and other lens options.

Does anyone know how I can configure my A6000 to show a spirit level or some sort, so I can measure if the camera is horisontal?

Does it even have such a feature?

>>3115883
>>3115884
And GR is actually pocketable.

>>3115915
117 x 61 x 35 mm
vs.
120 x 67 x 45 mm

1 cm more depth isn't all that much.

>>3115902

Hit up on the wheel/dpad while looking through the evf.

File: 1380054825968.jpg (142KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1024x576px

>>3115923
I tried this with all the viewing options in Finder/Monitor enabled.

It doesn't have a spirit level.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Paint.NET v3.5.10
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

>>3115927

Ahh sucks, must be too old, but I could sworn it had one.

My a7ii does. Could not do without it, so awesome.

>>3115928
Probably because the A7ii IBIS needs the gyroscope and accelerometer built into it.
Whereas the A6000 doesn't "need" them due to no IBIS.

Oh well, it's still a cool camera, I'm liking it a lot so far.

>>3115929

Yea, I thought I remembered dicking around with it on an NEX-7, but that was so long ago I could be remembering wrong.

>>3115902
lol wtf even my NEX-6 has that

>>3115902
oh man it really doesn't have one. that's odd. but just buy one of these things
https://www.amazon.com/Foto-Tech-Hotshoe-Bubble-Spirit/dp/B00U1VOVRG

>>3115961
Nice, that's actually really cool.

I doubt I'm going to need it to much since my tripod has such a level. But my hotshoe currently have nothing on it at the moment, so I might as well.

180 euros for a GR III?

I really need to know ASAP. I've always wanted a GR...

>>3115976
It comes with 2 batteries, 2 chargers and box/manual.

I really like shooting with my Mju or any small rangefinder as I can take it with me easily. I rarely use my DSLR for spontaneous shooting when I'm outside.

>>3115980
They are normally more expensive than this. You might want to make sure it's not broken or something fishy is going on.

>>3115983
Seems fine, description says it is in mint condition. As far as I can tell it looks great. He also added a photo of LCD screen, turned on. Just asked him about dust and if I could come and test it.

File: 1.jpg (80KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1000x667px

>>3115793
In addition what others have said, mk3 has f/2.8 on the long end, while mk1 has f/4.9, and there's an evf on the mk3 as well, tho it's barely usable... I have the RX100III aand it's ok for casual snapping, but the IQ really isn't THAT good. The image is kinda noisy even at small iso, but luckily not very visible in small prints, sooc colors are kind of shit. The lens is sharp at least. Here's a picture of a flying rat, taken with said camera.

File: bendy.jpg (14KB, 355x355px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 355x355px

best tripod out there tbqh

>>3116000
>memepod

>>3116000
People use it more as a selfie stick than as a tripod.

File: phaggot.jpg (147KB, 700x392px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 700x392px

How do I become better at pushing the button?

File: Cortis-Sonderegger-3931-b.png (1MB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x800px

>>3116018
By improving your vision

Hi /p/rotogs!

Which one would you buy: mirrorless APS-C or full frame DSLR? Similar price, 35/1.8 lens or equivalent.

>>3116051
DSLR APS-C.
Nikon D7200 with 24/1.4G or Zeiss 21/2.8
Pentax K-70 or K-3II with DA 21/3.2 Limited
Canon 80D or M5 with EF-S 24/2.8

File: retardsdophysics.png (16KB, 1152x648px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 1152x648px

>>3115302
So if a fullframe captures more light than a APS-C senor then does the green shadow become more brighter? If there is no sensor in the lens does the green shadow become infinite bright? Is this free energy?

>>3116051
full frame obv

>>3116056
retard

>>3116058
>If there is no sensor in the lens does the green shadow become infinite bright? Is this free energy?
no sensor means no light being captured. it's just light passing through a lens into a box. would a shoebox with a lens sticking out of it collect infinite energy?

>>3116056
I've ruled out this combination, as well as FF mirrorless.

>>3116098
M5 is mirrorless

File: 1465327031-9092131449-a5cb8989e7-b.jpg (334KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 800x533px

>>3116058
Why would they build this......

File: index.jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

>>3116058
>>3116197

......when the solar panel on this collects the same amount of light?

>>3116198
>>3116197
Not the same, your comparison is incorrect. Like so many told you this before me, finish a decent school first, poopco.

>>3116202
>has no argument.
>resorts to insult.

Typical crop baby.
Why are poor people always so uncivilized?

File: a7sii_vs_eye_0008923.jpg (48KB, 580x326px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 580x326px

>>3115851
Seeing something with a bit of lag is pretty much objectively better than seeing basically nothing with no lag.

And in good light you can now get a 60 or even 120hz screen with a low latency of 10ms or so. No problem either.

>>3116051
Full frame DSLR unless it's for a a week long hike on foot, in which case I'd consider the weight / volume difference maybe more relevant.

Though really, just get a new FF MILC/DSLR of your choice and an actually decent lens.

>>3115801
>>3115805
>>3115995
thx for your wisdom my men

File: this_plus_velcro.jpg (102KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 800x800px

>>3116000
Absolute shit if you ask me. Not high enough in most situations, and affixing it to random branches and rails and shit (which may or may not be present) takes just as long as it takes to affix an actual tripod.

Even IF you need the compactness and an actual tripod is out of the question due to other restraints than utter laziness, something like pic related plus a velcro strap is just better, it affixes better and faster while also being easier to set up level when you stand it freely.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	800
Image Height	800
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:15 11:18:26
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	800

Whats a good alternative to a Nikon 24-70 F2.8? Im looking for something with the same focal range, but not super expensive. Also, I really dont need that fast of an aperture. Would a used Nikkor 24-85G be okay?

File: Samyang-AF_35mm.jpg (135KB, 1000x913px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1000x913px

>>3115884
>The GR lens will be better image quality against the pancake.
Maybe use this on the A6000 (or even an A7 II) rather than the 20mm pancake.

>>3115960
Yup, and so does the A6300 and A6500, but it is not present in the A6000.

>>3115961
> $7
Maybe not much in the absolute sense, but wow, they're again scalping on the Chinese gear.

Consider getting it off ali or such instead if you don't like getting ripped off:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/same/32810520868.html
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/another_model/32800696155.html

There are of course other sellers and stores also selling them around $1.

>>3115859
>It's whether that adds up to being worth £500 more than what I can pick up a used 5D3 for
Is build quality more important than RAW flexibility for you? The 6D will always be the plasticy full frame that isn't as rugged as the 5D series, otherwise why have the 5D?

I think we kinda need to back up, why do you want full frame? The three biggest reasons to go full frame are better low light sensitivity, bokehwhoring, and UWA. In many ways, low light isn't that big of a deal in the smaller formats, so it's more do you need to bokehwhore or shoot really wide? If neither of those things really apply to you, why not just roll with an 80D or a 7DmII if you need better build quality?

You're not talking about the 5Ds/r so you aren't looking for huge resolution...is FF even really worth it for you?

>>3116248
I work nightclubs/bars/events and music - they're dark and unpredictable, so I need decent low light and decent environmental sealing.

>>3116255
I kinda hate to be that guy, but why not the Pentax K1? Pretty damn cheap, sony sensor so good low light, rugged as fuck, fully sealed body...

>>3116255
Simply get an A7S II.

> decent environmental sealing
Indoors? No. Not even with people holding drinks.

There are many other risks like you leaving your equipment bag unzipped and someone bumping against it and kicking a flash unit or lens out of it (maybe someone stepping on it subsequently), but environmental sealing really basically isn't needed.

>>3116258
Also a good suggestion.

>>3116227
>>3115884

The 16-50 kit can be okay if you get a good copy, but that is hit or miss.

The 20mm prime is actually good. The 16mm prime is a soft mess.

That 35mm is great, and the Zeiss one is even better (and more expensive) they make great walk around lenses for the a6k series.

File: 81mUrH6oQEL._SL1438_.jpg (382KB, 1438x1208px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1438x1208px

I kind of dig Pentax. Is it a bad idea to get pic related now?
I'm particularly interested in a combo with the 40mm 2.8

>>3116255
>they're dark and unpredictable
Literally time for a SLR
>>3116226
24-85G VR
Tamron 24-70 VC

File: $_27.jpg (50KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 480x480px

sup rudy/p/oo's
im getting rid of my pentax stuff
shit tonne of primes ( and the odd konica and nikon mount )
anyone interested ?

File: Z-PENTAX-K-S2-FRONT-LCD-PR.jpg (95KB, 1024x531px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1024x531px

>>3116327
dear god get the K-S2 or K-70 instead of that toy.

is the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 that bad?

>>3116419
It's LITERALLY twice as bad.

>>3116419
F4 is more lightweight. Some prefer that.

>>3115809
you get both with DSLR

>>3116419
>>3116420
>implying a smaller aperture is always bad

bokehfags baka

>>3116447
>>3115809
These days it's more about how well connected the EVF is and how fast it refreshes since not all EVFs are made equal.

They range from really sucky and laggy to near realtime speed. The A9 for example has what's considered a complete computer in the sensor and EVF coupled directly to sensor to minimize latency.

>>3116419
Yes, and the difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8 is even worse (two stops).

Also, it's pretty important to get good glass anyhow. Some crappy lenses do not have anywhere near the same t-stoppage as f-stoppage (some bad ancient f/1.4 might be 2 TStop), and f/1.4 may be essentially unusable on shitty glass in terms of sharpness.

>>3116419
muh borkah

Why do Sony have no fucking lens dedicated for APS-C system? I just want some 40-45mm equivalent at least like the sweet 27mm Fuji. Fuck this I fell for the legacy lenses meme.

>>3116478

Sigma Art 30mm f/1.4.

Shits all over the 27mm Fuji.

>>3115818
Don't buy this, it's shit. If you like small format, at least get a m43. The OVF of the X20 is useless and sensor size is just a little bit bigger than a smartphone. Hell even an iPhone can take better picture than it. It's got a lot of features for a point and shoot but you'll quickly realize you don't use 90% of them because, again it's a pns. Outdoor shots are aboslutely shit and indoor shots although have good colors will have so much noise they'll be impossible to print at any sizes.

Only good thing about this camera is shooting macro. Oh and you can get it for as low as $250 used. But for your budget you can get into the Canon EOSM system or a Lumix LX100 brand new.

>>3116485
>>3115824
>>3115818

Oh shit, I thought he meant XT-20.

Yea, he should avoid that PnS peice of trash.

Shit he could get a good mirrorless for that price.

>>3116482
>$500
>ugly as fuck
>bigger than the kit zoom lens
I'll pass on that one.

>>3116478
28mm F2. It's still compact enough for a full frame lens that if can be perfectly fine on APS-C.

To me that's simply a higher value that you can use that lens across two lineups of bodies.
We just have different values.

File: sigma30_a6000.jpg (165KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1200x800px

>>3116494

Ohhhh you just want a small lens, not a good one.

You could get the 30mm f/2.8. Not super small but still beats the fuji in IQ.

Or just get the 20mm. A little shorter than you want, but a solid lens.

There are a few compact FF primes toi, like the 28 and 35.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T1
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-T1 Ver1.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2014-07-02T20:48:05+20:00
Exposure Time	1/180 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	-8.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	60.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3116500
I understand where he is coming from though. Those Sigma F2,8 lenses are indeed compact and light, but the focus ring isn't smoothly dampened,and it doesn't have aperture ring.

In an ideal world I wish there was aperture ring on all lenses.
Then the A6000 dial can be used for SS.
And the circle pad be used for ISO.

>>3116258

The Pentax is nice, but would involve a complete change in system - I'd have to buy all new lenses that wouldn't be compatible with any of my other bodies, I wouldn't have a particularly expansive choice of lenses, and I would have an even poorer selection of used lenses to choose from.

>>3116266

>Simply get an A7S ii.

A7S ii is a not so insignificant hike in price over the bodies I originally came into the thread considering.

>>3116494
>>3116478
There is a couple of things you have wrong.

The Sigma lens isn't 500 dollars, it's 340 dollars.
And that "sweet" fuji lens deserves your pricing criticism far more, since it's overpriced at 450 dollars, and it's 2 stops slower. And it lacks aperture dial as well.

File: Probty.jpg (170KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1000x1000px

This is the best fucking battery charger I have had so far, can only say good things about it.

Compact as fuck, doesn't take up any backpack space.
2 slots, + wallplug has additional usb connector to charge a 3rd battery in my camera.
I got it for just 13 bucks.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:05 11:33:01
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000

File: Screenshot_20170718-161644.png (421KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1080x1920px

>>3116520

I got something similar, but mine came with two batteries too.

>>3116530
It's super nice desu.

In theory these things can charge 4 batteries overnight, if the camera holds 2 batteries in the extra grip.

>>3116500
>You could get the 30mm f/2.8. Not super small but still beats the fuji in IQ.
>still beats the fuji in IQ
C'mon man, everyone who owns an A6000 owns this lens and can tell you that that is not true. It's a good lens for the price, but the amount of CA is only slightly better than the kit lens not to mention barrel distortion (but that all gets fixed in post anyway).

>>3116502
>In an ideal world I wish there was aperture ring on all lenses.
Too bad, digital is the future :^)

>>3116537
Anon that Sigma lens is the top APS-C lens. It's definitely a better lens than the guji pancake.

>>3116537

It might have some minor CA, but less than the Fuji.

Plus it is sharper wider open than the Fuji is at any aperture.

>>3116543
>that Sigma lens is the top APS-C lens
Better than the Sony APS-C lenses? Nope. Better than other major lens makers? Nope. The Sony 35mm is sharper with faster AF. Go ahead and post some spec sheet, but I thought I made it clear that I own that lens and can say without a doubt that that lens is slightly soft and has nightmarish CA wide open (which is only 2.8).

>It might have some minor CA, but less than the Fuji.
LOL. Let me say this as an owner of both Sony and (previously) Fuji.
Sony lenses are garbage until you get into the thousand dollar range lenses. Their only saving grace is that their RAW files are very easy to edit and their JPG processor takes care of all of the problems automatically (even if the colors are still hideous).
Fuji RAW files are (slightly) harder to edit, but generally require much less corrections as far as distortion and CA go.

>>3116550

Fuji raws have CA, distortion, and noise reduction baked in.

>>3116550
>garbage until you get into the thousand dollar range lenses
There is a few exceptions like the FE85 F1,8 and FE28 F2.

I quite like those two a lot. The 85 is especially good, like high-end good.

>>3116551
You want to know how I know you've never used a Fuji camera before?

what are some ND and grad ND filters you would recommend? 77mm filter size if that matters

>>3116561
Get some cheap ones from aliexpress and pay around with them before getting the expensive ones.

>>3115818
Get panasonic LX100. It's better in every way except mechanical zooming feel on the fuji lens.

File: h_h025k_front_slant_1.jpg (155KB, 1800x1350px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1800x1350px

I'm debating between three lenses for my Olympus E-M10 II.
>M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8
>M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8
>Lumix 25mm f/1.7
I'm leaning heavily towards the Lumix due the $100 price difference, but I heard Lumix lenses like the 20mm f/1.7 tend to have issues on Olympus bodies.
Does that still hold true for the 25mm?

>>3116327
Even the K-01 is better than that.

Don't get the K-01 either!

>>3116503
A7Sii is only good for video, for photos it's shit.

>>3116598
There was a youtuber who took his A7s into an abandoned amusement park at night.

It was pretty awesome, like going on an adventure. It gives you a completely different mood to the pictures.

>>3116563
what's the quality of those?

>>3116532

I have an older model, my camera wont charge over usb when using the vertical grip.

I rarely use my grip anyway though.

Sony dslr for videos & pictures up too 700$? Only body needed.

>>3116611
A77II maybe?
Or a Pentax K-70 or used Nikon D7100
You'll be much likely to find more used pentax glass and even more used Nikon glass though. A-mount is dead.

>>3116611
Lumix G80/85
strong in both stills and video

>>3116630
>>3116632
I have a left over sony lense so i thought i'd go for a sony again.

File: 1.jpg (1MB, 2886x993px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2886x993px

Is something wrong with my house, or is bottom much softer than the top of my lens?

I got a bad copy from Samyang, didn't I?

>>3116670
It is decentering, but not that much. I had a similar one and used it without much issue. I doubt it would significantly show up in print. Digital display uses sharpening and more downscaling so it would show up even less.
The CA is much more prominent than the decentering.

>>3116594
>Does that still hold true for the 25mm?
I haven't read anything about the f/1.7 having issues, nor the older Lumix Leica f/1.4. Also, the issues with the 20mm f/1.7 was that some users experienced banding in higher ISOs (3200+), that iirc was resolved the II version of the lens (not totally sure about that tho)

>>3116537
>Anon that Sigma lens is the top APS-C lens.
Huh? No. The 60mm f/2.8 is great by APS-C standards and so is the 30mm f/1.4, but the 30mm f/2.8 is just okay.

>>3116706
I misread the conversation and thought the other were discussing the 30mm F1,4.

File: 1442125204180.jpg (25KB, 539x476px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 539x476px

I have a Celestron C8, which has a focal length of 2032mm. I want to take pictures of the upcoming eclipse in August, but I'm using a Canon 80D and not a full-frame DSLR. This brings the focal length to an equivalent to 3251.2mm.
How should I go about taking the pictures? The crop factor will make an equivalent too zoomed in on the sun to take a good picture. But I don't know how the tube that screws into the ass-end of the CST will be enough for the crop factor. Should I buy spacers along with the tube and adapter? Or should I get an adapter that allows the usage of eyepieces, although I'd prefer it just having the 80D affixed to the CST

chance to buy a used nikon d3100 with two lenses for 300 AUD or a new 3400 with two lenses for 760 (one lens kit 600). Is the improvement worth it? Is the 3100 a good deal? Looking for a first dslr, kinda want 60fps1080 but I'm not sure if I'd even use it. 3400 also has twice the battery life and 4 times resolution screen. Seems a decent enough improvement? Idk.

>>3117063
Get a D7200 & skip the low entry level upgrade bait offer.

>>3117078
out of my price range ;(

>>3117079
Just put some money aside this month (/ make some extra by selling stuff or whatever) and buy it next month...?

>>3117095
I have the money I just can't justify spending over 1k on something I might not use all that much.

File: Nikon-Mirrorless-camera-ima.jpg?w=550.jpg (38KB, 550x460px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 550x460px

I heard Nikon is releasing a new mirrorless camera.

What features is it going to have to make it stand out?
It's kind of a tough and crowded field with 5 other players, and thy already made Samsung kick the bucket.

>>3114305
What are your thoughts /p/ ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gFWBg_QsNE

>>3117127
Get a pentax then, K-3 or K-70. Should be cheaper with the same features.

>>3117263
The fuck is this, a reverse filter thread? That's explicit competition with high-end compacts right there; except high-end compacts have APS or FF sensors, so...

>>3117263
It's not going to have any standout features, a terrible Nikon UI, and generally be par for the course.

t. Assmad Nikon fanboy who wishes the company wasn't run by stuck up old men who can't bend to consumer wishes.

>>3117373
I'm seeing some possibilities in buying an A9 sensor from Sony, and putting it in a D750-like body.

Just with shorter flange, like a real mirrorless.
I would have fast AF and a good grip and appeal very strongly to traditional Nikon shooters since it would be the only mirrorless on the market with a big sturdy body.

Bentax

why doesn't nikon have any good consumer dx lenses besides the 35mm prime

f*ck you nikon

>>3117505
The new AF-P VR 18-55 and 70-300 are great

>>3114305
Can I get a quick rundown on third-party MFT lenses? Is Yi a shit?

>>3117551
disregard all except Voightlander

>>3114305
I don't have a camera, looking to pick up something used in the $100-150 is there anything specific I should look for that is good value?

>>3117577
absolutely nothing, just use your cellphone until you have a bigger budget

>>3117580
>cellphone
cell camera lens is smashed, from leaving it in my pocket at work

New/p/hag here, Is it safe to put my camera body and lenses in my messenger bag unprotected? For example if the body and lens are in my bag along with my water bottle, will they be safe? Or is it necessary that I store them in a padded case within my main bag? Idk how durable these things are.

I've been a m4/3 user for about 6 years now but I also have an x100s that I love.

I was thinking about upgrading to fuji crop sensors, like an x-t2/ x-pro2 but after looking at the prices, I saw I could get a used Sony A7/ii for about the same price.

Should I just make the jump to full frame? I wanna stay mirrorless for all my legacy lenses I've accrued.

>>3117617
Sure man. The a7 auto focuses barely faster than a razor flip phone but if all you want to use it for is legacy glass its awesome. The a7ii just adds IS and less shitty autofocus to the mix so you can decide if that's worth the extra.

>>3117607
That depends on which gear you own and how much stuff you have with you, how much are they going get banged together, will the caps stay in place, will sand or dirt get inside etc. I wouldn't necessarily place a cheap leaky water bottle or some sharp edged massive metal things like say a hammer in the same compartment with loose lenses and shit, but I've never had any issues throwing any of my cameras in a random bag I have with me. Even the most basic plastic dslr's are very tough. I've kicked my old nikon d80 around on gravel just to prove this point, and it still works fine. Though the sceen on my sony rx100iii is scratched to hell being in my bag at all times, a screen protector is not a bad idea.

>>3117624
Yeah, it would just be in a compartment with my Yeti, so it wont be leaking or anything and it's small enough that nothing would be banging around. Thanks anon.

>>3117617
I think it'd be fine, I'm considering getting a used a7ii alongside my fuji stuff, just to play around with legacy lenses. Just keep in mind that the dof is really small, you really have to stop your lenses down a lot if you want anything in focus. I had ff nikon stuff before I went for fuji, and while bokeh whoring was fun at first, it quickly became an annoyance, alongside the massive size and weight.

>>3117617

Jump to fullframe.

Those legacy lenses were intended for 135 film, which is equivalent to a fullframe sensor. You will be able to use them at their intended field of view.

Plus the a7ii is just a flat out better camera.

>>3117617
definitely jump to full frame

going from crop to crop doesn't make much sense as m43 isn't much smaller than apsc anyway so you won't really notice a change in sensor performance

so, monitor color calibration

will a colormunki get me most of the way there, or should i go for the i1 pro 2 from the get go?

have dell u2412m and u2410. mostly using the u2412m atm...

I can borrow either an 18mm or a 55mm from a friend.

Which of those two would be the best as a travel lens?

>>3117888
people or landscapes?

>>3117893
A little bit of both.