Gear Thread

>>2702778
PS.: See this guy in the middle of the snowy field? He set his shit up to take some photos, not caring about silly things like cold, weather or arguing about nonsense on a dubious internet forum in the warm house.
This is a photo of a man doing what he likes. Do it like him and shoot some photos!

>>2702779
But I don't even like photograph I just like gear

>>2702778
Is he using a Pentax tho?

>>2702783
Yes and the lens is either a DA* 200mm or a DA* 300mm

File: Bildschirmfoto-2015-11-11-um-14.41.20-700x400.png (531KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 700x400px

It's official. Samsung is abandoning the camera market.
Discontinuation of their flagship camera and a complete transferring of their camera engineers to other parths of the company.
The NX1 isn't even a year old and it's already discontinued ;_;

>>2702826
Samsung is a consumer garbage producer, now Sony needs to realize how things work and up their shit or go after Samsung.

>>2702830
>Zeiss: In August Sony sold more system cameras than Canon and Nikon (on German Market).
Sony killed Samsung.

>>2702831
Most (90%) of those customers only need a phone camera for their snapshits, rest are amateur videographers. No professional photographers amongst the customers.

>>2702830
Sony is doing fine, they even are rapidly improving on flaws in their products.

The problem probably lies with you.

>>2702835
Sony interchangeable lens cameras outsell canon and nikon.

>HURRRRR THEY'RE NOT EVEN PHOTOGRAPHERS HURRRDURRRRRRR, THEY WANTED TO DO VIDEO SO THEY BOUGHT A HIGH MEGAPIXEL FULL-FRAME STILLS CAMERA, HURRRRRRRRRRRR

Spot the guy that's never been to Germany, they care about their photos, aesthetics and engineering there, it's no surprise Sonya re doing well.

I for one welcome our Japanese overlords.

>>2702845
Me too! Pentax is awesome!

File: sugoi sugoi.jpg (249KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1280x720px

>>2702830
Sony lenses are sugoi kawaii.

For example you can put 49mm filter on the Lens.
Then you can put Lens hood on top of filter to hide it.
Then you can put 40.5mm filter on top of lens hood on top of 49mm filter.
Then you can put Len cap on top of 40.5mm filter on top of lens hood on top of 49mm filter.

This is sugoi Senpai!

[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

>Then you can put Len cap on top of 40.5mm filter on top of lens hood on top of 49mm filter.
Forgot link
https://youtu.be/IDgYUNCEYxM?t=180

>>2702855
And none of this helps your AF in tracking a moving subject with your native 300mm lens on a sports event.

>>2702860
AF tracking is fine, native or adapted if you insist on using some adapted 300mm+ lens (Tamron 150-600 on LA-EA3 or something?) rather than the really extremely neat and quite light 70-200mm f/4.

>>2702860
But it's super cute that you can stack 4 such thing onto the lens and still have a super compact system.

Kawaii desu!

>>2702869
>70-200
okay
>f/4
NOPE

Even Pentax has a 70-200/2.8 now. It is official, Sony has no lens.

>>2702872
Also 150-400. Does Sony have any long telezoom lens?
Legit question, do they?

>>2702869
>AF tracking is fine, native or adapted
That's the opposite of what every single review (and logic, (and an understanding of AF systems)) says.

So I haven't done any photography since late 2012, early 2013. I don't have a camera anymore and I've been considering getting a new one since I now have a two motorcycles to go anywhere with and enough cash to maintain a photography habit.

Should I get something a bit older but higher spec back then, such as a 40D, or a newer but lower spec camera like a 600D? How has camera technology unfolded? I've been completely out of anything related since 2013 so I have no idea.

>>2702875
Yea, no. Native is pretty much always great in pretty much every review.

LA-EA3 and Tamron 150-600mm is fine, too.

Most other lenses that work on a Metabones adapter or such (adapted from Canon) are at least enough for most situations, but IDK if they'll do sports.

>>2702873
No. If you need longer telephoto zoom or even long telephoto primes, you're better off on Canon / Nikon.

I actually don't.

>>2702880
Still in denial. It's time to come out of the closet, brandfag.

>>2702872
> Even Pentax has a 70-200/2.8 now.
If aperture is all you need, that one wins!

Otherwise, this is just one of the best 70-200, and the Pentax can't touch it (it even matches or beats the twice as heavy Canon "L" or Nikkor f/2.8).

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2390700@N20/pool/

>>2702880
>Yea, no. Native is pretty much always great in pretty much every review.
Every single review says "Tracking is there, and it works well if the subject is the only thing on the plane of focus, and is large and obvious in the frame, and the light is good, most of the time, sort of"

It's just physics. on-sensor PDAF points will never be as robust or accurate as dedicated AF sensors in a DSLR. They have to come up with a better way to solve the problem, and they haven't yet. Even on the a7rmk2. It's a well established fact at this point, and there's nothing wrong with admitting it. It's a great camera, and most people don't even use tracking AF. Refusing to acknowledge obvious flaws in your camera of choice is the best way to be dismissed in an argument. There is literally no perfect camera in existence. A camera can be perfect for YOU, because its flaws match nicely with your lack of desire to use a specific feature, but that doesn't mean that the flaws don't exist.

My X-T1 doesn't track for shit, and the battery indicator is annoyingly useless. I wish the control dials were buttons you could press, and I don't like the inconsistent placement of AF lock/AE lock between the body and the grip.

It's still a great camera, and I love it, because it works well for me, and I love the files from it.

Ta-Da! Rationality!

>>2702872
>>2702873

Why would Sony bring out long, fast, professional level lenses at the start? No wildlife or sports tog is gonna switch from their favoured brand in a hurry. Wedding togs can't afford NOT to have a big DSLR due to dumb brides thinking the size of a camera=quality of photos, so again, why would sony bring out fast, professional zooms.

The vast majority of people that will WANT to use Sony are going to be;
Travellers - F4's are lighter and work just fine
Street - 28 f2 is cheap and tiny and perfect for this
Rich White men - Zeiss are on board
videographers - good sensor, infinite lens choice

We know there's 3 f.28 zooms on their way, we know Sigma have said they will be making lenses'. Sony aren't dumb, they know what they are doing.

>>2702884
>Every single review says "Tracking is there, and it works well if the subject is the only thing on the plane of focus, and is large and obvious in the frame, and the light is good, most of the time, sort of"
Lel no.

> My X-T1 doesn't track for shit
If you have a Fuji that kinda explains it. But Fuji isn't an A6000, A7 II, A7R II ...

>>2702887
Sonygger in denial

>>2702887
Please post two reviews where someone is using any Sony flagship mirrorless camera with a telephoto lens to shoot a sporting event, where they say that tracking and burst shooting is as good as a 5Dmk3/7Dmk2 or equivalent DSLR af system in all lighting and tracking situations.

>>2702884
You conflate tracking AF and PDAF.

PDAF is fine on pretty much all native lenses, subject tracking is not reliable.

CDAF also is reliable. So basically, AF is fine, intelligent tracking modes are so far imperfect. Nothing physical.

>>2702891
Lel no, I don't need that to laugh at "every single review" thing. I'll see your many reviews showing this first.

But here's are two for you that I saw recently for the a6000, both bikes (though one is motorized and the other downhill and german - but you can see the pics in the first minutes anyways):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA74uA4Ua3I

>>2702897
One more, just in case you need the A7R II, for flagship:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxVmJh_eCT0

>>2702897
>using wide angles on f/8 or higher to have the DoF as wide as possible. Test is invalid.
Try all this with melted OOF background with or without panning.
I myself don't care too much about reviews because most of them are biased. I am talking out of experience, having shot thousands of moving subjects, most of them on my kit telezoom. Focus was still on target. But I use a DSLR with proper AF optics.

>>2702901
> using wide angles on f/8 or higher to have the DoF as wide as possible. Test is invalid.
It still focused correctly and shows the PDAF works fine. And I posted other reviews, too. I'd say you are grasping for straws.

Mostly, you just want a sharp lens for fast / reliable PDAF, and there are a lot of these on the Sony E-mount. One more review with more sports shots here:

https://youtu.be/IjJxnIQcJDA?t=3m

There surely are reasons why you might still not want to use a Sony, but they're probably not related to AF. Both CDAF / PDAF are really quite good; unless you needed a recent Canon 1D something or Nikon D4 something before, you should be fine - more likely than not, that AF is better than what you had before.

>>2702901
>Try all this with melted OOF background with or without panning.
By the way, this is no problem. You can see it in the other videos, especially >>2702899 is nice and short on that one.

> Inb4 without panning, it wouldn't work.

>>2702897
>>2702899
>>2702913

>it works well if the subject is the only thing on the plane of focus, and is large and obvious in the frame, and the light is good
Sort of like a lone motorcycle outside in the day time...

How about a herd of Nascar cars all bunched together? or football/basketball players at night, with lots going on in the frame, and erratic conflicting movement?

>>2702913
In this post you proved my suspicion, you don't know a single thing about AF systems. Like I told you above, try all this with tele lens and try to make a sharp photo with all the focus hesitation you will get with the shallow DoF even an f/5.6 lens gives you above 150mm.

>>2702884
>My X-T1 doesn't track for shit, and the battery indicator is annoyingly useless. I wish the control dials were buttons you could press, and I don't like the inconsistent placement of AF lock/AE lock between the body and the grip.
wow is there anything you actually like about it?
why did you buy it?

>>2702916
See shots in >>2702913, they feature bunched up subjects. Works fine.

"Erratic conflicting movement" -whatever that might mean-, will not cause PDAF to not focus whatever subject is under your AF area, and even CDAF is quite snappy for CDAF.

>>2702918
The way it fits in my hand, the lenses (Speed, price, color, contrast, quality, and focal length range), the colors, the detail, the style/setup of the other buttons and controls, the EVF, the burst rate, the support from Fuji, the style, the customization of the body itself, the overall feel and process with the camera.

I love it, and I'd buy it again. I have no use for tracking AF, I have spare batteries at all times anyway, and I've learned the button locations over time. *shrug* The cameras flaws line up well with my usage. The failings of the camera don't affect the type of shooting that I do.

File: og.jpg (62KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1200x630px

Pentax full frame camera

most intriguing

>>2702921
>Kit lens 24-70 f/2.8 constant aperture
Ricoh is based

>>2702917
The 70-200 f/4 is a tele lens, and a zoom too, and was featured in two fucking videos doing sports, and there even were shallow DoF shots with OOF areas.

But feel free to test a 85mm Batis f/1.8 (also tele) or whatever on any of the newer A7 bodies or even the A6000, it will probably be fine.

> In this post you proved my suspicion, you don't know a single thing about AF systems.
Grand words, but you're wrong anyways.

>>2702923
Then tell me how phase detection autofocus optics work.

>>2702921
Yes, but how many lenses will they have at release?

>>2702922
Yea, usually the kit lenses are quite good.

>>2702925
>Yes, but how many lenses will they have at release?
All the most important focal lengths including telezooms with the new D FA range, some of the FF capable DA range and all the FA and F lenses plus the manual A and M film lenses including the takumars. Also with adapters the 645 and the manual 67 MF lenses.

File: 151110_001-1075x605.jpg (239KB, 1075x605px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1075x605px

>>2702835
>No professional photographers amongst the customers.
http://lenspire.zeiss.com/en/whats-in-your-camera-bag-greg/

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7S
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	51 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:11 01:53:33
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	12800
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	-2.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	51.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2004
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal

>>2702926
Correction:
How many competitive lenses will they have at release.
Fast primes with great AF
Fast zooms with great AF and weather sealing
Ultra fast portrait primes for both body and headshots
Tilt-Shift for architecture
70-200 with no focus breathing and a good MFD, etc.

You know, the sort of stuff to make them even slightly competitive with the companies who have been offering FF cameras for 10 years now.

>>2702928
All of those lenses are highly competitive, both in IQ and price.

>>2702927
how much did zeiss pay him?

>>2702924
Microprisms and on-sensor wizards feeding into a microcontroller.

I understand it a little better, but this is absolutely and completely irrelevant to the fact that Sony's AF factually works independently of my understanding of its engineering details.

The "great words" part was anyways about your implied claim that you truly understand how either (PD)AF system is designed in detail when you've been wrong about Sony's actual AF performance pretty much entirely.

>>2702932
It works. It just doesn't work as well.

http://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-m/m3.htm

>The EOS M3 has the world’s best mirrorless picture quality because Canon has better color rendition than any other mirrorless brand. Canon’s real-world color rendition is far better to the critical artist than Fuji, Sony, or LEICA.

:^)

>>2702779
I just woke up though


Alright anons, I feel it's time I moved up from my Nikon D3100

Would now be a good time to lay some cash down or should I wait for the next big camera updates and then buy used?
I only have about $2500 at the moment so I'm obviously not prepared for pro-gear equipment.
Suggestions? I do a lot of Portraits for freelance and night photography for myself.

>>2702936
It works as well or better as everything else other than a D4S or 1D III or the like. (These were just the cameras explicitly called a little better at AF in the video reviews linked before in >>2702897 and >>2702913, but you should note how the reviewers think the difference is not big).

The AF system on newer Sonys is basically simply great with sharp native lenses. Easily capable of shooting sports or anything else in typical photography with a very high rate of hits, and a typical /p/ DSLR won't do better.

>>2702968
No, it doesn't. It really really doesn't. Doesn't even compete with the 7D, let alone the 7Dmk2

>>2702964
D7200 or Pentax K-3
Former if you are established on the Nikon lenses, latter if you want superior lenses with lower prices than the Nikon equivalents.

>>2702964
> I do a lot of Portraits for freelance
Lens wise, a Sigma Art on CaNikon or a Batis on Sony probably makes for a very nice upgrade to whatever you have right now.

> and night photography for myself.
Maybe an A7S? Or just make do with a D750. A D4S or A7S II unfortunately is not in the budget range.

>>2702972
It does, you can see it in the video reviews. Or simply when you try it.

Stick good lens on A6000 / A7 II / A7R II, switch to AF-C (PDAF), burst fire at running dude(s) coming at you, watch pretty much everything coming out sharp until you get really close to the minimum focusing distance.

>>2702978
>>2702980
Thanks for the suggestions, I'll look into each

>>2702980
>it works well if the subject is the only thing on the plane of focus, and is large and obvious in the frame, and the light is good

Watch it fail at football, like we all have, on multiple reviews.

>>2702984
> it works well if the subject is the only thing on the plane of focus, and is large and obvious in the frame, and the light is good
I already picked a bunch of videos that show this is not the case. Don't feel like doing it more.

> Watch it fail at football, like we all have, on multiple reviews.
Football? Fine. Let's add more videos:
https://youtu.be/jIakt30iBGY?t=4m18s

> Inb4 this guy likes Sony cameras, his photographs are invalid.

>>2702996
It's not that he likes Sony Cameras, it's that he wears a silly hat that makes him invalid.

File: Hasselblad_500_CM.jpg (863KB, 2807x2583px) Image search: [Google]

863KB, 2807x2583px

In case the /film/ thread is dead:

I could get a Hasselblad 500cm with a 80mm f/2.8 Planar for 400EUR, it's working well, I know how to use one and would love to start medium format shooting.
I have no idea about the prices of Hasselblads though, I did some research and found everything ranging from 200-1000EUR for a used one, I guess 400EUR is still a good price, can anyone confirm this so I will have a little less buyers remorse? Thanks!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	4904
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2008:12:24 00:45:44
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Image Width	3961
Image Height	2726
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2702996
It's not his chosen brand he likes, it is the fact he is Jason Lanier is what makes him invalid.
Also he is paid by Sony for his reviews.

>>2703002
Check the camera for faults, especially the shutter and the film advance mechanism. It is commonly known that the 500cm shutter gets stuck from time to time and it can jam the film advance to the point of snapping the film.
Be always super cautious operating it, no ham fistedness like what a Mamiya, Pentax or Bronica can tolerate.

>>2703000
Heh. /p/ generally should do that, if only to trigger everyone else.

>>2703009
> Also he is paid by Sony for his reviews.
I know he was asking for it in his probably most famous YT video, did he get his sponsorship then?

Anyhow, he probably did not bribe the NFL to play extra slow, or use a completely different set of lenses than indicated on that YT video. So that's probably irrelevant within the scope of this thread anyways.

>>2703002
I don't think it is dead, it's just slow.

I don't know the camera, but the Carl Zeiss Planar T* 80mm f/2 used to be a pretty nice lens. Probably still worth $300 or so on its own.

>>2703013
>Anyhow, he probably did not bribe the NFL to play extra slow, or use a completely different set of lenses than indicated on that YT video. So that's probably irrelevant within the scope of this thread anyways.
Did he show every single photo he took to show that they're all in focus, and that tracking worked well every time? Did he maybe down-play the issue of tracking a sporadic subject when dealing with viewfinder blackout? etc.

daily reminder even a7rii is not yet ready for prime time
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/shooting-sports.html
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5684109129/lucky-number-7-shooting-pro-sports-with-the-sony-a7r-ii

consider the following:
mirrorless af is speedy, but not necessarily bulletproof like a SLR
mirrorless af is steadily improving, i'd give it a year or two
mirrorless cameras have no pro support network
fuji cannot into af
sony cannot into wide open af and metering
mirrorless users are bandwagoners with lots of money
the fe 70-200/4 is a fine lens. 2.8 is nice, but don't pretend f4 isn't good. jack up the iso on your fancy camera, isn't that why you bought it? enjoy very sharp optics. if macro lenses with limiters had performance optimization at infinity focus, you'd see people use them for more than just macro because of the optics.
>b-b-but muh bokeh

File: 1444683674000_IMG_539856.jpg (53KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x500px

I'm kind of Jealous of these new Zeiss leenses having rubber gasket to 150% seal the opening to the sensor.

Does anyone know if there is some third party accessories that immitates this and let me apply it to all my lenses?

>>2703041
That's funny, my kit lens has a gasket.
Actually my kit telezoom also has a gasket.

>>2703046
lel pentacks

>>2703055
Sony BTFO

File: pentax-50-200.jpg (19KB, 580x397px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 580x397px

>>2703046
same

>>2703055
mine is a pentacks tho

File: sugoi sugoi.jpg (256KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1280x720px

>>2703065
>implying implications
Sony a cute.

[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

>>2703071
>magenta ghosting

>>2703073
It looks great against the black metal. Lens flare a Best.

Can someone hint me to a good tele lens for nikon cameras around the 1k€ price rate? Doesn't have to be Nikkor, I like Tamron etc. brands too. Thanks

>>2703075
What tele range are you looking for? Portrait/event? Sports? Wildlife?

>>2703078
Potrait/event
I mean wildlife interests me a lot too but it's definetely secondary.

>>2703081
Sigma and Tamron 70/200 F2.8 are very good, very close to the Canon L lens IQ.
Dunno about the Tamron but the Sigma has IS.

>>2703081
>>2703092
Oh, and if Wildlife is a secondary option then try getting a compatible TC. 2x is still forgiving on f/2.8 and gives suitable reach for birds.

>>2703075
300/4 AFS for 300mm prime
80-200/2.8D for money saving
Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC for best value

>>2703092
>>2703093
>>2703094
Thanks, much appreciated.

>>2702826
Read the updates to the article you faggot http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8930601010/samsung-nx1-discontinued-in-europe-rumors-say-yes

>>2702928
I still hate how Canon is the only manufacturer with a 50mm f/1.2 with AF

>D-FA* 50mm f/1.2 never

>>2702980

What do you mean "make do with a D750"?

I was under the impression the D750 is like the sexiest thing Nikon has ever made outside of the D4S (but who wants that buick of a camera around their neck for 5 hours?)

>>2703158
For low light, there is nothing better than the a7s. the D750 is great, but not as good for that one thing, which was what was being discussed.

>>2703147
It's an ultra specialized lens that's enormous, and expensive, and provides very very little over the f/1.4. You lust after it when you're still in your "I need a faster lens to take better photos with more bokeh" phase, but once you come to realize that bokeh doesn't make a photo any better, you start to question the lens's existence in the first place.

>>2703161

Ok fair enough. There is that one super awkward $20k canon with 2 million ISO. But I think everyone agrees that's just kinda dumb.

>>2703162
I don't actually think bokeh makes a photo better or worse, rather I believe it can be used by the photographer to have a certain style or look to their works.

>Question a lens' existence
The same could be said for Canon's 50mm f/1.0 or their old 50mm f/0.95

>>2703165
just for your knowledge, that camera was made more for a security camera means that for being an actual camera.

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-12 at 11.19.39 PM.png (34KB, 296x224px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 296x224px

does anyone else stay up till midnight to see the "deal zone" rollover to the next item? It's the worst symptom of gearfaggotry but it's such a nice feeling when something you need shows-up for like 80% off. I'm waiting now. 36 minutes to go.

>>2703257
No chance. Hope you're at least taking photos or something until it happens.

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-13 at 12.15.36 AM.png (139KB, 1011x397px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1011x397px

>>2703271
I've found a few things on there that I've bought for super cheep (camera bag, some audio gear) but yeah, it's pretty hit-or-miss.

although today there's a good discount on some nice nocks that my /out/ friends might like

Panasonic 12-32 or 20/1.7? Looking for something compact and cost effective. Basically, zoom convenience with sharp enough sharpness, or one of the best pancake primes ever with slow AF?

Are there any Australian online stores that offer good deals on photography equipment? I've looked at a fair few and so far none of the prices are cheaper than what I can get from an Ebay seller in Japan.

>>2703280
lolno

>>2703146
It's a done deal.
>Those who do not read the EOSHD Forum will be unaware of the context of this article. (1) In October various South Korean news platforms claimed Samsung were conducting an internal reorganisation of the imaging department with NX staff assigned to other areas of the imaging business such as smartphones and medical.

>>2703280
Remember you still need to pay tax on stuff from Japan.

>>2702878
What will you be using it for? Any specific type of photography? Budget? Anything you currently own?

>>2703298
If it was true then you would see price drops in every market, not just at one European dealer.

File: Untitled-1.jpg (1MB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1067px

See pic related. 100% crop from a shot.

I rented a 23mm for my X-E2 recently, and noticed that all the details are really muddy and look like a watercolour. Is this a problem with the lens or the sensor? I usually use M-mount lenses on it and have never noticed this before.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:13 17:09:24
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1067

>>2703482
Shit, sorry. Thought the EXIF was in it.

>Fuji X-E2
>Fuji 23mm ƒ1.4
>ISO 400
>ƒ2.8
>1/60th

>>2703482
because you tried to edit a fuji photo in adobe software.

Adobe never bothered to get their algortihms right for fuji raws, so you get weird swirly, soft details.

Should have bought a sony.

>>2703483
>>Fuji 23mm ƒ1.4
how you rike this lens?

>>2703491
So what should I be using instead?

>>2703493
I thought it was quite loud to focus, you could here it clunking as it moved, but otherwise I really can't fault it. I rented it because I was thinking of buying it, but I just don't really like the focal length. I think I'm going to get the 18mm ƒ2 instead. Works out nicely because the 18mm is less than half the price.

>>2703491
>Should have bought a sony.
Or just used a different converter.

>>2703501
It's a RAW, I just exported the JPEG from Lightroom without touching anything. I'm reading up on alternative programs now, going to give Photoninja a try.

>>2703497
>So what should I be using instead?
Photoninja, Raw The Rapee, Iridient Developer, Capture One etc., etc.

Even the Fuji/Silkypix freebie disc you got with the camera will give you better detail that Adoe.

I have a bright spot on my shots no matter which lens I use, in the exact same spot. It isn't dark like sensor dust, is this a scratch or what the fuck is going on? D7100

>>2703507
Thanks. Stealing PhotoNinja now. I just read Iridient Developer is the best, but I prefer the look of the PN interface. Am I right in saying I can convert the RAW to a TIFF in PhotoNinja, then use the TIFF in Lightroom to use my presets? From what I've just read, I think that would sidestep the issue I'm having.

Can you guys brief me on the Canon 10-18mm 1:4,5-5,6?
I'm considering getting it for architecture and landscape shots, already have a 24mm 2,8 for low light and street environments, is this a rational addition? Or are there any alternatives in the same price range (up to 250€)?

Body is a 600D.

Recently got a fuji X-E1 as well as a MD to FX adapter so I can use my old minolta lenses. Wanted to try out some macro photography but it seems that the MD mount is pretty much limited to the 50mm f/3.5 or the 100mm f/4. Anyone got any experience with those lenses? Also not really experienced with macro photography but wouldn't I normally want as much light as possible? Kind of concerned with the relatively low f stop number there.

Are there any good manual glass alternatives for other mounts maybe (m42, FD etc.?)

>>2703514
Yes, that's possible.

File: _DSC6890.jpg (1MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1333px

>>2703512

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	804
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	600 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:13 12:18:39
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	3600
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2702826
Time for firesale? I'll take it if I can get the NX1, 16-50 f/2-f/2.8, and 50-150 f/2.8 for $2500 or less.

>>2703541
clean your sensor, pay a professional or use a sensor loupe.

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-13 at 18.25.47.png (53KB, 607x297px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 607x297px

>>2703514
>>2703539
Every time I open a Fuji RAW. Canon and Sony RAW's are fine; crashes every time I open a Fuji.

>>2703558
This is a pirated copy, right? What OS, what version, etc?

I use the portable version that's floating around out there, if you wanna try a different file. Mines 1.2, but I honestly don't even know what it's up to these days. I'm happy with this copy I've had forever.

>>2703548
I have used rocket air and wet cleaned my sensor twice and the bright spot is still there. It also flares up like a mother fucker with backlighting, which sensor dust doesn't, to my knowledge.

>>2703566
That definitely sounds like a (deep) scratch on the sensors glass. If you lock the mirror up and move it around in direct sunlight you'll probably see it. I suppose it could also be some bright white debris of some kind, but that seems less likely.

>>2703566
Did you look through a loupe like I suggested?

>>2703565
Yeah, pirated. I suspect that's the problem.

I'm on OS X 10.9.5, and I downloaded v1.0.5. If you have an OS X version, I'll give it a try! All I really want to do is convert the files to TIFF so I can use them in LR.

>>2703587
I doubt the portable version I use is OS X compatible, but yeah I'd look for another file, ideally a newer version since, if I've had 1.2 for like 1.5 years, who knows how old 1.0.5 is?

File: leica-camera-copyright-yukio-miyamoto.jpg (68KB, 400x250px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 400x250px

Can you recomend me analog rangefinder. It must be:
-under 200$
-with light meter
-with changeble lenses or nice prime

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2008:07:24 11:10:07
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	400
Image Height	250

>>2703592
olympus xa

>>2703594
and something with metal body

>>2703520
Guys?

>>2703595
...olympus xa.

>>2703592
Look at the Olympus 35- range. The 35-SP is the top of the range, there's also a 35-RC which is smaller with a slower lens and I think there are some others, too. They're brilliant cameras. The 35-SP has a stunning lens. I'm thinking of getting it converted to M mount.

>>2703591
Thanks, isi. I couldn't find anything newer than 1.0.5 for OS X but I'll dig a little deeper.

hello /p/

looking to pick up photography as a hobby when I move to my co-op position. interested in night shots playing around with different exposures and pov's.

was thinking about waiting for black friday to find a good deal.
any ideas on what I should be steering away from or focusing on? Price range is max 1000

thanks

>>2703643
>>1971605

>>2703585
I think I may have found something with the loupe but I also see a bunch of other shit just like it that isn't causing any issues, so I'm still confused. Contacted Nikon and they wouldn't say what it was, just that it would cost $150-280 to replace. camera is worth $400 used, guess it's upgrade time.

>>2703648
so you confirmed your sensor was dirty as shit, decided not to clean it to see if it helps and call the camera a write off. Have you even tried a different lens.

>>2703648
Yes, it's not sensor dust.
Dust will always show up darker, never brighter.

I have no idea what it is.
But one thing you could do is correct it in Lightroom, save it as a preset and apply it on every picture on import.

So Gearfags,


i just traded my A6000 for a 1dsNK II because muh fullframe and because i didnt really like the A6000

need lens advise, i shoot mostly portrait. i am poor. i am not a bokeh whore.

nifty fifty + 85 1.8 ?
or
nifty fifty + 70-200 f4 no is ?

>>2703257
Youre wasting your life.

Go out and shoot instead

File: Empty Pockets.jpg (142KB, 590x840px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 590x840px

>>2703663
i most certainly am NOT wasting my life anon. I have a real job, and a freelance business, neither of which is photography. i do my togging for fun and with friends in my spare time. i don't sit around all day on the internet or waiting for the "deal zone" to rollover. I just am usually doing my evening unwind/cuppa tea around midnight so out of habit i check to see what the new deal is after 12. i do the same with musician's friend's "stupid deal of the day" sometimes too. most of what i keep an eye out for is good deals on audio gear, but there are a few togging accessories i'd buy if they were super discounted as well. it's prudent to check for deals sometimes when you have an expensive hobby or profession is all

>>2703661
Nifty fifty and Tamron 70-200mm VC

>>2703661
> i just traded my A6000 for a 1dsNK II because muh fullframe and because i didnt really like the A6000
You are an odd one.

> nifty fifty + 85 1.8 ?
Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 AS IF UMC

>>2703681

No MF Lenses for me, thats the only point where the A6000 was good.
I also already have a nikkor 105 2.5 AI i could adapt instead of buying a korean plastic lens.

>>2703675
Tamron pls go. i want original canon glass, that is readily available used.

>>2703667
>togging
christ, fuck off back to erickim.com why don't you

#streettog #instagood #filmisnotdead

>>2703688
>erickim.com
never heard of it

>#filmisnotdead
i've never shot on film and have no interest thereto.

i'm perfectly happy to continue with my digital walkin' and toggin' thank-you-very-much. also i like it here, i think i'ma get cumpfy and stay awhile ^_^

>>2703684
70-200/4 > 85, unless you don't actually ever use telephotos for telephoto things, in which case, 85.

A question of interest:

I'm planning on moving to Sony A6000 and use my current Canon lenses. Will the image stabilization on my 24-105 work if I get an electronic adapter?

>>2703778
I think support is still sometimes dependent on which adapter specifically.

You can see the compatibility of the Metabones options here:

http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB-EF-E-BT4

http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-E-BT2

Answer in this case is yes, IS works.

>>2703780
Huh. What about the Commlite adapters though? I was planning on getting one of those because the Metabones adapters cost nearly as much as a native lens.

>>2703041
how much sealing does 150% provide

>>2703781
Dunno, sorry. You'll have to look it up yourself.

I think there also were Viltrox & Fotga and some more ...

>>2703784
There's also Techart, Yongnuo, and Fotodiox, and some off brand ones, I'm really irked by how they only support Canon-made Canon glass and not the other manufacturers

>>2703785
I think the first Nikon one has been presented recently, no? And of course they made lots of simple adapters for a lot of systems.

I guess it was perhaps maybe primarily Canon because they best understood how to reverse engineer that (or reverse engineered the adapter that managed to do it)?

It's not exactly an industry of open standards...

I think I'm going to grab a D7200 due to advice from another anon - it'll be an upgrade from my D3200

Any final concerns? I've been looking up reviews a ton but I honestly trust anon a little more.

>>2703724

i want to use telephoto also for telephoto things like squirrels and far away stuff.

so nifty fifty and 80-200 it is

File: 12173092853_a72688af72_b.jpg (176KB, 1024x586px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1024x586px

hey /p/
is the 18-105 3.5-5.6 a shit tier lens, cuz any pictures i take with it, come out soft and sometimes blurry. could it be the D7000 or should I get new lens?

>>2703874
Lens should be sharp enough

Are you new? Plenty of common beginners' mistakes giveblurry photos
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/12/02/10-reasons-your-photos-are-blurry/

>>2703874
It's shit but it's probably mostly you, good news is that you get to learn a bunch of technique and the payoff will be glorious. Slap it on a tripod, ISO 200, slow shutter speed, put it in 10s timer mode, and stop down to F8 or so just to see how sharp it can be.

>>2703876
>>2703877
yeah i've looking into all the stuff. tripods, remote releases, you name it. I end up really pumping up the sharpness in post, but its results are less than par.

>>2703877
>Slap it on a tripod, ISO 200, slow shutter speed, put it in 10s timer mode

Eh?

He should just go OUTSIDE (hard, I know).
Shutter around 1/1000s will eliminate any motion blur.

Alternatively use flash.

A long shutter on a shitty tripod will always be a bit blurry due to wobble.

>>2703877
>>2703880
>>2703885
Im thinking of getting a fast 50. 1.4 probably, if I find one cheap

>>2703874
It is a bad lens if you ask me, but my standards are high.

Get a Sigma Art 18-35mm or a Sigma Art prime or something. Much better lenses.

That said, "sometimes blurry" is probably more a case for a tripod or shorter exposures & stabilization, because that's usually you shaking your hands when it's not clearly subject motion blur.

File: DSC_1401.jpg (3MB, 4928x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4928x3264px

>>2703894
i guess, but see for yourself. I took this with a tripod, and a timer.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7000
Camera Software	Ver.1.04
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	980
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	157 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:08:13 00:42:26
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4928
Image Height	3264
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
ISO Speed Used	100
Image Quality	NORMAL
White Balance	AUTO1
Focus Mode	AF-S
Flash Setting	NORMAL
Flash Compensation	0.0 EV
ISO Speed Requested	100
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Lens Type	Nikon G Series
Lens Range	18.0 - 105.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	7165

>>2703895
Yes, that is very likely the lens that can't quite resolve like the sensor, and of course regular out of focus areas in the foreground...

>>2703895
"It as sharp as a butter knife" - Kai #2

File: manfrotto_mkcompactadv_bk_compact_advanced_tripod_black_1059031.jpg (219KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 2500x2500px

OK, I would like to ask for some advice. I want to make shots of various PCBs. Game consoles, PC motherboards, etc. Since this needs the camera to be pointing downwards, I figure I need either a camera stand that can either
- flip the center column upside down, or
- tilt the entire center column at 90 degrees.
The latter is unreasonably expensive for my budget (around $100), so instead I'll be going with a huge tripod standing above the things I want to shoot.

I'm using an old Canon EOS 450D (aka Rebel XSi), with the EF 50mm 1:1.8 II lens. I also have a EFS 18-55mm IS lens, but I like the prime lens better. Obviously this will mean adjusting the camera height often, depending on the size of what I'm shooting.

What camera stand would be the most ideal for this? I'm looking at the Manfrotto Compact Advanced as being the best choice for my purposes. It can do what I need, and it is very cheap. It also comes with a normal head, not one of those ball-joint free moving ones. Those don't strike me as less precise (since you adjust everything freely, instead of being able to manually adjust each rotation axis).

My other question is, what settings would be the most ideal to achieve a high depth of field? From what I've read (and experimented), I'd need a high F-number, and either good lightning + low shutter speed or high shutter speed in bad lightning (since high f-number means less light comes through the closed lens). I figure with a tripod and an improvised lightbox with 2-3 light sources, I can use high F numbers comfortably, since neither lightning nor stability will be a problem.

File: DiC-MiC-E302C.jpg (135KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1000x1000px

>>2703909
> What camera stand would be the most ideal for this?
Dic&Mic E302 or E302C surely would work.

As would pretty much every high enough Benro or Sirui or such that has an invertible column..

> It also comes with a normal head, not one of those ball-joint free moving ones. Those don't strike me as less precise (since you adjust everything freely, instead of being able to manually adjust each rotation axis).
No, pan-tilt heads are pretty shit, ball heads are much more useful.

And I also don't like the proprietary manfrotto plates. And I started with them, RC5 and RC2 specifically. Arca swiss standard plates, all the way.

> I'd need a high F-number
Yes, increases your DoF

> and either good lightning + low shutter speed or high shutter speed in bad lightning
If low means fast and high means slow... maybe?

Though at high f-stops you generally just need good lighting AND high ISO sensitivity and/or long exposures (slow shutter speed).

> I figure with a tripod and an improvised lightbox with 2-3 light sources, I can use high F numbers comfortably, since neither lightning nor stability will be a problem.
"Comfortably" is mostly about whether you have a flashlight or *extremely* strong continuous light.

Having 2-3 light sources is more about getting more even / interesting lighting than total light output.

I'd advise primarily using big-ish diffusers on the lights. Light box only as-needed. Faster and more flexible to work with.

>>2703916
>Dic&Mic E302 or E302C surely would work.

Unfortunately not available where I live... however, my other choice, the Hama Traveller Premium Duo 146, seems to be the EXACT SAME stand.

I wanted to go with either that, or the Manfretto, or perhaps one of the Vanguards. The Manfretto was on sale so I looked at that, but the more I read about it, the more I dislike it (no bubble meter, levers can get in the way in macro modes, etc).

>No, pan-tilt heads are pretty shit, ball heads are much more useful.

My concern is that I want the camera to be perfectly aligned to the ground, so it is not "tilted". I thought that was easier with pan-tilt heads? But if the ball heads have a bubble meter on them, then I guess they can be just as good.

>If low means fast and high means slow... maybe?

ahaha, yes, my fault there. by "low shutter speed" I meant that having the shutter set to a lower time, making it work faster (and allowing less light to come through).

I'm still not comfortable with all the terminology. I'm new at using professional cameras. But my old disposable camera was not good enough for the type of photos I want to make (too many things are "automatic" on it).

>Having 2-3 light sources is more about getting more even / interesting lighting than total light output.

Yup, that's what I'd want. I have 2 or 3 ~40w bulbs in front of transparent sheets to diffuse the light. All home made cause I'm a poor bastard. Requires a lot of fucking around, but it gets the job done.

I think I might put the diffusers on top of the cameras instead, so they work like umbrellas. That way I wouldn't have to work in the confines of a stupid shitty box.

Thanks for the advice. I'll look into it.

>>2703924
>Unfortunately not available where I live
I did not expect it to be, and it is not available domestically here either. I just ordered it from China, shipping is included in the $90 (alu) / $120 (carbon) price.

> the Hama Traveller Premium Duo 146, seems to be the EXACT SAME stand
No, the additional lock on the center column is missing and the head is different too. As are other details, such as the weight and (extremely much) the load rating.

Not to say it might not be the same company or something (there are also MeFoto, Horusbennu and so on that look pretty comparable), but it's not the same tripod.

> I thought that was easier with pan-tilt heads?
It is easier with somewhat decent ball heads because you can precisely operate and lock them in place, and they'll also be easier for many other shooting situations (which I imagine might happen at some point).

> Yup, that's what I'd want. I have 2 or 3 ~40w bulbs in front of transparent sheets to diffuse the light. All home made cause I'm a poor bastard. Requires a lot of fucking around, but it gets the job done.
Speedlights are like 200+ times brighter, even though just for a short moment.

If your constant lights turn out to be a problem, I'd just get one or more YN560 III / IV.

> I think I might put the diffusers on top of the cameras instead, so they work like umbrellas.
Dunno why they need to be on top of the camera? Also, actual umbrellas are like $3-5 each in China.

>>2703817
>trusting anon
If you can live with shadow banding and small buffers, D7100s are cheap. $500 refurbs from Cameta through Newegg, <$600 average used price. D7200 is $900 grey market (no warranty), $1200 US market.

That's the difference of a 35/1.8DX right there.

>>2703874
>>2703895
That's really strange; there's no detail at all in the photo. Try something indoors, with detail. The good ol' brick wall always work. I want to say that picture is subject to haze, but it shouldn't be that bad.

Try AF fine tuning with the D7000.

I'm selling all my gear, (5DIII, 24-105L, 50 1.4, 70-300 4-5.6 Tamron), and looking for a pocket sized camera with best image quality under $1200

Looking at the sony RX100 IV, any other small cameras I should be looking at?

full frame is a plus
I'd like good dynamic range, good low light performance, decent zoom range w/ fast lens if lens is fixed.

>>2703792
Thing is, the new Nikon smart adapters only support AF-S lenses, meaning that you won't get AF if you're using older AF or AF-D lenses, and what sucks is that the LA-EA2, and LA-EA4 are the only smart adapters with screw drive motors

And by other manufacturers I meant Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron, all of whom make Canon mount lenses, that don't work with smart adapters

>>2703931
LX100

>>2703931
>pocket sized cameras
>full frame

The RX100 is your only choice. The next closest would be X100, LX100, and RX1R II. None of which are pocketable in anything but a large jacket pocket.

>>2703934
> Thing is, the new Nikon smart adapters only support AF-S lenses, meaning that you won't get AF if you're using older AF or AF-D lenses
Maybe it'll still happen at some point, but sure support for Nikon lenses is only starting to get developed.

Arguably, I can't even think of much AF / AF-D glass that I'd rather use than E-mount glass, though, even if it were perfectly supported...

> And by other manufacturers I meant Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron, all of whom make Canon mount lenses, that don't work with smart adapters
I am pretty sure I saw someone use a Commlite + Tamron zoom lens somewhere, but I guess support for 3rd party lenses is more sparse than for Canon's own lenses.

>>2703904
ayy lmao

>>2703930
Thanks a bunch for the help anons this was my first time posting on /p/

>>2703946

but the rx100 isn't full frame either

File: TaxiSquad.jpg (251KB, 616x786px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 616x786px

Gentlemen.

Recently purchased a 750d as my first DSLR and with it the 50mm (1.8). Been doing mostly street and it's fairly adequate. But i've been considering getting a prime with shorter focal length as the 18-55mm it came with is garbage. Something with a decent f. , had a look at the ef-s 24mm but wasn't overwhelmed, but i can't justify (or afford) the red ring range.

Just wondered if anyone knew of anything else, not specifically Canon, maybe Sigma idk. Anything that someone's had experience with?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:14 21:25:40
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	616
Image Height	786

>>2704059
Not saying it was, rather I was implying
>pocketable
>full frame
>get out

>>2704065
Tamron 35mm 1.8
Or the Sigma 18-35 1.8

>>2703817
i just upgraded from a d3200 to a d7200. you'll definitely appreciate the increased af points/coverage, af motor, and 1080p60 recording

I want to invest into a nice set of ND filters, where should I be looking?

>>2704067
>What is the rx1

>>2704104
>rx1
>pocketable

>>2704065
I have a 70D, and Sigma 18-35 1.8

Shit is amazeballs

>>2704121
>amazeballs
Kill yourself

On a serious note though, how much do you like the 18-35mm? Also why is the 18-35mm on the 70D considered so good? I've heard a fair few people say the same thing but I'm not sure why.

>>2704129
I like it enough to recommend it for anyone using an APSC body who wants a wide-normal zoom, and would recommend it over any prime in that range

I don't know specifically about other brand bodies but at release the 70D offered a massive improvement in video AF over anything else Canon offered at that price point. The Sigma is an excellent choice for videography on an APSC body.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm 1:3,5-4,5 USM

yay or nay?

How does the rx100 fare against the later variants? I heard they're all the same image quality wise except for low light performance. Before I grab a mk1, how true is that?

my eos m at iso 6400 looks better than a6000 at iso 3200.
just saying.

>>2704149
the ii have bsi sensor. slightly better iso performance. the iv is the same bsi with stacked ram. so it can shoot fast now. iso is the same.

the iii and iv have better lens but shorter telephoto.

I dont know to much about weather resistance in cameras, which ones are more capable? Which ones are full frame? etc etc. wat do

>>2704195
bentacks k3ii.

>>2704195
Anything Pentax except K500 and K-S1.
K-30/50 are budget tier
K-5/5II/5IIs are cheap pro tier
K-3/3II are pro tier

All have better weather resistance than a 5DMkIII

I could buy a DSLR from a guy i know, but not sure - right now I'm still using compact (rx100ii)

It's a Pentax K-x with a 18-55 and 50-200 lens, i think they're both kit lenses from a double zoom kit or something. i'd get that for 150€ so roughly $160. worth it?

>>2704252
I have the WR variant of the 50-200, is pretty good for a kit telezoom
Both of those lenses are much better than Canikony kit lenses
sharper, more contrast etc...
Definitely worth the €150

>>2704254
>>2704252
Also get the 35mm f/2.4 too, pretty cheap and sharp as fuck

>>2704184
No it doesn't
The Canon has better jpg profiles, but I don't think anyone around here doesn't go straight into raw editing.

Well apart from isi because she's a Talentless hack, that insists "fuji jpgs" are amazing, they are amazing compared to the shit she comes out with that she tries to edit herself. But you shouldn't use someone else's complete lack of skill as a yardstick.

>>2704252
For $160 yes it is worth it.

>>2704254
>>2704255
>>2704259

Thanks for the advice. I really consider buying it.

>>2704261
Don't consider it, buy it and start shooting. Later when you are ready to move on to a used K-5IIs or K-3 you will already have a decent set of lenses.

Has anyone had any experience with the canon 85mm 1.8? I've had the 50mm for a while but the auto focus leaves a lot to be desired. I'd go for the 1.2 but...yeah i don't want to have to sell my organs.

>>2704289
Its fast, its a great lens. I prefer how the rokinon 85mm f1.4 renders colors but it has more chromatic aberration at f1.4 and is manual.

While the canon is pretty much fucking fast.

>>2703781
I've been using the Viltroy one for some time now and the IS support works like a charm. Haven't had any issues with it yet.

Also, aren't the Viltrox/Commlite adapters the same thing?

File: 1447517564278.jpg (26KB, 468x600px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 468x600px

/old/ is dead, can /gear/ help?

What's a compact flash for a Zenit 11? Google isn't very helpful and I'm not very smart.

>>2704307
Look for Helios flash units, 228 or 38 are what I found with a 10 second google search

>>2704289
I've got one. It's great. AF is fast and accurate, lens is durable and photos look great. Lots of purple/green fringing wide open with reflections, but stopped down a little, it's fantastic.

AF is actually fast enough that I use it on a 7D for concerts sometimes.

I've been saving for an A6000 (poor college kid) for a while and I'm wondering if I should use the sel1855 lens I currently have with it. Does anyone have any recommendations for a similarly priced e-mount zoom lens?

>>2704381
Get a nifty 35.
Those are cheap and much more capable than your kit lens.
Also the a6000 is not that much different from the NEX 6 or 7, you can find them much cheaper used

>>2704381
>I currently have
Use it.

>>2704388
you get pick up a sigma 30mm for like 100ish

File: 25468_D7000_left.png (146KB, 700x595px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 700x595px

friendly reminder that if we replaced every gear thread with "buy a second-hand D7000 and figure the rest out yourself" our fellow anons would have far more time, money and dignity.

>>2704381
>poor college kid
>spending money on a camera for no actual benefit

you're making poor life choices anon

>>2704195
7D2 is very heavily sealed as well.

>>2704407
>not getting a D7100 and dealing with the banding by not pushing shadows 5 stops in return for better AF and processor, all for maybe $100 more

But you're right tho senpai

>>2704407
>not getting Pentax with it's superior weather sealing and multi-purpose sensor shift stabilization
It's like you don't want people to have fun with photography

File: hi_five_pentax.png (16KB, 493x402px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 493x402px

>>2704418
this

https://youtu.be/sXv2HTQCK6k

>>2704418
>implying the D7100 doesn't have pro-level weather sealing
Or I guess people with D300s and D800s are all wrong.

>>2704432
>implying the D7100 has a buffer

>>2704381
Sure. Use the 1855.

> Does anyone have any recommendations for a similarly priced e-mount zoom lens?
The 55-210 f/4.5-6.3 that is also in the two lens a6000 kit is quite decent for its price. Might be a good addition to your 18-55.

But I actually generally shoot with primes. You could add a Sigma Art 30 or 60mm f/2.8 or something like that to augment your 18-55.

The 60mm might be a little long depending on what you do, but it's really good if you need really sharp shots. One of the cheapest lenses that is this sharp that I'm aware of.

>>2704418
I have been using an unsealed 5Dmk2 since a month after it was released. I have never once had it ruined by water. In fact, I don't know of a single photographer who has had a camera broken by rain, snow, or any other sort of thing that weather sealing protects from.

>>2704438
gimme a break friendo

https://youtu.be/Eo61t5fH6Qw

>>2704439
gimme a break friendo

not that I don't think Pentax lives up to its reputation for sealed cameras, but that's hardly a test. No usage of the zoom rings to get the dust and water into the moving parts, and certainly not an endurance test which would be a real test of the weather sealing.

>>2704441
fair enough but i doubt he would damage his cameras just to pull a fast one on the youtubes

"ha ha joke's on you i actually wrecked my fucking lenses lel"

not bloody likely! also i will give you a break. we're now even on break-givings and we can agree to disagree i spose

>>2704199
>tfw K-3 mark iii will never get video with the K-5's bitrates

>>2704441
I did a whole day shooting in torrential rain.
Even the kit lenses stood right up to the reputation. Pentax cameras and lenses are beasts when it comes to weather.

>>2704445
Who cares about video? Pentax makes cameras primarily for outdoor stills.
I don't want a do all camera. You know, jack of all trades master of none? I want my camera to be masterful in stills no matter where I go.
If I wanted a stupid video camera I probably went for a Panasonic.

>Current situation

T2i + kit lens + Canon 1.8 50mm , old and trusty. Somehow I've made it through a couple of jobs as an on site photog, and a lot of video work, even with meager equipment.

I also use it for travelling and street.

Lately I've found myself taking less and less pictures since I don't want to carry the camera and bag all day with me. My phone is already there.

>Looking at

Selling it, and getting an a6000. The problem is that I love the amount of control my t2i (plus magic lantern) gives me, and I am having second thoughts about buying a camera on a whole other lens system. I think that canon glass (EF mount) is much more versatile, specially for video.


What do? What glass should I get for the a6000? I can only get the body plus a lens at first.

>>2704493
Are you still using it for money? Stay with Canon.

Do you want something light and small for travel? A6000 and SEL2028 and 55-200 in the bag.

Is it just me, or are some of the most compact and sharpest lenses for M43 Panasonics? 12-32 is tiny when not in use and sharp for a kit lens, 20/1.7 is old but very sharp and tiny, 14/2.5 is tiny and gud, 35-100/4-5.6 collapses to a size barely larger than a FF 50mm prime.

>muh matching aesthetics with olympus bodies tho

>>2704496

While not something permanent, I do get a job everyonce in a while htat requires a proper DSLR

Alright /p/, I've scrounged myself 2000 dollars. What does /p/ recommend? I'm upgrading from a Canon T2i with the kit lens and a 24mm prime, but I don't want to get more lenses for it if I'm going to switch.

>>2704510
I should also add I'm going to use the camera more as a jack-of-all-trades, not specific for much of anything.

>>2704493
> I think that canon glass (EF mount) is much more versatile, specially for video.
I don't feel the glass is the problem. You can get quite a bunch of that, and also use a bunch on adapters.

But the a6000 isn't a particularly strong camera for video. Rolling shutter, 30m recording restriction, and so on...

A Panasonic GH4 or a better Canon might be a better decision if you need a video-focused combination.

> What glass should I get for the a6000?
A really good prime? Dunno what you like, though.

>>2704500
Sharpest lenses are currently for Sony E-mount, overall.

But Panasonic is surely doing quite good for compact lenses.

>>2704510
I like the Sonys. Have a look at the A6000, A7 II, A7S.

>>2704388
I'm kind of used to zoom lens since the cameras that I've used in the past have had them, will consider it though.
>>2704389
Figured
>>2704408
I like taking photos and editing them, and this won't be putting me too far back monetarily.
>>2704437
Regarding the 55-210, I'm seeing prices for it that are almost $100 less than what I originally spent on my 18-55, is it as good? Also I've never used a prime lens before, but if I have the money I'll check out the lenses you mentioned.

>>2704550
No, it's shit (acceptably so), but also the only E-mount telephoto option.

>>2704553
>only E-mount telephoto option
What do you mean? There are other more expensive ones, unless you were referring to the price range.

>>2704555
Like what? Nobody's lugging a 70-200/4G around, certainly not on an A6000. And then there's the...

That's it. Superzooms don't count, adapted lenses don't count.

>>2704550
>Regarding the 55-210, I'm seeing prices for it that are almost $100 less than what I originally spent on my 18-55, is it as good?
It's also kinda kit lens-y. I'd call them about equal overall.

Here are some general shots:
https://pixelpeeper.com/lenses/?lens=13241

Here's what it will do with an achromat close-up filter lens:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3453401

> but if I have the money I'll check out the lenses you mentioned.
The good thing about these are that they should be cheap. ~$150 new in some places, maybe ~$200 in the USA.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma60f28dn/pool/

>>2704557
> Nobody's lugging a 70-200/4G around, certainly not on an A6000
I'm lugging a 90mm FE macro around on an A6000 quite often, and I'd do it with a 70-200/4G too, if that interested me.

> And then there's the...
Various vario-tessars? 18-105? 18-200? A bunch more I don't remember??

>>2704257
yes it does.
i never said the raw has less noise.
it's the grain patterns.
on sony it looks horrible.

So /p/ I was after a compact camera and wondered what you guys recommend
these are the cameras I have been considering so far lx100, rx100iv,rx100iii and g7x

I would really like one that is good in low light

also other camera recommendations welcome

>>2704559
Alright, thanks for the suggestions and examples. Generally I was happy with the quality coming from the 18-55 mounted on a Nex-3n, I'm assuming I'll be happy with it on the 6000 as well.

>>2704563
> I would really like one that is good in low light
Get an A7S.

No, it's not entirely compact, but it's at least actually good in low light.

The RX100 IV and G7X are only relatively good for their size, but ultimately they'll start to trouble you quite much already in conditions where your eyeballs are doing okay.

File: a6000.jpg (53KB, 1024x507px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1024x507px

>>2704560
I'm of the opinion that mirrorless cameras should hold to being compact. Yeah, you can use your big telephoto, but I personally wouldn't bother with anything approaching this big.

The 90mm macro is gud, but with macro lens AF speeds.

Both options are over $1000.

The 18-xx are all super zooms. I'd rather carry the 20/2.8 and the 55-210 than a super zoom.

>Sony really needs to step it up on E-mount

>>2704568
Thanks for the suggestion will look into it

So I'm thinking of jumping on the mirrorless bandwagon because I don't shoot enough nowadays, except when touristing.

I have a Canon EOS 6D a few primes and a 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD, which is my favorite lens.

Is the a7 a good enough replacement or should I pony up an extra $1,500 for the a7II?

Looking to purchase my first real camera to get in to photography. I've been looking in to it for a couple weeks now and just would like to hear your guys' suggestions. I got a few photography books from the library on Friday and have begun familiarizing myself to different concepts.

Ideally I would like something relatively portable, and I plan on doing architectural photography and possibly wildlife if I can find time off work. The Sony A6000 has caught my eye but I would like a second opinion.

>>2704590
>Is the a7 a good enough replacement
For a camera you don't use? Sure it is! You could also just try not using the camera on your cell phone to not take pictures!

>>2704565
Yea, I'd think so, too.

>>2704570
>The 90mm macro is gud, but with macro lens AF speeds.
It is quite fast for a macro lens, as far as I'm concerned.

In day- or studio light and when using the focus limiter at 0.5m - infinity, you can almost always get focus in 0.5s or under, and refocusing nearby is basically instant. Macro might be three times longer in the worst case that is still well lit, but I can take that too.

It does get much slower in low light, though. Takes maybe 6 times as long then.

> I'm of the opinion that mirrorless cameras should hold to being compact.
I'm of the opinion that it is just a good APS-C, and got it for that reason.

> Both options are over $1000.
Sure, a lot of options are. Just pointing out they exist too, not just the 70-200 f/4.

> Sony really needs to step it up on E-mount
They might have to in order to get you as customer, perhaps. I'm not leaving the system as things are, they're doing really great in terms of both cameras and bodies as far as I'm concerned.

>>2704590
I'd get the A7 II, or A7S.

> I'm thinking of jumping on the mirrorless bandwagon because I don't shoot enough nowadays, except when touristing.
... this is however a weird justification. Oh, they're *very* nice cameras, but what makes you think you will use them when you almost never used the 6D?

>>2704597
Just a tad easier to lug around when touristing. Planning to go back tp Japan, Europe and a bit of America all next year.

>>2704590
used a7 + 28mm f2

>>2704598
Hm, probably get the A7 then, and some great lens(es).

Sure, the A7 II would still be nicer for multiple reasons, but I'd personally not take it over the A7 on a small world trip if it budget wise got in the way of buying another great native lens.

>>2704605
a7 for native lens.
a7ii for clusterfuck. new firmware will pdaf with 3rd party lenses.

>>2704605
I'm guessing I can do a straight swap/trade for an a7 with my 6D and I should be able to get some money for my Canon and Tamron 24-70mm lenses.

>>2702961
>tfw just switched from an M3 to an X-E1
>tfw switched because I preferred the quality from the Fuji and the colours
>tfw Ken gave the X-E1 a ridiculous review.
And I love colors.

>>2704609
> and I should be able to get some money for my Canon and Tamron 24-70mm lenses.
You'll have to consider if there aren't any you'd still use on an adapter - but overall, it might be a plan.

Personally I don't think I'd bring much more than a 25mm Batis f/2 or 28mm f/2, 55mm Sonnar F/1.8, and a 70-200 f/4. (Consider some of these, as relatively expensive as they are, you might quite probably like them.)

Makes about 2kg of equipment on camera and lenses, plus batteries & travel tripod.

File: 108_1023929364.jpg (18KB, 605x368px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 605x368px

>>2702778
found this for 18€, should i just buy them
also selling
15 x Ektrachrome 64x Professional for 45€
good deal ?

>>2704570
>70-200 f/4 that is both the size and costs as much as the competitor's 70-200 f/2.8s

>>2704643
Has a lower weight at 850g rather than ~1.5kg, and marginally better IQ overall than those f/2.8.

It should be noticeably cheaper than the f/2.8, too.
Very comparable to a Nikon f/4G of the same FL in terms of price and weight, actually.

Don't know much about analog photography gear.
I have a Nikon FE2 and I am looking for a good 35mm lens.
Any recommendations?

Gf and me want to get into macro photography. She has a 550D and I have a 6D, tripod and a speedlite.

Can you recommend a good lens which fits for both bodys and is there something else we need for macro photography?

>>2704689
that new F2.8 65mm macro lens
goes up to 5:1 ratio

>>2704689
> Can you recommend a good lens which fits for both bodys
Maybe a Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM? Or some 200mm.

You could also get some extension tubes and achromat close-up filter lens & adapter rings in case the other person wants to shoot something macro with their telezoom or whatever at the same time. Not as good as a macro lens, but not too bad either.

> is there something else we need for macro photography?
Not really.

>>2704590
I use an a7 and been incredibly happy. Notice how fast prices drop on second hand sony bodies (due to constantly releasing new models). Once the a7iii is out the a7ii will go under $1k.

>>2704561
Jesus fucking Christ you're a moron

>>2704418
If you're not rich you should get a Nikon or Canon so you can buy used lenses

>>2704710
troll/10

Is a Nikon D5300 good entry level camera?

Which lens would have more bokeh for portrait photography, 85mm f1.2 or a 70-200mm f2.8? Also, does anyone have some kind of graph that shows how far back you'd have to stand to frame the same subject at different focal lengths?

>>2704668
Nikkor 35/2 AIs. not like you have choices. you have the positively pedestrian 35/2.8, and the abtastic 35/1.4. the 35/2 is pretty sharp in the center, falls off to the sides faster than a modern lens.

>>2704799
yes, if you get the body under$500

>>2704838
85mm f/1.2.

Maybe give a Sigma Art 50mm also some thought too.

>Also, does anyone have some kind of graph that shows how far back you'd have to stand to frame the same subject at different focal lengths?
It depends on the camera?

But once you know one setting its simply linear. Basically, if your 20mm exactly frames the subject in that camera orientation at ten meters, a 40mm would frame it exactly at twenty meters. Doesn't really need a chart.

>>2704799
Depends on what you want to shoot, and with what glass.

>>2704838
Search depth of field calculator in your favorite search engine.

>>2704838
Also you mean which lens will give the shallowest depth of field. Bokeh is the characteristics of the out-of-focus elements of the image. You can have good or bad boked, not more or less.

Hey /p/ I'm looking to buy a compact digital for travelling and just general photo taking when going places. I've done some research and now turn to you for advice.

I've shortlisted two cameras, the Sony HX60 and the Panasonic TZ70. Just wondering if anyone had any feedback on either of them? Or maybe suggestions for other models I've overlooked.

If I wanted to take pictures of something outside through a window from inside at night, would I be able to use a CPL to take a photo of the outside without seeing a reflection on the window?

>>2704877
A commercial pilot license will make no difference for your pictures.

>>2704878
http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/accidents/pilots-personal-camera-nearly-causes-crash

I bet some of this guy's shots were amazing

File: 795665322_e5D5Z-S.jpg (37KB, 400x267px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x267px

>>2704570
Why did Sony have to make it white though? Same shit with the silver 1st gen 70-400 for A-Mount. Looks ugly as hell.

>>2704912
Pro lenses has to be white, you didn't know?

>>2704923
but then why was the 70-400 silver?

>>2704934
silver is white-ish at certain angles
also Sony trying to be different
that's how they become fags

>>2704942
Silver is the tackiest color for plastic.
Truly disgusting.

File: Canon-EOS-400D-Digital-Rebel-XTi-Silver.jpg (30KB, 347x300px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 347x300px

>>2704945
Agreed.

>>2704945
silver, high gloss chrome, and gold are the tackiest colors for anything, period.

I'm in the market for a good tripod that can fit rucksack. Any suggestions?

>>2704663
>Sony has a fetish for f/4 zooms
>4 is an unlucky number in Japanese Culture

>>2704975
Benro, Dic&Mic

>>2704979
thanks bro

File: Screenshot_2015-11-16-15-30-17.png (148KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1080x1920px

What possible scam is this?

>>2704984
Nikons are trash, that is the actual value of that package

>>2704985
Doesn't matter now. Someone snatched that up real quick. Still wonder if it was a scam or not. User joined this month and has zero feedback

File: Nikon_D5100.jpg (176KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1500x1125px

I'm getting into photography, but photography on the go is though because the only legitimate digital camera I have is a Nikon D5100. I'm torn between the Nikon COOLPIX S7000, Fujifilm XF1, and Samsung WB350F. I have a budget of about $250.
>thank

>>2704991
>Samsung

Great idea anon.

>>2704985
>hurr durr

>>2704991
Get a pancake lens or a 35mm for the DSLR
Best on th go combo for everything.

>>2704994
The weight of the body is what is keeping me from taking it places. it makes my purse heavier than what I'd like it to be. The other cameras I listed are are pretty light in comparison.

>>2704995
RICOH GR
I
C
O
H

>>2704995
Try the gym fäm

>>2704996
$250 BUDGET
2
5
0

>>2704995
you use your phone

>>2705002
I have a lower end Windows phone. The camera isn't that great.

>>2704991
what about a nikon 1? Small but still interchangeable lenses. The older models aren't that expensive used.

>>2705003
Get a better phone

So if I'm looking to get into photography would a used/refrib Pentax K-50 be a good place to start?

>>2705004
Good suggestion, but I'm looking for a non-interchangeable lens camera. Thank you, though.