Gear Thread

Canon 100-400 is, what does /p/ think of it?

>>2681044
It's a good lens. Heavy, but good. Needs a slider strap too, attached to the tripod mount.

I want to get into photography but i dont exactly live in the safest of areas and im not trying to be a major professional but i still want good quality

what are some good cameras i can consider that dont scream "please rob me and steal everything i own"?

im looking at about a $300-$400 price range, any suggestions?

>>2681073
Move to a better part of town. This should be your first priority, then get a used DSLR. Pentax K-30 and K-50 should fit into your budget and offer weatherproof bodies and prism viewfinders.

>>2681073
ricoh gr

pocketable
black and discrete for putting away in a hurry
will help you learn composition and exposure well enough
looks like an old compact ie. worthless

just beware of
DUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUSTDUST

>>2681082
if moving were that easy i would have done it already, but half this town is absolutely shitty and the other half is expensive as fuck

>>2681103
Are you in Birmingham?

File: ricoh.jpg (145KB, 1184x539px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1184x539px

>>2681105
northern oklahoma

>>2681100
this?
this listing makes me a bit nervous since the others i see are a lot more expensive but its not coming from China or Indonesia

File: IMG_4299 web.jpg (428KB, 824x1124px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 824x1124px

In 2008 I inherited a Canon EOS 350D with a bunch of accessories, tripods and 4 lenses:
-Sigma DC 18-125mm 1:3.5-5.6 (my all-purpose go-to lense)
-Canon Compact Macro EF 50mm 1:2.5 (my trusty macro lense)
-Canon Zoom Lense EF IS 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 (I rarely use it on nature and the moon)
-Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 (I have yet to find a use for this)

My best estimate is that all of this was purchased in 2005/2006. Since 2008 I've put several thousand shots on my camera and I've gotten more serious about my hobby over time (manual focus, switching to RAW, tinkering with manual aperture, etc). I'd estimate that I shoot 30% macro (picture related, the first macro shot I really liked back in 2009), 50% daylight outside (nature, landscape, city), 10% night, 10% people/portrait.

I'm looking to upgrade the camera in the next two years, since I'm getting pretty fed-up by the technical limitations of my 350D. But since I've never had to buy any of my gear I really have no clue about lenses. So what would you say is my next step? Are there any lenses worth buying that would bring me a step further or is upgrading the body next in line for me? Is there any use in keeping the fourth lense? Apart from test shots I've never used it once.

Concerning budget - let's say I can easily afford good quality, but I don't need to go full pro yet. I appreciate any input.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL
Firmware Version	Firmware 1.0.1
Owner Name	unknown
Serial Number	0230102608
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:07 12:51:53
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	824
Image Height	1124
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	High
Saturation	High
Contrast	High
Shooting Mode	Unknown
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	224
Camera Actuations	596639947
Color Matrix	0

>>2681116
70D, 7D, 7DMkII

I suggest a 7D, used and use the spare cash on better quality lenses, like a 70-200 F2.8 or F4 for portraits and Sigma 24-35 Art.

>>2681113
Beware though, that is not the "GR", but a GR Digital I to IV. On a GR all you'd see would be "GR" in the bottom corner, without the addition of "Digital".

File: batteriesonabandolier.jpg (68KB, 640x358px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x358px

White House now using A7RII.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:07 12:11:00
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	640
Image Height	358

>>2681257
So you're saying they made yet another bad decision?

>>2681113
lol,fucking faggot

>>2681116
>rarely uses telephoto and standard zoom
>prefers macro and do it all zooms
Maybe a Sigma 24-105 F4, and/or a longer macro lens in the 100mm range.

I can't really recommend any of the Canon 18-1xx EF-S zooms, so the EF ones will leave you a bit short (long) at the short end (24mm = 38mm).

Definitely buy a newer sensor. 70Ds are like $800, 7Ds are old but good and $600, 7DIIs are new and good but $1200-1500, and 5DIIs are old and good and $1000.

Remember to budget for SD cards, a fast reader, and storage space for increased file sizes.

>>2681036
why would anyone use a pentax when all the lenses are soft?
a7r ii + 90mm 2.8 can out resolve the pentaks.

>>2681113
no.
that is the older version with pea sized sensor.

>>2681260
ken, pls.

>>2681273
what a delusional faggot

>>2681275
there is a reason im asking for advice

i know fuck all about cameras

>>2681273
At least Pentax has lenses

>>2681280
The Ricoh GR naming scheme is really confusing.
It's good you asked here before buying.

>>2681280
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00BOZ1XA6/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1444252458&sr=8-1&keywords=coolpix+a&condition=used

better than ricoh gr.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830111660

cheapest new camera.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=e-pl6
getting the ez lens + 40-150mm is worth it.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0092MD5V8/ref=sr_1_28_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1444252860&sr=8-28&keywords=fujifilm+x&condition=used

if you don't mind adapting old manual focus lenses. get a 50mm f1.7 or 28mm f2.8. they're usually cheap.

>>2681282
the pentax 645z literally has no lens.

>>2681116
> Are there any lenses worth buying that would bring me a step further or is upgrading the body next in line for me?
You probably should try a Sony E-mount at some point. Maybe with the brilliant FE 90mm macro for macro, or the Batis 85mm for portraits. Maybe the A7S II for night or just the A6000 with a focal reducer / adapter.

All of these will be some generations better in pretty much every regard than what you have now & the system will allow you to continue to adequately use the same Canon lenses with adapters.

You can of course get a nicer lens and/or nicer Canon as well, it's also an upgrade... but lenses of ~equal quality currently cost more on Canon's side, and the ability of the bodies overall isn't quite as neat as Sony's.

> Is there any use in keeping the fourth lense? Apart from test shots I've never used it once.
Probably not - just sell it.

>>2681287
There are a shitton of 645 lenses, the fuck are you talking about?

>>2681293
>>2681287
And not counting the plethora of excellent 67 lenses.

File: tak1.4.jpg (45KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x400px

Tomorrow I'm going to meet a guy who sells a Super-Takumar 50mm 1.4 and a Yashica ML 50 1.4.

I only have money for one of them and still can't decide. I already have an M42 adapter for the Tak, but the Yashica is cheaper by the price of an Y/C adapter...

The choosen one will be used on a crop mirrorless.

Halp /p/

>>2681293
>>2681295
lenses from the 70s you mean?

File: 150827_HP5400_1_024.jpg (352KB, 1200x790px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1200x790px

I want a good travel tripod. I plan on doing more hiking in the near future and would like a tripod to take with me to get sharper images. Any reasonable recommendations? I would prefer a price less than $200

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Picasa
Photographer	Picasa
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3231
Image Height	2127
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:10:02 22:15:45
Image Width	1200
Image Height	790
Unique Image ID	ae35e4d3f20e761d33e7259b2b9f29ea

>>2681301

Whichever is in better condition. I always take a small flashlight with me to look at the interior of a lens. Or if the aperature blades are different, get the one that makes better bokeh.

Hi /p/eee.
I just bought a nikon D750 (my first full frame) and now I need a wide angle lens.
I'm doubting between Samyang 14 f/2.8 or something around 20 or 24mm. The samyang is cheaper but manual focus and maybe too wide.
Anyone can recommend Nikon 20mm or 24 1.8? Sigma 24 f/1.4? Thanks

>>2681303
See >>2679402 for my suggestions.

>>2681320
The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED is a good match for a D750. Not cheap, but worth it.

The Sigma 24 f/1.4 also is good.

>>2681303
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1024915-REG/mountainsmith_14_9700_01_trekker_fx_hiking_pole.html

get this with a tripod attachment.

I just bought a pentax k-3 ii; will be arriving monday.

What's a good all-purpose lens (like below 55 to above 100) I can get for 300 to 400 dollars?
I was thinking about the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC HSM.
I appreciate the help, thanks!

File: IMG_1099.jpg (23KB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x283px

are you buying the new cheap eos m?

>>2681326
I see no reason to. You even require an adapter for the normal Canon lenses, right?

Just use a Sony, seriously...

File: untitled.jpg (178KB, 1506x1130px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1506x1130px

after doing a bunch of research i've determined that I'm gonna buy the fuji x100t.
I personally prefer the silver model because of the separation but the black looks nice too. It seems to me that the black version is less popular, do you think that it would hold it's value better for resale because of that?

>>2681366
Are you buying this camera for yourself or for the person you sell it to in a few years? Buy the one you want and you'll use it more. Fuck resale values.

>>2681368
i like them both

>>2681370
toss a coin, fuck are you retarded?

>>2681044
breddy good.

>>2681372
my question was will the black one hold its value better. not "decide for me"

>>2681374
W H O F U C K I N G C A R E S C U N T
H
O

F
U
C
K
I
N
G

C
A
R
E
S

C
U
N
T

>>2681377
I DO
D
O

jeez if it upsets you so much just ignore it. maybe il want to upgrade in the future don't be such a fucking spaz.

File: image1.jpg (684KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 1000x750px

I got these at a yard sale yesterday, Cleaned them, got new batteries for them (neither of them have been AAA converted) and loaded a pack of Fuji 300C in them.

Pretty excited to try them out

>>2681381
Nice

>>2681368
it will be the same.
also get the tele and wide converter.

Hey guys Im a super beginner, Im saving up for a camera right now but dont have enough money. Ya'll have recommendations for books, websites...etc. to help a beginner like me

>>2681395
google exposure, aperture, shutter speed, iso and how they interact with each other.
then google basic composition.
all you need.
go out, shoot and experiment.

>>2681320
20/2.8D. unless you want to go wiiiide. then the samyang.

manual focus is ok; everything's going to be in focus anyways. f8 and be there.

File: P9050080.jpg (1MB, 4607x2853px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4607x2853px

I've got an OMD EM5. as I've gotten more into the hobby, my capabilities and knowledge have eclipsed the capabilities of the camera so I'm looking to upgrade.

If you had $3,000 to spend, what would you buy?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Color Filter Array Pattern	800
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:09:13 12:29:01
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	1.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto, Red-Eye Reduce
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal

>>2681419
Would you sell that OMD EM5 to me for $200?

File: 24sexy.jpg (99KB, 640x463px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 640x463px

This little thing any good?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Created	2014:09:15 11:11:06
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	463

>>2681428
yeah
If only Nikon would have the same.

File: P224S_P324S_P424S-9.jpg (85KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1000x1000px

>>2681428
As compared to other pancake lenses, it is pretty good.

As compared to a good bigger 24mm lens, it's just pretty shit.

>>2681419
nice pic m8, but resize your shit

I would get a 6d/7dmkii with a tamron 24-70 and something MFT for walkaround

or a sony RX1

>>2681419
> If you had $3,000 to spend, what would you buy?
Depends on what I wanted to shoot.

If I wanted to do super telephoto like your picture shows, I'd probably get a D750 and some Sigma or Nikon lens.

For my own purposes, the Sony FE 90mm macro, Batis 85mm, Sonnar 55mm and some recent Sony body (A6000 with speed booster, A7S, A7R ...) are better choices.

>>2681433
how stable are these?

I would love to have compact tripod for long exposure, but this looks like it's would wobble the shit out of the camera.

>>2681419
eclipsed in what manner? is there something the em5 can't do that you need (inb4 iso over 3200)? M43 is a cheap way to get a lot of reach and a good amount of pixels onto a target. adapt a 200 or 300 prime or buy the 75-300 and go wild(life shooting). maybe you want to go wide? there's not many wide angle options, pretty much the 7-14.

maybe you want autofocus performance and all day battery life? pick a dslr.

If I had $3000 and an em5 and what else? 45/1.8 clearly but what else do you have?
d7100 $700
35/1.8DX $200
70-200/4 VR $1200
10-24 DX $800

oly 40-150 $150

File: sigma_24mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm_1120085.jpg (356KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 2500x2500px

>>2681445
They are resistant enough to not tip over when you lightly bump against them.

They indeed *do* catch vibrations/wobble, so you want OS on your lens or sensor, or an off-camera trigger.

File: Sirui.jpg (38KB, 536x640px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 536x640px

>>2681448
Ah, and if you're actually holding the camera while you shoot you can have the ball joint on the foot loosened.

Then there is practically no wobble.

Any particular places online to buy good, affordable lenses?

>>2681453
Good costs $600-4000 - ish. Well, various lenses are already "great" at or above $1200 or so, but not really astrophotography telescopes, super telephoto lenses, and the like.

You can have that in any typical photography store (B&H, Adorama) and on Amazon.

Affordable is on eBay and keh, maybe craigslist.
You can get surplus kit lenses, older lenses, used cameras with lenses and such cheap.
Can be even cheaper if you adapt old MF lenses onto a mirrorless or other camera with sufficiently short(er) flange focal distance that you can use an adapter.

>>2681381

That 100 is sexy af

I need a lens for Nikon Full frame, under $4000 (preferably under $2000) with a focal length of 300 or longer and good AF performance.

What do you guys think is the way to go? The top contenders right now seem to be the 300 f/4, either the old one or the new VR, the 200-500 f/5.6, or perhaps the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, but it's way more than I can really justify spending.

Looking for a DSLR body ~$1500 maybe a little ($200) over/under. Thinking of going Nikon because I have someone willing to give me a lens (FX or DX).

>>2681479
A Nikon D750 would pretty much be $1500. You could check the specs on that one to see if it works for you.

>>2681479
D750 over budget a little, D7200 under a little.

>>2681478
it's not like you have many choices. if you can find one, an AF-I or D AF-S 400 2.8 would be cool and really heavy. no promise on af performance. a 300/2.8 VR could be barely within your budget. a 300/2.8 AF-S I or II also.

the 200-500 is looking like one hell of a bargain so far. $1400 puts it way under the 300/4 PF.

the 300/4 PF is a winner, but also on the short end for telephotos. lightweight, VR, and excellent optics. a 300/4 AF-S is optically just as good though, just no VR. see thom hogan's review of the PF.

if you want to cheap out, you could always get the 300/4D and have fast hands with the limiter ring. I hear the AF isn't as sluggish if you make use of the limiter. can anybody here speak to this?

>>2681497
> D750 over budget a little
But it's pretty much $1500 ($1550 new on eBay, for example). That certainly falls within the $1500 +-$200 range.

File: sigma_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_dg_os_1082152.jpg (224KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 2500x2500px

>>2681478
Perhaps consider the 150-600mm F5-6,3 DG OS HSM Sports. Maybe one of the better options if you strongly want to stay under $2000.

Otherwise, get the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. It's a pretty decent budget alternative to the Nikon 300 f/2.8.


With lenses like this, you can also consider if you perhaps simply could rent one when you need it.

>>2681121
>>2681263
>>2681292
Thank you for your thoughts. Much appreciated.

>>2681502
$1900 US MSRP.

$1500 grey market, and $900 for the D7200. But I don't trust anything Nikon makes these days, so I don't buy grey market. Just look at the product releases for the D800, D810, 300 PF, and 200-500.

It's an improvement that Nikon's owing up to faults now (lelD600), but not much of one when they've been axing service centers left and right, then asking customers to pay shipping to ship their brand new lenses and cameras to the service center for a firmware upate.

>>2681523
> $1500 grey market
Sure, it's quite possibly a parallel import if it's from eBay.

> But I don't trust anything Nikon makes these days, so I don't buy grey market. Just look at the product releases for the D800, D810, 300 PF, and 200-500.
At that point you just shouldn't buy Nikon anymore, no?

I mean, you're paying almost 1/4 extra ($400) into Nikon's regional marketing scheme bullshit because they're doing a bad job.

(I myself am just guessing the D750 is okay, since the internet shitstorm hasn't happened yet.)

>>2681525
and yet it's an oligopoly in the SLR market. you can have lelcanon sensors or lelnikon quality control and customer service.

the lens problems are usually pretty minor, but body problems can be a huge pain. with nikon just flat out refusing to service imports, it can be a big problem.

File: august_sander_17.jpg (21KB, 400x497px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x497px

Fellow anons from Germany, where do you buy used cameras? I know about eBay, eBay kleinanzeigen, shpock (even though it's shit and people there seem out of touch with reality)... and that's all I know. Or maybe you are selling a 6d or a 5dm2 - I'll be happy to see your offer.

File: PDP_E-PL6-black.png (200KB, 600x245px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 600x245px

i want to get into photography, i have about a $300 budget and need something thats easy to carry

any opinions on the Olympus PEN E-PL6?

>>2681533
Feel free to switch your allegiance to Sony, the still somewhat comparatively benevolent overlord that already owns the camera sensor market...

>>2681539
> any opinions on the Olympus PEN E-PL6?
Not good. Sample images from that look pretty much like smartphone snapshots to me.

You could get an RX100 (first version, maybe an used one) for about this price. They should have a better lens at least.

>>2681497
I don't mind lacking VR, most of my subjects are moving anyway, and I'm either panning or using very fast shutter speeds. (I shoot auto racing.)

>>2681509
I think I'd rather have the Nikon 200-500 than the Bigma. I'll throw a 1.4TC on it if I want to trade a stop for more reach, and at the shorter end I already have a 70-200 so the fact that the Sigma goes to 150 isn't much of a benefit.

I looked at the 120-300 today and liked what I saw, especially how light it is, but it's like $3600 and that's really pushing it.

I've rented quite a few times, but it adds up, and also means spending an hour to drive to the closest rental place and pick it up, plus I have to put a big deposit down and stuff. When I was shooting pro I used to regularly rent a 500/4 and bill it to the job, and it was a great lens, but it was close to $500 a week, huge and heavy, and honestly overkill for what I do with it. I could have the 200-500 for what three 500/4 rentals cost.

>>2681523
Ugh, this is killing me so hard hearing this. I sold my D3S off last year when I stopped shooting full-time and paid $2k for a D610. Now I could have the vastly superior D750 for the same money.

whats the best silent (or near silent) camera can I get for around 600?

prefer smaller cameras

>>2681073
Buy an older DSLR - my first camera was a Canon 30D for about $130, then get a 50mm lens or something standard like an 18-55mm. It will serve as a good introduction to photography on a proper dslr, and you will learn to work with its limitations. When you start to notice what it can't do you know it's time for an upgrade.

Only issue is that it's not compact or easily concealable.

>>2681543
don't listen to this faggot.
the epl6 is good up to iso 3200.
get some fast lens and you'll be fine.

>>2681553
lens suggestions? im new to this stuff and seeing lenses priced between $700 and $1500 is a bit scary

>>2681544
> I think I'd rather have the Nikon 200-500 than the Bigma
I thought the Bigma was the 50-500mm?

Anyhow, the Nikon 200-500 looks just about the same to me anyways (found some useful images for comparison by someone else here, never had a hands-on with the 200-500 yet: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thomasrubach/albums).

The extras on the Sigma (software configuration, neat rotating tripod collar, weather sealing, ...) really are probably not worth the difference in price then, especially considering it is also still noticeably heavier.

> I've rented quite a few times, but it adds up, and also means spending an hour to drive to the closest rental place and pick it up, plus I have to put a big deposit down and stuff. When I was shooting pro I used to regularly rent a 500/4 and bill it to the job, and it was a great lens, but it was close to $500 a week, huge and heavy, and honestly overkill for what I do with it.
No rental it is, then.

> I sold my D3S off last year when I stopped shooting full-time and paid $2k for a D610. Now I could have the vastly superior D750 for the same money.
Sorry to hear that!

File: E-PL6(ISO3200)Rauschen.jpg (163KB, 641x641px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 641x641px

>>2681553
> the epl6 is good up to iso 3200
No, it is not. Pic related.

Perhaps you might be able to use iso 1600 after heavy filtering...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-PL6
Camera Software	PhotoLine17.54
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Color Filter Array Pattern	986
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	84 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2014:05:25 10:15:50
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Fine Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	42.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2681562
definitely useable

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=oly_epl7&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_2=sony_a6000&attr13_3=sony_dscrx100m4&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.5636455785460875&y=-0.8105145903529467

>>2681446
I also have the Leica 15mm f/1.8 prime which is super fun, and the 12-50mm kit lens.

I just take a lot of big landscape shots, and I find the lack of DR, and 16 million pixels crammed on to that small sensor to be a bit limiting when trying to capture something like a sunset.

File: image.jpg (3MB, 4096x3071px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4096x3071px

>>2681436
Well that was shot with a 90mm equivalent. Not really "super telephoto".

But yeah, mostly wildlife and nature shit.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4096
Image Height	3071

>>2681555
Considering your poorfag status, the 14-42mm kit lens should be an acceptable start.
The panasonic 20mm f1.7 and the olympus 45mm f1.8 should both be around $300, probably the best "cheap" quality options for you.
The 20mm is a nice general purpose lens and the 45mm is good for portrait with some nice bokeh. Both are much sharper and faster than the kit lens.

File: 75-300.jpg (125KB, 1185x480px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1185x480px

>Finally a telephoto within my price range
>front filter ring damage

Oh wells. I guess I can keep waiting. Sucks being poor

File: sony_sel90m28g_fe_90mm_f_2_8_macro_1126140.jpg (106KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1000x1000px

>>2681604
> Well that was shot with a 90mm equivalent. Not really "super telephoto".
My bad. Anyhow,it shouldn't affect the suggestions.

Unless you have further hints or questions, those are my best guesses.

>>2681613
Wouldn't one of these probably have just cosmetic filter damage that doesn't prevent like, hiding it under a step-up adapter ring or something?

>>2681619

Totally. I was actually looking at the A7 series already because I love the size and weight of mirrorless. Having trouble between the A7ii or the A7r though. A7rii is too expensive to justify as an amateur though :/

I've been getting more into photography as a hobby over the past year. I currently have a superzoom (fz38) and I'm starting to notice its limitations so looking to upgrade to my first 'proper camera'. Budget around £200.

So far I've thought about the following (all used):

Olympus e-pl5 (with kit lens for the foreseeable future).

Pentax k30

Sony Nex-5r

Panasonic GF1 (can be bought with the 20mm f1.7 for little more than the cost of the lens)

Are any of those good/terrible options? What would you do? Basically I'm torn because I mainly do street/architecture atm and I like the idea of something that's portable enough to carry around most of the time, but the pentax is obviously more capable. Will a beginner notice the limitations of the others?

>>2681646
Mirrorless from good in a technology standpoint, it is much more convenient imo
But "I love the size and weight of mirrorless" doesn't apply to the A7 series. While it's true that it's lighter and smaller, it's not significantly so that it changes the use you'd have with a bulkier DSLR. And then the lenses bring it back to par. Not to put you off though, A7 series are good cameras, just not so much for the size/weight.

>as I've gotten more into the hobby, my capabilities and knowledge have eclipsed the capabilities of the camera
>f you had $3,000 to spend, what would you buy?
lighting equipment, lenses, tripod, a flight to a cool place. But certainly not a whole new camera system.

>>2681655
rewriting my sentence was not a good idea
>Mirrorless is good from a technology standpoint*

>>2681613
>can't even afford a clean 75-300
it's not even a good lens fuck

>>2681545
used X100 and firmware update

>>2681562
It's not 300 dpi print usable, but certainly web usable. Same with this picture >>2681604

oh my fuck, just got a sigma 400mm 5.6 prime with an aperture ring that meters on my 32 yr old nikon film camera. Film birding here I come

>>2681655
So you don't think the step up from an EM5 m43 system to a full frame is worth the money?

>>2681707
>missed focus here I come
fuck telephoto manual focus
>>2681716
FF Mirrorless? No. Shit's for posers and the studio yo. The lenses are xbox hueg. Might as well have had a DSLR.

Ask yourself: Do you want two stops better noise performance? If so, get a full frame camera. If not, then enjoy your compact camera.

>>2681720
>Shit's for posers and the studio yo.
perhaps right for the former
not right for the latter

>>2681720
I was under the impression that newer FF mirrorless cameras were at least as good as their DSLR counterpoint. A7ii outperforms the 5D mkiii on DXO across the board.

>>2681646
> Having trouble between the A7ii or the A7r though.
A7II. 5-axis IBIS, faster AF, electronic first-curtain shutter, buttons...

You'll likely be relatively easily getting the megapixels and stuff on the camera body you buy after that.

> A7rii is too expensive to justify as an amateur though :/
I can see where it would start to cut into other hobby expenses and stuff. You won't have too horrible a time with an A7II or such a toy, though.

Also kinda saves you from dealing with LR on 40+ MP files for now, if you use LR.

>>2681735
>A7ii outperforms the 5D mkiii on DXO across the board
meaningless

if you're really unsure, rent both for a weekend and get a feel of them both

>>2681738
>meaningless
How is it meaningless? They are very different cameras, certainly, but if it's right for you, you can trade battery life and sports level AF for a DRAMATIC jump in image quality and editability.

>>2681745
>>2681745

Agreed. For landscape and wildlife photography, or even for snapshits you don't need long battery life or fast AF (although the AF on the A7 series is still good.) .

Saying better image quality is meaningless is hilarious.

>>2681735
They are in most situations.

> A7ii outperforms the 5D mkiii on DXO across the board.
Sure, and it's also not doing bad apart from a sensor-based comparison.

Not that every detail is better. Like, the Canon has the better speedlight support (HSS and TTL are available even wirelessly by multiple third parties), and IMO feels a little better holding it, for instance.

There is also the lens availability issue - more than a handful of very good primes exist for the e-mount now, but it's not a lineup like Canon's.

Putting a Canon lens on an adapter usually works really quite well, but not usually as well as not having it on a 5D III...

>>2681757
For wildlife you can't use the camera as a spotting scope when that drains the battery.

You will have to bring binoculars and quickly switch to the camera when something interesting happens, potentially missing shots.

>>2681761
You can, easily, if you have two small spare batteries in your pocket.

>>2681761
Of course you can, you still have ~350 shots (CIPA rating). Just bring a bunch of extra batteries, they're not too heavy at 41g.

Or use the battery grip that takes two of these batteries, or one of the various 3rd party power pack gizmos (not that many people use them, but if you want one, get one).

File: image.jpg (4MB, 4096x3162px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4096x3162px

>>2681767
>>2681767

Yep. And also poo-pooing the size difference is silly. Of course an m43 system is way lighter, but full frame DSLR's are fucking huge, and when it comes to hiking and camping, even a lb saved on an A7ii is helpful.

Pic related. Shot this with my EM5 and that hike would have sucked dick with 10 extra pounds of camera.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4096
Image Height	3162

>>2681735
from a sensor standpoint, yes.

consider this though:
1)
>comparing a 5D3 to an A7
>not comparing the D810
2) tracking AF performance: important for moving wildlife. despite claims from manufacturers and users, I am still let down by mirrorless AF peformance when compared to SLRs. accuracy is great, speed and confidence, not so much.
3) weather sealing: it's easier to get a weather sealed system for SLRs than it is for mirrorless. Olympus only has a handful of sealed lenses, 3 of which are PRO grade and priced. sony has... none?
4) battery life: yes, you can carry a few extra batteries. if it's cold, remember to keep them warm and next to your body. but if you're doing this for real, you'll want to be confident in your batteries, either their capacity (SLR) or quantity (mirrorless). also it means less time spent remembering if you charged all your batteries.

like I said before, again, consider whether you want SLR's advantages (weather sealing, battery life, AF performance) or mirrorless' advantages (size, weight). if you want the former purely for wildlife, maybe a D800E and 300/4 AF-S or D/80-400 G VR/200-500)(is it really $1400? god damn) is in your future. you can always carry the EM5 and a 40-150 if you want to size down. or you can ditch your system, and pick up an A7II, a handful of batteries, and a teleph- OH WAIT.

>kek just kidding, you'll have to make do with a 70-200/4G

by the way, the anon suggesting to take that money and spend it on a vacation isn't wrong. you should budget for that.

>>2681776
>3) weather sealing: it's easier to get a weather sealed system for SLRs than it is for mirrorless.
This is true. There are only a handful of mirrorless models that are tout weather sealing.
If I was all about weather sealing I'd me more inclined to look at pentax to be honest.

When I found out about sony's joke "weather sealing" (light humidity sealing) and their shoddy cover up I was kind of put off.

Still, if you're not going to be encountering much water, salt water, sand, dust etc., then they're really fantastic in most other regards.

>>2681773
Pretty sure you're just a pussy.

>>2681776
> not comparing the D810
Maybe because the A7R II also wasn't justifiable in cost?

Used deals are far less good for that one than the 5D III, too, as far as I can tell.

> despite claims from manufacturers and users
...and reviewers.

> accuracy is great, speed and confidence, not so much.
On what camera setup?

PDAF and hybrid are ridiculously snappy on an A7II or even A6000, the difference to even a D810 is almost not there.

YMMV if you shoot in really low light [... but this is not the low light camera in the lineup anyways - get an A7S II then, it will PDAF reliably at -2 EV and pretty well at -3 EV with a good lens.]

> weather sealing
True. On the other hand, it's not an issue a $5-15 camera raincoat thingie / plastic bag can't solve.

>>2681798 (cont'd)
> it will PDAF reliably at -2 EV and pretty well at -3 EV with a good lens
That is, according to reviews. You'd obviously have to wait for it. Might also be too expensive.

>>2681798
>PDAF and hybrid are ridiculously snappy on an A7II or even A6000, the difference to even a D810 is almost not there.
In direct sunlight, maybe. In anything else, absolutely not. There are lots of reviews and tests done already that say that the AF is still sluggish and unreliable compared to even mid-tier DSLRs.

>>2681798
>get an A7S II then, it will PDAF reliably at -2 EV and pretty well at -3 EV with a good lens.
but the a7sii doesn't have pd
only contrast
like the a7s

>>2681798
The AF performance isn't helped by Sony refusing to AF wide open. The a series cameras all stop down the lens to give you live DOF preview and focus accuracy at that aperture, at the cost of AF performance. It's bizarre.

>>2681773
What lens were you using? What ISO? The detail looks soft as fuck.

File: P9280418.jpg (3MB, 4481x3006px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4481x3006px

>>2681810

Sorry, I was posting from my phone at work so that was the Instagay version of that pic. Probably compressed to shit and whatever. Here's the original shot (obviously processed through lightroom).

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	30 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:08 15:00:40
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Creative
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Fine Weather
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	15.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Landscape
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

>>2681805
> There are lots of reviews and tests done already that say that the AF is still sluggish and unreliable compared to even mid-tier DSLRs.
Haven't seen many of these. Linkage for some A7II ones?

>>2681808
Seems physically wide open on my camera when I half-press the shutter release trigger to focus. Not sure when it might have stopped down the lens while AF-ing...?

>>2681806
Ah right, the PDAF thing with -2 to -3 EV was an A7R II. But looking it up again, it uses CDAF in that situation anyways.

Anyhow, the A7S II should perform the same or better, but clearly on CDAF too.

>>2681794


Oh shit, I hadn't heard that from Sony. The weather sealing is actually a huge deal for me, since I do a ton of extended backpacking trips and hikes with kinda gnarly weather. I don't want to have to worry about my camera eating shit if I wanna take a cool pic in some mist.

>>2681823
RESIZE

>>2681827

So fuckin' angry. Dude was asking about shitty details, so I posted a full size shot so he could see the actual image.

You must have a great life if something like a picture on the internet having too many pixels is enough to get you pissed. First world problems.

>>2681823
That is some of the ugliest detail I've ever seen... It looks like my cell phone...

>>2681767
>>2681770
Live view burns through batteries.

I doubt you get more than 30 minutes of EVF use per battery.
So for an 8 hour stakeout that's 16 batteries.

>>2681823
>Instagay version of that pic. Probably compressed to shit and whatever.

"compressed" version: 4.28 MB
original : 3.12 MB

And they also messed with the aspect ratio?

Man they suck.

(ps: just ignore the people with shit internet, anything under 5MB is fine really)

>>2681833
>I doubt you get more than 30 minutes of EVF use per battery.
So you've never used one then? Cool. Also, if your'e staring through your viewfinder literally the entire time, you're doing it wrong.

>>2681834

Well I usually crop when I post to IG, because shit always looks different on the phone.

No idea about the weird file sizes. swear to baby jesus I posted that first one from my phone.

>>2681839
>if your'e staring through your viewfinder literally the entire time, you're doing it wrong.

How else to spot the wildlife?

Totally new to /p/, so here I go.

I want to get into timelapse space photography. My family uses a Rebel T2i for basic bullshit, but I need something I can own since I live a few hundred miles away from my family and I don't want to hold their gear captive.

I really like the T2i, and it's what I'm comfortable with. I can pick up one used on eBay for about ~$2-300, is it worth it? Or do you guys recommend something else?

>>2681847
With your eyes. If you're looking through your viewfinder the entire time, with a long wildlife lens on your camera, you're seeing like 3% of your surroundings. Do you just stick your camera to your face with a 400mm lens, and just act like a lighthouse? Spinning in circles the entire time looking to see an animal appear in your finder?

>>2681848
And to add, why is a t3i cheaper than a t2i?

>>2681832

Yeah motherfucker that's why I was saying I want to upgrade to the A7ii

>>2681848
i would go pentax k3 ii because astrrotracer

NOt exactly in your price range but do it anyway

Does anybody got suggestions on film? Im looking for something with a good quality for general photography. Low light/indoors/outside (most of which will be portrait)

>>2681105
Wait a minute, Birmingham Michigan?

>>2681859
>rent a7ii
>go for a hike
>???
>profit for lens rental company

>>2681907
you want one that can do all 3? doesn't exist.

for low light, you get all of one choice for color films, cinestill 800. for bw, you can either push 400 speed films, or pick up some delta 3200.

outdoor depends on the scenes you want. high dynamic range means it's time for color negatives. ektar and portra. lower dynamic range scenes might call for delicious velvia.

and if paying $10/roll wasnt what you had in mind when you picked up your hipster cam, find the cheapest ultramax or superia xtra you can find.

>>2681854
I don't know why would you go for the t2i, when you found a t3i which is cheaper. Also, look at the higher end models, like 60d. You'll get a more comfortable control layout and an additional display.

>>2681945
Nawh Fam price doesn't matter to me, but thank you for the input. I've wasted a lot on shitty film so yeah.

>>2681945

what about portra 800?

>>2681833
>I doubt you get more than 30 minutes of EVF use per battery.
Your estimate is too low by about a factor of about 6 if you are just watching. Maybe 4 if you're quite heavily shooting meanwhile.

Again, CIPA rating of 350 shots.

In realistic shooting situations, it's still 2.5 times or so less than a good DSLR on a comparable battery, but you're not *that* frequently going to swap batteries anyways.

>>2681848
I'd prefer a D3200 to a Rebel T2i in that price range.

Not that I actually like either of those - I'd actually suggest you to get something a bit more midrange, like a A6000 / D7200 / EOS 70D or what >>2681892 or >>2681961 said.

>>2681761
Or a reticle sight, that helps a lot for fast positioning the camera with long lenses.

>>2681981
I think he's saying that you have approximately 30 minutes (probably more) of EVF on screen time.

>>2681970
I think that's the older stock of Portra. I have absolutely no idea how it performs. I can only guess it performs pretty good, but I dont know if it's 18 stops good.

>>2682036
> I think he's saying that you have approximately 30 minutes (probably more) of EVF on screen time.
I was assuming you'd look at the back screen when you're just using it like a binocular. Kinda easier IMO, never mind for two eyes, and it provides the same information.

I do think using the EVF drains more power than the back screen for some odd reason (it doesn't even really vary much with the brightness level you set it at). But it's still more like 2.5 hours anyways.

Anyone have any experience with the Sigma APO 50-150mm F/2.8 II EX DC HSM Lens? (Nikon fit)

I'm thinking about buying a 50-200~ lens and have spent most of the last 2 weeks reading about lenses. I still find it hard to make a decision.

I'm willing to spend £500~

It'll mainly be used for Wildlife photography.

>>2682082
> It'll mainly be used for Wildlife photography.
Are you sure 150mm is not a little short?

About 200-500mm is more typically what frames wildlife quite well.

>>2682082
Do you need that aperture? F2.8 is always too soft for wildlife, the 50-150 is more of a portrait lens. If you want wildlife, go for the newest Bigma 50-500.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (56KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1280x720px

How bad is 99 000 shutter actuations for a 5dm2? I know that the number is pretty much subjective. However, I just wanted to ask if any of you guys used the camera with such a milage and could tell me what underwater stones I should look for when I check one.

RX1R
what about it?
I am interested in a compact camera with a fixed 35mm or 50mm lens and that seems like my best option so far
I have never worked with a camera that didn't have a viewfinder
is it worth getting one?
should I go for the optical or the digital one?
should I go for a different camera entirely?

>>2681720
>fuck telephoto manual focus
yep, you were right. and this has psuedo-macro so the focus throw is ridiculously bad. It'd be even worse on FF or 35mm film. Turns out this lens is fucking screw drive autofocus, so I got to use the onboard motor in my D7100 for the first time. It's not too shabby! Got very few OoF shots after I did the AF fine tune.

>>2681945

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here. Why rent an A7ii? I said I have the money to buy one....

>>2682087
>200-500
don't remind me, praying to the photography gods that the nikkor 200-500 comes back in stock before my heart stops beating

>>2682239
well if you cant decide what you want, try before you buy.

>>2682241
not at that price...

>>2682231
No, the motor drive isn't bad at all. thankfully they decided to put the full power motor into the D7xxx series.

seriously, fuck the 50/1.4G, you gotta give bitches the D. dat focus racking speed. even the 80-200, with its big focus elements right up front, has fast autofocus.

File: sT1LwSC.png.jpg (95KB, 1032x652px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1032x652px

Seems like a decent deal for a first DSLR.. Wot you think?

>>2682270
Not really interesting, a D3200 is better than a T2i in most regards (other than magic lantern, I guess).

The camera also won't be better just because it's your first.

It is as bad to you as it is to anyone - the stuff that makes newer and better cameras and better lenses better is basically photographer skill independent.

>>2682274
>the stuff that makes newer and better cameras and better lenses better is basically photographer skill independent
This is what gearfags truly believe. Meanwhile Dildo Moriyama makes his stuff with silly point and shoot cameras.

File: pen.png (308KB, 400x549px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 400x549px

Whats the difference between the Olympus E-PL5 and the Olympus E-PL6?

Wanting to get into photography as a hobby and a small mirrorless camera like this seems to be my best option, but listings for the PL5 are more expensive than the PL6 and i cant tell what the difference is between them

>>2682287
>reading comprehension

looks like someone fails at basic cognition

>>2682294
Yes. You.

>>2682299

no

If my camera has shitty autofocus, are there any accessories that I could get to make manually focusing quick enough for street photography?

it has a fixed prime with no distance range for the focus and it doesnt have any set point at which it can stop focusing (aka I can spin the focusing ring forever in one direction). is there anything I can get to offset these two things?

>>2682303
What's your camera setup? General answer: prefocus and set smaller Aperture value.

>>2682305
rx1. again prefocusing is tough when I don't have any indicator on the lens to let me know my focus distance. I generally shoot f/8 as it is yet still fuck up a lot of potentially good shots because I have to get so close to complete strangers

File: heliar-700x333.png (299KB, 700x333px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 700x333px

I'm so exited for this shit.

10mm, TEN FUCKING MILLIMETERS of rectilinear goodness.

It's the exactly the same method as Seizz Loxia.
Fully manual + Electric contact for Exif Data, for IBIS support, and for focus magnification assistance.

This new Voigtlander series will surpass even their older Laica series if they have this many advantages over the M-mount variants.

>>2682308
>rx1
some anon here mentioned 3d printing a ring with a tab to aid in manual focusing

having used something like it on an x100t i can say that it will help with ease and speed of focusing (not that the x100t has bad af, all things considered)

do a search
there'll be someone out there selling them

>>2682303
Also shitty lenses tend to fuck up AF sensor measurement. Get a good old manual focus lens like Helios 77 50mm, Pentacon 50mm, Pentacon 29 or similar. Cheap, even with teh adapter and has great IQ, focus ring has good accuracy scales with hyperfocal range scale.
If you use Nikon then you are out of luck. Shell out the cash for the premium glass.

>>2682311
>It's the exactly the same method as Seizz Loxia.
Considering they're made by the same people on the same machines at the same factory, that's not really all that surprising.

I suppose Voigt won't be releasing any loxyvoigt 35's or 50's any time soon. Pity. Could've had some fast ones.

>>2682311
>f/5.6
Can't see shit cap'n!

>>2682316
Maybe the 15mm is more to your liking.
I honestly won't have any trouble with that. And if someone has a A7R or A7Rii, they ISO can compensate somewhat.

The main thing is the small aperture will help make the lens compact too, so you get other advantages.
Small lens with small body does well together.
And the lower price is also a nice bonus.

Meant to write
*And if someone has a A7S

>>2682316
f/5.6 is perfectly fine for lenses that wide.

>>2682315
It's taken a really, really long time for Zeiss to develop those damn Loxias. So far they only managed to produce 2 of them.
It's been a whole year since those two launched, and they only recently announced 1 more. That's too damn slow.

I'm really glad Voigtlander is stepping it up and filling in the gaps that Zeiss to too slow to fill.

Even though it's going to be a bit strange to see lenses that were originally designed for Leica systems work better on Sony systems thanks to all that new exif support and IBIS support.

>>2682316
>implying most hyper wides aren't slower than other lenses
that canon even got the 11-24 to F4 is kinda amazing.

The most compact lenses for any system tend to have the same focal length as the flange distance, right? Would that mean 18mm (or 20) would be the smallest for E/FE mount? 18mm pancake when?

>>2682317
I think he meant in terms of using the OVF.

Is it worth changing a Canon EF 50mm mk1 for an STM?

>>2682311
so, i can selfie on my a7 now?

>>2682073
It does, because it have more resolution.

>>2682327
They might be getting ready for the new Leica too, since it might be a T-mount that share the same flange of E-mount.

>>2682390
These Voigtlanders are just the old M-mount.

I meant the electric signal support. It's lacking in the Leica versions.

>>2682392
Not the 10mm, they say that is a new design. But even the 40mm was tuned for better performance on digital.

>>2682401
>they say that is a new design
New optical design, referring to the glass construction.

Only the E-mount version will be like Loxia and have eletronic data support.

>>2682390
>T-mount
Maybe in the future.

For now the legacy support is more important to them.
>VM-Mount
>Voigtländer continues its VM-Mount digital optimization with the new 12 mm F 5,6 Ultra-Wide-Heliar III. Additionally Voigtländer will also release the new 10 mm F 5,6 Hyper-Wide-Heliar with VM-Mount.
Which kind of sucks, because we know this means the new 10mm is optimised for M-Mount and not for the E-Mount.

If T-Mount can kill the M-Mount permanently, then we will have better and potentially smaller E-Mount and T-Mount glass from Zeiss and Voightlander, but it's a faraway dream.

>>2682408
>If T-Mount can kill the M-Mount permanently
lol you're stupid

>>2682413
If not, then it's bad news all the way. Simple as that.
Future Zeiss and Voigtlander glass will only ever be optimal for M-Mount flange. It's not catastrophic but not optimal.

>>2682413
isi, go away
It is time you threw that trip away, it will only affect any thread in a bad way. No damage control can save you. Go Anon and deal with it.

>>2682415
>optimal
Describe why it's inoptimal specifically, dear pundit?
I'm not asking you to tell me that, on paper, and in theory, you think that because its an "adapted" design (regardless of the fact that theres no adapter involved, and the adapter effect on optics is incredibly miniscule in the first place)..I'm asking you to describe where, exactly, the designs are inoptimal for this reason?

Do you know? Or is this speculation you picked up from a comments section?

What *is* optimal? What flange distance is a vintage Elmar tele designed for, given its 4 inches of airy nothingness?

Do you just need something to talk about? That's so inoptimal for conversation.

>>2682420
go away

>>2682421
>>2682417
fyi I filter my own name so I only saw one of these
:^)

File: sony-rx1-7_1347448688.jpg (102KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1000x750px

>>2682420
>What *is* optimal?
Something you find typically in fixed lens cameras.
For example this sunken lens element which is placed really close to the sensor for optimisation reasons.

>>2682408
Or maybe they could go crazy and built a E-mount Bessa with RX1R parts.

>>2682424
>typically in fixed lens cameras.
So you expect them to do the physically impossible, by putting optics where the mounting hardware has to go?

If you want an optimal, perfectly matched lens with microlenses just so on the sensor, get a fucking fixed lens camera. You're not going to see that level of "optimum" in interchangeable lenses any time soon...but you're also not missing out on it by using an adapter, or by having a design made for one flange distance adapted to another by the manufacturer.

The kind of difference you're talking between a lens "designed" for e-mount versus one designed for M-mount is immeasurable to anyone using this website. What's exceedingly more relevant is if it was designed for film, or for a digital sensor...which is why cosina-
voigtlander has updated so many lenses in recent years.

>>2682428
Easy Tiger.
My world isn't exactly crashing just because Voigtlander and Zeiss makes the M-Mount the priority.

There will always be 1st party Sony lenses which will be sure to optimise for their own native flange distance.

>>2682432
Well, more to the point, I called you an idiot because
>If T-Mount can kill the M-Mount permanently
>kill the M-Mount
that's just...really naive at best, glam-fam

>>2682435
I made sure to include the disclaimer, but you were too upset to read to that point.
>but it's a faraway dream.

>>2682432
I think ur confusing corrections and optimizations from camera/lens communication (which apply to raw files too usually, you cant turn all of it off these days) with optimization from "flange distance"

a lens is optimal for whatever flange distance its designed for ofc, but a flange distance is a flange distance. as long as a lens sits the proper distance from the sensor its going to be the same thing, except for corrections.

lenses "designed" for e-mount don't have closer rear elements. the sensor itself has to be designed for that too. rear elements being near the sensor is actually pretty bad on digital, but getting better.

isi, how does it feel that people you think are less than you are making real progress in the world, they have jobs, have successful educations and business, have successful families, social life and still manage to maintain photography as a hobby or even more as their whole business? How does it feel you will never accomplish anything, that you will be an uneducated failure, a NEET and will always rely on your parents to keep you afloat?
Don't you feel bad that every night your parents go to sleep knowing you are a failure and keep wondering where they went wrong?
I expect you answer these with with all thoroughness you showed in your posts on this board.

File: 1425440761000_IMG_471659.jpg (26KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x500px

>>2682441
I can give you an example. This particular design has an element really close to the E-Mount sensor.

This does not mean every design optimised for E-Mount needs this. But it means there is room for the element to be as close as this, should the need arise.

For this particular design, they found out the lens could benefit.
for other designs, it's not needed.

But lets say you need to design a lens that would fit into Every Full Frame compatible mount in the world. Then you would automatically dismiss the lens design in my picture, and settles for some other design which is significantly different. And you would be forced to do it, whether it's better or worse.

>>2682447
How does it feel to be this mad at someone you know little factual information about

>>2682454
But thats still possible in m mount...

>>2682459
>isi whiteknighting hiself without a trip
Nothing new here

>>2682462
M-Mount specs say you need clearance of 27.8mm.

File: 20151009_174746.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>2682454
I fail to see where this is only possible with native designs? The limiting factor here is the sensors performance with the lenses. Generally explicitly limited by the sensor. Native designs would have autocorrections however.

This is an adapted LTM lens. Just as close.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	SAMSUNG-SM-N900A
Camera Software	N900AUCUDNL2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:09 17:47:45
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Metering Mode	Average
Focal Length	4.13 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Night Scene

>>2682464
Oh my god...
No dude. That's the flange distance. Many rangefinder lenses have rear elements that stick past the mount. It's why some aren't usable on digital, they touch the sensor.

>>2682467
>>2682469
You're referring to examples that violate specs then. They will not be compatible with every devices as result.

>>2682470
Or maybe
Just maybe
You're wrong not I

>>2682470
Once again anonymous can't accept isi is knowledgeable

File: 1.png (2MB, 2229x1419px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2229x1419px

Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di or Pentax D FA 100mm F/2.8 for macro?

>>2682482
Probably the Pentax, looks slightly better.

So I'm looking for a new digital camera, as shooting film is getting too pricey for me at the moment. I currently have about $400 to spend on something, but I'm absolutely clueless on what I should get. A viewfinder is a must, but i don't care if it's an EVF or an OVF. And i don't care if it's mirrorless or a DSLR, as long as I can change lenses then I'm good. What can you guys come up with?

File: 1366659749309.png (441KB, 300x900px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 300x900px

Oh man. I'm so glad the the upcoming Voightlander e-mount lenses are not "dumb" lenses like Samyang and Rokinon. It really adds a lot of value and convenience to have the efix data in the pictures. It's the reason I always avoided the Rokinon lenses.

>>2682596
Sorry I'm new to /p / why are they dumb lenses?>>2682523
>Board

>>2682617
because he's a gear fag and wants to spend as much money as he can

>>2682617
>>2682622
Exif data plays a useful part in my learning. When I go back to my old photos I can see what I did wrong, and which iso and aperture settings I used wrong, etc. It's also useful to analyse which focal range is my favourites when I use Zoom lenses.

>>2682622
What's a gearfag?>>2682624
I thought the camera itself did the exif data?

>>2682628
looks like this place isn't for you
if you can't spend a little while reading the board to at least grasp a little of its lingo without having to be spoonfed it means you should return to reddit

>>2682316
It's so you can use actually useful screw on filters instead of built in Instagram shit color ones

>>2682628
>I thought the camera itself did the exif data?

Most of it, yes.
But obviously not the focal length and maximum aperture, that information is read from the lens. (or entered manually).

More importantly, flash is influenced by the focal length information.
If the camera knows it has a certain lens attached it can optimize for that, and have more accurate TTL metering. - although I think it always defaults to wide-angle settings when no lens information is provided.

>>2682637
looks like this place isn't for you
lurk moar

>typing all that shit out

>>2682656
>flash is influenced by the focal length information.
Not to mention distance information, letting the camera know how much flash power it needs.

>>2682637
>>2682662
Can't you guys just tell me?

I want to get a hot shoe flash for my film cameras. I've never used flash with them. Is there a recommend brand/model/etc that I should get?

>>2682622
Rokinon 14mm 2.8 Canon $325
Rokinon 14mm 2.8 Nikon Chipped $349

File: IMG_0281.jpg (5MB, 4000x6000px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4000x6000px

Picked up a Canon 750D and the 50mm pancake lense as my first camera. Just getting to grips with it but it's very easy to get real nice shots.

Got it mainly for video work, and I can't really fault it except destabilisation in low light.

But my question was can anyone recommend and good attachable mics? Something that picks up real crip sound?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 750D
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:02 14:43:48
Exposure Time	1/1600 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4000
Image Height	6000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: _DSC6200 2.jpg (321KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1000x664px

I have an old Pentax ME Super camera. I would want to use it and give taking photos with it a try however I think the shutter is broken.

Here's a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2kPXouoQ7s

I believe the shutter moves slower than usual. Is it worth it to get this fixed or should I just get a new used film camera? For the record I don't have any lens for this Pentax camera as well. I do have an old Nikon 50mm f1.4 AI lens so do you think I should buy a used Nikon film camera instead? What Nikon film camera should I buy that is probably small like this Pentax ME Super and reliable as well?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D90
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	1066
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4288
Image Height	2848
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:11 00:21:28
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	664
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2682936
it almost looks like youre just shooting very low shutter speeds. you're not in aperture priority, are you?

also, Nikon FE2/FM2.

>>2682687
cameras with TTL or no? No TTL, any adjustable manual flash. Vivitar 285HV, Yongnuo 560 series, LumoPro LP180. TTL, manufacturer branded TTL flash of that era. SB-28 for Nikon, for example.

>>2682676
lurk the fuck moar, or fuck off back to reddit to be spoonfed, god damn new fags.

>>2682936
Yeah ditch it for some nikon film cameras. They were great and you already got dat dere nifty fifty

>>2682947
>it almost looks like youre just shooting very low shutter speeds. you're not in aperture priority, are you?


Nope. I believe I set that to Manual.

>also, Nikon FE2/FM2.

What about Nikon EM? I saw one here selling for $50. The Nikon FEs and FMs here sell for $100 and up.

>>2682947

I mainly use a Pentax K1000 and a Minolta X-370...Does that mean I have to get flash made specifically for each camera?

>>2683066
When you want TTL -and most people do-, that's generally a yes. There are very few flashes that support multiple vendors' TTL simultaneously.

If you just want manual flash and all devices involved have an ISO hotshoe, then no.

>>2683066
For the X370, yes, if you want TTL flash metering, aka automatic flash. Otherwise, any flash will work in any standard hotshoe in manual mode. 285HVs have a handy built in calculator for determining flash power at distance.

Nikon 80-200 mm 1:2.8D Nikon ED AF

>>2682964
>What about Nikon EM
>>2682964
The EM is quite nice. Fantastic feel when you wind it on.
Aperture priority only though, and a slappier mirror than the FM2 I have.
But the meter is perfect, and if you know what you're doing you can apply compensation with the ISO dial.
Also has M-Up on the self timer.
Examples here, check the file names to see which ones. >>2674360

Looking to get into photography, was curious if anyone can tell me from hands on experience if the Panasonic lumix gx7 is a decent camera to start with, if not personal recommendations are appreciated

Where do you guys go to get new Photoshop skills? Any sites/channels you follow?

>>2683096
I'd recommend the A6000 two lens kit instead.

guys please help for a friend of mine

>he wants his first serious camera
>budget around 1000euros
>fuji xt10 with kit zoom
>or sony a7 with cheap adapted manual lenses
>he asked me but I don't know jack shit about digital, shooting with a Rollei since three years now

halp

>>2683105
Any particular reason as to why?

>>2683111
Bad lens on a high-end body is worse than high-end lens on a bad body in most cases.

An A6000 two lens kit plus the 60mm Sigma or something like that should fit the budget.

Or some Nikon APS-C kit and a 50mm f/1.8 for that.

File: 71OYSxC4CDL._SL1500_.jpg (66KB, 737x1500px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 737x1500px

Any Tripod recommendations?

I've found this
https://geizhals.eu/camlink-cl-tppro32b-a1203341.html?hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=pl&hloc=uk&hloc=eu
And this
https://geizhals.eu/cullmann-alpha-2800-52128-a1108897.html?hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=pl&hloc=uk&hloc=eu

I'm sort of interested in the Cullman one, since it's pretty low weight compared to how tall it can reach.
But the Camlink one can reach 2 meters, but at the cost of weighting 3 times as much.

Maybe there's some other option out there?

>>2683114
Faster / better AF, burst rate, better sensor:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX7-vs-Sony-Alpha-A6000/specs

http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/panasonic/gx7/vs/sony/a6000/

Also a bunch of software features, like the better subject tracking and face recognition / eye focusing AF on the A6000.

File: DiC-MiC-Golden-E302C.jpg (252KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1000x1000px

>>2683120
Dic&Mic E302C for ~$120 with shipping or the Alu variant for ~$90. Sold on Aliexpress.

Also look at the Sirui, Benro, Horusbennu, Mefoto and other such Chinese tripods - to me it seems like they're all made in the same 2-3 factories that understand their business.

File: SIRUI-ET1004-K10X.jpg (192KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 800x800px

>>2683120
About the two you posted:
I'd think the cheaper one is utter crap (might be a rebranded lower end Weifeng or something).

And the more expensive of the two also looks at least suspect with the video head, giant hook, low weight rating, kinda shitty looking assembly. If you are lucky, it might be usable. but IDK.

Generally speaking, under $100-150 or so you need to be extremely careful what you pick, or it'll just be dead weight and *less* useful in most situations as just shooting with your hands resting on a full backpack or whatever there is.

File: 5338315887_2bf992bd2a[1].jpg (124KB, 500x477px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 500x477px

I got this from a flea market today for $15. Canon EOS Rebel II.

I was going to resell it on ebay, but I might just keep it.

I've never owned an SLR or used a film camera before. Is this a good camera to use as a starting point?

>>2683125
That looks pretty good.

I might go for the "DiC&MiC P303C", since the other versions are only 154 cm.

>>2683131
> Is this a good camera to use as a starting point?
It's a camera, but not a good one.

It's not like you grow from a cheaper older camera and lens into a better newer camera.

As far as that goes, photography is unskilled work. You can just start operating a better newer camera and lens if you can afford one... and they are just significantly better.

>>2683134
Sure - I've never used that one, but I'd think it is also just fine.

>>2683138
but with film there is no "sensor" so the thing that matters most is the quality of those Canon lenses and the lightmeter.

i learned on a film rebel and everything i did was shit buts more to do with me not knowing anything.

if i had that rebel now and a nifty fifty I bet i could make good pictures

>>2683131
The DSLR equivalent of buying a used '98 Camry for $1500. For a first car, it's perfect. For anyone else, well you know

>>2683145
Fuck your analogy.
It's the equivalent of buying an R32 GTR with flaky paint and a high-mount big single conversion.
It will focus, expose, and transport film as perfectly and as automatically as any camera is capable of doing. It's got full manual controls available if you want, as well as every exposure mode there is, bracketing, multiple exposure, TTL flash, and you can use the very best and most up to date SLR glass available today on it.
>for anyone else, well, you know it will fucking spank your doctors 275 GTB/4 into next tuesday, as well as his asian fuccboi son's new M4, but it's got a pretty shitty paintjob and interior.

File: HTB1a4c_IVXXXXX1aXXXq6xXFXXXy.jpg (30KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x600px

>>2683125
Does anyone know if that tripod is compatible with this type of quick-release plate?
>http://www.aliexpress.com/item/QR-Quick-Release-Vertical-L-Shape-Hand-Grip-Bracket-Plate-LB-A7M2-for-Sony-A7-II/32437163248.html

It looks like it might, but I'm not sure.

>>2683188
Yes, it almost certainly is. Both should be using the typical Arca Swiss type QR mount.

>>2683188
That's not a quick release plate, that's just an L bracket. It says "quick release" but its not. That bracket is no more of a quick release than just having the camera on the tripod.

>>2683191
Sure, it's not a plate but a bracket.

But it clearly *has* the typical arca indentations where the clamp will go. Look at the photo, they're very easy to see.

'cmon, this isn't particularly confusing.

>That bracket is no more of a quick release than just having the camera on the tripod.
Most cameras do not have arca swiss QR indentations on their body.

On the subject of AS type QR plates and brackets: Are eBay china ones as good as the real thing?

>>2683198
AS is a great because they will generally sit tight even if the clamp's/plate's manufacturing is not of the highest quality.

That said, China produces varied quality of heads, clamps, plates. Some will be buttery smooth and very hard with nice precise screws and have extras like the sliding stops on Sirui or other plates and clamps.

Other models on the lower end are a bit less smooth and rugged and have weaker metal that gets a ding or two eventually. Plus you might feel a spring scraping against metal when you operate a cheap clamp, or a plate's screw threading might slightly deform eventually, or such. Most damages will just end up being of a more cosmetic nature, though, from my experience.

I'm looking for a camera that is pocketable and good for a beginner. My focus is having a camera with me in a bag on my bike.
I had an rx100 which felt great and fit into the frame bag I have. I had to return it for reasons, just wondering if there are better options out there or any reason I shouldn't buy another one.

>>2683214
A RX100 IV is a great little camera. Just get one of these again.

Other suggestions that are usually voiced here when it is mentioned are the Ricoh GR and LX100.

>>2683216
I'm referring to the mark i actually, I'd like to easy into owning a camera my other hobbies are expensive enough already.

Pretty new to photography. Inherited some gear recently. That being a a 20D, a canon efs 17-85mm and an old tamron 55-300mm. I've mostly been taking city shots and feel like I could do with a wide angle lens. Any cheap recommendable wide angles? Cheap being up to $400.

>>2683219
You might certainly consider if you don't prefer to get a Ricoh GR or LX100 or something like that, then.

File: 1397069415000_1043847.jpg (38KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x500px

This Ortlieb thing costs 100 bucks.
But it's nicely waterproof, and I'm paranoid of humidity and fungus.

Please convince me not to get this, any...erh alternatives?

>>2683226
Thanks you're much more nice here than my board in our general.
The LX100 isn't what I'm looking for, I'll read up on the Ricoh GR more.

Thanks

>>2683227
> I'm paranoid of humidity and fungus.
If that is much of an issue where you live, don't buy waterproof bags, but airproof transparent ones where you can put desiccant inside (transparent will help the sun kill off fungus, airproof stops air from bringing in water that might condense).

Not that this is typically necessary, but waterproof bags just have to be seen as the most risky for fungus overall. Worse even than those that will simply dry out quickly if some water gets on them.

[Of course, waterproofing helps with rain, and that surely can be desirable, but I'm just addressing the point about fungus and humidity.]

>>2683232
>airproof
Damn, I didn't know this was a thing.

It's a bit hard to find bags with this feature, just google searing gives me nothing but waterproof stuff.

>>2683233
You'd generally put plastic bags with desiccant around lenses and the camera directly, not your carrying bag.

>>2683231
nikon coolpix a.

>>2683232
That bag apparently is airproof. I found a youtube review of it where they tested a blue version of it with another brand name.
The guy zipped the thing together and tried to push out air from it, the the air was kept inside.

>>2683089
>>2682963
Thanks. Does /p/ have a beginners guide on what film to buy and how to develop them?

File: 00505_dI5Eqbozgh4_600x450.jpg (19KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 600x337px

I'm looking at buying a longer then 100mm lens for tighter portraits and I've been thinking about the 135mm f/2L and the 200mm f/2.8L. I might be able to buy a 200mm f/2.8L (the mark i, not the mark ii) for ~$175.

I'm a little skeptical because that seems too good to be true (reviews say the mk1 and mk2 are almost equivalent optically with the only substantial difference being that the mk1 has a mediocre lens hood built into the lens).

It's a craigslist listing, so I'd go check it out before actually buying it, but I figure for under $200 the decisive answer to my earlier question (135mm vs 200mm) is to get the 200mm lens because that's practically nothing in the world of L lenses.

Am I overlooking anything? Is the 200mm mk1 shit?

>>2683323
>longer then
longer-than* that was embarrassing.

File: Lock_n_Fresh_303_3350ML.gif (152KB, 679x658px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 679x658px

>>2683232
>but airproof transparent ones where you can put desiccant inside (transparent will help the sun kill off fungus, airproof stops air from bringing in water that might condense)

I live in a place with high humidity so pic related is like my camera bag with dessicant in it. I never got any fungus when I store my camera and lenses inside them.

>>2683323
$175 is extremely cheap for any lens that big.

>>2681257
n0ice

File: id_photo_prod_occas_41130.jpg (93KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x800px

I'm about to sell my Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G for the almighty Sigma 18-35.
Please talk me out of it.

>>2683409
>I'm deciding between the X100T and the Sony A7. What would be the fundamental differences between how these two operate?
are you seriously asking this?
the differences are readily apparent to any retard that looked at them for more than 10s on any website ever

File: fujifilm-xf-35mm-f2-r-wr-cp-2015.jpg (62KB, 550x367px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 550x367px

whatchu guys think about the new fuji 35mm f2 being priced at 399€ ? Will you get it?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	ACD Systems Digital Imaging
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2015:02:12 17:53:12
Image Width	550
Image Height	367

File: Notoriously tall man.jpg (34KB, 455x600px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 455x600px

>>2683426
>$450 50 2.8
B-but it's "wr" right? Like Pantex :DDD

>>2683111
dem trips demand more answers

>>2683418
>Please talk me out of it.
why?

>>2683438
I'm not sure I can justify this fallacy