Gear thread Birding starts at 400 kilometers edition. If you

First ;)

>>2704998
>All those DSLRs and still noisier than a cell phone shot.

How hard is it going from Mirrorless to DSLR?

Am I going to have to relearn how to expose my shots without liveview?

>>2704998
>no Pentax OP
You had one job!

>>2705037
You will miss a lot of things like the glorious EVF, usable size, carryable size, sharpness.

Why would you downgrade?

>>2705066
trolling is a art

File: Zeiss-35mm-1-2.jpg (182KB, 1333x1000px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1333x1000px

Goddamn this little guy. Just 120 gram.
I was hoping for a F2.0 to pop up someday, but it's taking so long that I'm getting more and more tempted to just get the F2.8.

>>2705038
They use Nikon D4S on the ISS. Probably due to the low light capability.

And because switching out all the gear with Sony A7Sii stuff would be too bothersome.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-P5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014:04:28 11:34:29
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2705066

Ok, EVF and size for sure. But sharpness? Are you retarded?

>>2704998
OP's pic is definitely relevant to my question

I was wondering what gear I should buy to take great telescopic pictures of the moon, stars, and UFOs

I have a Canon 70d

>>2705070
>And because switching out all the gear with Sony A7Sii stuff would be too bothersome.

And because you need reliability and performance in space, not spec-chasing meme cameras.

>>2705080
Right. Because there are so many dessert storms, and hurricanes raging inside the ISS.

>>2705082

There are inclement conditions that require the historic reliability that Nikon (and Canon, and Hassy) guarantees. It costs $10,000 to send one pound into space. You can't spend $100,000 on payload costs just to have a untested, unreliable camera crap out on you.

File: 22614210755_d741d62c63_b.jpg (252KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1024x682px

>>2705070
They started with the D1. They use Nikon because of reliability.
Their cameras work in the vacuum of space.

>>2705084
>>2705085
When was the last time the ISS suffered from extremely harsh weather conditions?

>reliability
Flappy mirrors is a liability, not a reliability.

>>2705086
Sorry sony gear is just to faulty for space work.

>>2705087
How come?

>>2705085
>Their cameras work in the vacuum of space.
Everybody's camera works in the vacuum of space. There isn't any magic pixie inside the cameras the dies from the lack of oxygen.

>>2705088

Because it's cheap consumer-tier garbage. There are plenty of workaday photographers who have reported reliability problems with the A7 series, let alone astronauts.

>>2705092
That's nonsense meme powered argument. Conditions on earth is much harsher than conditions on ISS.

>>2705091
Lack of oxygen is the least of their worries. Electromagnetic interference and radiation that essentially kills a camera before it ever comes back to earth are the main factors to take into consideration. Also, OVF that doesn't drain the battery(one less electrical screen to worry about), and a battery that actually lasts for more than 300 shots so you don't have to constantly recharge it are nice selling points.

>>2705093
>Conditions on earth is much harsher than conditions on ISS
And conditions outside the ISS are much harsher than the conditions on earth, go figure.

>>2705094
>Electromagnetic interference
DSLRs aren't protected from this.

>radiation
If ISS safe enough for humans, it's safe enough for consumer cameras.

The rest of your posts are just silly things you think are more important than image quality.

>>2705095
Example?

>>2705093

So what? They spend a hundred grand sending them into space and just cross their fingers? If they already have a shoddy track record, they aren't going up. It's that simple.

>>2705097
So you're ill informed and used meme arguments all along.

The real reason is because they are scientists, not gear whores. They don't browse DPreview for the latest and greatest, they just consulted their engineers 15 years ago, and ran with the same decision since, because it's unnecessarily expensive to change all that gear.

>>2705099

Lol, how am I ill informed?

The D4S has a better track record of reliability than any of the A7 series.
NASA prefers reliability over bleeding edge tech (always has, always will).
NASA therefore prefers to send reliable cameras into space.

>>2705101
That's just more nonsense memes.

A7Rii has a far more reliable shutter than anything else.
And it doesn't have flappy mirror which can kill itself.

>>2705102

It can kill itself, but it never will. Pro shutters last for a million clicks. They are GUARANTEED to last that long. How long is your toy meme camera going to last?

>>2705103
Where is documentation the S4S shutter can last 1 million times?

>It can kill itself, but it never will
You don't seriously believe this, right?

>>2705107

Do you seriously believe an A7 is more reliable than a professional Nikon or Canon body?

>>2705115
I believe the non-existent mirror in the mirrorless cameras will never break. Yes.

>>2705070
get the 28mm f2 instead.

>>2705118

I'm not asking about the mirror, I'm asking about the camera as a whole.

>>2705122
You're asking a loaded question because you want to imply the ISS has the same snowstorms as Antartica has, and the same sand storms as Sahara has, and the same humidity as the Amazons have.

The truth is ISS is more like a studio environment. So even your little point and shoot will be reliable.

>>2705124

It's not a loaded question at all, you're just a retard who can't handle simple facts.

>>2705126
It's a simple fact that ISS is a safe environment.

It's too bad you had to get all insulted because you needed someone to point out that the space station doesn't need cameras that can survive volcano temperatures.

>>2705128

It's not even about hot lava conditions. At room temperature in a controlled environment, a D4S will still be more reliable for longer than an A7.

>>2705130
That's another bullshit you're trying to sell.

In a safe environment, the camera with less meechanical parts is the more reliable camera.
You can even disable the shutter completely on the A7S.
That's 1 shutter less that can break.
And 1 flappy mirror less that can break.

>>2705132
>In a safe environment, the camera with less meechanical parts is the more reliable camera.

[citation needed]

>>2705141
It's simple brain usage Anon. Your flappy mirror is mechanical, it can break.
Your shutter is mechanical, it can break.

>>2705143
>tfw full electronic shutter

>>2705143

>he thinks electronic things don't break

>>2705152
They both have electronic things.
The mirrorless simply has less mechanical shit that can break.

By the way, they only need focus at infinity, so they don't even need the separate autofocus sensor.
That's less electronic thing that can break in the mirrorless.

HERE I THOUGHT THIS WAS A GEAR THREAD BUT IT'S REALLY JUST TWO ROODY POO CANDY ASSES ARGUING ABOUT SPACE CAMERAS. FUCKING STFU.

>>2705155

oh noooo! not my precious invaluable one-of-a-kind gear thread!!!

>>2705096
>DSLRs aren't protected from this
Of course not, but the housing that NASA uses protects the camera long enough for it to be functional over the course of it's mission when outside in space. And no, the rest of my points are valid, you can't change batteries in space when you're spacewalking, so having a battery that can take over 2,000 shots on one charge versus a measly 300 is a big factor. Also, A7's have terrible form factor for use by astronauts with space suits on, since they need a big camera to hold onto with those big gloves.
>Sony image quality
>Implying Nikon hasn't always done a much better job using Sony's sensors than Sony themselves.
Not that it matters because the D4 and D4s sensor are not Sony built and yet they still spank the shit out of the A7 sensors. You should stop arguing weak points, it's pretty easy to dismantle them.

>>2705173
>housing that NASA uses
More bullshit you're pulling out from your ass?
Does this "housing" block the lens as well so the sensor can be protected?

>muh spacewalking
They can take the pictures from inside the station, or mount it on the outside.

>muh batteries
You can use pseudo battery that's connected to permanent powersource. There you go, infinite shots per "charge".


>muh D4 and D4s sensors
Those are inferior low light sensors..

>>2705179
have you considered that the people flying into fucking space know what they need better than some guy on a sri lankan hieroglyphics internet trading post

>>2705203
Appeal to authority doesn't work in this case, because I've already explained to you what the astronauts are>>2705099

They are not photographers, they don't care about having the best gear.

>>2705205
>Appeal to authority doesn't work in this case

it works in pretty much every case in which you (guy on sudanese oil painting collective) are arguing against the decision making of people with infinitely more education, in engineering disciplines nonetheless, and infinitely more experience off of the surface of the planet, who understand what that entails

look at that fucking collection of gear, do you think they just took the agency's credit card to B&H and said "just fuck my shit up senpai," they had a consultant at the minimum.

p.s. engineers and astronauts can be photographers too, it takes a shitload more brainpower to get through astronaut training than learn photography, i'm sure they're capable of learning it on their weekends when they're not training to orbit the planet

File: 11204397_10153821160708626_4025426275599478674_n.jpg (50KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 540x960px

>>2705203
>sri lankan hieroglyphics internet trading post
hahahahahaha

>>2705206
>sudanese oil painting collective
hahahaha god damn dude, don't stop

>>2705205

Astronauts don't pick the gear, retard. People who know a hell of a lot more about electrical engineering, digital imaging, mechanical engineering, and photography than you or I ever will pick the gear.

The butthurt over the fact that they didn't choose your memebox is astonishing.

>>2705179
>You can use
So you're just making shit up, gotcha
>>2705205
>Implying this fallacy makes his argument incorrect

Man, college students are the worst.

>>2705206
>they had a consultant at the minimum.
They had that 15 years ago when they made their first mission to the station. And since it's too expensive to change the entire sets, they just stuck with what they initially chose.
That's how it works bro.

>p.s. engineers and astronauts can be photographers too
The astronauts are rotated every 6 months. I can assure you most of the don't give a fuck.

>>2705210
>>2705211
I'm basically arguing with morons who think it's possible to protect the camera from EMP without also covering for the lens so the camera can't see shit.

You're making all sorts of shit up to fill in knowledge gap you have no idea about.

>>2705214
>They had that 15 years ago when they made their first mission to the station
>they just stuck with what they initially chose
>That's how it works bro
>I can assure you

you're on 4chan, you don't know anything

that's why you think humanity should send people into space with mirrorless cameras so we can practice replacing batteries in zero gravity

>>2705220
You already got your ass owned when we discussed reliability earlier. In studio conditions, mirrorless has less breakable parts.

They aren't using the Nikons because of reliability. They're using them because they're stuck with them.

>replacing batteries
Pseudo battery. It's just a matter of plugging the camera to the nearest plug.

>>2705222
>In studio conditions, mirrorless has less breakable parts.

In all conditions, mirrorless also uses the sensor many thousands of times more.

>>2705222
>In studio conditions, mirrorless has less breakable parts.

they're not in a studio they're in fucking space and they know what they're doing and you don't have any idea

>>2705222
>It's just a matter of plugging the camera to the nearest plug.

in a zero gravity environment with space and room to manuever at the ultimate premium and everything either tied down or floating around, you think they want to dick around with a floating cord?

it's "just a matter of?" nothing in FUCKING SPACE is just a matter of.

and for what, so they can fuck with shitty autofocus and muh EVF and holy shit terrible battery life but it's cool bro you can just plug your camera into an outlet

memerless is the most terrible religion of all

these cameras don't do anything useful yet other than focus peaking

>>2705228
If you claim that all the astronauts are photographers. Then you know they ought to know how to simply adjust the lenses to infinity focus and switching the camera to manual.

There is no 1000 times more spending.

>>2705229
>they're not in a studio they're in fucking space
Same harshness, comparable environments.

Just admit that you can't point out what's so dangerous on ISS that requires specul proffeshunnan gear when a simple non-EMP protected D4S will do.

For your information, there's plenty equipment with cords floating around on the ISS.

>>2705232
>Just admit that you can't point out

just admit you can't point out what the fucking point of having a mirrorless camera up there would be

>>2704998
why do you need super long telephoto in motherfucking space?

>>2705233
See>>2705132

Better sensor.
Less breakable parts.

>>2705234
...You know they take pictures of the planet right?

>>2705235
>Better sensor.
they aren't

>Less breakable parts.
the cameras themselves are fucking USELESS

a DSLR, flappy mirror and everything, is still a far more reliable piece of equipment since it can focus on shit

the biggest constraint on these guys is time. they don't have time for dicking with batteries, extraneous power cords, and missed focus. a DSLR turns on, is ready to go, autofocuses snappily, and needs to be charged once a month.

if the flappy mirror breaks this guy has like 8 other fucking cameras, look at his face he doesn't give a shit

>>2705242
>they aren't
For the purpose of lowlight, they are.

>since it can focus on shit
That's not needed. There are no sports events in space. You just set the camera to manual and focus as far as you can, and that's it.

>if the flappy mirror breaks this guy has like 8 other fucking cameras
Back to the argument of space being a luxury. If they had more reliable cameras, they wouldn't need 8 of them around. So that's just a self defeating argument.

If you were less religious about your camera, you would understand these things.

>>2705245
>If you were less religious about your camera, you would understand these things.
Says the guy defending sonyshits from 3 other anons

>>2705246
The fact that you have to use namecalling like that means you're not only religious, but also underage.

Either way, I was simply explaining simple thing to to, since you resorted to clown arguments like radiation and electromagnetism.

>>2705247
I'm not that guy though, your madness is peaking through your words though, faggot.

>>2705248
I just felt sorry for you that your religion deluded you into believing more breakable mechanics means more reliable.

>>2705249
Your belief that one or two less moving parts automatically makes one machine more reliable than other is hilarious.
>religion
Nigga stop using words just because you think they sound smart.

>>2705250
They do become more reliable.

Silent electronic shutter + mirrorless will always be more reliable in a safe studio environment.

>>2705251
In general, yes - but compared to Nikon or Canon Vs. Sony you can't say that without having some numbers to back you up.

Actually, let's talk failure rates while we're on the subject
https://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/Camera_failure_study.pdf
Now this is from 2010 and I'm looking for more recent but in the meanwhile
>Sony only has the lead under $300
>Over $500 it tanks

>>2705254
What I know is that the shutter on the A7Rii is rated for ½ million images.
But it's a moot point since it and both A7S have silent shutter.

Once you remove shutter and mirror from the equation, there's just not much else in the camera that can be worn out.

File: Sony_NEX-5.jpg (4MB, 3709x2782px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3709x2782px

Is this Sony Alpha NEX5 1855 good for starting out? It would be my first camera.
I'm interested in taking nature pictures mostly, thanks friends

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Photographer	decltype
Lens Size	24.00 - 105.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number	0832338682
Lens Name	EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2011:01:15 12:19:06
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/9.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3709
Image Height	2782
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	High
Contrast	Normal
Digital Zoom	Unknown
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	65408
Color Matrix	34

>>2705257
Can you get a deal on it or purchase it used? If so yes, if not there's likely a few other buys you can get for it's price

>>2705255
>tanks
Not sure if that's even the right word.

3,6% is actually pretty good. It certainly doesn't warrant the prejudice that's been displayed in this thread.

>>2705259
It's just a bad sign to see something get more expensive but less reliable, I'm suddenly much more wary of Canon with its meagre %.2 increase that's for sure

>>2705257
Yeah, it's used for $230

>>2705260
It's easy enough to decipher.

~6% means cheap parts were used.
Everybody used cheap parts for cameras below 300 dollars.

2~4% means quality parts.
Everybody used quality parts for their cameras above 300 dollars.
Except Canon, who still used cheap parts for their 500 dollar cameras.

>>2705245
>You just set the camera to manual and focus as far as you can, and that's it.
Well good thing they're rocking a Nikkor 1200-1600 AIs because modern lenses all focus past infinity thanks to ED glass temperature sensitivities.

>>2705218
>I'm basically arguing with morons who think it's possible to protect the camera from EMP
Except you're the moron that didn't see where it was stated that the cameras will die even if they are in the housing, the housing simply reduces the amount of exposure to electromagnetic radiation so the camera doesn't die as quickly.
>inferior low light sensor
And yet they have superior everything else. Color, raw compression. Like I said, Nikon has always done a better job of using Sony sensors than Sony. If Nikon got a hold of the a7s/a7sII sensor it would make the a7 look like a toy.
How much are you getting paid to shill? It's kind of sad really.

>>2705103
>How long is your toy meme camera going to last?
Until the new series come out. One year? Somewhat less?

Just a friendly reminder that if you buy from Sony, you support terrorism and the Islamic State.
Be reasonable, do your part to stop terrorism!
Je suis Paris!

>>2705271
YFW you realize the flash unit also produces electromagnetic pulses.

>>2704998
those nasa people got all that shit but that picture is still grainy as fuck what gives

>>2705303
space radiation

>>2705269
Canon lens is still better and easier to adapt to any body.

>>2705271
>the cameras will die even if they are in the housing
What housing are you even talking about?
You realise the sensor is the most sensitive part of the camera and that it's completely bare to radiation by necessity, right?

>raw compression
Old memes that no longer apply.

>Nikon has always done a better job
>If Nikon got a hold of
That's irrelavent because they're not going to have A7S sensor until Sony has a new replacement. Nor are they going to have the A7Rii sensor until the same.

That's like saying if only I was a billionaire, I wouldn't be so poor. It's irrelevant, because you'll never be billionaire, except in Zimbabwe.

>>2705305
>Canon lens is still better and easier to adapt to any body
ADAPT MY FD TO EOS I DARE YOU

>>2705307
It was in the context of mirrorless. So Canon lenses are better for adapting, and it doesn't matter what mirrorless you adapt it to.

ITT: continuing to prove that the worst thing about mirrorless is the fanboys.

>>2705311
This is the problem with religion. You become too blinded to see your own side is just as bad if not worse.

>>2705235
The EVF is more prone to breakage that the mechanical mirror.

>>2705314
That's very doubtful.
In space it doesn't serve any purpose except for being a reserve screen in case the main screen breaks.

Daily reminder these people are the same that gives you critique.

File: D3S_4313-1200.jpg (216KB, 1200x922px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1200x922px

I'm looking for a light weight film slr for carrying around when i don't want to carry the F3 (due to weight or value).
For the moment I'm looking at a ME with 50/1.7, seems pretty light and chez. Is there other alternatives like one that don't need batteries ?

>>2705354
>that don't need batteries

The batteries last for years on end in the ME. You shouldn't worry about it.

>>2705361
Yeah i guess, but if there's another batteryless option it wouldn't hurt.
Also is 50$a decent price for the cam+Lens ?

>>2705363
Considering what you get, absolutely
Some people pay over $150 for a K1000

>>2705363
My gf have a ME. She changed the battery last year. A battery her father put in the camera in the early 80s. Trust me, its not a problem.

>>2705364
Didn't mean in a bang for your bucks way, I wondered what was the usual price

File: lanier.jpg (26KB, 636x292px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 636x292px

>>2705249
>religion

>>2705390
You're simply speaking against objectivity Anon. Removal of mirror means the mirror can't break, because it doesn't exist.

It's religious fantasy to believe that adding a mirror makes your camera more reliable.
Especially now that we have hard data that shows Nikon DSLRs are less reliable than 400 dollar Nikon mirrorless.

>>2705393
My dad still has his old Zenit SLR. Do you know how many the mirror broke throughout the decades?
Not a single time. There was literally zero issues with the optics. You are just a fedora wearing brand faggot Sony shill spouting nonsense garbage.
Do you realize Sony doesn't pay a single cent for your faggotry, right?

>>2705397
>My dad still has his old Zenit SLR.
Congrats, your dad is part of the 96%. How does this prove your point?

We have had data that shows I'm right and you're wrong>>2705255

>>2705398
other guy here but the sample size is janky and non transparent

the higher rate could simply be attributed to more canon cameras actually being sold and rebought

>>2705398

“I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself”

― Winston S. Churchill

>>2705402
>the higher rate could simply be attributed to more canon cameras actually being sold
No. Cheaper cameras always had higher volume.

The statistics is as follows:
200$ Nikon mirrorless failure rate: 7,9%
400$ Nikon mirrorless failure rate: 3,1%
+500$ Nikon DSLR failure rate: 4%
Conclusion: Higher quality Nikon mirrorless is more reliable than higher quality Nikon DSLR.

>>2705404
It would be more gracious if you'd admit that a non-existent mirror cannot be broken, instead coming up with one pathetic explanation after the other.

File: zEVF1-lg.jpg (95KB, 877x1024px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 877x1024px

>>2705393
It's religious fantasy to believe that a mirror, that does one movement, will be less reliable than the much more intricate EVF.

>>2705409
Firstly, the EVF has no moving parts.

Second of all, it's not a vital hardware, it's a backup hardware for the main screen. Unlike your mirror which will kill your camera when it breaks.

Thirdly, we have hard data that shows your mirror religion was mistaken.

>>2705402
It is can be attributed to more point-and-shoots staying in a drawer never to be shot, while dslrs have a higher chance of being bought to be used.

Jesus Christ! Still going on and on and on about this nonsense! NOBODY FUCKING CARES! SHUT UP! GET LOST! START TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT MATTERS!
Like photography, or lenses or something instead of this brandfagging nonsense! This is not a valid gear thread discussion just shameless shilling! Where are the mods when we need one?

>>2705412
No products were shilled for in this thread.

>>2705354
MX only uses batteries for the light meter.

>>2705415
Yeah but it only shoot in aperture mode, so no mesure = no shot
Anyway, if they hold that long it's not an issue

>>2705416
Aperture mode? I'm talking about the MX.

>>2705417
Woops, my bad, imma check this

>>2705303
Low aperture, high ISO, not much light on ISS.

>>2705037
Unless it's fool frame you'll be annoyed the hell out by the tiny ass viewfinders of crop sensor DSLRs.

>>2705028
I'm not sure why they used f/11 and ISO 14,000. maybe keeping everything in focus is a top priority with NASA

>>2705423
It's because NASA is a bunch of snapshitters, not photographers.

File: r3DdyUF.jpg (37KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x640px

>>2705393
>>2705410
I was making fun of your cringeworthy fedoraspeak you autist. I don't care about the argument for or against mirrorless. You're embarrassing yourself with your euphoric "le religion" analogy.

>>2705427
Do a ctrl+F
See>>2705229

Do you understand now that it was your buttbuddy who used the religion accusation?

>>2705426
I seriously doubt they would spend millions of dollars sending people up to space without first teaching them how to take quality photographs

>>2705330
cringe

>>2705430
It's evident from the OP picture that that haven't.

I wouldn't even be surprised if they were drones who aped the instructions sent to them from earth.

File: take-mind-blowing-space-photographs-from-outer-space.w654.jpg (69KB, 654x433px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 654x433px

>>2705433
it's EVIDENT that the photographer is clueless because I can see NOISE

this place is already turning out to be way worse than it was a couple years ago. I need to get out of here before the cancer spreads

>>2705070
> I was hoping for a F2.0 to pop up someday, but it's taking so long that I'm getting more and more tempted to just get the F2.8.
What for?

The Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS Alpha E-mount Prime Lens also only is like 180g.

Sony FE 28mm f/2 is 200g.

Even the Sony Distagon T* FE 35mm f/1.4 is just 600g, not a big problem if you don't have some hand injury.

>>2705498
The 35mm 1.8 is crop only
I would assume that anon wants a 35mm lens, not a 28mm one, and that he doesn't want to pay for the very high priced 1.4.

File: DSCF2309.jpg (522KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

522KB, 1200x800px

Can anyone explain what these little marks/blemishes are on the edges of the bokeh balls?

>>2705354
FM2/FE2, duh.

>>2705538
Looks like delamination/separation and a bit of hazing or fungus.

File: NIK_1840.jpg (178KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1200x801px

>>2705538
I guess it's dust in lens borders.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D800
Camera Software	PaintShop Pro 17,00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	4350
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	85 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2015:11:06 16:19:01
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	801
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
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

File: Untitled-1.jpg (270KB, 1200x512px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1200x512px

>>2705542
It's a new lens

>>2705544
I thought maybe dust but I can't see any.

I can see pic related when I look through the lens - I'm not sure what it is. I bought it today, so I'll use it over the next few days and see if it has any impact on the images. If it does I'll take it back.

[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	2015:11:17 22:38:06
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	512

>>2704998
Why are nasa fags only using Nikon?

>>2705552
There are elements that are glued together from different kind of glass. That thing you see is the result of faulty or uneven glue. Get it replaced as soon as you can, it will separate in a couple of years when you can't do anything about it.

>>2705554
Thanks, I'll get in touch with the manufacturer and see what they say.

>>2705557
If he denies it and says it is just a bit of dust, tell him that light has diffraction and that bit on the edge destroys image quality because it introduces diffraction spikes, much like the ones in the bokehballs photo.

Not sure if this fits here but: I want to edit my Fuji Raws in Lightroom but I heard that Adobe products can't handle the Fuji too well. Is it possible to open the Fuji raws in another program, e.g. Photo Ninja or something, convert them there to TIFF or so and then open them in LR without the loss of color etc.?

>>2705558
Will do. Thanks, anon!

>>2705561
Yes, there's some info in the previous gear thread. Start at this link and follow the replies:

>>2703482

>>2705562
ah okay thanks! The guy there seemed to have some issues but that was mostly with opening them I assume

>>2705562
He's just trying to use an older version of photo ninja that hadn't supported RAF yet. If you get a newer version, you'll be just fine.

>>2705572
>>2705563
Yeah, I found a copy of 1.2.6 and it works fine.

hey /p/ I was thinking about getting a 50 1.4 AIs. Im having some confusion as to whether or not that lens will fit on a D7000 body. I hear there need to be some modifications, but im not fully sure. any help or advice would be super appreciated

>>2705587
The 50 f/1.4 AIS lens WILL work on a D7000. It will be manual focus and only work in A and M modes.

The 50 f/1.4 NON AI lens would DAMAGE the D7000. Be entirely positive that your lens is, in fact, AIS.

>>2705553
It makes logistical sense to only use one mount and Nikon has everything they need without outsourcing or buying questionable third party solutions.

>>2705593
okay sweet, but i need an opinion, should I get a 1.4 manual, or a 1.8 auto fer the 50?

Would a Nikon D3200 and a 50mm prime lens be a good starting camera? I'm trying to keep the cost below $500.

>>2705602
It should be quite okay.

YMMV depending on what and how you want to shoot, but the combination can take okay pictures.

> I'm trying to keep the cost below $500.
Like half of /p/ seems to be. /p/overty everywhere.

>>2705596
If you have to ask, get the auto

>>2705593
>The 50 f/1.4 NON AI lens would DAMAGE the D7000.
Why is this even allowed to be a thing?

>>2705611
You shouldn't be trying to put 1959 lenses on your relatively brand new digital camera.
Pentax admittedly handles this better, you can put lenses from their PAST mount on their new cameras with no problem.

>>2705611
Because AI indexing tab. Nikon likes to phase out certain technologies after a while. Thanks Nikon, we really didn't need aperture rings. And now with the newest crop of lenses, we didn't need aperture control with cameras older than the D7100.

>The Nikon D810 is the a7R II's most obvious peer (same sensor size, similar pixel count), and you can see that the Sony's performance is very similar. Even after a 5EV push, it would be hard to call between the two. The a7R II is possibly a little noisier if you push all the way to 6EV, but the difference is small enough that it could be experimental error.

>By way of comparison, you can only push the Canon EOS 5DS R by 2EV before it starts to exhibit more noise than the Sony, which suggests it is adding a fair amount of its own downstream read noise - limiting the degree of processing latitude that you get to work with.

oh god is this really happening

>>2705623
I went into the Canon section of Dpreview and saw the 5Div wish thread, and most of them basically wished the 5Div to have the generation 2 Sony features.

>>2705623
> oh god is this really happening
Why? This is nice.

Sony rocked the boat and made really neat cameras, consumers who can switch win.

I'm heading on a 4 month hike and wanting a compact camera that would be great for landscape photography. Thanks senpai

>>2705631
RX100 IV should do fine. Perhaps also just your Lumia, Xiaomi or whatever smartphone.

Or If you want to get *really* good shots whereever, just carry a bigger Sony, Pentax, Canon, Nikon, ... MILC or DSLR, a tripod, and the 2-4kg or whatever weight they have in sum total.

People have carried far more than that to get a good shot.

>>2705626
No no, i meant cantnon cant even make a sensor that can push 2EV

File: image.jpg (349KB, 1400x2100px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1400x2100px

>>2704998
A space themed gear thread? Whew.

"This is it."
>You say this to yourself once as you shut off the oxygen to the pod.
>You tried your best, but at the end of it all you knew you wouldn't be about to make it back to Earth.
>You also knew that despite the fact that your entry-level Nikon left you in awe when it came to IQ, it failed to deliver when it came to video.
"Rolling shutter. Fucking NASA man."
>Mumbling under your breath in the most badass voice you can muster.
>As you put your head down in defeat, you overhear the final 1 way radio transmission you'll ever hear.
>"Today we'll be looking at the new Sony A7R II.."
>Quickly but satisfyingly beginning to loose consciousness, your life flashes before your eyes and all is dark for a moment.
>When you come to, you see a tall white figure sitting to your left.
"W-what..?"
>It's him.
>"Hey buddy, you have to get up now! Dying is not weally an option wight now!"
"L-lokski..?"
>Stabilizing the oxygen, he pulls you up out of the slouching position you were in and meets you eye to eye.
>"I see you have some camera trouble. That is no weason to kill yourself because solution was in this pod all along."
>Seemingly out of a black hole itself he pulls out a Canon 5DIII with a 24-70mm f2.8L attached to it.
>"Ah yes, Canon 5DIII with 24-70mm f2.8L USM. Even though it's only capable at shooting 1080p you get weally good IS with lens and no rolling shutter like cwappy Nikon series does."
>You sit there still dazed at the sight of your deceased friend.
>Or, is he?
>Shaking it off, you thank him and are spooked by an alert coming from the computer module.
>O2 levels are back to normal levels.
>Looking back though, you notice he's nowhere to be seen.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1400
Image Height	2100

File: 1447796729396.jpg (53KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x375px

>>2705641
yfw how you feel when

>>2705257
no. get one with pop up flash.
make sure it's the newer 16 megapickle. not the oldest 14mp.

>>2705631
>hiking for 4 months
that's not hiking

>>2705237
they are not that far to need 800mm.

>>2705664
>>2705234
ITT anon literally thinks he's an expert on space photography, despite having never been anywhere near space, with or without a camera, and knowing basically nothing about space at all.

Not only is an 800mm lens' reach ideal for getting close to relatively small details on the surface of the earth, it's also ideal for getting as many pixels on distant orbiting objects as possible. The more resolution on the object, the easier it is for the surface experts to tell whether it's a danger to the ISS.

>>2705305
>Canon lens is still better and easier to adapt to any body
Yes, what with that electronic aperture that basically rules out dummy adapters and necessitates the development of expensive reverse engineered electronic adapters. There's a reason the Nikon speedbooster is cheaper than the Canon one. Also, Nikon lenses are better for adapting because of the flange distance.

>>2705663
Thru hike?

Best tripod under about $225 aud? Needs to be reasonably lightweight and fold-able to a small size. Weight wise, it'll need to carry a consumer level DSLR and a small lens, a MF SLR, a Ricoh GR and a Mamiya RZ67 in a sturdy fashion.

Thanks mates

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

135KB, 1000x1000px

>>2705727
You could get this one in the Carbon variant and put a higher end / lighter Sirui / Benro ball head on it if you need a better one (the one included is okay, but not too great in half-arrested mode of operation).

Or perhaps get a matching Sirui / Benro tripod & head combo, they've both got quality gear in that price range. I have a Sirui ET-1004, also quite good, but I don't use it that much - the Dic&Mic is a little more compact.

I do often use the KS ball head and the PS monopod/tripod combo though.

>>2705728
Woops, I think I misunderstood how the AUD is valued right now. Well, you can still get this one for $120 (USD), but I guess you'll have to let the extra $80-100 ball head be.

Don't worry though, the ball head included is workable and shipping is included, typical for Aliexpress.

>>2705729
Yeah the exchange rate is fucking awful at the moment. I'm probably gonna look at buying something domestically

>>2705730
I wonder if you can find a cheaper / better carbon tripod (maybe a Sirui or Benro?) domestically because it was imported earlier.

OTOH, decent carbon tripods getting this cheap is a relatively new thing, maybe it didn't happen in time.

Well, the Dic&Mic likely will remain available and its price has been stable (in terms of USD) for months now, no rush there.

Any suggestions for a crop Nikon camera for video and stills? Really attracted to the Nikon system for the cheap D lenses compared to Canon's offerings (which can get really expensive compared to the Nikon 35-70, 80-200 D lenses)

>>2705738
> Really attracted to the Nikon system for the cheap D lenses
Be that as it may, it's a pretty shit system for video.

Why not put your "D" lenses on an A6000 or something? Not a perfect video camera either, but at least it beats the D7200 on that end, for much cheaper.
(Cheap is a factor here, right? Otherwise you could get a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera or something).

>>2705740
I was hoping to retain autofocus for stills also... and I was hearing things about how the newer Nikons do well with video (particularly the D810), and was wondering if the same were true for the D7200 or something in the same price bracket.

It doesn't neccessarily have to be a good system for video... just not worse than Canon DSLRs.

>>2705743
just get a lumix, takes any glass

>>2705727
I found this one when I was searching for a tripod under $200. It folds down to a compact size and comes with a short centre column along with the standard centre column. I haven't bought mine yet but it looks fucking ripper: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Sirui-T-1005X-G10-Aluminum-Tripod-Kit-with-Ball-Head-5-Sect-Support-10kg-/171668154319?hash=item27f83827cf:g:VQYAAOSwmrlU0cpI

>>2705743
> I was hoping to retain autofocus for stills also
So basically, you were only considering the D7x00 anyways, the cheaper models don't even have a motor for AF-D glass.

Anyhow, not going to be the case with adapted AF-D glass on an A6000, no smart adapter for Nikon with focus motor exists yet, as far as I know. You'd have to get native glass.

> and was wondering if the same were true for the D7200 or something in the same price bracket.
Not on Nikon's APS-C. 10-20 minutes recording time, rolling shutter (that one also happens on the A6000), no adjustment of practically all controls while you're recording, and so on. It's fucking terrible.

> I was hearing things about how the newer Nikons do well with video (particularly the D810)
For its price, it's also pretty terrible at video, DESU.

Better get a GH4 or even an A7S II / A7R II in that price range, if you're not going with entirely video-centric cameras.

>>2705641
Shouldn't it be "Glawity"?

>>2705610
allright thanks anon

>>2705687
There is quite a few things in your post that should be addressed.

>Yes, what with that electronic aperture that basically rules out dummy adapters
There exists dummy adapters that have built in aperture circles, so nothing is ruled out.

>necessitates the development of expensive reverse engineered electronic adapters.
Smart adapters are in fact very superior, they give your camera:
full Exif data,
in-camera lens correction,
OSPDAF,
Auto aperture,
Lens stabilisation coordination with camera stabilisation,
Focus magnification assistance.
That's a load of features you're missing out from just because you bought a 10 dollar adapter instead of a 70 dollar adapter.

Currently the amount of FF Canon to FF Sony smart adaptors: Commlite, Viltrox, Fotodiox, Fotga, Saker Falcon, Metabones.
Vs. the amount of FF Nikon to FF Sony smart adapters: ~1 (still in the works)

In terms of theory vs reality, reality makes it very clear that Canon lenses are more easy to adapt.

>There's a reason the Nikon speedbooster is cheaper than the Canon one.
The good Metabones Speedbooster all cost 4-500 dollars. It doesn't matter what brand you adapt from, they are all equally expensive since the cost is in the optics, not in the brass.

any reasons I shouldnt get an x100T over a 6D?

File: nasa_6k_red_epic_dragon_4k_camera_cropped.jpg (101KB, 740x434px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 740x434px

They already have a mirrorless in the ISS.

It might be just too early for them to change systems.

>>2705805
they're two completely different cameras for different purposes...

If you want to change lenses ever, don't get the x100T. If you want a semi-pocketable camera and you're okay with having a fixed 35mm equivalent lens, go ahead and get an x100t. or get a used x100s as it's half the price and the image quality is the same.

Saw a post yesterday or Monday about ~$300 point and shoot cameras, but didn't see if it got answered. Was looking to get a camera for my son/daughter to share. Any suggestions?

>>2705853
ricoh gr

>>2705818
>Dat dynamic cardioid mic strapped to the top

>>2705805
The X100T isn't at all a substitute for a 6D.

It's not FF but APS-C, has no interchangeable lens, and many other differences that make it not a 6D.

If you want a mirrorless that directly competes with the 6D, get an A7 II.

>>2705805
x100t + wide + tele converter.
all you need.

>>2705939
Unless you want something longer than 50mm equivalent. That's all the teleconverter goes up to.

What ND and ND grad filters should I be getting?

>>2706011
Any ND filters you want. You can go with cheap Chinese ones for like $2 each, they'll usually do fine.

Grad filters are only perhaps useful if you shoot film, with digital I'd clearly just insert the gradients in post.

Enable the grid lines on your camera and just shoot as though you had a grad filter, then batch apply your gradient layer...

File: pentax_me_super_or_olympus_om1__by_potzuyoko-d4vgocr.jpg (74KB, 900x516px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 900x516px

so this thread need some hipster question:

pentax me super/other pentax OR olympus OM-1?

body of pentax is cheaper (about 50$ vs oly around 100$) but lenses are more expensive. i want use slr with pancake lens (with?)

>>2706013
I have entirely different tastes, but I think Pentax had the better pancake lenses between these two. You probably get what you pay for.

Your decision how much you want to spend and how many good lenses you want, eh.

>>2706018
i need one/two lenses only. best will be something like 25mm and 50mm

File: P81306501.jpg (368KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1000x750px

Is TronicCity.com a totally sketchy ass place to buy a camera? Because these prices are honestly so retarded it makes me scared. Like, cheaper than 42photowhatever.

http://www.troniccity.com/cc/product_info.php?products_id=424820

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Version 1.6
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2014:08:13 13:54:45
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	15.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4608
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2706019
Can't say that I personally see a decisive advantage for either system with just two lenses around that focal length, and a film camera.

But I think vintage pentax lenses are a bit easier to find. Maybe just check out what lenses you'd actually like to buy, that might settle it?

>>2706026
Seems very sketchy, never bought from them though.

It's not impossible that someone stockpiled cameras at russian price after the rouble crashed, though... or maybe created a money laundering operation. Otherwise it seems a little cheap.

>>2705933
>>2705846
>>2705939


I guess I should have given more context. I already have a plethora of canon lenses w/ a 40D body which is still alive and kicking 6 years down the road.

So basically i have X to spend and where I live a bnew x100T is the same price as a used 6D. Do I get the fun rangefinderish fixed lens or do i upgrade to FF?

>>2706038
There is no answer to this.
They're completely different. X100 is a jack of all trades, master of none. It's a competent camera.

6D is objectively more versatile, but has the obvious size downside.

Depends which is more important to you.

>>2706039
>X100 is a jack of all trades, master of none.

I'm not sure you know what that phrase means.

>>2706038
I'd get either a successor Canon like that 6D you're thinking about, or the the A7 II.

The X100T can neither use your Canon lenses (the A7 or A7 II is fairly competent on AF with Canon lenses with a matching adapter, and bascially entirely competent for MF). Nor is it even an IL camera, or FF.

It'd completely change your photo capabilities, and for the worse as far as I'm concerned, you'd have to want something entirely else to go with the X100T.

> fun
Maybe also consider the A6000. Plenty of fun and better AF, AWB and other stuff than the Fujis anyways

> Do I get the fun rangefinderish fixed lens or do i upgrade to FF?
I'll generally take focus peaking functionality over a range finder.

Not to say the X100T doesn't have it as well as the A7, but it is not a rangefinder. It is kinda better.

Hey /p/ so I plan on getting a new camera (sold my D5200 to help pay for surgery) and the local Walmart has a few selections that interest me. Now I'm new to photography and I had fun experimenting with my D5200 for a few months before I sold it, but I want to get serious about it. Here's a list of the cameras my local Walmart had that caught my eye:

>Fujifilm Finepix S9750
>Fujifilm Finepix S1
>Nikon Coolpix P530
>Nikon D3200
>Canon Powershot SX530
>Canon Rebel T5
>Sony DSC H300

Aside from the D3200, which one would you suggest /p/ and why?
Does anyone have experience shooting with any of the models listed? Hell even if its not listed any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Though I'd prefer to stick with the list for now since these cameras are affordable.
How did you go from a beginner to where you are now and what resources did you have at your disposal that you'd recommend to others looking to start?

Please include a raw photo in your reply that was taken with your suggested camera as proof to your testament.

>>2706053
> but I want to get serious about it.
None in this list are as serious as your D5200 from before, and even that one was clearly still an entry-level DSLR.

I think you're looking for cheap, not "serious" in the enthusiast / pro quality gear sense.

> Aside from the D3200, which one would you suggest /p/ and why?
Actually, I'd suggest that one. Best IL camera on the list. Or perhaps a Pentax K-50 or a6000 kit.

Doesn't sound like you'll have much money for lenses even if you go with these very cheap options, though - just one more problem with "serious".

File: 6a00d83451fc5a69e200e55070bfce8833-800wi.jpg (35KB, 500x408px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x408px

I hate waiting for the X Pro-2

I want it to be released and I will buy it and use it and love it and hold it and hug it and smell it and kiss it and put it in my bag and take it on trips and I want it to be released.

>>2706055
Thanks anon. Yes I'm looking for something cheap since I'm new to photography but something that will still produce good quality images as you mentioned. I know some of these aren't as good as my D5200 but I'm trying to work with what I can afford for now, and later upgrade my equipment. Much later.

I should've mentioned that I want a camera thats good for night photography as well. Out of the 3 you suggested which ones are my best option?

>>2706034

Yeah but like.... will my camera arrive or will I just give $3k to the abyss?

>>2706061
A6000 is the best of the bunch, but it's just about 1/3 of a f-stop in terms of difference for noise ISO performance, not really that much.

It might ultimately be more important that the 24MP cameras (A6000 and D3200) will of course give you a little more room to use typical NR algorithms than the 16MP K-50.

That said, realistically they're not all really good dawn / dusk or even night-time shooters. Most night/evening situations will call for the pop-out flashes or bigger (pop-out flash is actually quite a bit more powerful on the D3200 and on the K-50, but the A6000 is not horrible either - none comes remotely close to a dedicated speedlight, though).

What also goes for the A6000 is that like the K-50 and unlike the D3200, it has far more features. Nikon removed a lot on their entry-level to get market segmentation; it doesn't even have simple software features like AE bracketing.

What speaks against the A6000 is that most lenses you could later get aren't entry-level priced (the pricing is quite normal overall, but most lenses are higher-end ones for FF - that said, if you get these, a migration to actual night shooters like a FF A7S is easier).

>>2706062
I personally wouldn't risk it.

If you can't really explain how the price happened to get this low, it probably didn't happen.

File: 1447894358614.png (3MB, 1076x1105px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1076x1105px

Is there anything you can tell me about this photo? How do i get a similar look to it? What year/camera type should i look at?

>>2706064
Thank you too, anon. I liked the bracketing on my D5200. It was nice to have options since I didn't, and still don't have lighting equipment. The A6000 looks solid though. I'm looking up as we speak. Though the kit is leaning more on the pricier side of my budget.

>>2706066
You find Hirohiko Araki, hand him a donut, and shoot him as he eats it?

Not sure how the artifacts on the image happened. Scanned print or film image, perhaps?

As for the subject - you'll generally have an easier time stopping movement (shorter exposures) and then get more shallow DoF with a FF camera, but certainly can't tell you for sure if one was used here - it's just what you might do to get these "general" aesthetics.


>>2706069
It is very solid for its price - but as I said, the caveat with the lenses exists.

There aren't too many inexpensive native alternatives to the kit lens for a wide-normal zoom except the 18-55.

But the 19/30/60mm f/2.8 Sigma Art primes are quite cheap, and the 60mm is extremely good.

You can also use just about any vintage MF glass, that one is often extremely cheap too... I still had a bunch of Minolta from the past - no problem using it on a ~$8 adapter. Focus peaking makes MF easy.

>>2706066
lol not this time

>>2706074
Did i post this before? i remember looking into this, trying to find a way to replicate older magazine scans. then i forgot about it and couldnt think of the right search terms to find something like it, then saw that pic on /v/ and came here.

i repeat myself a lot over many months i dont know why

Hey guys I want to get into photography

What's a good portable vintage camera to get?

>>2706081
You probably should use a modern digital. Film is quite expensive.

Never mind most people who actually do photography these days use a modern digital for the same reasons as you would...

>>2705066
battery life u fuck nugget

>>2706088

Like you take more than 200 shots every outing

When was the last time you left your house?

File: PB150082.jpg (459KB, 1080x824px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 1080x824px

>>2705422

I would definitely go full frame, no reason to upgrade my camera if I'm not going full frame IMO.

Help me settle my debate; D750 or A7ii.


I want a nice lightweight camera for landscape photography. That's an A7ii

I need it to be weather sealed because I go on serious hiking and camping trips. That's a D750

I need some legit battery life because on long backpacking trips you can't just recharge your shit. That's a D750

For wildlife, IBIS and focus peaking is super amazing. That's an A7ii

But on sensor phase detect autofocus lacks compared to standard AF. So that's D750.

[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 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Created	2015:11:16 19:08:19
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Shade
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

>>2706090

>For wildlife, IBIS and focus peaking is super amazing.

lolwut.

also, it sounds like you want an olympus.

>>2706094

check the exif, bruh. I have an olympus, I want a full frame.

But yeah, I want an olympus full frame. Wish that was a thing.

>>2706102

oh, shit, didn't realize that was your photo.

I would say go for the 750, or even a used D800. you can pick one up for cheap these days.

>>2706104

but the d800 is fuckhuge and thats my main complaint about the D750 too.

Friend says he can give me a 64gig class 4 SD card for free, should I even bother with it

>>2706107

It's really not that bad at all. It's not like the A7 is significantly better once you add an adapter and a lens, either.

If you're shooting landscape, you're probably lugging around a tripod anyway, so it's a non-issue.

>>2706090
> For wildlife, IBIS and focus peaking is super amazing. That's an A7ii
If you want to MF wildlife ... but that is probably almost never necessary unless you happen to be using a MF-only lens.

> I need it to be weather sealed because I go on serious hiking and camping trips. That's a D750
You could probably make do with a camera rain coat when it rains / snows.

> But on sensor phase detect autofocus lacks compared to standard AF. So that's D750.
No, it does not lack.

>>2705782
>There exists dummy adapters that have built in aperture circles, so nothing is ruled out.
And they cause undesirable vignetting since they aren't optimized for the lens.

>The good Metabones Speedbooster all cost 4-500 dollars. It doesn't matter what brand you adapt from, they are all equally expensive since the cost is in the optics, not in the brass.
Except if does. The Canon speed booster costs almost a whole $200 more than the Nikon speed booster. You're paying for the brass at that point, since the electronics aren't cheap.

Canon lenses are more suited for adapting for stills use, but Nikon lenses are better for video.

>>2706090
> I need some legit battery life because on long backpacking trips you can't just recharge your shit. That's a D750
D750: 1.9Ah battery, ~68g weight, 1230 shots
A7 II: 1.02Ah battery, ~42g weight, 350 shots

You'll have to carry about twice to three times as many batteries in weight, but it's not going to be very bad unless you have a trip of tens of thousands of photos.

The lower camera and often lower lens weight should more than compensate on shorter trips with the A7 II, too.

>>2706118
PS: Before someone complains, they're both 7.4V, I think (or at least both 7.x V - comparable enough)

>>2706118

but long exposures and timelapse will drain them equally, no?

>>2706116
>You're paying for the brass at that point, since the electronics aren't cheap
I hope you're aware that electronic adapters can be had for as little as 70 dollars, even 60 dollars when you catch the rare aliexpress sale. That completely invalidate your 200 dollar claim.

If you're going to shoot video you would be using video lens with aperture ring, you wouldn't be adapting stills lenses.

>>2706110

I've definitely been on hikes with my olympus where my entire bag is soaked. It's not ideal, but if you're backpacking and you get caught in a serious storm then it would be nice for the camera itself to have some protection. >>2706109

I don't bring a tripod for every shoot. Sometimes you just want to go for a hike but still bring a nice camera. Tripod gets left at home, but that extra pound or two does add up.

File: Blue-Waterproof-Digital-Camera-DSLR-Case-Underwater-Diving-Floating-Pouch-Housing-Dry-Bag-For-Canon-For.jpg (58KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x600px

>>2706124
I think that one will be "close enough" in terms of causing the same power consumption, yea.

Less battery swapping on the D750 anyways, the batteries are twice as big.

>>2706126
> It's not ideal, but if you're backpacking and you get caught in a serious storm then it would be nice for the camera itself to have some protection.
Agreed that it is preferable to have weather sealing. But a plastic bag or water- & impact-resistant camera box or backpack really kinda solves this anyways without too much weight or hassle.

> I don't bring a tripod for every shoot.
That one wasn't me.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	www.meitu.com
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:05:26 10:22:52
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/20.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/19.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	20.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	600
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: High-quality-Camera-Rain-Cover-Coat-Dust-Protector-Rainwear-Rainproof-for-D90-7D-DSLR-camera.jpg (113KB, 405x321px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 405x321px

>>2706132 (cont'd)
Another option. There are many.

Yea, clearly you also need bags for the lens, batteries, and so on. What exactly you want to use is your choice, I actually mostly use food plastic bags, neoprene bags, and water and air-tight roll-up nylon reinforced woven bags meant to swim on water. Also for clothes, because I don't completely trust muh backpack from experience.

>>2706125
>I hope you're aware that electronic adapters can be had for as little as 70 dollars, even 60 dollars when you catch the rare aliexpress sale. That completely invalidate your 200 dollar claim.
And Nikon adapters with mechanical aperture control rings can be had for less than that. Again, pure metal costs less than metal with electronics attached. If you're talking about cheap non-metabones adapters, the situation is still the same, since Nikon adapters don't need electronics

>If you're going to shoot video you would be using video lens with aperture ring, you wouldn't be adapting stills lenses.
The great thing about Nikon lenses is that many of them have an aperture ring and can be ceclicked in 5 minutes with only a screwdriver. Not all lower end productions have the budget to rent CP2s or CN-E primes, but having a set of manual Nikkors with declicked aperture rings and manual focus rings makes shooting video much easier, something Canon lenses are not suited for. Outside of the mechanics to compensate for focus breathing and having a standardized size for the housing, Nikon mechanical(as well as some AF) stills lenses are quite similar to cine lenses. When you're on a low budget indie production or making your own shorts, you don't always have the money to rent cine lenses, so having still lenses that work similarly is a great selling point.

>>2706139
>And Nikon adapters with mechanical aperture control rings can be had for less than that
Your point of criticism was a 200 dollar cost though. In reality the electronics are far cheaper than you thought it was. You're at the point where your complaint is about 60 dollar difference.

If you would just listen to yourself, you're willing to forego all these advantages>>2705782 because of 60 dollars. Either you're just really stubborn and can't let go when pointed out a bit off, or you're just have some very strange priorities.

>When you're on a low budget indie production or making your own shorts
It would be easier to just use Samyang lenses or even adapting old manual film lenses at that point.

>>2706126
>Tripod gets left at home, but that extra pound or two does add up.

You're seriously overestimating the A7ii.

With a battery, it weighs 600 grams.
The D750 with a battery weights 830 grams.

So you aren't saving two pounds. You aren't even saving one. You're saving eight ounces. A good adapter will weigh about six ounces. I'll bet the extra battery you need (just to be safe) will make up those extra two ounces... and with it the weight savings are gone.

>>2706150
>Your point of criticism was a 200 dollar cost though. In reality the electronics are far cheaper than you thought it was. You're at the point where your complaint is about 60 dollar difference.
Good electronics cost money, there is no getting around that. Sure you can get a cheaper adapter with the electronics, but one of the biggest selling points, AF, is going to suffer. Even the higher end adapters suffer from this, it's not an unheard of problem. If you're adapting lenses and you need all of those features, you'd simply be better off having stayed with the native mount instead of buying into a technology that hasn't yet matured. Adapting lenses is something that is most widely done by hobbyists, a professional that needs all the features you listed would be better off(and is) using mature and reliable technology that doesn't necessitate workarounds. This is the reason NASA continues to use the Nikon system, because it has a track record of reliability and very few problems. They could use Canon as well but their investment is too great to simply change systems. Here's a whole list of adapters and their performance when using Canon lenses on a Sony body. Even with the expensive adapters problems arise. http://briansmith.com/canon-ef-to-sony-e-mount-smart-adapter-compatibility-guide/

>It would be easier to just use Samyang lenses or even adapting old manual film lenses at that point.
The last part of your sentence was exactly the point I just made, specifically about old manual Nikkors. Reread my reply and you'll see that. Rokinon lenses are nice, but their optics aren't all that great, you could certainly get better Nikkors for the same price if not less. Also, Rokinon doesn't have certain lenses that Nikon has, like the 80-200mm 2.8, which lends itself very well to use in video. I don't know what you have against Nikon lenses but they make a solid choice for cinematic use, especially when compared toe to toe against Canon lenses.

>>2706199
> Here's a whole list of adapters and their performance when using Canon lenses on a Sony body. Even with the expensive adapters problems arise. http://briansmith.com/canon-ef-to-sony-e-mount-smart-adapter-compatibility-guide/
And here is the list for the A7R II:
http://briansmith.com/sony-a7rii-canon-ef-smart-adapter-tests/

Look at the difference, like half of these many lenses are now fast & accurate, and more are at least good or otherwise usable.

FYI, I don't really care what NASA does, just wanted to point that one out...

>>2706215
The problem is that this is one camera out of a whole system, and a very expensive one at that. Until the price of the cameras capable of using PDAF with these adapters drops, most users will not reap the benefits of their EF glass.

ITT: boohoohoo why doesn't NASA use my favorite brands?

Thinkpad+Nikon master race here.
Get on my level plebs.

Recently getting a bit of work doing videos in a night club. I'm looking for a canon lens that can handle low light and has IS. At the moment I'm torn between
Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens
The 35 will let in more light and will be easier to move around in a club but I can get the 17-55 for around 500 second hand. Plus I've a bit more flexibility in distance.
Any recommendations from people who know more?

>>2705631
GIVE ME GR OR GIVE ME DEATH

>>2706244
500 euro*

>>2706220
Two cameras now, You're behind on your info.

>>2706235
It was a reliability argument from the beginning.

Actually one of the rare occasions where the pro-crowd got beat up by their own failure rate data.

>>2706244
> Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens
Seriously, APS-C and a f/2.8 in a night club?

[Probably also with a Canon that starts to get noisy at ISO 800-1600, since they basically just all do?]

Hope it's one of those few brighty lit clubs, or one of the ones where people are literally tied up and don't move much.

I guess there is one way this might make sense though: You're going to use it with an A7S that has an adapter... are you?

>>2706199
>Good electronics cost money, there is no getting around that.
This is wrong Anon, you've made plenty mistakes, and made it clear you have absolutely no clue about PDAF adapting from EF to E-mount.

Metabones, the 400 dollar ones was actually inferior since the beginning, it had a nasty bug where it wold go from F8 -> F1,4 -> F7,1 every time you ordered it to go from F8 to F7,1. This would cause annoying bright flashes.
Whereas the 70 dollar Commlite adapter was fine by default, because it directly copied from LAEA3. The cheaper electronics won.

Also, electronics is cheap as fuck in general. The only time you were right about it being expensive was maybe in 1980's.

>AF, is going to suffer.
In terms of AF, only the PDAF really matters. And there, it's only a microscopic amount of primes that don't work, and then it's largely a zoom lens issue.
All the Sigma primes work perfectly fine for example. That's all that matters to me for example.

>a professional that needs all the features you listed would be better off
Someone who wants the A7Rii sensor with the Sigma 35mm F1.4 has no choice but to use adapter. No other combination of lenses and bodies can give as good result of this.

>This is the reason NASA continues to use the Nikon system
You're still clinging onto your reliability nonsense when you've been blown out of the water again and again>>2705406?
As another Anon said, it's a logistics and sourcing issue, nothing else.

>Nikon lenses but they make a solid choice for cinematic use
Except no one in the business actually use Nikon for filming, Nikon is too "professional" lower themselves to the filming niche if you would believe the fanboys.

Broadcasters use Canon, Hollywood use Sony and other more expensive stuff. And your advice spending 5 minutes to open up the lens and declicking the aperture ring sounded like a nonsense, I'd rather pay some money so I wouldn't have to do that. And so would many others.

>>2706260
I still can't hear you over how awesome my Thinkpad and my Nikon are.

>>2706288
Nikon is good, but they still need to prove they can make a better sensor than the 36MP one. They've had 3 years to do this, so there is no longer any excuse.

Thinkpads became trash a few years after Lenovo bought them.

>>2706038
>I already have a plethora of canon lenses w/ a 40D body
are they EF or EF-S lenses? if they're EF-s keep in mind that they won't work with the 6D because they're designed for aps-c.

>>2706192

So that sounds like the D750 really is the better camera in every respect except there's no EVF so exposure adjustments won't be necessarily seen in real time.

Stupid question, but do you think there will be an outrage if Nikon recycles the D810 and D800 sensor in their next high end?

>>2706300

Depends on what else they add to the system. If they give it 4k video and 15fps and who knows what else then probably not.

>>2706192

That's still 40% more. If you save 40% across the board that starts to add up.

Backpacking is tricky because you really do have to think in terms of every ounce counting. half a pound here and there on all your equipment and all of a sudden your pack is 12 pounds heavier than it needs to be, and when you're doing 90 miles over the course of a week and a half that can make or break the trip.

>>2706293

http://youtu.be/mzOlI9SqPmE

>>2706304

Then the D750 is the clear winner in that case, since you won't have to lug around seven or eight extra batteries for a week long trip.

>>2706300
You mean in the D5?
Not at all, if it can still shoot at over 10 fps.

But they won't because "muh low light"

>>2706290
>Thinkpads became trash a few years after Lenovo bought them.

No they didn't.
Only the x40 series was shit.

They are still the highest quality laptops around.
Although Dell Latitude is a close second now.

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

2MB, 3264x2448px

I've recently bought a film camera and when I look at the viewfinder there are some dirt inside pic related. Is this normal or should I have it cleaned?

>>2706370

It's gross, and a pretty good indication that the rest of the camera is filthy, but it won't affect the image in any way.

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

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>2706372
Arghh. I already bought it so I'm stuck with it. Should I have it cleaned? The mirror and the focusing screen is clean though together with compartment where you place the film. Pic related

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

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>2706376

>>2706376

Eh, a cleaning will probably cost half of what the camera cost. If the test roll comes out okay, go with it.

>>2706382
Ok. How do I check if it affects the photos? I haven't shot a film camera like this before. The only film camera I used to shoot were small point and shoot film cameras back when I was a kid.

>>2706384

The grime won't affect the photos at all, unless the shutter is sticky or something. Just shoot a test roll and look for light leaks (orangey blurs), sticky film advance, sticky shutter (it should open and close really fast in daylight), stuff like that. Chances are really good that the camera works just fine.

>>2706305
>>2706307


Well y'all have me convinced. Why do people get the A7 series then? Basically ibis is like the only advantage...

>>2706388
meme camera
new hot stuff vs yet another slr
they dont shoot hard/long enough to require a slr
they want the zeiss 55

>>2706388

>A7s2
Amazing low light performance and decent video.
>A7r2
Second-highest resolution sensor in the prosumer market, and the only bsi high res sensor.
>A72
Super cheap entry point for poorfag rabble owners wanting to get into the FF market.

They all also adapt basically every lens ever made, which is neat for people with a closet full of old lenses.

Hey /p/ I'm in the market for a reasonably priced wide angle lens. Something f/2.8. I use a Nikon D7100.

The Tokina 11-16 looks good. Any others i should consider?

Hey /p/ this is my first time here. I recently bought a SL1 with the stock 18-50mm kit lens refurbished for $300.
1. was this an ok buy for an entry beginner level?
2. I know alot of people recommend the 40mm pancake lens with this camera, is it worth it to spend $90 on that lens to get even better portability? thanks!

>>2706442
Not really. The 10-24 is stupid expensive. RIP Nikon 10-18 canon copy dreams.

>>2706463
>first time here
>actually uses the gear thread

I literally love you.

>>2706305
>all that to toggle exposure preview.

On my D800 I just press the 'OK' button.
It doesn't work the same on the D750?

>>2706463

Definitely. Kit lenses in general suck ass. If you invest in a nice lens, it'll be like you bought a brand new camera. The canon 50mm f/1.8 is only like $100 and pretty damn sweet for the price.

Oh and like >>2706485 said, we're all hella gay for you now.

>>2706530

idklol, i also have a d800. i just knew that the d750 could do it, so i just googled exposure preview d750. that's the first thing that popped up.

Hey, sorry if this question get repeatedly asked/answered; I'm not usually on /p/. I currently have an Olympus E-PL2, and I need a lens that can achieve hella bokeh/DoF.

I remember seeing some cheap 30-50$ toy lenses that have F1, or something like that. Can someone recommend me a cheap lens that can do just that?

>>2706388
> Basically ibis is like the only advantage...
No. Full frame AF (AF generally is a little better), lens adaption possbilities (mirrorless can adapt far more than DSLR due to shorter flange focal length) & focus peaking, much bigger burst buffer, quite a bit lighter (you see, you don't HAVE to use an adapter - you can use native lenses, which are mostly light for how good they are), the overall great native prime lenses the system has, and no mirror for a little easier video recording with PDAF and so on.

Well, there are even more reasons in software and the like, but Nikon also has a bunch of strengths there.

The question is more, why would you buy a D750? Carrying fewer batteries? You somehow forcing yourself to use heavier adapted lenses for everything? A preference for cheap glass on a 24MP camera?

>>2706040
I'm not sure you've ever used an X100.

>>2706542

I've got one, senpai. It's definitely a niche camera.

>>2706292
EF

K-50 or K-S2? My budget is less than 600USD preferably. Should I just get the K-50 and use the extra money to get better lenses and stuff or is K-S2 worth it?

>>2706538

Well weather sealing is a huge one, as we've discussed.

But yes, much better native lens selection is very important. Adding an adapter adds weight and about $400, which really negates quite a few of the pros of an A7.

And also the weather sealing thing.

>>2706553

Also, most adapters that I've found for E mount are mechanical only. So it's cool to be able to adapt lenses, but what's really the fun in having an EF mount 70-200 f/2.8L lens if you have to run it in manual mode on your $2k body?

>>2706553
>Well weather sealing is a huge one, as we've discussed.
A cheap plastic cover solves that one; that is not "huge" but "convenient" at best.

> But yes, much better native lens selection is very important.
The better primes are on the E-mount, mostly.

> Adding an adapter adds weight and about $400, which really negates quite a few of the pros of an A7.
It adds less weight than the difference between the A7 II and D750 is, never mind you can obviously use a mixture of often lighter and better (in comparison to Nikkor native) Sony primes and adapted Canon EF zooms, or such.

> And also the weather sealing thing.
Well, I guess I've never tried to shoot in a sandstorm yet, perhaps it is a bigger thing than I thought. For rain and snow, there is no problem with the rain cover, it even keeps your hands warmer.

>>2706558
> what's really the fun in having an EF mount 70-200 f/2.8L
The Sony native 70-200 f/4 is largely better anyways, unless you need that one f-stop / DoF difference. If you consider 1.5kg vs 800g, I think I know which one will go on a hike, too.

> if you have to run it in manual mode on your $2k bod
Yes, well, use one of the three available smart adapters -if in doubt the metabones- on the A7 II or A7R II, problem basically solved.

You don't need to blindly grab adapters from all adapters available.

That said, MF is actually extremely fine on A7* and A6000. Haven't done it for over a decade and instantly got good results again. focus peaking is neat.

>>2706544
>niche camera
That doesn't mean it's a master of it's niche. The Pentax Q is a niche camera and it's shit. The Nikon DF is a niche camera and it's an abomination.

Filling a niche doesn't make it good. Yeah, the X100 fills a niche at providing a small bodied, large sensored camera with a good prime lens. But that doesn't mean it can be/is the master of any type of photography. It's a good all-rounder. It doesn't excel at anything in particular, though.

>>2706564

I was never trying to make the claim that it was the best at what it does. I think just think it's bizarre to compare a dslr (with a huuuuuuuuge line-up of lenses and every accessory imaginable) to a fixed-lens aps-c compact and say that the latter is a jack-of-all-trades. it doesn't even zoom lol. it's one of the least versatile cameras in production.

>>2706531
>>2706485

Well I feel warm and welcome. Glad to help the cause.
Thanks for bringing in the 50mm f/1.8 to mind, The 40mm seems like it'd make my camera ultra portable but the 50mm is probably the better choice.

Maybe if I'm lucky I'll find a deal on a 40mm later, but I think I am leaning towards the 50mm.
Thanks again!

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 01.16.20.png (24KB, 518x146px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 518x146px

>>2706574
Oh, I thought you were arguing the opposite! Maybe you should revise your understanding of the phrase "jack of all trades" then?

>>2706590

>very competent

I'm not sure I agree with that definition.

I'd consider a jack of all trades as being 'competent' in a lot of things but not very GOOD/skilled at any of them.

I'm a self-proclaimed jack of all trades and I'm competent in a shitload of stuff, but a master of none.

im new to photography i have been looking to buy a camera for a while now and have narrowed it down to 2 that i like the nikon d40 and the nikon 1 v2 one is a dslr and one is a milc what does/p/ recommend they both cost about 200$. is that price too high, are these cameras any good or am i on the wrong track?

>>2706598
>not necessarily very competent
So maybe it is competent at, for example, street or landscape, without being a master, but it's not competent at portraiture at all.

But whatevs. We agree on the gear and perhaps disagree on the meaning of the idiom.

>6D is more versatile than X100