Gear Thread

>>2700229
>3573x2384

Oops, sorry about that

>>2700232
delete this thread.

>>2700248
no

>>2700232
It's only 369KB, so it's okay. Sticky says it's okay if it doesn't go over 1MB :^)

File: P9050072.jpg (175KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1000x750px

I'm really fucking torn on the D750/6D/A7ii

I do a shit ton of nature and landscape stuff (not so much wildlife, but I don't want to rule that out if the opportunity calls). So I want a camera that isn't heavy, which means A7ii. But also if I'm on a 2 week backpacking trip then I need a camera that can handle the elements, and won't need 35 batteries to shoot for 10 days. Which means NOT the A7ii.

[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	2015:10:13 17:01:43
Exposure Time	1/2500 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory, 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	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2700318
You're still going o be putting hueg lenses on it anyway so being slightly smaller and lighter isn't really such a massive thing

>>2700321

I know, that's totally how I'm feeling. Plus, all the sony full frame lenses are like exactly the same size as their Nikon/whatever equivalent. The ONLY size savings is the body, and that's only like 100g.

File: T2xRkuXa8aXXXXXXXX_!!482279928.jpg (320KB, 800x758px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 800x758px

/toy/ soldier here. Looking to replace my current camera (Fujifilm Finepix Z) with someone more powerful. What can /p/ recommend in terms of second hand cameras for about $100-150? What kind of extras and accessories should I be looking for? Are there any tell tell bad signs with second hand cameras?

Mainly focused on taking shots of toys so I need something good for closeup shots and small details. Would also like to take pictures outside at times too but again of toys so similar things apply.

>>2700318
If you want wildlife, you will need the DSLR AF. Get the D750, it is a wonderful camera, lightning fast and accurate AF and lots of great lenses for both landscape/nature and wildlife.
Or if you can wait, the Pentax FF is coming next spring.
The Sony A7 line is not good for anything outside tourist snapshits, street because the AF is slow and uncertain with moving subjects. Also no long lenses. Looks like sensor integrated phase detect sensors can't outperform a proper AF sensor optics block.

>>2700327

I'm thinking that pentax is going to be fucking massive though. All the preview shots I've seen make it look ludicrous. It is tempting though because my dad shoots pentax film so I have a thousand legacy lenses to choose from.

>>2700329
>pentax is going to be fucking massive
you gott hat right brosky

https://youtu.be/sXv2HTQCK6k

>>2700325
With that budget you're not gonna be able to get anything hugely good. Various used DSLRs would be great upgrades, but you're looking at something closer to $300.

It'd help to know what it is about your current camera that's inadequate. You can get half-decent product shots out of some point-n-shoot cameras, if you put them on a tripod and give them a fuckton of light.

>>2700332

Yeah so that's ruled out. Since one of my major qualifications is that I want a small camera. Otherwise I would just get teh D810 or 5DRS or whatever.

File: who's ready for Pentax K1?.jpg (120KB, 720x477px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 720x477px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	720
Image Height	477

>>2700329
All their bodies are smaller and comfier than the others in its class, see the K-5/K-3 series, compare them to a D7200 or a 70D/7D. It shouldn't be bigger than the D750 or the 5D.

File: image.png (156KB, 1334x750px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1334x750px

>>2700318
Dude, Best Buy.
They price matched gray marketing 42photo for me because I begged the rep.
https://www.42photo.com/Product/nikon-d750-24-3-megapixel-slr-camera-w-nikon-24-120mm-f-4g-vr-lens/110290

File: DSCF5759.jpg (233KB, 800x551px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 800x551px

>>2700333

There's nothing too far wrong with my current camera. It is mainly the light issue (I don't get fantastic light in my house) and the zoom is awful so I have to stand about an inch from what I'm photographing.

Pic related is from my current camera.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	FinePix Z110
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.9
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:04:19 19:48:22
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/3.9
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/3.9
Brightness	4.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	5.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	551
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Off
Macro Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Unknown
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	Blur Warning
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

File: Files.ashx?link_id=e5a61277-292a-5c06-2fc3-9b7a1b49e3df.jpg (85KB, 600x544px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 600x544px

>>2700336
dat K-S2 though. HNNNG.

>>2700334
If you want a small camera, then why are you going for full frame? You can pretty much do landscape and nature on APS-C and with wildlife you get the extra reach due to the crop factor. On a 400mm lens you get 600mm equivalent view angle, while the amount of light stays at the original f-stop.

>>2700339
You do realize that lens size is just a normal kit lens, actually slimmer than the Canikon equivalent since no IS group.
Th K-S2 is a small body.

>>2700342
you obviously have no idea what I was even talking about. google "HNNNG" might help you.

>>2700340

Because APS-C is limited. I already have a M43 camera, and while I love it, if I'm spending the money to upgrade then I want to upgrade basically all the way. Going to APS-C from M43 is just another intermediary camera that I'm going to want to upgrade again. I want that full frame low light performance and resolution and dynamic range, etc.

>>2700337
>>2700337

Yeah what's the deal with 42photo? Their prices are dirt ass cheap and seem sketchy as all fuck.

>>2700344
D750 then.
6D might be better for it's well established uses and tricks amongst landscapers and astro shooters, but it's not very good on action and it is needed for wildlife.
D810 would be the better but it is pricy.
When you are looking for long lenses, try the 50-500 Bigma or the new 150-600 Tamron. An older AF 400mm prime is also a good start into birds and such.

File: DSCF5123 (Resized).jpg (251KB, 800x509px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 800x509px

>>2700333
>>2700338

And one from outside.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	FinePix Z110
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.9
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:03:25 19:43:29
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/3.9
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/3.9
Brightness	9.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	5.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	509
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Red Eye Reduction
Macro Mode	On
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Auto
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

>>2700345
It's gray market material. BBB doesn't approve it.
Reviews are nightmarish

Anyone used a Nikon f3? I want upgrade my film setup but they're hard to find in the UK - anyone got any tips?

Jumping ship and moving to Niggon and was wondering what a decent Nikkor walkaround would be. I would like something that would be backwards-compatible on my FM and FG. Something like a 24-70 but I can still use the aperture on an older Niggon

>>2700380
>tripping on /p/
Are you another transvestite or transgender or whatever you mentally ill things call yourself?

>>2700386

0/10

>>2700380
28-70, duh. or 35-70. It's not like you're spoiled for choices for MF body compatible zooms.

Pentaxians of /p/, I am in need of a standard AF lens for my DSLR because reasons. Should I buy the DA 35mm f/2.4 or the FA 35mm f/2?
Or maybe go for some older Sigma 28mm or 35mm?
I am on a tight budget of 120 eurodollars and not afraid to buy used. Obviously Art and Limited range are out of my budget.

I want to start doing indoor shoots with human subjects. I need some kind of a lighting setup since the lighting in my apartment isn't good and I don't want to shoot under tungsten lighting anyway, but I want the lighting in my photos to look more natural than studio lighting. What would be an ideal, inexpensive setup for this?

>>2700435
What are you asking exactly?

You don't want studio lights and you don't want lamps? And what do you mean more natural than studio lights?
You wanna go buy a lamp and put a dayligh bulb in it?

Best solution for a small home studio is to buy a big-ass aftermarket flash, a light stand, and a white umbrella

http://strobist.bl0gspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-traveling-light.html

>>2700446
>Best solution for a small home studio is to buy a big-ass aftermarket flash, a light stand, and a white umbrella

This answers my question, so I guess I don't need to clarify. That link leads to nowhere, tho desu. Thanks.

>>2700447

you have to change the 0 in bloggggspot, since the spam filter will catch it otherwise.

Heeeey how do I protect my d3300 from rain

File: geeps.png (10KB, 261x195px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 261x195px

>>2700464
sell it and buy a pentax

>>2700348
pretty much all compact point and shoot cameras need to be close to get maximum magnification. Buy a second hand olympus or Panasonic micro four thirds kit, adapt an old macro lens on the front of it, voila.

>>2700473

Thanks anon.

I've only been lurking /p/ for around two months, so still a newfag. Is there a reason why every gear thread image is of a Pentax? Not complaining, just curious.

>>2700464
a rain cover

can somebody post the image of the old guy with the dumb look with the "Pentax!" meme text? tia

What's a good, reasonably priced (say $200ish) DSLR to get the hang of using one? Never owned one before so it would be helpful to get an entry level camera before moving on to more advanced models with hundreds of options.

Would mainly be for shooting stationary targets indoors.

>>2700509
Literally any - it's not going to be new for that price.
Find something cheap and nearby on ebay and ask us if it's worth it.

>>2700515

Nikon d3100? Also, is eBay a good place to pick up a second hand camera or are there other places online to check? Does /p/ have a /BST/ thread?

>>2700531
Check out keh

>>2700546

Is it a US only site?

Has anyone had experience with the Fuji g690/gl690/gm670 rangefinders? Not the GW but the old ones with interchangeable lenses, they seem like Leicas that were given too much growth hormone

>>2700318
get a solar charger. hang it on your backpack.

>>2700581
and 10000 mah power bank.

>>2700335
That camera is meaningless now. What is the point when you can have the D810 for 2100 dollars on the grey market?

>>2700583
>mah
Stop that shit. Amp hours are only for volt to volt comparison when voltages are equal.

The real capacity number is Watt hours.

>>2700588
> Amp hours are only for volt to volt comparison when voltages are equal.
Isn't that typically the rating at the 3.6V common for Li-Ion internals?

Most power banks are featuring craptastic efficiency though and you simply don't want to use them with a solar charger. Most solar chargers also are too small.

>>2700594
The point is it's a meaningless number when your camera battery is 7 volts.

Unintended or not, you're encouraging retards to compare a 3,6volt Amp-hour number to a 7volt Amp-hour number.

>>2700596
It's the norm for these even when the output they actually provide is ~5V USB.

Pretty much no company except Xiaomi even provides real Wh or just Ah at output voltage ratings on most of their marketing materials - not even silly expensive and yet somehow popular ones like Anker. And even Xiaomi only put the information on batteries and materials since like, mid last year.

Expecting people to know stuff that isn't on typical store specs is kinda difficult.

>>2700229
Goddamn I'd love to have one these. That dynamic range and detail is astounding.

File: learning_jumping_jacks.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>2700588
>>2700594
>>2700596
>>2700598

/p/hotography ladies and gentlemen!

>>2700587
>no competition allowed
>not liking fully articulated screen on a FF body
>not liking Pentax durability on a FF body
>not wanting a huge bright viewfinder comparable to 1DX's
This should force Canon to make a better FF body. 5DS line is pretty shitty.

>>2700601
There is a time and place for everything. This thing is 3-4 years too late, and that is a real criticism.

By the time this thing is even released, the D810 will have had a successor.

>>2700601
> This should force Canon to make a better FF body
Unlikely to happen. 'cause do you really think a lot of people will switch or just start out with this one?

But I think they should already be feeling the increasing pressure from Sony.

>>2700601
If the D810, D750, and A7rII don't do it, some Pentax monstrosity certainly won't.

>implying the Pentax full frame is targeting the D810 market
Pentax would be foolish to go after the pro market. Nobody would buy it due to cost, but no professional support or demand. That's why the K3 is a D7200 competitor (70D doesn't even rank), and not a theoretical D400 competitor.

Pentax FF is going after your 6D and D750.

>>2700613
You don't get it apparently. The D810 is targeting broadly not that it can be purchased for 2100 dollars. And that target includes the Pentax full frame.

The D810's new pricing is going after any potential customers the Pentax had, right here, right now.

>>2700614
>implying pentax is not the better camera

>>2700617
What the heck are you even smoking?

The Pentax was meant to be an affordable Full Frame DSLR. Not a high end DLSR.

>>2700618
>that screen
>that build
>that huge pentaprism
>literally every feature baked in (wifi, gps, etc)
>THREE fuckin dials
>not high end
topkek

>>2700618
>highend means high price
good goy

>>2700648
>that shitty ISO performance
fortykeks

>>2700648
>those shitty available lenses
topkek

what kind of flash should I get for a pentax k1000?

>>2700657
>sony sensor + pentax image processor
>shitty iso performance
cool shill.

>>2700658
>pro lens right out the bat
>a whole bunch of fa lens
whatever man

>>2700648
Been there, done that. It doesn't bring anything new to the table. That is the main problem as I see it.

All Pentax can do is competing on the price, which is just a race to the bottom which they can't survive on.

Hey guys, I own a fuji x-m1. I've just got the kit lens at the moment, I'm buying the XF 35mm 1.4 next week.
But there doesn't seem to be a 50mm prime for x-mount. Dunno if they're gonna release one in the future, but for now would a canon/nikon 50mm work alright with an adapter?

>>2700667
What are you going to do with a 75mm equiv lens? Fuji already has the 56mm.

>>2700668
Oh I forgot about that lens. But it's also over
$1000. A bit out of my price range, for now at least.
The 50mm was gonna be used for portraits.
I should probably just get used to the fact that fuji glass is expensive.
t. poorfag

>>2700662
>>2700658
>>2700657
>>2700618
>>2700614
>>2700613
>>2700605
Good grief, the camera is not even out, there is literally no information of the specs and features, no open test results and Nikon fanboy is already crapping his pants.
Pentax K-1 will be some massive bomb on its release.

>>2700675
Reality is calling you.

Yes, it could have been a good bomb in theory, but the fuse was so long, it took the bomb 4 years too late to detonate.

>>2700676
Still crapping your pants about an unknown camera, huh?

>>2700680
You're simply in denial now. The thread wouldn't have been derailed if you had just acknowledged the fact that the delays have hurt it.

>>2700682
Can you read the future bruh?

>>2700683
You can read the past. this is something they had wanted to release years ago, but failed to do so.

>>2700684
Cool. Now let's wait and see what happens once it's released, instead of talking all this shit and making assumptions.

>>2700684
"they" is a different "they" now.
Before then it was a company being bled out by Hoya.
Now it is a Ricoh company with all new management, buffed out r&d and still having the scientific department.
Oh and what else did your Nikon bring to the table, besides the heart of the image and oil on the sensor? They don't even have a decent customer service!
Canon makes the best sensors for all the scientific uses, Pentax makes the best optics for scientific and medical uses.
Your precious Nikon is already vastly behind it's competition in everything that counts.

>>2700686
It's the products on the shelves right now that counts.

>>2700689
Products that once break will not be taken care of properly. That is why most professionals still go with Canon.

File: _IMG2918.jpg (151KB, 525x700px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 525x700px

>>2700599
Here's a RAW for you to play with (54mb) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41183616/_IMG2918.dng
This scene doesn't push the DR limits of this camera very much though. also shot hand-held.

If the color profile doesn't load, download this: http://torger.dyndns.org/dcamprof-v0102-pentax-645z-neutral-plus.dcp and put it in your /Adobe/CameraRaw/CameraProfiles/ folder.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX 645Z
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Konstantin_Kovalev
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	118 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	666 dpi
Vertical Resolution	666 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:09 13:00:52
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	150.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>2700692
Cheers man. It's magnificent.

I *need* a 35mm prime for muh 6D. So far I like the looks of the Siggy 1.4 ART but the Tammy 1.8 VC USD looks noice too. The VC is a couple of hunnit dollarydoos cheaper, but of course pays for it in optical performance and the stop down in aperture... Which one should I go for /p/?

>>2700719
The 1.4 gets some pretty bad vignetting at 1.4, IIRC. Check that yourself though. That said, quality over quantity in lenses, especially when you have a full-frame sensor.

>>2700719
I'd get the Sigma Art.

>>2700721
>>2700720
I'm going to use it mainly for tourist snapshits because I find my 24-70mm f/2.8 a little tiring carrying it around. The optical stabilization for slow-shutter speeds is mighty tempting...

>>2700722
Uh, I'm personally with the people who don't mind carrying some weight if it gives better shots.

The Sigma Art 35mm is not really lightweight... is your 24-70mm f/2.8 actually heavier? (Almost no doubt that it is a little worse...)

Bout to purchase a Samsung NX1 and some adapter.

Will report with snapshits

>>2700730
Wait for a while yet. The prices on those samsungs will tank even further.

>>2700730
Why not buy a proper camera instead?

>>2700730
It's a nice camera, but are you sure you don't want a FF camera for this price?

Where I looked, the NX1 kit costs practically the same as an A7 II or D750 kit... and it's essentially more like a competitor's variant on an A6000 than something else.

How come there's no good adapter to put full frame lenses on my OMD-EM5? I want to start buying some real lenses to invest in an eventual FF body, but the only adapter is like $500, which is basically the price of the lens itself.

>>2700764
You have dumb-adapters for manual focus lenses, don't you?

Electronic adapters are expensive, you will only gain very slow CDAF.

>>2700766

I guess that's true. Just seems sad to buy a 70-200 f/2.8 for like $1500 and then have to use it completely manual. Probably would be good practice though.

File: 1.png (41KB, 255x337px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 255x337px

>>2700768
500 dollars is definitely retarded.
With that much money, you can just buy a new APS-C body from any brand, instead of buying a adapter.

I guess I'm in a more lucky situation, smart-adaptors for my system can be had for 62 dollars.

>>2700730
wait for the bankruptcy sale mang.

>>2700768
>70-200
>$1500
you're just being dumb.
no one buys a $1500 canon telephoto lens to adapt on m4/3.
they already have it for their canon.

get an olympus 40-150 f2.8 or panasonic 35-100 f2.8

>>2700784
you can get commlite on m43 too.

>>2700768
Why not just keep the money and buy the lens along with the body? If you buy them at the same place you might even get a discount.

>>2700789
Well he told me there was only 1 adapter available. Maybe you should have told him that he was wrong if you knew about it.

>>2700791
he probably fell for the metabones shill.
this speed booster will turn your tiny m43 sensor into full frame.

>>2700792
Ah, Metabones makes the best Speedboosters. But they are definitely overpriced.

They are also asking 400 dollars for EF-adapter to E-mount. 400 dollars just for the firmware update capability. That's just too much.

>>2700764
> ~$500 adapter, presumably with focal reducer
That maybe makes sense on an A6000 because it then kinda acts like a pretty good FF camera.

But I'd not do it on an OMD-EM5.

>>2700764
Because most people who do decide to go with M4/3 do it because for them, getting small size is worth the loss of pretty much everything else, and you lose your small size with a hueg full frame lens + adapter.

>>2700766
Nope. Adapters with glass are expensive (which is how speed boosters work--they're an anti-teleextender). Electronic only adapters are cheap.

Why is Leica so popular lately? I know a lot of photographers who are switching to them, what do these cameras offer that other mirrorless solutions don't?

>>2700836
> Why is Leica so popular lately?
Doesn't seem that way to me.

> I know a lot of photographers who are switching to them
Are you in some art college or something? Apple laptops / smartphones and Leica cameras everywhere?

> what do these cameras offer that other mirrorless solutions don't?
I'd say hipster appeal. Not that they're bad cameras, but there's usually pretty much no reason not to go with a Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, or whatever else if your concern is more about versatility and image quality than looks and muh size (for the utmost display of laziness confused as sophistication).

>>2700831
It makes sense that m4/3 users prefer speedboosters.

I've gotten used to think of electronics-only as the best adapters, since they allow PDAF. But I keep forget that it's only valid for 2 specific cameras.

>>2700836
Confirmation bias. This isn't true.

>>2700836
Leicas were never really popular, even back in ye olde days, Leica was the gentleman's camera, and Canon as a company (Kwanon) was created to build Leica knock-offs, because a Leica cost several months salary in Japan.

Before the Sony A7 launched, a Leica was legitimately the only way to own a compact full-frame camera, as mirrorless at the time was either M4/3 or APS-C and speed boosters were not a thing; now there's nothing a Leica M can do that an A7-series can't do better and for less monies.

I really have no idea what they're doing right now and what their plans are... Leica M is being cannibalized by Sony, the SL is a mirrorless for NBA players, and the S007 is outclassed by the 645Z at half the price, although the S lenses are genuinely something to envy.

If I already have a pair of entry level kit lenses, is it worth upgrading to a 24-105mm f/4L? I want to use it as a general purpose lens for landscape and travel photography, and maybe a little bit of portrait photography. My other option was to get a 17-40mm f/4L now for landscape stuff and save up for a 85mm 1.2L II sometime in the future.

>>2700844
>>2700853
>>2700858

>three replies in a half hour

jelly poorfags spotted.

File: camera-guy.jpg (9KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x200px

So I read the sticky and this seems like the most appropriate place to post...I'm looking for a new DSLR with a budget of around 1,000. I had a Sony alpha 300 for about 10 years and I think it's time for an upgrade. I'm going to be using it primarily for landscapes, nature, and wildlife if possible.

I'm just not up to date on the available cameras out there, so given my parameters I'd like some suggestions on an intermediate-level camera body, and possibly some lenses.

>>2700785
Well when the fuck is that gonna happen?

>>2700931
What is there to be jelly of? The Leica M is basically pointless in its existence now, as the SL is a giant ugly POS that's bigger than most DSLRs. The only good thing about Leica are the lenses and most can be adapted to better bodies.

>>2700945
>What is there to be jelly of?

The fact that you can't afford it.

>>2700939
Canon 70D has some nice features for videos and it has a new sensor, 7D has great AF for action and movement. Nikon D7200 is a good camera for general dicking around if your subject don't move around much.
Pentax has really came up with the K-3, somewhere around D7200 and 7D, good and accurate AF for movement and action, is now the definitive wildlife camera with it's weather sealing.

>>2700949
Great, thanks for the info. I will be looking into these as well as other suggestions. Probably will wait to pull the trigger until Christmas deals start up.

>>2700951
>Probably will wait to pull the trigger until Christmas deals start up.

There are rarely good christmas deals for cameras, especially for current model bodies.

>>2700509
You can probably get a Nikon d300 for that! If not a Canon 550D is probably your best option. Prepare to sacrifice video at that budget though

Howdy Sonygger here,

at bthe moment i am using my old nikkors adapted on my a6000, i saved a little money and some free cash to spend on native lenses. Has anyone experience with the:

20 F2.8 Pancake
35 F1.8 OSS
50 F1.8 OSS

i do a lot of portraiture but i can use the MF Nikkors for that, The pancake seems tempting as a walkaround lens so does the 35

I've gone about as far as I can go with point and shoot and am ready to move to DLSR (or assume that I am). I'd like suggestions on a good camera for this. I keep seeing these ads for the Canon SL1 and the Canon T5i from adorama. It's a convoluted deal where you get the camera, 18-55mm & 75-300mm Lenses (I think just the 18-55mm with the T5i) plus a Canon photo printer and, after the rebate, it all comes to $400. Is this a camera that could well-serve someone who wants to get his chops up using a DSLR? I shoot for the hell of it, mostly in urban environments, and also want something that does well in low light when, for example, I'm in Las Vegas. Here is the recurring SL1 offer. http://www.adorama.com/ICASL1KZ.html Thank you for any input.

>>2700229
Has anyone ever found a f/1.8 or faster Pentax 35mm lens? It seems like there are no lenses like this, and it makes me angry. Why did /p/ recommend me to buy Pentax if they have such a bad selection of lenses?

File: IMG_3613.jpg (39KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 620x413px

>>2700948
That's the same reasoning that causes this to exist

>>2700961
I just made the same switch. if you want low light shots, do what I DIDNT do, and get a 50mm f/1.8 lens. Kit lenses are shit for night photography. get a body and a fast prime lens. Now I'm saving up for one, and can't take any night shots in the meantime. also yes, that's a killer fucking deal

>>2700962
Because of the sensor and the stabilization in the Pentax you get more fstops of sensitivity to use even an f/2.8 in low light.
Also there are the Sigma Art lenses.

>>2700973
Thank you! I had read also about getting a 40mm "pancake" lens with the idea that it's a good general lens for travel when you don't want to slog around a bag of gear. I'm getting the sense that the kit lenses will be useful, but if I really want exploit the capabilities of the camera, I 'm going to have to shell out for other lenses as well.

>>2700962
http://lenshero.com/lens/Pentax-FA-31mm-f1.8-lens

>>2700984
as a gear-thirsty pentaxian, I would like to note that buying this lens all but cured my lens envy. it's a perfect lens

I can't figure out why Nikon pairs amazing cameras like the D750 with a kit lens as terrible as the 24-120/4. It's not a cheap kit either.

>>2700996
What's wrong with the 24-120 f4? Just ordered one for my d750.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

I'm looking for gifts - my girlfriend has this camera (Yashica Mat-124 G) and she loves it so I was wondering if there was anything nice I could get as an 'add-on' (lenses, film, ????)

I have no clue about this stuff so I came here for advice. Thanks.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448

>>2701079
a big assortment of film.

>>2701083

Are there fancy kinds I could get? Also, what kind of film does this camera take?

>>2701092
120 size film.
If she mainly shoots black and white, there's no real fancy B&W film. Just ask what she already uses and get a whole bunch of that.
If she shoots color portraits, Portra 160.
If she shoots color landscapes, Velvia 50.

>>2701101
Dont forget ektar

>>2701004
Terrible is probably too strong a word but for all the F-mount options that exist, I thought the lens wasn't very sharp at f/4 and the color rendition seemed pretty cold. It's not fast enough for my taste but of course with a D750 you can just pick whatever ridiculous ISO you want.

I'm sure you'll like the lens, it's good enough and the focal range is great for a walkaround I just don't like what it is at its price point.

>>2701101

Thanks so much, I'll look into all of these.

>>2700939
Im this guy.

I've done some preliminary research and so far the top two contenders are"
>pentax K3
>olympus OMD M5

Anyone have anything to say for or against these two?

>>2701111
One is a real camera, one is a child's toy.
Pentacks masterrace.

>>2701111
OMD M5 is micro 4/3 system, generally renowned for their small size, portability and immense amount of noise even at ISO 1600.
It is a great camera for traveling and being compact but only if you know specificly the uses you want and the IQ the camera gives during those.
If you want a more general use camera also capable of sports, action and wildlife, all this in torrential rain, then go for the K-3.

>>2701111
Another thing going for the K-3 is the O-GPS1. Google it and have your mind blown.

Is the canon 5d mark ii still a decent choice for a full frame camera, or is it getting outdated?
I would be using it for landscape photography mainly. I have about 800 pounds to spend, would there be a better option?

>>2701142

Buy a 6D

>>2700648
I think I just realized why the screen has all those joints, it'so that you can have it in portrait orientation while the body is in landscape, and vice versa

>>2700357
Same with beach and 6th avenue, all of those seem to sell the same bundles, it's almost as if they're all owned by the same larger company

>>2700605
>3-4 years ahead of the competition
>I'm just whining because I don't like articulating screens on full frame cameras because I'm a butterfingered faggot who holds my camera body by its display

File: pony.jpg (10KB, 273x206px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 273x206px

Which one should I buy. What are your thoughts, please enlighten me.

This one.

File: zenit.jpg (96KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 960x540px

>>2701164
Or this one?

>>2700955
everybody shooting with the kit lens or what? I could really need some help here guys

>>2701146
Cheers bud

Whats a good simple camera for film photography?

>>2701188

All 35mm manual focus cameras.

>>2701189
Cool, but anything in particular?

>>2701191
Olympus OM-1 or OM-2

>>2701191

Nah, they're all good. Don't overthink it and don't spend over $150 for a kit.

>>2701191
Pentax ME Super

>>2701192
>>2701193
>>2701195
Thanks.

>>2701193
One additional question, how do disposable cameras compare to their counterparts?

>>2701164
>>2701165
Why doesn't anybody answer me?

>>2701204
instead of getting a disposable, if you want that aesthetic and that effortless/ thoughtless use of a camera, just get a cheap point and shoot.
Would recommend anything like an Olympus AF-1 or AF-10, Nikon L35AF, Canon 35AF, Pentax PC35AF, etc etc

>>2701211
buy whichever you want m8
whats your skill level? have you ever shot film before? what other cameras do you have? do you even need one of these? if between the two, I'd personally go for the second.

>>2701211
Both look like shit desu

>>2701204
Disposables have very simple meniscus lenses, fixed focus, sometimes made of plastic.
Horrible things, don't even bother wit them

>>2701227
>>2701231
Thank you. I've actually never shot anything before. It would be my first camera. I kinda liked the look of the first one though... I know, silly. I guess I will go for the second one then.

>>2701247
If its anymore than $10 tho I wouldnt bother. It looks dirty and likely wont work very well. Spend some time sussing out cheap auctions on ebay

>>2701227
>>2701237
Thanks again. What I plan to do is make a photo album, and what i want in it are old looking blurry photographs similar to an album my parents made. So I'm trying to look for something that doesn't give perfect clarity, yet not being complete shit.

File: image.png (1MB, 2000x1392px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1392px

Is anyone getting the everyday messenger bag?

>>2701319
phucno

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

1MB, 3264x2448px

Picked this up for 20$.

What could it be?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448

>>2701319
yep.

>>2701335
What feature are you looking forward to most?

How does the Nikon D3300 compare to the Canon, Sony and Pentax equivalents in /p/'s opinion? Looking for a good, all purpose first DSLR.

What lens would you get first to supplement the kit lens?

>>2701359
50mm.


Check out d5200. It's pretty good
Compared to other models.

>>2701359
Sony is better, but an expensive system for lenses. I use this.

Pentax is nice too, because like Sony but unlike Canon and Nikon, they don't really remove features that are cheap or free to add (a few buttons, software, ...) just to give you extra reasons to upgrade camera.

I would not pick up a Canon in this price range right now, but eh, the D3300 could be fine, depending on what you want.

>>2701363

Which one would you say is the cheapest for lens and accessories?

What would you say is the best Pentax in a similar price range to the D3300? K-500?

In terms of what I'm looking for it is purely photography. Video is a total non-factor for me. Mainly looking at indoor photography of relatively small items but will also be looking at doing some nature photography and of course pictures of family and friends at times too.

>>2701111
>>2701112
>>2701127
>>2701128

I'm still up in the air. The image quality of the OMD EM5 seems better but the body is also 300 more than the pentax. They're both weather sealed so that doesn't help me decide one over the other.

>>2701366
> Which one would you say is the cheapest for lens and accessories?
Probably Pentax. Of course it depends on what specifically you want to buy. Nikon might be basically equal for a lot of variants.

> What would you say is the best Pentax in a similar price range to the D3300? K-500?
I'd suggest the K-50, but yea, the K-500 also should work.

>>2700739
Simple - I dont want a low pass filter, and I like that it's got a bsi sensor with low invariance.

The only thing the A7ii has going for it is FX and the sensor shift. I wont be buying the lenses.

Plus it's going to tank soon so Ill get everything for a song in a month or so.

>>2700955
35mm, reason being is you're pretty much in between the other focal lenghts while being not too wide or narrow. Though it depends on what you shoot, I'd say for general landscapes and portraits a 35mm 1.8 would do you well enough.

>>2701188
Nikon F series
Pentax K1000
Canon AE-1
Minolta SRT series
Olympus OM series
Nothing Lecia

>>2701330
Porst C-TL obviously.

>>2701373
The IQ mostly depends on the lenses, which are very pricy for the Oly.
With the roughly same quality lenses are used the Oly tanks at ISO 1600 but with the Pentax you can extract stunning amount of detail at ISO 6400. I say this from experience, my K-3 saved my event shots at ISO 6400.

File: Pentax-K5-High-ISO-1to1at4096px-Samples_IMGP3199-3202-4096px.jpg (3MB, 4096x4096px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4096x4096px

FILESIZE WARNING

>>2701473
yer
i have no qualms about letting my camera automatically select ISO6400 in broad daylight
But then I reduce my images and don't give a fuck about grain at that level anyway.
When I was paying attention on my K5 I found ISO 16000 to be quite tolerable too, but whitebalance tends to go a bit weird sometimes. I'm pretty sure the K3 I use mostly now would be tolerable up at 16000 too, but I haven't needed to use it like that much, and the one time I did I opted for just setting ISO 512000... also fine considering what I was dealing with.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-5
Camera Software	GIMP 2.6.8
Photographer	Andrew Wade Eglington
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	120 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:05:23 10:21:42
Exposure Time	1/1500 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	51200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	80.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4096
Image Height	4096
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Close View

File: B0079145-y600px.jpg (107KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 400x600px

>>2701473
40000 but visually identical to 51200 at this scale

anyone bitching about grain when shooting at this sensitivity is completely missing the point anyway

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3
Camera Software	RawTherapee
Photographer	Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	400
Image Height	600
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:05:24 03:41:22
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	40000
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>2700325
You should probably focus more on lighting for now. As long as your camera has a hot shoe to sync flashes with you'll be fine. I'd suggest googling the strobist, it's got great advice on lighting. I'd advise buying yongnuo flashes though despite what he says, they're about 70 each for a good one.

>>2701485
It is interesting to see the grains don't grow in size after ISO 12800, only the roughness. The grains stop to increase from 10-20 pixel radius, looks like it is related to the bayer interpolation. It is much more visible on astrophotography shots and after stacking 10 shots the averaging process gets rid of the color component of the noise.

So I'm under the impression that a photo taken with a nifty fifty will generally look better than a photo taken at 50mm focal length on a kit zoom lens. But would it still look better than 50mm on an L series zoom lens?

>>2701950

Pretty much.

>>2701950
that question is way too general. which 50? which L series zoom? what is "look better?"

i can definitely say that even the cheapest of the 50s you could put on your Canon will be faster than any L series zoom at 50.

generally speaking, the only thing superior about a zoom lens over a prime is the versatility of focal length range, and that's it. i don't know enough about every canon lens to say "well this 50 will still have vignetting at 2.8 while this L series zoom doesn't have it at 50/2.8" (which seems unlikely I'm just bullshitting an example). same goes for issues like distortion, CA, AF speed, i mean ken rockwell and tons of online reviewers can discuss specifics.

but generally speaking, at a given focal length, a prime lens will do a much, much better job than any zoom at that same focal length. it's pretty rare that this is not the case. it's just so much easier to build good primes than it is to build good zooms.

File: 1.jpg (39KB, 866x480px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 866x480px

https://youtu.be/dFt9va_oRMU?t=60
This video attributes some of the lens flaring to the EF-to-E-Mount adapters.
The argument is: each adapter displays slightly different degrees of flaring.

But is this really something inherent to an adapter?
Wouldn't there be around just as much flare if you used this lens on a native Canon body?

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

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

>>2701950
Yes, generally speaking.

> But would it still look better than 50mm on an L series zoom lens?
Not usually, no. Nifty fifties aren't *that* good, they're just good for the price.

But the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 probably beats any L series zoom at 50mm.

>>2701950
any modern planar copy should be sharper than any standard zoom covering 50mm. how much? not appreciably much.

24-70? yes, but not by much. 24-120/105? definitely.

>>2701962
Internal reflextions including bare metal surfaces even if the paint is a little shiny can add a lot to the flaring.
When the main mirror of the Hubble was made, a tiny paint chip came loose on a screw in the optical inspection system and the finished mirror was faulty. Even a few specks of dust can add to the flaring, it is actually much better optically if the dust sits on the lens than in the tubes in between.

>>2700955

does anyonw have real life experience with said lenses?

File: strobist[1].jpg (22KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x500px

What company makes a good flash stand and flash stand accessories?

I'd get the Lumopro stuff the strobist.com guy is constantly shilling, but it's not available in yuro unless I want to pay shipping from kankerand

>>2702031
No. I only tried the more expensive Zeiss pendants.

I can however tell you that the Sigma 60mm f/2.8 is great on the A6000, if you don't mind the absence of stabilization. Sharp and cheap.

>>2702042
My experience with flash stands and umbrellas / oiher diffusers is that the cheap Chinese ones are absolutely sufficient for speedlights, LED panels and bulb sockets.

Unlike with camera tripods, I very much think you generally can save your money here.

Really, even the shittiest one that I have (which is annoying to open even after applying lubricant) works all right after it is opened.

>>2702043

i have considered the sigmas but hybrid af only in the center s a no go for me., if i buy a lens i expect it to be fully compatible.

>>2702042
Related question. Does anyone make a stand/flashgun/transceiver/umbrella combination that's pretty much all one unit? Imagine just having to extend the legs on the stand, fold out the umbrella, turn on the flash/transceiver and you're good to go.

>>2702046
Sounds good. Any recommendations in particular?

>>2702052
Why would you take something that's highly modular and make it non-modular?

>>2702051
I'd get the 60mm again instantly if I lost it. It is cheap as fuck at ~$150 for how nice and sharp it is.

Arguably I almost always use center or spot AF at 90mm equivalent and beyond, anyways, so it doesn't bother me on this lens specifically.

anyone willing to sell me a sony 20mm pancake lens for my a6000?

>>2702061

for portraiture i almost never use the center, i use the outer ones to focus on the eyes. I dont want to focus and recompose. I mean what is this shit? The Zeiss Touits got full FHAF compatibility with the firmware update

>>2702054
> Sounds good. Any recommendations in particular?
For light stands? Probably literally whatever is rated well enough on Aliexpress or Amazon or whereever you want to buy. Not that I've bought everything yet, but it all has been good enough. Ditto for white "shoot-through" umbrellas.

For heads with umbrella mounts, I've noticed that I'm partial towards the ones with bigger screw knobs.

For diffusers, I like the Godox branded ones best amongst the ones that I have, but I only disliked like one plastic model overall, every fabric one has been at least okay anyways, not just Godox.

For lights, I'm pretty partial to Yongnuo - sure, most other brands also worked, but these are very good, both for LED panels and manual RC speedlights that can also be reliably optically triggered.

I bought most of this on Aliexpress and various Chinese / Singaporean stores. Uh, anything specific you're interested in that I haven't covered somehow?

Hey guys, I want to buy a Sony A7 or a Fuji X-T10 to use with my Olympus Zuiko lenses, are these overkill?
I have a 50mm F1.8 and a 28mm F2.8 but I intent to replace them with a 50mm F1.4 and a 24mm F2.8 as well as grab a 35mm and a 85mm.

Would it be an okay setup or should I just buy the kit lens?

Also which camera would you choose 600€ X-T10 vs 1000€ A7

>>2702067
Hm. Well, I use face detection and Eye AF for portraits.

They are both CDAF, and the Eye AF button even gives you an error if you try AF-C (PDAF).

There is no problem with CDAF or this easy assisted workflow on the Sigma, just PDAF will be on the five center points only.

I'm actually not sure how you'd even get PDAF to do the "i use the outer ones to focus on the eyes" - part, unless you use the flexible spot (s/m/l) focus area mode and move it around on the screen to focus on the eyes?

>>2702070
> Also which camera would you choose 600€ X-T10 vs 1000€ A7
I don't like either of them.

I'd actually get the A6000 instead. Or the A7S or A7 II.

> I have a 50mm F1.8 and a 28mm F2.8 but I intent to replace them with a 50mm F1.4 and a 24mm F2.8 as well as grab a 35mm and a 85mm.
> Would it be an okay setup or should I just buy the kit lens?
Uh... I think you should just try it out?

>>2702075

yes flexible spot all the way, i always manually select my focus points no matter what camera. To be honest with the A6000 i only used adapted manual nikkors. My AF experience comes from the D90. And then i got the 50AF-S 1.8 and focus shit drove me so nuts that i sold the whole nikon stuff and went manual focus only + a6000. Now i am a little tired of MF only so f i really spit out money for lenses i want full compatibility.

Not new, just wanna ask why my 700D (I know that this is an entery-level-dslr) has so much noise in video-recording. I already tried another lens with a wider aperture amd magic Lantern, but the noise is still incredibly high.

-700D-Guy

>>2702078
Get the A6000 or wait for the A7000?

>>2702070

So you're saying you want to adapt M43 lenses onto a full frame camera? Seems a little backwards to me.

>>2702115
I think the A6100 or A7000 or whatever is still a rumor? You can always wait for something as of yet unknown that is probably better of course, but I'd just get a camera right now, and only maybe contemplate actually announced cameras that come out very soon.

>>2702096
The 700D video mode automatically picks a really high ISO (like 6400 in bad light, which is bloody noisy on that sensor). Dunno how to fix though, sorry. I never shoot video, I just noticed this when I tested it out.

>>2702128
>>2702128
>>>2702096 (You)
>The 700D video mode automatically picks a really high ISO (like 6400 in bad light, which is bloody noisy on that sensor). Dunno how to fix though, sorry. I never shoot video, I just noticed this when I tested it out.
>>2702128
That's really strange. It's even stranger because I always recording in manual.

>>2702091
Well, you probably want to try face detection and Eye AF (need to bind it to a key first... it's nowhere by default) at some point. They're pretty good.

But of course nothing will stop you from doing that with a fully supported lens either, so I guess just get one of these. Only mentioned the 60mm f/2.8 because it's such a damn good deal.

Well, the rest that I like most (Zeiss Sonnar / Distagon / Batis, plus Mitakon and Rokinon for MF) was probably not on your list due to cost. But maybe you could also give the 28mm f/2 a second look. It is quite cheap.

So I finally decided to upgrade from my decade old sony alpha 300 to the OMD E-M5 and I'd like to know if there is a cheaper wide angle lens.

Right now I'm looking at
>Olympus 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6
but it's 500 used. Any suggestions for a cheaper alternative?

>>2702115
wait

>>2702140
>but it's 500 used. Any suggestions for a cheaper alternative?
No, unless you can find the pretty decent 7-14mm cheaper somehow. (I doubt it).

But if you jump to Nikon, a Nikon AF-S DX 10-24mm will be far better even in the same price range.

>>2702145
This thing is over 100 more than the one I was looking at, but it does have good reviews.

Should I go with the Canon 85mm 1.8 or the Sigma 85mm 1.4? Should I wait for a possible 85mm 1.4 ART?

>>2702140
>tfw Canon has cheap good 10-18
>tfw everybody has Tokina 11-16/2.8 for cheap

>tfw Nikon 12-24 is aging, 10-24 is $600+
>tfw M43 wide zooms are equally expensive

>>2702124
OM mount. There's no 50/1.8 or 28/2.8 for M43.

>>2702169
Then it is IMO much better value for something over 100 extra, but obviously we're going toward more expensive here, not cheaper.

>>2702174
Sigma 85mm, even when the Canon is the "L" one.

Other 85mm options that come to mind are MF lenses: Zeiss Planar for a bit more money, Otus for a lot more money and Samyang/Rokionon for cheap.

> Should I wait for a possible 85mm 1.4 ART?
Yea, well, how long do you want to wait? We don't know what Sigma is going to release.

>>2702175
So I'm kind of a photo noob. Would I need an adapter ring for the different manufacturers lenses?

>>2702196
For a Sigma designed for the Nikon F-Mount you won't need an adapter on the F-Mount, Sigma reverse engineered everything.


But between lens mounts, yes.

And if the flange focal distance is longer on your target system rather than the original one you generally also need optics, not just an adapter ring.

You also usually need a microprocessor and stuff inside the adapter if you want AF or stabilization or to receive the current settings from the lens (for saving in EXIF) or whatever, the respective signals aren't the same between vendors.

I have the D750, does it make sense to do astrophotography with a cheap old manual focus lens? Obviously I don't need the AF system, there are 28mm f/2 nikkors out there for $100-200 on eBay and I'm wondering if this is fast and wide enough.

Alternatively, I have a 50mm 1.8G but the focal length might be too long.

I'm really new to astro :)

>>2702202
Yes, I think I may be getting in over my head. I wanted one solid wide angle lens for landscapes and maybe a 35 or 50mm prime. I have the OMD EM5 by the way.

My A7ii doesn't have Gapless on-chip lens, it doesn't have Continuous Eye-AF, it doesn't have 0.78x viewfinder, it doesn't have silent electronic shutter.

;_;

All these new A7Rii features... They tempt me to upgrade...

>>2702213
You can do some kinds of astrophotography with any reasonably sharp lens.

It won't easily look very nice or original until you have a way to compensate for the earth's rotation, a decent spot to shoot with not too much light pollution, and maybe a telescope... but you can get the "standard" set of stars on whatever you want to shoot, with a lens like that, sure.

> Alternatively, I have a 50mm 1.8G but the focal length might be too long.
There are like 10^27 stars -actually probably more- in that FoV.

Not that you actually get enough light from anywhere near all of them to make a photograph (it's mostly the ones in our galaxy that work, and whole other galaxies as "one star"), but still, you probably get the general idea that a 50mm FoV can theoretically capture a lot of stars...

>>2702221
Thanks anon. I guess I should backup, I'm more interested (for now) in pleasing night sky photography. I would have to get a telescope with a clock drive etc. for space stuff.

>>2702220
have you updated the firmware?

>>2702214
Since that has a short flange focal distance, you can adapt lenses from a lot of systems.

> I wanted one solid wide angle lens
Why not?

But since you are apparently new: If you adapt a FF lens to M43 with just a ring that fixes the distance to be same, it becomes ~1.85-2 times narrower in terms of FoV due to the crop factor between sensor sizes involved.

A wide angle FF lens isn't necessarily wide angle on your M43, you'll need one with optics (focal reducer / "speed booster") to actually project the full original FoV on your sensor.

ok so I'm looking for one of two things. a camera that is all around good at photos and videos or two cameras that are individually great at both. also lens suggestions for each. hope I'm not to broad and sorry if this has been answered before...

>>2702224
It's not due to next week.

I was mostly jealous of the hardware features though.

>>2702226
Absolutely too broad, and you are probably too naive how much these things cost when you ask for "great".

Let's start with what do you think are you going to film, and how many thousand dollars do you have to do video? How many for photo?

>>2702226
>two cameras that are individually great at both
Never buy into companies who does that to you. That's is just crippling your product for no reason other than making you spend more money.

A good mirrorless like an A6000 will naturally excel at both disciplines, because it's not crippled to be bad at Video on purpose.

>>2702231
ok yeah your right I am naive when I say great. but let's just say my budget is around 2000-2,500 (hypetheticlly). I'd be filming short videos and films and taking photos for conventions and general travel. also if my budget is to general a price break down would be cool or like some info chart, honestly what ever type of info you have. thanks anon

>>2702232
I don't feel the A6000 excels at either photo or video. It's just decent for the price.

Arguably you can make photos look professional enough with it if you do it right, but video? No real chance. Rolling shutter and what not.

>>2702232
good to know I just wanted to make sure that the jack of all trades master at none didn't apply to cameras also any lense recommendations

>>2702234
then what do you suggest

>>2702234
It was just an example anyway.

The point is it's retarded at fuck to cripple your camera to be bad at video, for example just to protect some higher end video market.

>>2702233
> but let's just say my budget is around 2000-2,500 (hypetheticlly)
I guess you could have a GH4 or LX100 or A6000 / A7 series or some Canon with Magic Lantern firmware or something like that as compromise solution.

You could also use a midrange photo camera + blackmagic video camera and maybe partly share lenses.

Or far cheaper, take a Yicam or GoPro or some cheap camcorder or something for video and make do with that.


But when you want actually great photo gear, that costs more individually. Each lens can easily be 1-2.5k, plus a ~3-5k body... or at least a ~1.5-2k one for enthusiasts.
[Personally this makes me think that photography got quite cheap, but YMMV. You might also need *that* great.]

Video costs more.

>>2702225
Gracias senor, I was vaguely aware of the conversion in the M43 but not exactly. You have been a guiding light in my time of need. I do appreciate the knowledge.

I did order
>Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f1.8
Will that be a suitable lens to start my collection for landscape photography? I know I will also need a ND filter and possibly a hood.

>>2702223
I think you should try it first with what you have, on a tripod.

If you need a wide angle for the looks of your shot, get one - but rather than paying the premium for a very fast lens, it probably will make more sense to get an equatorial mount or something to be able to do longer exposures.

>>2702245
> Gracias senor [...] I do appreciate the knowledge.
No problem. Hope it helps.

> Will that be a suitable lens to start my collection for landscape photography?
Yea, sure. ~35mm equivalent is fine for landscape. And from sample pictures I'd say it's a good lens.

> I know I will also need a ND filter and possibly a hood.
Hoods are good, nice to have against unwanted light, nice to have when you are clumsily bumping into something.

ND filters and also CPL might also be useful, sure, but you probably can do fine without one (arguably, Chinese ND / CPL are cheap, so you could also just get some of these).

>>2702213
I made some not too sharp shots of the Orion nebula, with an old manual 400mm. It wasn't easy to set the focus since infinity is not a hard stop, but with enough frames it gave me some nice results.
Astrophotography in itself is a very technical aspect of photography and can consume a lot of money. Always go for the better gear, best being a good motorized mount with startracker compatibility and a reasonably big newtonian tube, 200 or bigger diameter.
Until you get there, you can use a smaller simple motorized mount or just any tripod and shoot frames for stacking with the reciprocal rule (exposure time=500/lens focal length).
Use Deep Sky Stacker for stacking and don't forget to shoot dark frames to eliminate most of the noise.
Also google Forrest Tanaka on Youtube for some tutorials.

>>2702031
Only used the 20mm and 16mm - both are soft wide open with crazy vignetting. The 16mm distorts quite a lot as well. I wouldn't recommend either of them. The 30mm sigma is a decent bet if you want something cheap but good, but you would probably be better off with their 35mm

File: 20150806-P8060259.jpg (2MB, 3346x2510px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3346x2510px

>>2702245
I have that lens and it's gorgeous. Did you get it in black or silver? The black ones are actually made to higher spec so more expensive but a lot sharper. I use it for landscape a lot and it does the job fine.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-PL5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Color Filter Array Pattern	800
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	34 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:08:15 00:47:42
Exposure Time	1/1600 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Flash
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	17.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft

>>2702226
G H 4
H
4

>>2702291
>all the CA and fringing of a kit lens
Yes it is "gorgeous" all right. Are all 4/turd shooters this deluded? Di you actually pay money for that lens? My Helios 44 has literally no CA and fringing and I paid $20 for it.

>>2702294
>literally less than a pixel width of CA in the corners
Oh golly guys better chuck it in the trash because someone on /p/ told me his 58mm lens is better than my 17mm.

>>2702305
It's all over the photo, it is fucking with my eyes!
I can tolerate some degree and some of it can be addressed in post, but this is fucking toy lens level of shit!

>>2702252
he can get a marumi pl instead of cpl. they're cheaper.

File: 54194_model_huge_8e0e4aa21d.jpg (119KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 480x480px

>what next?
Got this a few years ago along with a 35/1.8g for like $100 at a pawn shop and it's all I've used since. I'm a freshman in college and therefore have no disposable income, although I might get a few hundred for Christmas since grades are good. I've lusted over the d7100 for years and it's finally come down to ~$550. Also, there's a Sony A7 for $450 on my local craigslist and it comes with a lens.
What new camera would /g/ recommend that's newer than 2006 and would preferably, though not necessarily, work with the few shit tier Nikon lenses I have? I'd also like to record decent video.
Thanks in advance.

>>2702376
7100 is an excellent choice. If you're poor the last thing you want to do is buy into Sony

Looking to purchase a new lens for a nikon setup, just got a standard kit 18-55 and a 50mm 1.8.

Any suggestions? I was thinking a 24-70 but not sure of makes/models.

>>2702380
Too bad it has no buffer. But at least it balances it out with immense amounts of mirror slap.

>>2702387

Depends on what you want to photograph.

>>2702131

fuck this, i am selling my a6000 and nikkor lenses and buy a used 1ds MK2 i use iso 100 anyway, a nifty fity and a 85 or 100 and i am good to go.

>>2702066
pls

>>2702407
www.ebay.com

>>2700670
There's a samyang/rokinon 50mm 1.2 for the X-Mount for about 550.

It's manual focus though (and pretty big for M1).

>>2702380
Well with the Sony I was planning on using the included lens and then using adapters for the Nikon lenses I have, as well as a couple vintage Canon ones I inherited.

>>2702380
But D7100 is DX and A7 is full frame.

>>2702376
>reliable
>current generation autofocus
>solid, weather sealed build
>long lineup of lenses that are commonly available, excellent

or

>shitty autofocus
>weird handling
>plastic mount
>weather sealing that can stand up to a squirt of a spray bottle
>no lenses
>any size advantage is lost to the lens sizes
>needs adapters for everything
>needs 4 batteries
>b-b-but muh fool frame
>compressed raw, need a7ii or better for uncompressed

the only time the a7 is good is if you're a casual who doesn't shoot moving objects, or are carrying the camera as a fashion item. the dslr, as a tool, is still vastly superior. /p/ is too focused on sensor size and muh evf. you'll want an a7ii to at least sort out most of the disadvantages of the a7.

>>270245
betterfamilyphotos blogspot ca/2013/04/nikon-d5200-and-d7100-band-aid.html?m=1

there is the issue of banding with the d7100 though

>>2702252
Yes, thanks again for the info. One last question if you or someone else knows. How can I get the wide angle shots with a M43 cam?

>>2702291
I did not see a difference in specs on the information, but I ordered the silver one (prices were also the same). Pic looks good and I can't wait to try it out around Thanksgiving.

>>2702331
I browsed the marumis on amazon and theyre more expensive. Unless I'm missing something?

>>2702457
>you'll want an a7ii
Not even.
With sony the buck stops at the a7rii.
Everything below it and you might as well just consider some other brand.

>>2702457
This. So many groups on facebook is full of moronic gearfags who buy cameras only for their features and bullshit marketing *cough jason lanier disciples cough*. Whats more when they go to post pictures they're utter garbage

Hello friends, looking to buy a mirrorless around xmas

got the sony a5000 kit and samsung nx3000 kit in mind, mostly leaning to sony since it has flash built in

got any other suggestions?

>>2702376

D3300.

>>2702187
As well the Contax mount Planar is way cheaper than the current version if you don't mind getting an adapter.

>>2702487
a6000.
epl6.
x-a1.

>>2702331
I like Marumi as a brand , but just about any Marumi thing is like 5-10x the price of a chinese CPL... or even a whole Chinese filter kit.

>>2702493
Good hint, wouldn't have known that.

>>2702531
If you're willing to spend a stupidly high amount, you can also get the 85mm f/1.2 planar

When does /p/ think A7iii is going to come out? Should I go for an A7ii now, or wait until Sony decides to stop being a cocktease with their yearly upgrades?

>>2702540
Two months, and it will be just as useless as the rest of them.
Sony cameras are more of casual wear items than actual tools for taking photos.
Sony never understood what specialized working tools are, just look at all of its other products, none of them are more than casual consumerist garbage.

>>2702532
Sure, though at that price level I find the Otus f/1.4 neater.

If I was willing to pay for a f/1.2, it'd probably be more the Zhongyi Mitakon Speedmaster... not that this is entirely equal to the 1.2 Planar, but it kinda makes more sense in my head.

>>2702540
> When does /p/ think A7iii is going to come out?
Maybe half a year to a year? IDK.

> Should I go for an A7ii now
Yes, if you want a camera like that, sure. Could also get the A7S II or A7R II or whatever.

> or wait until Sony decides to stop being a cocktease with their yearly upgrades?
No, why? Also I hope they continue, it usually leads to better cameras when you buy one, if they released at 4 years intervals it'd be less likely to be a recently updated one.

Also, more used budget cameras for a lot of people.

>>2702174
You should go with a Sony A7 and an FD 85/1.2L.

>>2702549
>Sony pumps out new cameras like a broodmare
>Their price drops occur in Valve Time

Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

>>2702565
But most older Sony cameras *did* get cheaper quicker than with other brands, because a nice new version was out so soon?

And that Sony managed to get useful updates out so rapidly recently is a just good thing.

>>2702487
The old Sony nex 5r and 5t are better if you don't mind second hand

>>2702590
Also consider the Nex 6 or 7. Both are cheap used and kinda near to the A6000 considering the bang of features.

Is 1,5 Kg (body+lens) too much to lunch around with as a tourist camera?

Is 1,2 Kg too much too?

>>2702544

Care to explain?

I want to learn how to attatch a camera to a drone so that i can peep on the 10 year old girl next door

>Go on Photorumors
>Laps up rumor with no source about Samsung leaving camera bsuiness
>Links to DPreview and tells people to whine there about ethics and baseless claims
>Doesn't even acknowledge that dpr did their research and found that the statement was BS and a cut and past of a statement regarding Samsung discontinuing LAPTOPS

>>2702662
haha.
yes.

>>2702683
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8930601010/samsung-nx1-discontinued-in-europe-rumors-say-yes

samsung is kill brah.

>>2702662
What? No.

>>2702685
>Not reading the update

>>2700338
All cameras need good light.

Instead of buying a camera buyva tripod, a couple of desktops and some daylight bulbs.

>>2702689
Not for tripods usage, but for handheld while walking about.

Are you sure 1,5 Kg won't be too tiresome after a while?

>>2702726
a7s ii

>>2702729
Of course it will become tiresome quite a bit sooner than a lightweight setup, but it certainly isn't nearly too much to carry around for an adult.

If you bring a monopod or perhaps a tripod, that can offset basically all of the fatigue caused by holding such a relatively heavy camera in a shooting position for longer times (especially happens if you have to wait for something while ready to shoot to actually get a good shot).

Well, this is just what is quite easily possible for adults. Of course, you might simply enjoy lazy lightweight travel or be making such extreme trips that keeping weight at (maybe well) under 1kg is very much preferable. IDK.